What happened to Madeleine? - A poll to assess recent evidence

Last year, forum member HideHo posted a careful analysis of alleged sightings of Madeleine after Sunday 29th April and found there were none that were wholly credible. Some were plainly untrue.

This year another forum member, Richard Hall, has produced his third Madeleine documentary film, with the startling title 'When Madeleine Died?' He also thinks that Madeleine may have died on the Sunday. Tens of thousands have already watched his film online.

Both members produced evidence that was not available to Gonçalo Amaral when he was booted off the Madeleine McCann investigation on 2 October 2007. Amaral thought Madeleine had died from an accident after 6pm on the Thursday.  

Another member, Hobs, clearly explained that a cover-up must have taken days to plan. PeterMac, BlueBag and others produced convincing evidence that the so-called 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday that week.  

This week the forum highlighted evidence from Dr Martin Roberts about Madeleine's pyjamas - which clearly also pointed to an earlier death that week.  

So I'm putting up this poll to see what members feel about this recent new evidence. Please add your reasons for your choice if you can.

Many thanks.

My biggest problem with a death earlier in the week is that maybe they could get it by the crecheworkers and other guests, but how did they fool the twins? 2 year olds are much more perceptive than we often think, and able to word their concerns at the most inappropriate moment. I just don't see that happening and the twins not asking for Maddie. Apart from that there are the other children in the group, they must have noticed. I just don't see that.

lj wrote:My biggest problem with a death earlier in the week is that maybe they could get it by the crecheworkers and other guests, but how did they fool the twins? 2 year olds are much more perceptive than we often think, and able to word their concerns at the most inappropriate moment. I just don't see that happening and the twins not asking for Maddie. Apart from that there are the other children in the group, they must have noticed. I just don't see that.

If you look over at the 'Madeleine's pyjamas' thread, John McCann quotes Amelie - seeing Madeleine's pyjamas - exclaiming:

"Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?"

One wonders what answer Gerry and Kate gave to little Amelie that time?

lj wrote:My biggest problem with a death earlier in the week is that maybe they could get it by the crecheworkers and other guests, but how did they fool the twins? 2 year olds are much more perceptive than we often think, and able to word their concerns at the most inappropriate moment. I just don't see that happening and the twins not asking for Maddie. Apart from that there are the other children in the group, they must have noticed. I just don't see that.

And of course, we understand that TM's tended to go out separately during the week, so Maddie is with your Mum / Dad. Bedtime of course is when it would be most apparent, however they would have been tired. Perhaps it was suggested Maddie was sleeping in with the parents.

If Martin Roberts recent post regarding the Pyjamas is correct, then it leaves little doubt.

Tony Bennett wrote:

lj wrote:My biggest problem with a death earlier in the week is that maybe they could get it by the crecheworkers and other guests, but how did they fool the twins? 2 year olds are much more perceptive than we often think, and able to word their concerns at the most inappropriate moment. I just don't see that happening and the twins not asking for Maddie. Apart from that there are the other children in the group, they must have noticed. I just don't see that.

If you look over at the 'Madeleine's pyjamas' thread, John McCann quotes Amelie - seeing Madeleine's pyjamas - exclaiming:

"Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?"

One wonders what answer Gerry and Kate gave to little Amelie that time?

That was after the "official" disappearance though. I also suspect that Uncle John might have made that up to boost pity donations.

There was no option for my belief - as I think she died early evening on Thursday 3rd May. So dont want to put before or after 6pm - just around that sort of time..

HelenMeg wrote:There was no option for my belief - as I think she died early evening on Thursday 3rd May. So dont want to put before or after 6pm - just around that sort of time..

That would have been my choice too, but absent that I would go for the earlier option. 

With as runner upper the Sunday.

I was going to vote for Sunday 29th, but went instead for Monday 30th. I agree that no credible sighting of her was made after Sunday at the resort, but that may simply be because she was elsewhere.

