Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

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

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 Guest 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

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

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 Guest 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

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

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).

by **sharonl** 09.03.19 19:49

"This group (who would dine at the time previously mentioned) was always made up of nine adults"

But, this for a start is not true is it? We have at least one member of the tapas being absent from the table each night.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 09.03.19 22:29

The comments from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are scarcely worth a response - since it is patently obvious that they are both here for one reason and one reason only - namely to attack the theory that something very serious must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday afternoon or evening.

Both have set their face against recognising the overwhelming evidence that the Last Photo, purportedly taken on Thursday lunchtime, was actually take Sunday lunchtime.

This is one of the premier evidential, forensic exhibits we have - but both refuse to believe the evidence presented here, in PeterMac's ebook, on Jill's blog and in Richard Hall's films. They simply have no answer to it.

And so they pick away at these vague, imprecise statements by a series of Ocean Club employees who manifestly do not bring convincing or even credible evidence of having seen Madeleine McCann after Sunday.

To illustrate this, I will break into the thread just to answer @Dannz's last post:

==========================

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.

REPLY: Yes, but he doesn't mention Madeleine at all. However, what he does say is very revealing. He admits to taking lunch to the McCanns 'every day'. But this only took place AFTER SUNDAY AFTERNOON/EVENING and after whatever happened then. Why on earth did they drastically change their routine and have their lunches brought up to them, instead of meeting with their friends? On Sunday, they lunched with their friends the Paynes. ON Saturday night, they dined in the Millennium.

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).

REPLY: It does nothing of the sort. He hasn't identified the children by name. He hasn't even said how many there were. His evidence is that he saw a load of parents with their children. In no way is this evidence that Madeleine was alive on those occasions.

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.

REPLY: A pure assumption, nothing more, nothing less.

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).

REPLY: The Tapas booking was NOT made then but much later on the Sunday evening. I believe you know this and that you know there is a statement in existence which says when the booking was taken. It is quite a detailed statement.

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.

REPLY: You cannot be anything like 'certain' and therefore this is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers here.

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).

REPLY: Petermac comprehensively demolished Mrs Romao's vague statements, therefore there is zilch to 'corroborate'. Your attempts, and those of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], to evade the Last Photo evidence (and all the other evidence suggesting that something serious happened to Madeleine on Sunday), by trying to extract from these Ocean Club statements any credible evidence that they saw Madeleine alive after Sunday, are risible. They are also the clearest possible evidence that both of you are on a mission to deflect from what happened on Sunday.

It won't work

by Dannz 09.03.19 23:42

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The translation is debatable. The following is closer to the original sentence:

“during the period, it was always nine adult people who were travelling to dinner”

I understand this as implying that in the period it was always nine adults expected/booked for dinner. (This should of course be checked with a native speaker from the same discourse community).

However, even if Mr Barrieros is here reporting on who attended dinner based on what he surmises according to the booking that had been made, that has no bearing on what is material here. Mr Barrieros undoubtedly knows and recognises the McCanns and:

“According to what he remembers, the missing child's family frequented the Tapas pool where they would take their children.”

I don’t see how whatever might possibly be debatable about the details of what was or was not discussed when the booking was made could be such as to eliminate either Mr Barrieros’ sighting or that of Ms Romao. Merely hinting at this in a way that suggests that it might does not serve to eliminate either of these statements which report seeing the McCanns with their children during that week.

by Phoebe 09.03.19 23:48

@ Tony Bennett. Contrary to your implication Tony, it is perfectly possible to believe that the last photo was not taken on Thursday and that Madeleine was alive after Sunday. These two beliefs are NOT mutually exclusive.
As the McCanns and co. had only arrived on Saturday afternoon, one day ie. Sunday, is hardly long enough to establish what could be described as a "routine"! In any case, we have only the word of the Tapas 9 re. their eating arrangements. As they have lied about so much else why believe them - where is the proof to corroborate their claims about where the McCanns ate.
As I previously stated, it makes absolutely no sense that, if Madeleine had died on Sunday, and the group were trying to disguise this fact until designated alarm night, they would remove all their children from creche, leaving Madeleine as the sole girl who should have been there. Such action would have made Madeleine's absence stick out like a sore thumb. There are inconvenient facts which are not in keeping with the notion of Madeleine having died on Sunday. Ignoring them because they do not support a theory is tunnel vision and does a disservice to any search for truth for Madeleine.

by Guest 10.03.19 0:09

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

You can play with words to your hearts content Mr Dannz, as lawyers always will, what you can't do however is to deflect from the true purpose of CMoMM - try as you might.

