Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 16:06

For those that believe nothing happened to Madeleine before Thursday evening, I would be interested to see some explanations about a few discrepancies that happened Thursday morning in the FIRST TWO HOURS! (Lots more throughout the day)

McCann DISCREPANCIES Thursday May 3rd 7.30am - 9am

by Guest 02.10.15 17:32

HiDeHo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.
These evidenced opinions of Lizzy HideHo must of course be compared with Dr Goncalo Amaral's thesis as explained in his book. 'The Truth About A Lie'.

Here is exactly what he wrote on the subject, as per (I think) AnnaEsse's ground-breaking translation which enabled us all to read it:

QUOTE GONCALO AMARAL

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

UNQUOTE

Amaral took the simple view that Dr David Payne was a trusted and close friend of Gerry McCann and that therefore anything said by Dr Payne about an alleged visit to see Kate McCann at around 6.30pm to 7.00pm could not provide corroboration that Madeleine was alive then.

I am sure his officers well and truly noted the massive discrepancies between the respective statements of Dr David Payne and Kate McCann about that alleged visit, even if they didn't perhaps tally all 20 or more of them, as listed elsewhere on the forum: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10076-yes-or-no-did-dr-david-payne-visit-dr-kate-mccann-on-the-evening-madeleine-was-reported-missing-20-contradictions-which-suggest-that-this-visit-never-took-place

But if Lizzy HideHo is right about the 'high tea', it is plain that Goncalo Amaral and his team were deceived about the reliability of Cat Baker's testimony.

Goncalo Amaral, whilst investigation co-ordinator, and when writing his book, did not have the advantage we have had to examine all aspects of this case for 8 years.

But there's no getting away from it...

...either HideHo is right about the 'high tea' and Goncalo Amaral was wrong...

...or the other way about

It troubles me to have my 'theory' compared to Goncalo.

He was the co-ordinator, not on the ground talking to all the witnesses and having the opportunity to assess them as witnesses.

He was removed from the case with only the first statements and although there were some very obvious glaring contradictions, he was not afforded the opportunity of spending 4 years carefully placing each of the rogatory statements into 'tables to compare each 15 minute intervals of the holiday, and having it reveal major contradictions.

He said it was important that everyone knew it was NOT his opinion but the findings of the investigation. If the investigation were told that Madeleine was seen by witnesses at 5.30pm then he would be obliged to use that info as he could not discredit it.

What did they REALLY discuss in the meetings that we are not privy to in the files? What information was gleaned from witnesses during the course of the investigation that was not recorded officially and for the 9 months after he left, what information was there?

If they were not questioning something happening earlier...

1) Why were the text messages so important, that they took them to supreme court to attempt to be able to access them (The texts started to arrive on Wednesday morning at 8am shortly after Kates 7am calls to her friend, and following the crying incident heard by Mrs Fenn and also it was that morning that they BOTH denied a cot being in their bedroom even though the cleaner had seen it. WEDNESDAY

2) Why did they ask many witnesses if they had seen them in a car during the week? Why was this an issue? Did they think that maybe Madeleine's body had been moved from the parent's room (cadaver odour alert) onto the veranda (cadaver odour alert) down to the bushes (cadaver odour alert) and off to be placed somewhere safe for a while? DURING WEEK

3) Why did Goncalo suggest that Madeleine's bed hadn't been slept in (for two days as the cleaner had made it Wednesday morning)

4) According to Goncalo Amaral in his 'Return to PdL' video all the T9 used the BACK entrance through the week (with presumably someone inside the apartments to let them in (no neglect?) The FULL video is worthy of watching.

This video takes you directly to the return to the apartment

This location on the video should take you to the conversation about ALL the t9 (except Paynes) using the REAR (patio) entrance and NOT the front entrance.

His book could only be based on the information known at that point and according to witness statements.

My guess has always been that the files info has to be a very small percentage of what the police 'know' and have discussed off the record.

Maybe if I only had early statements to work with then I would not have arrived at the same conclusion.

My theory is based on the details of the week and hopefully can be viewed alongside other theories and not compared to them.

========

Please beware & read very carefully: dr GA confirms the opinion of the investigation (Madeleine is dead) but NOT the question of the interviewer (the child died on the evening of the 3rd of May)

This is of the essence

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 17:43

Exactly Portia. Thanks for pointing that out!

