Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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 Guest 10.03.19 12:44

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

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

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

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 14:37

HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?

by Guest 10.03.19 14:39

Phoebe wrote:This is my point - there is no proof that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday. It is a theory, no more no less.

Yes, it is a theory. But there seems to be NO PROOF that she was ALIVE after Sunday either. There is evidence, hearsay, and crèche records that she was alive . . . . but that is NOT proof. Where is the PROOF that she was still alive? Where are the independent photographs? Video? CCTV? Anything? Everyone and his dog has digital cameras and phones with virtually unlimited exposures these days . . . . . but still nothing.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:26

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?

Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:30

@ JimBobJones. How do you know what information the P.J. and the other official investigators have which satisfy them about when Madeleine was last seen alive. Are you suggesting that they have no other information other than that in the published files.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 15:35

Phoebe wrote:
aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?
Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

I was addressing the question to you Phoebe.

by Phoebe 10.03.19 15:58

aquila wrote:
Phoebe wrote:
aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are people on this thread claiming it's a fact not a theory

And who would they be Phoebe?
Perhaps you should address your question to the post's writer.

I was addressing the question to you Phoebe.

Well, Aquila, as I am not a mind reader, I can't possibly know who HKP had in mind can I. So how can I answer a question about what he-she thinks. Surely you should ask HKP if you want the answer.

by Guest 10.03.19 16:04

To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.19 16:39

HKP wrote:To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

Nuffink rong wiv my English.

by Guest 10.03.19 16:59

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:To save confusion and as it was my statement I'll answer the question Aquila. I'm pretty sure your english and reading skills are good enough to wade through the thread and decide for yourself who looks at the early death theory as factual and those who see it as purely an unproven theory.

Nuffink rong wiv my English.

Presaucely! big grin

by plebgate 10.03.19 17:20

Another thread derailed. Shame.

by Dannz 10.03.19 17:59

So back to the topic - is there any sensible specific reason to discount Ms Romao’s and Mr Barrieros’ sighting of the McCanns with their children during that week? Can anyone actually show, for example, that Ms Romao’s statement is inconsistent with crèche records - which was the reason for discounting this given by Lizzy?

There’s quite a few more witnesses to get through, but let’s deal with each one by one as suggested by Verdi.

by Dannz 12.03.19 16:25

This was posted in another thread by skyrocket:

Also, I have one question for you regarding Elisa Romao. If in fact she was such a good/reliable witness to Madeleine's presence during the week, why specifically does she say that ‘she does not know whether the 3 (children) were together (in the same crèche group) or whether they were separated due to the differences in their ages’? (Despite apparently having noticed a lot of the Mcs comings and goings).

How would Elisa not notice that the 3 children were separated during the day if the Mcs were walking backwards and forwards through the enclosed, small reception, sometimes with the 3 kids, sometimes with just the twins and sometimes with just Madeleine - specifically around the start and finish times of creche? Gerry states that all three shuttling combinations took place.

IMO, if Madeleine was there all week and if she was being taken to a creche outside of the Tapas area, as and when is stated by the Mcs, and if Elisa was on post when she says she was, she would have had to have been comatose not to realise that Madeleine and the twins were in different creche groups, in different locations. She apparently didn't notice, so what does that say about Elisa's reliability as a witness?

Elisa’s role was to check that only authorised guests entered the Garden Club area during the day. Her attention was primarily focused on those coming rather than leaving. A family of 5 with 3 small children is hard not to notice leaving. One parent leaving with just Madeleine would not stand out in the same way and would hardly be memorable. (The McCanns were the only family there with 3 small children). Ms Romao’s recollects the McCanns as a family group (in the way you might recognise a couple you don’t know well, but be unsure if only seeing one of them on their own).

In the afternoon, the childminders brought the children into the Garden Club area. Ms Romao didn’t need to check the children.

Ms Romao wasn’t pressed on the point. Had she been, she might perhaps have recalled an occasion seeing Kate or Gerry take Madeleine out after lunch, but being unsure - who knows. There may have been a stream of people leaving that she didn’t pay attention to. If anything Ms Romao shows that she does not want to say more than she is really sure about. That makes Ms Romao’s statement more reliable.

