Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by **sharonl** Fri 02 Oct 2015, 11:47 pm

HiDeHo wrote:My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

No, you are quite right. But, it would help his case if he had this information. For a start, if we are right in thinking that Madeleine died earlier in the week, then the McCanns have done a lot of work to take the inference of the actual date and get the police looking at May 3rd only. They won't want Amaral armed with this information, even if he was initially wrong about the date . The may just back off.

It is that fact that the PJ fell into the May 3rd trap that prevented them from fully solving the case.

If the case is open over there, they may need to be made aware of this anyway.

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 02 Oct 2015, 11:53 pm

HiDeHo wrote:My understanding is that they are suing for what the book caused them, otherwise they would be suing for libel and the contents of the book could come into 'play' or am I missing something?

I think a rather academic, artificial and unhelpful distinction has been drawn by some between what they say is a 'damages trial' and a 'libel trial'.

Just as in other jurisdictions, yes, people claim damages - but only if they first prove that they have been libelled.

The McCanns wouldn't be able to claim damages if the book was proven to be true.

They are only claiming damages because the Lisbon judge said that, in terms, that Goncalo Amaral had libelled them. The only question then was: how much damages?

IIRC the judge found that Goncalo Amaral had added one or two things that were not in the released PJ files and therefore had been untruthful - or couldn't prove they were true - hence he had libelled them and must pay damages.

The Lisbon verdict of course drove a coach and horses through the decisions of the Appeal and Supreme Courts in 2010 and 2011

by **sharonl** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 12:00 am

One reason (apart from the obvious corruption and interference from the likes of Gordon Brown and Jose Socrates) that the case was shelved was because there was not enough evidence to accuse any one person of any crime.

No wonder, they were looking at the wrong timeline, convinced that Madeleine disappeared on the evening of May 3rd. They paid little attention as to what went on before.

The information that we have uncovered is probably vital and, who knows, It may even re-open the case. IMO, it must get over there whether now or in the immediate future.

by **HiDeHo** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 12:01 am

There is something I should have added to this thread... it is the basic timeline from memory so there is a lot more to add for a complete thread...

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

Title: Holiday Timeline and Discrepancies - Did something happen to Madeleine DURING the week?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: HiDeHo Theory and the RESEARCH that brought me to this CONCLUSION.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: DISCREPANCY LIST & ALL RESEARCH LINKS (from witness statements)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ROSA Sat 03 Oct 2015, 4:18 am

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

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

by **Tony Bennett** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 8:08 am

ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

Looking again at this article about the Boyds, in First Magazine, you simply have to ask how on earth it ever appeared.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that his was yet another fabrication amongst so many fabrications in this case.

The claim of Madeleine happily playing football with Louie for 'over an hour' in the sun, and whooshing down the water-slide into the pool, etc. is flatly contradicted...

(a) by the crèche records, which show Madeleine present in the Lobster group between 2.45pm and 5.30pm, and

(b) Dr Kate McCann's own book, in which Kate McCann states (p. 59, hardback): "Today it rained" - and confirms that all their children were (p. 60) "in their clubs".

Did the Boyds make this up?

Did the editor of First Magazine, or the journalist who wrote the article, know or suspect that this story wasn't true?

Did the editor of First Magazine check the fact with the McCann, and run the article past them before publication?

I dare say we might never know the answer.

But is it unreasonable to suppose that this article might have been written in co-operation with the McCanns, perhaps in an attempt to place the famous 'Last Photo' later in the week?

The article does include a number of details which match the 'Last Photo':

Last Photo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

* Madeleine and the McCanns at the poolside

* Madeleine in a pink dress

* Madeleine in a sun hat

* A lovely sunny day.

What a pity, then, that the creche records for Wednesday totally contradict the Boyds' fairytale...and that Kate McCann wrote in her book:

"Today it rained"

by **PeterMac** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 9:56 am

Hands up anyone who has seen a 3 year old play football for "about an HOUR . . ", or in fact do anything continuously for an HOUR ?
A 'professional' match stops after 45 minutes, and resumes a quarter of an hour later . . .