I've voted for Sunday 29th because there is no inbetweener however, I hover between Sunday 29th and Monday 30th - mainly because Tuesday 1st seems to be very significant.  My thoughts would make no difference to the apparent absence of a plausible independent witness having seen Madelene after lunchtime on Sunday 29th (still not entirely convinced by the cleaner's daughter's statement) - that's just a compass point to work from.

The twins?  Well, documented information suggests that they didn't have any contact with anyone outside the Tapas group and the child care workers so even if they did ask awkward questions about their sister, it would have fallen on deaf ears.  Even if the Child care workers are totally innocent of any involvement, would they really take any notice of a child's questions?  Q.  'Where's Maddie/Madeleine?' -  A. 'She's in another playroom, you'll see her later when mummy and daddy come for you...'

I believe there's a tendency to over estimate the dedication of these creche workers.  If their priority was their work and dedication to the welfare of children in their charge, they would stay in their country of origin or take up employment as a family nanny in whatever location.  In fairness, they are employed to entertain a steady stream of different children, in a holiday environment, attending the child care facilities ad-hoc from one day to the next during any one season - they shouldn't be expected to take personal responsibility for each and every child.

ETA:  In the aftermath, Kate McCann and her fellow conspirators provided the innocent explanation for the twins silence about their sister - they were unconscious.  Some might say by convenience.

lj wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:There was no option for my belief - as I think she died early evening on Thursday 3rd May. So dont want to put before or after 6pm - just around that sort of time..

That would have been my choice too, but absent that I would go for the earlier option. 

With as runner upper the Sunday.

I agree with HelenMeg that Maddie met her demise somewhere around 6pm on Thursday 3rd May, however I voted for 2nd option as I remain of the belief that Goncalo Amaral is closest to the truth.

pennylane wrote:

lj wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:There was no option for my belief - as I think she died early evening on Thursday 3rd May. So dont want to put before or after 6pm - just around that sort of time..

That would have been my choice too, but absent that I would go for the earlier option. 

With as runner upper the Sunday.

I agree with HelenMeg that Maddie met her demise somewhere around 6pm on Thursday 3rd May, however I voted for 2nd option as I remain of the belief that Goncalo Amaral is closest to the truth.

So, with additional evidence that's been uncovered over the past nearly 9 years you don't believe the conclusions that even a retired Police Superintendent detective has reached that Madeleine didn't die on Thursday 3rd May?

happychick wrote:

pennylane wrote:

lj wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:There was no option for my belief - as I think she died early evening on Thursday 3rd May. So dont want to put before or after 6pm - just around that sort of time..

That would have been my choice too, but absent that I would go for the earlier option. 

With as runner upper the Sunday.

I agree with HelenMeg that Maddie met her demise somewhere around 6pm on Thursday 3rd May, however I voted for 2nd option as I remain of the belief that Goncalo Amaral is closest to the truth.

So, with additional evidence that's been uncovered over the past nearly 9 years you don't believe the conclusions that even a retired Police Superintendent detective has reached that Madeleine didn't die on Thursday 3rd May?

Sorry but no I don't, for all the reasons that have been argued and debated over day in and day out during those years.

I have gone for the sunday .....it has always been for me that nothing in this case makes sense ....where as now it does 

even though i have always thought the mccs involved in maddies disappearance  ....there was a few things bothered me especially only having those few hours to do all that they did



this all fits into place now the cleaning of the flat ...a plan was put into place well before [i think  also someone forgot to gemmie the window no matter how you plan something always goes wrong]

the crying incident ....twins could have been crying for maddie ....

the lack of family involvement with the others ....the tennis obsession ...[was that to relieve the fustration etc etc]

i do think most people who say they saw maddie ...only assumed they did ...expecting her to be there some where ...not blatantly lied

am i right in thinking ...that the last photo with maddie wearing her best clothes ...as described in detail in kmccs book ...were the ones she would have been wearing to go back to the creche ......if so ....why would maddie wear extravagant clothes to the creche ....paint/felt tips etc ...would not make sense

garfy wrote:am i right in thinking...that the last photo with Maddie wearing her best clothes...as described in detail in KMcCs book...were the ones she would have been wearing to go back to the creche...if so...why would Maddie wear extravagant clothes to the creche...paint/felt tips etc...would not make sense

This is admittedly a puzzle.

