Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by cbeagle 05.12.15 14:55

Grande Finale wrote:2) One problem with Maddie not being seen on Thursday is FP statement for thursday where she states that she went to collect Maddie from the creche with KM that day and Maddie was marching in front in the new outfit swinging her arms as they went on to collect FP's daughter and the twins.
FP states that thursday was the only day she did this ???

(So whats going on here Anyone ?)

Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

Obviously folks like kitchen staff can't be seen as lying, as they did not know Madeleine, but the Tapas 7 did, so if HiDeHo is correct, FP, DP, the parents must have lied in their statements (& probably others). Harder to judge with the creche nannies.

---
* or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened

by Verdi 05.12.15 14:55

@TonyBennett wrote:

REPLY: The 'First Photo' to be widely distributed, first amongst Ocean Club guests and later placed on posters etc. around the village during those first few days was I think this one:

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 Zzzzzz15

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 Zzzzzz15

The following pic became generally available I believe on Saturday 5 May when it was published in some British newspapers:

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 Zzzzzz12

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 Zzzzzz12

----------

Precisely my point - doesn't look anything like this..

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 00B7712A000004B0-2866881-image-m-18_1418146805096

Nor this..

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 Madeleine-McCann

In my humble opinion!

by Liz Eagles 05.12.15 14:56

HiDeHo wrote:

Slightly off topic here HiDeHo, but the second of your two photos - are these manholes/drainage inspection chambers at the foot of the step into the apartment area?

Or are they footmats?

by Verdi 05.12.15 15:36

01 Processos Vol I Page 33 B

Press Release

Disappearance of Minor

The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.

She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.

Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.

05 May 2007
----------

Details of Madeleine McCann issued to press on 8th May 2007
Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 2_VOLUME%20IIa_Page_467_prosesso

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 2_VOLUME%20IIa_Page_467_prosesso

----------

Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada witness statement - 8th May 2007

..She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance..

by cbeagle 05.12.15 15:43

> 1.6 Also known as: Maddie

Wonder who told the PJ that?

by Verdi 05.12.15 15:44

@cbeagle wrote: Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

This has already been covered extensively by HiDeHo. Indeed, I believe that is the main theme of this thread.

by Verdi 05.12.15 15:45

cbeagle wrote:> 1.6 Also known as: Maddie

Wonder who told the PJ that?

Good point! Wondered who would spot that.. big grin

!

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 15:50

cbeagle wrote:
Grande Finale wrote:2) One problem with Maddie not being seen on Thursday is FP statement for thursday where she states that she went to collect Maddie from the creche with KM that day and Maddie was marching in front in the new outfit swinging her arms as they went on to collect FP's daughter and the twins.
FP states that thursday was the only day she did this ???

(So whats going on here Anyone ?)

Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

Obviously folks like kitchen staff can't be seen as lying, as they did not know Madeleine, but the Tapas 7 did, so if HiDeHo is correct, FP, DP, the parents must have lied in their statements (& probably others). Harder to judge with the creche nannies.

---
* or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened

Interesting that you mention about the T7 comments.

I think the Tuesday mini tennis is important to establishing several discrepancies.

It is very complex and will be opening a thread on the issue in the hope of receiving some input as I believe Rachael's statement suggests that the time of the 'last pic' was questionable.

Mini tennis leads many questions, but for the longest time I stayed with Madeleine being seen at that time according to Georgina the tennis coach, until I re-read her statement and realised she did not say SPECIFICALLY that Maddie was there...

She could have been referring to her documentation as a reminder of the classes and was referring to Madeleine being among a group (Lobsters) as opposed to claiming she specifically remembers Madeleine being there..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Georgina_Jackson.htm

GEORGINA LOUISE JACKSON wrote:The deponent has the calendar of classes given by her and by her colleague DAN to the McCann couple.

.
She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent.

I must repeat that this does not mean she wasn't there but I do not see it as specific proof that Madeleine WAS at tennis.

In reality it would not have been a proper game of tennis, and how much connection with Georgina have with them to identify them by name. Catriona was with them as well.

