Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

HiDeHo wrote:

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.

cbeagle wrote:

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 

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.

Verdi wrote:@TonyBennett wrote:  ..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.
----------


Catriona Baker witness statement - 8th May 2007

Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child's outdoors activities.
----------

If anyone can provide any evidence, or even a hint, that the McCanns accompanied their children in the crèche outdoor activities, please feel free so to do.  A slip of memory or what?

Tony Bennett wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

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.

The way things are going @ Lizzy, it's looking less and less likely that anyone on this forum is going to put forward a serious example of a credible witness to seeing Madelelne after Sunday.

We have a witness - Mrs Fenn - who asserts that she heard Madeleine, but I can't see many people seriously suggesting that her evidence is credible.

So in the absence of anyone picking up the gauntlet, you must be a little patient with us and not mind too much if we go off at a slight tangent, or our thoughts wander off to very closely related issues.

And what I want to do is briefly look at this issue from a slightly different angle.

On page 52 of 'madeleine', by Kate McCann, is this statement:

"Just before 5pm, the arrangement was that the nannies would bring all (my emphasis) the children to a raised area next to the Tapas restaurant to meet their parents and have their 'high tea' as they called it. Madeleine's  mini club arrived walking in single file clutching Sammy Snake...The nearby play area had several small slides and a little playhouse, which our team of kinds adored, and after tea we all spent half an hour or so there".

So I have these queries:

1. Did this 'high tea' on the raised area take place every day at about 5pm?

2. If 'all' the children met at the Taps bar for high tea, how many children was that? Are we talking about a couple of dozen? - or more?

3. Did this 'high tea' include older children, like Philip Edmonds' three boys? 

4. If at least one parent for each child - and staff - plus of course all the children as well, were there, how many souls were milling around there at this daily 'high tea'? 30? 40? 50? Several dozen?  

5. If the nannies brought all the children to the Tapas area, did they bring the creche sheets with them?

6. Were all the crèche sheets signed there at the end of the afternoon?

7. Why do we hear so little about these daily high tea events from the McCanns?    

8. Why do we hear so little about these daily high tea events from the Tapas 7?

9. Why do we hear so little about these daily high tea events from the other parents?

10. Why do we hear so little about these daily high tea events from the nannies?

11. During this high tea time plus half-an-hour of shared play time afterwards, to what extent does any other parent or any staff member have clear, specific recollections of Madeleine and the twins having high tea each day and then playing, e.g. with their own children?

12. So far as Madeleine and the Lobster group specifically is concerned, now many minutes would it take a group of 3- and 4-year olds to walk, with he nanny(ies), from the Lobster club at the Ocean Club reception to this 'raised area' near the Tapas restaurant?         


These are questions I've never been able to fathom.

Apologies Lizzy if I'm driving this thread too far off-topic...

Tony Bennett wrote:[
Apologies Lizzy if I'm driving this thread too far off-topic...

Emma Louise Wilding -working at the Mini Club for children between 3-5 years wrote:on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine’s group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,

 May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.

Lynne Rhiannon Fretter - she worked with the baby group. wrote:
she only had one brief contact, a few seconds with Madeleine – whom they called Madie (sic), when she passed by her, having eaten at the table,

Shinead Maria Vine -working only with the Toddler group;Amelie & Sean wrote:

she saw Madeleine McCann once when she arrived during the week

Kirsty Louise Maryan- children between the ages of 6 and 10, known as the 'Junior' group, wrote:she only, on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, (? not Madeleine's group?) as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her; 

from what she saw, was a child who did stick out, precisely as she was calmer and shier that the others; 

she did not have direct contact with the minor at issue, Madeleine McCann, and is not aware of her habits or that of her parents,

Mother bear wrote:Thank you HiDeHo, I ask because I also believe it happened before Thursday. But I was not sure how much before. My theory was that on Tuesday just before the crying incident ( if there was one) Kate found Maddie dead or injured behind the sofa. She call's Gerry( hance deleated phone log) he comes maybe with more of the T7 and confirms Maddie is dead. ............... Kate's crying like a baby for 90 mins while Gerry and others start damage limitation, as they were all drugging there kids so they could have some "adult" time. Surley that is not a good out come for a group of drs ( Drugging, Abandonment, Neglect)  they had to think fast, they knew they would all loose there children. But they certainly knew the right people who could  help them get away with it no matter what was said or done by the T9. But no one banked on Mr Ameral not being corrupt  and wanting justice for a little girl  he had never even met. If not for him I think this case would have been swept into the shelving archives not to see the light of day till they are to old for it to matter to them getting what they deserve. I don't know if this is the correct thread to put this on but it is on the same lines of being gone earlier. I think this is why the colouring book Got ripped up and used for the time line scribbling  to keep everyone on the same time scale so they didn't slip up, and slip up they did that is why I was thinking it was maybe not as early as Sunday. I know this could all be wrong it's just a theory

Nina wrote:[
Probably of no consequence but just troubles me..................
The 'high tea'. This was the most substantial meal the Mccann's children had the whole week.Cereal andmilk for breakfast,asandwich at lunch time, though there is mention of pasta and milk and biscuits before bed and again Ithinkmentionof some crisps.Hardly a good balanced diet considering what the Tapasparents were having each evening.
This was included in the price of the holiday and I find it odd there is no mention whatsoever of what the 'high tea' consisted of. And little asides of being introduced to new foods to experience or was it fish fingers and chicken nuggets.
Anyway as I say probably of no consequence as never mentioned by any of the Tapas parents.

