Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

Joannep43 wrote:Another odd thing I've noticed from reading the Rogatory statements.There are few photographs of Madeleine on the holiday.From memory.. The playground photos,the tennis photo,the last photo by the pool.There are many mentions from the Tapas group of seeing Madeleine in these various situations,backed up by the photographic evidence?
These few photos are used over and over within the Tapas statements as credible sightings of Madeleiene that week.Nothing wrong with that ,apart from the fact that the Tapas group don't discuss other sightings of her with any detail in the rogatories.Apart from David Payne last sighting on 3rd may.
So my question is ,how come no  More is spoken or mentioned about Madeleiene eg at the Paynes appartment for lunch,or at the millennium once for breakfast,or the sighting of her on the boat trip,or of any other meeting or sighting of her?

Joannep43 wrote:
12.25 Madeleine fetched from crèche by Kate
12.25 Fiona Payne last sighting of Madeleiene picking daughter up from crèche

roy rovers wrote:If MM went into a drug induced coma early in the week, was tended by the doctors during the week but died later in the week it might explain the enduring mystery of why there came to be 'buy in' to the charade by the T7. By the end of the week they were already implicated.

Grande Finale wrote:

Joannep43 wrote:
12.25 Madeleine fetched from crèche by Kate
12.25 Fiona Payne last sighting of Madeleiene picking daughter up from crèche

FP stated that she went with KM to collect Maddie from the Creche and Thursday was the only day she had done so !!

*GM Statement*
The tennis class finished at llH15, he stayed in the pool area talking with his wife and other persons, whom he does not remember. At 12H00, he combined with KATE, as he recalls it, that she would make lunch and he would collect MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home. Since it was he who went to collect MADELEINE, he is sure he used the short-cut

I couldn't blame anyone for thinking that no-one collected Maddie from the creche on 3/05/2007 and that it was all make believe ?

Cmaryholmes wrote:The Mccanns' holiday companions may or may not have been close friends, but entering a conspiracy with them to hide what really happened is not so extraordinary. Not so much self- sacrificing, more self-preservation, it could well be that they all benefit from the truth being hidden. The longer a lie has been told, the harder it is to tell the truth, especially if there is much to lose. Especially if it is a big lie, enmeshed in confusion.

joyce1938 wrote:I really can not imagine ,any good friend or otherwise covering an accident that may lead to death.joyce1938

Realist wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I really can not imagine ,any good friend or otherwise covering an accident that may lead to death.joyce1938

Neither can I, particularly people with professional careers who had so much to lose. Its palpably absurd to opine that any sane minded person would confide with a group of virtual strangers that their daughter had unlawfully died and that they required their assistance to cover up the crime.

People of the calibre of Freddie Foreman enter into conspiracies to dispose of bodies, not run of the mill doctors. I wouldn't trust my doctor with the knowledge that I had knocked over a bubble gum machine in the 1960's, never mind killed a child, whether it be deliberately, or accidentally. Why the entire conception is positively pythonesque.

Its simply beyond the pale for the McCanns to have even remotely supposed that not only seven comparative strangers would withstand police scrutiny, but half a dozen others who were totally unconnected would also come along for the ride. There would be more chance of winning the lottery 52 times per yr. than this occurring.

No-one but the McCanns know exactly what transpired with their daughter and no-one but the McCanns know where the body is buried.  Think about it, if you had dispensed with your offspring, would you want half the NHS and Praia da Luz being party to the intimate facts. As previously stated, whatever transpired with the McCann's daughter occurred long before the time purported, but to state that all these people are either lying on behalf of the McCanns , or mistaken is not only speculative, its pure fantasy. Of course  the Tapas 7 are lying, but they're lying for their own agendas, not to cover for the McCanns, that's why their stories don't tally up.

So why did they?

Cmaryholmes wrote:, it most likely wasn't an accident but something much more sinister. This would explain the secrecy, wouldn't it?

Realist wrote:

So why did they?

Because initially they thought they were covering for potential child neglect in the case of their own children. When it became apparent that something far more serious had occurred, it was too late to change course, the die had been cast.

I don't recall any mention of potential child neglect by the PJ, as far as I'm aware this issue was created by and has been propagated by the public who prefer the easy route in defence of the McCanns and their friends.

