Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by Guest 10.03.19 14:39

Phoebe wrote:This is my point - there is no proof that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday. It is a theory, no more no less.

Yes, it is a theory. But there seems to be NO PROOF that she was ALIVE after Sunday either. There is evidence, hearsay, and crèche records that she was alive . . . . but that is NOT proof. Where is the PROOF that she was still alive? Where are the independent photographs? Video? CCTV? Anything? Everyone and his dog has digital cameras and phones with virtually unlimited exposures these days . . . . . but still nothing.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:26

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:@aquila
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?

Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:30

@ JimBobJones. How do you know what information the P.J. and the other official investigators have which satisfy them about when Madeleine was last seen alive. Are you suggesting that they have no other information other than that in the published files.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 15:35

Phoebe wrote:
aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:@aquila
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?
Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

I was addressing the question to you Phoebe.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:58

aquila wrote:
Phoebe wrote:
aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:@aquila
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?
Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

I was addressing the question to you Phoebe.

Well, Aquila, as I am not a mind reader, I can't possibly know who HKP had in mind can I. So how can I answer a question about what he-she thinks. Surely you should ask HKP if you want the answer.

by Guest 10.03.19 16:04

To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 16:39

HKP wrote:To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

Nuffink rong wiv my English.

by Guest 10.03.19 16:59

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

Nuffink rong wiv my English.

Presaucely! big grin

by plebgate 10.03.19 17:20

Another thread derailed. Shame.

by Dannz 10.03.19 17:59

So back to the topic - is there any sensible specific reason to discount Ms Romao’s and Mr Barrieros’ sighting of the McCanns with their children during that week? Can anyone actually show, for example, that Ms Romao’s statement is inconsistent with crèche records - which was the reason for discounting this given by Lizzy?

There’s quite a few more witnesses to get through, but let’s deal with each one by one as suggested by Verdi.

by Dannz 12.03.19 16:25

This was posted in another thread by skyrocket:

Also, I have one question for you regarding Elisa Romao. If in fact she was such a good/reliable witness to Madeleine's presence during the week, why specifically does she say that ‘she does not know whether the 3 (children) were together (in the same crèche group) or whether they were separated due to the differences in their ages’? (Despite apparently having noticed a lot of the Mcs comings and goings).

How would Elisa not notice that the 3 children were separated during the day if the Mcs were walking backwards and forwards through the enclosed, small reception, sometimes with the 3 kids, sometimes with just the twins and sometimes with just Madeleine - specifically around the start and finish times of creche? Gerry states that all three shuttling combinations took place.

IMO, if Madeleine was there all week and if she was being taken to a creche outside of the Tapas area, as and when is stated by the Mcs, and if Elisa was on post when she says she was, she would have had to have been comatose not to realise that Madeleine and the twins were in different creche groups, in different locations. She apparently didn't notice, so what does that say about Elisa's reliability as a witness?

Elisa’s role was to check that only authorised guests entered the Garden Club area during the day. Her attention was primarily focused on those coming rather than leaving. A family of 5 with 3 small children is hard not to notice leaving. One parent leaving with just Madeleine would not stand out in the same way and would hardly be memorable. (The McCanns were the only family there with 3 small children). Ms Romao’s recollects the McCanns as a family group (in the way you might recognise a couple you don’t know well, but be unsure if only seeing one of them on their own).

In the afternoon, the childminders brought the children into the Garden Club area. Ms Romao didn’t need to check the children.

Ms Romao wasn’t pressed on the point. Had she been, she might perhaps have recalled an occasion seeing Kate or Gerry take Madeleine out after lunch, but being unsure - who knows. There may have been a stream of people leaving that she didn’t pay attention to. If anything Ms Romao shows that she does not want to say more than she is really sure about. That makes Ms Romao’s statement more reliable.

Remember, it is not about what she saw at the time. It is about what she recalls on 9 May about 1-3 May. She wasn’t comatose. It’s just that the McCanns stood out when they came through the reception en masse whether coming or going - getting the twins through the doorways, Gerry steering everyone through, struggling with pushchair and armfuls of kids etc. The invasion of the McCann Clan into the small reception may have been the biggest noisiest thing that happened all day while she was on duty. When she says she recalls seeing the McCann family en masse at these times when she was on duty that week, I see no reason to not believe her.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.03.19 17:06

The attempts to rescue Ms Romao's and Mr Barrieros's statements, from the vague and contradictory state they are in, are proving laughable, and an embarrassment to the forum so I will move on to an interview with one of the Tapas 7 which may throw a light on the topic.

