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

whodunit wrote:

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.

So just two alternatives to explain Maddie missing but Catriona mistakenly saw her?

1)  Mistaken - Maddie missing but Catriona second guessed herself into believing another child was Maddie (Ella)

2)  Substitute child

Any more?

Apologies if a little off topic but I would really love to see an alternative explanation about the discrepancies from anyone who believes nothing happened until AFTER Tuesday/Wednesday morning..

[size=16]A little off topic but I would really like to understand, with the enormity of discrepancies that started Tuesday morning.... WHY they exist so early in the week?

Just one example... The text messages that the McCanns denied existed, were SO IMPORTANT to the police that there was an application to a high court in May 2008 to attempt to get information before the case was shelved.

They were turned down, but WHY were these text messages so important... and if they WERE something to do with the investigation WHY did they start arriving Wednesday morning at 8?

I have never seen an explanation as to why all the discrepancies started happening on TUESDAY if nothing happened until Thursday evening?

What were they trying to hide so early in the week?[/size]

Verdi wrote:[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!

There is an error here.

They mention Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina;

They should mean IRIS.

If it was on the retina then it would have been invisible unless you were an ophthalmologist examining her eyes, in which case he would see it.
She  would likely also have vision problems in that eye if it was on her retina.

Unless the report is correct and there was a mark on her retina and not her iris (perhaps the iris mark was a tiny fleck rather than the big mark as shown in older pictures such as the iconic one first released and then subsequently used on the cover of the bewk by kate.

The mccanns reported her having a coloboma  in her right eye which was indicated and shouted loudly about by the mccanns.
This later was minimized down to a fleck by kate.

What is needed to know is how obvious was this coloboma?

Was it noticeable to people at a reasonable distance it was it only visible really close up?

Have the photos released by the mccanns been manipulated/enhanced to show the coloboma, making it more obvious than it really was?
Were the public looking for a girl with a obvious large coloboma when they should have been looking for a girl with a small fleck in her eye?

Given that they released an old picture of her, a picture that she bore no resemblance to for the police and public to search for and  newer pictures were released at later dates, it is entirely possible that whatever was in her eye was enhanced, especially when down the line they used it in marketing and publicity with the infamous LQok logo.

The mccanns did and do nothing without a reason, be it to hinder or help any investigation or to raise funds.

Why was it marketed as an easy and obvious way to identify her and then subsequently minimized to a fleck and kate claiming they did really make much of it.

K. mccann: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it.

Also it is worth noting that kate tells us "If i'm honest" which tells me she hasn't been honest previously.

She also uses the word and tense HAVEN'T which is present tense.

They may no longer be putting much emphasis on it for whatever reason they decided on.

What she doesn't tell us is that they DIDN'T put too much emphasis on it, something we know they did, even to asking Google to put it in their logo online (which Google sensibly refused)

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

Columbo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

There was a lot more than 'suspicious activity'.  Denials, contradictions, text messages that were denied but of major importance to the police on WEDNESDAY...

MANY questions that show there was something that needed to be covered up...

I have yet to see any explanation for all of these discrepancies, except something may have happened to Maddie BEFORE Tuesday and they needed to cover it up...

I welcome anyone, that believes nothing happened to Maddie before 6pm, to explain even a few of these...

Easier to read HERE:  http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/DIscrepancies-by-Topic/DISCREPANCY-LIST-1-829580.html