What did the group of friends think happened to Madeleine prior to being aware that something more serious had happened?  What was this something more serious?  When did it become apparent that something more serious occurred - on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 when they perfected the timeline and Jane Tanner saw a stranger that didn't look like a tourist,  carrying a half naked child into the night?

Too late to change course, yet you consider it impossible for a group of friends to cover-up a serious crime?  Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

They were then left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. As we all know, the more the lies, the more improbable and implausible they become. That's why, particularly in the USA, lawyers invariably advise against defendants giving evidence on their own behalf.

If what you believe be true, they were most definitely not left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. 
All they needed to do was to tell the truth - surely preferable to telling more lies to cover their previous lies.  Anyway, by all intents and purposes, they were regularly checking on their children every evening, so where does the neglect enter into it?  If something happened to a McCann child how could they be implicated if 100% innocent?  Don't understand what defendants giving evidence on their own behalf has to do with anything.

In this case, it doesn't really matter, because not only will no-one ever stand trial, but perhaps most poignantly, neither the McCanns or their acquaintances ever be called upon to give evidence. That's why the objective of the police is and always has been to frame a stooge/fall guy who is deceased. If they were ever to indict a living person and a trial ensued, that's when everything would fall apart, because the McCanns and their acquaintances would be required to give evidence. This is the only circumstance where the aforementioned could be subpoenaed to give evidence and subjected to cross examination which is of course, why it will never happen.

Isn't this a bit a' about face?  No-one will ever stand trial nor will the McCanns or their friends ever be called upon to give evidence so the police are going to frame a fall-guy?  I totally agree that this case will never be heard in a court of law but why would the police want a fall-guy, dead or living, to prevent something that's not going to happen anyway.  Don't you think it's more likely a reason to close the case?

Realist wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:, it most likely wasn't an accident but something much more sinister. This would explain the secrecy, wouldn't it?

In the vein that the McCann's version as to how their daughter disappeared is a physical impossibility,  it is a violent presumption that whatever happened to their daughter wasn't an accident, that's where Goncalo Amaral's hypothesis falls apart. After all, even the most intellectually challenged in our midst wouldn't deem it a viable proposition to turn an accidental death into a criminal matter.

Disregarding the first sentence which makes absolutely no sense, I think you'll find that Dr. Amaral's and his team of investigators were following the line of removal and concealment of a corpse - that's where accidental death turns into a criminal matter.

As for the McCann's acquaintances having  a 'Damascus experience,' do you really suppose that our Gerry would be so confident when stating 'There's no evidence,' if he knew that people such as Jane Tanner et al had the goods on him, surely not.  Let's 'ave it right, would you be confident in the knowledge that your fate lay in the hands of the aforementioned. Personally, I'd feel vulnerable if she knew my NI contributions weren't up to date.

If one or more of the group of friends were implicated in any way whatsoever with the fate of Madeleine then yes, Gerry and Kate McCann would have no choice.  Gerry McCann is confident there is no evidence because he knows there is no evidence and he knows they are protected - so does his wife and friends.

Verdi wrote:

I don't recall any mention of potential child neglect by the PJ, as far as I'm aware this issue was created by and has been propagated by the public who prefer the easy route in defence of the McCanns and their friends.

There didn't have to be any mention of child neglect from the PJ, as I understand the Portuguese  stance on leaving children alone, it isn't as rigorous and hysterical as is the status quo in the UK, or USA. The McCann's acquaintances probably weren't aware of this at the time and considered it wouldn't be advantageous to their career prospects to be seen leaving their children alone whilst they were out drinking. That is why all the spurious check lists were concocted. They couldn't then subsequently claim that these were all lies and that their children were left virtually unattended, could they now. You'll note that Dr. Oldfield was only prepared to state that he saw the twins and not Madelaine in the apt. after he realised she had gone missing. That's because he didn't know when she had gone missing, hence no corroboration of the McCann's story there. 

What did the group of friends think happened to Madeleine prior to being aware that something more serious had happened?  What was this something more serious?  When did it become apparent that something more serious occurred - on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 when they perfected the timeline and Jane Tanner saw a stranger that didn't look like a tourist,  carrying a half naked child into the night?