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Opinio10

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 20:37

HiDeHo wrote:Exactly Portia. Thanks for pointing that out!

Portia had written: Please beware & read very carefully: Dr GA confirms the opinion of the investigation (Madeleine is dead) but NOT the question of the interviewer (the child died on the evening of the 3rd of May)

@ HideHo & @ Portia

I think it's quite plain that in the clip of the transcript above, the main thing Goncalo Amaral is doing is simply confirming that what he says about the case is also what the investigation team as a whole believed.

It is absolutely plain from the passage from his book that I quoted that he was endorsing three things:

1. He believed the witnesses to the 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3 May, and notably Catriona Baker, were telling the truth

2. He therefore believed that Madeleine died after then (as he has consistently maintained for over 7 years, and

3. He believed that Madeleine died from an accident - he had no evidence to the contrary.

Thus HideHo's recent very good article explicitly challenges points 1 & 2 above - and she is by no means the first to do so.

Just a reminder once again of what he wrote in his book:

QUOTE:

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

by Mariita 02.10.15 21:16

Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapasgroup 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful. And HideHo (and presumably many others-myself too) doesn't. But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tonys post above?

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 22:44

Mariita wrote:Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapasgroup 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful. And HideHo (and presumably many others-myself too) doesn't. But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tonys post above?

We dont know what Goncalo's opinion was, or what the investigation's opinion was. We only know what the investigation claims with the evidence they have, and that evidence is that she was seen at 5.30pm.

Regarding believing the Tapas checking. He has told us that they did not use the front entrances. All of them (apart from Payne) used the patio door entrance and the pathway between the apartments and the pool. So he KNOWS not to believe their statements.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 22:48

Mariita wrote:Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapas group 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful.

REPLY: I think that is right, he didn't say he disbelieved them

And HideHo (and presumably many others - myself too) doesn't.

REPLY: Agreed

But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tony's post above?

REPLY: You mean where I wrote: "3. He believed that Madeleine died from an accident - he had no evidence to the contrary"? All I was saying was that Goncalo Amaral is quite clear in his own mind that Madeleine died after, say, 6pm that night (3rd May). HideHo, understandably choosing her words cautiously and carefully, merely puts forward the hypothesis that 'something happened' to Madeleine, say, Sunday or Monday. It is clear that Goncalo Amaral never really considered that - there is no reference to it in his book. How good it would be if Amaral had a Portuguese translation of HideHo's article of 28 September and could submit it to the Appeal Court on Monday

by **sharonl** 02.10.15 23:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
It is clear that Goncalo Amaral never really considered that - there is no reference to it in his book. How good it would be if Amaral had a Portuguese translation of HideHo's article of 28 September and could submit it to the Appeal Court on Monday

Its a bit late to get a full translation but can we not summarise HiDeHo's report into a few short paragraphs and get that translated. We could let Amaral have that, together with the full English version to submit to the court. They would have their own translators if they wanted to take this further.

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 23:40

My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

by joyce1938 02.10.15 23:43

I have read a few times they only go back to court to hear results. I don't think they would be involved at this court hearing in other things, just my opinion from what I have read here from time to time. joyce1938

by **sharonl** 02.10.15 23:47

HiDeHo wrote:My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

No, you are quite right. But, it would help his case if he had this information. For a start, if we are right in thinking that Madeleine died earlier in the week, then the McCanns have done a lot of work to take the inference of the actual date and get the police looking at May 3rd only. They won't want Amaral armed with this information, even if he was initially wrong about the date . The may just back off.

It is that fact that the PJ fell into the May 3rd trap that prevented them from fully solving the case.

If the case is open over there, they may need to be made aware of this anyway.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 23:53

HiDeHo wrote:My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

I think a rather academic, artificial and unhelpful distinction has been drawn by some between what they say is a 'damages trial' and a 'libel trial'.

Just as in other jurisdictions, yes, people claim damages - but only if they first prove that they have been libelled.

The McCanns wouldn't be able to claim damages if the book was proven to be true.

They are only claiming damages because the Lisbon judge said that, in terms, that Goncalo Amaral had libelled them. The only question then was: how much damages?

