Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

A week before.....

Give or take a few days for reporting error, perhaps the cavalry were sent for right away.

Arse covering and self preservation on an unprecedented scale. Collateral damage no object.

IMO

Carrry On Doctor wrote:A week before.....

Give or take a few days for reporting error, perhaps the cavalry were sent for right away.

Or perhaps, to bring the imagery bang up-to-date..

...more like an SAS mission - you know, preparing the way for 'boots on the ground' to arrive in force on Friday 4 May

I just want to say to Tony, HiDeHo and all those that have worked so hard locating many earlier discrepancies, that I'm certain that contained within this valuable research is the missing piece of the jigsaw.  I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work, and to let you know that I do not take any of it for granted.

Verdi wrote:MISSING - Monday 30th April 2007

I'm very interested to know the source of information reported by the UK press in May 2007 about the McCanns alleged trip to Sagres...

The Telegraph - By Richard Edwards and Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz   12:01AM BST 12th May 2007

ABDUCTORS COULD HAVE SPIED ON GIRL FOR DAYS

Police were last night investigating whether Madeleine McCann was watched by her abductors three days before she was snatched.

Detectives have discovered that the McCann family went to the town of Sagres, on the southern tip of the Algarve, on April 30.

A witness has told police that on the same day he saw a suspicious man following families and photographing children, including his daughter, a blonde girl "strikingly similar" to Madeleine...

[SNIPPED]

@ Verdi    I have just read and digested the whole thread and will answer your question, having previously not noted it - sorry.
 
But first let me endorse what 'pennylane' and others have said, namely what an informative thread this is, especially if you watch all the many videos that 'Hideho' has posted on the thread. 

And thank you @ HideHo for sharing your research and your prompt and informative responses - excellent.

(One thing I did note by the way was that it appears you and I both share two questionable tendencies    1. Using 10 words where 4 would do, and 2. multicoloured posts. Maybe this is a sign of genius. But probably more likely to be a fault. I apologise in advance for any offence caused)

Back to Verdi

I will summarise the sequence of events as I see them briefly, but first please note:
(1) that I have fully addressed this issue in my Wojchiech Krokowski articles on CMOMM, and
(2) whereas Lourenco in his statement says that his child was nearly kidnapped on Sunday 29th, in the article you refer to he gives the date as Monday 30th.

Possible sequence of events:

A. Something bad happens to Madeleine Sunday/Monday
B. Abduction plan put in place
C. Jane Tanner briefed to describe an imaginary abductor looking exactly like Krokowski 
D. Nuno Lourenco briefed to describe an imaginary abductor looking exactly like Krokowski  
E. May 4 - Jane Tanner describes Tannerman
F. May 5 - Lournenco describes attempted kidnapping of his child by a man - gives Amaral's men a photo of Krokowsli's hired car
G. May 5 - Amaral's and his team say: "Wow! these descriptions sound identical! Visit Lourenco immediately!" (see Amaral's book)    
H. Later on 5 May - Wojchiech Krokowski identified as the alleged kidnapper (see Amaral's book)
I. Wild goose chase by INTERPOL, German & Polish Police, Krokowksi found, appears to have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance (again see Amaral's book)...
J. (now the bit you've been waiting for...)

...unsourced stories appearing in British newspapers 11th & 12 May - clearly placed IMO by the McCann Team - about a fictional visit of the McCanns to Sagres on the Monday (or Sunday), for which there is no evidence.

There were several British newspapers that carried an almost identical story on Friday 11th and Saturday 12 May.

They all linked the alleged 'kidnapper paedophile' on the beach in Sagres with an alleged visit of the McCann family to Sagres the same day.

This story suggested in the minds of millions of British newspaper readers that the paedophile saw Madeleine and then followed the McCann family and plotted to abduct her.

The story was a huge boost to the abduction claim.

