Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 20:47

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

[/size]

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

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

Not sure if that will link you but if you put John Major and the Symington family in the search box if should take you there smilie

by MayMuse 10.05.16 20:49

Thank you this got me there

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 20:51

Haha well I had no idea what I was doing so I think I just performed a technical miracle Mrs

by **Jill Havern** 10.05.16 20:57

MayMuse wrote:
dottyaussie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have a look at this thread John Major and the Symington Family. It talks about who is related to who including Murat and how people are involved

I've just read it and all I can say is WOW!!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thank you, I have keyed in search but nothing comes up & for the FOI...where can I find the links to it would you know?

If you scroll down the forum you'll find a whole section of FOI's.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 21:00

Thank you still finding my way around.

by BarryTheHatchet 10.05.16 22:10

MayMuse wrote:Symington is that the one who is the son of the owner of the complex? The one who looks uncannily like Murat?

Who looks uncannily like Dr David Payne? Funny, that.

by Guest 10.05.16 22:15

by Guest 10.05.16 23:26

April28th wrote:Let's not forget, also, that the late Mrs. Fenn, of crying incident fame, was a former employee at Windsor Castle.

That was Carole Tranmer, - her niece, not Pamela Fenn.

by Guest 10.05.16 23:28

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Quite correct, I'd just deleted that post on seeing the 'stay on topic' post above, didn't think anyone would've caught it. Let this post stand as confirmation of correction.

by Guest 10.05.16 23:39

April28th wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Quite correct, I'd just deleted that post on seeing the 'stay on topic' post above, didn't think anyone would've caught it. Let this post stand as confirmation of correction.

I didn't realise - your post popped up in the top right corner of my screen (as they do) and I replied directly.

I'm 100% with keeping this particular thread on topic. It's a stand alone subject that shouldn't be adulterated or diverted.

by Guest 10.05.16 23:53

Ironically I'd done the opposite - replied to a thread I had left open in a tab and not refreshed!

On topic - I would contend that the deleted phone records on the day before the third - the volume of traffic they infer - and the radio silence on the third (prior to shock and awe), point to attempted deception, with either ignorance or overconfidence that they could/would be retrieved.

Anyone contending that everything took place on the third needs to find a logical explanation for this, not least because the flurry of activity (or at least some) would've been expected on the third if there was no prior conspiracy afoot.

And another CB related note which requires explanation, why did she end up in Greece in short order?

by dottyaussie 11.05.16 0:49

I think the earlier phone records would be very interesting if they were ever released. Are deleted text messages retrievable or able to be read by PJ ?

by BarryTheHatchet 11.05.16 6:59

Depends on the IM server. If logging is not specifically switched on, then probably not, no. Unfortunately Sad

by Guest 11.05.16 11:57

dottyaussie wrote:I think the earlier phone records would be very interesting if they were ever released. Are deleted text messages retrievable or able to be read by PJ ?

There is a wealth of information afloat on this subject. Where better to start than Portugal..

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

Don't forget also, the McCanns and their group of friends were given mobile phones, apparently locally acquired, soon after Madeleine allegedly disappeared.

by dottyaussie 11.05.16 12:38

If were going with the theory that something happened before the third then we could agree that something happened on the Monday the 30th based on

1. Its the day that everyone avoided talking about.
2. Its the day that Madeleine was in and out of the creche within 15 mins
3. Its the day that neither GM or KM mentioned doing anything with M that afternoon or that she was unwell.
4. Its the day GM & KM changed their routine.

The questions then if she became ill on the Monday who was looking after her and where was she?

Ok this may sound really random but how about the delightful and very helpful.....Charlotte Pennington ? Her statements are just as messed up as TM. But if she was looking after Madeleine then she may have been telling the truth when she said she read stories to her. In Russel O'Brien's statement he said she was looking after Dave & Fiona's kids.Did he mean in the creche or as a nanny? In the Charlotte Pennington thread it is mentioned that she worked at the same hospital as KM in New Zealand which could imply KM knew her before they were in PDL. Are the creche records available for the group she apparently worked with?

If the cleaner or tradesmen were at the apartment Monday morning then there was nothing to witness. After Mon afternoon if anyone came round simply shut the bedroom door, nothing to see here.

As far as the twins asking questions, from personal experience when a family member is seriously ill, children that age are easily distracted and have a memory like a sieve. Even when they were at the house everyday they never asked any questions. They never even knew that person had become deceased until they were told.