Maria Manuela Antonia Jose wrote:
When she was informed about the disappearance she did not realise which child this was, it was only later, upon watching the television news that night and after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crèche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

Upon questioning, the witness confirms that on the day of the disappearance, she worked at the restaurant from 10h00 to 18h45, when, having finished her shift, she went home, where she remained with her 13 year old son until approximately 10h00 the following day (4th May).

On 4th May 2007, due to the fact that she had a medical appointment at the Lagos Health Centre followed by an appointment at the Portimao Court at 15h00, she only began work at 18h30 (dinner service, which lasts until 24h00).

With relation to the facts being investigated, she only knows what she heard from the media or from conversations with her colleagues.

Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

Verdi wrote:

cbeagle wrote:

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 

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.

OK, so I get the drift - you want forum members to accuse all and sundry of being liars.  I don't like the sound of that! 

HiDeHo has presented a detailed account of statement discrepancies that strongly indicate that MBM was not seen with certainty after lunch time on Sunday 29th April 2007.  Could be any number of reasons for mistaken identity or loss of recall, without accusing people of being downright liars.  Unnecessary!

Verdi wrote:Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada witness statement - 8th May 2007  [snipped]

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.

a)  Maybe a glitch in translation but I can't understand what connection there is between the cleaners work allocation and the missing English girl.
b)  The witness account implies that the apartments occupied by the McCann, the Paynes and the one being cleaned by her mother on the Sunday all all in the same block.
 
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.

Already covered.

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.


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.

If the witness was walking to apartment 5I to see her mother when she claims to have watched KM and the children leave the apartment and head for the stairs to the first floor, then she must have either been hanging around or watching from a vantage point - how else would she have observed GM within moments, at a distance leave apartment 5A by the main door?
----------

The photograph I originally posted was only intended to be an indication of the distance between apartment 5A, the Paynes apartment and the one being cleaned by the witnesses mother, not an indication of how the family left the building.  Still, I have never been to the Ocean Club so, even with the photographic footage of the apartment block contained in the PJ files, it's impossible for me to get a clear picture of the layout and who was where and when and why.  I was only questioning why HiDeHo thought the witness statement to be compelling evidence that MBM was seen at that time.  I guess it's all about individual perception!

j.rob wrote:
Tony wrote: We have a witness - Mrs Fenn - who asserts that she heard Madeleine, but I can't see many people seriously suggesting that her evidence is credible.

------

Why not? 

**** Most of the many reasons for doubting Mrs Fenn's testimony are adduced here:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  


Not that many of the apartments in the block were occupied - and the ones that were occupied were occupied by TM. The apartments were quite large. It was cold at night so no windows open. The apartments were separated from the OC resort by an alley-way and a wall. I think it is perfectly feasible that Mrs Fenn heard crying.

**** OK, she could have heard crying.  But did she?


Mrs Fenn was probably prompted by a police question as to whether she thought the crying might have come from the twins or whether she thought it might have come from a child closer to four years old - ie: Madeleine. She was probably trying to be helpful.
.
**** Absolutely not. Please read my article on Mrs Fenn. She didn't make her statement until more then three-and-a-half months later (August 20). She only did so after several British newspapers told us on Saturday 18 August that she was going to make a statement and at the same time told us exactly what she was going to say.  If it isn't obvious to folk what was really going on here then Mrs Fenn made it all plain the day after she made her statement. She said in front of a TV near her home, and I quote: "Ignore it! It's all rubbish!".  Now that, @ j.rob, was the truth.  

IF Mrs Fenn fabricated this incident - irrespective of whoever was crying and irrespective of what apartment the crying came from (obviously she could have been mistaken in many respects but being mistaken is not the same as making things up - then what was her MOTIVE?

**** Now, I do not have to show a motive. I have simply to show cogent reasons for thinking that a witness has not been truthful.

Now take note of this - three people who I suggest have fabricated their evidence:

MRS FENN - connected to the Murats? - YES
NUNO LOURENCO - connected to the Murats? - YES
MARTIN SMITH - connected to the Murats? - YES 
JANE TANNER - connected to the Murats? - POSSIBLY (hairs of her haplotype and Murat's both found in Wojcheich Krokowski's holiday apartment.

Robert Murat was summoned back on Monday 30 April to Praia da Luz for an urgent reason, and was up at 5.00am the next morning to make sure he was at Faro Airport by 9am Tuesday 1 May 

cbeagle wrote:Thanks @j.rob, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is taking the straw man argument approach.

So to rise to the challenge:

David Payne said: 

Matthew Oldfield said: 

Jane Tanner said:

Tony Bennett wrote:

To be fair, HideHo did rephrase her challenge as follows:

cbeagle wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

To be fair, HideHo did rephrase her challenge as follows:

No she didn't, that was my proposal and she said:

"That would not be correct ..."