In my honest, humble opinion, and based on all the evidence I've examined over the past 8 years:

1. The alleged kidnapping of Lourenco's child never happened - FABRICATED
2. Jane Tanner did not see anyone - FABRICATED
3. The McCanns never went to Sagres any day that week - FABRICATED         
        
+++++++++++

P.S. @ NickE   Thank you very much indeed for informing us that...

...RESONATE...
...a subsidiary of Bell Pottinger...
...went to the Ocean Club on behalf of Mark Warner in the days before Madeleine was reported missing...
...for no obvious reason...
...then 'brought in' parent company Bell Pottinger as soon as Madeleine was reported missing...
...whose top man Alex Woolfall, Head of Risks and Crisis Management...
...flew into Praia da Luz the following day...
...and immediately set about checking the memory cards of Gerry & Kate McCann's Canon Camera...
...and preparing a CD of photos from them...
...of grainy black-and-white images of no use to the PJ...
...which did NOT include the 'Last Photo'...
...and that while all that was going on...
...RESONATE was having cosy meetings with the British Ambassador...

How very convenient that RESONATE were already in place before 3rd May!

@TB


An elaborate tissue of lies that would require meeting after meeting to plan. Little wonder there is no time for family photos !

Thanks pennylane for you complimentary posts I see and sometimes dont relply to.  They are much appreciated :)

Just one thought regarding this thread...

I have laid out easily ALL of the witness statements that claim to have seen Madeleine but I have shown do not show PROOF she was seen.

This does not form a theory...any more than pointing out the discrepancies started on Tuesday.

I DO NOT HAVE A THEORY... I merely have a conclusion from the facts I see in the files...

Discrepancies (that appear to be covering something up)  started on Tuesday... (WHY?)

Not one sighting of Madeleine after Sunday lunchtime appears to be PROOF that Madeleine was seen during the week...WHY?


I look at those two issues and have therefore concluded it may be possible that something happened to Madeleine after AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME (the last time she was seen) and BEFORE  TUESDAY MORNING (when discrepancies appear to be in place to cover up something happening)

It's quite a simple logical conclusion.


As far as I have seen, NOT ONE person has shown me anything to dispute what I have posted.  WHY?

I'm looking for ANYONE to explain to me why each and every one of the discrepancies started on Tuesday and show me ONE witness statement that PROVES (within reason) that Madeleine was seen during the week...

I have been very specific so claims of 'there can't be that many' does not suffice... PLEASE SHOW ME ONE SIGHTING THAT IS CREDIBLE!

I have done all the work in many threads in my ref forums, below is one thread... Please show me where my claim is incorrect

I have issued that challenge for a few years....Nothing to date has changed..



I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SIGHTING OF MADELEINE AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME OR A REASON WHY THE DISCREPANCIES (TO COVER SOMETHING UP) STARTED TUESDAY MORNING



Title: Summary of Witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine

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





JUST TO ADD... THIS ISN'T ABOUT TRYING TO PROVE I AM RIGHT.  IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO FIND OUT THE LAST DAY  THAT MADELEINE WAS STILL ENJOYING HER HOLIDAY.

I don't need to be right, I want the truth and if someone can show me there is a good likelihood that she WAS seen during the week I will change my conclusion.

Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.  
 

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.



My own belief is that GA would not have said this if there were any doubts as it's a vital part of the initial investigation to establish when Maddie was last seen.  I know some say 'we know a lot more now,' however, my feeling is that GA is the one who knows a lot more than we do, and is one smart cookie.  Just saying.....

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.   
 
Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.

Kazlux should ask him in 2015 to look in depth at Hideho's analyses of (1) the 'high tea' event and (2) the apparent lack of credible, independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday, and, in the words of Scotland's new national anthem, ask him to 'Think Again'

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.  
 

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.



My own belief is that GA would not have said this if there were any doubts as it's a vital part of the initial investigation to establish when Maddie was last seen.  I know some say 'we know a lot more now,' however, my feeling is that GA is the one who knows a lot more than we do, and is one smart cookie.  Just saying.....