YET again we see people trying too hard.
why not tell the truth and say they kicked a football for a few minutes, and then . . .

by Guest Sat 03 Oct 2015, 10:21 am

Tony Bennett wrote:
ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?
Looking again at this article about the Boyds, in First Magazine, you simply have to ask how on earth it ever appeared.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that his was yet another fabrication amongst so many fabrications in this case.

The claim of Madeleine happily playing football with Louie for 'over an hour' in the sun, and whooshing down the water-slide into the pool, etc. is flatly contradicted...

(a) by the crèche records, which show Madeleine present in the Lobster group between 2.45pm and 5.30pm, and

(b) Dr Kate McCann's own book, in which Kate McCann states (p. 59, hardback): "Today it rained" - and confirms that all their children were (p. 60) "in their clubs".

Did the Boyds make this up?

Did the editor of First Magazine, or the journalist who wrote the article, know or suspect that this story wasn't true?

Did the editor of First Magazine check the fact with the McCann, and run the article past them before publication?

I dare say we might never know the answer.

But is it unreasonable to suppose that this article might have been written in co-operation with the McCanns, perhaps in an attempt to place the famous 'Last Photo' later in the week?

The article does include a number of details which match the 'Last Photo':

Last Photo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

* Madeleine and the McCanns at the poolside

* Madeleine in a pink dress

* Madeleine in a sun hat

* A lovely sunny day.

What a pity, then, that the creche records for Wednesday totally contradict the Boyds' fairytale...and that Kate McCann wrote in her book:

"Today it rained"

=======

BTW: where's the waterslide?

by **Tony Bennett** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 10:59 am

Portia wrote:
BTW: where's the waterslide?

Exactly!

As PeterMac says. 'trying too hard' - the constant references to 'the five of us' and 'our three children' in the book, 'madeleine'.

To the trained observer, these embellishments simply focus attention on the matters which appear to be problematic for whoever wrote them.

Where was the waterslide?

Only in the fertile imagination of Mrs Boyd.

Did she get paid for this work of fiction?

by **HiDeHo** Sat 03 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm

It's easy to recognise it as a fabrication when you read about the waterslide.

My thoughts are that it is just an effort of five minutes of fame but I could be wrong. (I tend to remain on the cautious side until I know for sure)

Either way it is just another 'fake' sighting of Maddie.

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

by ROSA Sat 03 Oct 2015, 1:47 pm

ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate told Vicky that this was their first holiday abroad with the kids but isn't Madeleine supposed to be used to travelling?

Vicky says M wearing a sunhat pink top and a blue skirt yet M is supposed to be whizzing down the water slide ? doesn't even make sense

by Grande Finale Sun 04 Oct 2015, 3:16 am

From the article
When posters went up announcing that Maddie had dissapeared Louie didn't understand "he said mummy isn't that the little girl I played with YESTERDAY ?"

The posters would have gone up on Friday 4th May so this article is clearly meant to refer to an encounter that took place on Thursday 3rd May.

According to the article Maddie was wearing a pink top and a blue skirt
We know though that Maddie was wearing a peach top and white shorts on The last Photograph.

So somebody is again lying/Mistaken.

by **HiDeHo** Sun 04 Oct 2015, 5:13 pm

Most people will claim the tapas cook saw Madeleine.... Mistaken? Certainly not proof.

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

Maria M A Jose - saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant.
The cook at the tapas was one of the 'credible' witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine at 16.30 Thursday May 3.

Something I have just noticed regarding the statement of Maria Manuela Antonia José Tapas Cook who has been considered as a reliable witness seeing Madeleine at 16.30 on May 3rd.

Reading her statement she refers to recognising Madeleine from the photo (of younger Madeleine)

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

seeing her during the day in the creche next to the restaurant (tapas)

Madeleine was not in that creche...but L***y was!