Discrepancy Questions..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1 Why did the Paynes and Matthew Oldfield claim to have passed each other in very different places on the way to the tapas and Dianne Webster claimed to have not seen him until her Rogatory when she remembered because Dave and Fiona had reminded her.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2 Why did Rachael claim the last time she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis on Thursday. Madeleine's group played on Tuesday. Is Tuesday the last time she saw her?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3 Why did Rachael describe the mini tennis as played on Court 1, when the records show it was Court 2. (the police seemed to find it important by questioning her)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4 Why did Catriona claim that Gerry wasn't at high tea on May 3rd and that she thought he was at tennis, when both Kate and Gerry claim he was there.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
5 Why did Gerry claim to have entered the front door and opened the patio doors for Kate who was carrying Madeleine back from high tea on May 3rd. Kate says they all went in through the front doors.
6 Why did they give different accounts of Madeleine asking about why they didn't come to her. (She asked her father, she asked Kate, it was the twins crying, it was her crying etc)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
7 Why did Gerry claim that he picked Madeleine up from the creche on Thursday lunch (he remembered taking the short cut) when Kate and Fiona claim they walked together. Kate says she went to the apartment first, Fiona said they left from the pool area.
8 Why did the police compile the Diagram of Events according to Catriona telling them that she only went to the beach twice, on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, not mentioning the mini sail.
9 Why did they not release Thursday diagram or twins creche record for Thursday morning?
10 Why, after the family's trip to the beach Tuesday lunchtime (for 5 ice creams) did they drop Madleine off at the creche in time for her to go on another trip (to the beach?) for ice cream trip
11 Why did Catriona claim they went to the beach 15.30 to 16.30 on Tuesday and Wednesday and did not mention the ice cream trip, 2.30pm-3.30pm Tuesday according to the Activity sheet.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
12 Why did Kate receive a 'flurry' of phone calls (between 10.16pm and 10.27pm) in the 15 minutes prior to Mrs Fenn hearing the crying Was she at the tapas as she claims they did not arrive back until 11.00pm?
13 Why did Kate make (unusual) very early morning calls to her friend (Amanda, her husband is a pathologist) on Wednesday morning?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
14 Why did Najoua the quiz mistress claim that no-one (including Gerry) left the table during the time she was there (9.00pm-9.50pm?) and she does not recall seeing Kate or David Payne at the table. Just an empty place setting.
15 Why did Catriona claim to have seem Jane and David at the beach when she was at the mini sail. Why would she have known David?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
16 Where are the pictures of Ella taken at the mini sail and why (with only a few children) was Madeleine not in the picture.
17 Did Catriona take the children to the mini sail alone? Why is there no statement from the other nannies to say they went?
18 Why did the police not interview Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth, the mini sail instructors?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
19 Why is there not one credible sighting of Madeleine after Sunday lunchtime when she was seen by the cleaner's daughter leaving the apartment for lunch at the Paynes?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
20 Why did Kate claim the shutters were broken on Sunday and the maintenance fixed them on Monday when records shows it was Tuesday. Why did they need to show her how to use the washing machine?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
21 Why did the cleaner claim there was a cot in the parents bedroom on Wednesday morning and both Gerry and Kate denied it was there?
22 Why did Madeleine's bed not show signs of being used, when it was made up by the cleaner on Wednesday morning and should have been slept in Wednesday night as well as Thursday evening? (the other bed was messy)
23 Why did the pictures from the apartment show a (relatively) normal amount of clothes left around when the cleaners daughter said that her mother had mentioned to her about the mess of their apartment (indicating something abnormal).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
24 Why did Matthew Oldfield claim to have been sick because of what he had eaten on the plane, and yet suggested that Rachael's sickness on Wednesday may have been the same as his.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
25 Why is there very little information regarding the week from David Payne's statements?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
26 Why did the police question Fiona about the time after the Paraiso vist and then push her to admit that she didn't know what David was doing between 6.00pm and 7.00pm?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
27 Why did David claim to have arrived back at the apartment approx 8.00pm when Fiona claims he was there at 7.10 (while he was 'supposedly' playing tennis at the Mens Social')
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
28 Why did Kate claim that David didn't enter the apartment when David claims to have entered and described the children at length?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
29 Why did Rachael claim that Ella may have been given a bath at their apartment on Thursday evening?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
30 Why was there a lot of 'avoidance of specifics' and 'days rolled over' in the statements?
There is more, but thats all for now...

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:[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!

There is an error here.

They mention Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina;

They should mean IRIS.

If it was on the retina then it would have been invisible unless you were an ophthalmologist examining her eyes, in which case he would see it.
She  would likely also have vision problems in that eye if it was on her retina.

Unless the report is correct and there was a mark on her retina and not her iris (perhaps the iris mark was a tiny fleck rather than the big mark as shown in older pictures such as the iconic one first released and then subsequently used on the cover of the bewk by kate.

The mccanns reported her having a coloboma  in her right eye which was indicated and shouted loudly about by the mccanns.
This later was minimized down to a fleck by kate.

What is needed to know is how obvious was this coloboma?

Was it noticeable to people at a reasonable distance it was it only visible really close up?

Have the photos released by the mccanns been manipulated/enhanced to show the coloboma, making it more obvious than it really was?
Were the public looking for a girl with a obvious large coloboma when they should have been looking for a girl with a small fleck in her eye?

Given that they released an old picture of her, a picture that she bore no resemblance to for the police and public to search for and  newer pictures were released at later dates, it is entirely possible that whatever was in her eye was enhanced, especially when down the line they used it in marketing and publicity with the infamous LQok logo.

The mccanns did and do nothing without a reason, be it to hinder or help any investigation or to raise funds.

Why was it marketed as an easy and obvious way to identify her and then subsequently minimized to a fleck and kate claiming they did really make much of it.

