Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?

by NickE 24.03.18 21:05

polyenne wrote:What about the cadaver odour behind the couch - they would either have had to place her body there after she died or else have moved the bag there after it had been contaminated. Why bother moving the bag out of the cupboard

Because it was leaking ?

Shouldn't it be enough odour for a well trained cadaver dog to alarm if a bag with clothes from a desceased person had been placed on the floor behind the sofa for example?

by JohnyT 24.03.18 23:11

Phoebe wrote:Thank you GeG. Please forgive my tendency to play devil's advocate it's just my nature! I find it difficult to believe that the McCanns would have chosen such an awkward, risky method of concealing what was going on if they had days to work on it. The simple thing to do would have been to copy what had happened to the German boy who had vanished from a beach a few years previously in the Algarve. No trace ever found. It would have led credence to the notion of Algarve paedophiles preying on children and let the Tapas 9 off the negligence hook. The McCs still could have set up their heroic fighting fund - heck, there would have been even more sympathy when they weren't under suspicion of negligence or involvement. They still could have become advocates and ambassadors for missing children's organisations. All this could have been theirs, with their hands "clean". The McCanns problems all sprang from the ridiculous notion that an abductor would enter an apartment that was constantly being checked, running the risk of being seen, and leave two children behind while making off with the eldest. I can't believe the whole Tapas group could be so stupid and unimaginative over several days that the best they could come up with was to risk pretending that Madeleine was around when she wasn't. They had to fool nannies, tennis and sailing instructors, other children and their parents - so terribly risky. All it would have taken to achieve the same end (abduction) would be for the T9 to have hired a couple of cars and explored the lovely Portuguese beaches. Madeleine disappears in the blink of an eye. Job done. No reputational damage, no more blame put on the parents than was put on Denise Bolger (who genuinely lost her boy in mere minutes of taking her eye off him) The British gov. and police force could have come to assist without raising suspicions of unwarranted involvement. So straight-forward!

.............or even gone sailing in a boat, child falls overboard.............

by **Jill Havern** 24.03.18 23:31

Whatever we may think of the McCanns I don't believe they would be callous enough to just dispose of Madeleine without a proper burial/cremation.

I believe Madeleine had to be 'taken care of' because they couldn't risk her having an autopsy, so a boating accident or concealment on a beach /disappearance from a beach could have led to her body being found and an autopsy carried out. I also believe they wanted to take possession of her body so they knew where she was.

Maybe an autopsy would have revealed historical sexual abuse/drug abuse (sedation) that couldn't be blamed on an abductor so they had no choice but to deal with Madeleine's body themselves.

Hence the elaborate fake abduction nonsense which needed planning over a few days. I believe Madeleine had been taken care of well before abduction night and that her body will never be found.

I certainly don't believe Gerry McCann was carrying his daughter's corpse around the streets that night.

by Baggy 25.03.18 3:05

polyenne wrote:She never left 5A while she was injured and until she died. They KNEW it to be fatal and she died on the night of the crying episode. Her body was then concealed in 5A (in a bag in the wardrobe) until being transported somewhere “temporary” via an unknown vehicle. During the body’s removal from 5A, as a “holding point” the bag/body was in the shrubbery.

Thank you Polyenne.

As a newcomer to the forum I should perhaps say that, whilst I have much to learn, my own theories have run along similar lines. i have speculated that part of what is being covered up here is the failure to deliver an injured or dangerously sedated Madeleine to the hospital at an appropriate time. The other medical professionals amongst the Tapas group were either implicated in the initial injury or in the subsequent decision to not look for outside medical help but to deal with the issue themselves.

The reason for not releasing an injured Madeleine to the hospital could be the same as Getemgoncalo has suggested above for the need to avoid an autopsy.

I have wondered to what extent, following the Sunday, the McCanns were ever both absent from the apartment at the same time. The changed breakfast and lunch arrangements would enable them to remain at the apartment. They could be reasonably secure that hotel staff were unlikely to enter the apartment during the evening meal, although even there it appears a member of the group was always unable through sickness to attend the dinner. Was one of them always there to stand guard?