Madeleine clearly had this dress on for a reason.

Some have observed that it looks like she was in her 'Sunday best', so to speak. At any rate ,as you quite rightly point out. it doesn't seem consistent with being dressed for going back to a crèche.

I have also seen a case made that there was no crèche at all on the Sunday, I do not find it persuasive, but there are some arguments in support of that.   

What is noteworthy is that the cleaning lady who says she spotted the whole family on Sunday leaving G5A and probably going up to the Paynes for a picnic lunch describes what Madeleine was wearing in very similar terms to what she was wearing in the 'Last Photo'. That's yet one more argument in favour of the 'Last Photo' having been taken on the Sunday.

One more curiosity is that when the larger-than-life Vicky Boyd (or Vicky van Rossem as she usually styles herself, using her maiden name (pic below) 

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

concocted her bogus story for First Magazine about Madeleine playing football for an hour or more on the Wednesday (2 May) with her son Louie, and the two of them whizzing down a water slide etc. etc., her description of Madeleine matches almost perfectly the 'Last Photo'.

The First Magazine article was first published on 25 May, just one day after the 'Last Photo' was released. This has given rise to the very understandable speculation that Mrs Boyd may have been 'helped' to write her article of lies as a result of already having seen the 'Last Photo'. 

It is also of course highly likely that the First Magazine article was published with the active help of the McCann Team's PR machine - it is certainly impossible to think that the article could posibly have been published without their consent.

Yet it was untrue

I voted for the 29th, and I go for the evening as children become tired and can be more fractious, perhaps testing the patience if parents who want to get on with 'socialising' (ahem). However the 30th is a close 2nd choice. My reasons;

1. The timing and reasons given for RM's urgent flight back to Portugal
2. No family photographs despite numerous taken on a recent holiday in Donegal. I consider the 'last photo' taken on the 29th to be just that.
3. Starting to take breakfast in the apartment
4. The parents starting to go out separately
5. The creche records being suspect and Robert Naylor, when asked, not denying that GM took his daughter to the creche
6. No credible independant sightings of MBM during the week
7. The time needed to take stock, convince others, get help with, and arrange, a fake abduction with supporting material
8. Nuno Lourenco's role being revealed
9. The revealing statement analysis by Tania Cadogan
10. The deleted call history and texts during the week and the denial of their existence
11. Richard Halls excellent documentary which aids understanding of the timelines
12. And most recently, the timing of the pyjamas photo

There are likely plenty more.....

The almost-thorough cleaning of the apartment and washing of curtains and allowing them to dry before the police arrived.

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:The almost-thorough cleaning of the apartment and washing of curtains and allowing them to dry before the police arrived.

Hi GGS,

Can you please show me proof the entire curtains were actually washed, and not just perhaps a spot rubbed off and the couch pushed up against them so to speak?

I am sticking to 'early evening 3rd Ma'y and one reason for this is the discrepancy between DP and KM in their stories regarding the DP visit to Mc Canns apartment on 3rd May. If they had had time ( a few days) to plan then I believe
they would have got this story straight. There would have been no discrepancy between their very differing accounts of David's visit to the apartment.; However, its not my only reason by any means, but it
is one that I find striking

I went for 30th, I find Fatima da Silva's account accurate as it was given on the 8th of May, and describes accurately what Madeleine was wearing in the 'last photo', which she couldn't have gotten from the photo itself as it wasn't yet doing the rounds.