Quote:
Dave would take L*** over to the kids club which was back near the, behind the Tapas Bar area”.

after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crèche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crèche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week..

(...)

Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

Interesting discrepancies in the video... She suggests to have cooked the McCanns supper but finished work and went home at 6.30 according to her statement.

As far as I can tell this video is Maria Manuela Jose (as above)

McCannpjfiles http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_JOSE.htm

Witness Statement
Maria Manuela Antonia Jose
Date: 06 - 05 - 2007

by cbeagle Sun 04 Oct 2015, 10:18 pm

Were Vicky & Louie meant to be staying at the Ocean club, as they don't seem to be on these guest lists:

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

Probably a coincidence but Barnstaple is not that far from Exeter.

by whatsupdoc Wed 07 Oct 2015, 11:19 pm

A great thread, Hideho. A big thank you for all your work. clapping1

I've always believed that something happened to Madeleine around the weekend. Monday was a quiet day and the Tapas group didn't have much to say and when they did say something , it was very muddled. This suggested obfuscation to me.

I think the girl seen at the creche all week was not Madeleine but somebody else. Descriptions given don't seem to tally with Madeleine's traits.

How many of the group saw Madeleine arriving ? They must know if a different girl was masquerading as Madeleine all week.

by **Tony Bennett** Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:02 am

whatsupdoc wrote:How many of the group saw Madeleine arriving ? They must know if a different girl was masquerading as Madeleine all week.

The Lobsters Group was just 7 children, and not all came for every session.

The sole nanny was Catriona ('Cat') Baker.

The Lobster crèche sheets are chaotic, and don't even match what Kate says in her book.

There are strong indications that Jon Corner and his daughter Chloe already knew Cat Baker before 2007 - and that Cat Baker might also have known the McCanns before 2007.

Here is Cat Baker enjoying a weekend with the McCanns in Rothley in November 2007 - just before the Panorama programme:

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

Suppose something did happen to Madeleine on the Sunday? - it would not have been the hardest thing in the world for Cat Baker to have forged these creche records

by joyce1938 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 10:49 am

Surely the Tapas 7 would not get involved in such a cover up from the first day of arrival in Luz. It's hard to imagine doing such at a sudden accident, but we have sort of discussed that. I think this can get to be far too complicated, so many ideas and still we can't put a finger on it. I still think we may get a shock when we do have truth and how easy it would have been for a bad accident to have occurred. Yes, its strange that it would need a cover up, and that reason we still do not know. joyce1938

by pennylane Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:01 pm

joyce1938 wrote:Surely the Tapas 7 would not get envolved in such a cover up from the first day of arrival in Luz. Its hard to imagine doing such, at a sudden accident ,but we have sort of discussed that. I think this can get to be far too complicated,so many ideas ,and still we cant put a finger on it. I still think we may get a shock when we do have truth and how easy it would have been for a bad accident to have occurred. Yes its strange that it would need a cover up ,and that reason we still do not know . joyce 1938

We think alike, joyce!

by joyce1938 Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:30 pm

Thanks for your reply pennylane. The main topic here for now seems to be what people have made up their minds about Sonia. I just don't know and will await to see results. The nastiness on here today I am really surprised about. Why can't we all just wait and see? Is it because there is so little to keep people logging in these days? I know it's hard to realize, we still have no idea where poor child is, we may never get the ending we require to complete this case. Meanwhile don't lets turn on each other in anger. Just my personal thoughts, after reading today. joyce1938

by Guest Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:35 pm

Over past months and years I've observed a faction bubbling in the shadows whose inflexible outlook on this case doesn't extend beyond three pillars of faith, 'neglect - tragic accident - self preservation'. When asked questions that might rock this rigid mindset the stock reply in relation to MBM's presence at the Ocean Club between 29th April and 3rd May has always been cast aside by the myriad of witnesses who have confirmed seeing MBM during the week.

