Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by whodunit 17.10.15 17:03

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.

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.

Riskier than what, is the question. If they needed time, time to establish alibis, time to rid the environment of evidence, time to put distance between themselves and 'the event' then using a replacement 'Maddie' for a few days in a strange place where nobody knew them is certainly less of a risk than the alternative. [meaning sounding the alarm immediately and risking evidence of 'the event' being found]

Who was going to question young children? AFAIK the cops never asked the little ones were about MBM.

by **HiDeHo** 17.10.15 17:36

My reason for popping back here today was originally to add this post which, as it happens, may be on topic with the current discussions..

I created some graphics after putting together some descriptions of Madeleine's personality and was interested to note that the OC staff described a very different child to what many understand Madeleine's personality to be.

It may also answer the question as to was there a 'substitute' child and the suggested conspiracy theory that it suggests, which is often offputting to some.

Firstly, I do not necessarily believe the creche records were forged by staff... and if they were it would have been more to do with the Whistleblower BBC program that had happened three weeks before regarding Mark Warner creche in Greece (or Egypt)

The creche records would have been taken by the PJ before any of them had any idea that they would be involved in the case.

As far as everyone knew in those first few days it was an 'abduction' from the apartment so any filling in of the creche sheets would like have been only to do with their credibitly.

Unlike the school requirement of checking each child is present every morning, the children were arriving randomly throughout the day and the records were probably only used to have a telephone contact number.

HOWEVER, they MAY tell us something about how the following may have happened....

Did everyone remember Ella and not Madeleine? Three months younger than Madeleine and with a similar appearance.

Jane Tanner describes Ella this way...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4078 “And how would you describe Madeleine?”
Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because, probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Ella and Madeleine would get on, because Ella’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing and. But, I mean, they did, they got on and they had a whale of a time. But, yeah, very, very lively, chatty, a chatty little girl. I mean, to be honest, I know Madeleine probably less well than I know Kate and Gerry, because often, with Kate and Gerry, we saw them, it was like at fortieth birthday parties and that sort of thing. So, Madeleine herself, I wouldn’t say as, I didn’t know her as a little girl, whereas, you know, the other children, Millie and the other ones, you know, I saw very regularly”.
4078 “So your impressions of Madeleine is that she is confident, happy?”
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “Intelligent?”
Reply “Yeah, very, yeah, you know, very”.
4078 “And is there anything about her that would make her stand out from the rest of the children in that group?”
Reply “I think just the fact she is very outgoing, you know. As I say, Ella, in her nature, is a bit more, you know, quiet and, erm, a bit more probably reserved. Well, again, I don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.
4078 “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”
Reply “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader, but she would be at the centre of it, so”.
4078 “I don’t want to put words in your mouth and I don’t want to ask inappropriate questions either”.
Reply “No, just ask”.
4078 “How you described Madeleine, up to what point was she sort of the leader, if you like, was she verging on the, because some children can be downright annoying”.
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “When they’re over confident?”
Reply “No, again, I think this is what I was almost wondering, whether, with Ella being sort of the stand-back type, whether, but, no, she wasn’t like that at all, she was just”.
4078 “In a nice way?”
Reply “Just happy. In a nice way, yeah. No, she wasn’t, erm, she wasn’t a brat, no, I mean, that’s you could describe, she wasn’t, no, bratty or sort of, I can’t remember the word I’m trying to look for, precocious”.
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “No, she was just very, and she was obviously, you know, they were enjoying themselves, they were running around screaming, you know, sort of chasing them round the play area, you know. That’s my main memory of Madeleine from the holiday, is in the play area, you know, we were sort of chasing them around and, you know, just being, just running around, quite happy”.
4078 “Just fun?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah”.

..Ella is shy and reserved and Madeleine is vivacious...

Could the staff be remembering Ella when they made these comments (or mentioned about seeing her)

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

Take into consideration that the creche records have days that Madeleine was signed in and Ella was signed out (and vice versa)

I personally don't believe anyone was necessarily monitoring the registrations and they were just available for everyone to sign...

I have more thoughts on the records but for now that it for this post :)0000

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

by **HiDeHo** 17.10.15 18:09

Just to explain what I mean about Ella and Madeleine being signed in and out...

If you look at Tuesday lunchtime... Gerry and Russell (and Jez) walked together to pick the children up.

Only Madeleine is signed out (even though Russell was with him...

Tuesday afternoon...after the McCanns supposedly took the children to the beach and wandered back arrived to book Madeleine in at exactly the same time as CAT claimed Ella arrived (added later?) and yet ONLY Ella was signed out.

I have no idea if this indicates anything, but it DOES allow for the possibility of only one child to have been there at that time...

by **Tony Bennett** 17.10.15 18:53

HiDeHo wrote:Firstly, I do not necessarily believe the creche records were forged by staff...The creche records would have been taken by the PJ before any of them had any idea that they would be involved in the case.

There is a very obvious flaw in your argument at this point.

You have suggested that 'something happened' to Madeleine on the Sunday/Monday.

If that's correct, those involved (if they had the opportunity) would have had 3 or 4 days in which to forge the records. if they wished/needed to.

All it would need is the co-operation of Cat Baker, who seems to have had particularly close relationship to the McCanns - and may even have known them before the holiday.

From Monday onwards, she, as the only nanny who ran the 'Lobsters' group, would have had plenty of opportunity to ensure that Madeleine's name was added every session

by Verdi 17.10.15 19:40

I can't see the need to fabricate MBM's existence by a substitute. The crèche facility is not obligatory, it's entirely up to the parent/guardian of any one child whether they are placed in child care - could be for an hour here and there, half a day, a full day. Under normal circumstances I doubt if the crèche workers pay much attention to who is there, why and when - why should they. Surely their function is only to entertain the children whilst in the various clubs, other than that they have no responsibility for any one child's welfare nor whereabouts.

I CAN however see the need to simulate a scenario to suggest that MBM was alive and well up to 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May, if as many pointers suggest, she disappeared prior to that date and time. A substitute child would not be necessary, this is a tourist resort with hundreds of guests passing through each season, no one could ask or expect the staff to be familiar with the appearance of every man woman and child. Indeed, a substitute child would make things more complicated I think. Far simpler to enlist the assistance of willing appendages with a vested interest and introduce a few less conspicuous indications of a live MBM, like the date and time of a photograph and a few maybes that can't be proven one way or the other.

