Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by **HiDeHo** 30.09.15 17:36

willowthewisp wrote:Hi kinell,
Only to pull the wool down over non-believers faces, ask DCI Andy Redwood and SIO Hamish Campbell, investigating officers on Operation Grange, why/how they came to their Conclusion of Tapas group not suspects, or are these two officers leaving themselves open to charges of "Perverting the Course of Justice, CrimeWatch October 2013?

When discussing the 'media' reports personally with a OG detective he told me that many people can read many different things into what has been said....in other words, one must read between the lines.

He had just told me that they 'keep under the radar' about the investigation, and this was when Redwood was being nterviewed on the morning shows.

Once realising what he had said, the rest falls into place...

We know that police use the familiar 50/50 talk... They HAVE to acknowledge she may be alive...but they also said she may be dead.

Not suspects? Not persons of interest?

Now, isn't that dependent on the context?

They have several lines of inquiry and if one of them was digging in PdL then yes! They may feel free to say at that point they are not suspects or persons of interest (in THAT particular line of inquiry)

They claim to have started from scratch so although puzzle pieces regarding the McCanns were put into place, that is maybe the LAST line of Inquiry and so up until that point they would not be suspects or persons of interest.

However, any media comments ARE subject to scrutiny and do not reflect the investigation, only the details that they may need public input? I don't know.

What we DO know is that a person is not proclaimed to be a person of interest unless it helps the case for that person to know.... or they would 'escape'

Also, if they declare a person is not a suspect, then of course, they are not a suspect... AT THAT MOMENT (but could change at any time) smilie

by **HiDeHo** 30.09.15 17:55

aiyoyo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
If you as a layperson, after in-depth analyzing of data that you sorted, compiled and compared, can come up with the hypothesis that she may have died earlier than the official version, then one assumes the MET Police with their sophisticated HOLMES II software - an information technology tool that can carefully process the mass of information it was provided with - couldn't have missed the obvious clue/s. It's a mystery why they announced publicly that it was a stranger abduction.

Also, quite how Op Grange can declare the Mcs & friends not 'persons of interest' to the investigation is a mystery given that their statements and depositions are riddled with discrepancies, and given also they have the HOLMES II software at their disposal.

As with everything aiyoyo, it is interpreting the information that is most important and I would not exect anyone to just believe my theory without at least checking for themselves.

The volume of research is too much to expect anyone to read and thats why I love having been the one to do it as all the basic knowledge of it is all retained in my head to give me instant access to discrepancies on timelines etc.. However, it all boils down to two things that may be easier for people to understand and recognise the credibility of my claim...

Firstly, once on realises that major discrepancies, contradictions, lies etc happened on a specif day then that would indicate something was maybe being hidden because something had happened previously or why would those discrepancies/cover ups/contradictions exist (not ones attributed to memory)

Once one realises that these dscrepancies started happening Tuesday, then it would be reasonable to assume that something happened prior to that... (not proof but a STRONG possibility)

That leaves us with maybe something happening before Tuesday...

I then looked to see if the sightings statements would tell me a different story...Could I find 'proof' in some form that she was alive after Tuesday. Found no proof then (2010) and have found nothing since (hence my CHALLENGE)

I do believe sunday lunchtime sighting to be credible, so....very basically I believe something happened before Tuesday morning and after Sunday lunchtime...

This also supports the possibility of the last picture being taken on Sunday as well as, if something happened after that, Kate's description of removing the bead (elastic band) from her hair.... I believe that may have happened... but SUNDAY after the last picture or Monday and not Thursday..

I have used basic logic using the files and am surprised to have never seen anything to change my mind in all these years...NOTHING has contradicted my findings and THAT in itself is of prime interest.

by woodpecker 30.09.15 20:33

If it could be established that Madeleine vanished before the limited 'window of opportunity' on Thursday evening may 3rd it would really help us cynics persuade friends and acquaintances that there is something off about the Mccanns story.
My friends tell me that it simply wasn't possible for the Mccanns to do whatever they did to her in the time available that evening and dispose of the body in the glare of publicity - but if whatever happened was earlier that day or earlier in the week, then a different scenario exists - people do see there are issues with the official story if they are willing to discuss with you but the timing is a hurdle they can't overcome. I ask what reliable independent sighting was there even that day Thursday. This really scares them as it means the tapas friends are lying and other people mistaken.

by **HiDeHo** 30.09.15 20:54

woodpecker wrote:If it could be established that Madeleine vanished before the limited 'window of opportunity' on Thursday evening may 3rd it would really help us cynics persuade friends and acquaintances that there is something off about the Mccanns story.
My friends tell me that it simply wasn't possible for the Mccanns to do whatever they did to her in the time available that evening and dispose of the body in the glare of publicity - but if whatever happened was earlier that day or earlier in the week, then a different scenario exists - people do see there are issues with the official story if they are willing to discuss with you but the timing is a hurdle they can't overcome. I ask what reliable independent sighting was there even that day Thursday. This really scares them as it means the tapas friends are lying and other people mistaken.