 You are absolutely correct pennylane and certainly IS something that I have taken into consideration.

What we DON'T know is what he based his information on.

Goncalo was the coordinator of the case and not the man on the ground interviewing.  He would recive the information from his officers.

Some of the nannies statements claimed to have seen Maddie during the week as well as a general statement from Catriona that she was there all week.

She was signed in an out every day and all of the information and statements points to her being there.

The investigation had no reason at that point to suspect she wasn't there, and even if they DID suspect anything was not credible, they cannot claim it in public unless it is proved to be wrong.

Once the rogatory interviews were in place, many things started to become questionable. Not because of memory but for many other reasons.

The police (after Goncalo was the coordinator) asked many questions that would have no relevance if something did not happen until that night.

Many of the witnesses were asked if they saw the McCanns in a car during the week...

Rachel claimed the LAST TIME she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis, but she claimed it was THURSDAY morning, but that was the Sharks that were playing, the lobsters played on TUESDAY.  Was Tuesday the last time she saw Madeleine?  

The police QUESTIONED Rachael and asked her WHICH COURT they played on...WHY?  Rachael responded with the incorrect answer, but whether Tuesday or Thursday they questioned her and that shuld not have been relevant if nothing happened until THURSDAY even ing...

Gerry started receiving the first of text messages, (which he deleted and denied) at 8am Wednesday morning.  These messages were so important to the investigation that they applied to SUPREME court about a month before the shelving to try to get info on these messages.  They were refused, but if nothing happened until Thursday night WHY would these text messages be of such importance from Wednesday morning? 

Goncalo Amaral claimed in his documentary, while pointing to Madeleine's bed that it didn't look like it had been slept in.  Goncalo Amaral knew the cleaner had made the bed Wednesday morning, so was he suggesting she hadn't slept in it since Tuesday night?


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


There are other indications also about discrepancies DURING the week that the police had questioned.


I have no idea what Goncalo based his knowledge on and whether it was his opinion or based on the investigation 'facts' (that hadn't been proven)  my effort is not to prove him wrong...


I am just asking for ANY indication that could be considered PROOF she was seen...

Also, any reason the discrepancies started to happen on Tuesday

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.   
 
Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.

Kazlux should ask him in 2015 to look in depth at Hideho's analyses of (1) the 'high tea' event and (2) the apparent lack of credible, independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday, and, in the words of Scotland's new national anthem, ask him to 'Think Again'

 
Perhaps so, or alternatively if we knew everything Goncalo Amaral knows we may need to think again!

HiDeHo wrote:

pennylane wrote:Good work HdH

If I may start with what Goncalo Amaral told Kazlux directly when asked in person whilst launching his book in Amersterdam on 5th May 2009.  
 

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.



My own belief is that GA would not have said this if there were any doubts as it's a vital part of the initial investigation to establish when Maddie was last seen.  I know some say 'we know a lot more now,' however, my feeling is that GA is the one who knows a lot more than we do, and is one smart cookie.  Just saying.....

 You are absolutely correct pennylane and certainly IS something that I have taken into consideration.

What we DON'T know is what he based his information on.

Goncalo was the coordinator of the case and not the man on the ground interviewing.  He would recive the information from his officers.

Some of the nannies statements claimed to have seen Maddie during the week as well as a general statement from Catriona that she was there all week.

She was signed in an out every day and all of the information and statements points to her being there.

The investigation had no reason at that point to suspect she wasn't there, and even if they DID suspect anything was not credible, they cannot claim it in public unless it is proved to be wrong.

Once the rogatory interviews were in place, many things started to become questionable. Not because of memory but for many other reasons.

The police (after Goncalo was the coordinator) asked many questions that would have no relevance if something did not happen until that night.

Many of the witnesses were asked if they saw the McCanns in a car during the week...

Rachel claimed the LAST TIME she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis, but she claimed it was THURSDAY morning, but that was the Sharks that were playing, the lobsters played on TUESDAY.  Was Tuesday the last time she saw Madeleine?  

