Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by Doug D 29.05.16 21:31

Thank you for posting that up Verdi.

Last para.

‘However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved.’

Is this not inferring that the PJ at last wanted to carry out proper cross-examinations based on the impossibilities of all their nonsense?

No wonder they came up with all of the excuses not to return.

What I can't get my head round though is why, if this was the PJ's thinking in March 2008, did they send the rogatories request for Leicester to re-interview in Jan. 2008.

Would it not have been more logical to try and get them back first and then when that failed, request Leicester to re-interview, or were they after the T7 giving even more rope on which to hang themselves?

Also worth posting here:

Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

29th April 2008

Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]
Vol XVI p. 4241

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

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

...........................................

but I don't believe a witness summons can be issued outside of Portugal, so they couldn't compel them to go back under this bit of law.

by JohnyT 29.05.16 23:06

Oh come on Realist.....as a parent I'd do a reconstruction IMMEDIATELY if it might help to find my 'missing' child.
On a side note......there's something about you Realist that I can't quite put my finger on.....................................................................................................
JohnyT

by Verdi 29.05.16 23:51

Doug D wrote:Thank you for posting that up Verdi.

Last para.

‘However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved.’

Is this not inferring that the PJ at last wanted to carry out proper cross-examinations based on the impossibilities of all their nonsense?

No wonder they came up with all of the excuses not to return.

What I can't get my head round though is why, if this was the PJ's thinking in March 2008, did they send the rogatories request for Leicester to re-interview in Jan. 2008.

Would it not have been more logical to try and get them back first and then when that failed, request Leicester to re-interview, or were they after the T7 giving even more rope on which to hang themselves?

Also worth posting here:

Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

29th April 2008

Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]
Vol XVI p. 4241

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

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

...........................................

but I don't believe a witness summons can be issued outside of Portugal, so they couldn't compel them to go back under this bit of law.

!

It's a bit late for time consuming rummaging about for exact detail but from the top of my head I'm wondering if the rogatory interviews and the re-enactment were intended to compliment one another. The rogatory interview process commenced in October 2007, when the McCanns requested particular people to be interviewed or re-interviewed in the light of their more recently named arguido status. Early 2008 the PJ sent Leicestershire Constabulary a list of questions to be asked of the named interviewees and as you know, the interviews took place in April 2008, shortly before the re-enactment date proposed by the PJ.

As it turned out, the re-enactment never transpired and the rogatory interviews contributed nothing to the official investigation. The PJ were well aware of the inconsistencies in the Tapas group witness statements taken in May 2007, so I can see a possibility that the re-enactment was a cunning ruse to test against the rogatory interviews and how they both matched with the groups original statements - if you get my drift.

by Verdi 29.05.16 23:58

JohnyT wrote:Oh come on Realist.....as a parent I'd do a reconstruction IMMEDIATELY if it might help to find my 'missing' child.
On a side note......there's something about you Realist that I can't quite put my finger on.....................................................................................................
JohnyT

"Something of the night about him.."

As Anne Widdecombe said of Michael Howard big grin

.

by Verdi 30.05.16 0:04

@DougD wrote: but I don't believe a witness summons can be issued outside of Portugal, so they couldn't compel them to go back under this bit of law.

Only just noticed this at the foot of your post. No, as the investigation stood, they could not be forced to return to Portugal for a re-enactment. Hence the request for their attendance - the extraordinary thing is why they declined the invitation. Their friend's daughter has disappeared yet they refuse to assist the police with their investigation? What on earth did they fear - arrest but for what?

by whodunit 30.05.16 0:29

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:
pennylane wrote:
whodunit wrote:I can't see ANY room for mistaken identity as Cat signed a couple of the kids, including 'Madeleine', in or out when their parents forgot. If she wasn't keeping up with which kid was which and which one was present or not how would she know to do that?
Indeed so! Cat spent many hours with Madeleine and had to encourage her to get on the Catamaran on 3rd May. I feel it is a big mistake to dismiss her evidence! Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd May 2007 up until that evening (imo).

I wouldn't go that far but I also wouldn't assume she was 'in on it' either. A substitute child solves a lot of problems across the board.
Why bother? Attendance at the creche wasn't compulsory.

