Revisiting "accepted facts" that haven't been questioned.

by Briohazard 28.02.14 3:43

I know this is a rather unorthodox suggestion, but I feel it's worthy enough to debate. Please bear with me whilst I try to explain myself.

I have found over time, reading this forum, that I have subconsciously accepted certain parts of the timeline without questioning them. I just had a 'revelation' moment, and I would like to consider other possibilities.

1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.

2. Perhaps paynes 'visit' wasn't designed to draw attention to seeing madeleine alive and well. Perhaps it was designed to place kate in the apartment instead.

I hope you see where I'm trying to go with this... Just little things like the shutter being down during their dinner I have tended to accept without question. I wish I could explain myself better. I just wonder how many other aspects I've glided over?

by Guest 28.02.14 10:08

Briohazard wrote:I know this is a rather unorthodox suggestion, but I feel it's worthy enough to debate. Please bear with me whilst I try to explain myself.

I have found over time, reading this forum, that I have subconsciously accepted certain parts of the timeline without questioning them. I just had a 'revelation' moment, and I would like to consider other possibilities.

1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.

2. Perhaps paynes 'visit' wasn't designed to draw attention to seeing madeleine alive and well. Perhaps it was designed to place kate in the apartment instead.

I hope you see where I'm trying to go with this... Just little things like the shutter being down during their dinner I have tended to accept without question. I wish I could explain myself better. I just wonder how many other aspects I've glided over?

You explained yourself well, and your concept merits attention

by HelenMeg 28.02.14 10:19

I see where you are coming from. I had a similar consideration while ago when I came to the conclusion that
the last photo was not to prove Madeleine was still alive but was to prove Gerry was in a certain position at a certain time.

Its good to turn things on their heads occasionally and reassess.

by **tigger** 28.02.14 12:24

Briohazard wrote:
1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.
unquote

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why should there be confusion about doors (seeing that they would need one door or other to enter for their checks) depending on whether the shutters were up or down?
They weren't doing listening checks allegedly, but physical interior checks.

The confusion about the mode of entry only arose after the shutters proved impossible for either entry or exit of the putative abductor.

by Briohazard 28.02.14 12:40

tigger wrote:Briohazard wrote:
1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.
unquote

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why should there be confusion about doors (seeing that they would need one door or other to enter for their checks) depending on whether the shutters were up or down?
They weren't doing listening checks allegedly, but physical interior checks.

The confusion about the mode of entry only arose after the shutters proved impossible for either entry or exit of the putative abductor.

Hi Tigger, please don't apologise. I know what you mean :)

What I'm trying to say, is not really a theory as such, just an example of how by accepting small unsubstantiated facts can change our entire views on the timeline. For example, if they were only doing listening checks, on the twins, at the windows, and not entering the apartment, then there is nobody to say Madeleine was in her bed that night. Or, in her bed at a certain time.

Perhaps I should have explained it not as 'confusion' about the doors... (I have what I'm trying to say on the tip of my tongue but cannot find the right words at the moment to express it in a comprehensible way)

When I find my words I'll try to explain :)

by Casey5 28.02.14 13:20

The biggest problem is that there are so few "facts" that are backed up by persons outside the tapas 9 group.
The shutters being up or down, curtains wooshed, Jane Tanner's sighting, who was sat at the tapas bar and when and who wasn't there when maybe they should have been. David Payne's trip to see Kate, The last photo at the pool; the list is endless of uncorroberated so-called happenings all of which accounts are given only by the tapas 9 group.
Even Gerry meeting with Jez Wilkins, although they both say the meeting did take place, the time is varied and the actual place they were standing is disputed by them both.
You would think they were the only people at this resort that week, surely somebody must have seen them every day with the kids and without them, didn't they make friends with other kids there and meet up for games etc. (where there would be photos probably, even if only taken by the other parents). Madeleine was, apparently "loud" and bossy, so why wasn't she noticed more?

by ultimaThule 28.02.14 14:33

Briohazard wrote:I know this is a rather unorthodox suggestion, but I feel it's worthy enough to debate. Please bear with me whilst I try to explain myself.

I have found over time, reading this forum, that I have subconsciously accepted certain parts of the timeline without questioning them. I just had a 'revelation' moment, and I would like to consider other possibilities.

1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.

2. Perhaps paynes 'visit' wasn't designed to draw attention to seeing madeleine alive and well. Perhaps it was designed to place kate in the apartment instead.

