Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by pennylane 04.12.15 14:06

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

Just a couple of quick points re your above post:

Processo Volume II, pages 253 to 257
Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker
Childcare Worker
Time/Date: 18H36 2007/05/06
Officer responsible: Raquel Neves, Inspector

On the matter of the case said:

The informant is heard as a witness.

Concerning 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).

----------------------------
Catriona doesn't speak Portuguese so they would have had to show her the statement in English for her to confirm accuracy. I have read your original in Portuguese, and I assume something got lost in translation in the Portuguese version, because I can't see the need to lie about such a thing.

Also re another point you made.... Catriona said they 'didn't have contact with anyone else on the beach,' and not that there wasn't anyone else on the beach, iykwim.

by j.rob 04.12.15 14:20

Some of the best eye-witnesses would be the children who were at Ocean Club that week, especially the twins and the Tapas children and especially Ella O'Brien who, it is claimed, played with Madeleine that week at the kids' club.

by pennylane 04.12.15 14:43

@ HiDeHo, perhaps you can help me as Tony hasn't arrive yet, and I'm interested to here your views. I remain of the opinion Catriona is telling the truth, and some of the phrases are being taken out of context. roses

Obviously Catriona Baker guided this reconstruction with two Inspectors, Manuel Pinho and Joao Barreras, and took them through the strategic events and movements upon leaving the resort with the children in the direction of the beach, etc; and it begins and ends with her recollection of events, and she (as Maddie's nanny) has confirmed Maddie was alive and present.

I admit I don't understand the dinghy/sailing thing as I've never witnessed this event, but with that many children it is clear there would have to be two infant educators present surely. It appears on the 3/5/07 Alice sailed with 3 children in a yellow catamaran. Chris Unsworth ferried the children to the catamaran, so a nanny would have had to go with them and one stay on the beach, and then the second nanny would go with the remaining children surely?

What are your thoughts please?

by Carrry On Doctor 04.12.15 15:08

j.rob wrote:
snipped

Very interesting! So IF something happened to Madeleine McCann earlier in the week and there was a need to cover this up then WHO was Ella O'Brien playing with that week if not Madeleine McCann?

According to Dewi Lennard (Kikoratton)......it was probably Elizabeth Naylor.

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

[list="stream-items js-navigable-stream"]
[*][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[ltr]@kikoratton[/ltr]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Now we all agree that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] took Elizabeth to creche 6 times, WHEN ARE THE DOCILE PRESS GOING TO CHALLENGE HIM ABOUT IT?

[*]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[ltr]@kikoratton[/ltr]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
>>>line of attendance records. The distinctive "A", the "L", practically all the figures are identical. Gerry did it!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[*][list="expanded-conversation expansion-container js-expansion-container js-navigable-stream"]
[*]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[ltr]@kikoratton[/ltr]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
No possible doubt that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] took Elizabeth Naylor to Lobsters and signed for her. Compare with his signing of "Madeleine" in adjacent>>>
[/list]

[/list]

by skyrocket 04.12.15 15:13

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

In the 6 May statement the term used is 'meninos' and in the Rogatory translation back into Portuguese from English the translator has used 'rapazes' instead. Both mean 'boys'/'lads', as a rule. It is possible, as you say, that there was a mis-translation initially on the 6 May but the translator was our old friend Robert Murat, who if nothing else is fluent in both languages and would have been unlikely to have made the mistake. That's one of the big problems/concerns with all the translating backwards and forwards. Who knows!

Anyway, whether 'boys' or 'children' is the original intended word, the point still stands in that Cat Baker stated on 6 May that MBM either paid most attention to the 'boys' or the 'children' of her group (both plural) and no mention of Madeleine focusing her attention on only Ella O'Brien, infact no mention of Ella at all. That was my point really - that Ella, as MBM's focus of attention, only seems to have come into the picture in the Rogatory in April 2008.

I just wondered why Cat Baker seems to stress 3 times MBM + Ella, as a pair i.e. is she trying to get across to the police/convince them that - 'I have always been sure about the identity of MBM (and Ella); I knew before the disappearance which was which; both were present at the same time throughout the week'?

Re: the point made in the Beach Outing Statement, quote:

'All said that the children did not meet anyone else during their time at the beach, nor during the trip to it'.

I appreciate that doesn't mean there wasn't anyone else on the beach, infact Jane Tanner says there were others but only a few. Again, I was making a comparison between the May statements and the 2008 Rogatory where Cat Baker does bring in the 'fact' that she saw Fiona and David Payne that morning on the beach. Wonder why she mentioned the Paynes and not Ella's parents; perhaps she just didn't see the mountainous Russell O'Brien in his wetsuit or Jane Tanner, who you would have thought she would have recognised far more easily than the Payne's (as she had no involvement with their 2 younger children Lily and Scarlet).