My other thought on the subject is the constant reliance on the testimonies of the McCanns and their group of friends. I for one find it difficult to believe a word they have every spoken - their account of the time spent at the Ocean Club is no exception..

by whodunit 17.10.15 19:55

Verdi wrote:I can't see the need to fabricate MBM's existence by a substitute. The crèche facility is not obligatory, it's entirely up to the parent/guardian of any one child whether they are placed in child care - could be for an hour here and there, half a day, a full day. Under normal circumstances I doubt if the crèche workers pay much attention to who is there, why and when - why should they. Surely their function is only to entertain the children whilst in the various clubs, other than that they have no responsibility for any one child's welfare nor whereabouts.

I CAN however see the need to simulate a scenario to suggest that MBM was alive and well up to 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May, if as many pointers suggest, she disappeared prior to that date and time. A substitute child would not be necessary, this is a tourist resort with hundreds of guests passing through each season, no one could ask or expect the staff to be familiar with the appearance of every man woman and child. Indeed, a substitute child would make things more complicated I think. Far simpler to enlist the assistance of willing appendages with a vested interest and introduce a few less conspicuous indications of a live MBM, like the date and time of a photograph and a few maybes that can't be proven one way or the other.

My other thought on the subject is the constant reliance on the testimonies of the McCanns and their group of friends. I for one find it difficult to believe a word they have every spoken - their account of the time spent at the Ocean Club is no exception..

The only reason to fabricate her appearance at creche--which it seems to me did happen---was to provide positive documentary evidence outside of group testimony that MBM was still living after Sunday/Monday. Her attendance at creche and documentary evidence thereof, spurious though it may be, is a crucial part of the alibi since, as we've seen, eyewitness testimony OUTSIDE the group is thin gruel indeed.

by **HiDeHo** 17.10.15 20:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Firstly, I do not necessarily believe the creche records were forged by staff...The creche records would have been taken by the PJ before any of them had any idea that they would be involved in the case.
There is a very obvious flaw in your argument at this point.

You have suggested that 'something happened' to Madeleine on the Sunday/Monday.

If that's correct, those involved (if they had the opportunity) would have had 3 or 4 days in which to forge the records. if they wished/needed to.

All it would need is the co-operation of Cat Baker, who seems to have had particularly close relationship to the McCanns - and may even have known them before the holiday.

From Monday onwards, she, as the only nanny who ran the 'Lobsters' group, would have had plenty of opportunity to ensure that Madeleine's name was added every session

Maybe I should not have used the word 'forged'. 'Changed or added to is what I should have said.

For the record, I do not think Catriona was 'involved' during that week.

My thoughts are that like all the other nannies they had the children every day, some of them arriving at random times and although I imagine as well looked after as they were able, it was so early in the season that I doubt strict rules were in place that first week. (I believe?)

Catriona was in a large room with other nannies. Were all the children kept separate or did the children participate in games throughout the room? We don't know the exact details of the creche and sharing the activities with the Sharks.

What I believe happened is that IF Madeleine was only there for the first day or two, she would have possibly not been missed by Catriona, remembering they supposedly had activities in areas outside of the creche room and children may have been randomly dropped off without the creche sheet available. We just don't know.

If she is anything like myself, she may not have been able to pinpoint which child was which when asked retrospectively.

Maybe she did, BUT when the abduction happened and she realised that this was one of her charges in the creche, and was 'remnded' that Madeleine was at the creche that day, then would she turn around and say 'No... I don't remember her being there'? Would she have second guessed herself?

She had maybe seen Madeleine a couple of times at the beginning of the week but the father and mother of the 'abducted' child SAID Madeleine was there... No way could Catriona have disputed that and probably second guessed herself.

In the first statements she was vague about Madeleine and didnt give a lot of info.

Other nannies didn't remember seeing Maddie in places she was supposed to have been...

Catriona would have had no choice in my opinion but to second guess her memory, and just follow with what everyone was claiming.

At that point it didn't really matter as Madeleine had been taken from the apartment and not the creche, but it started to become an issue when the parents were thought to be involved, and the nannies were sent away to another Mark Warners.

Catriona suffered a lot at this point as she mentioned to a friend. Could this have been attributed to her realisation that she didn't remember seeing Maddie that day (but had been intimidated to believe she had?)

Of course we don't know...and then we had the visit to Rothley...where she may have been 'reminded' about what happened...

Intimidation can be very scary for a young girl...

I do not believe that Catriona is guilty of anything more than being possibly 'manipulated'.

Sorry if that does not fit with some people's thoughts....but it's mine...

Like most of the T7 she was in the wrong place at the wrong time....

Whether guilty of not speaking up afterwards IF my thoughts are correct is another matter, but she was protected by the McCanns from revealing her location and I am happy to report that from what I understand she seems to have a happy life.

She did not ask to be there at that time.

by Verdi 17.10.15 21:37

whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:I can't see the need to fabricate MBM's existence by a substitute. The crèche facility is not obligatory, it's entirely up to the parent/guardian of any one child whether they are placed in child care - could be for an hour here and there, half a day, a full day. Under normal circumstances I doubt if the crèche workers pay much attention to who is there, why and when - why should they. Surely their function is only to entertain the children whilst in the various clubs, other than that they have no responsibility for any one child's welfare nor whereabouts.

I CAN however see the need to simulate a scenario to suggest that MBM was alive and well up to 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May, if as many pointers suggest, she disappeared prior to that date and time. A substitute child would not be necessary, this is a tourist resort with hundreds of guests passing through each season, no one could ask or expect the staff to be familiar with the appearance of every man woman and child. Indeed, a substitute child would make things more complicated I think. Far simpler to enlist the assistance of willing appendages with a vested interest and introduce a few less conspicuous indications of a live MBM, like the date and time of a photograph and a few maybes that can't be proven one way or the other.