K. mccann: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it.

Also it is worth noting that kate tells us "If i'm honest" which tells me she hasn't been honest previously.

She also uses the word and tense HAVEN'T which is present tense.

They may no longer be putting much emphasis on it for whatever reason they decided on.

What she doesn't tell us is that they DIDN'T put too much emphasis on it, something we know they did, even to asking Google to put it in their logo online (which Google sensibly refused)

Ref. blue highlighting - exactly.   Logic tells us that it must have been large enough for strangers to notice - people by and large don't get up close enough to children they do not know to notice just a fleck in the eye, so why was it later changed to a fleck?

IIRC the police advice was not to mention the mark in the eye, so why did they?

The creche staff would easily be able to confirm whether it was a fleck or much larger.  I wonder if they will ever be asked?

I think a reconstruction with Tapas crew and all staff who knew Maddie would be of great value as there does not seem to be very much clarity about much at all imo.

No, it was just a fleck and they never made much of it at all.  And they never called her "Maddie", neither; that was just a name that was made up by the papers.

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

This thread has drifted off topic.

There are several existing threads discussing the coloboma.

plebgate wrote:

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:[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!

There is an error here.

They mention Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina;

They should mean IRIS.

If it was on the retina then it would have been invisible unless you were an ophthalmologist examining her eyes, in which case he would see it.
She  would likely also have vision problems in that eye if it was on her retina.

Unless the report is correct and there was a mark on her retina and not her iris (perhaps the iris mark was a tiny fleck rather than the big mark as shown in older pictures such as the iconic one first released and then subsequently used on the cover of the bewk by kate.

The mccanns reported her having a coloboma  in her right eye which was indicated and shouted loudly about by the mccanns.
This later was minimized down to a fleck by kate.

What is needed to know is how obvious was this coloboma?

Was it noticeable to people at a reasonable distance it was it only visible really close up?

Have the photos released by the mccanns been manipulated/enhanced to show the coloboma, making it more obvious than it really was?
Were the public looking for a girl with a obvious large coloboma when they should have been looking for a girl with a small fleck in her eye?

Given that they released an old picture of her, a picture that she bore no resemblance to for the police and public to search for and  newer pictures were released at later dates, it is entirely possible that whatever was in her eye was enhanced, especially when down the line they used it in marketing and publicity with the infamous LQok logo.

The mccanns did and do nothing without a reason, be it to hinder or help any investigation or to raise funds.

Why was it marketed as an easy and obvious way to identify her and then subsequently minimized to a fleck and kate claiming they did really make much of it.

K. mccann: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it.

Also it is worth noting that kate tells us "If i'm honest" which tells me she hasn't been honest previously.

She also uses the word and tense HAVEN'T which is present tense.

They may no longer be putting much emphasis on it for whatever reason they decided on.

What she doesn't tell us is that they DIDN'T put too much emphasis on it, something we know they did, even to asking Google to put it in their logo online (which Google sensibly refused)

Ref. blue highlighting - exactly.   Logic tells us that it must have been large enough for strangers to notice - people by and large don't get up close enough to children they do not know to notice just a fleck in the eye, so why was it later changed to a fleck?

IIRC the police advice was not to mention the mark in the eye, so why did they?

The creche staff would easily be able to confirm whether it was a fleck or much larger.  I wonder if they will ever be asked?

I think a reconstruction with Tapas crew and all staff who knew Maddie would be of great value as there does not seem to be very much clarity about much at all imo.

Imo it was the substitute child who had the large, obvious Coloboma which of course the creche workers would have noticed.
If you look at a high res version of the tennis balls pic Madeleine had no such large eye defect, certainly not one that matched the defect on the bewk cover photo which btw was much more than any 'fleck'.
Clearly the coloboma is a major discrepancy, a discrepancy which could be explained by a substitute child passing as 'Madeleine' who had a large eye defect.
I'd be interested in seeing photos of a certain child without her dark sunglasses.

HiDeHo wrote:

Columbo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

There was a lot more than 'suspicious activity'.  Denials, contradictions, text messages that were denied but of major importance to the police on WEDNESDAY...

MANY questions that show there was something that needed to be covered up...

I have yet to see any explanation for all of these discrepancies, except something may have happened to Maddie BEFORE Tuesday and they needed to cover it up...

I welcome anyone, that believes nothing happened to Maddie before 6pm, to explain even a few of these...

If something happened a lot earlier in the week that raises its own questions. Why weren't things better planned? Why was there "the biggest f***-up"? How do you avoid bringing in to whatever happened a whole load of other parties, including a 19yo creche worker, get them to follow a plan over several days and then keep them silent over the following nine years?