Just seems like several new and convenient additions to Cat Baker's Rogatory that didn't appear in her original statements (post the visit to Rothley remember - not that I'm suggesting anything). Does it cast doubt on her credibility as a witness - I would say it has to be considered.

by kaz 04.12.15 15:15

...................I find this a truly extraordinary question for 'kaz' to ask..''

The reason I asked the question is not because I do not find Fatima's statement credible .................I actually think it's very credible. It's just the timing issue . Madeleine was seen going to the Payne's apartment for lunch around 13.15. I accept she could already be wearing the pinkish clothes but I'm sure somebody would have had to fetch the sun hats from the apartment before making their way down to the pool. Despite the fact that I think that's a pretty hurried lunch bearing in mind the number of children present I accept it's all doable timewise . They then make their way down to the pool where the picture is taken at 2.29 . Within 16 minutes Madeleine is ensconced in the crèche ( 14.45) and according to the crèche records within 6 minutes of the photo being taken the twins were signed into the crèche .( 14.35 ) How did they manage that?

by pennylane 04.12.15 15:34

skyrocket wrote:Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the 6 May statement the term used is 'meninos' and in the Rogatory translation back into Portuguese from English the translator has used 'rapazes' instead. Both mean 'boys'/'lads', as a rule. It is possible, as you say, that there was a mis-translation initially on the 6 May but the translator was our old friend Robert Murat, who if nothing else is fluent in both languages and would have been unlikely to have made the mistake. That's one of the big problems/concerns with all the translating backwards and forwards. Who knows!

Anyway, whether 'boys' or 'children' is the original intended word, the point still stands in that Cat Baker stated on 6 May that MBM either paid most attention to the 'boys' or the 'children' of her group (both plural) and no mention of Madeleine focusing her attention on only Ella O'Brien, infact no mention of Ella at all. That was my point really - that Ella, as MBM's focus of attention, only seems to have come into the picture in the Rogatory in April 2008.

I just wondered why Cat Baker seems to stress 3 times MBM + Ella, as a pair i.e. is she trying to get across to the police/convince them that - 'I have always been sure about the identity of MBM (and Ella); I knew before the disappearance which was which; both were present at the same time throughout the week'?

Re: the point made in the Beach Outing Statement, quote:

'All said that the children did not meet anyone else during their time at the beach, nor during the trip to it'.

I appreciate that doesn't mean there wasn't anyone else on the beach, infact Jane Tanner says there were others but only a few. Again, I was making a comparison between the May statements and the 2008 Rogatory where Cat Baker does bring in the 'fact' that she saw Fiona and David Payne that morning on the beach. Wonder why she mentioned the Paynes and not Ella's parents; perhaps she just didn't see the mountainous Russell O'Brien in his wetsuit or Jane Tanner, who you would have thought she would have recognised far more easily than the Payne's (as she had no involvement with their 2 younger children Lily and Scarlet).

Just seems like several new and convenient additions to Cat Baker's Rogatory that didn't appear in her original statements (post the visit to Rothley remember - not that I'm suggesting anything). Does it cast doubt on her credibility as a witness - I would say it has to be considered.

Thank you for your reply skyrocket. Yes all very good questions you have asked, and like you I wouldn't be surprised if young Cat was schmoozed during her visit to Rothley, but I still don't believe back in the days immediately following Maddie's disappearance she would say little Maddie was alive if she was dead, others feel differently I realise.

by j.rob 04.12.15 15:57

If those signatures are indeed those of Gerry McCann then he is signing in Elizabeth Naylor along with a child that is allegedly his daughter Madeleine McCann. But if, as theorized by some, something bad had already happened to Madeleine by Monday, maybe even by Sunday then this child could not be Madeleine McCann.

So who is she? I know the 'sub theory' suggests that it is EN's friend MR who Gerry was signing in as Madeleine McCann.

If this was indeed the case surely this points towards some pre-planning? Was it really just a coincidence that there happened to be another Madalene (albeit with a name spelt slightly differently?)

by kaz 04.12.15 15:59

j.rob wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Madeleine isn't wearing a dress in the Last Photo.

She has shorts and a top on.

According to Kate in her book on Thursday lunchtime when the 'last photo' was allegedly taken, Madeleine was wearing 'a peach coloured smock top' from Gap and 'white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon.' No mention of what she was wearing on her feet.

I suppose that one could argue that a 'smock top' is a bit like a 'smock dress' and therefore could also be worn without shorts or leggings underneath. But in this case Madeleine is wearing it like a top rather than a dress.

So surely if this 'last photo' was taken at Sunday lunchtime and if the cleaner really did see Madeleine on Sunday then she should have been wearing a skirt, not a smock-top and shorts? And you might expect to see Madeleine's trainers with the flashing soles next to her at the pool side as she would have had to take them off before dangling her legs into the (freezing cold) water?