My other thought on the subject is the constant reliance on the testimonies of the McCanns and their group of friends. I for one find it difficult to believe a word they have every spoken - their account of the time spent at the Ocean Club is no exception..

The only reason to fabricate her appearance at creche--which it seems to me did happen---was to provide positive documentary evidence outside of group testimony that MBM was still living after Sunday/Monday. Her attendance at creche and documentary evidence thereof, spurious though it may be, is a crucial part of the alibi since, as we've seen, eyewitness testimony OUTSIDE the group is thin gruel indeed.

So enter the crèche register. No need that I can see for a substitute child - if that's what you're saying. Not entirely sure what you mean by "positive documentary evidence". I can however understand why you might have the words 'positive-documentary-evidence' on the brain big grin

!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.10.15 22:19

HiDeHo wrote:
For the record, I do not think Catriona was 'involved' during that week.

Catriona was in a large room with other nannies. Were all the children kept separate or did the children participate in games throughout the room? We don't know the exact details of the creche and sharing the activities with the Sharks.

REPLY: My understanding is that in fact the 'Lobsters' group was in a separate room

Maybe she did, BUT when the abduction happened and she realised that this was one of her charges in the creche, and was 'reminded' that Madeleine was at the creche that day, then would she turn around and say 'No... I don't remember her being there'? Would she have second guessed herself?

She had maybe seen Madeleine a couple of times at the beginning of the week but the father and mother of the 'abducted' child SAID Madeleine was there... No way could Catriona have disputed that and probably second guessed herself. In the first statements she was vague about Madeleine and didn't give a lot of info. Catriona would have had no choice in my opinion but to second guess her memory, and just follow with what everyone was claiming.

Catriona suffered a lot at this point as she mentioned to a friend. Could this have been attributed to her realisation that she didn't remember seeing Maddie that day (but had been intimidated to believe she had?)

Intimidation can be very scary for a young girl...

I do not believe that Catriona is guilty of anything more than being possibly 'manipulated'.

REPLY: But you have strongly asserted - in a YouTube video you've made which has been seen by tens of thousands - that she actively LIED about having 'high tea' with Madeleine and the McCanns, an assertion based if I may so say on a very comprehensive analysis of all the contradictions about that alleged event.

That LIE was believed by Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team, who used it to allege that Madeleine died some time after 6pm on Thursday 3rd May.

According to your own OP, Madeleine was not there that day and so it is not a case of 'mis-remembering' but of actually LYING. In an investigation about the disappearance of a missing child.

And that's classed as 'perverting the course of justice' in our legal system.

Did she know the McCanns before May 2007?

Maybe. She was, in 2006 (and still is) FB friends with Chloe Corner, daughter of Madeleine's godfather, Jon Corner - who I think once said that he knew Praia da Luz well as he often visited there.

by whodunit 18.10.15 16:41

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:I can't see the need to fabricate MBM's existence by a substitute. The crèche facility is not obligatory, it's entirely up to the parent/guardian of any one child whether they are placed in child care - could be for an hour here and there, half a day, a full day. Under normal circumstances I doubt if the crèche workers pay much attention to who is there, why and when - why should they. Surely their function is only to entertain the children whilst in the various clubs, other than that they have no responsibility for any one child's welfare nor whereabouts.

I CAN however see the need to simulate a scenario to suggest that MBM was alive and well up to 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May, if as many pointers suggest, she disappeared prior to that date and time. A substitute child would not be necessary, this is a tourist resort with hundreds of guests passing through each season, no one could ask or expect the staff to be familiar with the appearance of every man woman and child. Indeed, a substitute child would make things more complicated I think. Far simpler to enlist the assistance of willing appendages with a vested interest and introduce a few less conspicuous indications of a live MBM, like the date and time of a photograph and a few maybes that can't be proven one way or the other.

My other thought on the subject is the constant reliance on the testimonies of the McCanns and their group of friends. I for one find it difficult to believe a word they have every spoken - their account of the time spent at the Ocean Club is no exception..

The only reason to fabricate her appearance at creche--which it seems to me did happen---was to provide positive documentary evidence outside of group testimony that MBM was still living after Sunday/Monday. Her attendance at creche and documentary evidence thereof, spurious though it may be, is a crucial part of the alibi since, as we've seen, eyewitness testimony OUTSIDE the group is thin gruel indeed.
So enter the crèche register. No need that I can see for a substitute child - if that's what you're saying. Not entirely sure what you mean by "positive documentary evidence". I can however understand why you might have the words 'positive-documentary-evidence' on the brain !

Perhaps there was no need for a substitute child but it SEEMS there was one, nevertheless. I think they wouldn't want to take a chance of getting caught registering NO CHILD at creche. Wrong, look-alike child is better than none.

LOL! Positive documentary evidence just means, to me, documents the cops wouldn't necessarily question unless there was something glaringly 'off' about them. It's taken many years to sort out the anomalies of the creche recores. Seems the PJ just took them at face value.

by j.rob 18.10.15 19:59

Joannep43 wrote: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.

I think it is/was a false flag event designed to distract the sheeple from the really important things (Iraq). But then something went wrong and/or something untoward happened or possibly the plan was deliberately sabotaged by third parties which would account for the Mcs and Tapas making a complete bodge-job of their accounts of the alleged 'abduction'.

There are several different agendas going on, imo, which is why it seems so complicated.

by **HiDeHo** 18.10.15 20:19

I have used the research on the last person to see Madeleine (to give an idea of whether she was around during the week) in conjunction with the discrepancies and inconsistencies throughout the week, as I feel once they started there was probably a reason to hide something...

According to sightings...Last credible sighting was SUNDAY Lunchtime

Discrepancies, denials and contradictions started on TUESDAY (or earlier)

Did something happen to Madeleine after Sunday and before Tuesday (hence a possible cover up?)

The week is RIDDLED with them and at a guess I would say approximately 15 on Thursday alone. Each one is important in itself but overall produces a picture of something MAJOR being hidden on Thursday.

Here is a SUMMARY of the list of people that claimed to have seen Madeleine and my comment as to why they cannot be used as PROOF she was seen (it does not prove she wasn't seen)

Before I move on to the discrepancies, please scroll down this summary and let me know if ANY of them (apart from Fatima) are credible and PROVE that Madeleine was seen!

