Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

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 Verdi 11.05.16 23:55

@Grandad

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 Verdi 12.05.16 15:23

@Grandad 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.

by dottyaussie 12.05.16 15:34

Grandad wrote:

for example perhaps RB. (Including of course the MccDocs and friends themselves.)

Hi Grandad

With a bit of guessing I have figured

Hs & RHs are Honourable's and Right Honourables yes? And GP is gutter press ? yes

But who is RB ?

by Nina 12.05.16 15:35

But who is RB ?

Rebeka Brooks?spl

by Grandad 12.05.16 15:47

Exactly!

All but RB were in fact identified in the body of the post - so not a very difficult code!

by dottyaussie 12.05.16 16:27

Thanks Nina & Grandad smilie

by colleenlowe 17.03.17 14:42

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Posted by HiDeHo

Like everyone else, I believed that Madeleine was seen during the holidays as there were so many people that claimed to have seen her.

I attempted to try to find out which ones were credible, hopefully leading to the last day that she was seen with a fair amount of certainty...

As I started to collate them and then scrutinise each one I realised that apart from Fatima da Silva who saw Madeleine and the family outside the apartment as they were probably heading up to lunch at the Paynes (I checked her statement for he work times to see if she actually was finished work at hat time as she said...and it was correct.) there was NOT ONE statement that had a similar degree of credibility.

I thought that the possibility of something happening to Madeleine prior to Thursday would be impossible but after reading all the statements, every one (except Fatima) allows for doubt. Some were very obviously mistaken.

This is the list of everyone that 'saw' Madeleine during the holiday according to their statements.

Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada (5A Cleaner's daughter) - Credible

Cecilia Dias Firmino - Receptionist at Millenium - described a shy Madeleine and saw them on days they were not at restaurant. - Therefore, not proof that she saw Madeleine...She may have seen one of the other tapas children

Jeronimo Salcedes - Tapas Barman - Admits to not being able to recognise if it was Madeleine.

Maria M A Jose - Tapas Cook - Described seeing Madeleine every lunchtime in the tapas next to the creche Madeleine attended, but Madeleine did not go to that creche so she was mistaken with which child she saw.

Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho ( Receptionist) - Claims to have seen Madeleine with ROB but his daughter was not in the creche that morning and looks very similar to Madeleine so likely mistaken.

Georgina Jackson - Tennis instructor - Was non specific about seeing Madeleine...only that she was part of the group for that morning.

Bridget O'Donnell - Jez Wilkins partner - Claimed 'all pretty in pink' for the mini tennis with the Sharks on Thursday...Madeleine's group played on Tuesday, so she was mistaken that Madeleine may have been there.

Miguel Matias - Owner of Paraiso - Was convinced he saw Madeleine dancing with her daddy and on his shoulders but we KNOW Madeleine was not there...he mistakenly thought another child was Madeleine.

The Boyds Their son supposedly played with Madeleine on the waterslide on May 3rd - They made no statement, just a magazine article that has many discrepancies about its credibility which I can explain further if necessary.

Catriona Baker - Non credible with her statement riddled with discrepancies as well as her trip to visit the McCanns in Rothley does not help with credibility.

Charlotte Pennington - Already accepted as being questionable with many contradictions and discrepancies.

Elisa Dias Romao - Claimed seeing Madeleine at times she was not there.(according to creche records)

Emma Wilding -Did not know Madeleine well and makes incorrect statement about seeing Gerry

Paula Cristina da Costa Vieira Cleaner - Saw them twice leaving Millenium about 9.30 - 10am - The didn't go to Millenium for breakfast

Alice Stanley & Chris Unsworth - Took children sailing May 3rd - Apparently no formal statements from them-

Non Specific comments that do not (imo) confirm Madeleine's presence:-

Jeremy (Jes/Jez) Wilkins
Stephen Carpenter
Daniel Stuk

Are there any of the above witnesses that REALLY DID SEE MADELEINE? I encourage anyone to show me one witness that, according to their statement, PROBABLY saw Madeleine during the week.

Some are obviously mistaken but the remainder (and there are very few considering she was there for more than 5 days) are questionable at best.

For those of us that believe something happened earlier, the statements confirm there is a possibility that she may not have been seen.