Well AFTER THE PHOTO SHOOT they managed to :
1. Dry Amelie's and Madeleine's feet off ( no sign of a towel)
2. Retrieve Amelie's and Madeleine's shoes/ sandals from wherever they were ( no sign of any shoes)
3. Retrieve Sean from wherever he was ( no sign of Sean )
4. Dry off Gerry's feet, retrieve his shoes and get them on ( he signed the twins in )
...............and STILL manage to get the twins signed into the crèche 6 minutes later. WOW! This of course if the photo WAS taken on Sunday which as it happens I believe it was.

by Carrry On Doctor 04.12.15 16:14

IMO there will be many people who perhaps didn't see MBM, but were led to believe they did at the time, and subsequently influenced by strong suggestion afterwards. Their sympathy for the parents would have unquestionably conditioned their thinking to try and help. This then makes them extremely vulnerable to accepting events, presented in a certain way, verbatim.

I dont see the death of a child being common knowledge, and therefore it is likely that those outwith the inner sanctum of knowledge were being 'played', including perhaps Robert Murat.

This is a very productive thread.......I think we are currently unravelling the efforts of cunning and influence, person(s) who has duped so many. All in the name of winning and self preservation.

Lance Armstrongs protege.

IMO

by skyrocket 04.12.15 16:30

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

I know the feeling - I think that's the huge dilemma many find themselves in, including myself I hasten to add. If you go for 3 May then it makes everything far simpler (Occams Razor principle) and there's no need to question the morals of so many who, at the end of the day, would appear to be just very ordinary everyday people caught up in the middle of something which was not of their making. BUT, and that is a massive big but, as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], amongst others, champions in an extremely persuasive way there is no getting away from all the anomalies starting earlier in the week. When I have an idea and I start reading part of the files, within minutes i've hopped across several different entries and the more i read the more my lips purse, my forehead furrows and my head shakes. Every time. Every single time - things just don't seem to add up for the 3 May. I totally accept that others like yourself go for the 3rd and I'm sure for good reasons. Hopefully one day the whole horrible business (because it is horrible) will be fully resolved - I have no preferences for the outcome other than it is the genuine truth.

On a lighter note, is it too early to wish everyone Merry Christmas and all the best for 2016? I've been decorating our tree and I'm feeling a bit festive, so i'll go ahead and send my good wishes anyway.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 16:33

kaz wrote:
j.rob wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Madeleine isn't wearing a dress in the Last Photo.

She has shorts and a top on.

REPLY: I have already pointed out that the British media have routinely described Madeleine in this 'Last Photo' as 'wearing a pink dress'.

According to Kate in her book on Thursday lunchtime when the 'last photo' was allegedly taken, Madeleine was wearing 'a peach coloured smock top' from Gap and 'white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon.' No mention of what she was wearing on her feet.

REPLY: I have already pointed out that the British media have routinely described Madeleine in this 'Last Photo' as 'wearing a pink dress'.

I suppose that one could argue that a 'smock top' is a bit like a 'smock dress' and therefore could also be worn without shorts or leggings underneath. But in this case Madeleine is wearing it like a top rather than a dress.

REPLY: I have already pointed out that the British media have routinely described Madeleine in this 'Last Photo' as 'wearing a pink dress'.

So surely if this 'last photo' was taken at Sunday lunchtime and if the cleaner really did see Madeleine on Sunday then she should have been wearing a skirt, not a smock-top and shorts?

REPLY: I have already pointed out that the British media have routinely described Madeleine in this 'Last Photo' as 'wearing a pink dress'.

And you might expect to see Madeleine's trainers with the flashing soles next to her at the pool side as she would have had to take them off before dangling her legs into the (freezing cold) water?

REPLY: We first have to determine whether any of their legs were 'dangling into the cold water'. Were they? How far below the patio surface was the water. do we actually know?
Well AFTER THE PHOTO SHOOT they managed to :
1. Dry Amelie's and Madeleine's feet off ( no sign of a towel)
2. Retrieve Amelie's and Madeleine's shoes/ sandals from wherever they were ( no sign of any shoes)
3. Retrieve Sean from wherever he was ( no sign of Sean )
4. Dry off Gerry's feet, retrieve his shoes and get them on ( he signed the twins in )
....and STILL manage to get the twins signed into the crèche 6 minutes later. WOW! This of course if the photo WAS taken on Sunday which as it happens I believe it was.

REPLY @ kaz

First, see above. We do not know if their legs were 'dangling into the water'.

Second, your post above is based on these premises:

(1) that the Last Photo was definitely taken at 2.29pm on Sunday 29 April 3and
(2) that the crèche records accurately record Madeleine as having been signed in definitely at 2.35pm.

I do not for one moment accept these as 100% accurate timings, and I am quite sure that neither do you.