It was stated in a post above that the cleaner was in the apartment on Wednesday morning. GM and KM looked initially as though they intended to remain on the balcony, but then moved on. I wonder if GM had the blue bag with him.

by polyenne 25.03.18 7:43

GEG [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
That exactly mirrors my own thoughts. Having the keys to the church is a huge red flag.

I too believe she will never be found. Coupled with the high level protection being afforded them, is why they have such arrogance.

by Cammerigal 25.03.18 8:12

Well done to HideHo in deconstructing the PJ files to provide a means of breaking Gerry McCann’s brilliant piece of subterfuge at the crèche. By presenting himself with O’Brien plus their daughter Ella, he presented a mental linkage for the nannies between himself and a small blonde girl “Maddie”. He then supported this link with an old picture, to support the abduction search of a young 3year old Maddie.
Gerry thought he had created a robust evidence trail with the nanny witness statements plus the crèche records to puport her presence on the day of the abduction. unfortunately, the nannies described a small blond shy girl and HideHo has correlated timelines, witness statements and exposed the fraudulence of the reception signatory records.
clapping

by Tennison 25.03.18 9:11

When did Russell and Jane leave Praia da Luz because if any of the nannies saw Ella around the Ocean Club after Madeleine was reported missing, and recognised her as the little blonde girl from the crèche, wouldn't that put a proverbial spanner in the works?

by NickE 25.03.18 9:35

Tennison wrote:When did Russell and Jane leave Praia da Luz because if any of the nannies saw Ella around the Ocean Club after Madeleine was reported missing, and recognised her as the little blonde girl from the crèche, wouldn't that put a proverbial spanner in the works?

According to this confusing document from Faro airport they left Portugal around May 17.
But I don't know for sure if they stayed at the OC during the period May 5 to when they left for the UK???
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **HiDeHo** 25.03.18 13:03

Cammerigal wrote:Well done to HideHo in deconstructing the PJ files to provide a means of breaking Gerry McCann’s brilliant piece of subterfuge at the crèche. By presenting himself with O’Brien plus their daughter Ella, he presented a mental linkage for the nannies between himself and a small blonde girl “Maddie”. He then supported this link with an old picture, to support the abduction search of a young 3year old Maddie.
Gerry thought he had created a robust evidence trail with the nanny witness statements plus the crèche records to puport her presence on the day of the abduction. unfortunately, the nannies described a small blond shy girl and HideHo has correlated timelines, witness statements and exposed the fraudulence of the reception signatory records.

Thank you Cammerigal for a lovely comment but its important to keep in mind that we don't know for sure.

I does seem the most possible explanation however and seemed to fall into place as I posted.

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

{@=4747}Tennison{/@} wrote:id='4747' class='mentiontag' title='Viewing profile: Tennison'>@Tennison wrote:[/mention] wrote:When did Russell and Jane leave Praia da Luz because if any of the nannies saw Ella around the Ocean Club after Madeleine was reported missing, and recognised her as the little blonde girl from the crèche, wouldn't that put a proverbial spanner in the works?

Most of the T7 remained in PdL possibly for the 'Memory of the Future'

Regarding the creche, even if Ella was sent back to the creche, the nannies have a rotating schedule each week so Catriona would not have been back at the same creche and would not be responsible for Ella.

Catriona wrote:
The witness mentions that as a nanny she works at all the above mentioned locations, because like all of her colleagues, she is subject to a rotating schedule, which means that they change the physical location and the age group of the children that they look after, on a weekly basis.

As far as being seen around the complex,I would imagine so much confusion and likelihood of more young children that looked similar.

As we can see from Nannies statements, they did not specifically identify a child

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

by Doug D 25.03.18 14:02

HiDeHo ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]):

‘Most of the T7 remained in PdL possibly for the 'Memory of the Future'

Have we ever seen any evidence that this actually happened? From the May 2007 reports it looked to be more than Brunty’s mere certification of their statements in front of a judge.