So who are these witnesses that attest to seeing MBM? Tapas staff who see comings and goings of scores of tourists during the holiday season, who in fairness, have their work to do which doesn't inlcude watching the movements of any particular family? A cook who takes time out for a breather and happens to recognize a strangers child that's she never seen in her life before? A fellow tourist who sees all little girls as blond, pink and pretty? A cleaner who sees a family walking down the street in the distance? A nanny who went with sammy snake to the beach but can't remember seeing Madeleine? The beach sports animateurs the tennis court staff? Crèche workers - one of which was personally responsible for the Lobster Club allegedly attended by MBM who was so devastated by the disappearance of a strangers child that she couldn't eat or sleep and had to be swiftly transfered to another far off resort? The same nanny who has since met up with the McCanns at their home in the UK - by invitation? Or the other key nanny player who changed her story so many times no one could take her seriously?

Ah but then - the Tapas group of friends, they can bear witness to MBM being alive and well right up to lunchtime on 3rd May - or was it 4.00pm - no it was 5.30pm - what about D Payne who saw her at 6.00pm? No that was before err that was err, now let me see hmmm it was about 7.00pm - oh this is so difficult, it was a year ago I can't remember what I said before - let's say for the sake of accuracy somewhere between 5.00 and 7.30 pm. Add that lot to the mix with of ever evolving variations of story line spewed forth by the parents it doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

There is only one answer to this inflexible theory, if I may borrow the words of Gerry McCann, evidence - evidence - evidence and that is the problem, no evidence to support the argument. No evidence of neglect - no evidence of tragic accident - no reliable witness statement - no reliable photographic evidence - no reliable Ocean Club records - nothing whatsoever to even indicate let alone prove that a living MBM was around that whole week in April/May 2007.

Then you will hear the purveyors of wisdom say - 'but even your hero Amaral thinks the same' (must be remembered that the people I refer to are self-proclaimed McCann sceptics). When you point out that Dr. Amaral had only the aforementioned evidence to proceed with an investigation, which was largely compromised by the Tapas group, other personages and external influence, then the nonsensical accusations of conspiracy theorist and insults start to fly - I've even been accused of being a troll (don't you just love that all encompassing word?) for trying to explain what I think to be glaringly obvious. Words like the Ambassador was only doing his job - that's what they're there for - wrong for a start, this level of diplomatic concern is confined to consular assistance - not a speedy visit by an Ambassador! That is a fact not a conspiracy theory and but one example but I digress.

The three pillars of faith are built on nothing but sand.

by pennylane Thu 08 Oct 2015, 12:54 pm

joyce1938 wrote:Thanks for your reply penylane . the main topic here for now seems to be what people have made up their minds about Sonia . I just don't know and will await to see results . the nastiness on here today I am really surprised about . Why cant we all just waite and see ? Is it because there is so little to keep people logging in these days ? I know its hard to realize ,we still have no idea where poor child is ,we may never get the ending we require to complete this case . Meanwhile don't lets turn on each other in anger. just my personal thoughts ,after reading today .joyce1938

I totally agree, Joyce. What a refreshing voice of reason!

by whodunit Fri 09 Oct 2015, 7:40 pm

This evidence is completely compatible with the Internet Archive/WBM evidence but for some reason and without even knowing what the heck she was talking about, HideHo was the first one out of the gate in launching the debunking crusade.