So quite why you make an issue of the McCanns doing all that you say 'within 6 minutes' is a mystery to me.

Third, let me assume for one moment that they all did have their feet dipped in the pool (and for the purposes of this thread, that has NOT yet been proved, then in answer to your points 1 to 4 I would suggest the following simple solution:

1. Kate took the photo
2. Sean was near her
3. Out of shot, possibly on a sun lounger, were shoes and towels etc.

Very simple.

To which I might add that as a keen photographer, I am always keen to remove 'clutter' from shots of people. The photographer in question had her back to the sun. Maybe she said "Sit over there and I'll take a photo of you all". Simple as that.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 16:42

Carrry On Doctor wrote:...it is likely that those outwith the inner sanctum of knowledge were being 'played', including perhaps Robert Murat...

REPLY: I am not sure that I could ever regard Robert Murat as being 'played' after he...

* Told 17 distinct lies about his movements between 1 and 4 May in Praia da Luz
* Was warned by an inspector about his conduct as a translator after (a) sneaking a look at confidential police documents in the police station (b) pumping the inspector about what was happening in the investigation and (c) constantly suggesting new lines of enquiry to them, and
* Only admitted to his 17 lies after the PJ confronted him with evidence from the antennae his mobile phone had connected him to betwen 1 & 4 May which demonstrated that he had comprehensively lied to the police

by kaz 04.12.15 17:07

TB WROTE:
REPLY @ kaz

First, see above. We do not know if their legs were 'dangling into the water'.

Second, your post above is based on these premises:

(1) that the Last Photo was definitely taken at 2.29pm on Sunday 29 April 3and
(2) that the crèche records accurately record Madeleine as having been signed in definitely at 2.35pm.

I do not for one moment accept these as 100% accurate timings, and I am quite sure that neither do you.

So quite why you make an issue of the McCanns doing all that you say 'within 6 minutes' is a mystery to me

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

Well yes of course I take the timings as reasonably accurate. Playing around with the numbers just to fit a personal theory is a silly game. If you are going to discredit one crèche timing you might as well discredit the lot and simply guess the numbers!! . If the photo was taken on the Sunday at 2.29 I maintain it would be nearby impossible to gather the children together and get the twins to the crèche within 6 minutes.....................that's why I make an issue of it. Granted we do not know for certain whether they had wet feet or not but even so six minutes is just not credible. If we are to believe Fatima's timing and for the reasons you have given on earlier posts, I do, one has to ask oneself:
1. Was the photo actually taken on Sunday or was it in fact later in the week as the McCanns state?
2. If the photo WAS taken on Sunday, has it been tampered with to show subject(s) who weren't actually present? Since Madeleine is signed in at 14.45 this DOES give them time ( 16 minutes ) to get her there from the pool. but not the twins.
3. There is confusion about the time the photograph was taken but if we take the earlier time , then Fariba's sighting doesn't fit.

It's very unusual for you to get things wrong Tony but I never said Madeleine was signed in at 2.35. I said the crèche records showed the TWINS were signed in at 2.35 and Madeleine at 2.45.

by j.rob 04.12.15 17:28

Carrry On Doctor wrote:IMO there will be many people who perhaps didn't see MBM, but were led to believe they did at the time, and subsequently influenced by strong suggestion afterwards. Their sympathy for the parents would have unquestionably conditioned their thinking to try and help. This then makes them extremely vulnerable to accepting events, presented in a certain way, verbatim.

I dont see the death of a child being common knowledge, and therefore it is likely that those outwith the inner sanctum of knowledge were being 'played', including perhaps Robert Murat.

This is a very productive thread.......I think we are currently unravelling the efforts of cunning and influence, person(s) who has duped so many. All in the name of winning and self preservation.

Lance Armstrongs protege.

IMO

Well we KNOW where Russell and Kate (and possibly other TM members) AND some of their children (!!) were on Thursday late morning because we have this account from one of Russell's police statements. Given that there is no reason to suppose that Nigel from Southampton is not being truthful then I would say this is pretty incriminating. I had missed the bit about TM children being there too! Given that Nigel's daughter is presumably playing mini-tennis with her kid's club group, this would mean that this encounter took place during a time when TM children would have been in their respective creches/kid's clubs surely? bomb

I will dig out the creche sheets to see if all the TM children were signed in to creches and kid's clubs on Thursday morning.

The timings here would pretty much have to be accurate as TM would realize that Nigel would very likely make a statement to police - given the nature of the encounter - and therefore would know that if they gave the wrong day or time it would be obvious they were lying. Ditto a different place.

What is hilarious, imo, is that they would also know that if they lied about what was going on it would also be obvious if police compared their version of events with Nigel's version of events.