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

by Grande Finale 05.12.15 16:12

HiDeHo wrote:

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

I agree with you BUT I also think the discrepancies around the Thursday lunchtime and particularly the statements around collecting Maddie from the creche are pure fantasy land.

Have you or anyone else researched the Thursday morning and Lunchtime and if so where can I find your conclusions please ?

by cbeagle 05.12.15 16:14

Verdi wrote:@cbeagle wrote: Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

This has already been covered extensively by HiDeHo. Indeed, I believe that is the main theme of this thread.

I thought the main point of the thread was to discover if there was credible evidence of Madeleine been seen after Sunday, hence the title big grin

Then once you take that position, you can see who must have been lying. Maybe it has been covered in this thread, but I don't recall seeing a mention of lying or a clear list of who is lying if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, though I could have missed it. Feel free to point me to such a post with a link.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.12.15 16:42

cbeagle wrote:
Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday (*or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened) then who must have been lying in their statements.

OK, so if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...then...

Mrs Pamela Fenn either fabricated the May 1 'crying incident' - or was badly mistaken about it, and

Jane Tanner must have lied about 'Tannerman'.

We basically know that Nuno Lourenco fabricated the alleged kidnapping of his daughter by Wojchiech Krokowski on Sagres beach on Sunday 29th.

Again, if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...

I can't see how any of the Tapas 7 accounts of that week can possibly be regarded as truthful, and

at the very least, if Cat Baker didn't actually fabricate any of her evidence, then putting it as kindly as possible, she must have extremely feeble powers of recollection.

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 16:46

Grande Finale wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

I agree with you BUT I also think the discrepancies around the Thursday lunchtime and particularly the statements around collecting Maddie from the creche are pure fantasy land.

Have you or anyone else researched the Thursday morning and Lunchtime and if so where can I find your conclusions please ?

Funny you should say that :)

First, although the mini tennis for Lobster group was Tuesday, Rachael claims it was the last time she saw Madeleine on THURSDAY while she was playing minitennis...

Here is the video that explains those discrepancies (MANY of them) (New thread for discussions on this)

Here are a couple of videos I put together regarding some of the other discrepancies for Thursday morning...

McCann DISCREPANCIES Thursday May 3rd 7.30am - 9am

Who picked up Madeleine from the creche on Thursday?

by joyce1938 05.12.15 17:01

The photo with Maddie holding all the tennis balls, was there a chance that was the night she went back to see daddy and chased around collecting said balls? Joyce1938

by Mother bear 05.12.15 17:21

Hi, HiDeHo, do you think it possible that the "crying incident" could have been Kate? Only after the death of a child I would imagine most mothers would want to curl up in a ball and cry like a baby and never stop. I know I would.

by cbeagle 05.12.15 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
cbeagle wrote:
Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday (*or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened) then who must have been lying in their statements.
OK, so if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...then...

Mrs Pamela Fenn either fabricated the May 1 'crying incident' - or was badly mistaken about it, and

Jane Tanner must have lied about 'Tannerman'.

We basically know that Nuno Lourenco fabricated the alleged kidnapping of his daughter by Wojchiech Krokowski on Sagres beach on Sunday 29th.

Again, if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...

I can't see how any of the Tapas 7 accounts of that week can possibly be regarded as truthful, and

at the very least, if Cat Baker didn't actually fabricate any of her evidence, then putting it as kindly as possible, she must have extremely feeble powers of recollection.

You cannot discount Pamela Fenn's or Jane Tanner's statement about Tannerman statements because Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, and the implication she was not in public after Sunday.

Madeleine could have been in 5A crying because she was severely ill or injured.

Jane's statement about Tannerman was not definitive that it was Madeleine, especially if Grange are to be believed.

Nuno's statement does not relate to seeing Madeleine.

I'm not saying those statements are true, just that they can't be discounted if Madeline was indeed out of sight since Sunday.

