Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by Guest 12.03.19 21:19

Dannz wrote:
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.

You mayn't wish to hear this but Tony Bennett is a gentleman and a scholar with more knowledge in his head than you could ever wish for. He is accomplished in many fields and has achieved so much by way of assisting the resolution of injustices across a broad spectrum - don't presume to think you know better.

It is clear you are only here to demolish Mr Bennett's reputation and the exemplary work of the forum over a period of over nine years. You do not contribute anything constructive, only your self styled argumentative nonsense to detract from the forum's primary purpose. Go back from whence you came.

You've been given more opportunity to prove your integrity than many a time waster but enough is enough. You've had your five minutes of fame at the expense of CMoMM and it's members, as you've provided a degree of amusement to fill a void but this will not continue.

Consider this a warning - clean up your act or you will be banned

That's not a threat - it's a promise. The choice is yours.

This does not require a response.

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 21:26

JimbobJones wrote: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?

Many thanks.

by **sharonl** 12.03.19 21:35

I agree Verdi, but Tony is one of many of CMOMMs best researchers, all who have come to the same conclusion that Madeleine died earlier in the week.

Even if there was any truth in the Smith sighting, there is no guarantee that it was Gerry and Madeleine that he had seen. This is a ludicrous idea and many seem to think that it is a red herring.
Even Smith said that it was a passing glimpse in bad lighting and that he wouldn't recognise the man again. He didn't even return to testify did he?

It seems to me that it is not the McCanns that are being protected, but something that they may have been party to, possibly involving people of more importance and earlier in the week. Is that the reason that some people join here and immediately jump on the Smith bandwagon, to disrupt the discussion, to stop us looking back and questioning the activities of those days? They work tirelessly and appear desperate to promote the Smith sighting, but its too little, too late. Who are these people? Who do they work for? What is their agenda?

by Phoebe 12.03.19 21:50

@ sharonl To keep things factual - You state above -

"He (Martin Smith) didn't even return to testify".

From Dr. Amaral' s book "The truth of the lie" -

"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds"

Thus it is clear that the decision about whether to return to "testify" was taken out of Martin Smith's control.

by Guest 12.03.19 23:37

There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

by Liz Eagles 12.03.19 23:47

HKP wrote:There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

Let me ask you this if I may. Why do you suppose and assert that Goncalo Amaral thinks the same today as he thought 12 years ago?

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.19 23:51

Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?

by Guest 12.03.19 23:53

aquila wrote:
HKP wrote:There's a stupid argument going on here where a poster is demanding proof (not evidence) that Maddie was seen alive after Sunday. The exact same counter argument can be raised as where is the proof (not evidence) that she wasn't seen alive. If you weigh the two up there's no definitive proof of either. The evidence is stronger for her being alive than not (not everyone in this case is liar or mistaken the law of averages will see to that).

On post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

Dr Amaral is convinced she was alive after Sunday (he still to the best of everyone's knowledge believes she died on the Thursday) and he has seen a lot more of the actual evidence/proof than we have here.

Let me ask you this if I may. Why do you suppose and assert that Goncalo Amaral thinks the same today as he thought 12 years ago?

Certainly Aquila,

I said to the best of everyone's knowledge, if you or anyone else can point to information or evidence (no need for proof evidence will suffice) of him changing his stance then please post it on this thread

by Guest 12.03.19 23:56

Jill Havern wrote:Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?

All guesswork Jill, anything a bit more tangible than just what your thoughts are?

by **Jill Havern** 13.03.19 0:06

HKP wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?
All guesswork Jill, anything a bit more tangible than just what your thoughts are?

It's not guesswork actually.

Dr Amaral has received all our research as has Paulo Reis and the Portuguese Attorney-General and Operation Grange. I know Dr Amaral is in direct communication with Paulo Reis and PeterMac who, as we know, has researched this case and concluded that Madeleine died on the Sunday...as have others who have researched from various angles but reached the same conclusion.

Why is it so difficult for you all to assume Dr Amaral, who is highly intelligent, is still stuck in 2007 when the case has moved on significantly?

by **Mainline** 13.03.19 0:16

"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.

by Guest 13.03.19 0:55

Mainline wrote:"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.

So you don't know what his current opinion is, the question asked was who has information or evidence that he is not sticking by the Thursday death, do you have that per chance?

by **Mainline** 13.03.19 0:58

HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.
So you don't know what his current opinion is, the question asked was who has information or evidence that he is not sticking by the Thursday death, do you have that per chance?

