Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

skyrocket wrote:@ HiDeHo


Thanks very much for responding to my question re: the creche being open on Sundays. It looks like it was.

Very odd then that 3 nanny's stated - 'the club is closed on Sundays, on that day it only offers the dinner service' (Amy Tierney); 'is closed on Sundays, functioning only during the dinner hour' (Shinead Vine, who was responsible for the twins); and, 'is closed on Sundays when it only offers the dinner service' (Leanne Wagstaff). Talk about verbatim - sounds very contrived BUT WHY? Again, it suggests that there is a lot more to this than a simple accident and cover up by a small group of individuals. Even Shinead Vine, who looked after the twins for the week, said it. Why, why, why ............?

Verdi wrote:@j.rob

So have I got this right.   In a matter of weeks your thoughts as to what happened to MBM have progressed as follows..

a)  swinging..

b)  paedophilia..

c)  a huge media hoax to sell papers, distract from Iraq, make parents paranoid about 'stranger danger', possibly introduce the concept of microchipping and generally give the state more control over the individual to..

d)  a staged and faked abduction of a live child - the UK version of the USA Elizabeth Smart case - ended up being a staged, faked abduction to cover up for the death of a child..

e)  a media hoax that went wrong/was deliberately sabotaged and/or some other mishap happened that week..

f)  The Mcs wanted their ££££££££££ and to admit to the death of a child would not bring them the fame and fortune they wanted..

Have I forgotten anything?

Do these individual theories correlate in some way or are they just a random selection of maybes?  It's all very well to be open minded but I think it helps if you can stay within the realms of reality and framework of the PJ files and miscellaneous associated intelligence.  10/10 for blue sky thinking - just don't forget the parachute!

Joannep43 wrote:Quite rightly throughout this case the emphasis has been on sightings, photos etc of Madeleine.  If an accident or something grave had happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, then I believe the McCanns would not have been able to care for the twins.  Are there any photographs,witness statements, sightings or accounts of the Twins with the Mccanns from Sunday onwards?  Apart from the McCann accounts?

tigger wrote:There is imo no proof either that she was seen on Sunday by the cleaning ladies. Her description of all three wearing the same kind of shoes, which had little pink lights along the soles is one reason:

These shoes are seen on the playground photo girl - allegedly taken on the Saturday. In my opinion (but won't go into it here) not Maddie in any case, but a happy, healthy and relaxed 4 yr old.

These trainers have never been seen on the twins in the many photographs taken after 3/5. Other trainers have however been seen in photos of the twins not long after the event.

The cleaner didn't know Maddie by sight and all she would have to go on would be the photographs released before she made her statement.

The crying imo was never Maddie on the 1st. They said the twins cried and then added Maddie and then finally gave the stage to Maddie alone so that this same stage could also contain an intruder on the Wednesday night who in some way had left a curious 'not a tea stain' on the pyjamas.

I do believe that if an accident happened, it happened very early in the holiday.

Ayniia wrote:If it was not for that awful airport shuttle video where Gerry says some foul words in front of the children and of course the dogs "evidence" , I wouldn't even believe Madeleine was ever in PDL!

j.rob wrote:

Ayniia wrote:If it was not for that awful airport shuttle video where Gerry says some foul words in front of the children and of course the dogs "evidence" , I wouldn't even believe Madeleine was ever in PDL!

Quite so. Where is the EVIDENCE that Madeleine McCann was in PDL? 

No DNA. Photos unreliable.

The sniffer dogs alerted to cadaver. But where is the evidence that the sniffer dogs alerted to the scent of Madeleine's dead body?

Confused.com!

j.rob wrote:I agree that the dog alerts are compelling and I agree that when you combine that with a child allegedly being 'abducted' when the story seems so obviously fabricated then the conclusion seems obvious.

But I find it incredibly confusing that there was NO DNA of Madeleine McCann - allegedly! - either in apartment 5a or anywhere else at Ocean Club so it would seem. To the extent that Gerry McCann had to return home to bring back an item with Madeleine's DNA.