Read the statements in full (highlighted):
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Discrepancies-by-Topic/Who-Saw-Madeleine-Credibility-Statement-Highlights-1-780252.html

by **sharonl** 23.09.17 17:19

Bumping

For those who are still under the impression that the McCanns are guilty of child neglect and that it is a fact that Madeleine disappeared on the evening of May 3rd.

by **sharonl** 29.10.17 21:36

Bumping for new members and readers who still believe that Madeleine disappeared on 3rd May and that Smithman sighting was genuine

by Dannz 09.03.19 0:00

I CHALLENGE anyone to find a statement that could be considered PROOF that Madeleine was alive during the week... Was Madeleine seen after SUNDAY?

There are witness statements which report seeing Madeleine after the Sunday which are credible and where there is no reason to suppose mistaken identity or the truthfulness of the statement. Taken together these certainly meet the civil standard of proof. Is that not good enough?

by Verdi 09.03.19 0:34

If you would be so 'galante' as to identify these credible witnesses that you speak of, then maybe we can scrutinize and eliminate them one by one.

Generalisation doesn't cut it.

waiting

NB: Thank you for reincarnating such an important thread thumbsup

!

by Dannz 09.03.19 0:48

If one by one, start with Elisa Romao. What good basis is there for eliminating her statement?

by Guest 09.03.19 8:05

Dannz wrote:
there is no reason to suppose mistaken identity or the truthfulness of the statement.

I can think of at least ONE VERY GOOD reason . . . and that is to avoid a lengthy jail sentence for perverting the course of justice. Jails are FULL of people who Lied to avoid being found out.

Saying people would not do that is simple denial at best, or deliberate obfuscation at worst.

Dannz, didn't you say exactly the same thing last week? Are you some kind of GCHQ robot?

by Dannz 09.03.19 11:42

JimbobJones wrote:
Dannz wrote:
there is no reason to suppose mistaken identity or the truthfulness of the statement.

I can think of at least ONE VERY GOOD reason . . . and that is to avoid a lengthy jail sentence for perverting the course of justice. Jails are FULL of people who Lied to avoid being found out.

Saying people would not do that is simple denial at best, or deliberate obfuscation at worst.

Dannz, didn't you say exactly the same thing last week? Are you some kind of GCHQ robot?

Yes, making a false statement is criminal offence, which is reason to suppose she is not lying about this.

You seem to be suggesting that Ms Romao is no mere receptionist, but some criminal fiend who played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance and then lied to conceal this conspiracy that she is part of? What reason is there for thinking that? Because otherwise her witness statement doesn’t fit your theory?

If that’s the reason for eliminating Ms Romao’s witness statement, it only argues that the notion that Madeleine disappeared before 3 May is a crackpot conspiracy theory which no one with a grip on reality would take seriously.

Unless there is any serious credible reason supported by evidence for doubting Ms Romao, the sane conclusion is Madeleine disappeared on 3 May and not before.

by **PeterMac** 09.03.19 12:23

Dannz wrote:If one by one, start with Elisa Romao. What good basis is there for eliminating her statement?

It is not a question of "eliminating" her statement.
If we examine it we see that it is vague and non-specific.
If we try to analyse it in detail we find that it is simply not in accordance with any of the supposed facts.

Specifically she says
"Her days off are Sundays and Mondays. "
So she can have no knowledge of the state or composition of any family before Tuesday.

"She thinks that they always left between 12H30 and 13HOO.---Around 14H00 the couple returned; indeed it was what almost everyone having children did, and delivered the three children to the care of the nannies."

Except that Madeleine is allegedly taken by ONE parent to the Lobsters club, whilst the OTHER parent delivers the twins to the Jellyfish creche by the Tapas bar. The bit in bold indicates that this is probably no more than supposition. The police officer taking the statement put that in deliberately.

"The deponent recalls that the parents then spent most of the time at the Garden Club, at activities such as tennis, and although they were part of a group of four couples (the reservation was always made for 9 adults), they only got together at dinner time. "
But three paragraphs down she says
"Her working hours were between 09H00 and 19H00, and she was never present when the group had dinner."

"She recalls that she always had the idea that when the couples went out they always took their respective children with them; she never noticed any of the children leaving without their parents. "
Is this capable of bearing any meaning ? Had the idea that . . . took their respective children . . .? She has only seen the group for three days, as they walk through the small entrance to the pool. In that short time it is not conceivable that she could identify which children belonged to which parents. And we recall that the McCann and Tapas group were only some of the families at the OC at that time.

And then, just to rub it in, she admits that on the "day in question' she wasn't even there.
"On this same day, at around 17h30 she remembers having left the reception area and going to get her salary, but she does not remember having seen Madeleine and her parents enter the Tapas restaurant. "

She is clearly trying to help, and makes the telling observation early in the piece
"Regarding the other elements that she established later, the deponent states that she learned of these through the media and from other comments made by guests. She thinks that nobody knows what really happened" .
Well quite !

