Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.12.15 0:23

Verdi wrote:REPLY: Goodness, I find myself in the very unlikely situation of trying to defend a statement I believe to credible and true from accusations by another poster that it may be fabricated. I shall press on, pausing @ Verdi to re-number your points, as you had two 'number 3' points. For reference I have added Fatima's full statement below.

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?]

REPLY: The 'First Photo' to be widely distributed, first amongst Ocean Club guests and later placed on posters etc. around the village during those first few days was I think this one:

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

The following pic became generally available I believe on Saturday 5 May when it was published in some British newspapers:

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

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].

REPLY: I had not considered whether Fatima had been walking to where her mother was cleaning inside, or outside of the apartment block. However, in the photo you have helpfully provided below, I notice what to me seems like an external staircase between the letters marked 'A' and 'B' on that photographs.I therefore consider it more than likely that she was observing the McCanns from the outside - and saw the family walking towards that outside stairway. That would be entirely consistent with seeing them all emerge from the patio door.

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?

REPLY: See the photo.

3. (continued) 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?

REPLY: My educated guess is that she saw Kate and the children at close quarters as she walked past the McCanns' apartment, and then had walked on quite a few yards by the time Gerry emerged out of the patio door. Her statement is IMO fully consistent with that.

4. 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?

REPLY: I suggest that the answer might lie in the mother and the daughter cleaning different blocks. Look at her statement (words in red) :  She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

5. 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?

REPLY: I don't think that is by any means an insuperable problem, we just need to work out which was her probable route to Apartment 5I.

Up the thread I posted a lost of 26 points of detail, some of it verifiable (e.g. the description of the children's shoes) - I find that very persuasive.

FATIMA STATEMENT

She has worked at the Ocean Club for approximately eleven years. She is a permanent employee of the Club and works all year round. She has a day and a half off a week. She has fixed working hours from 10.00 AM to 18.00 with a break for lunch from 13.30 to 18.00 and remains at the club during this time or goes to attend to personal matters near to the Club. She has a fixed day off on Tuesdays and had a day off on May 1st (national holiday) as well Sunday afternoon 29th April.

When asked how her work was organised in the club, specifically in the cleaning areas where she worked, she said there are norms pre-defining the areas where each employee worked, with the aim of delivering an efficient service. This principle does not imply that in times of work overload for any colleague, that they could not help out even in areas that were not allocated to them. She knows because she has heard that the missing English girl was staying in block 5 apartment A, which is referred to as 5A out of habit. This apartment is situated in a zone that was not allocated to her, but to a colleague, in this case her mother Maria Julia Silva.

She knows that the little girl disappeared on the night of 3rd May and is sure that she only heard about this on the following morning when she arrived at work, as it was the only subject being talked about.

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.

She never cleaned any of these apartments referred to as they were allocated to her mother. Her mother never mentioned anything strange to her, either before or after the girl's disappearance that could be related to the disappearance. The only comment she remembered concerned the clutter in the apartments, mainly clothing which was left all around the place. She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

When asked if she observed anything in the apartments where she cleaned that indicated a person particularly interested in children, such as objects, photos, videos or anything else, she replies no. She has no knowledge of any fact that could contribute to discover Madeleine's whereabouts and pledges to contact the authorities if anything should happen.

No more is said. She reads the statement and finds it in conformity, ratifies it and signs it together with me, the officer who drew up the statement.

by **Nina** 05.12.15 0:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:REPLY: Goodness, I find myself in the very unlikely situation of trying to defend a statement I believe to credible and true from accusations by another poster that it may be fabricated. I shall press on, pausing @ Verdi to re-number your points, as you had two 'number 3' points. For reference I have added Fatima's full statement below.

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?]

REPLY: The 'First Photo' to be widely distributed, first amongst Ocean Club guests and later placed on posters etc. around the village during those first few days was I think this one:

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

The following pic became generally available I believe on Saturday 5 May when it was published in some British newspapers:

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

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].

REPLY: I had not considered whether Fatima had been walking to where her mother was cleaning inside, or outside of the apartment block. However, in the photo you have helpfully provided below, I notice what to me seems like an external staircase between the letters marked 'A' and 'B' on that photographs.I therefore consider it more than likely that she was observing the McCanns from the outside - and saw the family walking towards that outside stairway. That would be entirely consistent with seeing them all emerge from the patio door.