I mean, this is just NUTS! Even allowing for the best clean-up job in the world in apartment 5A (assuming that is where Madeleine was - which of course may not be the case) there would be some DNA evidence from clothes, bedding, toys, tooth-brush (ahem!) hair-brush, THE KIDS' CLUB where she allegedly went every day right up to and including Thursday. Quite often children attending a kids' club will have their own water bottle and perhaps other items. Again, you would expect to find some DNA evidence of Madeleine attending the kids' club.

What about all the activities that Madeleine allegedly participated in that week? The mini-tennis, for instance? DNA on the tennis raquet or on tennis balls? What about the arts and crafts sessions or similar - children nearly always take back items to show their parents? Where is the evidence that Madeleine attended any of those sessions.

And no I do not count the photos released by the McCanns and their toadies which all look dodgy especially that alleged 'last photo' which is patently ridiculous as Madeleine is not holding tennis balls used for mini-tennis and is not standing on the type of tennis court used for mini-tennis. I assume the Ocean Club had a mini-tennis court for children and the children used equipment which was age-appropriate? Mini-tennis balls would be quite different to the type that Madeleine (if indeed it is her) is holding in that photo.

This case is just ridiculous in so many ways.

j.rob wrote:

tigger wrote:There is imo no proof either that she was seen on Sunday by the cleaning ladies. Her description of all three wearing the same kind of shoes, which had little pink lights along the soles is one reason:

These shoes are seen on the playground photo girl - allegedly taken on the Saturday. In my opinion (but won't go into it here) not Maddie in any case, but a happy, healthy and relaxed 4 yr old.

These trainers have never been seen on the twins in the many photographs taken after 3/5. Other trainers have however been seen in photos of the twins not long after the event.

The cleaner didn't know Maddie by sight and all she would have to go on would be the photographs released before she made her statement.

The crying imo was never Maddie on the 1st. They said the twins cried and then added Maddie and then finally gave the stage to Maddie alone so that this same stage could also contain an intruder on the Wednesday night who in some way had left a curious 'not a tea stain' on the pyjamas.

I do believe that if an accident happened, it happened very early in the holiday.


FROM HiDeHo

I don't think the trainers can be discounted to have been used by the twins.  They wore trainers on the airport bus vid.  The shoes Madeleine was wearing in the playground photo appears to have possibly have 'lights'

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

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

Regarding the validity of the cleaner.  She did not need to refer to a photo, she knew they were staying in the apartment that her mother cleaned and she describes them going upstairs to (the Paynes?) for lunch. Fatima would not have known that and yet it fits with the timeline of the statements.

To suggest it was another child is what I would consider a theory not based on fact and therefore speculation.

It is for this reason that I am fascinated by Kate's account of what they did after they arrived on Saturday. She claims that she went swimming with Madeleine in the freezing pool.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't know if this is true or not. I find the account slightly implausible as the pool was, by Kate's admission, freezing and Kate gives no account of what Gerry or the twins were doing. I would think that a nearly four year old would, at the very most, just jump in and then out of a freezing pool. Probably not even that but merely dip toes in.

Whether true or not, Kate writes in her book that both she and Madeleine were still shivering with cold at the welcome meeting later in the afternoon.

Also of note is that in one of the Crimewatch reconstructions the Madeleine lookalike is shown running across towards the pool wearing a costume and armbands. I wonder why this particular incident - whether it happened or not - was selected?

I just wonder why Kate includes this little cameo in her book? She always writes things for a reason.

SNIP

j.rob wrote:

Ayniia wrote:If it was not for that awful airport shuttle video where Gerry says some foul words in front of the children and of course the dogs "evidence" , I wouldn't even believe Madeleine was ever in PDL!

Quite so. Where is the EVIDENCE that Madeleine McCann was in PDL? 

No DNA. Photos unreliable.

The sniffer dogs alerted to cadaver. But where is the evidence that the sniffer dogs alerted to the scent of Madeleine's dead body?

Confused.com!

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

HiDeHo wrote:

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
'Kate washed the Cuddle Cat five days after Madeleine disappeared, saying it was smeared with sand and sun cream.
Philomena said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. Police sources questioned Kate's decision to wash the toy so soon.
A former Scotland Yard detective said: "It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do."


