We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Phoebe wrote:

JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She wasn't at school, she was on holiday. How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be. Going to the creche wasn't compulsory, so surely she would take home her art or whatever after every session, every day

I 'm basing this on my own experience. When my children attended holiday creches/play-groups they never brought anything home each day. Pictures etc. were displayed on the creche wall for the duration of their stay and if they wished, they could take them home in a folder on the last day. Three children bringing home pictures/models every day would soon clutter-up a holiday apartment. I don't understand the relevance of your point "How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be?" The nannies were each rostered to be in creche with their assigned, small groups for morning and afternoon sessions each day, irrespective of which children chose to avail of it. My point was Cat. Baker was the nanny assigned to Madeleine's little group for EACH session that week. I presume the first thing she did was ask the children in her group (usually only 4 or 5) their names. If she was, as claimed, minding just Madeleine and one other little boy on that Thurs afternoon she should be expected to know whether she saw her or not.

I would say that Cat Baker knew every child in her care that week, and who was there and who wasn't. 

My point was, if Madeleine was at the Creche on Monday, how would Cat Baker know she (Madeleine) would be there on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday to pick her folder up?
She could have attended on Monday and never gone back, so I would have thought the kids would take the art after each session. But as you've got knowledge of such places, I'll take your word for how it works.

Does anyone think the Naylor issue is of interest ? It's one of those things that pops up then disappears again.

I'm still to be convinced that the real Madeleine ever went to the crèche. On that basis, I'd be advocating some pre-meditation but that is one huge leap......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Actually, Emma W. does claim to have seen Madeleine that  Thurs. afternoon in creche but does not remember what time she arrived or if she went to high tea. Basically, that leaves Cat. Charlotte and Emma who all claim Madeleine was in creche on the Thurs. Could they all be genuinely mistaken? I doubt so. Could they be lying, I do believe so.

So let's scrutinize Emma Wilding's witness statement in greater detail..

When questioned she states that she knows Madeline's (sic) parents because although Madeleine is not in her group, she frequently speaks to her parents, and finds their concerns and interests normal and typical of parents.

[What occasion did she have for frequently speaking to the McCann parents?  One or the other of them allegedly dropped Madeleine off or collected her from the creche.  Why would she be talking with the McCanns about Madeleine when Catriona Bakers was their daily supervisor?]

When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture. With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants' teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant. Most of the parents met their respective children here, and the children then remained in their parents' care.

[Is this claim based soley on the creche register?  Again why would this witness be opining on a child who wasn't in her care group?]

When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much.

[At the start of the interview, highlighted above, she claims to have frequently spoken to the McCann parents - now she says she didn't talk to him much]

She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual.

[How convenient - now she didn't even notice the father let alone talk to him]

She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch.

[No mention of seeing Madeleine but recalls Madelew's father collecting her]

When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not, and does not remember having seen anybody specifically taking direct and close-up photographs of the children.

[No comment necessary]

She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

[Questionable to say the least]

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.

[Cannot confirm Madeleine going to the Tapas for high-tea, nor whether the parents joined her, as was customary ???]

During this period of time she did not notice anybody or anything out of the ordinary, as her attention was wholly focused on the children.

The End

Tenuous to say the least.  Not wishing to change the subject but it's worth noting here that Robert Murat was the appointed interpreter for this witness testimony.

JRP wrote:I would say that Cat Baker knew every child in her care that week, and who was there and who wasn't

Of course should would know - there was only a handful of children in her care throughout the week.  It's ridiculous to suggest she wouldn't know a particular child in her care.

That's what brings her vacillating testimony and the creche register into question.

ETA:  It's worth noting here - Robert Murat was the allocated interpreter for Catriona Baker' witness statement dated 6th May 2007.

Thanks to roz on Twitter thread for this comment from Russell O'Brien...

Further details that show a likelihood that Cecilia Public Relations in Millenium was describing Ella, Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien's daughter...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I've seen it said that a Tapas restaurant cook was one independent witness who verified Madeleine's presence at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007. 

Witness Statement
Maria Manuela Antonia Jose
Date: 06 - 05 - 2007
Place of Work: OC

She has worked at the OC, since 25 March 2006, in Luz, as a cook in one of the restaurants within the complex, called the Tapas Restaurant.

With relation to the facts being investigated, she confirms that on the 4 May 2007, at about 18h30, when arriving for work at the complex, she heard from her supervisor, Steve, that a female child who was staying with her parents and siblings at one of the OC apartments had gone missing on the previous day (3rd May 2007).