I accept there's a key weakness in my own favoured theory of a major event on 3 May, which is the very narrow window to plan and execute anything. I've also always been confused by the rapid start-up and instigation of the fund (q.v. another thread started by me back in January), almost suggesting pre-planning not only of the disappearance but of the 'after' too.

There are events earlier in the week that are particularly suspicious to me, like the last-minute flight from Exeter and the GM/RO phones going on and off at similar times.

That's the thing with this mystery. There isn't a single, clear and plausible theory. About the only timed moment everybody agrees on is KM's "they've taken her". Virtually every other moment either side of that seems open to some question. I really don't mind whose theory is proved right or wrong, just so long as there's justice for a missing girl who can't speak for herself.

Columbo wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Columbo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

There was a lot more than 'suspicious activity'.  Denials, contradictions, text messages that were denied but of major importance to the police on WEDNESDAY...

MANY questions that show there was something that needed to be covered up...

I have yet to see any explanation for all of these discrepancies, except something may have happened to Maddie BEFORE Tuesday and they needed to cover it up...

I welcome anyone, that believes nothing happened to Maddie before 6pm, to explain even a few of these...

If something happened a lot earlier in the week that raises its own questions. Why weren't things better planned? Why was there "the biggest f***-up"? How do you avoid bringing in to whatever happened a whole load of other parties, including a 19yo creche worker, get them to follow a plan over several days and then keep them silent over the following nine years?

I accept there's a key weakness in my own favoured theory of a major event on 3 May, which is the very narrow window to plan and execute anything. I've also always been confused by the rapid start-up and instigation of the fund (q.v. another thread started by me back in January), almost suggesting pre-planning not only of the disappearance but of the 'after' too.

There are events earlier in the week that are particularly suspicious to me, like the last-minute flight from Exeter and the GM/RO phones going on and off at similar times.

That's the thing with this mystery. There isn't a single, clear and plausible theory. About the only timed moment everybody agrees on is KM's "they've taken her". Virtually every other moment either side of that seems open to some question. I really don't mind whose theory is proved right or wrong, just so long as there's justice for a missing girl who can't speak for herself.

Yep so many questions have been asked over the last 9 years but until the "lot of them are taken back to Potugal" as headlined in the Daily Express a while back none of them are going to be answered.

The dedicated researchers on this and other forums have sent files to the police with many, many questions asked, but as far as we know none of them have been re-interviewed and those questions asked.

£15 million quid spent and still the questions come but nothing ever comes of it all.   What a waste of time and money- imo of course.

Columbo wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Columbo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

There was a lot more than 'suspicious activity'.  Denials, contradictions, text messages that were denied but of major importance to the police on WEDNESDAY...

MANY questions that show there was something that needed to be covered up...

I have yet to see any explanation for all of these discrepancies, except something may have happened to Maddie BEFORE Tuesday and they needed to cover it up...

I welcome anyone, that believes nothing happened to Maddie before 6pm, to explain even a few of these...

If something happened a lot earlier in the week that raises its own questions. Why weren't things better planned? Why was there "the biggest f***-up"? How do you avoid bringing in to whatever happened a whole load of other parties, including a 19yo creche worker, get them to follow a plan over several days and then keep them silent over the following nine years?

I accept there's a key weakness in my own favoured theory of a major event on 3 May, which is the very narrow window to plan and execute anything. I've also always been confused by the rapid start-up and instigation of the fund (q.v. another thread started by me back in January), almost suggesting pre-planning not only of the disappearance but of the 'after' too.

There are events earlier in the week that are particularly suspicious to me, like the last-minute flight from Exeter and the GM/RO phones going on and off at similar times.

That's the thing with this mystery. There isn't a single, clear and plausible theory. About the only timed moment everybody agrees on is KM's "they've taken her". Virtually every other moment either side of that seems open to some question. I really don't mind whose theory is proved right or wrong, just so long as there's justice for a missing girl who can't speak for herself.

Yes, you are right...the truth exposed is all we want to see and I for one will have no regrets if my thoughts are wrong.  They are based on the files and the existing information but we all know there is much more that we don't know and my guess is that we probably know about 5% of what happened that week...taking into consideration the small amount the statements tell us and then deduct the incorrect info and we would be left with very little.

I respect anyone's opinion, mainly because I don't know myself what happened, only what the files 'tell' me after I put the groundwork together and thats why I keep asking others' opinions and ideas because I may feel something is logical but someone else can come up with an explanation (ie all of the discrepancies from Tuesday)

I was wondering what day something may have happened and thats when I realised it was probably just before they started to cover things up... Hence my thoughts go to Monday or before...