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


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

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

'As a result of the investigations that have been made by own account after he was removed from the case, Gonçalo Amaral does not dismiss the possibility that the said blanket was used as a funeral blanket in a secret funerary ceremony made in the church of Luz, sustaining that illation in depositions from sources that he believes to be credible, between them, the one of Father José Manuel Pacheco from the Luz chapel'

HiDeHo wrote:Back on topic...


Can ANYONE show me reasonable proof that Catriona saw Madeleine at High Tea?

Catriona does not mention Madeleine specifically in either her original statement or her rogatory statement...Only that the twins and Kate were there..

Who's statement does Goncalo Amaral use to establish Maddie was last seen at 5.30pm? (According to the investigation)


Goncalo Amaral makes it clear that it was NOT his opinion. It was the opinion of the investigation (based on early statements)




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



Catriona EARLY Statement:

Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:



I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. 



ROGATORY statement Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)





'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. '

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The little girl’s happy afternoon was described by Miguel Matias, the owner of the beachside restaurant Paraiso, overlooking the sea in the resort town.
He said she enjoyed an early evening meal with her father, mother Kate and younger twin brother and sister, two-year-old’s Sean and Amelie.
They were joined by several friends and their children as they sat on outdoor tables at the restaurant.
"It was a perfectly normal, relaxed, happy, family scene," said Mr Matias. "The little girl was even dancing on the esplanade with her dad to the sound of music that was playing."
The restaurateur said he was stunned when he realised it was Madeleine who was missing.
"We couldn’t believe it when we found out what had happened because nothing we saw gave any hint of the coming tragedy," he said. "We didn’t see anyone suspicious looking at the girl or the people on the other tables.
"Nor did we see anything out of the ordinary between the families and the children."
After Madeleine disappeared, Mr Matias realised he was one of the last people to see the little girl.
He contacted the Portuguese police and handed over CCTV footage of the family spending their last few happy hours at his restaurant.

HiDeHo wrote:

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
'Kate washed the Cuddle Cat five days after Madeleine disappeared, saying it was smeared with sand and sun cream.

So Kate destroys potentially vital forensics as it is quite possible that Madeleine's 'abductor' would have had to remove Cuddle Cat from her grasp in order to lift Madeleine out of her bed. Or at least might have placed the cuddly toy to one side. Why would Kate want to destroy any chance of getting finger-prints or DNA from the alleged 'abductor'?


Philomena said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. Police sources questioned Kate's decision to wash the toy so soon.
A former Scotland Yard detective said: "It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do."

Indeed. Why would a mother want to do this? Especially as it could have provided vital clues as to the identity of Madeleine's 'abductor'? (Ahem!)


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


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

So powers within Mark Warner got in contact British Ambassador in Portugal and two British diplomats "turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns" according to Detective Amaral. This gave the McCanns' a window of opportunity to hand over clothes belonging to the whole family including Madeleine to the OC laundry worker. Amaral admits this was a mistake and this only happened because of the intervention of Mark Warner and the British Embassy!

This is quite astonishing because again it destroys vital forensics. Even if - as the family allege - Madeleine had been stolen by a person or persons unknown - the 'abductor' might well have left traces of DNA on the twins, say. Or picked up items of clothing or bedding belonging to Madeleine. 

In any event IF YOU THOUGHT A PAEDOPHILE HAD STOLEN MADELEINE FROM HER BED WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU DESTROY POTENTIALLY VITAL FORENSICS FROM MADELEINE AND THE TWINS' BEDDING? Forensics that might provide vital clues as to what had happened and also clues as to whether the twins had been interfered with?

I can only think of one reason why the parents would do this. Only one.

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

j.rob wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Moonbathed skin wrote:Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but do we know exactly when KM washed cuddle cat? What other things she washed? And were they all washed at the same time?

I'm trying to grasp the timeline between the items washed, the broken washing machine and the request for something of MBM's for DNA purposes.  I'm hoping this is not off topic as it would certainly clear a couple of queries in my mind as to when Maddie was last alive and well.   Also was something given to the police the night Maddie disappeared so dogs could follow her scent?  

Sorry again if this off topic, please move to where is appropriate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
'Kate washed the Cuddle Cat five days after Madeleine disappeared, saying it was smeared with sand and sun cream.