When she was informed about the disappearance she did not realise which child this was, it was only later, upon watching the television news that night and 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 crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

Upon questioning, the witness confirms that on the day of the disappearance, she worked at the restaurant from 10h00 to 18h45, when, having finished her shift, she went home, where she remained with her 13 year old son until approximately 10h00 the following day (4th May).

On 4th May 2007, due to the fact that she had a medical appointment at the Lagos Health Centre followed by an appointment at the Portimao Court at 15h00, she only began work at 18h30 (dinner service, which lasts until 24h00).

With relation to the facts being investigated, she only knows what she heard from the media or from conversations with her colleagues.

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.

She information that it of use to the investigation, and has nothing more to add, but repeats that the girl was with her parents on holiday at the resort, together with her two twin siblings.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I don't know what picture of Madeleine seen on the television this witness is referring to but clearly it wasn't an up to date photograph as these weren't publicized until long after the 3rd/4th May.


Another case of mistaken identity.

Thanks Verdi

I haven't yet had time to do the remaining graphics but one thing tells me that she was mistaken...

She claims Maddie spent her day in the creche next to the tapas...

We know that Maddies creche was over by the main reception... hence her statement shows she was likely mistaken as to which child she saw...and certainly is no PROOF that she saw Maddie...


'she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the creche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the Channel 4 News was showing the Christmas red dress head and shoulders; the Interpol first release of pink top/white dots; AND Corner's video of Madeleine dressed up as snow white seated at a table (if he shot this video, my impression is Madeleine didn't particularly like him - in almost all the video I have seen of her, she smiled the instant the camera was pointed in her direction). Portuguese TV may well have been supplied with the same or may have picked up on Channel 4's coverage.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Re:Maria Manuela from the Tapas Restaurant, I find it hard to believe she would have been able to remember any specific child, current photos or not. We're back to the 10/11 little blonde girls - had there only been 2 or 3 there that week, possibly. The tapas tea (which I do believe was a daily event for children) laid on by Mark Warner as part of the half board deal was available to all children, irrespective of whether they attended the kids club. Children not in the club could be brought to the area next to the tapas restaurant at 4.45pm until 5.30pm for food. If they were signed into kids club they were supervised by the nannies until 5.30pm at which time supervision was passed over to parents. If they were not signed into kids club, parents had to supervise them throughout. This means that there would have probably been more children eating tea than attended kids club.

From the news reports and gossip, Maria Manuela knows that Madeleine should have been there; she knows that Madeleine was on holiday with her parents and twin siblings; she knows that Madeleine was in the kids club (although she is obviosly not sure which one); she knows that Madeleine and her siblings had tea at the Tapas; she knows that Madeleine is a 3 year old, blonde haired little girl. I think her testimony, although given with the best of intent, is unreliable.

Why is there no-one who says - 'Yes, I saw the family of 5 McCanns walking down the street on such a day at around about such a time?' What about the sunglasses seller? What about all the other guests?????? Surely some one plausible (not the nannies; not Cecilia) saw all of them together during the week apart from Fatima on Sunday. Madeleine alone would not have stood out; the McCanns as a family of 5 would - 3 cute young blonde children. Had I been there and seen the family once for a moment or to in passing on the street, I would remember it. Did they not go anywhere together that week??

My daughter has three sons. The eldest is two years older than the twins, so about the same ages as the McCanns children would be. I'm sure that they would be remembered wherever they went when they were 3 and 1 ish! Once seen never forgotten at that age I can assure you! So as skyrocket says you would remember a family of 5 should you see them walking around a smallish compound which wasn't that busy at the time. Which makes me wonder, did they go out all together at all during the week?

HiDeHo wrote:Thanks Verdi

I haven't yet had time to do the remaining graphics but one thing tells me that she was mistaken...

She claims Maddie spent her day in the creche next to the tapas...

We know that Maddies creche was over by the main reception... hence her statement shows she was likely mistaken as to which child she saw...and certainly is no PROOF that she saw Maddie...


'she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the creche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

She was/is a cook so I think one can safely conclude that for the most part she was cooking and/or preparing food, she wouldn't have been engaging with the children or their parents.

At best she might have seen all the little lovelies through a hatch or whatever but to be able to identify a single child, I think highly unlikely.  Much like Bridget O'Donnell and all her little pink blond girls!

Kathian1997 wrote:My daughter has three sons. The eldest is two years older than the twins, so about the same ages as the McCanns children would be. I'm sure that they would be remembered wherever they went when they were 3 and 1 ish! Once seen never forgotten at that age I can assure you! So as skyrocket says you would remember a family of 5 should you see them walking around a smallish compound which wasn't that busy at the time. Which makes me wonder, did they go out all together at all during the week?

