McCann DISCREPANCIES : Their statements tell a 'story' that wasn't known...UNTIL NOW!

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Once everyone (like yourself) starts to see that not only is it a matter of WHO may be telling the truth, but more obviously whether ANY of them are telling the truth!

I think that simple statement applies to the whole groups version of all events during that week, from beginning to end.  In defence of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I believe that reality was major stumbling block from the word go, as he realised within the first seventy two hours of MBM being reported missing.

 http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/ 

Personally, I don't believe any of them.

If any of the Tapas 9 walked into my house soaking wet and told me it was raining outside, I'd open the door and check for myself!

Gaggzy wrote:

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Once everyone (like yourself) starts to see that not only is it a matter of WHO may be telling the truth, but more obviously whether ANY of them are telling the truth!

I think that simple statement applies to the whole groups version of all events during that week, from beginning to end.  In defence of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I believe that reality was major stumbling block from the word go, as he realised within the first seventy two hours of MBM being reported missing.

 http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/ 

Personally, I don't believe any of them.

If any of the Tapas 9 walked into my house soaking wet and told me it was raining outside, I'd open the door and check for myself!

Agreed, I think the group made up stories and an honest word would be hard to find. I got the impression that the days were moved about and so one story didn't match another person's version in the group.

Gaggzy wrote:

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Once everyone (like yourself) starts to see that not only is it a matter of WHO may be telling the truth, but more obviously whether ANY of them are telling the truth!

I think that simple statement applies to the whole groups version of all events during that week, from beginning to end.  In defence of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I believe that reality was major stumbling block from the word go, as he realised within the first seventy two hours of MBM being reported missing.

 http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/ 

Personally, I don't believe any of them.

If any of the Tapas 9 walked into my house soaking wet and told me it was raining outside, I'd open the door and check for myself!

Chortle!  Me?  I wouldn't even open the door

whatsupdoc wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Once everyone (like yourself) starts to see that not only is it a matter of WHO may be telling the truth, but more obviously whether ANY of them are telling the truth!

I think that simple statement applies to the whole groups version of all events during that week, from beginning to end.  In defence of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I believe that reality was major stumbling block from the word go, as he realised within the first seventy two hours of MBM being reported missing.

 http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/ 

Personally, I don't believe any of them.

If any of the Tapas 9 walked into my house soaking wet and told me it was raining outside, I'd open the door and check for myself!

Agreed, I think the group made up stories and an honest word would be hard to find. I got the impression that the days were moved about and so one story didn't match another person's version in the group.

Confusion is good - it certainly worked for them!

Don't know about you but as soon as I read the first press reports about MBM's disappearance in May 2007, I was suspicious.  Children don't just disappear in the middle of the night - less so one child that was said to be sleeping in the same room as her two siblings.  I get a bit pee'd off when I read people saying such as 'we were all shocked in the beginning and thus believed the parents and their friends' - human nature and all that.

Blooming speak for yourself - don't try putting ideas into others minds or words in their mouths.

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, Verdi, I too for some reason thought that this activity was most likely of kids going back in evening for a short time to play before bed.  I just don't know why this is in my head, in that way?  I am no good at trying to get back somewhere to find it either. joyce1938

I don't have the time nor patience to look for something without instant results.  The first reference I can find to MBM collecting tennis balls during an adult practice, was the article written by Bridget O'Donnell (Jes Wilkins other half) for the Guardian in December 2007.  The article is nothing but a romanticized version of 'her months with Madeleine' which speaks for itself !?! Snipped..

"Earlier that day [3rd May] there had been tennis lessons for the children, with some of the parents watching proudly as their girls ran across the court chasing tennis balls. They took photos. Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the same - all blonde, all pink and pretty.

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

I have a vague recollection the alleged incident was mentioned in KM's book but I no longer have access to the text so can't confirm.  Then of course it was widely publicized at the time of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann update which put a great deal of emphasis on the scene.  Frankly I doubt if it ever happened.