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?

REPLY: See the photo.

3. (continued) 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?

REPLY: My educated guess is that she saw Kate and the children at close quarters as she walked past the McCanns' apartment, and then had walked on quite a few yards by the time Gerry emerged out of the patio door. Her statement is IMO fully consistent with that.

4. 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?

REPLY: I suggest that the answer might lie in the mother and the daughter cleaning different blocks. Look at her statement (words in red) :  She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

5. 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?

REPLY: I don't think that is by any means an insuperable problem, we just need to work out which was her probable route to Apartment 5I.

Up the thread I posted a lost of 26 points of detail, some of it verifiable (e.g. the description of the children's shoes) - I find that very persuasive.

FATIMA STATEMENT

She has worked at the Ocean Club for approximately eleven years. She is a permanent employee of the Club and works all year round. She has a day and a half off a week. She has fixed working hours from 10.00 AM to 18.00 with a break for lunch from 13.30 to 18.00 and remains at the club during this time or goes to attend to personal matters near to the Club. She has a fixed day off on Tuesdays and had a day off on May 1st (national holiday) as well Sunday afternoon 29th April.

When asked how her work was organised in the club, specifically in the cleaning areas where she worked, she said there are norms pre-defining the areas where each employee worked, with the aim of delivering an efficient service. This principle does not imply that in times of work overload for any colleague, that they could not help out even in areas that were not allocated to them. She knows because she has heard that the missing English girl was staying in block 5 apartment A, which is referred to as 5A out of habit. This apartment is situated in a zone that was not allocated to her, but to a colleague, in this case her mother Maria Julia Silva.

She knows that the little girl disappeared on the night of 3rd May and is sure that she only heard about this on the following morning when she arrived at work, as it was the only subject being talked about.

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.

She never cleaned any of these apartments referred to as they were allocated to her mother. Her mother never mentioned anything strange to her, either before or after the girl's disappearance that could be related to the disappearance. The only comment she remembered concerned the clutter in the apartments, mainly clothing which was left all around the place. She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

When asked if she observed anything in the apartments where she cleaned that indicated a person particularly interested in children, such as objects, photos, videos or anything else, she replies no. She has no knowledge of any fact that could contribute to discover Madeleine's whereabouts and pledges to contact the authorities if anything should happen.

No more is said. She reads the statement and finds it in conformity, ratifies it and signs it together with me, the officer who drew up the statement.

I would imagine that the cleaner wold see the McCanns from the front of the apartments and not the backs as in the photograph as they would have keys for the lockable wooden front doors and would enter and exit through these doors.
Of course they may have opened the Patio doors/windows to sweep and
mop the balconies but I always presumed this sighting was the front of the building and yes there are external steps leading up to the other levels.

by Richard IV 05.12.15 1:02

I agree - I`ve always assumed Fatima was walking along the front of the building (say from Block 6) to find her mother somewhere in Block 5 and would have been by the entrance to the stairs or thereabouts. It would have to have been between the little wall and the building or else she would not have seen Maddie`s shoes. I don`t see any problem with her statement at all.

by skyrocket 05.12.15 13:10

Exactly (I am pretty certain I posted a response to this point on the other thread).

The cleaners would always access through the main doors.

If Fatima was in the walkway alongside the back car park at the entrance to block 5's open foyer and staircase/lift, she would meet KM and the children about to head upstairs to the 5H for lunch. She would also then see GM as he turned the corner from the front door of 5A at the end of the walkway. Although she would not have a view of him closing the front door she would know that he could only have come from 5A as it is a dead end with no access to other apartments.

Re: the plates being 'Dickensian' I have to disagree [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - it is exactly the sort of thing I would do i.e. gives the children some involvement in making/providing the lunch. It's this point in particular that makes Fatima's statement solid for me - something different like the plates and the flashing shoes, along with the fact that she had a brief converstion with KM would make it far more likely that she would remember clearly. As @TB has pointed out, there were several photos of MBM in the public domain by the time of Fatima's statement.

by Grande Finale 05.12.15 14:32

A trio of points to do with this thread.....