I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five " 

We are told about Kate leaving/entering with the children by the patio doors , while Gerry uses the front door .

Dropping the children off , or picking them up from respective Crèche always one parent , no mention of the other children .

No body talks about seeing them all together on the failed visit to the beach , around the complex or reliably all together at " high tea " , eg other parents .

Breakfast and lunch taken separately , Did anyone see them together as a " family of five " ?

sandancer wrote:I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five "

The subject's been extensively questioned in the past sandancer.  Indeed, in my view, it's one of the chief reasons to believe that Madeleine came to harm much earlier in the week.

Don't forget the shortcut they claim to have used between apartment 5a and the childcare rooms !!!  LOQKY LOQKY!

Verdi wrote:

sandancer wrote:I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five "

The subject's been extensively questioned in the past sandancer.  Indeed, in my view, it's one of the chief reasons to believe that Madeleine came to harm much earlier in the week.

Don't forget the shortcut they claim to have used between apartment 5a and the childcare rooms !!!  LOQKY LOQKY!

I can't recall any of their Tapas friends mentioning seeing them all together either , in any of their extensive rambling incoherent , use 20 words when 2 or 3 would do not to mention err , erm , you know statements . Reading them always leaves me tearing my hair out though , so I might have missed something ! 

Imho , it's an important question to ask , when were they last all seen Together , in the belief mine included that something happened to Madeleine well before the alarm given on the 3rd .

Just to go " off topic " for a moment .I'm watching Wimbledon , no invitation to the Royal Box yet for the avid Tennis players Kate and Gerry , one would think Gerry would want to support a fellow Scot Andy Murray , maybe offer some advice ! 
Sorry folks , I'm getting prone to wandering thoughts I blame my advancing years .  

sandancer wrote:
Imho , it's an important question to ask , when were they last all seen Together , in the belief mine included that something happened to Madeleine well before the alarm given on the 3rd .

Indeed, it's of primary importance.  Answer so far - the witness statement of the apartment 5 cleaner's daughter, saw the entire family at lunchtime on Sunday 29th April 2007..

Witness statement

Taken by officer Jose Luis, Inspector

Date : 2007: 05: 08

Name: Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada

Profession: Cleaner

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread.

As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate.

Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Apart from that, I'm not aware of any other confirmation of a family of five being seen together.  This thread of HiDeHo's is available for anyone who questions the compelling theory that Madeleine disappeared prior to Thursday 3rd May, to either provide evidence to the contrary or to present a reasonable argument as to why they are so vehemently opposed to the theory - no takers yet!

I can wait .

PS:  Don't you have to pay big money to get through the Wimbledon gates?

The reports of the last high tea Madeleine allegedly attended are quite contradictory. Some claim the children left to go to the Tapas bar at 4.30, others at 4.45. High tea is supposed to have ended at 5.30pm when the nannies relinquished care of their charges yet Charlotte P.(if memory serves correctly) claimed Thursdays high tea was such a crowded, jolly affair that it went on til 6pm. Both McCann parents, or only one were in attendance depending on whose story one believes. It clearly needed further probing. Having read Snr. Gomes' letter however, wherein he points out how unlikely it was that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body in the short time-frame of 9pm-10pm one wonders why the police did not atke the obvious step of looking at the possibility of a much earlier death. Political pressure perhaps? IMO this letter is almost accepting of the McCanns' claims and I can see where Mark Rowley got his excuse to exclude Gerry saying "he was where he was". The letter mentions the Smith sighting and states that it couldn't be Gerry as his friends place him at the Tapas restaurant at this time and the waiting staff (according to the letter) did not contradict this. It appears that just as the need to investigate events prior to the 3rd became glaringly apparent, the process was archived. Cost, man-power and the obvious protection the McCs enjoyed killed it off,  (IMO of course.)

For various reasons, I don't think we can ever find out exactly what happened... All I am attempting to do in this thread is to establish...with reasonable evidence...that Maddie was SEEN during the week.

So far I cannot find another witness statements that isnt at least questionable and therefor cannot be considered as 'proof' that she was seen...

Fatima is the ONLY witness that, so far, appears credible and not mistaken...

Remember...I am not trying to establish that she WASN'T seen.  I am trying to establish that she WAS seen.

The above graphic shows THREE people that were around at high tea and not one of them clams specifically that Madeleine was there!