Questions about the Creche Records and CB

Well we already know the creche records are dodgy and past posts have said how the conversation with CB could've gone re CB going along with keeping the creche records dodgy. The same/similar conversation could've happened with Charlotte.

The OMG momemt.

This OMG moment could've happened Mon afternoon/night, Tues, Wed or even Thursday day at a push. So needing someone to look after MBM would've only been for one or two days, maximum three days and for only a few hours during the morning, later in the afternoon and a few hours in the evening.

If that moment was,

Mon Afternoon/Night - The day no-one speaks of. KM went to supermarket with JT. Apparently to buy cleaning products. No need to involve CP
Tuesday - If MBM was ill/alive CP could've been looking after her during the day. OMG moment during the evening. Mrs Fenn apparently hears crying. Wednesday- Either CP looking after MBM if she was still ill/alive or "Thanks CP she's fine now" if she was not. (I know, but not totally unbelievable)
Thursday- Same as Wednesday. But that doesn't leave alot of time for cleaning, making up a plan etc.

In all of this I'm not entirely sure if ALL the Tapas 7 were completely 'in the know'. So we have GM, KM, some of the Tapas 7, CB, and CP. Also the person/s that helped them when the moment happened who was the reason all this high level assistance was brought in for.

This is just my thoughts and trying to find the pieces that fit the jigsaw.

by NickE 11.05.16 18:22

dottyaussie wrote:If were going with the theory that something happened before the third then we could agree that something happened on the Monday the 30th based on

1. Its the day that everyone avoided talking about.
2. Its the day that Madeleine was in and out of the creche within 15 mins
3. Its the day that neither GM or KM mentioned doing anything with M that afternoon or that she was unwell.
4. Its the day GM & KM changed their routine.
5. Its the day when there was no pings from Kate´s and Gerry´s phones in Pdl.
6. Its the day when they went on a trip to Sagres....erm...or maybe not...confusion is good.
7. Its the day when WBM logged "CEOP´s missing Madeleine" website.

The questions then if she became ill on the Monday who was looking after her and where was she?

Ok this may sound really random but how about the delightful and very helpful.....Charlotte Pennington ? Her statements are just as messed up as TM. But if she was looking after Madeleine then she may have been telling the truth when she said she read stories to her. In Russel O'Brien's statement he said she was looking after Dave & Fiona's kids.Did he mean in the creche or as a nanny? In the Charlotte Pennington thread it is mentioned that she worked at the same hospital as KM in New Zealand which could imply KM knew her before they were in PDL. Are the creche records available for the group she apparently worked with?

If the cleaner or tradesmen were at the apartment Monday morning then there was nothing to witness. After Mon afternoon if anyone came round simply shut the bedroom door, nothing to see here.

As far as the twins asking questions, from personal experience when a family member is seriously ill, children that age are easily distracted and have a memory like a sieve. Even when they were at the house everyday they never asked any questions. They never even knew that person had become deceased until they were told.

Questions about the Creche Records and CB

Well we already know the creche records are dodgy and past posts have said how the conversation with CB could've gone re CB going along with keeping the creche records dodgy. The same/similar conversation could've happened with Charlotte.

The OMG momemt.

This OMG moment could've happened Mon afternoon/night, Tues, Wed or even Thursday day at a push. So needing someone to look after MBM would've only been for one or two days, maximum three days and for only a few hours during the morning, later in the afternoon and a few hours in the evening.

If that moment was,

Mon Afternoon/Night - The day no-one speaks of. KM went to supermarket with JT. Apparently to buy cleaning products. No need to involve CP
Tuesday - If MBM was ill/alive CP could've been looking after her during the day. OMG moment during the evening. Mrs Fenn apparently hears crying. Wednesday- Either CP looking after MBM if she was still ill/alive or "Thanks CP she's fine now" if she was not. (I know, but not totally unbelievable)
Thursday- Same as Wednesday. But that doesn't leave alot of time for cleaning, making up a plan etc.

In all of this I'm not entirely sure if ALL the Tapas 7 were completely 'in the know'. So we have GM, KM, some of the Tapas 7, CB, and CP. Also the person/s that helped them when the moment happened who was the reason all this high level assistance was brought in for.

This is just my thoughts and trying to find the pieces that fit the jigsaw.

by Realist 11.05.16 18:45

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

No I was talking about it being joint venture. That someone assisted them in the situation they were in whatever that situation was.