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:29

Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

As I mentioned before, had Fatima's statement have been true for Wednesday (eg) then this thread would not exist as I would be comfortable knowing that Maddie WAS seen on Wednesday and anyone claiming something happened to her before would need to explain how a credible sighting could show differently.

HiDeHo wrote:IMPORTANT

First I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

I did this research a few years ago and it has been sat waiting to be 'recognised'. Thanks to Jill and Tony for hosting the discussion.

I compiled many threads on the subject as well as summary's to help assist, but it's not a subject that can be addressed simply.

What I feel everyone should know is that the discrepancy questions and the 'Who saw Maddie' research is not a theory in itself.

It is basically the 'canvas' of the week for everyone to base their own theory on.

After realising the discrepancies starting Tuesday, I felt that looking at witness statements to see if there was any PROOF that she was seen during the week would help to support that possibility or not. I had NO IDEA what I would find. I don't look for details to fit a theory, I look to see if details support what is 'known'.

I was quite shocked to see that Fatima's statement was the ONLY statement that was 'relative' proof that Maddie was seen, but was on Sunday which allowed for something to have happened before the discrepancies started TUESDAY.

Please know that if Fatima's statement had been about WEDNESDAY, THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST. I would be relatively satisfied that Maddie WAS seen during the week, and would then look for reasons why the discrepancies started on Tuesday (and why there appeared an effort to cover something up)

However, Sunday supported the discrepancies starting Tuesday because of maybe trying to cover something up.

I have seen NOTHING to change my mind since I did the research in 2010 (or sooner)

Please keep in mind this isn't about trying to prove Maddie WASN'T seen during the week...It's about trying to find proof that she WAS seen.

Proof she WAS seen would be the basic 'canvas' for nothing having happened to her until that day...

No PROOF she was seen, tells us that anyone suggesting somehing happened earlier in the week is supported.

It also stands true for the alternative beliefs of anyone that believes something didn't happen until Thursday.

Its NOT a theory, it is the basis for whether anyone's theory stands up.

As mentioned, if Fatima had claimed she saw her Wednesday for example and the details weather times etc fitted, then THAT would be sufficient for me to claim there was proof she was seen Wednesday and I would look for alternative explanations as to why the discrepancies started Tuesday morning.

We don't have PROOF of some of the evidence, but by EXCLUSION we know it could be possible.

No evidence to EXCLUDE something happening to Maddie before Tuesday

No evidence to EXCLUDE Maddie's blood being in the car.

No evidence to EXCLUDE the parents from being complicit in their daughter's disappearance

by cbeagle 05.12.15 17:33

HiDeHo wrote:Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

Well they are very much related.

Matthew Oldfield's evidence is that he was playing with Madeleine during the week (playing monster).

So either:

- it's proof Madeleine was around after Sunday
- he is lying
- he didn't know Madeleine well enough and it was another girl

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:46

Mother bear wrote:Hi, HiDeHo, do you think it possible that the "crying incident" could have been Kate? Only after the death of a child I would imagine most mothers would want to curl up in a ball and cry like a baby and never stop. I know I would.

In my opinion nothing can be claimed about the crying incident. It could have been one of the other children. The Oldfield's apartment was directly below Mrs Fenn's apartment and Rachael tells us that she bathed Jane Tanner's oldest daughter (same age as Maddie) in her apartment. Was it E**a crying?

Was it Kate? Possible I suppose.

There could be many explanations but none that I have seen are any proof that it was Madeleine, or that she was alone in the apartment if it WAS her.

What we DO know is that Kate had a flurry of phone calls just before the crying and the next morning, the cleaner saw a cot in the McCann's bedroom which they both DENIED! (why?)

The following morning after the crying, Kate made some unusually early phone calls to her freind Amanda in England (around 7am) and Gerry started receiving the first of the texr messages that he DENIED and deleted.

These text messages were of such importance that the PJ (unsuccessfully) applied to SUPREME COURT just before the shelving get the contents of these messages.

When one looks at all these issues happening DURING the week, it sent alarm bells ringing...for me anyway.