I find it hard to believe that Cecilia De Carmo could be mistaken. Either she is telling the truth about seeing them at breakfast and they are lying about breakfast arrangements or she is lying. It is acceptable that she could mistake Madeleine for another Ella or Lily if the group all arrived together but she claims to have seen the WHOLE McCann family at breakfast. As another poster has already pointed out a family of five, with three small blond children, two the same age, would be memorable. Who is she confusing Kate with? Even if the T9 all arrived for breakfast each day en masse (and we have no reason to believe they all marched in together as a group) Jane and Rachel are brunettes and Fiona bears no strong resemblance to Kate.  Who is Gerry (to whom Madeleine seemed so attached) being mistaken for? David, Russell and Matthew look nothing like him. In her statement she says her job was to admit guests for breakfast and check that they were entitled to eat free as part of their holiday package. I imagine this meant some interaction with them. She mentions trying to interact with Madeleine and finding her too shy to respond. Were there any written records such as a list they were ticked off on? If she is lying, who told her to? It is unlikely to be the McCanns as she belies their claims re breakfast.

Phoebe wrote:I find it hard to believe that Cecilia De Carmo could be mistaken. Either she is telling the truth about seeing them at breakfast and they are lying about breakfast arrangements or she is lying. It is acceptable that she could mistake Madeleine for another Ella or Lily if the group all arrived together but she claims to have seen the WHOLE McCann family at breakfast. As another poster has already pointed out a family of five, with three small blond children, two the same age, would be memorable. Who is she confusing Kate with? Even if the T9 all arrived for breakfast each day en masse (and we have no reason to believe they all marched in together as a group) Jane and Rachel are brunettes and Fiona bears no strong resemblance to Kate.  Who is Gerry (to whom Madeleine seemed so attached) being mistaken for? David, Russell and Matthew look nothing like him. In her statement she says her job was to admit guests for breakfast and check that they were entitled to eat free as part of their holiday package. I imagine this meant some interaction with them. She mentions trying to interact with Madeleine and finding her too shy to respond. Were there any written records such as a list they were ticked off on? If she is lying, who told her to? It is unlikely to be the McCanns as she belies their claims re breakfast.

The reason for this thread is not to prove Madeleine WASN'T seen....


Maybe Cecilia WASNT mistaken and she did indeed see the family.


I am trying to establish the LAST TIME we have some kind of EVIDENCE/CONFIRMATION/PROOF that she WAS seen/


There are so many questions regarding Cecilias statement about seeing Maddie that it CANNOT be used as any kind of proof... even if she DID see Maddie.


There is a BIG difference in showing 'proof' that she was seen as opposed to trying to prove/show that the witnesses were not mistaken.


I have NEVER claimed the witnesses are lying and if anyone suggests that then they have not understood what I am asking.

If a witness statement does not give reasonable proof that they specifically saw Maddie with no (or little) doubt then their statement cannot be considered as 'evidence' Maddie was seen.

I have searched and been on the lookout for ANYTHING since 2010 when I first compiled this research. NOTHING!

However, I am always open to SOME kind of proof and I will change my thoughts accordingly.

ie.  If Fatima's statement fitted with the McCanns claim of going to lunch on another day and it fitted with her work schedule etc then I would ABSOLUTELY change the 'last sighting' to whichever day that would have been.

I am NOT trying to make things 'fit'and I cannot change my thoughts because I cant change the files.

Only something I have missed would allow me to change my thoughts.



I have only offered details that could explain why Cecilia may have been mistaken.  The FACT is that her statement is not proof...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Two other Milleneium workers also claim to have seen the McCanns with Madeleine at breakfast,- Ana Marilia Do Carma Silva and John Young, the latter a British waiter. Again, I can understand these mistaking Madeleine for another child but not her parents for anyone else. The parents were constant features on T.V. and in newspapers immediately after the 3rd so they had clear images to compare with their memories. If these claims were made to a newspaper I could believe they were all looking for their 15 mins of fame but they were made to police in formal questioning. Why lie, if they did? Surely it would be easier to say I don't recall or I can't be sure rather than assuring them they had seen the family? It can't be fame hunting, the files were under judicial secrecy. I understand that what they claim cannot be proven. In the same way, I can claim I saw my neighbour this morning and waved to him. If he were to go missing today, no one witnessed our greeting, it is not on CCTV and there are no photos. The police would have to decide if I was a credible witness or not. In the absence of tangible evidence the police must rely on eye-witness testimony which they deem credible. Equally, there is no actual proof that the McCanns did breakfast at their apartment, that relies on the testimony of themselves and their friends.