I'm afraid I'm a tad confused here, dottyaussie, because you were replying to Grandad who was patently advancing an hypothesis purporting that another party may have been enlisted to aid an ailing Madeleine, not to cover any situation they may have found themselves in. Hence my assumption that it would had to have been a person with a modicum of medical knowledge, after all, it wouldn't have benefited their cause to have enlisted a plumber, builder et al, would it now.

I think, along with a number of others, you have been watching too many TV spy thrillers, whereby a bondesque type character calls in the clean up squad, complete with white overalls and unobtrusive van to dispose of a body, along with all incriminating evidence big grin

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

At this point A JOINT VENTURE is formed – NOT to cover up a murder or to dispose of a corpse – but to treat her and SAVE HER LIFE!

''And if someone else OTHER than the McCanns or the Tapas crew assisted in the original problem, who then became part of this JOINT VENTURE, then maybe the involvement of Govt/MIS/Embassy was for THAT person or THOSE persons and not the McCanns.''

by Liz Eagles 11.05.16 18:53

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

No I was talking about it being joint venture. That someone assisted them in the situation they were in whatever that situation was.
I'm afraid I'm a tad confused here, dottyaussie, because you were replying to Grandad who was patently advancing an hypothesis purporting that another party may have been enlisted to aid an ailing Madeleine, not to cover any situation they may have found themselves in. Hence my assumption that it would had to have been a person with a modicum of medical knowledge, after all, it wouldn't have benefited their cause to have enlisted a plumber, builder et al, would it now.

I think, along with a number of others, you have been watching too many TV spy thrillers, whereby a bondesque type character calls in the clean up squad, complete with white overalls and unobtrusive van to dispose of a body, along with all incriminating evidence

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

At this point A JOINT VENTURE is formed – NOT to cover up a murder or to dispose of a corpse – but to treat her and SAVE HER LIFE!

''And if someone else OTHER than the McCanns or the Tapas crew assisted in the original problem, who then became part of this JOINT VENTURE, then maybe the involvement of Govt/MIS/Embassy was for THAT person or THOSE persons and not the McCanns.''

Would you please explain why you called me JD? You seem to have been missing from the forum for quite a few hours since I asked.

by Realist 11.05.16 19:09

aquila wrote:

Would you please explain why you called me JD? You seem to have been missing from the forum for quite a few hours since I asked.

I do have other matters to attend to outside of the internet, Aquila, if you read your PM's, all will be revealed.

by dottyaussie 11.05.16 19:14

@ Realist

Ok this is the third time now you have been completely wrong about me. I don't watch spy thrillers and am certainly not a Bond fan.

P.s Not meant as an offence to anyone else that is a Bond fan smilie

by Liz Eagles 11.05.16 19:15

Realist wrote:
aquila wrote:

Would you please explain why you called me JD? You seem to have been missing from the forum for quite a few hours since I asked.
I do have other matters to attend to outside of the internet, Aquila, if you read your PM's, all will be revealed.

I've just read your PM and it means nothing...what is 'it was an advertisement from years ago' have to do with anything?

Don't PM me again. When I ask you for an answer to something you have written openly on the forum please have the courtesy to answer it openly.

by Grandad 11.05.16 19:31

Re your being a tad confused Realist -My hypothesis - such as it was - was that the MccDocs MAY have had the help of some or all of the T7 during the week treating an injured MBM and that to cover her absence from the time of whatever incidence befell her, such that she remained 'out of sight' thereafter - they could also have been able to use another child as a substitute for her at critical moments.

Other than these people I suggest that they would not have wanted anyone to know what was going on and therefore NOT enlisted anyone else's help - for anything!

However I think that Tony has shot down any notion that MBM was dead: incapacitated or otherwise missing earlier in the week thus -

"Cat Baker met Madeleine and her parents on the Saturday AND had Madeleine in her care all of Sunday (there is even evidence she may have known the family well before May 2007).

Your theory was that ANOTHER CHILD was put forward as Madeleine for the next FOUR days (while she was very ill) and that she as 'too dopey...too gormless' to know otherwise.

If there was another child put forward as Madeleine, but who had a quite different name, how is it remotely conceivable that she did not immediately know this was not Madeleine and say (on the Monday): "Oh, where is Madeleine today?"

You wrote: "But it’s not difficult to see how a dopey nanny could come away convinced she saw a child that wasn’t there!"