The police QUESTIONED Rachael and asked her WHICH COURT they played on...WHY?  Rachael responded with the incorrect answer, but whether Tuesday or Thursday they questioned her and that shuld not have been relevant if nothing happened until THURSDAY even ing...

Gerry started receiving the first of text messages, (which he deleted and denied) at 8am Wednesday morning.  These messages were so important to the investigation that they applied to SUPREME court about a month before the shelving to try to get info on these messages.  They were refused, but if nothing happened until Thursday night WHY would these text messages be of such importance from Wednesday morning? 

Goncalo Amaral claimed in his documentary, while pointing to Madeleine's bed that it didn't look like it had been slept in.  Goncalo Amaral knew the cleaner had made the bed Wednesday morning, so was he suggesting she hadn't slept in it since Tuesday night?


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


There are other indications also about discrepancies DURING the week that the police had questioned.


I have no idea what Goncalo based his knowledge on and whether it was his opinion or based on the investigation 'facts' (that hadn't been proven)  my effort is not to prove him wrong...


I am just asking for ANY indication that could be considered PROOF she was seen...

Also, any reason the discrepancies started to happen on Tuesday

Thank you HiDeHo 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  In fact I would say you have hit on something else that was going on, that is perhaps the reason the McCanns got all their protection?  I'm just not comfortable believing so many are lying, not credible, or mistaken re M being alive that week. I still feel she met her demise on 3rd and there was last minute panic and shambolic backfitting, and I cannot shake that feeling off whenever I go back over the events of that evening.

pennylane wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  In fact I would say you have hit on something else that was going on, that is perhaps the reason the McCanns got all their protection?  I'm just not comfortable believing so many are lying, not credible, or mistaken. I still feel M died on 3rd and there was last minute panic and shambolic backfitting, and I cannot shake that feeling off whenever I go back over the events of that evening.

I understand, so I will repost all of the statements in individual messages to make it easier to quote if anyone disagrees

I'm just very curious, which of the statements in this thread that anyone disagrees with?

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

Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada Profession: Cleaner Saw Madeleine and family outside 5A heading for lunch at Paynes Sunday CREDIBLE

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Date : 2007: 05: 08

Name: Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada

Profession: Cleaner
She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance in the company of her siblings and mother and father, although in the latter case she only observed him from a distance.


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.


After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine’s family who were staying in 5 A.


REASON FOR CONSIDERING CREDIBLE:

The timing was credible for the family to be heading up to the Payne's apartment and having plates and bread in hand suggested 'lunch at the Payne's' which Fatima would have had NO knowledge about.

She is describing a scenario, which is credible for Sunday lunchtime according to the statements of the T9.

The family went to the Paynes for lunch one day.

Madeleine's shoes appear to be designed with possibility of having lights.


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

pennylane wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  In fact I would say you have hit on something else that was going on, that is perhaps the reason the McCanns got all their protection?  I'm just not comfortable believing so many are lying, not credible, or mistaken re M being alive that week...

Here's one very important 'sighting' of Madeleine that week which looks like it was certainly mistaken, and not credible.

We haven't spent any time looking at it, though IIRC HideHo might have referred to it briefly way up the thread.

It's a sighting that IMO deserves much much more attention than it has had so far.

It's the one by Luisa Anade Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho - one of the Ocean Club receptionists:    
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] *

Here's what she says:

QUOTE

She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the individuals of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30.

When questioned, she confirms that the man was not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was often seen in his company.

The man justified his request by saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave alone when they went to dine. She said that at intervals some two parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK.

UNQUOTE

Some say that this account only makes sense if the individual concerened was Dr Russell O'Brien - and the girl with him was not Madeleine but his own daughter, Ella.

Ella was said to look very much like Madeleine.  

Luisa Ana Coutinho, along with other witnesses, was probably shown a photograph of Madeleine - in order to identify her - which was one of those circulating in the early days, maybe the 'First Photo', so probably only 'recognised' this girl as Madeleine from the photographs of her being circulated.