As to the Payne discrepancy, I think that it, as with the Oldfield 'check' was retrofitted to the story to cover any chance of their dna being found inside the apartment (for whatever reason..).

HelenMeg wrote:I am sticking to 'early evening 3rd Ma'y and one reason for this is the discrepancy between DP and KM in their stories regarding the DP visit to Mc Canns apartment on 3rd May. If they had had time ( a few days) to plan then I believe
they would have got this story straight. There would have been no discrepancy between their very differing accounts of David's visit to the apartment.; However, its not my only reason by any means, but it
is one that I find striking

With you all the way Helen! The entire story is a backfitted, botched up mess.  Heck they didn't even gemmy the window, let alone get their point of entry straight.

pennylane wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I am sticking to 'early evening 3rd Ma'y and one reason for this is the discrepancy between DP and KM in their stories regarding the DP visit to Mc Canns apartment on 3rd May. If they had had time ( a few days) to plan then I believe
they would have got this story straight. There would have been no discrepancy between their very differing accounts of David's visit to the apartment.; However, its not my only reason by any means, but it
is one that I find striking

With you all the way Helen! The entire story is a backfitted, botched up mess.  Heck they didn't even gemmy the window, let alone get their point of entry straight.

Maybe they had a few days to forget what they had to do.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I am sticking to 'early evening 3rd Ma'y and one reason for this is the discrepancy between DP and KM in their stories regarding the DP visit to Mc Canns apartment on 3rd May. If they had had time ( a few days) to plan then I believe
they would have got this story straight. There would have been no discrepancy between their very differing accounts of David's visit to the apartment.; However, its not my only reason by any means, but it
is one that I find striking

With you all the way Helen! The entire story is a backfitted, botched up mess.  Heck they didn't even gemmy the window, let alone get their point of entry straight.

Maybe they had a few days to forget what they had to do.

 
Looks to me like total amnesia!

Lack of MBM's DNA in the apartment.....it should have been everywhere....beds, bathrooms, floors, door handles, toothbrushes (?), clothes. Kids are messy and there would have been an abundance of evidence of MBM being there. But nothing.

Surely in the event of something happening around 6pm on the Thursday, TM's couldn't have dealt with the grief, weighed up the situation, forensically cleaned the apartment, got others to co-operate, planned the abduction, sedated their own children so they would sleep through it, composed themselves to act out a hoax in public, then face the worlds pre-arranged media ? 

The scenario above seems almost inconceivable......but then so is this whole case.

I do respect the opinion of those supporting the evening of the 3rd, but I think there is a far stronger argument for much earlier.

HelenMeg wrote:I am sticking to 'early evening 3rd May' and one reason for this is the discrepancy between DP and KM in their stories regarding the DP visit to Mc Canns apartment on 3rd May. If they had had time (a few days) to plan then I believe they would have got this story straight. There would have been no discrepancy between their very differing accounts of David's visit to the apartment.

I believe, with great respect, that this is a misunderstanding of how cover stories are generated, and how they may come unstuck.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, someone advising a couple on how to fake an abduction say things like this:

1. I'll get one of your group to say they saw a bloke carrying a child away from your apartment - you know, just after you did a check on the children

2. I'll get a bloke we know who lives just down the road to say that another bloke - looking exactly like the one above - tried to kidnap his young child outside a cake shop a few days earlier. We can even base the description on one of the blokes staying in our apartments! We'll get the bloke down the road to 'phone the police a few hours after your group member gives her statement - you know, with an identical description. That'll fool them, haw! haw! - the police will go bananas thinking they've got their man ha! ha!

3. Look, we need proof your child was alive much earlier - you and someone else in the group can pretend to have met earlier on ,and your friend can confirm that he saw all three children.

The problems with point 3 can arise if there has been a failure to anticipate the police probing of their statements in more detail with each one of them separately. So then the questions arise:

* what time did you go?
* why did you go there? 
* how long were you there?
* did you sit down?
* what happened while you were there?