Phoebe wrote:Two other Milleneium workers also claim to have seen the McCanns with Madeleine at breakfast,- Ana Marilia Do Carma Silva and John Young, the latter a British waiter. Again, I can understand these mistaking Madeleine for another child but not her parents for anyone else. The parents were constant features on T.V. and in newspapers immediately after the 3rd so they had clear images to compare with their memories. If these claims were made to a newspaper I could believe they were all looking for their 15 mins of fame but they were made to police in formal questioning. Why lie, if they did? Surely it would be easier to say I don't recall or I can't be sure rather than assuring them they had seen the family? It can't be fame hunting, the files were under judicial secrecy. I understand that what they claim cannot be proven. In the same way, I can claim I saw my neighbour this morning and waved to him. If he were to go missing today, no one witnessed our greeting, it is not on CCTV and there are no photos. The police would have to decide if I was a credible witness or not. In the absence of tangible evidence the police must rely on eye-witness testimony which they deem credible. Equally, there is no actual proof that the McCanns did breakfast at their apartment, that relies on the testimony of themselves and their friends.

As per my post above... you could be right.  They MAY have seen Maddie but we can't say for sure that the actually DID see Maddie.

Miguel Matias was CONVINCED (even after the fact) that he saw the parents and Maddie at the Paraiso.

We know for a FACT that he didnt.

He was MISTAKEN!


If he had given an official statement and we didn't have the CCTV footage that shows they were not there then his statement COULD have been considered a sighting, but he gave no specific indication that the child he saw was Madeleine so it could not be considered as proof, and as it happens of course it wasn't Maddie.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@ HiDeHo - Please don't think I'm picking holes, just trying to answer the question posed logically. I imagine the Millenium workers and nannies would be regarded by the P.J. as being more reliable since Miguel Matias only claimed to have seen them once during an hour at the Paraiso and had no reason to ask their names or know who they were. He also gave/sold this claim to the press rather than being interviewed by the police during a formal statement-taking. I suspect he might have been one of those 15 mins of fame seekers. Apart from the shuttle-bus video there are only two solid proofs that Madeleine was actually on that holiday - the playground picture and "last photo". Even the tennis balls photo does not prove Madeleine was in the O.C. as it could be any tennis-court. Other than these there is no hard proof of her being on that holiday other than eye-witness sightings and creche records. It boils down to whether these can be accepted or whether they are mistakes or deliberate untruths.

Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo - Please don't think I'm picking holes, just trying to answer the question posed logically. I imagine the Millenium workers and nannies would be regarded by the P.J. as being more reliable since Miguel Matias only claimed to have seen them once during an hour at the Paraiso and had no reason to ask their names or know who they were. He also gave/sold this claim to the press rather than being interviewed by the police during a formal statement-taking. I suspect he might have been one of those 15 mins of fame seekers. Apart from the shuttle-bus video there are only two solid proofs that Madeleine was actually on that holiday - the playground picture and "last photo". Even the tennis balls photo does not prove Madeleine was in the O.C. as it could be any tennis-court. Other than these there is no hard proof of her being on that holiday other than eye-witness sightings and creche records. It boils down to whether these can be accepted or whether they are mistakes or deliberate untruths.

Thanks Phoebe and OF COURSE I don't think you are picking holes lol

I welcome all information on the case and you reminded me about Miguel Matias taking his story to the media.

He was possibly of the belief it was Maddie as he gave the CCTV footage to the PJ but in the big picture he is just one of the many claims of people to have seen Maddie that does not offer it as 'proof' of seeing her.  In his case, though, we know he was mistaken or wrong or trying to get his claim to fame.

@ HiDeHo       I think thread has been very useful in getting me (for one) to look closely yet again at that week. There is no hard proof that Madeleine was alive and well, just testimony of those who claim to have seen her. But I did see some things in the process to which I had previously not paid attention. For example, Grace Oldfield was most reluctant to attend creche - so much so that her father dodged the task of dropping her off there whenever he could. It makes me wonder how well Madeleine reacted to it, especially given that she was signed out after 15 mins on the Monday afternoon. I believe the creche set-up was a shambles, something Mark Warner was keen to keep quiet, hence the swift moving of the nannies out of the P.J.'s further reach. It reminded me of what had gone on when I was a student and working in a similarish set-up. Thinking back to those experiences I can well believe that the three nannies who claim to have seen Madeleine on that Thurs were not telling it as it was. I also found that Chris Unsworth was interviewed but that is not included in the files DVD. Ditto for Nathan Scarll who was already known to most of the group before the went to the O.C. In contrast to Kate's claim that they wouldn't have minded if Madeleine had opted out of going to creche (as they loved her company) Matt describes activities without his child needing minding as "What you could get away with". Whether Madeleine was seen or not something was wrong from the early days of the holiday IMO. There has to be a reason for so much amnesia re. the simple daily events.