Thanks for looking Verdi, I am sad to say ,with so many lies envolved in this case ,we are possably not ever going to know the answers to  lots of the questions we have been hoping for over   quite a few years now, just thinking of small girl just vanishing  and looking ather tiny face ,just makes me want to weep .   joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Thanks for looking Verdi, I am sad to say ,with so many lies envolved in this case ,we are possably not ever going to know the answers to  lots of the questions we have been hoping for over   quite a few years now, just thinking of small girl just vanishing  and looking ather tiny face ,just makes me want to weep .   joyce1938

I'm sorry to say joyce1938, Madeleine McCann as a little person became lost in the mists of time, starting in the summer of 2007.  Her memory for the people that should really matter (her parents, family and the UK authorities) is but a name and otherwise a means to an end.

I agree, I don't think the truth will ever be known, even after all the dedication of web sleuths researching the case over the past eight + years.  The establishment has an uncanny knack of concealing the truth (ways and means) irrespective of public outcry.  The way things are not progressing, I believe the case will be shelved by the Metropolitan Police as unsolved - boxed up marked strictly confidential, never to see daylight again.  Failing that an unexplained arson attack in the filing cupboard.

O me of little faith!

Verdi wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Thanks for looking Verdi, I am sad to say ,with so many lies envolved in this case ,we are possably not ever going to know the answers to  lots of the questions we have been hoping for over   quite a few years now, just thinking of small girl just vanishing  and looking ather tiny face ,just makes me want to weep .   joyce1938

I'm sorry to say joyce1938, Madeleine McCann as a little person became lost in the mists of time, starting in the summer of 2007.  Her memory for the people that should really matter (her parents, family and the UK authorities) is but a name and otherwise a means to an end.

I agree, I don't think the truth will ever be known, even after all the dedication of web sleuths researching the case over the past eight + years.  The establishment has an uncanny knack of concealing the truth (ways and means) irrespective of public outcry.  The way things are not progressing, I believe the case will be shelved by the Metropolitan Police as unsolved - boxed up marked strictly confidential, never to see daylight again.  Failing that an unexplained arson attack in the filing cupboard.

O me of little faith!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]......You have every right to feel as you do tonight, you seem to be quite rightly focused on Madeleine and the fact the people who should care about her don't, you, we
have to try and focus on the fact that some day, whether it could be down to Snr Amaral in future times, once his ordeal is over could in fact get closure for Madeleine, you were the one who told me.....'He' is not a foolish man.....you gave me heart in your comment just yesterday. We still have hope though perhaps going down other alleyways that both he and Madeleine will both have justice and in turn give us hope in humanity again and closure for ourselves and that evil will not prevail.....at this moment I feel as you do that the case is a done deal, but never, never give up I think on a brighter note the truth will come out, but not as quick as we would like it. Take heart.

Just 'asking'

COULD GA, at a future 'date' erm, 're-write' TTOTL, 'in' the 'third' person?

First 'person' 'pronouns' = 'I and me'

Second 'person' pronouns = 'you and yours'

THIRD 'person' pronouns = 'he, she, it, they'

It's 'possible' to 're-write' TTOTL in 'third' person, isn't it?

Sophiebubbles wrote:

Verdi wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Thanks for looking Verdi, I am sad to say ,with so many lies envolved in this case ,we are possably not ever going to know the answers to  lots of the questions we have been hoping for over   quite a few years now, just thinking of small girl just vanishing  and looking ather tiny face ,just makes me want to weep .   joyce1938

I'm sorry to say joyce1938, Madeleine McCann as a little person became lost in the mists of time, starting in the summer of 2007.  Her memory for the people that should really matter (her parents, family and the UK authorities) is but a name and otherwise a means to an end.

I agree, I don't think the truth will ever be known, even after all the dedication of web sleuths researching the case over the past eight + years.  The establishment has an uncanny knack of concealing the truth (ways and means) irrespective of public outcry.  The way things are not progressing, I believe the case will be shelved by the Metropolitan Police as unsolved - boxed up marked strictly confidential, never to see daylight again.  Failing that an unexplained arson attack in the filing cupboard.

O me of little faith!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]......You have every right to feel as you do tonight, you seem to be quite rightly focused on Madeleine and the fact the people who should care about her don't, you, we
have to try and focus on the fact that some day, whether it could be down to Snr Amaral in future times, once his ordeal is over could in fact get closure for Madeleine, you were the one who told me.....'He' is not a foolish man.....you gave me heart in your comment just yesterday. We still have hope though perhaps going down other alleyways that both he and Madeleine will both have justice and in turn give us hope in humanity again and closure for ourselves and that evil will not prevail.....at this moment I feel as you do that the case is a done deal, but never, never give up I think on a brighter note the truth will come out, but not as quick as we would like it. Take heart.