Then I considered finding the last proof that she was seen and could only find one specific and credible sighting on Sunday lunchtime... so that leaves Sunday lunchtime until Tuesday morning.

Everything else fits into place... The reason there was little DNA in the apartment.... The reason the McCanns appeared to pull away from joining with the others... lunchtimes, breakfasts etc.

In all these years everything seems to fit and nothing I have seen proves that possibility is wrong.

I am SEARCHING for someone to show me I'm wrong...

Noone has ever shown me a credible specific sighting of Maddie after Sunday lunchtime and NOONE has ever explained why all the MAJOR discrepancies and curiosities started on Tuesday morning.

It is logical to me to believe Monday something happened.  I didnt guess... I have explained why I think its likely


There are some great researchers in here and I would LOVE if any of you could show my logic is incorrect and why...

Meanwhile, it is important that those that believe after evening of May 3rd are respected for their belief.

This isn't just a matter of revisiting the couple that went into the apartment (well it IS because it's the topic lol)  the night before which would only really fit with a Thursday demise...

It's not about neglect because Maddie didnt disappear because she was left alone...

They were covering SOMETHING up starting on Tuesday morning and I would like to know what....

whodunit wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:[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!

There is an error here.

They mention Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina;

They should mean IRIS.

If it was on the retina then it would have been invisible unless you were an ophthalmologist examining her eyes, in which case he would see it.
She  would likely also have vision problems in that eye if it was on her retina.

Unless the report is correct and there was a mark on her retina and not her iris (perhaps the iris mark was a tiny fleck rather than the big mark as shown in older pictures such as the iconic one first released and then subsequently used on the cover of the bewk by kate.

The mccanns reported her having a coloboma  in her right eye which was indicated and shouted loudly about by the mccanns.
This later was minimized down to a fleck by kate.

What is needed to know is how obvious was this coloboma?

Was it noticeable to people at a reasonable distance it was it only visible really close up?

Have the photos released by the mccanns been manipulated/enhanced to show the coloboma, making it more obvious than it really was?
Were the public looking for a girl with a obvious large coloboma when they should have been looking for a girl with a small fleck in her eye?

Given that they released an old picture of her, a picture that she bore no resemblance to for the police and public to search for and  newer pictures were released at later dates, it is entirely possible that whatever was in her eye was enhanced, especially when down the line they used it in marketing and publicity with the infamous LQok logo.

The mccanns did and do nothing without a reason, be it to hinder or help any investigation or to raise funds.

Why was it marketed as an easy and obvious way to identify her and then subsequently minimized to a fleck and kate claiming they did really make much of it.

K. mccann: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it.

Also it is worth noting that kate tells us "If i'm honest" which tells me she hasn't been honest previously.

She also uses the word and tense HAVEN'T which is present tense.

They may no longer be putting much emphasis on it for whatever reason they decided on.

What she doesn't tell us is that they DIDN'T put too much emphasis on it, something we know they did, even to asking Google to put it in their logo online (which Google sensibly refused)

Ref. blue highlighting - exactly.   Logic tells us that it must have been large enough for strangers to notice - people by and large don't get up close enough to children they do not know to notice just a fleck in the eye, so why was it later changed to a fleck?

IIRC the police advice was not to mention the mark in the eye, so why did they?

The creche staff would easily be able to confirm whether it was a fleck or much larger.  I wonder if they will ever be asked?

I think a reconstruction with Tapas crew and all staff who knew Maddie would be of great value as there does not seem to be very much clarity about much at all imo.

Imo it was the substitute child who had the large, obvious Coloboma which of course the creche workers would have noticed.
If you look at a high res version of the tennis balls pic Madeleine had no such large eye defect, certainly not one that matched the defect on the bewk cover photo which btw was much more than any 'fleck'.
Clearly the coloboma is a major discrepancy, a discrepancy which could be explained by a substitute child passing as 'Madeleine' who had a large eye defect.
I'd be interested in seeing photos of a certain child without her dark sunglasses.

Well I suppose that is possible but then we come again to the fact that so many people would have to keep quiet about a substitute child having a coloboma.   The extended family of said child, teachers and school friends, neighbours.

If Maddie didn't have a coloboma why didn't extended family, teachers, friends, neighbours speak out?

Hobs wrote:

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?

Very thought provoking, interesting read.  
Also important that she said "the only time i really saw her was at".. What was the end of that sentence suppose to be? Her brain, which wants to be truthful was going to say something, possibly "at the airport". Or at breakfast sunday morning?  Definately not erm after high tea..

plebgate wrote:

whodunit wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:[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!