This has led a number of people, very understandably, to suggest that a number of the claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine that week were actually of Ella, and not of Madeleine at all.


* acknowledgement to pamalam  

Catriona Baker -  Does not mention seeing Madeleine at high tea on 3rd May, when collected by Kate -  Credibility? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Credibility of witness not confirmed (questionable creche records and invitation and trip to Rothley in November after which her Rogatory statement has many 'issues' imo)

  

Catriona May 5th 2007 wrote:
FIRST STATEMENT MAY 5th 2007

She clarifies that her functions include the need to create the weekly activities’ plan for the children that are under her care, namely the outdoors activities, like sailing, swimming, tennis, and beach and garden visits.


When asked she specifies that when looking after children of the missing girl’s age group, each nanny is responsible for approximately seven children, who remain under the care of the same nanny during the whole week.


When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service.


She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.


When asked she says that since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were friendly and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child’s outdoor activities.


With regard to the little girl, she states that she was a quite active and sociable child, who nevertheless paid most of her attention to the children of her own group (Lobster Team).


She says that only on the first day she was more reluctant to remain in that [word is missing]


She further says that during the time lapse that Madeleine remained under her care, at no time did the little girl seem sad or unsatisfied, having made no comments whatsoever about being angry, sad about anyone or unhappy with anything.



She also says that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers.


It was always Madeleine’s parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the “Minis”.

JANE TANNER describes her daughter's personality wrote:

4078 “And how would you describe Madeleine?”

Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because,

probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Exxxx and Madeleine would get

on, because Exxxx’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know

whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing

As I say, Exxxx, in her nature, is a

bit more, you know, quiet and, erm, a bit more probably reserved. Well, again, I

don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.

4078 “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”

Reply “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the

centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader,

but she would be at the centre of it, so”.

Very interesting Hi-di-ho. What do you think of kiko's 'sub' theory? The analysis of the creche signatures does seem to suggest that the same person - Gerry? - signed in Madeleine (McCann, allegedly) and another child with the surname Naylor? Yet there is no mention in Kate's book of Madeleine playing with a girl with this surname?

I completely agree about there being very little evidence of Madeleine being around later in the week. I don't trust the photos, especially 'the last photo'. But I don't trust the playground photo either - and you can'teven see Madeleine's face in that one so it could easily have been another child who looked similar.

As you say, can Catriona be considered reliable seeing as she met up with the Mcs following the holiday? Who knows what was said at that meeting?

ETA: some of the most important eye witnesses would have been the children attending the kids' clubs that week, especially, obviously, Madeleine McCann's group which I do believe included her friend Ella. Surely Ella would have known when Madeleine was there and when she wasn't? And wouldn't mistake her for another child? And what about the Payne's daughter who travelled on the plane with Madeleine? She would remember too. And some parents - including Nigel from Southampton for instance - will have photographs and video-footage of their children taking part in activities that week at the kids' clubs. The kids' clubs themselves may even have asked permission to take photos. I remember on a MW holiday I went on with young children, a photographer recorded a sporting competition at the end of the week and we were all given (or paid for, I can't remember) copies. I still have them to this day! One showing only my child and the other showing the group. No wonder TM were asking holiday makers for send them copies of their photos from that week! Vital photographic 'evidence' would be on them.

AS A REMINDER

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT JANE TANNER'S DAUGHTER E**A WAS MISTAKEN FOR MADDIE?

Madeleine and Jane Tanner's daughter were similar in appearance and there was only three months difference in age.

Jane describes her daughter as very shy. If one looks at the graphics for Madeleine's personality it is odd that ONLY Ocean Club staff describe Maddie as shy, timid etc. ie E**a's personality! COULD THEY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN?

------------------

This is Jane's description from her rogatory interview...

4078 “And how would you describe Madeleine?”

Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because,probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Exxxx and Madeleine would get on, because Exxxx’s quite SHY and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing

As I say, Exxxx, in her nature, is a bit more, you know, QUIET and, erm, a bit more probably RESERVED. Well, again, I don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.

4078 “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”

Reply “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the
centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader,
but she would be at the centre of it, so”.


UPDATE:

What is important is that we KNOW one of the T7 children were mistaken for Maddie..so the suggestion she may have been mistaken by others is very credible and real.  


 Miguel Matias of the Paraiso was CONVINCED he saw Maddie at the restaurant. We KNOW she was not there as per the CCTV footage.

'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.


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



These are the descriptions of Madeleine's Personality.  Can anyone explain why ONLY the OC staff describe a child that is more like Jane Tanner's daughter's personality?


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



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



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



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

jrob

Regarding kiko's superb research, I am afraid I cannot comment as it was not an area or research for me.

I did, however, notice the curiosity of only one child being signed in/out on Tuesday (Maddie and E**a) but both parents attending (the possibility only E**a was signed but both Gerry and Russell appeared in person)

I believe it is earlier on this thread.  I will try to find it.

I found it in the DISCREPANCIES thread on page 12

HiDeHoLooking at all the discrepancies starting by Tuesday, and no PROOF of Maddie being seen after Sunday lunchtime, I look at Tuesday as a possible 'damage control' day.

Maddie needed to be seen attending the creche.

We know that the records were nothing similar to daily records kept in a school, where each child is marked present...

These records seem to be used to have contact information for the parents if needed.  Many activities were outside of the creche room and the children were dropped off and picked up randomly throughout the day...

There is nothing to confirm that a child arrives at the door and the nannies welcome them and check as the registers are filled out by the parents...

Personally I do not subscribe to a 'substitute' child but I DO believe it possible that Catriona was confused and maybe only the Tanner's daughter was attending  (OC staff describe a child that was shy etc, similar to the personality of E**a)

IF only ONE child went to the creche (Maddie and E**a)  but both parents arrived and only ONE signed the child in and out, would the nanny be fully aware?

As I often claim, I do NOT believe Catriona was knowingly deceptive.  She had a week looking after a similar looking  child she knew as Ella (if Maddie had only been there for a day eg) and when the disappearance happened and she was TOLD she had been looking after Madeleine, I feel that it is possible she was intimidated to second guess herself and wonder if she had been calling Maddie 'Ella' all week but it must have been Maddie as she was told she was looking after Maddie.  (Not sure if that is clear)

Anyway... Looking at the creche records for Tuesday (for starters) Both Maddie and E**a were signed in...

Gerry walked with Jez and Russell to pick up their children at 12.20pm.  ONLY ONE CHILD is signed out... Maddie (Russell does not sign E**a out)

They BOTH arrive to pick up ONE child at the same time...

In the afternoon, we 'know' that Kate and Gerry took the children to the beach for Ice Creams...

They return back to the creche IN TIME FOR MADDIE TO GO TO A TRIP TO THE BEACH FOR ICE CREAMS!

More curiously, their arrival was random from the beach BUT E**a was signed in at the same time by CAT NANNY (did Russell and Gerry arrive at the same time but only one child booked in and Catriona filled in later?)

Only ONE CHILD booked in by parents in the afternoon...

At 5.30pm once again, only ONE CHILD was booked out in the afternoon (E**a)


This could account for why Catriona knew Gerry, BOTH Russell and Gerry arrived at the same time but only ONE CHILD was booked out each time...

Just a thought...  I do not like putting theories out there without a basis...

I have come up with the possibility of something happening to Maddie before Tuesday...

This is merely a possible explanation how it could have gone undetected (remember at that point the creche staff and Nannies were not aware of any impending importance on the activities etc.)

It is for each of you, individually,  to look at the possibility that this may have some significance....



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

I agree that the creche records for Tuesday & Wednesday are interesting, but I'd like to question your point about the beach trip on Tuesday 1st May. 