However, in this particular statement, even allowing for 'lost in translation' it is perfectly clear what was going on and why Nigel approached members of TM. I presume Russell is being questioned after Nigel has spoken to police and so he is obliged to answer questions in a certain vein. Notice how Russell is unable to deny that Nigel came up to them and told them that their filming (of his daughter) in that way was making him uncomfortable. However, in utter desperation, Russell denies seeing a video-recorder!

Ha! Caught red-handed, imo.

In later statements Russell 'sanitizes' this event and places the video-recorder in Nigel's hands. Kate does the same in her book. Both claiming that Nigel told them he felt like a 'dirty old man' filming his own child.

This has always struck me as an absurd statement. And if you read the account below you might understand why TM were FORCED to come up with such a ridiculous version of 'the truth'. Also, since when did a conversation about paedophiles become something of 'no importance' or something 'trivial'. This is minimization in the extreme!

Given that Madeleine and Ella's mini-tennis was on Tuesday, why on earth would Madeleine's mother and Russell want to take photos of someone else's child playing tennis on Thursday?? Completely illogical. And of course we have that weird 'tennis ball' photo allegedly taken by Kate on Tuesday in which Madeleine is not wearing her trainers.

This is so incriminating for the McCanns. I'd love to see Nigel's witness statement!

• The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL—a British individual, married, and with a daughter of ¾ years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and “the state to which the world has come”. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate.

ETA: I suppose there is some ambiguity in: "They were filming his daughter, with a video camera," as it could refer to Russell and the group filming Russell's daughter. But then how could that be if Russell denied seeing anyone with a video camera. The police questioning trapped him, imo. Nevertheless, was this the day that Russell's daughter's kid's club group played mini-tennis?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 17:34

kaz wrote:TB WROTE:

REPLY @ kaz

First... [SNIPPED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well yes of course I take the timings as reasonably accurate. Playing around with the numbers just to fit a personal theory is a silly game. If you are going to discredit one crèche timing

REPLY: Discredit one crèche timing???

Here is a list of 19 separate problems with the crèche records, compiled IIRC by HideHo:

1. Cat Baker for some reason starts entering the words ‘Cat nanny’ on the crèche sheets from Monday 1st May.
2. The morning and afternoon creche records should have been on two separate sheets. There were in the other groups. Yet the Lobster group records were kept on one sheet instead of two.
3. The Portuguese Police in July 2008 issued a DVD with nearly all the witness statements and documents on them. However, they withheld the creche records for the group in which the McCanns ‘ twins were placed for the morning of Sunday 29th April. That could be because there was incriminating evidence on them.
4. The Portuguese Police also withheld the twins’ crèche records fr the morning of Thursday 3rd May.
5. Nanny Charlotte Pennington is missing from the list of crèche staff given to the Portuguese police by Donna Hall of Mark Warner on the 4th.
6. Nanny Stacey Portz claimed that Gerry Mccann signed the twins in on the afternoon of 3rd, but the crèche sheet says that Kate McCann did.
7. Stacey Portz claimed that Kate McCann collected the twins on the morning of the 3rd, but Fiona Payne gave evidence that Gerry McCann did this.
8. The signatures of parent Robert Naylor are significantly different every day.
9. Robert Naylor enters the wrong room number for his room every day.
10.  Russell O’Brien enters ‘Emma’ instead of ‘Ella’ for his daughter on the 1st May.
11. Russell O’Brien enters the wrong room number (5B) for his room (which was 5D) on Monday 30th April.
12.  Russell O’Brien enters 5B again, but then changes it to 5D, twice on Wednesday 2nd May.
13.  Russell O’Brien enters ‘R O’Brien’, instead of his daughter’s name, on the same afternoon.
14.  On enlarging the McCann & Naylor signatures, there are several identical writing styles starting from the 29th, suggesting at the very least that one.parent might have signed in more than one child.
15.  On Monday 30th April, Madeleine is mysteriously signed in at 3.15pm and then out again just 15 minutes later at 3.30pm by Kate McCann.
16. Kate McCann’s signatures on Madeleine’s Lobster creche record on the same day look different from those on the twins’ Jellyfish creche record.
17. For some reason Kate signs herself ‘KM Healy’ instead of ‘K McCann’ on one occasion - on Wednesday 2^nd18. Kate McCann does not sign Madeleine into the Lobsters group at all on Tuesday 1st May
19. For some reason, the Portuguese Police’s final report does not mention Sinead Vine, the twins’ carer almost every day, but only Stacey Portz.

Surely to goodness Kaz you don't accept these crèche records as accurate?

Do you????

It's very unusual for you to get things wrong Tony but I never said Madeleine was signed in at 2.35. I said the crèche records showed the TWINS were signed in at 2.35 and Madeleine at 2.45.

REPLY: Yes, yes, very well spotted. But it makes no difference to our discussion, as your point remains unchanged - for the purpose of this discussion you assume that 2.29pm and 2.35pm are times fixed in stone! If I've understood you correct, you suggest that the McCanns altered the date of the photo from 3 May to 29 April yet in the same breath you contend that we must accept the 2.29pm time as the truth!!!