There is an error here.

They mention Left eye blue and green colour, right eye green colour with a brown spot in the retina;

They should mean IRIS.

If it was on the retina then it would have been invisible unless you were an ophthalmologist examining her eyes, in which case he would see it.
She  would likely also have vision problems in that eye if it was on her retina.

Unless the report is correct and there was a mark on her retina and not her iris (perhaps the iris mark was a tiny fleck rather than the big mark as shown in older pictures such as the iconic one first released and then subsequently used on the cover of the bewk by kate.

The mccanns reported her having a coloboma  in her right eye which was indicated and shouted loudly about by the mccanns.
This later was minimized down to a fleck by kate.

What is needed to know is how obvious was this coloboma?

Was it noticeable to people at a reasonable distance it was it only visible really close up?

Have the photos released by the mccanns been manipulated/enhanced to show the coloboma, making it more obvious than it really was?
Were the public looking for a girl with a obvious large coloboma when they should have been looking for a girl with a small fleck in her eye?

Given that they released an old picture of her, a picture that she bore no resemblance to for the police and public to search for and  newer pictures were released at later dates, it is entirely possible that whatever was in her eye was enhanced, especially when down the line they used it in marketing and publicity with the infamous LQok logo.

The mccanns did and do nothing without a reason, be it to hinder or help any investigation or to raise funds.

Why was it marketed as an easy and obvious way to identify her and then subsequently minimized to a fleck and kate claiming they did really make much of it.

K. mccann: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it.

Also it is worth noting that kate tells us "If i'm honest" which tells me she hasn't been honest previously.

She also uses the word and tense HAVEN'T which is present tense.

They may no longer be putting much emphasis on it for whatever reason they decided on.

What she doesn't tell us is that they DIDN'T put too much emphasis on it, something we know they did, even to asking Google to put it in their logo online (which Google sensibly refused)

Ref. blue highlighting - exactly.   Logic tells us that it must have been large enough for strangers to notice - people by and large don't get up close enough to children they do not know to notice just a fleck in the eye, so why was it later changed to a fleck?

IIRC the police advice was not to mention the mark in the eye, so why did they?

The creche staff would easily be able to confirm whether it was a fleck or much larger.  I wonder if they will ever be asked?

I think a reconstruction with Tapas crew and all staff who knew Maddie would be of great value as there does not seem to be very much clarity about much at all imo.

Imo it was the substitute child who had the large, obvious Coloboma which of course the creche workers would have noticed.
If you look at a high res version of the tennis balls pic Madeleine had no such large eye defect, certainly not one that matched the defect on the bewk cover photo which btw was much more than any 'fleck'.
Clearly the coloboma is a major discrepancy, a discrepancy which could be explained by a substitute child passing as 'Madeleine' who had a large eye defect.
I'd be interested in seeing photos of a certain child without her dark sunglasses.

Well I suppose that is possible but then we come again to the fact that so many people would have to keep quiet about a substitute child having a coloboma.   The extended family of said child, teachers and school friends, neighbours.

If Maddie didn't have a coloboma why didn't extended family, teachers, friends, neighbours speak out?

We were just discussing this the other week--- teachers, neighbors etc. were gagged. Nobody ever heard a word from any of them.

I'm a believer of earlier in the week, Sunday night, monday night at the latest.  
I believe between then and Thursday night it still wasn't enough time to get every detail of the story right.  I think if they had a month they still hadn't enough time to get every detail down to a T.  Impossible.  But they did a good job of it at the time, in hindsight no, but at the time they fooled alot of people.  
In my own opionion if nothing happened til Thursday evening it would have been complete chaos at the time and they would have been arrested that night or the next morning. They didnt have many days to plot, but they made the best of it and so far got away with it..

I saw on twitter last week where the way back machine is being used as evidence in court.  
On my ipad so not sure how to copy and paste stuff, I'm probably not posting this in the correct place either so if anyone needs to move it please do.

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

Bear in mind, if an injunction has been put in place or, more likely a super injunction (remember the super inaudible) comment?) then no one could speak about what they know about the mccanns and chums, what they saw or heard about the mccanns.
This would also ensure the silence of the tapas 7 which is why they have remained unexpectedly silent, even when accusations have been laid against one or more of them.
It would explain the silence from co workers, nannies, creche workers, family, friends, neighbors, uni friends and even school friends.

There is an unexpected and prolonged silence.

Given what we know about the mccanns penchant for litigation, it is highly likely they got an injunction or super injunction (where they cannot even say there is an injunction in place).
This way the mccanns are the ones in charge and controlling the flow of information, especially to paint themselves in a good light and to portray themselves as victims of Dr. Amaral.