I hope you see where I'm trying to go with this... Just little things like the shutter being down during their dinner I have tended to accept without question. I wish I could explain myself better. I just wonder how many other aspects I've glided over?

IMO it would be highly unlikely for the front bedroom shutter to be raised prior to dinner for the simple reason that passerbys may have noticed it open which would raise doubt about the timeline the McCanns and their pals want the world to believe, which is that the only opportunity for a paedophile to take Madeleine from her bed occurred after Gerry had left the apartment following his proud moment and before Jane Tanner spotted the alleged abductor making off with her a matter of minutes later.

Having subsequently realised how ludicrous the above timeline is, the script was altered to include Gerry believing a stranger may have been lurking somewhere in the apartment while he took a leak but this, of course, does not explain why he didnt search the apartment before leaving for his allegedly impromptu rendezvous with Jez.

As it took Kate a mere 15 seconds to satisfy herself that 90cm tall Madeleine hadn't secreted herself somewhere in the apartment, I doubt it would have taken more than half that time to make sure there was no adult form hiding behind the doors, in either of the 2 wardrobes, or crouched at the back of the sofa.

Fwiw Payne's alleged visit was undoubtedly to place Madeleine alive and well in the company of her siblings and tranquil mother; had it been contrived solely to place Kate in the apartment, explanation would have been required as to where Madeleine was at that time.

by **tigger** 28.02.14 14:40

Briohazard wrote:
tigger wrote:Briohazard wrote:
1. Is there any proof that madeleines/twins shutters were routinely 'down'? For example, perhaps they WERE already raised prior to dinner for the 'listening checks'... Which would explain the confusion between locked front door and unlocked patio door as an entry point.
unquote

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why should there be confusion about doors (seeing that they would need one door or other to enter for their checks) depending on whether the shutters were up or down?
They weren't doing listening checks allegedly, but physical interior checks.

The confusion about the mode of entry only arose after the shutters proved impossible for either entry or exit of the putative abductor.
Hi Tigger, please don't apologise. I know what you mean :)

What I'm trying to say, is not really a theory as such, just an example of how by accepting small unsubstantiated facts can change our entire views on the timeline. For example, if they were only doing listening checks, on the twins, at the windows, and not entering the apartment, then there is nobody to say Madeleine was in her bed that night. Or, in her bed at a certain time.

Perhaps I should have explained it not as 'confusion' about the doors... (I have what I'm trying to say on the tip of my tongue but cannot find the right words at the moment to express it in a comprehensible way)

When I find my words I'll try to explain :)

There's absolutely nothing to prove she was in her bed in any case, all the 'evidence' we have comes from erstwhile arguidos who have an interest in not telling the truth.
You may have noticed that MO doesn't testify that he saw Maddie. He just presumes. Safer from his point of view.

by Woofer 28.02.14 14:44

The shutters didn`t stay up properly at the time PM tried to raise them

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

by ultimaThule 28.02.14 14:55

When it becomes an 'accepted fact' that the child's disappearance took place hours, if not days, before, the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 can be seen for what they were: the performance of a play written, directed, and performed by a talentless bunch of amateurs who were intent on covering up a heinous crime and whose efforts were all but scuppered by one of their fellow conspirators in the UK making contact with the Foreign Office, or a conduit thereto, an hour before the scheduled time.

by diatribe 28.02.14 15:11

I think the most paramount issue regarding this case is to determine the last independent and credible sighting of Madeleine alive. Many on here are of the opinion she disappeared prior to the 3rd. inst. May 2007 and its my theory that she disappeared before the McCanns departed for the Tapas bar circa 8 30 pm. The principal obstruction to the former hypothesis is the evidence of the child minder, Catriona Baker.

If as some believe, the Met. Police investigation is a genuine attempt to determine the truth and if as others believe, they have the power of arrest, questioning witnesses etc. as if a crime had been committed in the UK, then surely their first task would have been to reinterview Catriona Baker, particularly in the vein that our intrepid Inspector has stated that he intends to go back to ground zero in his investigation.

As far as I'm aware, after approaching 3 yrs. into the investigation, not only have the Met. Police failed to further question the McCanns and their friends, they also haven't made any attempt to contact Catriona Baker either, despite her being a UK resident. I would surmise that in any serious investigation, the very first fact that the officer in charge would want to establish is the last positive sighting of the person missing. The only logical explanation for not further interviewing Catriona Baker, if in fact they have the power to do so, is because they believe her evidence as given in a deposition to the Leics. police in 2008.