Remember, it is not about what she saw at the time. It is about what she recalls on 9 May about 1-3 May. She wasn’t comatose. It’s just that the McCanns stood out when they came through the reception en masse whether coming or going - getting the twins through the doorways, Gerry steering everyone through, struggling with pushchair and armfuls of kids etc. The invasion of the McCann Clan into the small reception may have been the biggest noisiest thing that happened all day while she was on duty. When she says she recalls seeing the McCann family en masse at these times when she was on duty that week, I see no reason to not believe her.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.03.19 17:06

The attempts to rescue Ms Romao's and Mr Barrieros's statements, from the vague and contradictory state they are in, are proving laughable, and an embarrassment to the forum so I will move on to an interview with one of the Tapas 7 which may throw a light on the topic.

I refer to the two Rogatory interviews by D C Messiah with Fiona Payne at Enderby Police Station.

These both lasted about 90 minutes each.

Fiona Payne broke down twice, once in each interview. In the first interview, D C Messiah was quizzing her at length about Sunday and she was giving vague, general answers. She broke down and D C Messiah had to ask her to compose herself. This was about 55 minutes into the interview.

Just three minutes into the second interview, she broke down again, and there was another pause while D C Messiah waited for her to recover. This time she broke down immediately after D C Messiah mentioned Sunday and Monday.

I have bolded the relevant passages of each interview. It would appear that Fiona Payne was very troubled about Sunday, hence the stuttering and the two breakdowns.

[ A kind member of the forum drew these passages of her interviews to my attention, for which I am grateful. I also acknowledge with thanks copying and pasting from Pamalam's site gerrymccannsblogs ]

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

INTERVIEW 1 - FIONA PAYNE
Time Commenced: 0855 hours
Time Concluded: 1025 hours
Duration of Interview: 90 minutes

1485
'Did you actually play tennis on the Sunday''

Reply
'Huh, again, it would help to know what night it was'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'I think we did, I think we all had a knock and I think even the kids, erm, on one of the nights had a knock as well'.

00.53.47

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Ella and Madeleine were, you know, were joining in and, erm, yeah, I mean, as I say, I just can't remember which night was which. But I think, yeah, most nights we all, unless it was sort of men's night, obviously the women didn't join in, but'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And for the women's night the men didn't join in. But, on the whole, everybody kind of tended to have a bash'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Even if it was just for five minutes, erm'.

1485
'When you say 'all of us', was all of your group generally'.

Reply
'Yeah, yeah'.

1485
'Knocking about''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'At the tennis''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Right'.

Reply
'I mean, I think every night we saw all of each other, bar the Thursday, again, that was a different night'.

1485
'It was different'.

Reply
'In that Kate wasn't there with, with the three kids, because we'd all done something different in the early evening, so we were a bit later coming back to the Tapas Bar'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And, you know, Madeleine and Sean and Amelie were just absolutely knackered, so, you know, so that was different, but we'd, as I say, the day had gone differently, so'.

00.54.48

1485
'Okay. Are you alright to carry on''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Do you want a break or are you okay''

Reply
'No, I'm fine'.

1485
'We have been going for fifty-four minutes'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'Okay. Let's talk about then the actual Tapas'.

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Because you mentioned in your earlier recall that when you got there you needed, you had booked it at eight thirty''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Every night''

Reply
'Yeah'.

1485
'Tell me about, tell me as much as you can about why you chose to stay in the Tapas or dined at the Tapas'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'I appreciate, you know, because the children are asleep or in bed'.

Reply
'Umm'.

1485
'But tell me the whole procedure regarding the Tapas. You got there on the Saturday and you ordered the big table''

Reply

'Yeah, I think it, we hadn't really, as I say, well before getting there we hadn't really realised what the layout of the MARK WARNER was and where, where you, erm, because you had, you had a free meal, you see, included and we didn't really realize where you could use that. The first night, as I say, we went to Millennium and that wasn't a great success, erm, just because of the time, you know, for the kids, it was just too, too late for them to be eating'.

[INTERVIEW CONTINUES]

INTERVIEW 2 – FIONA PAYNE
Date of Interview:10/04/08
Time Commenced:1110 hours
Time Concluded:1234 hours
Duration of Interview:
84 minutes

* * * *

1485
'And how would you describe the family as a whole''

Reply
'They're fantastic'.