With respect, it is not only difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE. There were only 7 children in Madeleine's crèche group. In sole charge of them for a week, she would know EXACTLY who was with her each day of that week."

by Realist 11.05.16 19:40

aquila wrote:

I've just read your PM and it means nothing...what is 'it was an advertisement from years ago' have to do with anything?

Don't PM me again. When I ask you for an answer to something you have written openly on the forum please have the courtesy to answer it openly.

If you care to check the timing of my PM you will note that I had already sent it out of courtesy, prior to your asking me openly on this forum. The reason I did so was because it was merely an innocuous throw away line which I didn't consider merited a mention on this thread.

Heaven forbid, you should think I had temerity to PM you with any ulterior motive in mind. For the benefit of all to see, voila:-

Sent :: Message

ONLY KIDDING, JD.

From Realist To aquila, Today at 8:03 pm
It was a TV advertisement catchphrase from many yrs. ago, Aquila, so long ago in fact, that I can't remember what the ad. was advertising.

Best wishes,

by Guest 11.05.16 19:42

by Realist 11.05.16 19:44

Grandad wrote:Re your being a tad confused Realist -

I wasn't confused by anything you wrote, Grandad. I was merely confused by dottyaussie confusing what you had written.

by Realist 11.05.16 19:48

Ladyinred wrote:

I agree entirely with your sentiments, I was merely openly clarifying a matter for Aquila. I won't further comment.

by Guest 11.05.16 23:55

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

Just breezing in to help you see the full picture. Call me cynical, you would be dead right, there is something very fishy about new members appearing and recently dormant members re-appearing around the same time as Dr. Amaral's victory in the Lisbon courts and Mr. Bennett's submission to 10 Downing Street. One could almost be inclined to think that these extraordinary theories being newly presented are designed to deflect - quite a normal tactic for the McCann defence team I understand; indeed the same tactic as adopted by the UK media in all matters McCann. Of course I could be wrong but it appears to me, by creating new entirely speculative theories, you have flushed nine years of research and analysis instantly down the proverbial drain.

You previously wrote - "Am I to understand that the site is in fact a closed group - a mutual admiration society exclusively for the longer term members and that newcomers and /or new ideas are unwelcome?"

The straight answer to that is NO! Although it has been tried and continues to this day but not as you imply. It appears to me that it is the arrival of a few newcomers and reanimation of dormant members that try to form a 'club' - this is reflected by communal response between the minority fringe group flying in the face of reason by encouraging discussion around totally speculative conspiracy theories. My uneasiness is further compounded by the following posted by you:

April 15th 2016..
I am a new member (although I have been an avid reader of this blog for many years.)

May 10th 2016..
I have explained that I am completely new to the site - I have ducked in and out for a year or so - but my knowledge of the details of this case are nowhere near as comprehensive as many.

So, that out of the way, can you now answer my previous questions..

1) Do you think one or more of the group had their Gladstone bag handy, containing emergency medication/equipment? Or perhaps adopted a hands-on holistic approach - like Kate McCann and her mate checking the twins breathing?

2) Where was a seriously injured Madeleine housed during the week whilst the parents and friends were out and about practicing sporting activities and in the evenings when they were at the Tapas restaurant?

3) How does your theory fit in with the undeniable top level support afforded to the McCanns within hours of Kate McCann raising the alarm on 3rd May 2007?
a)

by Cmaryholmes 12.05.16 8:17

Speculative theories may well be interesting, but they really only succeed in muddying the waters and cause more confusion to an already very complex case. IMO

by Grandad 12.05.16 14:48

My Dear Verdi,

Thank you for “breezing in to help me see the full picture.”

Unfortunately your missive doesn’t quite do that – instead, it reveals, not cynicism – but paranoia.

“Something very fishy about new members?”
“Extraordinary theories DESIGNED to deflect?”
“Flushed nine years of research down the drain?”

Err?

Are these latest silly spluttering’s of yours a thinly disguised suggestion that I am, (and perhaps some – or maybe in your mind - all new members,) are somehow sympathetic to the MccDocs? That I/we believe in the ‘abduction theory? And even that I/we are trying to help them?

Nothing could be further from the truth! - Let me repeat – NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH

I will try to calm your angst.

I DON’T believe in the abduction theory.

I DO believe that the MccDocs are responsible for her ‘disappearance’ (but just like you and everyone else I don’t know exactly how or in exactly what way) – hence the continuing fascination with the case and the endless speculation of many, including me, trying to find the truth of it.

