Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563557/Madeleine-McCanns-last-dance-with-father.html
The little girl’s happy afternoon was described by Miguel Matias, the owner of the beachside restaurant Paraiso, overlooking the sea in the resort town.
He said she enjoyed an early evening meal with her father, mother Kate and younger twin brother and sister, two-year-old’s Sean and Amelie.
They were joined by several friends and their children as they sat on outdoor tables at the restaurant.
"It was a perfectly normal, relaxed, happy, family scene," said Mr Matias. "The little girl was even dancing on the esplanade with her dad to the sound of music that was playing."
The restaurateur said he was stunned when he realised it was Madeleine who was missing.
"We couldn’t believe it when we found out what had happened because nothing we saw gave any hint of the coming tragedy," he said. "We didn’t see anyone suspicious looking at the girl or the people on the other tables.
"Nor did we see anything out of the ordinary between the families and the children."
After Madeleine disappeared, Mr Matias realised he was one of the last people to see the little girl.
He contacted the Portuguese police and handed over CCTV footage of the family spending their last few happy hours at his restaurant.

HiDeHo wrote:

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id60.html
'Kate washed the Cuddle Cat five days after Madeleine disappeared, saying it was smeared with sand and sun cream.

So Kate destroys potentially vital forensics as it is quite possible that Madeleine's 'abductor' would have had to remove Cuddle Cat from her grasp in order to lift Madeleine out of her bed. Or at least might have placed the cuddly toy to one side. Why would Kate want to destroy any chance of getting finger-prints or DNA from the alleged 'abductor'?


Philomena said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. Police sources questioned Kate's decision to wash the toy so soon.
A former Scotland Yard detective said: "It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do."

Indeed. Why would a mother want to do this? Especially as it could have provided vital clues as to the identity of Madeleine's 'abductor'? (Ahem!)


http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Goncalo-Amaral-Comments-by-Topic/Government-Intervention-1-952731.html




So powers within Mark Warner got in contact British Ambassador in Portugal and two British diplomats "turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns" according to Detective Amaral. This gave the McCanns' a window of opportunity to hand over clothes belonging to the whole family including Madeleine to the OC laundry worker. Amaral admits this was a mistake and this only happened because of the intervention of Mark Warner and the British Embassy!

This is quite astonishing because again it destroys vital forensics. Even if - as the family allege - Madeleine had been stolen by a person or persons unknown - the 'abductor' might well have left traces of DNA on the twins, say. Or picked up items of clothing or bedding belonging to Madeleine. 

In any event IF YOU THOUGHT A PAEDOPHILE HAD STOLEN MADELEINE FROM HER BED WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU DESTROY POTENTIALLY VITAL FORENSICS FROM MADELEINE AND THE TWINS' BEDDING? Forensics that might provide vital clues as to what had happened and also clues as to whether the twins had been interfered with?

I can only think of one reason why the parents would do this. Only one.

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Goncalo-Amaral-Comments-by-Topic/Missing-Items-1-952735.html

j.rob wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id60.html
'Kate washed the Cuddle Cat five days after Madeleine disappeared, saying it was smeared with sand and sun cream.

So Kate destroys potentially vital forensics as it is quite possible that Madeleine's 'abductor' would have had to remove Cuddle Cat from her grasp in order to lift Madeleine out of her bed. Or at least might have placed the cuddly toy to one side. Why would Kate want to destroy any chance of getting finger-prints or DNA from the alleged 'abductor'?


Philomena said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. Police sources questioned Kate's decision to wash the toy so soon.
A former Scotland Yard detective said: "It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do."

Indeed. Why would a mother want to do this? Especially as it could have provided vital clues as to the identity of Madeleine's 'abductor'? (Ahem!)


http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Goncalo-Amaral-Comments-by-Topic/Government-Intervention-1-952731.html




So powers within Mark Warner got in contact British Ambassador in Portugal and two British diplomats "turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns" according to Detective Amaral. This gave the McCanns' a window of opportunity to hand over clothes belonging to the whole family including Madeleine to the OC laundry worker. Amaral admits this was a mistake and this only happened because of the intervention of Mark Warner and the British Embassy!