In short - there is not a one single witness statement documented in the PJ files that can verify beyond reasonable doubt that Madeleine McCann was seen alive and well at any time during the week of 28th April and 3rd May. The only evidence available is three photographic images ... the poolside image, Madeleine McCann in the Ocean Club playground (with and without her father) and the dubious tennis ball photograph.

As you well know, this has all been covered over and over again over the years on this forum.

As I said up-page, which you choose to ignore, you are not taking into consideration the frailty of human nature. A bona-fide seasoned lawyer would know the true value of the spoken word.

You can wriggle and squirm for the next decade but you cannot change the course of history. So, as a drastic departure from the norm, would you do us the honour of discussing and helping to develop a true picture of the mystery of Madeleine McCann, rather than raising vague interpretations of witness statements.

Either the witness did see Madeleine McCann alive and well during that week, or they didn't. Not one can say they did. In reality it's that simple, despite the need for the police to be more open minded.

by Dannz 10.03.19 3:22

The comments from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are scarcely worth a response - since it is patently obvious that they are both here for one reason and one reason only - namely to attack the theory that something very serious must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday afternoon or evening.

There is nothing amiss in challenging a theory with reasoned critique given in a civil manner.

Both have set their face against recognising the overwhelming evidence that the Last Photo, purportedly taken on Thursday lunchtime, was actually take Sunday lunchtime.

No, I have not. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, I accept that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday. Please do not misrepresent what I say.

This is one of the premier evidential, forensic exhibits we have - but both refuse to believe the evidence presented here, in PeterMac's ebook, on Jill's blog and in Richard Hall's films. They simply have no answer to it.

I do not refuse to believe the evidence that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday. But as Phoebe points out, the Last Photo is not evidence that something must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday. And as I said, I do consider the doctoring of the date of the Last Photo to be significant.

As to evidence that there is no credible sighting of Madeleine after Sunday, that is what is currently being addressed. Please do not represent that we have no answer so hastily and wishfully.

And so they pick away at these vague, imprecise statements by a series of Ocean Club employees who manifestly do not bring convincing or even credible evidence of having seen Madeleine McCann after Sunday. To illustrate this, I will break into the thread just to answer @Dannz's last post:

Let's see...

==========================

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.

REPLY: Yes, but he doesn't mention Madeleine at all.

There is no reason why Mr Barrieros' statement should be considered unreliable because he does not use the name "Madeleine". He clearly knew the McCanns and was able to recognise them and knew that Madeleine was their child and that she was the one who was missing.

However, what he does say is very revealing. He admits to taking lunch to the McCanns 'every day'. But this only took place AFTER SUNDAY AFTERNOON/EVENING and after whatever happened then. Why on earth did they drastically change their routine and have their lunches brought up to them, instead of meeting with their friends? On Sunday, they lunched with their friends the Paynes. ON Saturday night, they dined in the Millennium.

The answer to this question is hardly mysterious. They changed their routine after Madeleine disappeared and when they were getting constant press attention. As is apparent from Mr Barrieros' statement he brought meals to their apartment after they had moved from the apartment where the McCanns had been when Madeleine disappeared.

This if anything is revealing about the reading of the witness statements - if they are read so cursorily, then it is little wonder they are considered vague and imprecise. When such fundamental misreadings are made, it is hardly surprising that it might seem that these statements are not credible. This reveals more about reading comprehension than the credibility of the statements.

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).

REPLY: It does nothing of the sort. He hasn't identified the children by name. He hasn't even said how many there were. His evidence is that he saw a load of parents with their children. In no way is this evidence that Madeleine was alive on those occasions.