Playing around with the numbers just to fit a personal theory is a silly game.

REPLY: Quite right too, Kaz, so don't mess around here by pretending that we must accept both timings (2.29 and 2.35) as 100% accurate. That's playing games to suit your argument.

Isn't it?

by j.rob 04.12.15 17:57

I would suggest that if Nigel saw Russell and Kate (and some of their children) filming Nigel's daughter's mini-tennis session on Thursday morning this is pretty much proof that Kate did not take that photo of Madeleine playing mini-tennis with her group on Tuesday 1st May. If Kate could have produced a more convincing photo or video-footage of her daughter playing mini tennis that week surely she would have done? A photo or film showing Madeleine in trainers and also holding the type of ball that is used for mini-tennis rather than tennis balls used by adults. And, again, on a mini-tennis court rather than an adult sized one. And also a photo or film which might include some of the other children, or at least might have included her friend Ella.

I suggest Kate did not produce a more convincing photo because she did not have one!

Kate writes that Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session during Gerry's tennis lesson on Tuesday morning. This leads me to believe something had already happened to Madeleine by then and there was a need to be deceptive about where Madeleine really was by Tuesday morning.

ETA: are the mini tennis courts at OC adjoining to adult courts?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 18:02

FURTHER REPLIES TO KAZ

If the photo was taken on the Sunday at 2.29

REPLY: Precisely. IF it was taken at 2.29pm

I maintain it would be nearby impossible to gather the children together and get the twins to the crèche within 6 minutes...

REPLY: You may be right. But you are making a double assumption:
(1) That 2.29pam is dead right for the photo AN
(2) That 2.35pm is dead right for the time of arrival at the creche

Granted we do not know for certain whether they had wet feet or not

REPLY: We need to establish this – or rather, you do fir the purposes of your argument

If we are to believe Fatima's timing and for the reasons you have given on earlier posts, I do

REPLY: Good. I think nearly all of us are agreed on that

One has to ask oneself:
1. Was the photo actually taken on Sunday or was it in fact later in the week as the McCanns state?

REPLY: You have already asserted twice on this thread that in your view it was taken on the Sunday. If either or both of the 2.29 or 2.35 timings is wrong, then the difficulties you have put up about ‘getting read in a hurry to get the twins to the creche simply disappear

One has to ask oneself:
2. If the photo WAS taken on Sunday, has it been tampered with to show subject(s) who weren't actually present? Since Madeleine is signed in at 14.45 this DOES give them time (16 minutes) to get her there from the pool, but not the twins

REPLY: On the Last Photo threads we have overwhelming evidence from top experts and others with relevant photographic experience to show that the photo has not been tampered with. As you well know.

One has to ask oneself:
3. There is confusion about the time the photograph was taken but if we take the earlier time, then Fatima's sighting doesn't fit.

REPLY: We are back to your assumption that the photo must have been taken at either 1.29pm or 2.29pm. Since you have twice accepted that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday not Thursday, why are you so insistent hat it must have been taken at either exactly 1.29pm or exactly 2.29pm. It doesn’t make any sense

by kaz 04.12.15 18:04

I really don't have 'an argument.' Like everyone else on here ( hopefully ) I just look for discrepancies in times and statements etc. I absolutely agree that the crèche records were a total shambles but I've no reason to disbelieve the times shown. A parent would most likely glance at a clock on the wall or watch on a wrist and write down the time. The timing of 14.35 is there for a reason. It doesn't square with the pool photo being taken on Sunday.( Even if the photo had been taken on the Thursday it's impossible to check all the creche times since the twins' record is missing) . Do you have an alternative time for the photo shoot or an alternative day? If one disregards SOME aspects and accepts others at will any scenario can be conjured up so yes, I do try and work with the dates and times given. You could say , completely disregard ALL the crèche records, ALL the photos and ALL the statements or just choose the ones you find credible but what good is that?

by j.rob 04.12.15 18:24

If the cleaner's description of what Madeleine was wearing on Sunday is accurate, and she was wearing a skirt, then that points away from the 'last photo' having been taken on Sunday. In the 'last photo' she is definitely not wearing a skirt. We don't know what she had on her feet because her feet are in water but there are no signs of any trainers and/or socks nearby which you might expect.

Of course she could have changed out of the skirt that the cleaner saw her in at 1.15pm on Sunday and changed into that outfit.

But why?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 18:27

kaz wrote: I absolutely agree that the crèche records were a total shambles but I've no reason to disbelieve the times shown. A parent would most likely glance at a clock on the wall or watch on a wrist and write down the time.

REPLY: You accept (as you are bound to) that the crèche records are 'a total shambles', yet you say the times are 100% accurate? I see. Or rather, I don't see.