This is quite astonishing because again it destroys vital forensics. Even if - as the family allege - Madeleine had been stolen by a person or persons unknown - the 'abductor' might well have left traces of DNA on the twins, say. Or picked up items of clothing or bedding belonging to Madeleine. 

In any event IF YOU THOUGHT A PAEDOPHILE HAD STOLEN MADELEINE FROM HER BED WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU DESTROY POTENTIALLY VITAL FORENSICS FROM MADELEINE AND THE TWINS' BEDDING? Forensics that might provide vital clues as to what had happened and also clues as to whether the twins had been interfered with?

I can only think of one reason why the parents would do this. Only one.

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Goncalo-Amaral-Comments-by-Topic/Missing-Items-1-952735.html

Given that Kate herself in her book suggests that 'the abductor' may have tried to abduct one of the children the previous evening - Wednesday - but fled presumably when Madeleine and Sean are supposed to have woken up and cried (according to Kate) then it is even more extraordinary that clothing and bedding was washed. 


These might have provided vital clues as to whether 'the abductor' had, in fact, drugged the children and what else he might have done.


Kate states in her book that she thinks it is possible that 'the abductor' may have tried to drug Madeleine and the twins not just on Thursday night (she states that the twins are sleeping unnaturally heavily to the extent she checks for signs of life) but might also have tried to have drugged them on Wednesday night too. She states that she found a large brown stain on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top  which she couldn't account for.


Again, the bedding from Madeleine's bed might have provided vital clues as to whether she had been drugged and also other clues. Ditto bedding and night clothes from the twins' cots.


There can really only be one explanation why this wasn't done.


And fully sanctioned by the British Ambassor if you please!


Interesting to know a bit more about Mark Warner's role in this. While I understand it is probably standard to contact the British embassy when a 'disaster' has occurred abroad, surely it is not the role of the embassy to interfere with a police investigation into a major crime? It would appear that the finger of suspicion needed to be kept away from the McCanns (at least initially) at all costs.


But why? The million dollar question I suppose.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:A week before.....

Give or take a few days for reporting error, perhaps the cavalry were sent for right away.

Verdi wrote:MISSING - Monday 30th April 2007

I'm very interested to know the source of information reported by the UK press in May 2007 about the McCanns alleged trip to Sagres...

The Telegraph - By Richard Edwards and Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz   12:01AM BST 12th May 2007

ABDUCTORS COULD HAVE SPIED ON GIRL FOR DAYS

Police were last night investigating whether Madeleine McCann was watched by her abductors three days before she was snatched.

Detectives have discovered that the McCann family went to the town of Sagres, on the southern tip of the Algarve, on April 30.

A witness has told police that on the same day he saw a suspicious man following families and photographing children, including his daughter, a blonde girl "strikingly similar" to Madeleine...

[SNIPPED]

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.   
 
Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.  
 

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.



My own belief is that GA would not have said this if there were any doubts as it's a vital part of the initial investigation to establish when Maddie was last seen.  I know some say 'we know a lot more now,' however, my feeling is that GA is the one who knows a lot more than we do, and is one smart cookie.  Just saying.....

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.   
 
Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.

Kazlux should ask him in 2015 to look in depth at Hideho's analyses of (1) the 'high tea' event and (2) the apparent lack of credible, independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday, and, in the words of Scotland's new national anthem, ask him to 'Think Again'

HiDeHo wrote:

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.  
 

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.



My own belief is that GA would not have said this if there were any doubts as it's a vital part of the initial investigation to establish when Maddie was last seen.  I know some say 'we know a lot more now,' however, my feeling is that GA is the one who knows a lot more than we do, and is one smart cookie.  Just saying.....

 You are absolutely correct pennylane and certainly IS something that I have taken into consideration.

What we DON'T know is what he based his information on.

Goncalo was the coordinator of the case and not the man on the ground interviewing.  He would recive the information from his officers.

Some of the nannies statements claimed to have seen Maddie during the week as well as a general statement from Catriona that she was there all week.

She was signed in an out every day and all of the information and statements points to her being there.

The investigation had no reason at that point to suspect she wasn't there, and even if they DID suspect anything was not credible, they cannot claim it in public unless it is proved to be wrong.

Once the rogatory interviews were in place, many things started to become questionable. Not because of memory but for many other reasons.