I have every confidence in the ability, integrity and tenacity of Goncalo Amaral but the problem is, he is not investigating the case.  He has no jurisdiction so whilst I admire him generally I realise that he is powerless here other than to restore his reputation. 

As I said, the indefatigable determination of researchers and web sleuths over the past eight + years, whilst commendable, they again have no power to move the case of missing MBM towards a prosecution.  Only the police can effect that and they seem rather reluctant so to do, for reasons best known to themselves.  I'm not knocking the dedication of the many people who look to uncovering and with hope, eventually exposing the truth behind MBM's fate, indeed I'm all for exposing the corruption and misguided power that swamps UK society but alas, I don't believe it will ever lead to eradication.  The establishment is far too big to be brought down by an army of disgruntled citizens.

Goncalo Amaral v. the establishment?  No contest!  Was he not kicked-off the case in the first place for that very reason?

jeanmonroe wrote:Just 'asking'

COULD GA, at a future 'date' erm, 're-write' TTOTL, 'in' the 'third' person?

First 'person' 'pronouns' = 'I and me'

Second 'person' pronouns = 'you and yours'

THIRD 'person' pronouns = 'he, she, it, they'

It's 'possible' to 're-write' TTOTL in 'third' person, isn't it?

Only if ALL proceeds are paid directly into the official Find Madeleine Fund Co. Ltd.  !

What about GONCALO v McCANNS........ Hasn't he been quoted as saying that when the Lisbon court case is over he would be free to take to task all entities who have beleguered him in the entirety of this case?  Yes as you say it is his plight to defend his own reputation, but in doing so, if Snr Amaral can get a court case actioned either here or in Portugal if his Lawyers are clever enough in defending his reputation, couldn't there just be enough aces up his sleeve (he mentions this also) to go a step further from Libel, leading on to other pertinent questions leading down the other alleyway so to speak.

As it has been mentioned on numerous occasions, if the McCanns were to be held accountable for anything in a court of law, a good Lawyer could have a field day.  Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick in what I have gleaned from listening to his interviews though and I admit to knowing nothing about the legalities of Law in court.

Here is what I think will be the most likely outcome.

Snr Amaral will be given some form of financial dispensation in the latest court saga. This will come with a private caveat of never speaking about the case again.

The McCanns will spin some sort of story of 'forgiveness and relief' as the court case closes.

That will be it. All done, all dusted.

GA will go live his life without the threat of financial ruin and perhaps able to recoup his full pension along with some of the revenue from his book. The book will remain unpublished in English and unavailable to read by the general population.

Madeleine will be firmly fixed in the 'mystery' area of life. Films will be made of her in a few years' time.

The McCanns will remain in a cocoon and their plight trotted out as and when it suits the MSM/charities/freedom of speech lobbies.

Madeleine won't be found.

aquila wrote:

"The McCanns will remain in a cocoon and their plight trotted out as and when it suits the MSM/charities/freedom of speech lobbies."
-------------------------------------------

And the McCanns will never, ever, be 'eliminated' ( 'cleared', legally) from 'their', possible, 'involvement' in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, Madeleine, for the rest of their 'mis****le' lives.

The 'price' of Z-list 'fame', eh!

aquila wrote:Here is what I think will be the most likely outcome.

Snr Amaral will be given some form of financial dispensation in the latest court saga. This will come with a private caveat of never speaking about the case again.

The McCanns will spin some sort of story of 'forgiveness and relief' as the court case closes.

That will be it. All done, all dusted.

GA will go live his life without the threat of financial ruin and perhaps able to recoup his full pension along with some of the revenue from his book. The book will remain unpublished in English and unavailable to read by the general population.

Madeleine will be firmly fixed in the 'mystery' area of life. Films will be made of her in a few years' time.

The McCanns will remain in a cocoon and their plight trotted out as and when it suits the MSM/charities/freedom of speech lobbies.

Madeleine won't be found.

Aquila, usually I agree with your analysis. But not now. Dr Amaral will not give in to blackmail. Period.

Verdi wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Just 'asking'

COULD GA, at a future 'date' erm, 're-write' TTOTL, 'in' the 'third' person?