I refer to the two Rogatory interviews by D C Messiah with Fiona Payne at Enderby Police Station.

These both lasted about 90 minutes each.

Fiona Payne broke down twice, once in each interview. In the first interview, D C Messiah was quizzing her at length about Sunday and she was giving vague, general answers. She broke down and D C Messiah had to ask her to compose herself. This was about 55 minutes into the interview.

Just three minutes into the second interview, she broke down again, and there was another pause while D C Messiah waited for her to recover. This time she broke down immediately after D C Messiah mentioned Sunday and Monday.

I have bolded the relevant passages of each interview. It would appear that Fiona Payne was very troubled about Sunday, hence the stuttering and the two breakdowns.

[ A kind member of the forum drew these passages of her interviews to my attention, for which I am grateful. I also acknowledge with thanks copying and pasting from Pamalam's site gerrymccannsblogs ]

=========================================================================

INTERVIEW 1 - FIONA PAYNE
Time Commenced: 0855 hours
Time Concluded: 1025 hours
Duration of Interview: 90 minutes

1485
'Did you actually play tennis on the Sunday''

Reply
'Huh, again, it would help to know what night it was'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'I think we did, I think we all had a knock and I think even the kids, erm, on one of the nights had a knock as well'.

00.53.47

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Ella and Madeleine were, you know, were joining in and, erm, yeah, I mean, as I say, I just can't remember which night was which. But I think, yeah, most nights we all, unless it was sort of men's night, obviously the women didn't join in, but'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And for the women's night the men didn't join in. But, on the whole, everybody kind of tended to have a bash'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Even if it was just for five minutes, erm'.

1485
'When you say 'all of us', was all of your group generally'.

Reply
'Yeah, yeah'.

1485
'Knocking about''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'At the tennis''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Right'.

Reply
'I mean, I think every night we saw all of each other, bar the Thursday, again, that was a different night'.

1485
'It was different'.

Reply
'In that Kate wasn't there with, with the three kids, because we'd all done something different in the early evening, so we were a bit later coming back to the Tapas Bar'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And, you know, Madeleine and Sean and Amelie were just absolutely knackered, so, you know, so that was different, but we'd, as I say, the day had gone differently, so'.

00.54.48

1485
'Okay. Are you alright to carry on''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Do you want a break or are you okay''

Reply
'No, I'm fine'.

1485
'We have been going for fifty-four minutes'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'Okay. Let's talk about then the actual Tapas'.

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Because you mentioned in your earlier recall that when you got there you needed, you had booked it at eight thirty''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Every night''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Tell me about, tell me as much as you can about why you chose to stay in the Tapas or dined at the Tapas'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'I appreciate, you know, because the children are asleep or in bed'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'But tell me the whole procedure regarding the Tapas. You got there on the Saturday and you ordered the big table''

Reply

'Yeah, I think it, we hadn't really, as I say, well before getting there we hadn't really realised what the layout of the MARK WARNER was and where, where you, erm, because you had, you had a free meal, you see, included and we didn't really realize where you could use that. The first night, as I say, we went to Millennium and that wasn't a great success, erm, just because of the time, you know, for the kids, it was just too, too late for them to be eating'.

[INTERVIEW CONTINUES]

INTERVIEW 2 – FIONA PAYNE
Date of Interview:10/04/08
Time Commenced:1110 hours
Time Concluded:1234 hours
Duration of Interview:
84 minutes

* * * *

1485
'And how would you describe the family as a whole''

Reply
'They're fantastic'.

1485
'You know, with the kids''

Reply
'They're fantastic, you know, I've known Kate since two thousand and ever since I've known her she's wanted children, you know, very early on in our friendship that was, you know, something she openly talked about. And they did have difficulties having children and, erm, you know, we've been very close friends throughout the whole time of their IVF, having Madeleine, and they, she was the most desired child on the planet'.

00.05.34

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And ever since she has been born I've never seen them anything but absolutely happy, erm, and, you know, she, to say this makes it sound less important with the twins, but she always felt, particularly Madeleine, was extremely special, erm…you know, they're a very… they're a happy family'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Very happy'.

1485
'Okay. I want to move on to Thursday. We spent a lot of time Sunday and Monday, didn't we?