Noone knows how he currently thinks, or if they do, they can't step forward because for legal reasons he can't be blunt. Personally I have no idea, so in my case your question is inane and irrelevant (not saying that's your normal contribution, just in relation to me).

by Guest 13.03.19 1:00

Jill Havern wrote:
HKP wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:Indeed aquila, and why, when Dr Amaral finished writing his book two years ago, is he still waiting for the right time to publish it if was just going to be more of the same for which he's already been to court? Surely it's because he's got something more to add to his original book now that many years have passed?
All guesswork Jill, anything a bit more tangible than just what your thoughts are?
It's not guesswork actually.

Dr Amaral has received all our research as has Paulo Reis and the Portuguese Attorney-General and Operation Grange. I know Dr Amaral is in direct communication with Paulo Reis and PeterMac who, as we know, has researched this case and concluded that Madeleine died on the Sunday...as have others who have researched from various angles but reached the same conclusion.

Why is it so difficult for you all to assume Dr Amaral, who is highly intelligent, is still stuck in 2007 when the case has moved on significantly?

Or, why is it so difficult for you or anybody to provide some information that he has come to the conclusion she died earlier. Providing him with evidence/theories/information doesn't mean he accepts that this is the right answer

by Guest 13.03.19 1:03

Mainline wrote:
HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.
So you don't know what his current opinion is, the question asked was who has information or evidence that he is not sticking by the Thursday death, do you have that per chance?

Noone knows how he currently thinks, or if they do, they can't step forward because for legal reasons he can't be blunt. Personally I have no idea, so in my case your question is inane and irrelevant (not saying that's your normal contribution, just in relation to me).

Thank you for confirming you have no idea

by **Mainline** 13.03.19 1:07

HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:
HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.
So you don't know what his current opinion is, the question asked was who has information or evidence that he is not sticking by the Thursday death, do you have that per chance?

Noone knows how he currently thinks, or if they do, they can't step forward because for legal reasons he can't be blunt. Personally I have no idea, so in my case your question is inane and irrelevant (not saying that's your normal contribution, just in relation to me).
Thank you for confirming you have no idea

Thanks for providing no semblance of rebuttal and proving my contributions are based on opinion not gang mentality roses

by Guest 13.03.19 1:10

Mainline wrote:
HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:
HKP wrote:
Mainline wrote:"Guesswork"

Have you gone to the lengths of contacting publishers Guerra e Paz? Several of us did. If you're unaware of such efforts then I encourage you to redouble and contact them yourself.

Goncalo Amaral was not a top detective for sticking to one theory with an obsequious bent. Demonstrably from his own words, he never had a one track mind. I don't pretend to know what his current opinion is - whatever it is will be vastly more informed than my own. But I do recognise that a senior detective, even after leaving his employ, does not live in an echo chamber. Not one person among us can speak for him, aside from Paulo who actually (regularly) assorts with Dr Amaral.
So you don't know what his current opinion is, the question asked was who has information or evidence that he is not sticking by the Thursday death, do you have that per chance?

Noone knows how he currently thinks, or if they do, they can't step forward because for legal reasons he can't be blunt. Personally I have no idea, so in my case your question is inane and irrelevant (not saying that's your normal contribution, just in relation to me).
Thank you for confirming you have no idea

Thanks for providing no semblance of rebuttal and proving my contributions are based on opinion not gang mentality

My pleasure

by Dannz 13.03.19 1:19

HKP wrote:On post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

HKP - I think JimbobJones’ point may perhaps have been that it is only assumed that there was a girl in the crèche at that time. The only evidence there was is crèche records, Catriona Baker and the McCanns. None of those are considered credible. Richard Hall suggests that Maddie was signed in but no one was actually dropped off.

Phoebe’s other point was why remove other girls when it would only highlight Madeleine’s absence. The answer is perhaps that other parents would not notice and Cat and her supervisor were involved in the cover up. Cat supposedly had a close relationship with the McCanns - they shared meals together (children’s. teas) and Cat was Facebook Friends since 2006 with the daughter of Madeleine’s godfather (and we don’t know how many others).

Richard Hall tells us that the McCanns had lunch in their apartment to keep Madeleine’s absence concealed from the Tapas 7 - apparently up to 3 May. I get confused as to why the McCanns then included the T7 on 3 May rather than go for a simpler story of Madeleine being taken at the beach. In any event Cat Baker must have been more highly trusted than the T7. I’m not sure how many childrens’ teas the McCanns attended - was it only the one on the Sunday? However many, there was evidently very strong bonding. I’m not sure how the supervisor fits in, or if Cat without any girl attended the tea on Thursday. However, if following this theory, IMO it is likely that the other childminders were part of it too as they might have said something otherwise. Ms Romao and others would also need to be included as it would be a risk that they might also notice.