I totally understand, and when I look at the possibility of it happening that evening, then I have to wonder how anyone can put a timeline together to include all the scenarios and repercussions.. I say its impossible, but many people believe its possible..

I would love to hear how someone would consider it possible.

As you say.... Once one starts to realise that somethng happened earlier (even for some to recognise it was earlier the same day, then everything atarts to fit together and be possible.

Personally I cannot put one thing out there to prove something happened before, I just dont have anything to prove she WAS there.

It really has to all be put together into an overall picture to see how it could have happened but most people not into the case really dont want to spend the time...

I have always found the starting place is to just show the portion of the Almeida report...

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

That quite clearly states there is something 'wrong' and being from the police files it should be credible to anyone that reads it (or they can be shown the original page in the files.

I have created some graphics highlighting some of the easier to explain graphics, so keep in mind everything should have a link to the files (or quote) and if not I can provide it. I ONLY deal with facts that are supported and the resulting questions arising from those 'facts'

Here are two that come to mind (and when added to all the curiosities surrounding these issues really highlight them more)

Once you 'see' a week that is riddled with coverups/lies/discrepancies it becomes easy for a logical person to realise that something was going on.

My effort was to pinpoint which day they started and gradually thats when it became apparent it was Tuesday...

With these graphics its important to ask WHY it was that day as well as the fact it happened....

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

by hogwash 30.09.15 21:02

So if it was Tuesday then Martin Smith couldn't have seen Gerry walking the streets with Madeleine.

She would most likely have been in the fridge or freezer by then.

by **HiDeHo** 30.09.15 21:17

hogwash wrote:So if it was Tuesday then Martin Smith couldn't have seen Gerry walking the streets with Madeleine.

Well this is a big question for some, but it has never been an issue with me as I dont believe for one second that Gerry was walking through the streets with his dead daughter, uncovered.

This does not mean I don't believe that the Smith family saw someone, or even Gerry, but I do not believe it was Madeleine.

That scenario is too much for me to even contemplate as credible.

Regardless of that, I never claim that Madeleine DIED earlier, only that something happened and of course that does leave the Smith sighting credible for those that believe it.

Something may have happened earlier but, maybe, she didnt die until Thursday.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.09.15 22:50

HiDeHo wrote:
hogwash wrote:So if it was Tuesday then Martin Smith couldn't have seen Gerry walking the streets with Madeleine.

Well this is a big question for some, but it has never been an issue with me as I don't believe for one second that Gerry was walking through the streets with his dead daughter, uncovered.

This does not mean I don't believe that the Smith family saw someone, or even Gerry, but I do not believe it was Madeleine.

That scenario is too much for me to even contemplate as credible.

Regardless of that, I never claim that Madeleine DIED earlier, only that something happened and of course that does leave the Smith sighting credible for those that believe it.

Something may have happened earlier but, maybe, she didn't die until Thursday.

Let's be frank about it, Lizzy's analysis about the time when all the contradictions started to pile up (Monday), coupled with Hobnob's major post on here last week, completely rule out Gerry McCann carting his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz at the very moment his wife was raising the alarm, at around 10pm on 3rd May. And (I think like Lizzy) I would contend that the very idea was always against common sense and reason.

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

Lizzy's analysis (and Hobnob's) is at the very least a major challenge to all those who still insist that Cat Baker is to be believed in her account of the 'high tea with Madeleine' at 5.30pm that evening, and who therefore conclude that Madeleine died after 6pm that evening. That's Pat Brown, Textusa and Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt) - and of course, that was the position of Tavares de Almeida and also of Goncalo Amaral, in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Lizzy's analysis must force a serious rethink for them all. They may all have done excellent work on some issues in the case, but in fairness they ought to reconsider their position in the light of Lizzy's analysis.

Finally, I think Lizzy was being very kind to the Smiths by suggesting that they may have seen someone else. Someone else who looked just l like Wojchiech Krokowski and Tannerman...another man wandering the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm in the dark with a young girl clad only in pyjamas?

I really don't think so!