This summary was done many years ago and there may be other comments that have not been added, but none were specific...I would welcome any Adjustments additions to any of this summary.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.15 7:58

Joannep43 wrote:In my opinion HiDeHo's 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 Madeleine. 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. I'm grateful that she has the time and resources at hand to investigate this. It should not be forgotten that Amaral's theory was based upon evidence and testimonies available at that time. HiDeHo's 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 Madeleine climbing the aeroplane steps. I'm 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. I'm 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.

Good post @ Joannep43 back on page 9 of this thread. thumbup

I would recommend every member here and every guest to carefully read and ponder HideHo's article which is unquestionably well-researched and well-thought-out.

I suggest it ought also to be read in conjunction with the thoughts of Hobs = Tania Cadogan, our resident 'statement analyst', here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. She reaches similar conclusions to those of HideHo, but by a different route. I noticed that two of our most perceptive members here, 'canada12' and 'Carry On Doctor', were quick to endorse Hobs' opinons.

What @ joannep43 states above about Amaral not having access to all the information that we now have is spot on. That means, for example, that we must not regard as sacrosanct his view that Catriona Baker was telling the truth about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May.

Your final line @ joannep43 is a final answer to those who claim that Madeleine was never in Praia da Luz - of course she was - the 17 alerts of Eddie and Keela, and the McCanns' reactions to them, prove that beyond doubt.

by j.rob 19.10.15 10:10

Agree excellent research. However I am not so sure about this:

Your final line @ joannep43 is a final answer to those who claim that Madeleine was never in Praia da Luz - of course she was - the 17 alerts of Eddie and Keela, and the McCanns' reactions to them, prove that beyond doubt.

The dog alerts are proof that a cadaver was present in apartment 5A and other locations at Ocean Club.

However they are not conclusive proof that this cadaver was necessarily that of Madeleine McCann. I am merely being devil's advocate here! I completely agree however that the McCanns' reactions to the dog alerts are highly incriminating.

I am not claiming that Madeleine was never in Luz by the way. I am simply interested, as others are, in why there was no DNA from Madeleine in the apartment or in the kids' club or ANYWHERE in Ocean Club where she is supposed to have been that week until Thursday evening.

Heck, Gerry even had to return to the UK to get an item with her DNA on it!

I mean, that is beyond weird. No DNA ANYWHERE!! This does not make sense. Even allowing for a massive clean-up job in apartment 5A why would there be none of her DNA in the kids' club, for instance? Or other places she visited at Ocean Club.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is that during the early police searches in the immediate hours and days after Madeleine's alleged abduction the McCanns apparently gave the police an item that had Madeleine's scent on it for the sniffer dogs to try to follow a trail.

Now, given the suspicious circumstances surrounding her disappearance, one has to wonder whether Madeleine McCanns' scent was indeed on this item. Or whether it was someone elses', perhaps, to deliberately 'put them off the scent' as it were.

But the point I am trying to make is that how come the McCanns were able to hand over an item with (allegedly!) Madeleine's scent on it - and therefore (allegedly) her DNA one assumes - but that subsequently they were unable to find anything with her DNA on it to the extent that Gerry had to return to the UK to get some DNA from their home?

Sorry but this it totally perplexing. The finding of Madeleine McCann's DNA in apartment 5A, or in the kids' club or in the Millennium or indeed anywhere at Ocean Club would be PROOF that Madeleine McCann was at Ocean Club that week.

The photos are not proof because we don't know when they were taken, by whom they were taken and we don't know for sure that the child who is supposed to be Madeleine McCann is indeed Madeleine McCann. She looks different in a great many of the photos.

The airport video is not concrete proof as we don't know for sure if that is indeed Madeleine Again, I am not saying it isn't her but we don't know for sure. It is odd, imo, that this footage was released presumably as 'proof' that Madeleine went on that holiday. A strange choice of holiday filming. No footage at all from the holiday. And the photos that were released by TM were mostly in black and white an very grainy and hard to see who is in the photos.

What the heck DID go on that week?

by smoking_gun 19.10.15 10:16

Whose cadaver scent was found in the trunk of the car the McCanns hired 3 weeks after Madeleine was reported missing that Eddie and Keela alerted to?

by joyce1938 19.10.15 11:39

I am not sure I have read that the kids club and other places were tested for anyones dna ?? if the flat showed no dna at all .like the twins and parents , must have been total cleanup successfully carried out. joyce1938

by joyce1938 19.10.15 11:50

Just trying to recall a long conversation that went on a long time ago on another site , MCF. It was spoken of in detail by some folk . The reason maybe G was sent home to get pillowcase was to make certain it also matched the heel prick test from said child, these were done for many years born in hospital, and it did. Some have wondered if the pillowcase was from Maddy's bed but we can't know for cerain if kids swapped beds, but the two already received matched. Parapono may recall more than I. joyce1938

by comperedna 19.10.15 11:57

My son is just leaving for a holiday with two year old and a four year old. Experience of this myself reminds me that young children rapidly litter any holiday accommodation up with used plastic mugs and attendant saliva infused milk residue, dribble and more dribble, pairs of damp pants from mini accidents, loads of worn clothes in a dirty clothes basket waiting to be put in the washer, favourite soft toys (well chewed and slobbered over) and all kinds of other juvenile gear. Mess plus DNA gets EVERYWHERE.

Something with Madeleine's DNA on it? What about the pillow on Madeleine's bed in 5A?... the sheets even... Shoes would be ideal as they would be the wrong size for the twins to wear. MBM was said to have been stolen from her bed... ie barefoot, so shoes her would still be there.

G's having to go back to Rothley for a pillow with M's DNA on is crazy. The flat should have been full of DNA which could be definitely be seen to be hers. The other family members DNA could easily be differentiated from it. M's toothbrush would have been ideal, as children do NOT share toothbrushes. Claiming that the McCann children did is NUTS.

Similarly, something with M's scent on for tracker dogs to follow: M's parents handing over a towel for that purpose is very rum indeed. Families DO share towels. The dog handlers should have been given an item of clothing Madeleine wore the day before she disappeared.