‘This week the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK.

The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.

Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign.

"It is recorded by video and kept sealed then released during the hearing," he said.

"If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case.

"It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."

But the McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.’

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

I don't think there was ever any further mention of it.

by Phoebe 25.03.18 14:44

Ella's hair, while apparently similar in colour to Madeleine's, is of a completely different texture being quite thick and bushy (grey scale photos show this and note "Ella with bushy hair"). The photo the MCanns chose to release shows a younger Madeleine with fine, very sleek hair. Would the nannies not have noticed this difference when confronted with a poster of what was meant to be a younger "Ella." We also don't know what Ella's face was like. Unless she bore a marked resemblance to Madeleine I doubt that a younger picture of Madeleine would look very like her. I wonder if the McCanns and Russell would risk Ella being used to impersonate Madeleine (albeit without the child's knowledge). How could they be sure that none of the creche or play activities would involve children being called by name or being asked to draw their families or sign their names on a painting or piece of art. It would be a dreadfully risky strategy unless the nannies were complicit. All it would take was Ella to identify herself once for the whole scheme to be blown out of the water! From Russell's statements he strikes me as a man who puts himself and his family first always. I'm not sure he would agree to his child being the linchpin of a conspiracy to pervert justice.

by Cookiecat 27.07.18 21:16

Sorry to bring up old topic but I find the old posts have a lot of information .. was it ever clarified did Gerry call Madeleine ..Margaret .. if he did imo proves one of Hideho's main theories which I support due to evidence provided .. I just can't find anything on this all goes off on tangent .. so yes or no did he call Madeleine .. Margaret?

by Verdi 27.07.18 21:27

Cookiecat wrote:.. was it ever clarified did Gerry call Madeleine ..Margaret .. if he did imo proves one of Hideho's main theories which I support due to evidence provided ..

What HiDeHo main theory does this prove?

by Cookiecat 27.07.18 21:50

That the sign in creche.. parents name .. childs name or lack of .. were due to other child in creche ..under presumption little blonde girl in group today ..parent goes with friend signs register ..yeap his child is there.. and that she was not really signed in.. its all on the original posts about Margaret .. Madeleine hence thats why asking if anything further .. I believe it proves not saying it does.. was hoping for clarification did Gerry call Madeleine.. Margaret !

________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Topics merged. Mod

by nglfi 28.07.18 5:51

With reference to the nannies statements, I think it likely that, as with any missing person presumed dead, those giving statements would wish to downplay the nature of their relationship to the person. I'm not suggesting that any of the nannies were lying as such, but all of their statements do seem very defensive and in a 'not me, I didn't know her' vein. I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about how recognisable Madeleine was to any of them. It's quite possible they did know her by sight, knew who she was and who her parents were, but didn't want to create the impression of any personal relationship with her in their statements.

by Verdi 28.07.18 12:45

In my view the importance of the childcare workers witness statements is grossly exaggerated.

From the perspective of the early investigation, Madeleine disappeared from apartment 5a at approximately 10:00pm on the night of 3rd May 2007. The interviewing of Ocean Club/Warner employees was routine policing, they would have been asked a specific set of predetermined questions and answered in a similar vein; by example Q. 'did you know Madeleine McCann' A. 'no'. Apart from anything else, the witness statements were not recorded verbatim - easier still to misrepresent what was said.

Primarily the PJ would have sought information about the parents and their child's general disposition and the parent/child relationship and/or if they witnessed anything suspicious or unusual in or outside the Ocean Club complex that might assist the investigation.

However, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to name but three, went that extra mile - reason enough to question their respective motives. They stand out over and above the rest, Catriona Baker in particular - why did she become so personally involved? On the surface, if all is to be believed, Ms Baker didn't know Madeleine or her parents - I find it difficult to reconcile her behaviour with that of a detached stranger.