And if Lizzy is right in her analysis (and I am sure that she is) i.e. that if the Smiths saw anyone, then it must have been someone else, what to we then make of DCI Redwood making this bloke 'the centre of our focus' on a BBC Crimewatch programme watched by 6.7 million?

by **HiDeHo** 30.09.15 23:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
hogwash wrote:So if it was Tuesday then Martin Smith couldn't have seen Gerry walking the streets with Madeleine.

Well this is a big question for some, but it has never been an issue with me as I don't believe for one second that Gerry was walking through the streets with his dead daughter, uncovered.

This does not mean I don't believe that the Smith family saw someone, or even Gerry, but I do not believe it was Madeleine.

That scenario is too much for me to even contemplate as credible.

Regardless of that, I never claim that Madeleine DIED earlier, only that something happened and of course that does leave the Smith sighting credible for those that believe it.

Something may have happened earlier but, maybe, she didn't die until Thursday.
Let's be frank about it, Lizzy's analysis about the time when all the contradictions started to pile up (Monday), coupled with Hobnob's major post on here last week, completely rule out Gerry McCann carting his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz at the very moment his wife was raising the alarm, at around 10pm on 3rd May. And (I think like Lizzy) I would contend that the very idea was always against common sense and reason.

Lizzy's analysis (and Hobnob's) is at the very least a major challenge to all those who still insist that Cat Baker is to be believed in her account of the 'high tea with Madeleine' at 5.30pm that evening, and who therefore conclude that Madeleine died after 6pm that evening. That's Pat Brown, Textusa and Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt) - and of course, that was the position of Tavares de Almeida and also of Goncalo Amaral, in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Lizzy's analysis must force a serious rethink for them all.They may all have done excellent work on some issues in the case, but in fairness they ought to reconsider their position in the light of Lizzy's analysis.

Finally. I thinl Lizzy was being very kind to the Smiths by suggesting that they may have seen someone else. Someone else who looked just l like Wojchiech Krokowski and Tannerman...another man wandering the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm in the dark with a young girl clad only in pyjamas?

I really don't think so!

And if Lizzy is right in her analysis (and I am sure that she is) i.e. that if the Smiths saw anyone, then it must have been someone else, what to we then make of DCI Redwood making this bloke 'the centre of our focus' on a BBC Crimewatch programme watched by 6.7 million?

I have to say that I prefer to not have my findings detract from other extremely knowledgeable members/contributors.

The Smith sighting, as I made clear is only based on my own thoughts, I have nothing to back that up, and nothing is known for a fact yet that I am correct.

We have all come to our conclusions using different methods and different levels of knowledge on different topics.

My theory should not be compared to others and I hope noone feels that.

All I have done is laid out the 'facts' as I see them and put my own conclusion to it...

The discrepancies started Tuesday and I can't find anything that proves Madeleine was seen (or heard) during the week. It's really as simple as that.

My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning.

It's not a theory that i can change. It's what we 'know', or at least how we interpret when the discrepancies started to be more than just a few little oddities.

Im afraid Mr Smith issue is something I would respect other people's prerogative to believe, but its not mine.

The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.

by **HiDeHo** 01.10.15 0:19

Regarding the credibility of Catriona Baker.....

Specifically at High Tea...

Gerry claims to have been there, Kate claims to have been there (after her run on the beach)00000000 and yet Catriona claims that Gerry was playing tennis...

Now...where would she get that idea from? Especially if he was there!

Was she 'fed' the information? Was she also told that Kate was wearing sports clothes?

If not, why would she find that information important enough to add to her statement when she couldnt remember the important details...

Who dropped Maddie off in the afternoon? She didnt know.

She couldnt remember who picked her up at lunchtime...but..thas not really that odd because neither Kate OR Gerry OR Fiona could come up with a scenario that was credible!

Kate said she picked up Madeleine with Fiona after she had made lunch in thapartment..

Fiona claims they both left from the rec area together..

Gerry claims HE picked up Madeleine on Thursday because he specifically remembers taking the short cut..

It's anyone's guess who picked up the twins as none of them seem to know.

Walking back from High Tea, Kate claims Maddie was tired and so she carried her...

She says she went in through the front entrance with them all... but GERRY claims differently..

He says that HE went in through the front door and opened the patio doors for Kate and the children...

So he left Kate to carry Madeleine and also help the twins up the steps all alone?

Funnily enough that happened in the morning as well...They BOTH said different doors.. and these were the statements from just after the disappearance...

My thoughts are that they were not there...