By default, this means that the Met. Police have accepted the McCann's timeline of events, thereby negating any premise of being a fresh investigation or starting from the beginning. The aforementioned is strengthened even further when their sole lines of enquiry appear to consist of chasing fictitious paeodophiles around the world. At least as seen on TV.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.02.14 15:14

ultimaThule wrote:When it becomes an 'accepted fact' that the child's disappearance took place hours, if not days, before, the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 can be seen for what they were: the performance of a play written, directed, and performed by a talentless bunch of amateurs who were intent on covering up a heinous crime and whose efforts were all but scuppered by one of their fellow conspirators in the UK making contact with the Foreign Office, or a conduit thereto, an hour before the scheduled time.

This fellow conspirator must have been one of the most stupid people on the planet - to be involved in such a dangerous cover-up, and yet not bothering to check if there was a time difference. It sounds to me like an invention to make a theory fit.

by russiandoll 28.02.14 15:16

I agree with the first part of your post diatribe, but fail to understand how you have concluded that SY has not re-interviewed Cat Baker. I would not expect a live investigation to give the media information about these details of their operation.

by Guest 28.02.14 15:36

Even the time of Maddie 'discovered missing' is not at all a fact. The only thing established about that, is the fact that either the parents were lying to the police when they stated that it was definately after 10 pm, or, the witnesses who are not Tapasii, who state times like 9:20 pm, 9:30ish pm and so on and on, have all different clocks to read from what time it is.

All allegedly and imo of course, but you don't need overseas conspirators to see that the makebelieve versions of events wasn't exactly ready set go by the time the chain of panic had been started.

All it takes is a couple of bottles of wine and no watch nor mobile phone to make a disaster.

Personally, I don't even believe from what I can read, that Maddie's identity is an established fact. Just the circus is a fact.

by diatribe 28.02.14 15:38

russiandoll wrote:I agree with the first part of your post diatribe, but fail to understand how you have concluded that SY has not re-interviewed Cat Baker. I would not expect a live investigation to give the media information about these details of their operation.

I did put as far as I'm aware, Russian and I'm never going to argue with or antagonise you 'cos my girlfriend luvs your hat big grin

by russiandoll 28.02.14 15:51

That made me laugh diatribe. My hat is only available through official channels, but your girlfriend will be able to buy a similar one in the winter sales.

Here's me in a sailor hat. big grin

It says on google that it is a police hat but even if you can't understand that the word FLOT - NAVY, the anchor is a bit of a giveaway !

It gives a whole new meaning to the greeting Hello Sailor !

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

by ultimaThule 28.02.14 16:10

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:When it becomes an 'accepted fact' that the child's disappearance took place hours, if not days, before, the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 can be seen for what they were: the performance of a play written, directed, and performed by a talentless bunch of amateurs who were intent on covering up a heinous crime and whose efforts were all but scuppered by one of their fellow conspirators in the UK making contact with the Foreign Office, or a conduit thereto, an hour before the scheduled time.

This fellow conspirator must have been one of the most stupid people on the planet - to be involved in such a dangerous cover-up, and yet not bothering to check if there was a time difference. It sounds to me like an invention to make a theory fit.

What other explanation can there be for the British Consul being on the case c11pm, before the police arrived and despite neither the McCanns, nor the Tapas 7, or any MW staff that we know of, making contact with him?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.02.14 16:32

ultimaThule wrote:
What other explanation can there be for the British Consul being on the case c11pm, before the police arrived and despite neither the McCanns, nor the Tapas 7, or any MW staff that we know of, making contact with him?

'That we know of' - very important words.

by ultimaThule 28.02.14 16:52

There is much that we do not know of and can only speculate as to what those hidden facts may be.

As it seems to me unlikely that a senior MW staff member made contact with the British Consul shortly after the alarm was raised to complain that the police were doing nothing, it would seem more probable that the Consul's call to the chief of police (or equivalent) c11pm was prompted by either a call from the UK's Ambassador in Lisbon or by direct contact from the Foreign Office in London, or from another party in the UK or Portugal.

by Guest 28.02.14 18:02

What happened to that Consul after becoming involved?

Where is he now?

by whmon 28.02.14 19:33

russiandoll wrote:That made me laugh diatribe. My hat is only available through official channels, but your girlfriend will be able to buy a similar one in the winter sales.