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


(edited to add quotes around the last line, as it was said by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

cbeagle wrote:Though given the strangeness of this case, I can see why people see conspiracies, and maybe the end result will be that it was self-preservation by a number of folks who lived in Praia de Luz and the visitors who came for the services they provided.

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is taking the straw man argument approach.

Au contraire - you presume too much!

HiDeHo wrote:There seems to be an issue about witnesses 'lying'.

I do not accuse any independent witness of lying.

This thread is NOT about whether witnesses lied.. It is about whether any of their statements are PROOF of Madeleine being seen during the week

In my research, I did not include T7 statements as I have explained on many other threads that their statements are riddled with discrepancies and therefore I could not claim a specific sighting of Madeleine by any one of them as PROOF.

Please DO NOT refer to any of the reason behind this thread or any of my comments to have ANYTHING to do with independent witnesses lying..

I reserve judgement on T7

Just because an independent witness may be mistaken, or does not provide specific proof does NOT mean they are lying.


DID THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF SEEING MADELEINE? ONLY FATIMA HAS DONE SO IN MY OPINION>

Can anyone show me ANOTHER statement that is PROOF Madeleine was seen is my challenge?

Verdi wrote:pennylane, if you look at facts from a different angle the same could be said of McCanns group of friends but if didn't happen did it?  One word from any key players or appendages could have brought their house of cards to the ground but it didn't happen did it?  The most obvious reason I can see for this anomaly is that they are being protected - in the same way as the McCanns themselves appear to have been protected.

Firstly, there is no indication to suggest that Catriona Baker was not previously acquainted with the McCanns or someone/s closely connected thereto.  It does appear strange to me that Catriona Baker was reported to have taken Madeleine's disappearance so personally, ostensibly only knowing the child for a few hours a day for a period of four days and on the surface having no responsibility for Madeleine's alleged disappearance - and then shipped off with the speed of light to another holiday destination - Greece!

Then, why did the McCanns invite Catriona Baker specifically to visit them at their home in November 2005, prior to the proposed rogatory interviews early 2008 to be conducted by Leicester Police (the McCanns local constabulary) and around the same time at the clandestine Rothley Hotel meet?  Lest we forget..

Processo Volume XI, pages 3030 to 3034

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:

Group 1 (persons with whom the couple dined every night during the holidays)

    • David Payne, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Fiona Payne, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Diane Webster, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Russell O'Brien, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Jane Tanner, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Rachael Oldfield, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Matthew Oldfield, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

Group 2 (independent customers and employees of the Ocean Club who saw the behaviour of Kate and Gerry on the day of the disappearance):

    • Dan Smith, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Steve Carpenter, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Carolyn Carpenter, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Jeremy Wilkins, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Catriona Baker, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

Group 3 (people who saw and/or spoke with Kate and Gerry at the time they noticed Madeleine's disappearance):

    • Patricia Cameron, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Paul Seddon, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Michelle Thompson, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Emma Knights, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Alan Pike, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

Group 4 (people who knew the daily routine of Kate and Gerry and their relationship with their children before coming to Portugal):

    • Janet Kennedy, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Amanda Coxon, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Karen McCalman, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Patricia Cameron, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Sharon Lewin, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Hayley Plummer, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

Group 5 (persons closely involved in the routine of Kate and Gerry in Portugal after the disappearance of Madeleine and their emotional state)

    • Sandy Cameron, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Michael Wright, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Clarence Mitchell, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Linda McQueen, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Nicky Gill, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Justine McGuinness, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

Group 6 (Professionals who can confirm that there was no abnormality in the way Kate and Gerry treated their children):

    • Dr. Phil Hussey, with address at ... and telephone no. ...
    • Dr Ian Schofield, with address at ... and telephone no. ...

6 - It is certain that some of these witnesses have already been heard, at least once, in the investigation.

7 - But, at that time, the direction of the investigation was apparently different, [that being] the reason why some of these witnesses were not heard on the matters mentioned above, currently considered relevant to the prosecution of the investigation and who already were, furthermore, the object of actual proceedings, namely the questioning and the interrogations of the applicants.

We submit that, their testimony [being] essential to the discovery of the truth, and given that the witnesses designated above actually live in the United Kingdom, where they will be found, (except Dan Smith and Emma Knights who will be found in Portugal), it is requested further, under Arts. 229 and following of CPP, 145 and following of Law 14-4/99 of 31 August (Law of International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters) and 3 and following of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Support in Criminal Matters, that a Rogatory Letter be expedited for them to be heard in the United Kingdom.

They ask that the request be granted

The Advocates
CARLOS PINTO DE ABREU
ROGÉRIO ALVES

Why would the McCanns consider Catriona Baker to be a viable witness, grouped together with their friends and close acquaintances ?  If we are to believe she only supervised Madeleine for a few hours during the daytime at the Lobster Club, how could she be considered to be an important witness?  Before anyone says she was invited as a sort of character witness - how the heck could she vouch for a couple of strangers she only encountered for a few seconds/minutes twice a day for four days?

There must be more to this than meets the eye.