First 'person' 'pronouns' = 'I and me'

Second 'person' pronouns = 'you and yours'

THIRD 'person' pronouns = 'he, she, it, they'

It's 'possible' to 're-write' TTOTL in 'third' person, isn't it?

Only if ALL proceeds are paid directly into the official Find Madeleine Fund Co. Ltd.  !

Is that the 'official' Madeleine's Fund, LNSU, or the McCann's 'new' 'SPECIAL' fund, that is 'funded' with monies, transferred FROM, the 'official' fund.?  



Posters - stay on topic, please.  Mod.

Portia wrote:

aquila wrote:Here is what I think will be the most likely outcome.

Snr Amaral will be given some form of financial dispensation in the latest court saga. This will come with a private caveat of never speaking about the case again.

The McCanns will spin some sort of story of 'forgiveness and relief' as the court case closes.

That will be it. All done, all dusted.

GA will go live his life without the threat of financial ruin and perhaps able to recoup his full pension along with some of the revenue from his book. The book will remain unpublished in English and unavailable to read by the general population.

Madeleine will be firmly fixed in the 'mystery' area of life. Films will be made of her in a few years' time.

The McCanns will remain in a cocoon and their plight trotted out as and when it suits the MSM/charities/freedom of speech lobbies.

Madeleine won't be found.

Aquila, usually I agree with your analysis. But not now. Dr Amaral will not give in to blackmail. Period.

I'm really glad you disagree with me. What I've posted is depressing isn't it.

In no way do I believe Sr. Amaral to be a person to cave in, and remember Tony Bennett hasn't caved in either.

Sr. Amaral is not the only one in court in a 'libel' trial. There's a TV company there too - although little to nothing is ever published about the case against them. Why is that?

Will that TV company just cough up a few Euros and get on with other things? No-one knows because nothing is published from them or their perspective during their 'libel' trial.

Sr Amaral publishes nothing about the libel case either.

Here's another 'revelation moment' observation I have. The PJ will no longer shelve the case and release files as is the normal Portuguese practice. Operation Grange has ensured that by keeping the case open with 4 operatives dedicated to the disappearance of Madeleine. No siree, don't ever expect Portuguese files to ever be published again.

It's a big mistake to think all things are good/bad in terms of UK and Portugal's ability to get to the truth.

Just my opinon.

Sorry to Mods as I know this is off topic. I wanted to respond to Portia.

aquila wrote:

"Here's another 'revelation moment' observation I have. The PJ will no longer shelve the case and release files as is the normal Portuguese practice. Operation Grange has ensured that by keeping the case open with 4 operatives dedicated to the disappearance of Madeleine. No siree, don't ever expect Portuguese files to ever be published again."
-------------------------------------------

Conversely, the PJ 'might' of given OG an 'ultimatum'....................'PUT UP OR SHUT UP!'

re: 'abduction'

PJ: 'We'll give OG, a further six months, then WE WILL 're-shelve/archive' our re-opened 'investigation' and 'RELEASE, the files' which we have to, after a case is 'shelved/archived, pending possible new evidence', under our country's.........law.

or NOT!

I have been wondering about Monday, when Madeleine was only at the crèche for a very few minutes.
IF, a substitute child was used, this would have been a good opportunity to introduce a substitute into the crèche.
Just my ponderings.........

BerryHerry wrote:I have been wondering about Monday, when Madeleine was only at the crèche for a very few minutes.
IF, a substitute child was used, this would have been a good opportunity to introduce a substitute into the crèche.
Just my ponderings.........

I do have some thoughts on this but its a little complicated for me to explain at this moment... I will try to answer sometime today

BerryHerry wrote:I have been wondering about Monday, when Madeleine was only at the crèche for a very few minutes.
IF, a substitute child was used, this would have been a good opportunity to introduce a substitute into the crèche.
Just my ponderings.........

Was this the Monday that Kate and Gerry took Madeleine out of the crèche, early, so they could all spend some time on the beach? Was it a Monday that they didn't stay on the beach long as it started to rain. Was it a Monday that the McCann's bought "five ice creams"? Was it a Monday that Gerry bought a pair of sunglasses from a market stall, despite the fact that we are told it was raining? So, if Gerry bought the sunglasses on a Monday, then they can't be the sunglasses in the "last photograph" as this was taken on a "Thursday".