1) I took it that the cleaners statement (Genuine IMO) was referring to the front of the apartments and that she saw KM and the children leaving apartment 5A by the front door. I think she then followed them closely up the stairs to see her mother. GM was lagging behind which is why she only saw him from a distance as she entered the door to the stairs.
These would be the same stairs that Mrs Fenn would have used, see the "it's all rubbish" video
(you can't see Mrs Fenn's feet so cleaner would have to have been on the stairs)

2) One problem with Maddie not being seen on Thursday is FP statement for thursday where she states that she went to collect Maddie from the creche with KM that day and Maddie was marching in front in the new outfit swinging her arms as they went on to collect FP's daughter and the twins.
FP states that thursday was the only day she did this ???

(So whats going on here Anyone ?)

3) Thursday was a warm sunny day, quite windy but with more cloud than Sunday, which was by far the hottest day of that week.
(Evidenced by the attire worn in the Thursday Paraiso CCTV pictures)

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 14:39

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

by cbeagle 05.12.15 14:55

Grande Finale wrote:2) One problem with Maddie not being seen on Thursday is FP statement for thursday where she states that she went to collect Maddie from the creche with KM that day and Maddie was marching in front in the new outfit swinging her arms as they went on to collect FP's daughter and the twins.
FP states that thursday was the only day she did this ???

(So whats going on here Anyone ?)

Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

Obviously folks like kitchen staff can't be seen as lying, as they did not know Madeleine, but the Tapas 7 did, so if HiDeHo is correct, FP, DP, the parents must have lied in their statements (& probably others). Harder to judge with the creche nannies.

---
* or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened

by Guest 05.12.15 14:55

@TonyBennett wrote:

REPLY: The 'First Photo' to be widely distributed, first amongst Ocean Club guests and later placed on posters etc. around the village during those first few days was I think this one:

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

The following pic became generally available I believe on Saturday 5 May when it was published in some British newspapers:

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

----------

Precisely my point - doesn't look anything like this..

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

Nor this..

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

In my humble opinion!

by Liz Eagles 05.12.15 14:56

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

Slightly off topic here HiDeHo, but the second of your two photos - are these manholes/drainage inspection chambers at the foot of the step into the apartment area?

Or are they footmats?

by Guest 05.12.15 15:36

01 Processos Vol I Page 33 B

Press Release

Disappearance of Minor

The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.

She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.

Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.

05 May 2007
----------

Details of Madeleine McCann issued to press on 8th May 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
----------

Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada witness statement - 8th May 2007

..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..

by cbeagle 05.12.15 15:43

> 1.6 Also known as: Maddie

Wonder who told the PJ that?

by Guest 05.12.15 15:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

This has already been covered extensively by HiDeHo. Indeed, I believe that is the main theme of this thread.

by Guest 05.12.15 15:45

cbeagle wrote:> 1.6 Also known as: Maddie

Wonder who told the PJ that?

Good point! Wondered who would spot that.. big grin

!

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 15:50

cbeagle wrote:
Grande Finale wrote:2) One problem with Maddie not being seen on Thursday is FP statement for thursday where she states that she went to collect Maddie from the creche with KM that day and Maddie was marching in front in the new outfit swinging her arms as they went on to collect FP's daughter and the twins.
FP states that thursday was the only day she did this ???

(So whats going on here Anyone ?)

Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

Obviously folks like kitchen staff can't be seen as lying, as they did not know Madeleine, but the Tapas 7 did, so if HiDeHo is correct, FP, DP, the parents must have lied in their statements (& probably others). Harder to judge with the creche nannies.

---
* or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened

Interesting that you mention about the T7 comments.

I think the Tuesday mini tennis is important to establishing several discrepancies.

It is very complex and will be opening a thread on the issue in the hope of receiving some input as I believe Rachael's statement suggests that the time of the 'last pic' was questionable.

Mini tennis leads many questions, but for the longest time I stayed with Madeleine being seen at that time according to Georgina the tennis coach, until I re-read her statement and realised she did not say SPECIFICALLY that Maddie was there...

She could have been referring to her documentation as a reminder of the classes and was referring to Madeleine being among a group (Lobsters) as opposed to claiming she specifically remembers Madeleine being there..

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

GEORGINA LOUISE JACKSON wrote:The deponent has the calendar of classes given by her and by her colleague DAN to the McCann couple.

.
She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent.

I must repeat that this does not mean she wasn't there but I do not see it as specific proof that Madeleine WAS at tennis.