1485
'You know, with the kids''

Reply
'They're fantastic, you know, I've known Kate since two thousand and ever since I've known her she's wanted children, you know, very early on in our friendship that was, you know, something she openly talked about. And they did have difficulties having children and, erm, you know, we've been very close friends throughout the whole time of their IVF, having Madeleine, and they, she was the most desired child on the planet'.

00.05.34

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'And ever since she has been born I've never seen them anything but absolutely happy, erm, and, you know, she, to say this makes it sound less important with the twins, but she always felt, particularly Madeleine, was extremely special, erm…you know, they're a very… they're a happy family'.

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'Very happy'.

1485
'Okay. I want to move on to Thursday. We spent a lot of time Sunday and Monday, didn't we?

[Pause]

Are you okay''

Reply
'Yeah, I'm fine'.

1485

'Take as long as you need. I will give you a minute'.

Reply
'I'm fine, just carry on'.

1485
'You are alright. Okay. When I was trying to get the different days from you earlier on in the interview''

[INTERVIEW CONTINUES]

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

It is interesting to compare the above with these quotes from Kate McCann:

"I know it wasn’t to do with us leaving them alone. It happened under different circumstances"

"I know more than you do. I know what happened. I was there".

"That's when I noticed that Madeleine WAS THERE”

“Not as bad as the night we found her.”

by Phoebe 12.03.19 18:24

Having re read Fiona Paynes Rogatory statement I'm afraid I see no evidence of her "breaking down" when questioned about Sunday or Monday.
Re. the first alleged "breakdown" the officer merely asks if she wishes to take a break after 54 minutes into the taped interview. I see no sign of "breakdown" here. He may have felt that she could have needed a bathroom break, needed to stretch her legs, or a cup of tea! (She does, later in that segment, welcome the prospect of a drink and a "jammy dodger") I see no sign of him asking her "To compose herself" as claimed above. Indeed what he does say is -

1485
'Okay. Let's talk about then the actual Tapas'.

Then later -

1485
'I will switch the video off and you can go and have a bit of a drink and a'.

Reply
'A jammy dodger'.

On the second occasion when he asks if she is O.K. he has just announced his intention to move onto THURSDAY - the last afternoon before Madeleine was "abducted". -

1485
'Okay. I want to move on to Thursday. We spent a lot of time Sunday and Monday, didn't we. Are you okay''

by Dannz 12.03.19 18:28

The attempts to rescue Ms Romao's and Mr Barrieros's statements, from the vague and contradictory state they are in, are proving laughable, and an embarrassment to the forum so I will move on to an interview with one of the Tapas 7 which may throw a light on the topic.

@TonyBennett You assert these statements are contradictory. Please substantiate that claim. As already covered these statements leave no serious doubt that these witnesses saw the McCanns with their 3 children. Simply calling them “vague” does not get away from that.

There is no need to rescue the statements. They are what they are, reporting seeing the McCann family during the week. All you are doing is highlighting that you have no real answer to that.

Yes, I see that it may be embarrassing to some and even laughable to others, but that is not what this is about.

Fiona Payne’s statement sheds no light at all on these sightings by Ms Romao and Mr Barrieros. It doesn’t even appear that she was “very troubled” about Sunday. At most it shows some hesitation in talking about the Thursday. Good grief Tony - read it sensibly or get someone to explain it to you.

by Guest 12.03.19 20:53

Well Dannz, you seem to think you know more about this case than many. Can I ask you to show us some PROOF that MM was alive after Sunday? And I mean PROOF not just flimsy EVIDENCE which can be FABRICATED by those who may wish to deceive . . . and there might just be an ENORMOUS incentive to deceive in this case.
Four whole days of CCTV, security cams, photos, videos, dashboard cams, other holiday makers photos, other holidaymakers video . . . it should be EASY.
If you cannot do that . . . . maybe you should just knock it on the head and stop repeating your theory as fact. This thread is titled "WAS MM SEEN AFTER SUNDAY?" not "I WILL PERSUADE YOU IT ALL HAPPENED ON THE THURSDAY."

You seem DESPERATE to persuade the less knowledgeable that whatever occurred happened later in the week. Why is that? Or am I misreading you?