Mr Barrieros does not say that he saw "a load of parents with their children". He says that "the missing child's family frequented the Tapas pool where they would take their children". Read the statement fully and properly.

It is not necessary for Mr Barrieros to identify the children by name. He clearly was able to recognise Gerry and Kate McCann and would have known that they had three children including Madeleine.

The reason this does not appear to be evidence to you might perhaps be down to your misreading of his statement and mistakenly supposing this only concerns a "load of parents with their children".

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.

REPLY: A pure assumption, nothing more, nothing less.

Mr Barrieros was asked by the police if he notice anything abnormal or suspicious or if there was anything he could add which would assist the investigation. Since he knew Madeleine was missing, it would clearly have been misleading to have said that the McCanns frequented the pool with their children if he had seen the McCanns with only the twins.

It might be said that it is an assumption that Mr Barrieros is being honest in his statement (though not so much of an assumption as checked against other statements and creche records). No sensible reason has been given for doubting it or for supposing that Mr Barrieros would commit an offence by misleading the police. Treating that as a 'mere assumption' is essentially supposing that witness statements in general have no evidential value.

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).

REPLY: The Tapas booking was NOT made then but much later on the Sunday evening. I believe you know this and that you know there is a statement in existence which says when the booking was taken. It is quite a detailed statement.

All that is relevant here is that the booking was made on Sunday. It is immaterial what time it was made.

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.

REPLY: You cannot be anything like 'certain' and therefore this is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers here.

No sensible reason that has been put forward to doubt Mr Barrieros. He undoubtedly was able to recognise the McCanns and knew that they had 3 children including Madeleine.

You make an unfounded accusation that I am deliberately attempting to mislead readers. Please retract that.

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).

REPLY: Petermac comprehensively demolished Mrs Romao's vague statements, therefore there is zilch to 'corroborate'.

PeterMac did not comprehensively demolish Ms Romao's statement that she saw the McCanns with their three children. My response to PeterMac's comments on that has not been answered. Perhaps you did not read my response since you did not read what I wrote there about accepting that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday.

Your attempts, and those of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], to evade the Last Photo evidence (and all the other evidence suggesting that something serious happened to Madeleine on Sunday), by trying to extract from these Ocean Club statements any credible evidence that they saw Madeleine alive after Sunday, are risible.

There is no attempt to evade the evidence that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday.

It is legitimate to give a close reading to the witness statements and to draw attention to statements which provide credible sightings of Madeleine after Sunday. If you consider that to be risible, that only reflects on your approach to argument and analysis. I would refer you to your readings/misreadings of the statements for something that might be considered to be laughable.

They are also the clearest possible evidence that both of you are on a mission to deflect from what happened on Sunday.

I am challenging the theory that Madeleine died on Sunday 29th and that there is no credible sighting of her after the Sunday - that is after all the topic of this thread.

You saying "what happened on Sunday" takes it as a given that that is the truth and that any challenge to that 29 April theory is an attempt to deflect from the truth. The Last Photo is not conclusive evidence of anything happening to Madeleine on the Sunday beyond having that photo taken of her then. The reason for doctoring the photos is a matter of significance and one should not jump to conclusions about that. If you have some privileged access to the truth of what happened, please explain how you know this. Otherwise getting to the truth is a matter of examining the evidence and analysis, and subjecting all theories to critical examination.

It won't work [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I recognise that some people might be fixed in their opinions and that evidence and arguments will only be considered by them insofar as it can be read in a way which fits that view. Rational discussion certainly doesn't work with them - some people can fool themselves all of the time. Unfortunately they often get quite uppity when their fixed beliefs are challenged and they resort to personal attacks and attempts to derail genuine examination of the evidence.

Should you wish to be like that and choose to hold that the truth is that Madeleine must have died on Sunday, that will of course be up to you. If so, please just stick to the notion that anything that goes against that view is not worth a response rather than make accusations and personal attacks. I certainly have no wish to see you discredit either yourself or discussion of the topic.

by Dannz 10.03.19 4:41

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 0:09
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You can play with words to your hearts content Mr Dannz, as lawyers always will, what you can't do however is to deflect from the true purpose of CMoMM - try as you might.