Summat's madly amiss. Either the place was amazingly thoroughly cleaned, or the weird option (which I do not buy for obvious reasons) M was never in PDL, or at least in 5a at all.

by Verdi 19.10.15 12:09

comperedna wrote:My son is just leaving for a holiday with two year old and a four year old. Experience of this myself reminds me that young children rapidly litter any holiday accommodation up with used plastic mugs and attendant saliva infused milk residue, dribble and more dribble, pairs of damp pants from mini accidents, loads of worn clothes in a dirty clothes basket waiting to be put in the washer, favourite soft toys (well chewed and slobbered over) and all kinds of other juvenile gear. Mess plus DNA gets EVERYWHERE.

Something with Madeleine's DNA on it? What about the pillow on Madeleine's bed in 5A?... the sheets even... Shoes would be ideal as they would be the wrong size for the twins to wear. MBM was said to have been stolen from her bed... ie barefoot, so shoes her would still be there.

G's having to go back to Rothley for a pillow with M's DNA on is crazy. The flat should have been full of DNA which could be definitely be seen to be hers. The other family members DNA could easily be differentiated from it. M's toothbrush would have been ideal, as children do NOT share toothbrushes. Claiming that the McCann children did is NUTS.

Similarly, something with M's scent on for tracker dogs to follow: M's parents handing over a towel for that purpose is very rum indeed. Families DO share towels. The dog handlers should have been given an item of clothing Madeleine wore the day before she disappeared.

Summat's madly amiss. Either the place was amazingly thoroughly cleaned, or the weird option (which I do not buy for obvious reasons) M was never in PDL, or at least in 5a at all.

Totally totally agree thumbsup

!

Argued this point so many times in the past with people who claim to be scientists (in what field I know not), their answer was always the requirement in any criminal investigation for a clean sample. A clean sample collected from the UK by one of the prime suspects, no doubt stuffed in a back-pack with other dirty laundry, transported to Portugal? I thought the police had very stringent rules as regards the collection of evidence for forensic analysis!

I can't add to what you have written. Sometimes the simple explanation is preferable to confused false claims of technical expertise - is that where the expression 'to blind with science' comes from?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.15 12:25

Verdi wrote:
Sometimes the simple explanation is preferable to confused false claims of technical expertise - is that where the expression 'to blind with science' comes from?

Or what about the origin of the expressed 'doctored'? winkwink

The theory of evolution is another example of 'blinding people with science' - and a lot of doctoring goes on, like the faking of Piltdown Man and Ernst Haeckel's faked 'embryonic recapitulation' sketches. All done by so-called 'scientists'.

The same thing is happening with so-called 'man-made climate change'. They've got the science wrong: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of increased warmth, not the other way round - and 'scientists' like those at the Climate Change Research Unit at the University of East Anglia forge their data

by Verdi 19.10.15 12:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Sometimes the simple explanation is preferable to confused false claims of technical expertise - is that where the expression 'to blind with science' comes from?
Or what about the origin of the expressed 'doctored'?

The theory of evolution is another example of 'blinding people with science' - and a lot of doctoring goes on, like the faking of Piltdown Man and Ernst Haeckel's faked 'embryonic recapitulation' sketches. All done by so-called 'scientists'.

The same thing is happening with so-called 'man-made climate change'. They've got the science wrong: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of increased warmth, not the other way round - and 'scientists' like those at the Climate Change Research Unit at the University of East Anglia forge their data

Far more appropriate smilie

!

On a lighter note, so to speak, the meteo told me this morning to expect 10% chance of rain showers - so I did! At present it's hissing down so hard visibility is down to nil and what is normally a road is now a raging torrent.

Better chance with Ye Olde Farmer's Almanac or a dollop of seaweed hanging from the eaves.

by j.rob 19.10.15 15:11

Summat's madly amiss. Either the place was amazingly thoroughly cleaned, or the weird option (which I do not buy for obvious reasons) M was never in PDL, or at least in 5a at all.

--------

I think it is possible that she wasn't in apartment 5a or at least not for most of that week. Which of course begs the question of where she was that week. When did 'something' happen to her? Was she ever there at all? And as a poster has asked up-thread, if it wasn't Madeleine's dead body that left the scent of cadaver in the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic, then whose was it? And the same question could be asked of the other places where the sniffer dogs alerted to cadaver scent.

But, to try to keep it simple, suppose Madeleine McCann was in Luz that week but something untoward happened early on in the week. I theorize that by Monday all hell was breaking loose. So that leaves Saturday afternoon and evening and Sunday all day and evening for 'something' to happen.

The McCanns and their friends told us that Madeleine woke up one night and cried. They have placed this event as happening later on in the week which, given how truthful they are (ahem) , suggests to me that it happened on a different night - perhaps Saturday or Sunday evening if you run with the theory of something happening by Monday.

Of course it is possible that TM merely invented this incidence to give credence to the 'checking' story. This is certainly possible, but perhaps a bit odd as they seemed to be at pains to insist that the checking system was fine as the children rarely woke up and if they did it was not until the early hours when the parents would be back in the apartment.

It is also possible that this incident was invented to 'prove' that Madeleine was alive, well and full of beans on Thursday morning - and unfazed by having woken up and finding no parents there - when this was not the case.

Another possibility is that this incident DID happen. The McCanns mention it not just for the reasons above but also because they want to provide a cover in case eye-witnesses heard the crying. And the FACT that they have sanitized the incident. claiming that Madeleine was completely unfazed by it and merely mentioned it in passing (which is not credible - this is not what a nearly four year old would do) suggests to me that this is a highly sensitive area. This would also be consistent with lying - the incident that is important is mentioned but down-played and sanitized.

There is that incredibly incriminating early media interview when Kate gets visibly flustered and upset over this allegedly trivial crying incident. She makes it clear that she wishes she had shaken Madeleine by the shoulders to find out exactly what had upset her. She even mimics this with her hands while looking visibly upset. She then fans herself with her hands as if even thinking about what it might have been is deeply distressing to her. This is indeed one giant hot potato, imo. Difficult not to consider this consistent with a certain scenario. A scenario in which parents would simulate an abduction of a child to cover up what really happened. As indeed Detective Amaral has stated.