So there was no little girl in the crèche group on Thursday. There was no need as all relevant people were part of it (except the T7 until Thursday after lunch). Does that make it clearer?

by Phoebe 13.03.19 2:00

Where I run into problems with death on Sunday is when I consider the enormous unnecessary risks the whole group would have to have been running in trying to pretend Madeleine was there all week when she wasn't.
I can't believe ALL the nannies, tennis coaches and sailing coaches could have been party to this deception. All it would have taken was any of these to ask the children their names so they could address them by name - in a game or coaching session say - and the game would have been up!!
I also cannot believe the Tapas 9 could have behaved normally, played tennis, gone to and from the creche, taken the children to the playground, breakfasted in the Millenium, dined each night, enjoyed socialising in the Tapas Bar etc. with sang froid, all the while knowing they were covering up such a crime.
I cannot understand why they took all the kids to the beach on the very afternoon of the day Madeleine was to go missing. They must have known that the police would home in on that last day and afternoon, yet they removed all their kids, leaving Madeleine supposedly alone in the creche. It just doesn't ring true to me, try as I may.

by Guest 13.03.19 9:53

Dannz wrote:
HKP wrote:On post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this thread was a very good question which then raised an absurd retort but Pheobe's question remains, who was the (only) girl in the creche group on Thursday afternoon if it wasn't Maddie?

HKP - I think JimbobJones’ point may perhaps have been that it is only assumed that there was a girl in the crèche at that time. The only evidence there was is crèche records, Catriona Baker and the McCanns. None of those are considered credible. Richard Hall suggests that Maddie was signed in but no one was actually dropped off.

Phoebe’s other point was why remove other girls when it would only highlight Madeleine’s absence. The answer is perhaps that other parents would not notice and Cat and her supervisor were involved in the cover up. Cat supposedly had a close relationship with the McCanns - they shared meals together (children’s. teas) and Cat was Facebook Friends since 2006 with the daughter of Madeleine’s godfather (and we don’t know how many others).

Richard Hall tells us that the McCanns had lunch in their apartment to keep Madeleine’s absence concealed from the Tapas 7 - apparently up to 3 May. I get confused as to why the McCanns then included the T7 on 3 May rather than go for a simpler story of Madeleine being taken at the beach. In any event Cat Baker must have been more highly trusted than the T7. I’m not sure how many childrens’ teas the McCanns attended - was it only the one on the Sunday? However many, there was evidently very strong bonding. I’m not sure how the supervisor fits in, or if Cat without any girl attended the tea on Thursday. However, if following this theory, IMO it is likely that the other childminders were part of it too as they might have said something otherwise. Ms Romao and others would also need to be included as it would be a risk that they might also notice.

So there was no little girl in the crèche group on Thursday. There was no need as all relevant people were part of it (except the T7 until Thursday after lunch). Does that make it clearer?

Thanks Dannz, I am aware of Richard D Hall's take on it and of the crèche records validity. Whilst the specific question was about Thursday the principle applies to every day past Sunday. With it being a holiday club with young 'nannies' who were there temporarily I don't think that it's to be unexpected that the records are not 100% accurate, you'd do it yourself if someone forgot to sign there child out but you had seen/spoken to them on their way out (sign them out). I'd at least expect them (nannies) to be aware of who was there and who was not, in particular those kids in your group. There are too many people saying Madeleine was around (from Sunday) for them all to be mistaken/lying/covering up. The investigation team at the time were comfortable with something happening on Thursday and also that some of the independent witnesses had seen her that week (after Sunday). The first port of call for the investigation is usually who outside the family/group (independent witness) saw her last then verifying that's a true and accurate fact. The PJ were not stupid, they rapidly worked out no abduction, Tannerman was false and the behaviours pointed to some sort of cover up.

With a group of kids in your charge you need to know their names and you would call them by that on frequent occasions (or you may ask/reaffirm on several occasions), if you were wrong about their name they'll tell you! Being mixed up with another of the Tapas group's kids has to be a non starter (kids of that age in general run to their parents at pickup point). That leaves signing in but not attending, they'd be relying on people lying and taking that to their grave with them, not a risk to be taken lightly especially when it turns out to be the world's most famous missing person case (those in the know would have to be kept to the bare minimum).

by Guest 10.04.19 17:50

Phoebe wrote:Where I run into problems with death on Sunday is when I consider the enormous unnecessary risks the whole group would have to have been running in trying to pretend Madeleine was there all week when she wasn't.
I can't believe ALL the nannies, tennis coaches and sailing coaches could have been party to this deception. All it would have taken was any of these to ask the children their names so they could address them by name - in a game or coaching session say - and the game would have been up!!
I also cannot believe the Tapas 9 could have behaved normally, played tennis, gone to and from the creche, taken the children to the playground, breakfasted in the Millenium, dined each night, enjoyed socialising in the Tapas Bar etc. with sang froid, all the while knowing they were covering up such a crime.
I cannot understand why they took all the kids to the beach on the very afternoon of the day Madeleine was to go missing. They must have known that the police would home in on that last day and afternoon, yet they removed all their kids, leaving Madeleine supposedly alone in the creche. It just doesn't ring true to me, try as I may.