I would think the answer is self-evident. Creche attendance not compulsory but convincing people Madeleine wasn't gone well before the 3rd was essential. Had a 'Madeleine' not attended creche at all this would have been vastly more difficult.

by **Hobs** 30.05.16 2:48

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

Jane Tanner wrote:4078 “Madeleine, how much of Madeleine did you see?”
Reply “Not that much really because only really because she didn’t come to breakfast, so we saw the other children at breakfast and their lunch, but because they tended to have breakfast and lunch separately, the only time I really saw her was at, erm, after high tea when we were playing in the play area, was the main times that I probably saw her during the week”. (After high tea? Adding here as I have only just noticed that comment. Why didnt she say she saw her AT high tea or was it simply because Jane wasn't there

Maybe she was going to say the only time she saw her was at breakfast sunday morning, millenium was it?
Just another possibility.

“Not that much really because only really because she didn’t come to breakfast, so we saw the other children at breakfast and their lunch,"

This caught my eye, specifically the phrase other children.

Who are the "other children" she refers to?
Is she referring to Sean and Amelie showing up for breakfast and lunch?
If so, this then begs the question as to where was Maddie?

This become more so important given that Maddie was allegedly abducted on the Thursday night.
What excuses, if any, were given when the tapas group, in particular Diane Webster, who seemed to be the odd one out of the group, asked where Maddie was and if she perhaps fallen sick, perhaps overcome by the same sickness that afflicted sundry adults and children in the group?

If Maddie was no longer seen at breakfast and lunch this would have some bearing on the creche records.

The only times she could then have been seen would be the dropping off and collection from the creche and even then they may not have crossed paths with kate and gerry, missing each other by a couple of minutes.

This would mean that Maddie could have pretty much vanished any time from Sunday, with the creche workers having met her briefly they would and could not be certain that they child they saw presented to them as Maddie, was in actual fact Maddie.
Since payne claimed he saw her the Thursday night when he popped round to check on kate for 30 mins/30 secs depending on who is talking.
Since he was part of the group he cannot be classed as an independent witness, more likely a suspect or possible accomplice, especially when the Gaspar statements are taken into consideration.

If she is referring to all the children bar those belonging to kate and gerry, what excuses were given to the group, particularly Diane Webster, to explain away their non appearance?

Given they were all together, why would the mccann children be kept away from the rest of the children, especially if they were all playing together in the creche?
Would it not make more sense to keep all the children together for both mealtimes and play time?

It would prevent separation tantrums as well as those foot in mouth moments so beloved by parents when their child says something embarrassing or asking an awkward question.

More so if said child asks where Maddie is and when 'Maddie' is pointed out, reply that that was not Maddie, that was XYZ.

4078 “Madeleine, how much of Madeleine did you see?”

Jane tanner “Not that much really because only really because she didn’t come to breakfast, so we saw the other children at breakfast and their lunch, but because they tended to have breakfast and lunch separately, the only time I really saw her was at, erm, after high tea when we were playing in the play area, was the main times that I probably saw her during the week”.

This simple question resulted in a response from tanner that was highly sensitive to her.

Words such of so, because, thus etc explain why something happened.

She is answering an unasked question.

As she is speaking, she is thinking ahead as to what she is saying and expects to be asked why did you do this or say that?
She thus answers the question she thinks will be asked.

These words in a statement are marked as sensitive to the subject and are highlighted in blue.

Here i see 4 sensitive words which i have highlighted in blue, making the sentence itself sensitive.
This is also concerning as there is a cluster of blues making her words highly sensitive.

Why would asking how much of Maddie did she see, produce such a sensitive response?
Is it because she didn't see Maddie as much as she is claiming, as in not at all rather than her claimed after high tea.
However, she doesn't definitively say she saw Maddie, She uses the word probably which allows for her to later say, if questioned that she couldn't be certain when she last saw Maddie or if she saw Maddie at all.
It weakens her claim of seeing Maddie after high tea.
She doesn't want to outright lie since it would be stressful, she lets the interviewer believe she saw Maddie as claimed without actually saying she did.
Important when it comes to the trial and she faces charges.

We have the qualifier word really makes an appearance three times.
A qualifier is a word, which when removed does not change the meaning of the sentence.
Note also she doesn't say a specific day, she leaves it open for the interviewer to fill in the gaps and come to the conclusion it was the thursday, when it could have been the Saturday or Sunday, leaving a number of days when there was no Maddie, which leads to a lot of awkward questions not only for kate and gerry, it also implicates the rest of the group.

Note she says the only time I really saw her [size=13]which would mean all the other times it could have been anyone she saw.

Why did they change from everyone having breakfast and lunch together which would make sense, the children having their friends and siblings with them and the adults being able to chat and make plans?

Why did it change to the mccanns having breakfast and lunch away from the group?

Why did they have breakfast in the apartment when breakfast was included in their half board booking?

Given the mccanns avarice, why would they turn down meals they had paid for?