It's almost certain the beach trip, if it occurred at all, was on Monday not Tuesday. Kate's book strongly suggests it was Tuesday, but the creche records indicate it must have been Monday.

DaTroof wrote:I agree that the creche records for Tuesday & Wednesday are interesting, but I'd like to question your point about the beach trip on Tuesday 1st May. 

It's almost certain the beach trip, if it occurred at all, was on Monday not Tuesday. Kate's book strongly suggests it was Tuesday, but the creche records indicate it must have been Monday.

I'm not sure what you mean by my point about the beach trip.  Arriving back at the same time as E**a was signed in?

Personally I'm not sure a beach trip ever happened, whether Monday or Tuesday

It seemed to exist for a few reasons...

FIVE ice creams (suggesting there were 5 of them on TUESDAY (or whichever day)

An elaborate description of a guitarist (a suspect maybe?)

An opportunity to buy the sunglasses used on THURSDAY for the last pic (to prove it was taken AFTER Tuesday?

The use of buggies when they (apparently) didnt have any for breakfast trips.


I'm not sure why we are supposed to think it was Monday (not saying you are wrong but based on what?)

Maria M A Jose -  saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant. -  Mistaken Identity (child she refers to went to creche next to tapas, maybe Lilly?)

Maria M A Jose - 

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

saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant. - Was mistaken and probably saw Lilly at the creche next to the Tapas

[size=10]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 [size=12]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 crèche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.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

Another example of mistakenly thinking that one of the other tapas children was Madeleine?
[/size][/size]


REASON TO QUESTION -  Maria the cook mentions Madeleine being at the creche next to the tapas during the day.  Madeleine did not attend that creche.  Madeleine's creche was 10 minutes away in the main reception building.  NO PROOF IT WAS MADELEINE SHE WAS DESCRIBING

I have been posting one, by one the witnesses that CLAIM they saw Madeleine and posting on a new message each time for anyone that disputes to quote and add their comments.

I think you can see that so far, witnesses that many people have believed saw Madeleine are being shown to have probably been incorrect.

Does anyone disagree with the witnesses I have posted so far?

FATIMA
CATRIONA
MARIA (tapas cook)
JERONIMO (Waiter)
CECILIA (Millenium hostess for breakfast)

@Tony Bennett wrote:  I have just read and digested the whole thread and will answer your question, having previously not noted it - sorry.
 

Blimey are you in a time warp - who can remember that far back?

If you're hinting that I'm not paying attention to everything that's ever been posted on this forum then you're dead right - guilty as charged.  As you say, your posts and those of HiDeHo are somewhat lengthy so take a lot of concentration - as I've got the attention span of a languishing amoeba I admit to perhaps being a trifle inattentive at times.  This is not a criticism of your joint excellent work, it's an admission of my own faults - believe me there's a lot of them!

I take your point about the press report being a possible set up to reinforce the abduction theory but I've always leaned more towards the idea that the McCanns were in the vicinity of Sagres on 30th April, unlikely as it may appear, hence my reference to the creche records i.e. the twins being signed in the Jellyfish club but Madeleine absent from the Lobsters for best part of the afternoon and of course the spotlight on the Burgau apartment block.

I will try to find the time to take another look at the thread you mention .

Verdi wrote: I've always leaned more towards the idea that the McCanns were in the vicinity of Sagres on 30th April...  [SNIPPED]

There's absolutely zero evidence for this, @ Verdi - apart from that flurry of news reports on 11th and 12th May, probably inspired by Team McCann, which put in the minds of the British public that a paedophile had seen Madeleine on  the beach at Sagres.

Neither the creche records nor the account of Monday given by Kate McCann in her book, 'madeleine' mention a visit to Sagres on Monday 30 April, or at any other time.   

Yet the McCann-inspired newspaper articles insisted they were there on 30 April.

Go figure!

(Clue: Smoke...

...and Mirrors).