The timing of 14.35 is there for a reason.

REPLY: You can say that again.

It doesn't square with the pool photo being taken on Sunday.

REPLY: This is mere repetition of your argument that we must take the times of 2.29pm and 2.35pm as 'gospel'.

(Even if the photo had been taken on the Thursday it's impossible to check all the creche times since the twins' record is missing).

REPLY: Noted.

Do you have an alternative time for the photo shoot or an alternative day?

REPLY: he sun was at its zenith that time of year on the Algarve at 1.35pm. The shadows are very short indeed, and as the experts have noted, they are consistent with no sign of photoshopping. On that basis, I suggest the photo is most likely to have been taken between around 12.35pm to 2.35pm but possible a few minutes earlier or later. The evidences for the Last Photo having been taken on the Sunday remain, in my view, compelling

If one disregards SOME aspects and accepts others at will any scenario can be conjured up

REPLY: No. Not any scenario

Yes, I do try and work with the dates and times given.

REPLY: Even though the crèche records are 'a total shambles'?
Look, we have three timings given here:
1. Fatima sees McCanns around 1.15pm
2. Last photo (you say) taken at exactly 2.29pm
3. Twins back at crèche (you say) at exactly 2.35pm
4. PLUS you say (without proof so far) that they all had to dry their feet and put their shoes back on.

Your entire argument depends on points (2), (3) and (4) all being correct

You could say, completely disregard ALL the crèche records, ALL the photos and ALL the statements or just choose the ones you find credible but what good is that?

REPLY: Sorry to say this, Kaz, but what a pitiful argument that is. You can do much better than that

by j.rob 04.12.15 18:42

But the 'last photo' shows Gerry, Madeleine and Amelie with their legs dangling into the water. So the normal thing would be to want to dry your feet especially given that the water was freezing that week. This would be an instinctive thing to do if small children have dipped their feet in cold water.

Also, I thought the weather was supposed to be pretty bad all week until Thursday when it was sunnier?

In at least one of the rogatories one of TM state that Thursday was the first day the sun came out?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 18:45

j.rob wrote:If the cleaner's description of what Madeleine was wearing on Sunday is accurate, and she was wearing a skirt, then that points away from the 'last photo' having been taken on Sunday. In the 'last photo' she is definitely not wearing a skirt.

This is a very poor argument indeed for claiming that Fatima's evidence conflicts with claims that the 'Last Photo' was not taken on the Sunday.

Asked to describe what a girl or woman was wearing, one of the main things you would be most likely to remember would be whether she was wearing either:

A. trouser/jeans/slacks, OR

B. A skirt or dress.

Fatima has remembered (B). Moreover, we don't know what Portuguese word she used for 'skirt'.

Moreover, to repeat myself, I noted how the British press habitually referred, when describing the photo, to 'Madeleine's pink dress'.

Here are Fatima's actual (translated) words:

"As regards the clothes she [Madeleine] was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description..."

If I understand j.rob's argument correctly, it boils down to this:

"Aha! Aha! The cleaner said she remembers a skirt. But, aha! it wasn't a skirt, was it? It was a smock top! So there, that points away from the 'Last Photo' having been taken on Sunday, doesn't it?"

Sorry, @ j. rob, I don't find that point at all convincing

by Carrry On Doctor 04.12.15 18:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:...it is likely that those outwith the inner sanctum of knowledge were being 'played', including perhaps Robert Murat...
REPLY: I am not sure that I could ever regard Robert Murat as being 'played' after he...

* Told 17 distinct lies about his movements between 1 and 4 May in Praia da Luz
* Was warned by an inspector about his conduct as a translator after (a) sneaking a look at confidential police documents in the police station (b) pumping the inspector about what was happening in the investigation and (c) constantly suggesting new lines of enquiry to them, and
* Only admitted to his 17 lies after the PJ confronted him with evidence from the antennae his mobile phone had connected him to betwen 1 & 4 May which demonstrated that he had comprehensively lied to the police

Agreed Tony, I should have put it better regarding RM........

I would simply question how much of the full story RM was given. It seems abundantly clear he was summoned to assist TM's, but we don't know the extent of his knowledge in doing so, or indeed the specifics of his remit.

Apologies for going off topic.....I didn't intend to detract from an enthralling thread.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 19:00

j.rob wrote:But the 'last photo' shows Gerry, Madeleine and Amelie with their legs dangling into the water.

REPLY: You may be right. But does the Last Photo prove that?  Can you show me a 'Last Photo' that proves that?

Also, I thought the weather was supposed to be pretty bad all week until Thursday when it was sunnier?