It is a TIE statement. Trace, Interview and Eliminate. Recorded so that the filing system does not show up a gap, but adding nothing to the investigation.
She is not trying to be obtuse, nor, luckily, trying too hard to fill in gaps by inventing information. She is a normal innocent bystander who saw nothing, heard nothing, and knows nothing.

What it does not do is help in any way with the discussion about whether Madeleine was alive and well after Monday morning

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ELISA.htm

by Phoebe 09.03.19 12:28

According to Ms. Ramao's statement she saw the McCanns with their three children in tow on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday as they left for lunch, returned for the afternoon and left after high tea. (with the exception of tea on Thurs)
Georgina Jackson says she gave a tennis lesson to Madeleine on Tuesday May 1st and clarifies that this was not a one-to-one lesson, but that Madeleine was with the other children in her small group of 6 that morning - two boys and 3 girls besides Madeleine. This group is so small and has so few other girls - only Ella O'Brien, J.Berry and E. Naylor that it seems unlikely she would not remember Madeleine being there.
Ditto for Alice Stanley whose statement we do not have. Remember, Madeleine was allegedly upset and drawing attention to herself during that mini-sail.
The number of people who would have had to have been lying or mistaken about Madeleine being seen during the week is not credible IMO.
Add to this that the Tapas 7 took the extraordinary step of removing all of their children from creche on Thursday afternoon, making it even easier to recall whether Madeleine was present or not - (she was the SOLE girl in her group that evening) and it does not smack of a group trying to cover-up the fact that a particular child is absent!
The notion of the McCanns and their chums cheerfully going (for four long days) to tennis, water-sports, to and from the creche several times daily, dining each night, partaking in a quiz and embarking on late night drinks on Wednesday, behaving normally, all the while knowing that Madeleine was dead and that discovery of their secret could occur at any time, defies credibility IMO.
The notion of the nannies willingly colluding in a crime which was headline news everywhere is equally fantastical. But hardest to believe is that Lee Rainbow and the P.J. could have been duped. These are all experienced crime experts, who sat face to face with witnesses. The notion that they would not have smelled a rat when verifying the last independent sighting of Madeleine is incredible. All IMO.

by Verdi 09.03.19 14:29

@Pheobe

With this customary generalisation, you omit to take into consideration the interference by UK authorities within hours of Madeleine's alleged disappearance. Add that the only evidence the PJ had in the initial stages, was the Tapas group's version of events - there really wasn't any witness outside the Tapas group that could be relied upon for factual information that might assist the investigation. The Portuguese investigation was doomed from the beginning - through no fault of their own I hasten to add.

Try to put yourself in the position of someone being officially interviewed as a witness in connection with a crime. You do your best to be of assistance, you try to accurately remember events but you can't so you create a situation in your mind - what you thought would be the most likely sequence of events. This is what you relate to the police in your statement. Also remember, the Ocean Club/Warners staff are seasonal workers just doing a job. Don't expect them to recall everything with any precision, they can only report as far as their memory permits with broad generalisations based on what they expect a tourist most probably did.

What are we talking of here - five days maximum and then only minutes/hours during any one twenty four hour period.

Aside from that, throughout history you will find many many examples of people acting perfectly normal after committing a henious crime. I'd go so far as to say that normal is most likely the normal way to behave post crime.

by Dannz 09.03.19 15:17

@PeterMac

Thanks for this reasoned argument.

I hope I’m not misrepresenting you - from what I gather the only basis you give for the claim that her statement “is not in accordance with any of the supposed facts” is this:

"She thinks that they always left between 12H30 and 13HOO.---Around 14H00 the couple returned; indeed it was what almost everyone having children did, and delivered the three children to the care of the nannies."

Except that Madeleine is allegedly taken by ONE parent to the Lobsters club, whilst the OTHER parent delivers the twins to the Jellyfish creche by the Tapas bar.

Why do you consider Ms Romao’s statement to not accord with this?

The narrative given by the evidence is that the MCann family of 5 would leave the Garden Club area to go for lunch at about 12:30 and return to the Garden Club area at about 13:30 to 14:00 where they would spend a bit of time together before taking the children to the kids clubs at 14:30 to 14:45. There is no inconsistency here that I can see.