I am DELIGHTED that GA won his case – had he not it would have been a monstrous miss-justice

I hope he sues the pants off the MccDocs and everyone else who has defamed him – and wins.

In short – I am NOT sympathetic to the MccDocs – in ANY way – I am not part of TM – I don’t work for them or any of their many lawyers – or the press - I am not CM in disguise – I am NOT a troll (I hope! I’m not quite sure what one is – perhaps someone could enlighten me on this point)

“Of course you could be wrong” – you said – YOU ARE – But I somehow doubt you could ever accept it.

You really can’t have it both ways –

Either – new members with new thoughts are welcome –
OR
They are very fishy and muddy the water – and are therefore not welcome.

Which is it?

(Or is it that new members and new ideas are welcome – but only if they agree with you and the established shibboleths?)

So, that out of the way, I will now try to answer your previous questions (although they are pretty silly – and the first two have already been address in earlier posts – if only you had read them more carefully!

1) Do you think one or more of the group had their Gladstone bag handy, containing emergency medication/equipment? Or perhaps adopted a hands-on holistic approach - like Kate McCann and her mate checking the twins breathing?

Gladstone bag?

I don’t think many modern Docs use one – do you?

Given that we have no idea what befell MBM we can have no idea what medication; equipment; medical resources they might have needed. Nor can we know what medical resources they (by they I mean the group of Docs) may have taken with them. (I have a Doc friend who takes pints of his own blood and those of his family, when they go on holiday because he doesn't trust the local brew)

In addition, didn't they go shopping on Monday – for ‘cleaning materials’ and don’t forget RM flew in at v v short notice – perhaps he had a Gladstone bag!

2) Where was a seriously injured Madeleine housed during the week whilst the parents and friends were out and about practicing sporting activities and in the evenings when they were at the Tapas restaurant?

In 5a – or one of the other apartments. – for more on this – read my earlier posts - carefully.

3) How does your theory fit in with the undeniable top level support afforded to the McCanns within hours of Kate McCann raising the alarm on 3rd May 2007?

I haven’t addressed this issue before – so I will now.

Without wishing to ‘fishy’ up any more ‘jests’ from ‘muddy waters’ – and forgive me but please wait a mo while I duck when I say this –

I suggest that all you need to explain EVERYTHING that happened in the hours; days; years after Thursday 3^rd evening is -

1.      The ‘six degrees of separation’ theory.
2.      The natural human instinct of those in the vicinity of a catastrophe to try to help (or at least stick their nose in).
3.      Self interest.

And thereafter –

4.      The honesty, altruism and integrity of the Honourable and Right Honourable (and Lords and Ladys) that we are all aware of and so deeply admire.
5.      The truthfulness, public service motivation and integrity of the media – especially the GP (gutter press) that again we are all aware of and are so grateful for.
6.      The inability to jump off a runaway train without killing yourself – or get out of a hole you have yourself dug too deeply.

To make it more interesting I will start the script – and let you finish it!

So here we go ---

The MccDocs are on holiday along with many other – One is PE a relative of MEH nee O (well known for her stunning success on behalf of abused children in Islington care homes - who 10 days later is appointed ‘Children’s Minister.’ (Well deserved doncha think?) From all the many others at PDL there will have been many who were also within the six degrees of separation of other Hs & RHs – and influential members of the GP – for example perhaps RB. (Including of course the MccDocs and friends themselves.)

So -

Abduction button pressed – uproar ensues – many come out to see what’s going on – and some say – I know *** or I know someone who knows *** here’s a telephone number, or I will phone and see if they can help.

Strings are pulled Hs & RHs see votes GP see sales.

Job done – train on its way – gathering speed – MccDocs trapped in an ever deepening hole – soon no one can get off

Hs & RHs continue to want votes – GP continue to want sales – MccDocs & friends stuck.

Train turns into gravy train

Over to you -

by Guest 12.05.16 15:23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] today 2:48pm

Thank you kindly for clarifying your position in such detail.

Individual aspects of the case I will continue to comment on as and when they arise, in the meantime as this is not the Grandad/Verdi show, I think we should stick to the subject under discussion alone. I am unable to respond to specific areas concerning the case of Madeleine McCann that you identify in your latest post as quite frankly, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. No doubt my feeble brain is at fault as it can't dechipher code.

I wish you goodday.

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

Latest topics