There was something strange going on earlier in the week...but what?

by kaz 05.12.15 17:49

Why is it that some statements containing sight of Madeleine ( one in particular ) are considered PROOF and most of the rest , LIES ? Isn't
there an element of subjective thinking here ?

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:55

kaz wrote:Why is it that some statements containing sight of Madeleine ( one in particular ) are considered PROOF and most of the rest , LIES ? Isn't
there an element of subjective thinking here ?

I have addressed several so far individually and if you would like to address what portion of the statement you feel has been incorrectly assessed then I would be more than happy to discuss, but they MUST be looked at individually to make any judgement.

To make any assumption without looking at them individually is just a sweeping statement. Thats not what this thread is about.

Please note... I have NOT said any are 'lies'. They may have seen Maddie but none of the statements showed it was PROOF that they saw her.

Fatima was very specific and was able to describe a situation that 'fits' with what we have been told. A visit to the Paynes.

She would not have known that.

Very credible and I don't think anyone is questioning her statement

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 18:19

cbeagle wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

Well they are very much related.

Matthew Oldfield's evidence is that he was playing with Madeleine during the week (playing monster).

So either:

- it's proof Madeleine was around after Sunday
- he is lying
- he didn't know Madeleine well enough and it was another girl

I apologise. I haven't made it clear that I relate the 'not lying' in regards to independent witnesses.

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

Matthew Oldfield AND Jane Tanner refer to the 'monster' antics. Was this because there was only one occasion? (Saturday? Sunday? Monday?)

It would appear they WERE in the playground at one point..

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 12 03_vol11

by **Tony Bennett** 05.12.15 18:20

cbeagle wrote:
You cannot discount Pamela Fenn's or Jane Tanner's statement about Tannerman statements because Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, and the implication she was not in public after Sunday.

REPLY: I take your point, however, Mrs Fenn's strange claim is that she heard Madeleine crying, using a very inventive argument to suggest that it was Madeleine she heard; she claimed the very unusual ability to be able to distinguish between the cries of 2-year-olds and 3-year-olds (!). As far Jane Tanner, as you know her statement was fully intended to be taken as having seen Madeleine, an impression handily reinforced by the lying Lourenco's 'phone call to the police the following morning.

Madeleine could have been in 5A crying because she was severely ill or injured.

REPLY: When careful consideration is given to all that Mrs Fenn claims, and to her assertion that she and her friend Mrs Glen chatted about this crying at about 11.00am and that both did nothing, I do not see how anyone can seriously claim that Madeleine (or any child for that matter) was crying and sobbing, ever louder and louder, for 75 minutes - with not a soul apart from Mrs Fenn hearing the crying.

Jane's statement about Tannerman was not definitive that it was Madeleine, especially if Grange are to be believed.

REPLY: There are 101 reasons not to trust any statement made by or on behalf of Operation Grange.

Nuno's statement does not relate to seeing Madeleine.

REPLY: I acknowledge your point; I was merely trying to tot up the number of possible or certain liars that week.

I'm not saying those statements are true, just that they can't be discounted if Madeline was indeed out of sight since Sunday.

REPLY: Understood.

by cbeagle 05.12.15 18:46

HiDeHo wrote:

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

So is it fair to say the challenge from page 19 should be amended to be (addition underlined):

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SIGHTING (INDEPENDENT OF THE TAPAS 9) OF MADELEINE AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME ...

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 19:15

cbeagle wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

So is it fair to say the challenge from page 19 should be amended to be (addition underlined):

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SIGHTING (INDEPENDENT OF THE TAPAS 9) OF MADELEINE AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME ...

That would not be correct as I was referring earlier to the suggestions of witnesses 'lyiing' not having the T9 included.

I do not choose to suggest that any of the independent witnesses were lying. The T9 are another matter.

As I continue to remind everyone...this is not about whether the witnesses are lying.

It is about whether any of the witnesses statements (and you can include T7 as well) can PROVE that Madeleine was seen.

That WOULD include the T7 if one wishes, but I did not use their statements in the research.