The more questions that the police ask, the more their pretend story unravels.

You could make the same argument about e.g. the Tennis Balls photo (who actually took it?) and the Thursday 'high tea'.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Surely in the event of something happening around 6pm on the Thursday, TM's couldn't have dealt with the grief, weighed up the situation, forensically cleaned the apartment, got others to co-operate, planned the abduction, sedated their own children so they would sleep through it, composed themselves to act out a hoax in public, then face the worlds pre-arranged media ? 

...Plus hidden the body in a safe place somewhere in Praia da Luz AND all sat down to dinner 'as arranged' at 8.45pm

Doesn't the time line scribbled on Madeleine's colouring book suggest a hurried panic ? Having said that, maybe that was contrived to look that way.
Just a thought.

April28th wrote:I went for 30th, I find Fatima da Silva's account accurate as it was given on the 8th of May, and describes accurately what Madeleine was wearing in the 'last photo', which she couldn't have gotten from the photo itself as it wasn't yet doing the rounds.

As to the Payne discrepancy, I think that it, as with the Oldfield 'check' was retrofitted to the story to cover any chance of their dna being found inside the apartment (for whatever reason..).

An indication but hardly conclusive.  I offer you the following for further consideration..


Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada - witness statment 8th May 2007

As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description.

madeleine by Kate McCann

She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon ...

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

Hardly an accurate description of Madeleine's appearance is it?  Nor does her statement fit in with Gerry McCann's claim that his wife, during the daytime, always left with the children by the patio door which he locked from the inside and then left by the front door.  The witness claims to have seen KM + 3 trotting off to the Paynes abode with their lunch, shortly followed by Gerry McCann. 

As for your comment about DNA - I don't think anything can be deduced by the presence of any of the groups DNA in the McCann apartment.  They were on holiday as a group, only to be expected that they would leave a scent wherever they trod.

Re the DNA, I mean to say that it was a contingency thing, to show that they'd definitely been in the apartment, and that it wasn't suspicious that they had. We didn't have such statements from other players in the story - clearly they needed to make the statement for some obfuscatory reason.

ETA - on this point you could also argue about the fact that a lot of people went through the apartment after the 'abduction'. I think that's why these two stand out to me, they're quite redundant otherwise (except as alibis).

Regarding the outfit, there was no occasion we are aware of on which she wore a skirt, however she says she was just a meter away, from which perspective (her being taller) she could've mistaken the 'smock top' for a dress/skirt. I know I certainly don't know the distinction between smock top and dress. But we know she wore trousers when they arrived, pink shorts for tennis (if that was even taken on the holiday), so the 'skirt' interpretation could only belong to this outfit IMO, unless you're saying the sighting was completely imagined (in which case why?).

@Tony Bennett wrote:  I have also seen a case made that there was no crèche at all on the Sunday, I do not find it persuasive, but there are some arguments in support of that.  

I agree, there's no earthly reason to suppose the creche facilities were closed on a Sunday, Saturday yes, because that was change-over day.  I think the myth was most likely borne out of Amy Tierney's (that name again) witness statement taken on 6th May 2007 (translated by none other than Robert Murat ? )..

'The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.'

An interesting thread and good to read everyone's interpretation of different events and how they have arrived at their beliefs.

Another small thing leading me to my own belief is that the only time I have seen raw grief out of KM is when she had to stand next to GM on
4th May (I think 4th May) as he read a statement to the press. She wears the grey T shirt and she looks wild and slightly out of control. Like she needs to be kept firmly in grip.
She appears (to me) slightly defiant and just 'raw'.  It looks to me like she is still coming to terms with what happened and 'they' need to control her so that she conforms to the 'abduction' scenario.
For me , this fits in with 'accident' on 3rd, more than 'accident' earlier in the week. I think there are persuasive arguments in either direction
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]