Kate's actions, words and behaviour during that early media interview is so incriminating. To my mind it is consistent with someone who simply cannot 'go there' psychologically. She suspects something but refuses to acknowledge or believe it because to do so would necessitate such a traumatic outcome, imo. The implications are too huge - especially factoring in that there are two year old twins to bring up.

During the interview Gerry looks on with a smug kind of naughty school-boy expression as if to say: 'What can you do?' Once again, his expression is worth a thousand words. He is unmoved by Kate's plight. Unrepentant, imo and not consistent with a man whose daughter has been allegedly stolen.

In later interviews the pair noticeably down-play this crying incident and Kate even gets snappy. when asked about it.

This suggests to me that Madeleine could have woken up either on Saturday or Sunday evening/night and was distressed. I theorize that Madeleine was not alone in apartment 5a with Sean (and Amelie) at the time this happened. The reason being that this is the version of events that the McCanns have given us. So it is likely to be deliberately deceptive and misleading, imo.

Therefore I surmise that Madeleine could have been in another apartment (which could possibly account for the lack of DNA in apartment 5a) or in apartment 5a but that the twins were somewhere else. What or perhaps more pertinently WHO woke up Madeleine and what made her cry?

And Gerry has told us that "not being there at the time it happened" increased the chances of 'it happening'.

We know from one of the Portuguese police interviews that the key to unravelling the mystery lies with the - was it ten or twelve? - 'elements that entered the apartment. Presumably 'elements' refers to people apart from the family who went into the apartment. Why would this number of other adults who are not parents or even family be going into the McCanns' apartment? during that week? Hmmm...

Then factor in the episode of Madeleine was Here in which Gerry and Matt talk about Matt's alleged check at 8.30pm and Gerry is heard to say, with regard to his alleged final check on a peacefully sleeping Madeleine at 9pm, "it was the only time I put my head around the door (of the childrens' bedroom." Once again, I think this is minimizing and sanitizing of events and is hugely suspicious and incriminating. Why on earth would the father of three children who are being left alone in an apartment - allegedly - want to claim that he only once ever put his head around this children's bedroom door? Given that they are supposedly being left without a babysitter the very least you would expect the caring father to do would be to 'put his head around the door'. This suggests to me that Gerry wants to downplay going into Madeleine's bedroom.

Why would that be? (He really has placed himself in a double bind here of course because of course he cannot both be a doting father AND be a father who leaves his children alone to cry and never even looks in the bedroom despite leaving them alone without a babysitter." Of note, imo, Matt looks on with an expression of combined incredulity and I do think even disgust as Gerry makes this absurd claim.

But back to what Kate told us in the early media interview. Kate I suspect found Madeleine crying and hugely distressed.

"What do you mean you woke up?" repeats Kate several times in a distressed voice during the interview. I would take this at face value - for once - Kate does not want to believe what she is hearing. Does not want to hear it or deal with it.

Hmmm.......when you factor in the FACT that Madeleine's father alleges he was the last person to see Madeleine alive. And the FACT that one of his best friends - David Payne - was the last person apart from her parents to allegedly see Madeleine alive and well at around 6.30pm that evening. And that another of Gerry's friends - Matt Oldfield - allegedly checks on the McCann children that evening at 8.30pm - potentially moments before she was allegedly abducted and possibly even after she was allegedly abducted as he claims he did not see her - you really cannot help but suspect that Gerry McCann, David Payne and Matt Oldfield would be people of considerable interest in this case.

And that is, of course, not taking into account Jane Tanner - partner of the other Tapas male Russell O'Brien - claiming she saw Madeleine's abductor whisking her away from apartment 5a at around 9.15pm. Which most certainly puts Jane Tanner as a person of considerable interest and also, of course, her partner Russell O'Brien as it is quite possible that she was providing a cover for him as well as making a (desperate, imo) attempt to support their Tanner-man abduction theory.

How can these people possibly NOT be people of considerable interest in this case?

Jeeze Operation Grange WELL DONE!! It's as clear as Andy Redwood's nose what happened, imo. Not suggesting that this is the only scenario or that this is even the whole picture. It's bigger than that but I think it accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week.

As I have long said, GM is one scary individual, imo. Not quite as clever as he thinks he is however.

by j.rob 19.10.15 15:30

Verdi wrote:
comperedna wrote:My son is just leaving for a holiday with two year old and a four year old. Experience of this myself reminds me that young children rapidly litter any holiday accommodation up with used plastic mugs and attendant saliva infused milk residue, dribble and more dribble, pairs of damp pants from mini accidents, loads of worn clothes in a dirty clothes basket waiting to be put in the washer, favourite soft toys (well chewed and slobbered over) and all kinds of other juvenile gear. Mess plus DNA gets EVERYWHERE.

Something with Madeleine's DNA on it? What about the pillow on Madeleine's bed in 5A?... the sheets even... Shoes would be ideal as they would be the wrong size for the twins to wear. MBM was said to have been stolen from her bed... ie barefoot, so shoes her would still be there.

G's having to go back to Rothley for a pillow with M's DNA on is crazy. The flat should have been full of DNA which could be definitely be seen to be hers. The other family members DNA could easily be differentiated from it. M's toothbrush would have been ideal, as children do NOT share toothbrushes. Claiming that the McCann children did is NUTS.

Similarly, something with M's scent on for tracker dogs to follow: M's parents handing over a towel for that purpose is very rum indeed. Families DO share towels. The dog handlers should have been given an item of clothing Madeleine wore the day before she disappeared.

Summat's madly amiss. Either the place was amazingly thoroughly cleaned, or the weird option (which I do not buy for obvious reasons) M was never in PDL, or at least in 5a at all.
Totally totally agree !

Argued this point so many times in the past with people who claim to be scientists (in what field I know not), their answer was always the requirement in any criminal investigation for a clean sample. A clean sample collected from the UK by one of the prime suspects, no doubt stuffed in a back-pack with other dirty laundry, transported to Portugal? I thought the police had very stringent rules as regards the collection of evidence for forensic analysis!