The rest of the group made use of the breakfast included, what then caused to mccanns to effectively distance themselves and their children from the rest of the group?

Why would it be that the only time or opportunity for anyone other than the mccanns to actually see the children was when they were dropping off or collecting them from the creche?

Is it because something happened to Maddie the first night or two and they would have problems trying to explain away Maddie's non appearance.

Would it be because they needed time to remove her body and stage a massive clean up plus get their stories and timelines together?

Note also she is asked how much of Madeleine did she see?
Her reply should be first person singular I telling what she herself saw.
Instead she uses the pronoun WE in relation to seeing the other children at breakfast[/size] and also when playing in the play area.
WE is used to show unity and shar4ed cooperation, something often heard from kids when they want to share the blame and minimize their own role.

She uses the first person singular pronoun I in relation to the only time of really seeing her which was AFTER high tea and playing in the play area.

She doesn't tell us what time she really saw Maddie, it could have been immediately after high tea or it could have been midnight etc.
She leaves it open for the interviewer to fill in the gap, knowing the interviewer would be thinking immediately after high tea

She isn't outright lying since that would be stressful, instead, she lies by omission.

She doesn't say she definitely saw Maddie since that would pin her to a specific day and time, something that would then be incriminating if it was then proven that she could not have seen Maddie as claimed as they have independent witness statements that would place her elsewhere.
She leaves it open that, if evidence comes up to show where she was and it wasn't where she claimed, she could plead ignorance or mistaken identity of the child (remember all those girls all wearing pink and with bobbed hair, all looking alike)

Given all this, why did tanner indicate for deception in relation to seeing Maddie?
Is it because of guilt or guilty knowledge?
Is it because it would drop her other half in the s**t?
If she is deceptive due to guilty knowledge, why would she need to protect those involved?
If it was only kate and gerry involved in the death, disposal and subsequent cover up, why would she lie to protect them?
Do they have some kind of hold over members of the group?
Is there some dirty secret that would cause them to lie over a homicide, concealing a corpse and filing a false police report?
Is it something so bad that they never considered talking to LE and getting the reward money?

by BarryTheHatchet 30.05.16 8:59

You could tell from the making of the mockumentary, there is a scene where Jane is pointing out to the film crew the part of the road where she "saw the abductor". And Gerry says something like "no, it was over here" and points to another bit of the road. Jane looks absolutely terrified of him. And what was that Panorama interview all about? "I was carrying a child like this...."

by Verdi 30.05.16 12:42

whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:
pennylane wrote:
whodunit wrote:I can't see ANY room for mistaken identity as Cat signed a couple of the kids, including 'Madeleine', in or out when their parents forgot. If she wasn't keeping up with which kid was which and which one was present or not how would she know to do that?
Indeed so! Cat spent many hours with Madeleine and had to encourage her to get on the Catamaran on 3rd May. I feel it is a big mistake to dismiss her evidence! Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd May 2007 up until that evening (imo).

I wouldn't go that far but I also wouldn't assume she was 'in on it' either. A substitute child solves a lot of problems across the board.
Why bother? Attendance at the creche wasn't compulsory.

I would think the answer is self-evident. Creche attendance not compulsory but convincing people Madeleine wasn't gone well before the 3rd was essential. Had a 'Madeleine' not attended creche at all this would have been vastly more difficult.

Madeleine's attendance at the creche during the week can of course signify that she was alive and well but to fake her attendance must be equally problematic, if not more so, than carrying-out their abduction plan without involving the creche. Who knows, maybe the McCanns intention was to parade the notion of Madeleine's 'special quality' (sic. Jon Corner) to lay the ground work for the later claim of abduction by paedophile/s.

I maintain that mistaken identity is a non-starter, unless Catriona Baker is a total fool which I don't think she is. She only had responsibility for a handful of kids, how could she possibly mistake one for another even if they were all pink and pretty.

In short, their plan would have been simpler without the creche, therefore there has to be a specific reason why she was booked in and out in such a random manner.

by plebgate 30.05.16 12:54

What I can't understand about possibly mistaking one child as another is the coloboma. Surely the nannies would have noticed that and if not why not say something about it when the marketing ploy was centred around it?

It still puzzles me also (there are several posts about it on the forum) as to why some pictures show Maddie with gapped teeth and others where they are close together.

by Cmaryholmes 30.05.16 13:05

Is a coloboma that obvious ?

by plebgate 30.05.16 13:06

Cmaryholmes wrote:Is a coloboma that obvious ?

The posters seemed to make out it was.

by Verdi 30.05.16 13:13

plebgate wrote:What I can't understand about possibly mistaking one child as another is the coloboma. Surely the nannies would have noticed that and if not why not say something about it when the marketing ploy was centred around it?