It raises questions as to why we are told that they bought "five ice creams" and that Gerry "bought a pair of sunglasses" even though Kate tells us it was raining. Why did she bring attention to the buying of the sunglasses? Could it be that the pool photograph WAS taken on the Sunday, and therefore, Kate had to mention that the sun glasses weren't purchased until the Monday?

So many questions, so few answers

Good questions.

"It's raining... god... it's that bright rain that soaks you through... I know... sunglasses".

Looking at all the discrepancies starting by Tuesday, and no PROOF of Maddie being seen after Sunday lunchtime, I look at Tuesday as a possible 'damage control' day.

Maddie needed to be seen attending the creche.

We know that the records were nothing similar to daily records kept in a school, where each child is marked present...

These records seem to be used to have contact information for the parents if needed.  Many activities were outside of the creche room and the children were dropped off and picked up randomly throughout the day...

There is nothing to confirm that a child arrives at the door and the nannies welcome them and check as the registers are filled out by the parents...

Personally I do not subscribe to a 'substitute' child but I DO believe it possible that Catriona was confused and maybe only the Tanner's daughter was attending  (OC staff describe a child that was shy etc, similar to the personality of E**a)

IF only ONE child went to the creche (Maddie and E**a)  but both parents arrived and only ONE signed the child in and out, would the nanny be fully aware?

As I often claim, I do NOT believe Catriona was knowingly deceptive.  She had a week looking after a similar looking  child she knew as Ella (if Maddie had only been there for a day eg) and when the disappearance happened and she was TOLD she had been looking after Madeleine, I feel that it is possible she was intimidated to second guess herself and wonder if she had been calling Maddie 'Ella' all week but it must have been Maddie as she was told she was looking after Maddie.  (Not sure if that is clear)

Anyway... Looking at the creche records for Tuesday (for starters) Both Maddie and E**a were signed in...

Gerry walked with Jez and Russell to pick up their children at 12.20pm.  ONLY ONE CHILD is signed out... Maddie (Russell does not sign E**a out)

They BOTH arrive to pick up ONE child at the same time...

In the afternoon, we 'know' that Kate and Gerry took the children to the beach for Ice Creams...

They return back to the creche IN TIME FOR MADDIE TO GO TO A TRIP TO THE BEACH FOR ICE CREAMS!

More curiously, their arrival was random from the beach BUT E**a was signed in at the same time by CAT NANNY (did Russell and Gerry arrive at the same time but only one child booked in and Catriona filled in later?)

Only ONE CHILD booked in by parents in the afternoon...

At 5.30pm once again, only ONE CHILD was booked out in the afternoon (E**a)


This could account for why Catriona knew Gerry, BOTH Russell and Gerry arrived at the same time but only ONE CHILD was booked out each time...

Just a thought...  I do not like putting theories out there without a basis...

I have come up with the possibility of something happening to Maddie before Tuesday...

This is merely a possible explanation how it could have gone undetected (remember at that point the creche staff and Nannies were not aware of any impending importance on the activities etc.)

It is for each of you, individually,  to look at the possibility that this may have some significance....



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

The pink blanket still being around after the alarm was raised (twice), further confirms my theory that Maddie met her demise on the evening of 3rd and the abduction story was backfitted (imo).

Perhaps the earlier in the week discrepancies are due to something else they got up to, and is the missing link to the protection... rather than Maddie's sad fate?

HiDeHo wrote:Looking at all the discrepancies starting by Tuesday, and no PROOF of Maddie being seen after Sunday lunchtime, I look at Tuesday as a possible 'damage control' day.

Maddie needed to be seen attending the creche.

We know that the records were nothing similar to daily records kept in a school, where each child is marked present...

These records seem to be used to have contact information for the parents if needed.  Many activities were outside of the creche room and the children were dropped off and picked up randomly throughout the day...

There is nothing to confirm that a child arrives at the door and the nannies welcome them and check as the registers are filled out by the parents...

Personally I do not subscribe to a 'substitute' child but I DO believe it possible that Catriona was confused and maybe only the Tanner's daughter was attending  (OC staff describe a child that was shy etc, similar to the personality of E**a)

IF only ONE child went to the creche (Maddie and E**a)  but both parents arrived and only ONE signed the child in and out, would the nanny be fully aware?