Too late to change course, yet you consider it impossible for a group of friends to cover-up a serious crime?  Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?


I wouldn't think that they were initially aware that anything serious had occurred any more than anyone else and that there would have been the passing of a considerable number of hours before they realised that something more serious had transpired. Everyone else on the scene would have naturally thought she had wandered off etc. why at that time would they think otherwise, only the McCanns were certain she had permanently disappeared. Remember Kate McCann's alleged initial response 'They've taken her.' During the first hrs. the McCann's acquaintances were concocting stories to cover up the lack of concern for their children, not a missing person, or murder enquiry.

If what you believe be true, they were most definitely not left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. 
All they needed to do was to tell the truth - surely preferable to telling more lies to cover their previous lies.  Anyway, by all intents and purposes, they were regularly checking on their children every evening, so where does the neglect enter into it?  If something happened to a McCann child how could they be implicated if 100% innocent?  Don't understand what defendants giving evidence on their own behalf has to do with anything.

I don't believe they were regularly checking on their children, hence their initial lies and as previously stated, they could hardly at a subsequent stage turn around and state that it was all lies, unless they were themselves put under pressure by the authorities to do so, which they never were, never have been, or ever will be.


Isn't this a bit a' about face?  No-one will ever stand trial nor will the McCanns or their friends ever be called upon to give evidence so the police are going to frame a fall-guy?  I totally agree that this case will never be heard in a court of law but why would the police want a fall-guy, dead or living, to prevent something that's not going to happen anyway.  Don't you think it's more likely a reason to close the case?

Then why were the British police chasing up dead 'Tractor' men and cancer ridden German paedophiles? Of course they are looking to close the case which rather begs the question, why open it in the first instance, particularly in the vein that it isn't even within their jurisdiction.

Verdi wrote:

Disregarding the first sentence which makes absolutely no sense, I think you'll find that Dr. Amaral's and his team of investigators were following the line of removal and concealment of a corpse - that's where accidental death turns into a criminal matter.

I would have thought that my first sentence was both logical and clarification personified, but maybe not to all. For this, I profusely apologise. Dr. Amaral's hypothesis was indeed that  Madelaine McCann's 'disappearance' was an accident and that her parents had removed and concealed the body, but put colloquially, this is pissed pub science, because why would any sane minded person feel the need to turn an accidental death into a potential murder enquiry. It jus' don't work like that.


If one or more of the group of friends were implicated in any way whatsoever with the fate of Madeleine then yes, Gerry and Kate McCann would have no choice.  Gerry McCann is confident there is no evidence because he knows there is no evidence and he knows they are protected - so does his wife and friends.

I'm afraid that in this instance, I am the one who is a tad confused, because you appear to be stating that some, or all of the McCann's acquaintances may have been directly involved with whatever fate befell Madelaine.  Are you stating that the McCann's may be shielding one or more of their acquaintances because they accidentally killed their daughter, surely not. Further, that is why they are safe in the knowledge that no-one will (for want of a better phrase) 'stick them up' After all, would you risk prosecution for aiding and abetting an acquaintance who had accidentally killed your son, or daughter. Now that really is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Even if one or more acquaintances were directly involved, where would that leave the others who weren't, why should they put themselves in the firing line, after all, none of them were that close. If you were sharing a vacation with relative strangers, would you agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy with one or more of them where you had no involvement , or anything to gain other than grief and potential  prosecution??? 

As for the McCanns and their acquaintances being protected, protected by whom? They were all low level doctors, not presidential candidates. The only protection the McCanns are being afforded is that there isn't any tangible evidence against them and the reason for this being, no-one else was, or is directly involved with what transpired with their daughter.

''When your friends become your foe, around the world your secrets go,'' or perhaps more poignantly, ''Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down the life of his friend to save himself.''

Cmaryholmes wrote:The Mccann's acquaintances/ friends all gathered in their apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance and didn't they attend a meeting in Rothley later on in the year ? I am sure that no one knows as much as Gerry , but surely , they all know more than we do ( to paraphrase Kate ). Their  motivation not to reveal what they know must be very great indeed.