If you're looking for something suspicious or not quite right, it can always be found with a little juggling of words or situations, misinterpretation, adding and taking away to manipulate the true meaning. That's precisely how barristers work in a court of law!

by Verdi 29.07.18 23:50

Inquired employees:

A huge list of names which I will not write here for the right to privacy of these people.

The baby sitters that talked to the media in previous interviews are on the list.

CATRIONA T. S. BAKER
STACEY PORTZ
CHARLOTTE E. A. PENNINGTON

PJ Final Report

by Cookiecat 02.08.18 3:01

Next they will be saying MARGARETA of ROMANIA. Ported the royal boat .. she looks a bit like posh spice .. took off ..with the outshining special quality child .. fits with dreams that Kate had cough ..et al .. balls imo something happened .. GM n KM know but by going down rabbit hole of great conspiracy giving GM the get out clause of 'confusion good .'. They knew people .. important people but it got out..of hand too much money and power to back down for a goverment to admit duped and used as focal concern.. never.To start saying links with saville .. Ball ..Kitty . Football .. Nuclear power .et al ..they maybe exist but... GMKM Team they can dismiss as all crazy .. truth as one supposed dective said ..in plain sight.. nepotism out of hand and sadly a little girl forgotton like many others... there are many join the dots in this alas I think its much simpler and sad.. just mo .. the pj were right and focus should be how to support them get case reopened or moved forward..the pj can do it they have files .. we just need right legal person to push .. because if there was a trial it would all come to head.Instead of going off on tangents exploringing why Maddie is a global patsy can't we argue how to get the case moved on .. think Gilford four just one good lawyer and case done?? For a child, an innocent child ?

by Verdi 02.08.18 12:43

Cookiecat wrote: ...... the pj were right and focus should be how to support them get case reopened or moved forward..the pj can do it they have files .. we just need right legal person to push .. because if there was a trial it would all come to head.Instead of going off on tangents exploringing why Maddie is a global patsy can't we argue how to get the case moved on .. think Gilford four just one good lawyer and case done?? For a child, an innocent child ?

When you have time to get better acquainted with the forum, past and present, you will see it's primary objective is to keep moving forwards towards the truth. A lot of dedicated members, again past and present, have devoted their own time over the past eleven years for this very reason.

For your information..

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

If you have an argument to present that can help in this respect, perhaps you would like to join HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom'? I think I can say without reservation, your input would be most welcome. Give it some thought and if you decide to proceed, just contact HiDeHo by PM and she will give you the low down.

thumbsup

by dmc1899 13.05.19 21:13

HiDeHo wrote:
Ruffian wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] In order to make your opinion work you have had to dismiss witness statements and the anomalies across the creche sheet entries for other children

Fancy graphics look nice but the information within them is misleading
You cannot judge how a child will react in different situations with any certainty. Especially when that child is a stranger to you. Its all speculation on your part in am attempt to fit the files around your opinion, cherry picking what you believe and dismiss

Ruffian... Please understand I am not claiming anything based on opinion.

All that I discuss is based on what I see in the files.

I have studied the witness statements for 8 years and so far have not found ONE (after Sunday afternoon) that gives me any indication that the child they are describing is likely Maddie.

Please show me one if you feel I am wrong. I welcome ANYONE to show me a witness statement that identifies Maddie specifically.

'Fancy Graphics'? Please explain ANY of the information being misleading?

I don't use speculation to fit the files around my opinion.

As most can see, its the FILES that direct me to what I discover!

However, its understandable, and your prerogative, to have your own opinion, particularly if you haven't looked at the research over the last 10 years.

Dear HiDeHo and Jill Havern,

I've only recently joined this forum, but I have followed your contributions via social media for several years. Thank you both for your impressive and persistent efforts. I look forward to collaborating with you and the others on this forum to move closer to a meaningful resolution to this scandalous event.

I was very glad to read the subject of this post because having made the PJ Files my home for the past two years, I have reluctantly started to consider that the date of "disappearance" was not in fact May 3rd. But, as with almost every other deduction that I reach with this case, I'm struggling with it.