I have the same problem. There are just too many unmanageables for that to have been possible let alone workable. I've always felt that the night of Tuesday 1st (the night Mrs Fenn heard prolonged crying from 5A) was the night something happened and that the subterfuge began from that point.

by charyoung 11.06.19 10:31

Jill Havern wrote:
I believe Neil Berry's daughter Jessica's (Madeleine's little friend) account of Madeleine jumping into the water on the mini sail for Jessica's straw sun hat. That puts Madeleine alive on Thursday and also sea air may account for some of Madeleine's tiredness.

Lizzy Hideho Taylor
to
‎HiDeHo CONTROVERSY of Madeleine McCann
23 hrs ·

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

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

I did not come to the conclusion that something may have happened to her earlier in the week on a whim... I discovered some MAJOR discrepancies started happening on Tuesday and researched all the statements to try to pinpoint the day she was last seen... SUNDAY LUNCHTIME!

I have TWO VERY LONG threads collating some of the research. I don't 'guess' I worked hard to try to find ANYTHING that I considered proof... In 6 years or more, I have NEVER found anything...

Note: It doesn't mean she wasn't seen, but there is nothing to prove she was!

1) Title: People that saw Madeleine during the holiday
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2) Title: Did ANYONE see Madeleine during the holiday?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 11.06.19 11:59

charyoung,

I'm not sure why you've quoted a couple of previous posts without commentary.

Do you have anything to add?

by **PeterMac** 11.06.19 16:07

I believe Neil Berry's daughter Jessica's (Madeleine's little friend) account of Madeleine jumping into the water on the mini sail for Jessica's straw sun hat. That puts Madeleine alive on Thursday and also sea air may account for some of Madeleine's tiredness.

I think that reliance on the Creche activity sheet and the creche records may be a 'belief too far.'
Here they are for comparison.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Assuming that Mini-sail did take place on Thursday 3rd, in the 30 minutes allocated [their figures, not mine] which must included schlepping all 6 children down to the beach, changing into wet suits and life jackets, launching, sailing – in a Force 4 because we remember there was an International Windsurfing Competition at Portimão – landing, beaching the craft, changing and returning to the creche,
and THEN, after lunch, taking the 3 surviving children to the pool for diving at 3.30pm. [ From the creche sheets it is clear that one did not make it back after the morning session, and is presumed "missing'. ]
At 3.30pm William T is booked in at the creche, where one assumes everyone else wasn't. which may explain why he wasn't signed in
though oddly he is signed Out at some unspecified time, by some unspecified person,
and we note Ella signed out at 4.30, for fun and ice-creams and dancing with the entire Tapas gang and all the children at the Paraiso – except Madeleine who was left on her own . . .

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

Have I missed anything ?

by Guest 12.06.19 1:38

Apart from anything else, the daily childcare activities would be very dependent of weather conditions.

They're hardly likely to take the children to the kiddies pool in freezing slashing rain or mini tennis in a snow storm. Same would apply to the outdoor high tea at the Tapas bar - rain stop play.

It was late April early May on the Algarve, not Florida in midsummer - even that can be very unpredictable. If no kids are at the childcare facilities then it could be safely concluded that the days activities would be cancelled.

by **PeterMac** 12.06.19 8:31

Exactly.
The creche Activity Sheet is generic, not specific to the McCanns' week.
Is it likely that children would be chucked into the pool – which on the McCann's own admission caused Kate serious hypothermia after a few minutes – in Late April, when earlier that same day they had been cast adrift on the Open Atlantic in a Force 4 stiff breeze, and Madeleine had already thrown herself in to retrieve a straw hat . . . ?