The 'reminded' Catriona (maybe when she visited Rothley at their request in November before the rogatory interviews) in the same way they may have 'remeinded' her that she saw David and Fiona at the beach in the morning but she claims it was Jane and David (now how would she have known David?)

There is SOO much information that changes everyone's perception of the week or answers why none of their stories match...

it is mind boggling how none of them seemed to get anything to be credible... and I mean SPECIFICS, not a little memory lapse.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.15 0:58

HiDeHo wrote:
I have to say that I prefer to not have my findings detract from other extremely knowledgeable members/contributors.

REPLY: We are here to get at the truth. We will do that by sifting out the theories that are not well evidenced - and replacing them with hypotheses that have been carefully tried, tested and evidenced (as your most clearly is). Neither you nor I nor anyone else should maintain theories that are not soundly-based. Working together, we will all get there in the end

We have all come to our conclusions using different methods and different levels of knowledge on different topics.

REPLY: But sometimes we do have to choose between competing and totally contradictory theories. We cannot harmonise 'something happened to Madeleine on or before Tuesday' with 'something happened to Madeleine after 6pm on Thursday'

My theory should not be compared to others and I hope no-one feels that.

REPLY: Theories should IMO absolutely be compared and contrasted - that is the way that both scientific and criminal investigations progress to a successful conclusion. Those holding a very different view to your analysis Lizzy should either defend theirs and say why yours is wrong, or abandon theirs in favour of a better one.

The discrepancies started Tuesday

REPLY: I would have to say Monday, and can set out my reasons another day

My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning.

The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.

REPLY: Amen

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.15 1:33

HiDeHo wrote:Regarding the credibility of Catriona Baker...

Specifically at High Tea...

Gerry claims to have been there, Kate claims to have been there (after her run on the beach) and yet Catriona claims that Gerry was playing tennis...

Regarding the credibility of all three (Cat Baker and the McCanns), it seems to me that on a plain reading of the McCanns' testimony, Gerry McCann arrived at the high tea, fresh from playing tennis, presumably in his tennis top and shorts, plus tennis racquet and balls. He doesn't say that he'd been anywhere else, indeed IIRC the arrogant David James Smith in The Times claimed he had 'hung around the tennis courts' until it was time to collect Madeleine.

Meanwhile, in Kate's version, she came straight into the Tapas area for the high tea in her jogging gear, probably caked in dried or drying sweat.

This would all have been a tad unusual at high tea and you'd have thought that this would have been striking enough for Cat Baker to bring it to mind, when questioned.

Moreover, as according to David James Smith Gerry couldn't play tennis any more that afternoon because of his Achilles tendon injury being so bad, he may have hobbled in to the high tea, which might also have helped her recollection a bit.

But then Kate seems bit confused about the time of her arrival anyway, having stated elsewhere that she picked up one of the twins, from the crèche, at 5.24pm, one at 5.25pm, and Madeleine at 5.30pm.

If you're right about the high tea never having happened, Lizzy, then Goncalo Amaral's belief - that this was the last valid third party confirmation of Madeleine being alive - falls by the wayside. To be fair, he had only 4 months' investigation time - we have had 25 times longer - 8 years and 4 months.

It may be that some will challenge you and say that this high tea did happen - if so, let's hear from them and have a proper debate.

But if you are right, then we have to go back in time that afternoon to see what was the previous occasion which provides reasonable proof that Madeleine was alive that afternoon.

Let's see, we have...

1. The 'Last Photo', and

2. A photograph by Philip Edmonds of his boys playing near Madeleine that no-one has ever seen.

Hmmm, tough choice

by sallypelt 01.10.15 3:07

Where does one "start" with all the discrepancies? Every question that can be asked, has been asked over the past 8 years, but still no answers.

In the light of HiDiHo's thread, I have looked again at KM 4 May statement, and below are a few extracts taken from that statement. My comments are numbered 1 to 4 and I have included extracts from Amy Tierney's statement and Gerry's blog to make the comparrisons.

1)
First comment removed because I now realise that KM was talking about a place outside the complex and not near the Tapas Bar.

From KM's statement:

"After breakfast, at around 9/9.30am, the children went to the club called the "KIDS CLUB" where they did various activities such as painting, collage etc. They stayed there until around 12.30pm, constantly supervised by several Ocean Club employees in a ratio of three children to one employee. Within the "Kids Club" because of the difference in ages, the twins were in one group and Madeleine in another, with separate activities.