It really doesn't help us to believe any of these tales when Nuno Lourenco swore that his daughter was nearly captured on Sunday, while the McCann-inspired news stories placed Lourenco and the McCann there on the Monday.

Both stories were immense successes though.

Lourenco's story sent the police on a wild goose chase to Berlin and Warsaw...

...while the 'paedophile-and-McCanns-at-Sagres' invention was the first in a long, long line of tales of abductors, paedophiles, gypsies, sightings, suspects, e-fits, burglars, smelly bin-men' 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries', the like of which the world has never ever seen before, nor is ever likely to do so, as long as the world lasts

HiDeHo wrote:I have been posting one, by one the witnesses that CLAIM they saw Madeleine and posting on a new message each time for anyone that disputes to quote and add their comments.

I think you can see that so far, witnesses that many people have believed saw Madeleine are being shown to have probably been incorrect.

Does anyone disagree with the witnesses I have posted so far?

FATIMA
CATRIONA
MARIA (tapas cook)
JERONIMO (Waiter)
CECILIA (Millenium hostess for breakfast)

I haven't seen so much as a shred of conclusive evidence that Madeleine was seen during the entire week, I'm not even convinced by Fatima for reasons previously stated.

Pay no heed to vicious vulgar foul mouthed stalkers (hiding away in their own little domain that refuses to publish comments) that have nothing better to do with their time than discredit anyone trying to uncover the truth behind MBM's disappearance - they are not worth the time or energy.  Unlike some, to your credit, you do at least invite criticism and/or welcome opposing points of view so you can't be accused of trying to manipulate opinion or being the ultimate authority on all things McCann.  Pity others can't learn from you!

Rant over!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote: I've always leaned more towards the idea that the McCanns were in the vicinity of Sagres on 30th April...  [SNIPPED]

There's absolutely zero evidence for this, @ Verdi - apart from that flurry of news reports on 11th and 12th May, probably inspired by Team McCann, which put in the minds of the British public that a paedophile had seen Madeleine on  the beach at Sagres.

Neither the creche records nor the account of Monday given by Kate McCann in her book, 'madeleine' mention a visit to Sagres on Monday 30 April, or at any other time.   

Yet the McCann-inspired newspaper articles insisted they were there on 30 April.

Go figure!

(Clue: Smoke...

...and Mirrors).

It really doesn't help us to believe any of these tales when Nuno Lourenco swore that his daughter was nearly captured on Sunday, while the McCann-inspired news stories placed Lourenco and the McCann there on the Monday.

Both stories were immense successes though.

Lourenco's story sent the police on a wild goose chase to Berlin and Warsaw...

...while the 'paedophile-and-McCanns-at-Sagres' invention was the first in a long, long line of tales of abductors, paedophiles, gypsies, sightings, suspects, e-fits, burglars, smelly bin-men' 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries', the like of which the world has never ever seen before, nor is ever likely to do so, as long as the world lasts

As I said, I take your point and I know there is no evidence to suggest the McCanns being at Sagres on 30th April.  I was considering the paedophile angle but obviously from a different view point - all concentrated around the Burgau apartment block and the Murat connection.  Thinking out loud -no evidence - just a hunch.

Beach trip Monday based on creche records. Maddie & twins return to creche late Monday pm i.e. after trip to beach

DaTroof wrote:Beach trip Monday based on creche records. Maddie & twins return to creche late Monday pm i.e. after trip to beach

This s a very strange post indeed. Are you seriously suggesting that the McCanns and all the children went to Sagres on Monday 30 April?

This is the Lobster creche record that day:

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

If correct, it shows Madeleine being picked up from the crèche at lunchtime at 12.10pm and returned there at 3.15pm.

Are you suggesting that this crèche record is accurate?

If yes, are you suggesting that the McCanns went to Sagres between 12.10pm and 3.15pm?

If you answer 'Yes' to that, then there's another set of quesriosn. How did they make the 16-mile journey there?

By 'bus?

By car?

Whose car?