In reality it would not have been a proper game of tennis, and how much connection with Georgina have with them to identify them by name. Catriona was with them as well.

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

by Grande Finale 05.12.15 16:12

HiDeHo wrote:

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

I agree with you BUT I also think the discrepancies around the Thursday lunchtime and particularly the statements around collecting Maddie from the creche are pure fantasy land.

Have you or anyone else researched the Thursday morning and Lunchtime and if so where can I find your conclusions please ?

by cbeagle 05.12.15 16:14

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday* then who must have been lying in their statements.

This has already been covered extensively by HiDeHo. Indeed, I believe that is the main theme of this thread.

I thought the main point of the thread was to discover if there was credible evidence of Madeleine been seen after Sunday, hence the title big grin

Then once you take that position, you can see who must have been lying. Maybe it has been covered in this thread, but I don't recall seeing a mention of lying or a clear list of who is lying if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, though I could have missed it. Feel free to point me to such a post with a link.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.12.15 16:42

cbeagle wrote:
Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday (*or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened) then who must have been lying in their statements.

OK, so if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...then...

Mrs Pamela Fenn either fabricated the May 1 'crying incident' - or was badly mistaken about it, and

Jane Tanner must have lied about 'Tannerman'.

We basically know that Nuno Lourenco fabricated the alleged kidnapping of his daughter by Wojchiech Krokowski on Sagres beach on Sunday 29th.

Again, if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...

I can't see how any of the Tapas 7 accounts of that week can possibly be regarded as truthful, and

at the very least, if Cat Baker didn't actually fabricate any of her evidence, then putting it as kindly as possible, she must have extremely feeble powers of recollection.

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 16:46

Grande Finale wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

So many questions regarding the mini tennis and Rachael's statements that I will be starting a new thread for that topic only

I agree with you BUT I also think the discrepancies around the Thursday lunchtime and particularly the statements around collecting Maddie from the creche are pure fantasy land.

Have you or anyone else researched the Thursday morning and Lunchtime and if so where can I find your conclusions please ?

Funny you should say that :)

First, although the mini tennis for Lobster group was Tuesday, Rachael claims it was the last time she saw Madeleine on THURSDAY while she was playing minitennis...

Here is the video that explains those discrepancies (MANY of them) (New thread for discussions on this)

Here are a couple of videos I put together regarding some of the other discrepancies for Thursday morning...

McCann DISCREPANCIES Thursday May 3rd 7.30am - 9am

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

by joyce1938 05.12.15 17:01

The photo with Maddie holding all the tennis balls, was there a chance that was the night she went back to see daddy and chased around collecting said balls? Joyce1938

by Mother bear 05.12.15 17:21

Hi, HiDeHo, do you think it possible that the "crying incident" could have been Kate? Only after the death of a child I would imagine most mothers would want to curl up in a ball and cry like a baby and never stop. I know I would.

by cbeagle 05.12.15 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
cbeagle wrote:
Right, an interesting exercise would be to see if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday (*or pick your favorite point in time during the week where you think something happened) then who must have been lying in their statements.
OK, so if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...then...

Mrs Pamela Fenn either fabricated the May 1 'crying incident' - or was badly mistaken about it, and

Jane Tanner must have lied about 'Tannerman'.

We basically know that Nuno Lourenco fabricated the alleged kidnapping of his daughter by Wojchiech Krokowski on Sagres beach on Sunday 29th.

Again, if Madeleine was not seen after Sunday...

I can't see how any of the Tapas 7 accounts of that week can possibly be regarded as truthful, and

at the very least, if Cat Baker didn't actually fabricate any of her evidence, then putting it as kindly as possible, she must have extremely feeble powers of recollection.

You cannot discount Pamela Fenn's or Jane Tanner's statement about Tannerman statements because Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, and the implication she was not in public after Sunday.

Madeleine could have been in 5A crying because she was severely ill or injured.

Jane's statement about Tannerman was not definitive that it was Madeleine, especially if Grange are to be believed.

Nuno's statement does not relate to seeing Madeleine.

I'm not saying those statements are true, just that they can't be discounted if Madeline was indeed out of sight since Sunday.