This is not "playing with words", it is about getting to a sound assessment of the witness statements. But if you choose to see it that way because what comes out of it doesn't fit with your view, that is up to you.

"The true purpose of CMoMM". If that's to get to the truth, then there is no attempt to deflect from that. If it is not about truth but to promote the 29 April theory and deflect from Amaral's, then yes, of course it would be futile to try to change CMoMM.

In short - there is not a one single witness statement documented in the PJ files that can verify beyond reasonable doubt that Madeleine McCann was seen alive and well at any time during the week of 28th April and 3rd May.

Who said one single witness statement should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt? In any case, this isn't a court of law. It is the cumulative weight of various witnessness statements (given proper reading and due consideration) and how those fit together with evidence that amounts to proof when coupled with the implausibility of the notion that Madeleine died earlier. (at least it would prove it to the satisfaction of anyone who has not lost their grip on reality).

The only evidence available is three photographic images ... the poolside image, Madeleine McCann in the Ocean Club playground (with and without her father) and the dubious tennis ball photograph.

That is your assertion. But witness statements are evidence.

As you well know, this has all been covered over and over again over the years on this forum.

The mistaken notion that Martin Grimes' cadaver dog could not detect cadavarine unless a body had been dead for at least 90 minutes was also repeated over and over again over the years on this forum. But that turned out to be bogus. The fact that something has been 'covered over and over again' doesn't guarantee it is correct.

Please give specific reasons for eliminating the relevant witness statements 'one by one' as you said you would rather than retreat into a position of blanket dismissal.

As I said up-page, which you choose to ignore, you are not taking into consideration the frailty of human nature. A bona-fide seasoned lawyer would know the true value of the spoken word.

You made a generalisation which was of no particular bearing and which essentially seemed to suggest that all witness statements are unreliable and have no evidentiary value. Are you saying that the statements made by Ms Romao's [b][b]and Mr Barreiros' are unreliable? What reason do you have for supposing that?
[/b][/b]

This is not a court of law and one doesn't have to be a 'seasoned lawyer' to understand language (like the PR Week article that was misread as 'evidence' that Resonate directors had been flown to Portugal). Experience in taking witness statements and understanding how people give information in these does however help. I'm sure PeterMac has taken more witness statements than I have. It is not relevant that neither of us are lawyers.

You can wriggle and squirm for the next decade but you cannot change the course of history.

?? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Why would I wriggle and squirm? Or is this a generalization - those who wriggle and squirm do not change the course of history? What has the course of history got to do with this?

So, as a drastic departure from the norm, would you do us the honour of discussing and helping to develop a true picture of the mystery of Madeleine McCann, rather than raising vague interpretations of witness statements.

It is hardly a "vague interpretation" when someone states that they saw the McCanns with their 3 children. The way to get to a true picture is to scrutinize the evidence, including witness statements. That is what is being done, and the topic of this thread concerns the witness statements and whether any might show that Madeleine was seen after Sunday.

Either the witness did see Madeleine McCann alive and well during that week, or they didn't. Not one can say they did. In reality it's that simple, despite the need for the police to be more open minded.

That's your conclusion based on your view. But rather than doing as you said and eliminating one by one, you have now decided that this assertion is sufficient. That's fine - leave it at that and leave those who wish to have this discussion in the relevant thread to do so and be a moderator in dealing with posters who make accusations and personal attacks or try to derail threads. But if you do have any specific reasons why these witness statements do not constitute evidence that Madeleine was seen after Sunday, that contribution would of course be warmly appreciated.

by Guest 10.03.19 8:59

Phoebe said:
"There is no reason to suppose mistaken identity . . . "

There certainly IS a reason to suppose mistaken identity. Deliberately deceiving potential witnesses. A GREAT BIG REASON involving something worse than neglect of an infant.
There was another kid in their little group who looked very much like MM. Readily at hand.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 10:25

@ JimbobJones. WHO was mistaken for Madeleine on the afternoon of Thursday May 3rd when she was the ONLY girl with just two other little BOYS in her creche group, (Ella O'Brien having been removed to go to the beach).