REPLY: No, you need to do your homework a lot better and perhaps should go on a revision course. You've probably been spending too much time as 'poster' over on MMM. Spend a bit more time over here, look at the Last Photo threads again as a refresher, and there you will find the following information:

Saturday and Sunday - very sunny (see the 3 playground photos and the Last Photo)
Monday - weather began to change - cooler, cloudier, windier
Tuesday - rained (the day the ice creams and sunglasses were bought)
Wednesday and Thursday - continuing cooler, louder and unseltled

In at least one of the rogatories one of TM state that Thursday was the first day the sun came out?

REPLY: Well, can you find it for us please? - I don't remember that.

But if I can perhaps save you the bother of finding it, maybe you'll find these comments on Thursday's weather from the Tapas 7 helpful:

McCanns’ friend Dr Matthew Oldfield:

“In the evenings it was very cold”

His wife Rachael Oldfield:

“It was really cold in the evenings”

Dr David Paynes:

“It was really quite cold some nights and you know perhaps too cold to be sat outside”

while his wife Fiona Payne says about Thursday

“It was still very cold”

Fiona’s mother, Dianne Webster, said

“…when they were brought up into their apartment and they would have had to come out into the cold…”

Dr Russell O’Brien says

“The nights were really quite chilly”,

Jane Tanner complained of the cold that evening and made an issue of collecting her partner’s thick jumper or fleece for him during the evening.

And  Kate McCann herself said of the weather on Thursday:

''It was, I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable.''

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 19:03

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Apologies for going off topic.....I didn't intend to detract from an enthralling thread.

No need to apologise at all!

I don't like anyone to forget Murat's 17 lies - and you presented me with what in football terms was an 'open goal' to remind people about them all thumbup

by Mother bear 04.12.15 22:53

Hi, I'm new here. I have followed this case for years now. I just want to ask if any one remembers " the Wayback machine" didn't that also suggest something happened earlier?
But we were all told " move on, move on nothing to see here"

by Guest 04.12.15 23:24

I'm bumping this I posted on another thread as nobody corrected me or offered any tangible explanation to the points raised..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: I was shocked to realise that Sunday lunchtime when the cleaners daughter saw them outside their apartment is the ONLY credible 'proof' that Maddie was seen during that week.

Can I ask why you consider the witness testimony of the cleaners daughter to be the ONLY credible 'proof' that Madeleine was seen during that week? Seems to me that this particular witness statement is also riddle with inconsistencies...

1. Her statement was taken on 8th May 2007, wherein she claims to be sure she saw Madeleine McCann leaving apartment 5a because of the many photographs of the child circulated beforehand. What photographs? [Edit - where were these photographs circulated?]

2. She claims to have seen Kate with Madeleine and the twins leave the apartment clutching pieces of bread and maybe plastic plates (sounds a bit Dickensian - but that aside) and take a stairway leading to the floor above. [Edit - according to David Payne's rogatory interview they, the Paynes, needed to a lot of shopping because of their regularly entertaining their friends at lunch and it was handy having Dianne Webster around to do all the food preparation]. At this stage her statement would imply that she was observing from within the apartment block as there doesn't appear to be an external stairway linking one floor to another. [Edit - even if there is, she must have been skulking about outside 5A to have witnessed everything she says].

3. She goes on to say she only observed the father (Gerry McCann I assume) from a distance. Just how much distance is there between apartment 5a and the stairway leading to the floor above? She observed Kate and the children from a distance of about one metre yet she only observed Gerry from a distance? Then she says that only moments later Gerry left the apartment and also headed for the apartment upstairs? If she was only a metre away from KM and the children, how come she first said she only saw the father at a distance?

3. She later says that she thinks her mother only cleaned the apartments in that block (5) on Monday and Wednesday - but here she speaks of Sunday?

4. Finally and most importantly - She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April. 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...

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

If cleaning apartment I [Edit - or was situated in], how could she have seen the McCann family leave apartment 5a either from the inside or out, towards a stairway to an upper floor?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.15 23:42

Mother bear wrote:Hi, I'm new here. I have followed this case for years now. I just want to ask if any one remembers "the Wayback machine" - didn't that also suggest something happened earlier?
But we were all told "move on, move on nothing to see here"

Good evening - and welcome.

It was claimed that the Wayback Machine 'proved' that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre had prepared a dummy page about Madeleine three days before Madeleine was reported missing. That - unlikely as it might seem - would of course be consistent with something very serious having happened to Madeleine (if it did).

The matter was argued out with vigour on this forum and in other places, but no agreement was reached.

I would venture to suggest, however, that the stronger of the two arguments was from those who argued - producing examples - that such an apparent 'proof' could arise from a number of types of innocent 'mistakes', 'glitches' or 'programming errors'.

I am not a tecchie so maybe am putting this badly.

by Mother bear 04.12.15 23:50

Good evening Tony. I'm sorry I was trying to be funny about the " Wayback machine" I read every page with anticipated breath hoping they had finally been rumbled. I just could not remember the outcome it went for that long. Thank you for the clarification.