Those who know them would speak the truth about how much they were disliked, how they were narcissistic, greedy, drank too much and had a bit of a 'reputation'

Those who would speak out would reveal that which the mccanns wanted silenced, which could possibly implicate them in deeds of a nefarious nature.

Rather than risk someone slipping up and leaking a marble of truth which would paint them as imperfect parents, they simply silenced everyone.

All this has succeeded in doing is drawing attention to themselves, rather than neutral comments which would be expected and tolerated, they know have people wondering why there is silence, why no one is speaking about how they know them, where they met, what they are really like, how amazing they are.

People look for the expected and, when it is missing, start digging to see why it is missing.
All this does is cause the mccanns and chums to dig a deeper hole making the silence more sensitive and causing people to dig further.

Would they have the nerve, or the money to silence anyone who ignored an injunction?
Is there someone who decides that justice for Maddie is worth more to them  than a fine or a brief spell in jail?
if someone broke the injunction, what effect would it have on the mccanns when the truth is made known about them?
Would they still try and sue?
Would they do a runner?
Would kate press the button?

If one speaks out, the rest will surely follow, especially if no action is taken against the one to break the injunction.

It would be game over for the mccanns and by default the tapas 7, first past the post wins the deal.

Columbo wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Columbo wrote:

pennylane wrote:

HiDeHo wrote: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.

Which is also my view. There was certainly suspicious activity earlier in the week and things that are not easy to account for or reconcile. But, my overall view is that there was panic and confusion following an unexpected event after 6pm on 3 May 2007.

There was a lot more than 'suspicious activity'.  Denials, contradictions, text messages that were denied but of major importance to the police on WEDNESDAY...

MANY questions that show there was something that needed to be covered up...

I have yet to see any explanation for all of these discrepancies, except something may have happened to Maddie BEFORE Tuesday and they needed to cover it up...

I welcome anyone, that believes nothing happened to Maddie before 6pm, to explain even a few of these...

If something happened a lot earlier in the week that raises its own questions. Why weren't things better planned? Why was there "the biggest f***-up"? How do you avoid bringing in to whatever happened a whole load of other parties, including a 19yo creche worker, get them to follow a plan over several days and then keep them silent over the following nine years?

I accept there's a key weakness in my own favoured theory of a major event on 3 May, which is the very narrow window to plan and execute anything. I've also always been confused by the rapid start-up and instigation of the fund (q.v. another thread started by me back in January), almost suggesting pre-planning not only of the disappearance but of the 'after' too.

There are events earlier in the week that are particularly suspicious to me, like the last-minute flight from Exeter and the GM/RO phones going on and off at similar times.

That's the thing with this mystery. There isn't a single, clear and plausible theory. About the only timed moment everybody agrees on is KM's "they've taken her". Virtually every other moment either side of that seems open to some question. I really don't mind whose theory is proved right or wrong, just so long as there's justice for a missing girl who can't speak for herself.

What if it was the hotel owners who organised the massive cover up, they would have to coach staff on what to say and ship them off with some pocket money..  It was still impossible to be better planned with only a few days to do it, considering also that folk had to be seen out and about acting normal, not much time at all.  

What if big important people knew from the onset, that would explain the fund and way back machine report. It would explain that last minute flight. 

Maybe the hotel owners was running a yearly event in their hotel, a big secret event for like minded well to do people.  

We had anesthesiologists there, a film maker or camera man there, doctors etc.  Lots of three year old blonde girls.  

Kate said something like Portugal dont want a murder on their hands and people to know they have no paedophile laws but we only concentrate on the murder part.  Maybe we should consider the latter part of her sentence too.  

Its just one of many theories but if the hotel owners are rich powerful people with alot of influence then it could be them who did the planning.  Rushed planning with only 3 days or so to cover it all, impossible, but they did a good job of it. They are still free, the focus is on the McCanns and alwqys will be.  Power and money can force alot of people to shut up.  

if it is what i think it might be, then no one can talk about it ever.

Ps. The belief that only men are paedophiles is a myth

Maria wrote:I'm a believer of earlier in the week, Sunday night, monday night at the latest.  
I believe between then and Thursday night it still wasn't enough time to get every detail of the story right.  I think if they had a month they still hadn't enough time to get every detail down to a T.  Impossible.  But they did a good job of it at the time, in hindsight no, but at the time they fooled alot of people.  
In my own opionion if nothing happened til Thursday evening it would have been complete chaos at the time and they would have been arrested that night or the next morning. They didnt have many days to plot, but they made the best of it and so far got away with it..