Ms Romao says “she thinks” in relation to the times she gives for when they left - i.e. she thinks that it was between 12:30 and 13:00 that they left the area. This only suggests that the time they left shouldn’t be treated as categorical. It does not indicate that she is unsure whether this family of 5 were the McCanns.

As Phoebe says, according to her statement, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, Ms Romao saw the McCanns with 3 children leave the Garden Club area for lunch and saw the 5 of them return there after lunch on those days. She also saw the McCann family of 5 leave after the childrens’ tea on Tuesday and Wednesday. That is consistent with the tea on Thursday continuing later than usual as given elsewhere.

Ms Romao recalled that the parents she saw played tennis and were part of a group of 9 adults. She clearly says that she saw them with 3 children coming and going through the reception. She is plainly not reporting second hand information on that (although as you point out, some of the information she gives is second hand). Ms Romao’s job was to ensure only authorised persons had access to the Garden Club - persons not known to her would have to show their passes with name, period of validity etc. She would have seen them close up as this family of 5 navigated its way through the small reception. She would have ensured that this was not some random family with no right to be there. The McCann family of 5 with the twins were distinctive, especially in this quiet period (not that it would be at all quiet getting 3 small children though this reception with steps and doors to navigate).

There is no reason to suppose mistaken identity - there were other families there of course, but that doesn’t mean there were other families of 5 with children that age and parents who spent much of the time playing tennis and who looked like the couple who were the centre of attention when Ms Romao had her interview.

I agree she is not inventing information; she is careful to clarify what she did not see, as shown by her noting her absence on the Thursday afternoon. While perhaps not categorical about times, she was certainly sure that she did see the McCann family of 5 entering and leaving the Garden Club on these three days. I see no basis for concluding that she saw and heard nothing.

Whatever the nature of the Portuguese police interview, this is a clear statement by Ms Romao of seeing the McCanns with 3 children on these various occasions. (It might perhaps be argued that the little girl Ms Romao saw was some lookalike child used by the McCanns on these occasions for purposes of covering up Madeleine’s disappearance, but I’m not sure anyone has gone quite so far as to argue that).

BTW, I think there is no doubt that The Last Photo was taken on the Sunday and the date doctored, and that is clearly very significant - I just don’t conclude that this was done in order to cover up Madeleine’s disappearance earlier in the week.

by Phoebe 09.03.19 15:26

Try to put yourself in the position of the Tapas 9 in the scenario of death on Sunday. You have to pretend for four days and nights that all is normal and that Madeleine is alive and well and attending creche each day. (Oscar winners eat your hearts out, you are nowhere in the league of these 9 amateurs)
On Thursday afternoon, mere hours ahead of the planned announcement of the "abduction", you decide to alter the established daily routine and remove ALL of your other children from the creche, leaving only 2 little boys in Madeleine's group - all the while relying on no one noticing that she isn't there!! Ingenius!!!!

by willowthewisp 09.03.19 17:10

Phoebe wrote:Try to put yourself in the position of the Tapas 9 in the scenario of death on Sunday. You have to pretend for four days and nights that all is normal and that Madeleine is alive and well and attending creche each day. (Oscar winners eat your hearts out, you are nowhere in the league of these 9 amateurs)
On Thursday afternoon, mere hours ahead of the planned announcement of the "abduction", you decide to alter the established daily routine and remove ALL of your other children from the creche, leaving only 2 little boys in Madeleine's group - all the while relying on no one noticing that she isn't there!! Ingenius!!!!

Hi Phoebe, then majestically "All Tapas Parents,children appear in CCTV,Paradiso",excluding Kate,Gerry,Madeleine,Sean and Amellie, supposedly missing from a group of Adults and children as a collective Holiday, Saturday 28 April-03 May 2007?

Tuesday 1st,change in Routine,Breakfast in apartment, rest of group go to Millennium?

Two Males decide to go out Sailing for the One and only time and One falls in the Water, at a time when Madeleine is supposed to have gone down to the Beach and became scared in the group of chums from the Creche?

Think about, "Time, Opportunity to instigate" how to bring about a disappearance,Non Disclosure Agreement,Tapas 7/9?

Who said,"They've taken Her",which could be very True!

by Dannz 09.03.19 18:03

Specifically she says
"Her days off are Sundays and Mondays. "
So she can have no knowledge of the state or composition of any family before Tuesday.

This from Gerry McCann’s interview of 10 May 2007 about Saturday 28th:

Subsequently, at 17h00, the whole group, including children, went to the TAPAS situated at the back of the apartments, next to the pool, to attend a welcoming committee arranged by MARK WARNER where they met with instructors in tennis and sailing and other resort employees, which ended at 18h30, glasses of sangria having been served to them.

