Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

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 @Phoebe and @Dannz 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 @Phoebe, 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

@sharonl. 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 Verdi 10.03.19 0:09

@Dannz

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 @Phoebe and @Dannz 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 @Phoebe, 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

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

Was Madeleine seen after Sunday? - Page 21 Empty

by Verdi Today at 0:09
@Dannz

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).

by Guest 10.03.19 11:23

Maybe she was not ACTUALLY there? Were YOU there to verify it?

by Guest 10.03.19 11:35

If we're now going to ask 'if you were actually there' questions then we may as well shut up shop.

I've said before that the early death is a theory and any evidence is circumstantial, not proof. All it takes is one independent witness to verify their sighting and that's that. I don't think Dr Amaral believes that everyone was mistaken or lying

by **Jill Havern** 10.03.19 11:58

HKP wrote:If we're now going to ask 'if you were actually there' questions then we may as well shut up shop.

I've said before that the early death is a theory and any evidence is circumstantial, not proof. All it takes is one independent witness to verify their sighting and that's that. I don't think Dr Amaral believes that everyone was mistaken or lying

Isn't that (some of) what we're looking for? Have you read Lizzy's threads?

How do you know what Dr Amaral now believes 12 years on...?

We don't intend to shut up shop. On the contrary. We will keep digging.

by Dannz 10.03.19 12:07

JimbobJones wrote:Maybe she was not ACTUALLY there? Were YOU there to verify it?

“MAYBE she was abducted by aliens. Can you PROVE she wasn’t?”

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof to support it, not refute it. Some people take a view that it is the other way round and extraordinary proof is needed to disprove their extraordinary theory.

OK, now that we agree that there is no extraordinary proof to disprove the extraordinary theory that Madeleine disappeared on Sunday, can we get back to discussion of what the evidence tells us and what can or cannot be determined from the relevant witness statements.

by Dannz 10.03.19 12:36

Jill Havern wrote:
HKP wrote:If we're now going to ask 'if you were actually there' questions then we may as well shut up shop.

I've said before that the early death is a theory and any evidence is circumstantial, not proof. All it takes is one independent witness to verify their sighting and that's that. I don't think Dr Amaral believes that everyone was mistaken or lying
Isn't that (some of) what we're looking for? Have you read Lizzy's threads?

How do you know what Dr Amaral now believes 12 years on...?

We don't intend to shut up shop. On the contrary. We will keep digging.

I have read Lizzy’s threads. She claims, for example, that Elisa Romao’s statement is inconsistent with the crèche records and should therefore be rejected. However if one digs into this it turns out that there is no inconsistency between Ms Romao’s statement and crèche records or any other evidence and no sensible basis for rejecting Ms Romao’s sighting.

There are many credible sightings of Madeleine after the Sunday (although admittedly these will not suffice for those who demand that the witness identify Madeleine by name in their statement or who choose to discount statements on suppositions of human frailty). Some of the reasons Lizzy gives are sound and some statements should be considered inconclusive. But some of her reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny - as with Ms Romao, and also a number of others.

Glad to hear you do not intend to shut up shop on this discussion and that we should keep digging. Thank you.

by **Jill Havern** 10.03.19 12:40

Well, luckily @HiDeHo is online to join in with the discussion as it's her 'baby' so to speak (although she doesn't seem to venture out of the Latest News section so may not see this thread, so you might need to send her a private message.)

I meant we do not intend to shut up shop on the case in general, not just this particular debate.

As you were.

by Verdi 10.03.19 12:44

@Dannz

Your contribution to CMoMM. like all members, is welcome and greatly appreiciated. I personally thank you for your advice as to how the forum should be administered and in particular how I should moderate. Although I say so myself, I have a pretty shrewd idea who are here for the right reasons and who are here only to wreak havoc, your conduct to date indicates the latter. Please bear that in mind.

Improvements to the forum are naturally a necessary ongoing function for the admin team and valid constructive suggestions by members for any improvements are taken on board with careful consideration. Wearing my moderators hat, I ask that you respect the forum which has now been running very sucessfully for well over nine years, thanks to the forum owner Jill Havern, by cooling your heals before audaciously telling CMoMM how it should be managed and how team admin should conduct themselves.

I think I've said before, you need to thoroughly read through the entire content of CMoMM to understand how and why conclusions have been reached. Alternatively - why don't you start up your own domain where you can dictate the rules?

As it stands, you are not contributing anything constructive to the purpose of CMoMM, you are merely looking to find fault with the extensive exemplary research and analysis of nine + years of hard slog.