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:29

Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

As I mentioned before, had Fatima's statement have been true for Wednesday (eg) then this thread would not exist as I would be comfortable knowing that Maddie WAS seen on Wednesday and anyone claiming something happened to her before would need to explain how a credible sighting could show differently.

HiDeHo wrote:IMPORTANT

First I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

I did this research a few years ago and it has been sat waiting to be 'recognised'. Thanks to Jill and Tony for hosting the discussion.

I compiled many threads on the subject as well as summary's to help assist, but it's not a subject that can be addressed simply.

What I feel everyone should know is that the discrepancy questions and the 'Who saw Maddie' research is not a theory in itself.

It is basically the 'canvas' of the week for everyone to base their own theory on.

After realising the discrepancies starting Tuesday, I felt that looking at witness statements to see if there was any PROOF that she was seen during the week would help to support that possibility or not. I had NO IDEA what I would find. I don't look for details to fit a theory, I look to see if details support what is 'known'.

I was quite shocked to see that Fatima's statement was the ONLY statement that was 'relative' proof that Maddie was seen, but was on Sunday which allowed for something to have happened before the discrepancies started TUESDAY.

Please know that if Fatima's statement had been about WEDNESDAY, THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST. I would be relatively satisfied that Maddie WAS seen during the week, and would then look for reasons why the discrepancies started on Tuesday (and why there appeared an effort to cover something up)

However, Sunday supported the discrepancies starting Tuesday because of maybe trying to cover something up.

I have seen NOTHING to change my mind since I did the research in 2010 (or sooner)

Please keep in mind this isn't about trying to prove Maddie WASN'T seen during the week...It's about trying to find proof that she WAS seen.

Proof she WAS seen would be the basic 'canvas' for nothing having happened to her until that day...

No PROOF she was seen, tells us that anyone suggesting somehing happened earlier in the week is supported.

It also stands true for the alternative beliefs of anyone that believes something didn't happen until Thursday.

Its NOT a theory, it is the basis for whether anyone's theory stands up.

As mentioned, if Fatima had claimed she saw her Wednesday for example and the details weather times etc fitted, then THAT would be sufficient for me to claim there was proof she was seen Wednesday and I would look for alternative explanations as to why the discrepancies started Tuesday morning.

We don't have PROOF of some of the evidence, but by EXCLUSION we know it could be possible.

No evidence to EXCLUDE something happening to Maddie before Tuesday

No evidence to EXCLUDE Maddie's blood being in the car.

No evidence to EXCLUDE the parents from being complicit in their daughter's disappearance

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

by cbeagle 05.12.15 17:33

HiDeHo wrote:Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

Well they are very much related.

Matthew Oldfield's evidence is that he was playing with Madeleine during the week (playing monster).

So either:

- it's proof Madeleine was around after Sunday
- he is lying
- he didn't know Madeleine well enough and it was another girl

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:46

Mother bear wrote:Hi, HiDeHo, do you think it possible that the "crying incident" could have been Kate? Only after the death of a child I would imagine most mothers would want to curl up in a ball and cry like a baby and never stop. I know I would.

In my opinion nothing can be claimed about the crying incident. It could have been one of the other children. The Oldfield's apartment was directly below Mrs Fenn's apartment and Rachael tells us that she bathed Jane Tanner's oldest daughter (same age as Maddie) in her apartment. Was it E**a crying?

Was it Kate? Possible I suppose.

There could be many explanations but none that I have seen are any proof that it was Madeleine, or that she was alone in the apartment if it WAS her.

What we DO know is that Kate had a flurry of phone calls just before the crying and the next morning, the cleaner saw a cot in the McCann's bedroom which they both DENIED! (why?)

The following morning after the crying, Kate made some unusually early phone calls to her freind Amanda in England (around 7am) and Gerry started receiving the first of the texr messages that he DENIED and deleted.

These text messages were of such importance that the PJ (unsuccessfully) applied to SUPREME COURT just before the shelving get the contents of these messages.

When one looks at all these issues happening DURING the week, it sent alarm bells ringing...for me anyway.

There was something strange going on earlier in the week...but what?

by kaz 05.12.15 17:49

Why is it that some statements containing sight of Madeleine ( one in particular ) are considered PROOF and most of the rest , LIES ? Isn't
there an element of subjective thinking here ?