Here's me in a sailor hat. It says on google that it is a police hat but even if you can't understand that the word FLOT - NAVY, the anchor is a bit of a giveaway !

It gives a whole new meaning to the greeting Hello Sailor !

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

You look beautiful in your sailor hat RD. I bought the exact hat you have in your avator at a charity auction a couple of years ago.

by whmon 28.02.14 19:51

ultimaThule wrote:When it becomes an 'accepted fact' that the child's disappearance took place hours, if not days, before, the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 can be seen for what they were: the performance of a play written, directed, and performed by a talentless bunch of amateurs who were intent on covering up a heinous crime and whose efforts were all but scuppered by one of their fellow conspirators in the UK making contact with the Foreign Office, or a conduit thereto, an hour before the scheduled time.

I wrote a pantomime for my local pub. It was performed at Christmas, with locals of two pubs acting as the cast. Although they had been in possession of their scripts for several weeks and had been present at rehearsals on the actual night of the panto things didn't go to plan. The reason was that it was a big thing for the 'actors' as they had never acted before so they were very nervous. Also, they'd all had a drink before the performance started. Furthermore. as author of the script I couldn't really direct properly because I also had a part in the panto.

So - people missed or confused their lines, people came on stage before they were supposed to or had to be shouted at to get on the stage. Can anyone see any parallels here?

I can imagine the McCann panto going in exactly the same direction. (Just to add though - the panto was a huge success anyway!)

by Guest 28.02.14 20:01

russiandoll wrote:That made me laugh diatribe. My hat is only available through official channels, but your girlfriend will be able to buy a similar one in the winter sales.

Here's me in a sailor hat. It says on google that it is a police hat but even if you can't understand that the word FLOT - NAVY, the anchor is a bit of a giveaway !

It gives a whole new meaning to the greeting Hello Sailor !

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

russiandoll - I assumed your atavar was chosen from an internet site. You are beautiful in your hats!

by lj 16.03.14 4:14

ultimaThule wrote:There is much that we do not know of and can only speculate as to what those hidden facts may be.

As it seems to me unlikely that a senior MW staff member made contact with the British Consul shortly after the alarm was raised to complain that the police were doing nothing, it would seem more probable that the Consul's call to the chief of police (or equivalent) c11pm was prompted by either a call from the UK's Ambassador in Lisbon or by direct contact from the Foreign Office in London, or from another party in the UK or Portugal.

I cannot say it for sure for the British diplomatic post, but most embassies / consulate advice expats or vacationing compatriots to immediately warn them so they can assist in the process. So it might very well be that they warned the consulate before warning the police. As far as hotels and resort go, they have been through the motions and have likely the consulate numbers under those of the firebrigade and police. Nothing suspicious in that.

by **tigger** 16.03.14 6:03

lj wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:There is much that we do not know of and can only speculate as to what those hidden facts may be.

As it seems to me unlikely that a senior MW staff member made contact with the British Consul shortly after the alarm was raised to complain that the police were doing nothing, it would seem more probable that the Consul's call to the chief of police (or equivalent) c11pm was prompted by either a call from the UK's Ambassador in Lisbon or by direct contact from the Foreign Office in London, or from another party in the UK or Portugal.

I cannot say it for sure for the British diplomatic post, but most embassies / consulate advice expats or vacationing compatriots to immediately warn them so they can assist in the process. So it might very well be that they warned the consulate before warning the police. As far as hotels and resort go, they have been through the motions and have likely the consulate numbers under those of the firebrigade and police. Nothing suspicious in that.

There are no calls to the consulate from Gerry's phone. He gets a call from the Consulate around 00.30. The rest of the calls to and from the consulate are in the early morning. They are quite long calls - not simply 'we're coming at x time' but lasting around 5 minutes each. Instructions, legal advice?
The consulate was warned and in possession of Gerry's phone number just over two hours after 10.00 pm.
By ten the next morning the consul is at the police station and overheard on the phone reporting that the PJ are doing nothing.
Now that is a straight lie imo, almost as if he's already been instructed in the 'babes in the woods' campaign and imo he'd have had that instruction from 'above'.

In most European countries the main ambition of consulates seems to keep well away from holiday makers' troubles.
Several members here have commented here in the past on the extreme reluctance of consulates to do their duty when said members needed help abroad.

MW may well have called the consulate but there is no record of it afaik, just records of when the police was called. I would have expected a record of the call to the consulate.