I can't add to what you have written. Sometimes the simple explanation is preferable to confused false claims of technical expertise - is that where the expression 'to blind with science' comes from?

Yes. And of course don't forget who allowed the crime scene to be contaminated by so many people? No, Kate, not the Portuguese police but YOU and your husband and your friends allowed it to be contaminated.

And also washed all the clothes too!

Well, well. Now why would you want to do that? Get rid of all the forensics?

I can't imagine why the prime suspects would want to do that.

Can anyone?

by **HiDeHo** 19.10.15 15:49

j.rob wrote:Summat's madly amiss. Either the place was amazingly thoroughly cleaned, or the weird option (which I do not buy for obvious reasons) M was never in PDL, or at least in 5a at all.

--------

I think it is possible that she wasn't in apartment 5a or at least not for most of that week. Which of course begs the question of where she was that week. When did 'something' happen to her? Was she ever there at all? And as a poster has asked up-thread, if it wasn't Madeleine's dead body that left the scent of cadaver in the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic, then whose was it? And the same question could be asked of the other places where the sniffer dogs alerted to cadaver scent.

But, to try to keep it simple, suppose Madeleine McCann was in Luz that week but something untoward happened early on in the week. I theorize that by Monday all hell was breaking loose. So that leaves Saturday afternoon and evening and Sunday all day and evening for 'something' to happen.

The McCanns and their friends told us that Madeleine woke up one night and cried. They have placed this event as happening later on in the week which, given how truthful they are (ahem) , suggests to me that it happened on a different night - perhaps Saturday or Sunday evening if you run with the theory of something happening by Monday.

Of course it is possible that TM merely invented this incidence to give credence to the 'checking' story. This is certainly possible, but perhaps a bit odd as they seemed to be at pains to insist that the checking system was fine as the children rarely woke up and if they did it was not until the early hours when the parents would be back in the apartment.

It is also possible that this incident was invented to 'prove' that Madeleine was alive, well and full of beans on Thursday morning - and unfazed by having woken up and finding no parents there - when this was not the case.

Another possibility is that this incident DID happen. The McCanns mention it not just for the reasons above but also because they want to provide a cover in case eye-witnesses heard the crying. And the FACT that they have sanitized the incident. claiming that Madeleine was completely unfazed by it and merely mentioned it in passing (which is not credible - this is not what a nearly four year old would do) suggests to me that this is a highly sensitive area. This would also be consistent with lying - the incident that is important is mentioned but down-played and sanitized.

There is that incredibly incriminating early media interview when Kate gets visibly flustered and upset over this allegedly trivial crying incident. She makes it clear that she wishes she had shaken Madeleine by the shoulders to find out exactly what had upset her. She even mimics this with her hands while looking visibly upset. She then fans herself with her hands as if even thinking about what it might have been is deeply distressing to her. This is indeed one giant hot potato, imo. Difficult not to consider this consistent with a certain scenario. A scenario in which parents would simulate an abduction of a child to cover up what really happened. As indeed Detective Amaral has stated.

Kate's actions, words and behaviour during that early media interview is so incriminating. To my mind it is consistent with someone who simply cannot 'go there' psychologically. She suspects something but refuses to acknowledge or believe it because to do so would necessitate such a traumatic outcome, imo. The implications are too huge - especially factoring in that there are two year old twins to bring up.

During the interview Gerry looks on with a smug kind of naughty school-boy expression as if to say: 'What can you do?' Once again, his expression is worth a thousand words. He is unmoved by Kate's plight. Unrepentant, imo and not consistent with a man whose daughter has been allegedly stolen.

In later interviews the pair noticeably down-play this crying incident and Kate even gets snappy. when asked about it.

This suggests to me that Madeleine could have woken up either on Saturday or Sunday evening/night and was distressed. I theorize that Madeleine was not alone in apartment 5a with Sean (and Amelie) at the time this happened. The reason being that this is the version of events that the McCanns have given us. So it is likely to be deliberately deceptive and misleading, imo.

Therefore I surmise that Madeleine could have been in another apartment (which could possibly account for the lack of DNA in apartment 5a) or in apartment 5a but that the twins were somewhere else. What or perhaps more pertinently WHO woke up Madeleine and what made her cry?

And Gerry has told us that "not being there at the time it happened" increased the chances of 'it happening'.

We know from one of the Portuguese police interviews that the key to unravelling the mystery lies with the - was it ten or twelve? - 'elements that entered the apartment. Presumably 'elements' refers to people apart from the family who went into the apartment. Why would this number of other adults who are not parents or even family be going into the McCanns' apartment? during that week? Hmmm...

Then factor in the episode of Madeleine was Here in which Gerry and Matt talk about Matt's alleged check at 8.30pm and Gerry is heard to say, with regard to his alleged final check on a peacefully sleeping Madeleine at 9pm, "it was the only time I put my head around the door (of the childrens' bedroom." Once again, I think this is minimizing and sanitizing of events and is hugely suspicious and incriminating. Why on earth would the father of three children who are being left alone in an apartment - allegedly - want to claim that he only once ever put his head around this children's bedroom door? Given that they are supposedly being left without a babysitter the very least you would expect the caring father to do would be to 'put his head around the door'. This suggests to me that Gerry wants to downplay going into Madeleine's bedroom.

Why would that be? (He really has placed himself in a double bind here of course because of course he cannot both be a doting father AND be a father who leaves his children alone to cry and never even looks in the bedroom despite leaving them alone without a babysitter." Of note, imo, Matt looks on with an expression of combined incredulity and I do think even disgust as Gerry makes this absurd claim.

But back to what Kate told us in the early media interview. Kate I suspect found Madeleine crying and hugely distressed.

"What do you mean you woke up?" repeats Kate several times in a distressed voice during the interview. I would take this at face value - for once - Kate does not want to believe what she is hearing. Does not want to hear it or deal with it.

Hmmm.......when you factor in the FACT that Madeleine's father alleges he was the last person to see Madeleine alive. And the FACT that one of his best friends - David Payne - was the last person apart from her parents to allegedly see Madeleine alive and well at around 6.30pm that evening. And that another of Gerry's friends - Matt Oldfield - allegedly checks on the McCann children that evening at 8.30pm - potentially moments before she was allegedly abducted and possibly even after she was allegedly abducted as he claims he did not see her - you really cannot help but suspect that Gerry McCann, David Payne and Matt Oldfield would be people of considerable interest in this case.