As I often claim, I do NOT believe Catriona was knowingly deceptive.  She had a week looking after a similar looking  child she knew as Ella (if Maddie had only been there for a day eg) and when the disappearance happened and she was TOLD she had been looking after Madeleine, I feel that it is possible she was intimidated to second guess herself and wonder if she had been calling Maddie 'Ella' all week but it must have been Maddie as she was told she was looking after Maddie.  (Not sure if that is clear)

Anyway... Looking at the creche records for Tuesday (for starters) Both Maddie and E**a were signed in...

Gerry walked with Jez and Russell to pick up their children at 12.20pm.  ONLY ONE CHILD is signed out... Maddie (Russell does not sign E**a out)

They BOTH arrive to pick up ONE child at the same time...

In the afternoon, we 'know' that Kate and Gerry took the children to the beach for Ice Creams...

They return back to the creche IN TIME FOR MADDIE TO GO TO A TRIP TO THE BEACH FOR ICE CREAMS!

More curiously, their arrival was random from the beach BUT E**a was signed in at the same time by CAT NANNY (did Russell and Gerry arrive at the same time but only one child booked in and Catriona filled in later?)

Only ONE CHILD booked in by parents in the afternoon...

At 5.30pm once again, only ONE CHILD was booked out in the afternoon (E**a)


This could account for why Catriona knew Gerry, BOTH Russell and Gerry arrived at the same time but only ONE CHILD was booked out each time...

Just a thought...  I do not like putting theories out there without a basis...

I have come up with the possibility of something happening to Maddie before Tuesday...

This is merely a possible explanation how it could have gone undetected (remember at that point the creche staff and Nannies were not aware of any impending importance on the activities etc.)

It is for each of you, individually,  to look at the possibility that this may have some significance....



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

I think you're theory is quite possible... and I also wonder whether there was some distracting going on at the creche, which would have diverted a nanny's attention long enough that she wouldn't know who was being signed in or out. If Gerry shows up with Russell, for instance, and Gerry chats with a nanny while Russell collects Ella... and perhaps Russell says something like "I'll just collect Ella and Madeleine"... then Gerry distracts the nanny so that she doesn't see who is being collected and signed out... it's entirely possible.

pennylane wrote:The pink blanket still being around after the alarm was raised (twice), further confirms my theory that Maddie met her demise on the evening of 3rd and the abduction story was backfitted (imo).

Perhaps the earlier in the week discrepancies are due to something else they got up to, and is the missing link to the protection... rather than Maddie's sad fate?

I'm not sure how the pink blanket being around would confirm her demise on May 3rd.  I would be very interested to understand that.

Also.  You are correct. There COULD be something that was happening during the week that they would need to hide behind the discrepancies that we find.

What may explain the need for those discrepancies?

Also, I would REALLY love to see the 'theory' on the timeline of what could have happened if Maddie died that night and nothing was happening before that moment.

ie What time was she found?  Was Kate notified? How was the decision made and everything sorted ready for 10pm alert.

Also, how does one grieve during that time?

One important thing is WHY would it have needed to be that time?

It was a difficult situation to deal with WHY couldn't it have happened earlier with more time to deal with the situation and prepare?

Why did it need to be sorted by 10pm? Why not take a little more time and make it 11pm?

I would LOVE answers to any/all of those questions

@ HiDeHo I have been reading the Rogatory Interviews and I've noticed that none of the Tapas group can account with certainty what they were doing Sunday or Monday.With the exception of Matthew oldfield as for him Sunday" was a write off sick in bed".
The tapas group state things like they think they were doing such a thing,or they can't remember or the days rolled into one as all the same routine.
This made me think about what Kate McCann said in her book Madeleine,something regarding how she wanted to remember every detail of the holiday as it could bear significant regarding the" abduction".However Kate McCanns memory is remarkable of those days,apart from One day Sunday or Monday where very little is mentioned.Just thinking about this I thought it would be only natural that the Tapas group would be racking their brains too about events that week.I would expect that they too would have thought about their movements ,who they met,did they notice anyone or anything unusual.Especially with an abductor on the loose and Madeleine missing.Surely the group would be aware that they may be interviewed again after may,so didn't they make notes ?. Maybe it's just me but I find it hard to believe they cannot remember what they were doing on the first full day of the holiday.After all these are highly educated people,who should remember a week that has no doubt affected all of their lives.
HiDeHo your questions I cannot answer,the questions just reaffirm to me that if something grave happened to Madeliene it happened earlier.