[Pause]

Are you okay''

Reply
'Yeah, I'm fine'.

1485

'Take as long as you need. I will give you a minute'.

Reply
'I'm fine, just carry on'.

1485
'You are alright. Okay. When I was trying to get the different days from you earlier on in the interview''

[INTERVIEW CONTINUES]

========================================================

It is interesting to compare the above with these quotes from Kate McCann:

"I know it wasn’t to do with us leaving them alone. It happened under different circumstances"

"I know more than you do. I know what happened. I was there".

"That's when I noticed that Madeleine WAS THERE”

“Not as bad as the night we found her.”

by Phoebe 12.03.19 18:24

Having re read Fiona Paynes Rogatory statement I'm afraid I see no evidence of her "breaking down" when questioned about Sunday or Monday.
Re. the first alleged "breakdown" the officer merely asks if she wishes to take a break after 54 minutes into the taped interview. I see no sign of "breakdown" here. He may have felt that she could have needed a bathroom break, needed to stretch her legs, or a cup of tea! (She does, later in that segment, welcome the prospect of a drink and a "jammy dodger") I see no sign of him asking her "To compose herself" as claimed above. Indeed what he does say is -

1485
'Okay. Let's talk about then the actual Tapas'.

Then later -

1485
'I will switch the video off and you can go and have a bit of a drink and a'.

Reply
'A jammy dodger'.

On the second occasion when he asks if she is O.K. he has just announced his intention to move onto THURSDAY - the last afternoon before Madeleine was "abducted". -

1485
'Okay. I want to move on to Thursday. We spent a lot of time Sunday and Monday, didn't we. Are you okay''

by Dannz 12.03.19 18:28

The attempts to rescue Ms Romao's and Mr Barrieros's statements, from the vague and contradictory state they are in, are proving laughable, and an embarrassment to the forum so I will move on to an interview with one of the Tapas 7 which may throw a light on the topic.

@TonyBennett You assert these statements are contradictory. Please substantiate that claim. As already covered these statements leave no serious doubt that these witnesses saw the McCanns with their 3 children. Simply calling them “vague” does not get away from that.

There is no need to rescue the statements. They are what they are, reporting seeing the McCann family during the week. All you are doing is highlighting that you have no real answer to that.

Yes, I see that it may be embarrassing to some and even laughable to others, but that is not what this is about.

Fiona Payne’s statement sheds no light at all on these sightings by Ms Romao and Mr Barrieros. It doesn’t even appear that she was “very troubled” about Sunday. At most it shows some hesitation in talking about the Thursday. Good grief Tony - read it sensibly or get someone to explain it to you.

by Guest 12.03.19 20:53

Well Dannz, you seem to think you know more about this case than many. Can I ask you to show us some PROOF that MM was alive after Sunday? And I mean PROOF not just flimsy EVIDENCE which can be FABRICATED by those who may wish to deceive . . . and there might just be an ENORMOUS incentive to deceive in this case.
Four whole days of CCTV, security cams, photos, videos, dashboard cams, other holiday makers photos, other holidaymakers video . . . it should be EASY.
If you cannot do that . . . . maybe you should just knock it on the head and stop repeating your theory as fact. This thread is titled "WAS MM SEEN AFTER SUNDAY?" not "I WILL PERSUADE YOU IT ALL HAPPENED ON THE THURSDAY."

You seem DESPERATE to persuade the less knowledgeable that whatever occurred happened later in the week. Why is that? Or am I misreading you?

by Verdi 12.03.19 21:19

Dannz wrote:
The attempts to rescue Ms Romao's and Mr Barrieros's statements, from the vague and contradictory state they are in, are proving laughable, and an embarrassment to the forum so I will move on to an interview with one of the Tapas 7 which may throw a light on the topic.

@TonyBennett You assert these statements are contradictory. Please substantiate that claim. As already covered these statements leave no serious doubt that these witnesses saw the McCanns with their 3 children. Simply calling them “vague” does not get away from that.

There is no need to rescue the statements. They are what they are, reporting seeing the McCann family during the week. All you are doing is highlighting that you have no real answer to that.

Yes, I see that it may be embarrassing to some and even laughable to others, but that is not what this is about.

Fiona Payne’s statement sheds no light at all on these sightings by Ms Romao and Mr Barrieros. It doesn’t even appear that she was “very troubled” about Sunday. At most it shows some hesitation in talking about the Thursday. Good grief Tony - read it sensibly or get someone to explain it to you.