The police (after Goncalo was the coordinator) asked many questions that would have no relevance if something did not happen until that night.

Many of the witnesses were asked if they saw the McCanns in a car during the week...

Rachel claimed the LAST TIME she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis, but she claimed it was THURSDAY morning, but that was the Sharks that were playing, the lobsters played on TUESDAY.  Was Tuesday the last time she saw Madeleine?  

The police QUESTIONED Rachael and asked her WHICH COURT they played on...WHY?  Rachael responded with the incorrect answer, but whether Tuesday or Thursday they questioned her and that shuld not have been relevant if nothing happened until THURSDAY even ing...

Gerry started receiving the first of text messages, (which he deleted and denied) at 8am Wednesday morning.  These messages were so important to the investigation that they applied to SUPREME court about a month before the shelving to try to get info on these messages.  They were refused, but if nothing happened until Thursday night WHY would these text messages be of such importance from Wednesday morning? 

Goncalo Amaral claimed in his documentary, while pointing to Madeleine's bed that it didn't look like it had been slept in.  Goncalo Amaral knew the cleaner had made the bed Wednesday morning, so was he suggesting she hadn't slept in it since Tuesday night?





There are other indications also about discrepancies DURING the week that the police had questioned.


I have no idea what Goncalo based his knowledge on and whether it was his opinion or based on the investigation 'facts' (that hadn't been proven)  my effort is not to prove him wrong...


I am just asking for ANY indication that could be considered PROOF she was seen...

Also, any reason the discrepancies started to happen on Tuesday

pennylane wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  In fact I would say you have hit on something else that was going on, that is perhaps the reason the McCanns got all their protection?  I'm just not comfortable believing so many are lying, not credible, or mistaken. I still feel M died on 3rd and there was last minute panic and shambolic backfitting, and I cannot shake that feeling off whenever I go back over the events of that evening.

REASON FOR CONSIDERING CREDIBLE:

The timing was credible for the family to be heading up to the Payne's apartment and having plates and bread in hand suggested 'lunch at the Payne's' which Fatima would have had NO knowledge about.

She is describing a scenario, which is credible for Sunday lunchtime according to the statements of the T9.

The family went to the Paynes for lunch one day.

Madeleine's shoes appear to be designed with possibility of having lights.

pennylane wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  In fact I would say you have hit on something else that was going on, that is perhaps the reason the McCanns got all their protection?  I'm just not comfortable believing so many are lying, not credible, or mistaken re M being alive that week...

Catriona May 5th 2007 wrote:
FIRST STATEMENT MAY 5th 2007

She clarifies that her functions include the need to create the weekly activities’ plan for the children that are under her care, namely the outdoors activities, like sailing, swimming, tennis, and beach and garden visits.


When asked she specifies that when looking after children of the missing girl’s age group, each nanny is responsible for approximately seven children, who remain under the care of the same nanny during the whole week.


When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service.


She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.


When asked she says that since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were friendly and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child’s outdoor activities.


With regard to the little girl, she states that she was a quite active and sociable child, who nevertheless paid most of her attention to the children of her own group (Lobster Team).


She says that only on the first day she was more reluctant to remain in that [word is missing]


She further says that during the time lapse that Madeleine remained under her care, at no time did the little girl seem sad or unsatisfied, having made no comments whatsoever about being angry, sad about anyone or unhappy with anything.



She also says that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers.


It was always Madeleine’s parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the “Minis”.

JANE TANNER describes her daughter's personality wrote:

4078 “And how would you describe Madeleine?”

Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because,

probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Exxxx and Madeleine would get

on, because Exxxx’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know

whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing

As I say, Exxxx, in her nature, is a

bit more, you know, quiet and, erm, a bit more probably reserved. Well, again, I

don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.

4078 “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”

Reply “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the

centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader,

but she would be at the centre of it, so”.

DaTroof wrote:I agree that the creche records for Tuesday & Wednesday are interesting, but I'd like to question your point about the beach trip on Tuesday 1st May. 

It's almost certain the beach trip, if it occurred at all, was on Monday not Tuesday. Kate's book strongly suggests it was Tuesday, but the creche records indicate it must have been Monday.