I completely agree with this.

I see no indication any of this was premeditated so when the huge f*#! Up occurred there was panic and chaos. Some bad decisions were made in the heat if the moment but all in all it was good enough to hold the line until they were in a better position.

Hobs wrote:Bear in mind, if an injunction has been put in place or, more likely a super injunction (remember the super inaudible) comment?) then no one could speak about what they know about the mccanns and chums, what they saw or heard about the mccanns.
This would also ensure the silence of the tapas 7 which is why they have remained unexpectedly silent, even when accusations have been laid against one or more of them.
It would explain the silence from co workers, nannies, creche workers, family, friends, neighbors, uni friends and even school friends.

There is an unexpected and prolonged silence.

Given what we know about the mccanns penchant for litigation, it is highly likely they got an injunction or super injunction (where they cannot even say there is an injunction in place).
This way the mccanns are the ones in charge and controlling the flow of information, especially to paint themselves in a good light and to portray themselves as victims of Dr. Amaral.

Those who know them would speak the truth about how much they were disliked, how they were narcissistic, greedy, drank too much and had a bit of a 'reputation'

Those who would speak out would reveal that which the mccanns wanted silenced, which could possibly implicate them in deeds of a nefarious nature.

Rather than risk someone slipping up and leaking a marble of truth which would paint them as imperfect parents, they simply silenced everyone.

All this has succeeded in doing is drawing attention to themselves, rather than neutral comments which would be expected and tolerated, they know have people wondering why there is silence, why no one is speaking about how they know them, where they met, what they are really like, how amazing they are.

People look for the expected and, when it is missing, start digging to see why it is missing.
All this does is cause the mccanns and chums to dig a deeper hole making the silence more sensitive and causing people to dig further.

Would they have the nerve, or the money to silence anyone who ignored an injunction?
Is there someone who decides that justice for Maddie is worth more to them  than a fine or a brief spell in jail?
if someone broke the injunction, what effect would it have on the mccanns when the truth is made known about them?
Would they still try and sue?
Would they do a runner?
Would kate press the button?

If one speaks out, the rest will surely follow, especially if no action is taken against the one to break the injunction.

It would be game over for the mccanns and by default the tapas 7, first past the post wins the deal.

Yes, superinaudibles could well be in place.  They are costly to renew.   Is it possible that the deafening silence is because of the Ward of Court status IF that is still in place? 

How would that work with a replacement child though?

That would be a lot of people being told not to say anything because every day that child would be coming into contact with new people and will do so in future.  Tweeting and facebook amongst young people very popular so couldn't be sure something would not crop up there.

It certainly is a very complex and confusing case, but it is important I think for people to keep questioning and debating and it would be interesting to know just why the coloboma was reduced to a fleck.

I wonder if when she said it was reduced to a fleck, were the Met investigating at the time and possibly McCanns thought they would seek medical records.

 Please post on the Coloboma thread.

I don't quite know how to put this . BUT, so many lies and falseness from them all , it's no wonder we can't make head nor tail what is anything like thr true story.   If, as we all have felt that the child is no more, none of the rest of their stories mean much at all, just confirms what we mostly feel here, no one would have been looking for her, coloboma or not .  They have all been so clever or stupid, with the stories that have never added up, they must know it ?  Still not enough to take it into court, so it may never stop.  joyce1938

Hobs wrote:Bear in mind, if an injunction has been put in place or, more likely a super injunction (remember the super inaudible) comment?) then no one could speak about what they know about the mccanns and chums, what they saw or heard about the mccanns.
This would also ensure the silence of the tapas 7 which is why they have remained unexpectedly silent, even when accusations have been laid against one or more of them.
It would explain the silence from co workers, nannies, creche workers, family, friends, neighbors, uni friends and even school friends.

There is an unexpected and prolonged silence.

Those who know them would speak the truth about how much they were disliked, how they were narcissistic, greedy, drank too much and had a bit of a 'reputation'

Those who would speak out would reveal that which the mccanns wanted silenced, which could possibly implicate them in deeds of a nefarious nature.

Rather than risk someone slipping up and leaking a marble of truth which would paint them as imperfect parents, they simply silenced everyone.

People look for the expected and, when it is missing, start digging to see why it is missing.
All this does is cause the mccanns and chums to dig a deeper hole making the silence more sensitive and causing people to dig further.

You are right. It is unusual, especially after nine years. No matter how saintly we think we are, all of us probably have at least one acquaintance or so-called friend who would be ready to bad mouth us or sell us down the river for a few pieces of silver.

But, not the McCanns seemingly. How odd.