The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze. It was still April, after all. As I am one of those people who really feel the cold . . . when Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her, I was not exactly keen. But she was so excited about the pool. I took one look at her eager little face and went off to put on my costume. The water was absolutely freezing, but Madeleine was straight in there, even if her voice disappeared for a second or two with the shock of it. ‘Come on, Mummy!’ she called when she’d got her breath back. I tentatively inched my way in. ‘The things you do for your kids!’ I remember commenting to a dad lying on a sun-lounger with his two sons nearby, watching us. I told Madeleine to count to three and steeled myself. It was worth it – it will always be worth it – just to see her delight. Even if it did take us both the best part of three hours to warm up afterwards.
We were still shivering when we went off to a ‘welcome’ meeting with the Mark Warner team, who outlined the facilities and events on offer.

There is, of course, no particular reason why we should believe any of this ! It is only "A Version" of the truth. There are clearly other "versions" available.

by skyrocket 12.06.19 8:55

Just for the record there was an indoor pool, which must have been used for the kid's club as the the pool sessions are shown as progressing through the week to 'dive and find' on the Thursday afternoon. The pool is at the far end of the main reception block - it can be seen with a partial glass roof on Google Earth. Having said that, I am equally sceptical about the activity timetable. It has always puzzled me why there is no mention in statements about use of the pool - early season you'd have expected families to be using it regularly.

IMO, the creche sheets are largely fictitious. And, whilst we're on the subject I'd just like to make another point regarding the sheets:
Having worked with children within the modern confines of health and safety AND data protection, the creche sheets make no sense. Parents would have filled in a sheet for each child with essential information. These sheets would have included parental details and mobile numbers and would have been on hand at all times for emergencies but out of view (most likely in a clip file carried with the nanny at all times). The third column of the creche sheets asks for 'parent's location' not parent's 'mobile number', which most people wouldn't want lying around in full view. If parents were unsure of their plans they had the option of simply writing 'mobile', as can be seen in a few places on the sheets. If we look at the Jellyfish/Toddler 2 records, the system seems to have been used correctly most of the time by parents - except of course, by the McCanns who consistently record their mobile numbers. Interestingly, on 4 May not one mobile number is recorded. If we examine the Mini Club/Lobster sheets we see that 5 out of the 7 parents (including the McCanns) consistently record their mobile numbers in full view - the Manns and Patels are the exceptions. Also, if the sheets are genuine and both a.m. and p.m. Lobster sessions were recorded on a single sheet - why on earth would anyone (never mind several) supposedly intelligent people not simple write 'above/as above' instead repeating their mobile numbers when registering their children for the afternoon session? The creche sheets (particularly the Lobster's) seem way to contrived for me (apart from all the other anomalies).

by **PeterMac** 12.06.19 9:29

And again a comment stimulates another interesting question.

Were the nannys 'authorised' to undress the 3 and 4 and 5 year old children - in a mixed group - and then strip them after swimming and dry them thoroughly before dressing them again – without parental or other supervision ?

by Guest 12.06.19 12:56

The Ocean Club, Praia da Luz is a third rate holiday destination for cattle class - the package tour industry. The facilities were in place for parents to dump their kids for a few hours whilst they went off to do their own thing.

The tour operator/proprietor has an obligation for overall elf 'n safety, if something goes wrong then the proverbial hits the fan. Otherwise they just jog along day by day, doing a bit and dodging a bit.

Children are the responsibility of their parents or guardians.

It's not on a parallel with Busy Bees childcare dot UK.

Don't overplay this.

by NickE 13.06.19 20:36

PeterMac wrote:I believe Neil Berry's daughter Jessica's (Madeleine's little friend) account of Madeleine jumping into the water on the mini sail for Jessica's straw sun hat. That puts Madeleine alive on Thursday and also sea air may account for some of Madeleine's tiredness.

I think that reliance on the Creche activity sheet and the creche records may be a 'belief too far.'
Here they are for comparison.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Assuming that Mini-sail did take place on Thursday 3rd, in the 30 minutes allocated [their figures, not mine] which must included schlepping all 6 children down to the beach, changing into wet suits and life jackets, launching, sailing – in a Force 4 because we remember there was an International Windsurfing Competition at Portimão – landing, beaching the craft, changing and returning to the creche,
and THEN, after lunch, taking the 3 surviving children to the pool for diving at 3.30pm. [ From the creche sheets it is clear that one did not make it back after the morning session, and is presumed "missing'. ]
At 3.30pm William T is booked in at the creche, where one assumes everyone else wasn't. which may explain why he wasn't signed in
though oddly he is signed Out at some unspecified time, by some unspecified person,
and we note Ella signed out at 4.30, for fun and ice-creams and dancing with the entire Tapas gang and all the children at the Paraiso – except Madeleine who was left on her own . . .

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

Have I missed anything ?

(William T is Tannerman's....erm..Dr Totman's boy.)

Latest topics