2) Is the "Kids Club" the "mini club" that Amy Tierney refers to in HER PJ statement, where she says that it isn't open on Sundays? Yet, there is a crèche record for the 29th April 07, which is a Sunday.

Taken from Amy Teirney's statement 6.5.07:

She confirms that she works as head of the Baby Club and Mini Club, the former being for children aged up to eleven months and the latter for children aged between three and five.......
The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.

Taken from Kate's statement. It isn't clear what day she's referring to, but it implies that it's every day after the 28th April.

At 12.30pm, the parents would collect their children and have lunch in their apartment since they have provisions. After lunch, at around 1.30pm, the children spend time close to the club's swimming pool, supervised by the parents, for about 45 minutes, where they play and have sun cream applied. After this time, they take the children to the "Kids Club" until around 5/5.30pm, the time when the children eat in a bar under the watchful gaze of the parents. After the 5pm dinner, they give the children a bath, prepare them for the night and let them play for a while in a playground next to the tennis courts, still and always under parental supervision. At around 8pm, the children are put to bed until the following morning when the described routines start all over again. While the children are at the "Kids Club," the interviewee played tennis with her husband, went for walks, read or went "Jogging."

3)Looking at the "last picture" and the fair, delicate skin on Madeleine and her sister, and the time that KM said they were at the pool, there is every possibility that this is the day that the "last photograph" was taken. But it still leaves me asking the question, WHEN was the tennis photograph taken? In that photograph, compared with the "last photo" Madeleine's skin appears to be far more "weathered". She also looks far more mature than in the "last photo".

I hope the above makes sense, as I am posting this at 3:07 in the morning. coffee

by **PeterMac** 01.10.15 8:20

sallypelt wrote:Where does one "start" with all the discrepancies? Every question that can be asked, has been asked over the past 8 years, but still no answers.

In the light of HiDiHo's thread, I have looked again at KM 4 May statement, and below are a few extracts taken from that statement. My comments are numbered 1 to 4 and I have included extracts from Amy Tierney's statement and Gerry's blog to make the comparisons.

Taken from Kate's statement. It isn't clear what day she's referring to, but it implies that it's every day after the 28th April.[/color][/size]

At 12.30pm, the parents would collect their children and have lunch in their apartment since they have provisions. After lunch, at around 1.30pm, the children spend time close to the club's swimming pool, supervised by the parents, for about 45 minutes, where they play and have sun cream applied. . . .

Why would you put sun cream on a child when it was overcast, freezing cold and on two days - Raining.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.15 8:55

HiDeHo wrote:
My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.

These evidenced opinions of Lizzy HideHo must of course be compared with Dr Goncalo Amaral's thesis as explained in his book. 'The Truth About A Lie'.

Here is exactly what he wrote on the subject, as per (I think) AnnaEsse's ground-breaking translation which enabled us all to read it:

QUOTE GONCALO AMARAL

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

UNQUOTE

Amaral took the simple view that Dr David Payne was a trusted and close friend of Gerry McCann and that therefore anything said by Dr Payne about an alleged visit to see Kate McCann at around 6.30pm to 7.00pm could not provide corroboration that Madeleine was alive then.

I am sure his officers well and truly noted the massive discrepancies between the respective statements of Dr David Payne and Kate McCann about that alleged visit, even if they didn't perhaps tally all 20 or more of them, as listed elsewhere on the forum: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But if Lizzy HideHo is right about the 'high tea', it is plain that Goncalo Amaral and his team were deceived about the reliability of Cat Baker's testimony.

Goncalo Amaral, whilst investigation co-ordinator, and when writing his book, did not have the advantage we have had to examine all aspects of this case for 8 years.

But there's no getting away from it...

...either HideHo is right about the 'high tea' and Goncalo Amaral was wrong...

...or the other way about

by aiyoyo 01.10.15 12:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The tennis photo supposedly taken on Tuesday throws a spanner in the work of something happening to her earlier than Tuesday.

It leaves the glaring obvious question of how a tanned-complexion Madeleine on Tuesday (tennis pic) can possibly suddenly vanished that she became milk-bottle-whitish 2 days later in the swimming pool photo. Tan simply does not fake overnight.

This fair vs tan complexion aspect shows that date pool pic was taken must have preceded date of the tennis pic was taken

by **HiDeHo** 01.10.15 12:45

aiyoyo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The tennis photo supposedly taken on Tuesday throws a spanner in the work of something happening to her earlier than Tuesday.

It leaves the glaring obvious question of how a tanned-complexion Madeleine on Tuesday (tennis pic) can possibly suddenly vanished that she became milk-bottle-whitish 2 days later in the swimming pool photo. Tan simply does not fake overnight.