As Ms Romao states in her interview, her hours are 9:00 to 19:00.

Although Ms Romao does not mention this event in her statement, it may be because she had been asked whether she had had any contact with the McCann family that week.

As part of Ms Romao’s role would be to get to know guests rather than require them to present ID unnecessarily (especially where there is a family with 3 small children), it would seem more likely than not that at this event during a quiet week at the resort, Ms Romao met with the McCanns who were there with their children and the rest of the Tapas 9 plus kids (hence her knowing they were part of a group of four couples). In any event it cannot be categorically concluded that Ms Romao had no contact with the McCanns and their 3 children before Tuesday.

by Dannz 09.03.19 18:49

The account Ms Romao gives of the McCann family of 5 returning to the Garden area after lunch (which implies they spent some time there together before taking the children to the crèche) is corroborated by the witness statement of Tiego Barrieros (which is also a sighting of Madeleine that week):

Tiago Rochas Barreiros 2007.05.08

Work Location: Ocean Club

That he comes to the process as a witness. He has worked at the Ocean Club (OC) resort for about two months exercising his function as Tapas Supervisor (restaurant, bar and pool) in the Ocean Club Garden.

...

As a supervisor, his functions include all the operational workings of the space known as the Tapas. His normal hours are defined by need although he does have a set work schedule.

That his work location is comprised of the restaurant, pool and bar of the Ocean Club Garden, dominated by the Tapas.

...

That he knows the family of the missing child as they were clients of the Tapas restaurant which they began frequenting the 2nd day of their arrival to the OC.

From the very beginning, a request was made to the restaurant workers to reserve a table for 20H30 until the end of the week. The request was made for a specific table given the number in the group - nine people. This group would dine daily and always arrive around 20H30. They would leave the restaurant around 00H30.

That the table they occupied is next to the Tapas bar since that table was the biggest.

This group (who would dine at the time previously mentioned) was always made up of nine adults, constituted by eight couples and an older woman. He believed that this older woman was the grandmother of the missing child. He never saw any children accompanying the nine people.

When the table was reserved, nothing was mentioned about checking on the children and the only concern was in accommodating the entire group.

.....

That effectively he did know the missing child's family due to the circumstances previously mentioned, but had not entered their [prior] residence. He goes daily to the family's apartment in order to bring them lunch.

That every day around 13H00, he heads to no. 4-G (where the family of the missing child is staying) and to no. 4-1 (where 10 people are lodged) to deliver lunch. He repeats this routine at 20H00 to take them dinner.

....

According to what he remembers, the missing child's family frequented the Tapas pool where they would take their children. They would stay in the children's play area in the period between 16H45 and 17H30, at the time when babysitters would take care of the children. The babysitters are employees of Mark Warner.

That he never noticed any walkie talkies or other sound devices on top of the table occupied by the group. He only noticed that occasionally one of the nine present would get up from the table and leave for a few minutes. He did not know where they went.

The nine individuals, including the family of the missing child, were included in the half pension regime. They had the right to dinner (a menu that included starter, main course, desert and drinks as listed).

...

That on 2007.05.03 he began work around 09H30 and finished around 17H30, when he left the resort and returned again at 22H30, as already described previously.

That on the 3rd of May, 2007, he did not notice any abnormal situation or anything out of the ordinary, nor has any comment been made to him to this effect.

That for days prior to the disappearance of the child he did not detect any suspicious situation or details that he could now offer the investigation.

Mr Barrierros clearly knew Kate and Gerry McCann, not only from the Tapas Restaurant, but also from bringing meals twice a day to their apartment following Madeleine’s disappearance.

He says they frequented the pool area where they would bring their children. He also saw the McCanns with their children at the childrens’ tea (the nannies would bring the children to that. He is clearly referring to these separate occasions sequentially as one would expect, hence this informs us that the McCanns took their 3 children to the pool area at lunchtime).

He would have said something if he had only seen the McCanns with just two children after lunch in the pool area and confirms that on 3 May he did not see anything abnormal.

It is true that Mr Barrieros only knew the McCanns from the second day of their arrival (as learn from elsewhere, this booking was made on Sunday 29th while the children were having tea). However he certainly saw the McCanns with 3 children who could be taken for the McCann children on several occasions that week, including 3 May.

As well as corroborating what Ms Romao says, this is a sighting of the McCanns with Madeleine (or a lookalike substitute - in case anyone wishes to argue that).

Log in for more topics