by Joannep43 Mon 12 Oct 2015, 9:27 pm

In my opinion HiDeHos comprehensive research is of paramount importance to this case and makes complete sense.I too have thought for a while that something happened earlier to Madeleiene.This is ground breaking in the sense that she has stumbled across this and yet no one is able to counteract her challenge and prove her wrong.Im grateful that she has the time and resources at hand to investigate this.It should not be forgotten that Amarals theory was based upon evidence and testimonies available at that time.HiDeHos research has been collated from many years of information.The PJ worked with what was given and also with interference etc from many sources.
For me her research brings more questions to mind.
1, Is there any evidence Madeleine was at the ocean club ? The reasons I ask,lack of DNA in the apartment.Very few photos of Madeleine on the holiday.Tapas statements where most distance themselves from admitting to seeing much of Madeleine.Madeleine being described as lively,intelligent,talkative etc but no accounts or quotes of any sentences she had spoken on the holiday from the Tapas Group.
2,I then think of the countless times the McCanns use distancing language when referring to Madeleine.I then wonder who released the airport bus video to YouTube and the video of Madeleiene climbing the aeroplane steps.Im now wondering was this done on purpose to indoctrinate us to believe that Yes she flew to PDL and Yes she landed?
3,I'm now putting on my tinfoil hat and false flag event is coming to mind.Im now embarking into conspiraloon territory but I'm being serious.No other case has received so much worldwide media attention in recent memory.Was this a government arranged False Flag event to distract the masses from something going on in the world ?
4,Then I come back to reality and remember Eddie and Keela ,and I've taken of my tinfoil hat.

by MrsHyde Mon 12 Oct 2015, 10:01 pm

Verdi wrote:Over past months and years I've observed a faction bubbling in the shadows whose inflexible outlook on this case doesn't extend beyond three pillars of faith, 'neglect - tragic accident - self preservation'. When asked questions that might rock this rigid mindset the stock reply in relation to MBM's presence at the Ocean Club between 29th April and 3rd May has always been cast aside by the myriad of witnesses who have confirmed seeing MBM during the week.

Of course, these witnesses might have confused Maddie with some other kid, that is always a probability. Of course, it is highly probable that at least some of them might get an "incentive" from the McCanns to say that they saw Maddie. But assuming that all of them, all these people must be wrong? That's too much for me, and not enough logic applied. Especially dismissing these Millenium staff statements bothers me the most, because the McCanns could have a very good reason to lie about their eating habits - the buggy, that can be very helpful when one needs to remove the child's body from their apartment.

A weak point in the "Maddie died on sunday" theory is that pretending for five days she was alive was incredibly risky. There were only seven kids in Maddie's group in creche, do you really think they wouldn't notice her absence? Basing the cover up plan on their silence would be madness, there was no certainity that they would colaborate. What with other guests and staff in the resort, who already saw Mccanns with three children? Were the McCanns haul with them all the time a kid borrowed from their friends? Incredibly risky.

by Guest Mon 12 Oct 2015, 11:08 pm

MrsHyde wrote:
Verdi wrote:Over past months and years I've observed a faction bubbling in the shadows whose inflexible outlook on this case doesn't extend beyond three pillars of faith, 'neglect - tragic accident - self preservation'. When asked questions that might rock this rigid mindset the stock reply in relation to MBM's presence at the Ocean Club between 29th April and 3rd May has always been cast aside by the myriad of witnesses who have confirmed seeing MBM during the week.

Of course, these witnesses might have confused Maddie with some other kid, that is always a probability. Of course, it is highly probable that at least some of them might get an "incentive" from the McCanns to say that they saw Maddie. But assuming that all of them, all these people must be wrong? That's too much for me, and not enough logic applied. Especially dismissing these Millenium staff statements bothers me the most, because the McCanns could have a very good reason to lie about their eating habits - the buggy, that can be very helpful when one needs to remove the child's body from their apartment.

1. That's just my point - who are all these people that claim to have seen MBM alive and well throughout their very short stay at the Ocean Club?
2. I'm sorry I don't understand who or what you are talking about.

A weak point in the "Maddie died on sunday" theory is that pretending for five days she was alive was incredibly risky. There were only seven kids in Maddie's group in creche, do you really think they wouldn't notice her absence? Basing the cover up plan on their silence would be madness, there was no certainity that they would colaborate. What with other guests and staff in the resort, who already saw Mccanns with three children? Were the McCanns haul with them all the time a kid borrowed from their friends? Incredibly risky.