This fair vs tan complexion aspect supports that the date pool photo was taken must have preceded date of the tennis photo.

I prefer to stay away from making judgments on photographs as they can vary greatly with different lighting etc.

It appears the tennis photo may have been taken in the morning but not necessarily at mini tennis. Madeleine was picking up balls and it could have been when others were playing. If the picture was taken at mini tennis I would have expected a proud mum to take on of her with her tennis racquet.

If they 'needed' a pic to 'prove' she was at tennis, then this one was chosen to suffice, but likely when the adults were playing. I'm just not sure on the lighting, looks like the morning 'sun' (behind the clouds?) was behind but hard to tell.

The pic is rarely challenged. Most seem to believe it was taken at mini tennis, but when one looks at the possibility something had happened to her before then that photo takes on a different perspective.

Always keep in mind too that mini tennis for 3-4 year olds is not a major game effort, probably just playing around with balls and (small) racquets for half an hour with Catriona looking after them.

by DaTroof 01.10.15 13:05

Tennis for children that age 3-4 would usually involve using foam balls & small racquets. Does anyone know whether the OC had these available? If they did it suggests the photo wasn't taken at the creche tennis session. However a small resort catering only for holiday makers might not have bothered with foam balls & small racquets.

by **HiDeHo** 01.10.15 13:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.
These evidenced opinions of Lizzy HideHo must of course be compared with Dr Goncalo Amaral's thesis as explained in his book. 'The Truth About A Lie'.

Here is exactly what he wrote on the subject, as per (I think) AnnaEsse's ground-breaking translation which enabled us all to read it:

QUOTE GONCALO AMARAL

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

UNQUOTE

Amaral took the simple view that Dr David Payne was a trusted and close friend of Gerry McCann and that therefore anything said by Dr Payne about an alleged visit to see Kate McCann at around 6.30pm to 7.00pm could not provide corroboration that Madeleine was alive then.

I am sure his officers well and truly noted the massive discrepancies between the respective statements of Dr David Payne and Kate McCann about that alleged visit, even if they didn't perhaps tally all 20 or more of them, as listed elsewhere on the forum: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But if Lizzy HideHo is right about the 'high tea', it is plain that Goncalo Amaral and his team were deceived about the reliability of Cat Baker's testimony.

Goncalo Amaral, whilst investigation co-ordinator, and when writing his book, did not have the advantage we have had to examine all aspects of this case for 8 years.

But there's no getting away from it...

...either HideHo is right about the 'high tea' and Goncalo Amaral was wrong...

...or the other way about

It troubles me to have my 'theory' compared to Goncalo.

He was the co-ordinator, not on the ground talking to all the witnesses and having the opportunity to assess them as witnesses.

He was removed from the case with only the first statements and although there were some very obvious glaring contradictions, he was not afforded the opportunity of spending 4 years carefully placing each of the rogatory statements into 'tables to compare each 15 minute intervals of the holiday, and having it reveal major contradictions.

He said it was important that everyone knew it was NOT his opinion but the findings of the investigation. If the investigation were told that Madeleine was seen by witnesses at 5.30pm then he would be obliged to use that info as he could not discredit it.

What did they REALLY discuss in the meetings that we are not privy to in the files? What information was gleaned from witnesses during the course of the investigation that was not recorded officially and for the 9 months after he left, what information was there?

If they were not questioning something happening earlier...

1) Why were the text messages so important, that they took them to supreme court to attempt to be able to access them (The texts started to arrive on Wednesday morning at 8am shortly after Kates 7am calls to her friend, and following the crying incident heard by Mrs Fenn and also it was that morning that they BOTH denied a cot being in their bedroom even though the cleaner had seen it. WEDNESDAY

2) Why did they ask many witnesses if they had seen them in a car during the week? Why was this an issue? Did they think that maybe Madeleine's body had been moved from the parent's room (cadaver odour alert) onto the veranda (cadaver odour alert) down to the bushes (cadaver odour alert) and off to be placed somewhere safe for a while? DURING WEEK

3) Why did Goncalo suggest that Madeleine's bed hadn't been slept in (for two days as the cleaner had made it Wednesday morning)

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

4) According to Goncalo Amaral in his 'Return to PdL' video all the T9 used the BACK entrance through the week (with presumably someone inside the apartments to let them in (no neglect?) The FULL video is worthy of watching.

This video takes you directly to the return to the apartment

This location on the video should take you to the conversation about ALL the t9 (except Paynes) using the REAR (patio) entrance and NOT the front entrance.