This does not require a response.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 13:44

There is absolutely no evidence that either Dr. Amaral or any of his team who WERE THERE have changed their minds about Madeleine being alive up to May 3rd. Indeed, there is direct evidence that they STILL hold that view, which incidentally, Dr. Amaral publicly reiterated as recently as the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
They had access to ALL information, formal and informal interviews, questionnaires etc. something we do not have, and they are experienced investigators.
The theory that Madeleine died on Sunday is based on examining the PRECIS of only those interviews which have been published in the files, and on the belief that there are no photos or video evidence of Madeleine which were taken during the week. Interestingly, one photo could easily be verified with regard to date. The playground photo has others in the background and a quick word with Raj Balu and others should confirm whether this photo was indeed taken when claimed.
Just because there is little photographic or video evidence of Madeleine later that week does not mean she was dead. There is no photographic evidence of Sean McCann other than the playground photo and he is very much alive!!
The P.J. Mark Harrison and Lee Rainbow would all have to have been incompetent beyond belief to have failed to establish when Madeleine was last seen alive by independent witnesses. To claim that they were so easily duped demands hard undisputable evidence rather than earnest belief IMO.

by Guest 10.03.19 13:57

Jill Havern wrote:
HKP wrote:If we're now going to ask 'if you were actually there' questions then we may as well shut up shop.

I've said before that the early death is a theory and any evidence is circumstantial, not proof. All it takes is one independent witness to verify their sighting and that's that. I don't think Dr Amaral believes that everyone was mistaken or lying
Isn't that (some of) what we're looking for? Have you read Lizzy's threads?
Yes of course I have, there is some suppositions in the threads and she does state that some witnesses could be mistaken (doesn't mean they are) without further speaking/evidence from those individuals we have to take what they've said at face value, why would they lie. It's not known if any of these witnesses have subsequently verified or retracted their (having seen Maddie) statement

How do you know what Dr Amaral now believes 12 years on...?

Lizzie only uses the files for reference nothing else, the files indicate Dr Amaral believes Maddie died on the Thursday. He has not publicly altered his stance in the last 12 years.

We don't intend to shut up shop. On the contrary. We will keep digging.
The poster asked if Pheobe was actually there (at the time) my comment is that if that's the only acceptable answer (there at the time) then we may as well '' shut up shop", I think you interpreted it in another way.

by Guest 10.03.19 14:00

Phoebe wrote:There is absolutely no evidence that either Dr. Amaral or any of his team who WERE THERE have changed their minds about Madeleine being alive up to May 3rd.

Dr Amaral WAS NOT THERE. He was there AFTERWARDS and is trying to make sense of it just like us. You cant change the truth.
When I said earlier "Maybe she was not actually there" I was referring to doubts about MM being in the crèche, and potentially forged crèche records. I think Dannz, with unhinged mentioning of aliens, may have misinterpreted deliberately.

by **Jill Havern** 10.03.19 14:05

HKP wrote:How do you know what Dr Amaral now believes 12 years on...?

Lizzie only uses the files for reference nothing else, the files indicate Dr Amaral believes Maddie died on the Thursday. He has not publicly altered his stance in the last 12 years.

To be fair to Dr Amaral, after what he's been through, would he dare to make his (updated) stance public knowledge and run the risk of being hauled back before the Courts?

Having said that, though, he's got another book ready and waiting to be published apparently once Operation Grange has closed its investigation...if they ever do!

by Phoebe 10.03.19 14:16

Dr Amaral and his team were there in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance and during the gathering and examination of ALL evidence. No individual, or group of individuals, relying on remote access to the limited evidence available from the synopses of those interviews which are included in the files, can have the same knowledge or insights as the official investigators who were on the ground conducting the investigation.
You say "Maybe she was actually not there". And maybe she WAS. The "Maybe" is crucial. In the absence of hard proof it is foolish to state something as fact. This is my point - there is no proof that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday. It is a theory, no more no less.

Edited to add that it most incredible that Dr. Amaral would repeatedly state that he believed something if he no longer did. I do not believe he is a liar. If he had changed his mind (no sign of that) but felt restrained form revealing this I believe he would have declined to comment rather than deliberately mislead the public.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 14:24

Phoebe wrote:Dr Amaral and his team were there in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance and during the gathering and examination of ALL evidence. No individual, or group of individuals, relying on remote access to the limited evidence available from the synopses of those interviews which are included in the files, can have the same knowledge or insights as the official investigators who were on the ground conducting the investigation.
You say "Maybe she was actually not there". And maybe she WAS. The "Maybe" is crucial. In the absence of hard proof it is foolish to state something as fact. This is my point - there is no proof that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday. It is a theory, no more no less.

It took you an aeful lot of words to convey it is a theory Phoebe, something everyone is aware of.

by Guest 10.03.19 14:30

@aquila
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

by Phoebe 10.03.19 14:34

@ aquila. Thank you for confirming that Madeleine dying on the Sunday is just a theory. As with any theory people should be able to concur or disagree with it without fear of sanction.