IIRC the judge found that Goncalo Amaral had added one or two things that were not in the released PJ files and therefore had been untruthful - or couldn't prove they were true - hence he had libelled them and must pay damages.

The Lisbon verdict of course drove a coach and horses through the decisions of the Appeal and Supreme Courts in 2010 and 2011

by **sharonl** 03.10.15 0:00

One reason (apart from the obvious corruption and interference from the likes of Gordon Brown and Jose Socrates) that the case was shelved was because there was not enough evidence to accuse any one person of any crime.

No wonder, they were looking at the wrong timeline, convinced that Madeleine disappeared on the evening of May 3rd. They paid little attention as to what went on before.

The information that we have uncovered is probably vital and, who knows, It may even re-open the case. IMO, it must get over there whether now or in the immediate future.

by **HiDeHo** 03.10.15 0:01

There is something I should have added to this thread... it is the basic timeline from memory so there is a lot more to add for a complete thread...

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Timeli10

Title: Holiday Timeline and Discrepancies - Did something happen to Madeleine DURING the week?
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/Holiday-Timeline-and-Discrepancies-Did-something-happen-to-Madeleine-DURING-the-week-1-2271280.html

Title: HiDeHo Theory and the RESEARCH that brought me to this CONCLUSION.
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/HiDeHo-Theory-and-the-RESEARCH-that-brought-me-to-this-CONCLUSION-1-2283996.html

Title: DISCREPANCY LIST & ALL RESEARCH LINKS (from witness statements)
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/DISCREPANCY-LIST-ALL-RESEARCH-LINKS-from-witness-statements-1-2309815.html

by ROSA 03.10.15 4:18

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Untitl10

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.15 8:08

ROSA wrote:

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

Looking again at this article about the Boyds, in First Magazine, you simply have to ask how on earth it ever appeared.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that his was yet another fabrication amongst so many fabrications in this case.

The claim of Madeleine happily playing football with Louie for 'over an hour' in the sun, and whooshing down the water-slide into the pool, etc. is flatly contradicted...

(a) by the crèche records, which show Madeleine present in the Lobster group between 2.45pm and 5.30pm, and

(b) Dr Kate McCann's own book, in which Kate McCann states (p. 59, hardback): "Today it rained" - and confirms that all their children were (p. 60) "in their clubs".

Did the Boyds make this up?

Did the editor of First Magazine, or the journalist who wrote the article, know or suspect that this story wasn't true?

Did the editor of First Magazine check the fact with the McCann, and run the article past them before publication?

I dare say we might never know the answer.

But is it unreasonable to suppose that this article might have been written in co-operation with the McCanns, perhaps in an attempt to place the famous 'Last Photo' later in the week?

The article does include a number of details which match the 'Last Photo':

Last Photo
Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Zzzzzz11

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Zzzzzz11

* Madeleine and the McCanns at the poolside

* Madeleine in a pink dress

* Madeleine in a sun hat

* A lovely sunny day.

What a pity, then, that the creche records for Wednesday totally contradict the Boyds' fairytale...and that Kate McCann wrote in her book:

"Today it rained"

by **PeterMac** 03.10.15 9:56

Hands up anyone who has seen a 3 year old play football for "about an HOUR . . ", or in fact do anything continuously for an HOUR ?
A 'professional' match stops after 45 minutes, and resumes a quarter of an hour later . . .

YET again we see people trying too hard.
why not tell the truth and say they kicked a football for a few minutes, and then . . .

by Guest 03.10.15 10:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
ROSA wrote:

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?
Looking again at this article about the Boyds, in First Magazine, you simply have to ask how on earth it ever appeared.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that his was yet another fabrication amongst so many fabrications in this case.

The claim of Madeleine happily playing football with Louie for 'over an hour' in the sun, and whooshing down the water-slide into the pool, etc. is flatly contradicted...

(a) by the crèche records, which show Madeleine present in the Lobster group between 2.45pm and 5.30pm, and

(b) Dr Kate McCann's own book, in which Kate McCann states (p. 59, hardback): "Today it rained" - and confirms that all their children were (p. 60) "in their clubs".

Did the Boyds make this up?