His book could only be based on the information known at that point and according to witness statements.

My guess has always been that the files info has to be a very small percentage of what the police 'know' and have discussed off the record.

Maybe if I only had early statements to work with then I would not have arrived at the same conclusion.

My theory is based on the details of the week and hopefully can be viewed alongside other theories and not compared to them.

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

by **HiDeHo** 01.10.15 13:39

DaTroof wrote:Tennis for children that age 3-4 would usually involve using foam balls & small racquets. Does anyone know whether the OC had these available? If they did it suggests the photo wasn't taken at the creche tennis session. However a small resort catering only for holiday makers might not have bothered with foam balls & small racquets.

This video is the Saturday timeline (with lots of information) and a short portion shows Mark Warner activities with a clip of children's tennis (though this was MW Greece or Egypt location )

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

by joyce1938 01.10.15 14:51

Yes, HideHo, I too recognised that the tennis photo possibly was the day or even evening after the men's match, that Maddie and even other kids were running around collecting the balls, and not the morning when she was said to go to tennis lesson. I am glad this has cropped up, I have asked about it before I think and no one replied. Also would like to add, when the sniffer dogs went so far and stopped, no more scent to follow, could that have been the time Gerry was fetching kids from group and Maddie ran up another way, child like playing dad up, and was that why the smell stopped at that point? joyce1938

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 16:06

For those that believe nothing happened to Madeleine before Thursday evening, I would be interested to see some explanations about a few discrepancies that happened Thursday morning in the FIRST TWO HOURS! (Lots more throughout the day)

McCann DISCREPANCIES Thursday May 3rd 7.30am - 9am

by Guest 02.10.15 17:32

HiDeHo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
My conclusion is something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...The week was RIDDLED with discrepancies and THAT is what I find important here. I would LOVE for everyone to know and understand them so they could 'see' that week was anything but ordinary.
These evidenced opinions of Lizzy HideHo must of course be compared with Dr Goncalo Amaral's thesis as explained in his book. 'The Truth About A Lie'.

Here is exactly what he wrote on the subject, as per (I think) AnnaEsse's ground-breaking translation which enabled us all to read it:

QUOTE GONCALO AMARAL

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

UNQUOTE

Amaral took the simple view that Dr David Payne was a trusted and close friend of Gerry McCann and that therefore anything said by Dr Payne about an alleged visit to see Kate McCann at around 6.30pm to 7.00pm could not provide corroboration that Madeleine was alive then.

I am sure his officers well and truly noted the massive discrepancies between the respective statements of Dr David Payne and Kate McCann about that alleged visit, even if they didn't perhaps tally all 20 or more of them, as listed elsewhere on the forum: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But if Lizzy HideHo is right about the 'high tea', it is plain that Goncalo Amaral and his team were deceived about the reliability of Cat Baker's testimony.

Goncalo Amaral, whilst investigation co-ordinator, and when writing his book, did not have the advantage we have had to examine all aspects of this case for 8 years.

But there's no getting away from it...

...either HideHo is right about the 'high tea' and Goncalo Amaral was wrong...

...or the other way about

It troubles me to have my 'theory' compared to Goncalo.

He was the co-ordinator, not on the ground talking to all the witnesses and having the opportunity to assess them as witnesses.

He was removed from the case with only the first statements and although there were some very obvious glaring contradictions, he was not afforded the opportunity of spending 4 years carefully placing each of the rogatory statements into 'tables to compare each 15 minute intervals of the holiday, and having it reveal major contradictions.

He said it was important that everyone knew it was NOT his opinion but the findings of the investigation. If the investigation were told that Madeleine was seen by witnesses at 5.30pm then he would be obliged to use that info as he could not discredit it.

What did they REALLY discuss in the meetings that we are not privy to in the files? What information was gleaned from witnesses during the course of the investigation that was not recorded officially and for the 9 months after he left, what information was there?

If they were not questioning something happening earlier...

1) Why were the text messages so important, that they took them to supreme court to attempt to be able to access them (The texts started to arrive on Wednesday morning at 8am shortly after Kates 7am calls to her friend, and following the crying incident heard by Mrs Fenn and also it was that morning that they BOTH denied a cot being in their bedroom even though the cleaner had seen it. WEDNESDAY

2) Why did they ask many witnesses if they had seen them in a car during the week? Why was this an issue? Did they think that maybe Madeleine's body had been moved from the parent's room (cadaver odour alert) onto the veranda (cadaver odour alert) down to the bushes (cadaver odour alert) and off to be placed somewhere safe for a while? DURING WEEK

3) Why did Goncalo suggest that Madeleine's bed hadn't been slept in (for two days as the cleaner had made it Wednesday morning)

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

4) According to Goncalo Amaral in his 'Return to PdL' video all the T9 used the BACK entrance through the week (with presumably someone inside the apartments to let them in (no neglect?) The FULL video is worthy of watching.