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 17:55

kaz wrote:Why is it that some statements containing sight of Madeleine ( one in particular ) are considered PROOF and most of the rest , LIES ? Isn't
there an element of subjective thinking here ?

I have addressed several so far individually and if you would like to address what portion of the statement you feel has been incorrectly assessed then I would be more than happy to discuss, but they MUST be looked at individually to make any judgement.

To make any assumption without looking at them individually is just a sweeping statement. Thats not what this thread is about.

Please note... I have NOT said any are 'lies'. They may have seen Maddie but none of the statements showed it was PROOF that they saw her.

Fatima was very specific and was able to describe a situation that 'fits' with what we have been told. A visit to the Paynes.

She would not have known that.

Very credible and I don't think anyone is questioning her statement

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 18:19

cbeagle wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Just as a REMINDER.

The purpose of this thread is to show my findings after researching the statements to discover if there was PROOF to show Madeleine was around during the week...

The purpose is not to use it to CLAIM that something happened to her and that witnesses are lying, it is to accommodate any claims that something MAY have happened to her.

Well they are very much related.

Matthew Oldfield's evidence is that he was playing with Madeleine during the week (playing monster).

So either:

- it's proof Madeleine was around after Sunday
- he is lying
- he didn't know Madeleine well enough and it was another girl

I apologise. I haven't made it clear that I relate the 'not lying' in regards to independent witnesses.

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

Matthew Oldfield AND Jane Tanner refer to the 'monster' antics. Was this because there was only one occasion? (Saturday? Sunday? Monday?)

It would appear they WERE in the playground at one point..

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

by **Tony Bennett** 05.12.15 18:20

cbeagle wrote:
You cannot discount Pamela Fenn's or Jane Tanner's statement about Tannerman statements because Madeleine was not seen after Sunday, and the implication she was not in public after Sunday.

REPLY: I take your point, however, Mrs Fenn's strange claim is that she heard Madeleine crying, using a very inventive argument to suggest that it was Madeleine she heard; she claimed the very unusual ability to be able to distinguish between the cries of 2-year-olds and 3-year-olds (!). As far Jane Tanner, as you know her statement was fully intended to be taken as having seen Madeleine, an impression handily reinforced by the lying Lourenco's 'phone call to the police the following morning.

Madeleine could have been in 5A crying because she was severely ill or injured.

REPLY: When careful consideration is given to all that Mrs Fenn claims, and to her assertion that she and her friend Mrs Glen chatted about this crying at about 11.00am and that both did nothing, I do not see how anyone can seriously claim that Madeleine (or any child for that matter) was crying and sobbing, ever louder and louder, for 75 minutes - with not a soul apart from Mrs Fenn hearing the crying.

Jane's statement about Tannerman was not definitive that it was Madeleine, especially if Grange are to be believed.

REPLY: There are 101 reasons not to trust any statement made by or on behalf of Operation Grange.

Nuno's statement does not relate to seeing Madeleine.

REPLY: I acknowledge your point; I was merely trying to tot up the number of possible or certain liars that week.

I'm not saying those statements are true, just that they can't be discounted if Madeline was indeed out of sight since Sunday.

REPLY: Understood.

by cbeagle 05.12.15 18:46

HiDeHo wrote:

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

So is it fair to say the challenge from page 19 should be amended to be (addition underlined):

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SIGHTING (INDEPENDENT OF THE TAPAS 9) OF MADELEINE AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME ...

by **HiDeHo** 05.12.15 19:15

cbeagle wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

When it comes to the T9, I don't think anything can be discounted.

When compiling the statements for 'Who saw Madeleine' I did not include T9 and therefore I was referring only to witnesses that were not part of the T9.

So is it fair to say the challenge from page 19 should be amended to be (addition underlined):

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME A CREDIBLE SIGHTING (INDEPENDENT OF THE TAPAS 9) OF MADELEINE AFTER SUNDAY LUNCHTIME ...

That would not be correct as I was referring earlier to the suggestions of witnesses 'lyiing' not having the T9 included.

I do not choose to suggest that any of the independent witnesses were lying. The T9 are another matter.

As I continue to remind everyone...this is not about whether the witnesses are lying.

It is about whether any of the witnesses statements (and you can include T7 as well) can PROVE that Madeleine was seen.

That WOULD include the T7 if one wishes, but I did not use their statements in the research.