Did the editor of First Magazine, or the journalist who wrote the article, know or suspect that this story wasn't true?

Did the editor of First Magazine check the fact with the McCann, and run the article past them before publication?

I dare say we might never know the answer.

But is it unreasonable to suppose that this article might have been written in co-operation with the McCanns, perhaps in an attempt to place the famous 'Last Photo' later in the week?

The article does include a number of details which match the 'Last Photo':

Last Photo

* Madeleine and the McCanns at the poolside

* Madeleine in a pink dress

* Madeleine in a sun hat

* A lovely sunny day.

What a pity, then, that the creche records for Wednesday totally contradict the Boyds' fairytale...and that Kate McCann wrote in her book:

"Today it rained"

=======

BTW: where's the waterslide?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.15 10:59

Portia wrote:
BTW: where's the waterslide?

Exactly!

As PeterMac says. 'trying too hard' - the constant references to 'the five of us' and 'our three children' in the book, 'madeleine'.

To the trained observer, these embellishments simply focus attention on the matters which appear to be problematic for whoever wrote them.

Where was the waterslide?

Only in the fertile imagination of Mrs Boyd.

Did she get paid for this work of fiction?

by **HiDeHo** 03.10.15 13:07

It's easy to recognise it as a fabrication when you read about the waterslide.

My thoughts are that it is just an effort of five minutes of fame but I could be wrong. (I tend to remain on the cautious side until I know for sure)

Either way it is just another 'fake' sighting of Maddie.

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Firstm14

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 Firstm14

by ROSA 03.10.15 13:47

ROSA wrote:

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

Vicky says M wearing a sunhat pink top and a blue skirt yet M is supposed to be whizzing down the water slide ? doesn't even make sense

by Grande Finale 04.10.15 3:16

From the article
When posters went up announcing that Maddie had dissapeared Louie didn't understand "he said mummy isn't that the little girl I played with YESTERDAY ?"

The posters would have gone up on Friday 4th May so this article is clearly meant to refer to an encounter that took place on Thursday 3rd May.

According to the article Maddie was wearing a pink top and a blue skirt
We know though that Maddie was wearing a peach top and white shorts on The last Photograph.

So somebody is again lying/Mistaken.

by **HiDeHo** 04.10.15 17:13

Most people will claim the tapas cook saw Madeleine.... Mistaken? Certainly not proof.

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/DIscrepancies-by-Topic/Who-Saw-Madeleine-Credibility-Statement-Highlights-1-780252.html

Maria M A Jose - saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant.
The cook at the tapas was one of the 'credible' witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine at 16.30 Thursday May 3.

Something I have just noticed regarding the statement of Maria Manuela Antonia José Tapas Cook who has been considered as a reliable witness seeing Madeleine at 16.30 on May 3rd.

Reading her statement she refers to recognising Madeleine from the photo (of younger Madeleine)

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 8f752483-1

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 3 8f752483-1

seeing her during the day in the creche next to the restaurant (tapas)

Madeleine was not in that creche...but L***y was!

Quote:
Dave would take L*** over to the kids club which was back near the, behind the Tapas Bar area”.

after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crèche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crèche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week..

(...)

Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

Interesting discrepancies in the video... She suggests to have cooked the McCanns supper but finished work and went home at 6.30 according to her statement.

As far as I can tell this video is Maria Manuela Jose (as above)

McCannpjfiles http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_JOSE.htm

Witness Statement
Maria Manuela Antonia Jose
Date: 06 - 05 - 2007

by cbeagle 04.10.15 22:18

Were Vicky & Louie meant to be staying at the Ocean club, as they don't seem to be on these guest lists:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic143.html

Probably a coincidence but Barnstaple is not that far from Exeter.

by whatsupdoc 07.10.15 23:19

A great thread, Hideho. A big thank you for all your work. clapping1

I've always believed that something happened to Madeleine around the weekend. Monday was a quiet day and the Tapas group didn't have much to say and when they did say something , it was very muddled. This suggested obfuscation to me.

I think the girl seen at the creche all week was not Madeleine but somebody else. Descriptions given don't seem to tally with Madeleine's traits.

How many of the group saw Madeleine arriving ? They must know if a different girl was masquerading as Madeleine all week.