This video takes you directly to the return to the apartment

This location on the video should take you to the conversation about ALL the t9 (except Paynes) using the REAR (patio) entrance and NOT the front entrance.

His book could only be based on the information known at that point and according to witness statements.

My guess has always been that the files info has to be a very small percentage of what the police 'know' and have discussed off the record.

Maybe if I only had early statements to work with then I would not have arrived at the same conclusion.

My theory is based on the details of the week and hopefully can be viewed alongside other theories and not compared to them.

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

========

Please beware & read very carefully: dr GA confirms the opinion of the investigation (Madeleine is dead) but NOT the question of the interviewer (the child died on the evening of the 3rd of May)

This is of the essence

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 17:43

Exactly Portia. Thanks for pointing that out!

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

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 20:37

HiDeHo wrote:Exactly Portia. Thanks for pointing that out!

Portia had written: Please beware & read very carefully: Dr GA confirms the opinion of the investigation (Madeleine is dead) but NOT the question of the interviewer (the child died on the evening of the 3rd of May)

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

@ HideHo & @ Portia

I think it's quite plain that in the clip of the transcript above, the main thing Goncalo Amaral is doing is simply confirming that what he says about the case is also what the investigation team as a whole believed.

It is absolutely plain from the passage from his book that I quoted that he was endorsing three things:

1. He believed the witnesses to the 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3 May, and notably Catriona Baker, were telling the truth

2. He therefore believed that Madeleine died after then (as he has consistently maintained for over 7 years, and

3. He believed that Madeleine died from an accident - he had no evidence to the contrary.

Thus HideHo's recent very good article explicitly challenges points 1 & 2 above - and she is by no means the first to do so.

Just a reminder once again of what he wrote in his book:

QUOTE:

On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery…We finally decide to question [Kate McCann as a witness], but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

by Mariita 02.10.15 21:16

Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapasgroup 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful. And HideHo (and presumably many others-myself too) doesn't. But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tonys post above?

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 22:44

Mariita wrote:Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapasgroup 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful. And HideHo (and presumably many others-myself too) doesn't. But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tonys post above?

We dont know what Goncalo's opinion was, or what the investigation's opinion was. We only know what the investigation claims with the evidence they have, and that evidence is that she was seen at 5.30pm.

Regarding believing the Tapas checking. He has told us that they did not use the front entrances. All of them (apart from Payne) used the patio door entrance and the pathway between the apartments and the pool. So he KNOWS not to believe their statements.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 22:48

Mariita wrote:Gonçalo Amaral also believed that neglect took place, he considered the Tapas group 'checking on the children' statements to be truthful.

REPLY: I think that is right, he didn't say he disbelieved them

And HideHo (and presumably many others - myself too) doesn't.

REPLY: Agreed

But does that automatically challenge point 3 in Tony's post above?

REPLY: You mean where I wrote: "3. He believed that Madeleine died from an accident - he had no evidence to the contrary"? All I was saying was that Goncalo Amaral is quite clear in his own mind that Madeleine died after, say, 6pm that night (3rd May). HideHo, understandably choosing her words cautiously and carefully, merely puts forward the hypothesis that 'something happened' to Madeleine, say, Sunday or Monday. It is clear that Goncalo Amaral never really considered that - there is no reference to it in his book. How good it would be if Amaral had a Portuguese translation of HideHo's article of 28 September and could submit it to the Appeal Court on Monday

by **sharonl** 02.10.15 23:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
It is clear that Goncalo Amaral never really considered that - there is no reference to it in his book. How good it would be if Amaral had a Portuguese translation of HideHo's article of 28 September and could submit it to the Appeal Court on Monday

Its a bit late to get a full translation but can we not summarise HiDeHo's report into a few short paragraphs and get that translated. We could let Amaral have that, together with the full English version to submit to the court. They would have their own translators if they wanted to take this further.

by **HiDeHo** 02.10.15 23:40

My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

by joyce1938 02.10.15 23:43

I have read a few times they only go back to court to hear results. I don't think they would be involved at this court hearing in other things, just my opinion from what I have read here from time to time. joyce1938