You talk as if the entire Ocean Club complex staff and guests are colluding with a 'pact of silence'. The group were only there for five full days before KM shouted 'abduction!' If you have any experience of interaction between a holiday resort staff and the guests, you will know that inter-personal acquaintances are rare indeed - outside of those on the look-out for a bit of howz yer father. Be fair, the staff are only doing a job, can't expect them to notice the movements of the guests. From the point of view of people telling porkies about seeing MBM during that week, the list is confined to but few - primarily the crèche workers - specifically Catriona Baker who visited the McCann domicile in the UK only six months after Madeleine's disappearance and the notorious fantasist Charlotte Pennington. There is even a cloud hanging over another crèche worker, Amy Tierney, said to have been involved with production of Madeleine images to assist the investigation but I'll leave that in abeyance as it could be but rumour.

The question that needs to be asked is if these young women were known to the McCanns or any of their friends/relations/contacts, prior to the Portuguese holiday in May 2007. It would also be interesting to know what tales Pamela Fenn could have told about the family's movements - alas, that is not now an option.

by ROSA Tue 13 Oct 2015, 2:58 am

They would not be bothered if she was absent from crèche or not, its a busy holiday resort, kids would attend crèche randomly, the staff are not sleuths. In reality it is none of their business, they are simply there to do their job.

by joyce1938 Tue 13 Oct 2015, 10:30 am

I doubt if we could put much on the creche sheets being totally correct. As you have said, it makes no sense to what they were actually doing. Don't think for a minute that the nannies worried about that part of job, didn't expect to have to prove anything unless something odd were to occur, I don't believe they thought that for one minute. A shock to them when so many questions arose. joyce1938

by Versailles Tue 13 Oct 2015, 6:55 pm

But if Fatima saw Madeleine, and Fatima is credible, then..?
I just dont understand the premise of the question.

So you think she is mis remembers? But then she would not be credible.

There is some rethoric here, that I fail to understand.

by sammi1967 Tue 13 Oct 2015, 8:29 pm

Just wondering if any research has been done concerning the people who claim to have seen M that week and what known links that they may have with NI?

by **HiDeHo** Sat 17 Oct 2015, 4:50 pm

I apologise for having neglected this thread for a while, but other important things to help in getting the truth out has taken my time (eg vids that are being viewed 9,000 times a day (4 1/4 Million views overall) smilie

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

Anyway, reading back I was confused about the comment made about me regarding WBM, but whatever anyone's opinion of myself or my agenda it is to post the truth regardless of where it takes me.

My basic hypothesis is not an effort to decide how it all happened but to place my info out there for each person to decide on how they interpret it.

Basically, I studied all the statements and made comparisons which resulted in many discrepancies. I did not focus on memory issues, only on contradictions and oddities that appear to be closer to lies and contradictions than just mere forgetfulness.

After compiling the timeline of discrepancies I could see they started Tuesday (some people say before)

Using that information I ask the question WHY would discrepancies start on Tuesday?

Was there SOMETHING that happened before that needed to be covered up?

With reasonable knowledge there was no abduction, could those discrepancies be in place because something had happened to Madeleine at that point?

To support the possibility that it MAY be because something had happened to Madeleine I then decided to see if we have proof of Madeleine being seen during the week and if so, then it would either debunk the possibility that something may have happened to Madeleine before Tuesday or to support that possibility.

I had NO idea when I started researching the statements what I would find... BUT, I could not find ONE (apart from Fatima) that was what I considered 'proof' of having been seen.

I was surprised, but not surprised if you know what I mean because I firmly believe those discrepancies WERE to hide something...

So I dont have a theory as to what happened or why. Only that I can show everyone the results of my research and will willingly accept any challenge to show my research is wrong because I do not want to protect my opinions/thoughts etc. I ONLY want the truth.

Discrepancies (MAJOR) started on Tuesday...

I could only find ONE statement to 'prove' specifically that Madeleine was seen during the week at lunchtime on Sunday...

It is for everyone to show me how I am incorrect or explain why this is so...

It's just about 'facts' as discovered in the files. No theory.