You mayn't wish to hear this but Tony Bennett is a gentleman and a scholar with more knowledge in his head than you could ever wish for. He is accomplished in many fields and has achieved so much by way of assisting the resolution of injustices across a broad spectrum - don't presume to think you know better.

It is clear you are only here to demolish Mr Bennett's reputation and the exemplary work of the forum over a period of over nine years. You do not contribute anything constructive, only your self styled argumentative nonsense to detract from the forum's primary purpose. Go back from whence you came.

You've been given more opportunity to prove your integrity than many a time waster but enough is enough. You've had your five minutes of fame at the expense of CMoMM and it's members, as you've provided a degree of amusement to fill a void but this will not continue.

Consider this a warning - clean up your act or you will be banned

That's not a threat - it's a promise. The choice is yours.

This does not require a response.

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 21:26

JimbobJones wrote:Well Dannz, you seem to think you know more about this case than many. Can I ask you to show us some PROOF that MM was alive after Sunday? And I mean PROOF not just flimsy EVIDENCE which can be FABRICATED by those who may wish to deceive . . . and there might just be an ENORMOUS incentive to deceive in this case.
Four whole days of CCTV, security cams, photos, videos, dashboard cams, other holiday makers photos, other holidaymakers video . . . it should be EASY.
If you cannot do that . . . . maybe you should just knock it on the head and stop repeating your theory as fact. This thread is titled "WAS MM SEEN AFTER SUNDAY?" not "I WILL PERSUADE YOU IT ALL HAPPENED ON THE THURSDAY."

You seem DESPERATE to persuade the less knowledgeable that whatever occurred happened later in the week. Why is that? Or am I misreading you?

Many thanks.

by **sharonl** 12.03.19 21:35

I agree Verdi, but Tony is one of many of CMOMMs best researchers, all who have come to the same conclusion that Madeleine died earlier in the week.

Even if there was any truth in the Smith sighting, there is no guarantee that it was Gerry and Madeleine that he had seen. This is a ludicrous idea and many seem to think that it is a red herring.
Even Smith said that it was a passing glimpse in bad lighting and that he wouldn't recognise the man again. He didn't even return to testify did he?

It seems to me that it is not the McCanns that are being protected, but something that they may have been party to, possibly involving people of more importance and earlier in the week. Is that the reason that some people join here and immediately jump on the Smith bandwagon, to disrupt the discussion, to stop us looking back and questioning the activities of those days? They work tirelessly and appear desperate to promote the Smith sighting, but its too little, too late. Who are these people? Who do they work for? What is their agenda?

by Phoebe 12.03.19 21:50

@ sharonl To keep things factual - You state above -

"He (Martin Smith) didn't even return to testify".

From Dr. Amaral' s book "The truth of the lie" -

"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds"

Thus it is clear that the decision about whether to return to "testify" was taken out of Martin Smith's control.

by Guest 12.03.19 23:37

There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post #509 of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

by Liz Eagles 12.03.19 23:47

HKP wrote:There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post #509 of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

Let me ask you this if I may. Why do you suppose and assert that Goncalo Amaral thinks the same today as he thought 12 years ago?

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 23:51

Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?

by Guest 12.03.19 23:53

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post #509 of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

Let me ask you this if I may. Why do you suppose and assert that Goncalo Amaral thinks the same today as he thought 12 years ago?

Certainly Aquila,

I said to the best of everyone's knowledge, if you or anyone else can point to information or evidence (no need for proof evidence will suffice) of him changing his stance then please post it on this thread

by Guest 12.03.19 23:56

Jill Havern wrote:Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?

All guesswork Jill, anything a bit more tangible than just what your thoughts are?

by **Jill Havern** 13.03.19 0:06

HKP wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?
All guesswork Jill, anything a bit more tangible than just what your thoughts are?

It's not guesswork actually.

Dr Amaral has received all our research as has Paulo Reis and the Portuguese Attorney-General and Operation Grange. I know Dr Amaral is in direct communication with Paulo Reis and PeterMac who, as we know, has researched this case and concluded that Madeleine died on the Sunday...as have others who have researched from various angles but reached the same conclusion.

Why is it so difficult for you all to assume Dr Amaral, who is highly intelligent, is still stuck in 2007 when the case has moved on significantly?