So Kate destroys potentially vital forensics as it is quite possible that Madeleine's 'abductor' would have had to remove Cuddle Cat from her grasp in order to lift Madeleine out of her bed. Or at least might have placed the cuddly toy to one side. Why would Kate want to destroy any chance of getting finger-prints or DNA from the alleged 'abductor'?


Philomena said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. Police sources questioned Kate's decision to wash the toy so soon.
A former Scotland Yard detective said: "It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do."

Indeed. Why would a mother want to do this? Especially as it could have provided vital clues as to the identity of Madeleine's 'abductor'? (Ahem!)


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


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

So powers within Mark Warner got in contact British Ambassador in Portugal and two British diplomats "turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns" according to Detective Amaral. This gave the McCanns' a window of opportunity to hand over clothes belonging to the whole family including Madeleine to the OC laundry worker. Amaral admits this was a mistake and this only happened because of the intervention of Mark Warner and the British Embassy!

This is quite astonishing because again it destroys vital forensics. Even if - as the family allege - Madeleine had been stolen by a person or persons unknown - the 'abductor' might well have left traces of DNA on the twins, say. Or picked up items of clothing or bedding belonging to Madeleine. 

In any event IF YOU THOUGHT A PAEDOPHILE HAD STOLEN MADELEINE FROM HER BED WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU DESTROY POTENTIALLY VITAL FORENSICS FROM MADELEINE AND THE TWINS' BEDDING? Forensics that might provide vital clues as to what had happened and also clues as to whether the twins had been interfered with?

I can only think of one reason why the parents would do this. Only one.

Processos Vol III

Pages 560 -561

Witness statement

Vera María Mestre Fernandes Arez


Date: 2007/05/08

Occupation: Laundry Worker


Place of Work: Ocean Club

She has worked at the Ocean Club for six years with the function of cleaner in the rooms and apartments of Waterside Village and for the last 4 years her function is laundry worker. Her working hours are from 09.30 to 13.00 and from 14.30 to 18.00. The laundry, her place of work, is situated in the Ocean Club Gardens.

That as laundry worker her functions are to wash, dry all the linen from the rooms and apartments (sheets, towels and clothes from some of the clients) and from the Ocean Club restaurants (towels). All the laundry work takes place in the laundry where she works with three colleagues.

That she knows about the situation that occurred in the Ocean Club since 04/05/2007 at 09.30 as she was informed by a colleague from the laundry that a child had disappeared.

That she does not know the circumstances in which the girl disappeared only having heard about it in the press and from colleagues.

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl’s family and she checked that it was children’s and adult’s clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl’s apartment.


That before that no clothing from the missing girl’s family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.

That she never had any contact with the family or with the missing girl as she never leaves the laundry except to have lunch.

That she did not notice anything strange on 03/05/2007. She did not notice anything strange on the days preceding this date and does not have any information about the disappearance.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

Given that Kate herself in her book suggests that 'the abductor' may have tried to abduct one of the children the previous evening - Wednesday - but fled presumably when Madeleine and Sean are supposed to have woken up and cried (according to Kate) then it is even more extraordinary that clothing and bedding was washed. 


These might have provided vital clues as to whether 'the abductor' had, in fact, drugged the children and what else he might have done.


Kate states in her book that she thinks it is possible that 'the abductor' may have tried to drug Madeleine and the twins not just on Thursday night (she states that the twins are sleeping unnaturally heavily to the extent she checks for signs of life) but might also have tried to have drugged them on Wednesday night too. She states that she found a large brown stain on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top  which she couldn't account for.


Again, the bedding from Madeleine's bed might have provided vital clues as to whether she had been drugged and also other clues. Ditto bedding and night clothes from the twins' cots.


There can really only be one explanation why this wasn't done.


And fully sanctioned by the British Ambassor if you please!


Interesting to know a bit more about Mark Warner's role in this. While I understand it is probably standard to contact the British embassy when a 'disaster' has occurred abroad, surely it is not the role of the embassy to interfere with a police investigation into a major crime? It would appear that the finger of suspicion needed to be kept away from the McCanns (at least initially) at all costs.


But why? The million dollar question I suppose.