It still puzzles me also (there are several posts about it on the forum) as to why some pictures show Maddie with gapped teeth and others where they are close together.

What of the identification bracelets she mentions during her rogatory interview in April 2008..

[color:e562=000000]I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with Ella, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.

by plebgate 30.05.16 13:45

To have previously written the bracelets. What does that mean exactly? It was first day of their hols but bracelets were already written up! Was a "medical" form filled in upon arrival and sent to the creche before attedance? Who knows, but one would think that for a bracelet to have already been written up with allergies and like recorded some sort of form must have been filled in?

If there were such forms I wonder if they are in withheld police files and if that is why the police were interested in Maddie's medical records???

Good spot verdi.

by BarryTheHatchet 30.05.16 13:48

Cmaryholmes wrote:Is a coloboma that obvious ?

Well, in the "shortbread tin" photo it is. In others, it isn't. Kate herself said it was "just a fleck". Looks more than a fleck to me in some of them. Heaven Forbid that it might have been enhanced or even photoshopped in!

by dottyaussie 30.05.16 13:58

Why didn't Jane mention she saw Madeleine at the catamaran/sailing thing or at the mini tennis when the photo of Madeleine was taken. Didn't she take the photo ?
Also could there have been any DNA on the creche bracelets ?

by plebgate 30.05.16 14:25

If Maddie had worn a creche bracelet there would have been DNA on it.

by plebgate 30.05.16 14:30

Cmaryholmes wrote:Is a coloboma that obvious ?

Whether it was a coloboma or a fleck, surely it must have been large enough for the general public to have noticed and report a child with it or why mention it at all?

If large enough for the general public (strangers) to notice then one would have thought the creche staff would have done so also.

by Verdi 30.05.16 15:39

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

Distinguishing marks and characteristics: Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina; small brownmark on the left leg calf.

I think that would be noticeable!

by Roidininki 30.05.16 16:00

Wasn't there are interview where they were asked about the eye defect and
Kate said it wasn't all that noticeable really ?

by **Jill Havern** 30.05.16 16:13

Roidininki wrote:Wasn't there are interview where they were asked about the eye defect and
Kate said it wasn't all that noticeable really ?

Yes, the interview with Piers Morgan

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

by **HiDeHo** 30.05.16 17:39

For those that believe that something happened to Maddie during the evening/night of Thursday May 3, then I can understand believing that Catriona saw Maddie on Thursday when picked up from the tapas high tea.

If you believe that something happened to Maddie prior to 6pm on Thursday that indicates that Catriona managed in some way to claim to have seen Maddie up until Thursday without actually seeing her.

How did she manage that?

I have offered my suggestion. Is there another suggestion or does everyone think that nothing happened until after 6pm on Thursday?

by **HiDeHo** 30.05.16 17:49

plebgate wrote:What I can't understand about possibly mistaking one child as another is the coloboma. Surely the nannies would have noticed that and if not why not say something about it when the marketing ploy was centred around it?

It still puzzles me also (there are several posts about it on the forum) as to why some pictures show Maddie with gapped teeth and others where they are close together.

I used different colour corrections to show the gap in the pumpkin photo teeth

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

by whodunit 30.05.16 17:55

HiDeHo wrote:For those that believe that something happened to Maddie during the evening/night of Thursday May 3, then I can understand believing that Catriona saw Maddie on Thursday when picked up from the tapas high tea.

If you believe that something happened to Maddie prior to 6pm on Thursday that indicates that Catriona managed in some way to claim to have seen Maddie up until Thursday without actually seeing her.

How did she manage that?

I have offered my suggestion. Is there another suggestion or does everyone think that nothing happened until after 6pm on Thursday?

Yes? It's been discussed in this thread, on this board, and by others in other venues. The only alternative to a May 3rd incident,--impossible imo--or mistaken identity,--unlikely given Baker signing various children in and out---is a substitute child.

by pennylane 30.05.16 17:58

HiDeHo wrote:For those that believe that something happened to Maddie during the evening/night of Thursday May 3, then I can understand believing that Catriona saw Maddie on Thursday when picked up from the tapas high tea.

If you believe that something happened to Maddie prior to 6pm on Thursday that indicates that Catriona managed in some way to claim to have seen Maddie up until Thursday without actually seeing her.

How did she manage that?

I have offered my suggestion. Is there another suggestion or does everyone think that nothing happened until after 6pm on Thursday?

My opinion (fwiw) is that something happened after 6:00 on 3rd May 2007.

Latest topics