I'm struggling simply because of Occam's razor - the number of people that would need to be tricked into thinking Madeleine was alive is significant. The creche workers, some Tapas bar workers, possibly a cleaner or two. Also, this would not have been for one evening, or a couple of hours, it would have been for four days, with multiple activities.

Of the entire Tapas group, the only one individual who's witness statements I would even consider as being remotely truthful would be Diane Webster (Fiona Payne's mother). My reading of her situation and statements are that of someone that is a little naive at best and not obviously complicit in what took place - to me anyway. She confirmed to both Portuguese police and UK police that she saw Madeleine alive on the Wednesday (2nd May).

If I ask the question, is it possible that the nannies, bar workers, Diane Webster all innocently misidentified one of the other children as Madeleine - I think it is possible yes.

Do I think it is likely? I don't think it's likely.

But, do I think it is more likely that she was alive up until the Thursday evening? No, I think she was dead and buried somewhere before Thursday 3rd (and it may have been a freezer she was buried in).

If she was alive on the Thursday, why would we be presented with a pool photograph from the McCann team which is clearly from the Sunday and we're told it was from the Thursday?

Phoebe makes a great set of points in her posts. These people are intelligent and shrewd. Whoever came up with this plan for an abduction, is not that intelligent nor shrewd in my opinion.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this guys.

by Verdi 13.05.19 22:29

to the forum dmc1899, good to have you on board.

I don't understand why you've posted your comments by quoting a past exchange but I'm sure all will be revealed in due course. I will however leave your first post here for the time being.

Meanwhile, I won't insult you by offering any assistance as a new comer, joined just today, as you clearly know where you're at!

thumbsup

by dmc1899 16.05.19 19:52

Thank you Verdi, great to be on-board.

You mentioned HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom' above, however I don't seem to have "reached the post limit" to be able to direct message her for more information.

I'm interested in this Classroom if anyone can share information about it.

Thanks.

ETA

You wrote: "I have reluctantly started to consider that the date of "disappearance" was not in fact May 3rd. But, as with almost every other deduction that I reach with this case, I'm struggling with it...because of Occam's razor - the number of people that would need to be tricked into thinking Madeleine was alive is significant. The creche workers, some Tapas bar workers, possibly a cleaner or two. Also, this would not have been for one evening, or a couple of hours, it would have been for four days, with multiple activities".

ANSWER: This point has been put many times on CMOMM. If Madeleine died Sunday, who actually knew who Madeleine was at this time? The McCanns. The Tapas 7. Catriona Baker. Who else? It is doubtful if any other person on that holiday knew who Madeleine was. Thus, supposing Madeleine died say Sunday evening, it would be very easy for Catriona Baker, being the sole nanny of Madeleine's creche (Lobsters), to arrange for the forging of the creche records. Who else would know about Madeleine? Another thing to bear in mind is that this is simply not an Occam's Razor case. The multilayered lies, half-truths, deceptions and fabrications demonstrate that this is an extraordinary case, by any yardstick.

- Moderator

by Verdi 16.05.19 23:04

dmc1899 wrote:Thank you Verdi, great to be on-board.

You mentioned HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom' above, however I don't seem to have "reached the post limit" to be able to direct message her for more information.

I'm interested in this Classroom if anyone can share information about it.

Thanks.

I'll gladly contact HiDeHo on your behalf, I'm sure she will welcome your interest in her project. We'll see what we can do to make things happen high5

.

Be patient thumbsup

!

by Verdi 17.05.19 0:10

Hello again dmc1899,

I've sent a message to HiDeHo asking her to let me know how she wishes to proceed with your valued offer to become a pupil of her Virtual Classroom, either by reply to me or contacting you direct on this thread.

She is online every day/night so it shouldn't be too long a wait.

Meanwhile I thank you!

by Verdi 17.05.19 14:14

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

Just to update you, HiDeHo has opened my message and is online as I speak.

Hopefully she will respond sooner rather than later. If perchance HiDeHo contacts you direct by some other means, could you please let me know so I can rest easy.

Thanks thumbsup

.

Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?