And that is, of course, not taking into account Jane Tanner - partner of the other Tapas male Russell O'Brien - claiming she saw Madeleine's abductor whisking her away from apartment 5a at around 9.15pm. Which most certainly puts Jane Tanner as a person of considerable interest and also, of course, her partner Russell O'Brien as it is quite possible that she was providing a cover for him as well as making a (desperate, imo) attempt to support their Tanner-man abduction theory.

How can these people possibly NOT be people of considerable interest in this case?

Jeeze Operation Grange WELL DONE!! It's as clear as Andy Redwood's nose what happened, imo. Not suggesting that this is the only scenario or that this is even the whole picture. It's bigger than that but I think it accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week.

As I have long said, GM is one scary individual, imo. Not quite as clever as he thinks he is however.

Regarding the CRYING issue Ithink this may cast a doubt on what we have been 'told'

They claimed in their May 4th statements that it was the TWINS that were crying but it changed to Madeleine and Sean by Gerry's May 10th and Kate's September interview.

Always the question WHY change it from twins to Madeleine and Sean

WHY tell the police in the statement May 4th Was it to suggest she was alive Thursday morning or to prepare for the claim of an 'abductor' disturbing her the night before?

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

Also worth noting is that Fiona and Jane claim that Kate told them on Thursday night at the table... If that is the case then surely she would have said it was the TWINS as she told the police the following morning....

Why do Jane and Fiona claim it was Madeleine and Sean...the REVISED version?

Were they 'told' AFTER and not at the table?

Always curious WHY it was changed (I have never believed it anyway)

This video explains the THREE crying episodes...

by j.rob 19.10.15 15:58

WHY tell the police in the statement May 4th Was it to suggest she was alive Thursday morning or to prepare for the claim of an 'abductor' disturbing her the night before?

---

Good point. Of course it paves the way for the alleged 'abductor' having done a dummy run the night before but having been disturbed. All very weird.

by Verdi 19.10.15 16:08

@j.rob wrote: " Not suggesting that this is the only scenario or that this is even the whole picture. It's bigger than that but I think it accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week."

Is there actually a scenario or part picture hidden somewhere there or have you been at the myths again? Reads to me like a random selection of j.rob thoughts, or failing that a preview of 'what's on next in Jackanory'.

Any chance you can precis by just saying what you think accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week? Thanks!

by j.rob 19.10.15 16:45

Verdi wrote:@j.rob wrote: " Not suggesting that this is the only scenario or that this is even the whole picture. It's bigger than that but I think it accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week."

Is there actually a scenario or part picture hidden somewhere there or have you been at the myths again? Reads to me like a random selection of j.rob thoughts, or failing that a preview of 'what's on next in Jackanory'.

Any chance you can precis by just saying what you think accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week? Thanks!

I thought I was being fairly clear and I am not quite sure what you mean by 'have you been at the myths again'?

If you consider what I have written to be akin to what's on next in Jackanory (!!??) then perhaps best not to bother reading my posts.

What do you think happened to Madeleine that week?

by **HiDeHo** 19.10.15 16:47

I believe that Maddie WAS in PdL and in the apartment for these reasons...

1) Fatima gave a detailed description of Maddie as part of the family leaving their apartment and likely heading up to the Paynes for luch (as we are told happened but Fatima would have no knowledge of that)

Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada (Cleaner) - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine’s family who were staying in 5 A.

She never cleaned any of these apartments referred to as they were allocated to her mother. Her mother never mentioned anything strange to her, either before or after the girl’s disappearance that could be related to the disappearance. The only comment she remembered concerned the clutter in the apartments, mainly clothing which was left all around the place. She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

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

2) I DON'T believe the pictures are photoshopped (and if they were it would be for the same reason as changing the date on the exif data... to place Madeleine in the club during the week)

Playground pic, Last photo and tennis pic are easily taken during the first couple of days and just attributed to later in the week.

3) How much DNA would one expect (after a basic clean) from a child that arrived in the apartment Saturday and was only back to go to bed later that day.

SUNDAY - Supposedly straight to the creche in the morning, or at least out of the apartment during the morning, up to Paynes at lunchtime, a trip to sit by the pool at lunchtime, creche in the afternoon, and time at the playground until bedtime.

MONDAY - Likely similar to Sunday....but at this point she may not have been there...

DNA would have been very scarce is my guess...

4 The DNA results are the biggie for me...

All of Madeleine's components found in the blood behind the sofa...

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

15 of 19 of Madeleine's markers found in the rental car...Claimed as a MATCH by Lowe, which means it was either Madeleine in that vehicle or a combination of some of her relative's markers in the same sequence and ALL dropped in the same spot...?

What are the chances?

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

by Liz Eagles 19.10.15 16:47

j.rob wrote:
Verdi wrote:@j.rob wrote: " Not suggesting that this is the only scenario or that this is even the whole picture. It's bigger than that but I think it accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week."

Is there actually a scenario or part picture hidden somewhere there or have you been at the myths again? Reads to me like a random selection of j.rob thoughts, or failing that a preview of 'what's on next in Jackanory'.

Any chance you can precis by just saying what you think accounts for what might have happened to Madeleine that week? Thanks!

I thought I was being fairly clear and I am not quite sure what you mean by 'have you been at the myths again'?

If you consider what I have written to be akin to what's on next in Jackanory (!!??) then perhaps best not to bother reading my posts.

What do you think happened to Madeleine that week?

@j.rob

did you stalk someone who you thought to be Matt Oldfield?

by Doug D 19.10.15 16:49

I have never believed that a three/nearly four year old would come out with a grammatically correct ‘Sean & I’ as quoted by GM on 10^th.

Pure supposition, but it makes much more sense that it was ‘Sean & Me’ that were crying, ‘me’ being Madeleines (and others?) pet name for Amelie, which fits in better with two out of the three other statements, but quite when, if at all this was actually said, who knows?