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

by Maria 26.05.16 3:22

It might also have been Kate crying also, after her loss, I read somewhere she was actually in the apartment that night at the time of Fenns crying incident. Maybe she was saying goodbye, maybe the door closing was her or someone else removing Madeleine. omgomg

by MayMuse 26.05.16 5:16

Yes Kate crying or distressed like I said in my previous comment, I think that the phone pings put KM in the apartment at that time, so it's feasible.
Possibly the 'removal' then like you say, or the night before; others probably have researched more or had similar 'theories' and even if that's the case still doesn't answer why Madeleine had to disappear? Or the need for the political cover up?
I don't believe the bruises appeared after slamming the , was it the bed head? as she said in her book either.
Talking of which its peppered with some truths and lies so it is all jumbled. I'm surprised it was published as that too is full of holes. How on earth do they sleep at night, I wonder?
IMHO

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 5:19

Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

Can you state without reservations that Catriona Baker is an independent witness? Catriona Baker's witness statements are contradictory to say the least, more importantly her memory improves significantly between early May 2007 and almost a year later in April 2008, her rogatory interview. The McCanns made a specific request (as was their right) for Catriona Baker to re-interviewed as part of the rogatory process, as they thought her to be a key witness. That request was made (October 2007 if I remember rightly) prior to Catriona Baker's invitation by the McCanns private visit to their home in November 2007.

Perhaps you don't see anything curious here but you must understand why some deduce that something is not quite as it should be.

This brings me to your comment about Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. I'm at a loss to know where this information comes from. Catriona Baker's witness statement taken on 6th May 2007 makes no mention of this and her rogatory interview record states..

"Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis."

What was around 15h25/18h00 - Kate collecting Madeleine from the Tapas bar? When she was practicing athletics? When Gerry was playing tennis with an injured tendon? All three? Or is it just a creation - a time difference of two hours thirty five minutes?

During the Jeremy Paxman interview with Gerry McCann, McCann makes this comment..

"we had very clear objectives as to what we wanted - any parents would take the opportunity of trying to get information into the investigation"

? ? ?

@Realist wrote: The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Catriona EARLY Statement:

Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

'I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. '

ROGATORY statement Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. (Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME......may be translation)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. '

NO MENTION OF SEEING MADDIE!

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 5:32

While compiling this video something struck me about the Australian interview portion at 5.21 approx

Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)

If you go to the Australian Interview 'Did you kill your daughter'... what is SHOCKING is the slip of tongue about to say 'disposed' (of her body)

He is describing how impossible it would have been to hide her body WHILE THEY WERE AT DINNER..

He does NOT describe how they couldn't have 'dispo...hidden her body' at any OTHER time... so once again... He is not lying?

by skyrocket 26.05.16 7:59

@HiDeHo - yes, 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', you need all 3 parts to be ticked, as in a British court of law! I also think when GM is blatantly untruthful he fidgets, wriggles and often rubs his ear - as in the response to the sedation question.

I've still not worked out Justine's comments to GM when she was trying to calm him down (note KM's reaction also):

"What they want you to say is that it's speculation ...... so that you can then say 'keep to the official line'".

Who is 'they' - surely can't be the Spanish TV producers. Justine doesn't tell GM to keep to the official line, she clearly says 'so that you can then say - keep to the official line'. So have the media been pre-fed an official line to which they have agreed to keep?

Re: Cat Bakers visit to the Mc's in Nov 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were extended a home visit by the Leicester visit at the end of October - just for a chat and to gather 'background info' so not an official statement, but a report was made and published by the helpful Portuguese. Coincidently, just before the Rogatory requests were sent out.

by Doug D 26.05.16 9:10

HiDeHo:

‘Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)’

They also seem to do it by passing or letting the other partner answer an awkward question, who may be able to truthfully deny something.

by **Hobs** 26.05.16 12:58

HiDeHo wrote:While compiling this video something struck me about the Australian interview portion at 5.21 approx

Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)

If you go to the Australian Interview 'Did you kill your daughter'... what is SHOCKING is the slip of tongue about to say 'disposed' (of her body)

He is describing how impossible it would have been to hide her body WHILE THEY WERE AT DINNER..

He does NOT describe how they couldn't have 'dispo...hidden her body' at any OTHER time... so once again... He is not lying?

Deception is stressful and the brain doesn't like being stressed so it seeks to speak the truth to relieve the stress.
Outright deception is unusual, as in creating a new reality. Rather, deception by omission or minimizaton is more common.

This is why it is important to believe the subject is telling only the truth, thus anything unexpected stands out.
It is also important to see what is minimized and what is missing, pronouns can be a good indicator as to if the subject is taking ownership of their words.
Changes in tense can indicate story telling rather than factual experienced memory.

An example could be gerry saying he didn't get 16 messages, it was for example 14 but he isn't going to say that. He lets the listener assume that he got no messages.

It is also not only what is said, it is also what is left unsaid.
kate uses phrases such as you know, obviously, and the pronoun you.
These are words meant to convince and convey information that isn't actually said and also shows awareness of the interviewer.

Kate also uses the pronoun you rather than the expected I.

she doesn't tell us how she actually feels, it is how we(you) would feel.
It is distancing language and is unexpected in such a case where maternal instinct and bonding as a mother would be strong.
This begs the question as to why kate is so distant to Maddie and points to a possible motive.

When we listen to kate and gerry speak, they are leaking the truth as to what happened.
Sometimes it is subtle and other times it is blatant.

They do so without realizing.

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 13:24

Doug D wrote:HiDeHo:

‘Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)’

They also seem to do it by passing or letting the other partner answer an awkward question, who may be able to truthfully deny something.

I hadn't though to that possibility. Do you have any example?

Also the 'Absolutely no evidence...' as opposed to 'We did not.. ' etc

In that interview from the video he was caught unawares and has some very odd physical reaction which appeared outside the courthouse in Jan 2010

I originally had that in the video but I had to redo it and forgot to add...

See it here at about 4.12

FYI if there is anyone on here that use video editors... NEVER use the free version of Filmora

My Windows Movie Maker was not working and the new Windows 8 version is not good...

I found Filmora which was very close to WMM making it easier to create with similar actions and abilities.

It warned at the beginning that on playback the quality is not good and jumps etc but not to worry as when its downloaded the version will be fine... I never thought any more about it.. Just made it a little difficult to edit...

When I had it completed I wanted to save to my computer to upload to YouTube... One has to UPGRADE to save. There is NO WAY of converting the .wve file unless you pay for the full version.

After spending almost 30 hrs working on the video I couldnt save it.

I don't give in easy and decided to do a screenshot recording. That is my fall back method of recording if I cant download to save...

Thats when I realised that the jumps etc were there for a reason... to prevent anyone screenshotting the video!! That is disgusting. I found many people that had spent varying lengths of time editing a video and held hostage to pay for an upgrade if they wanted to publish. Who wants to pay to a company like that!

I found and downloaded Windows Movie Maker 6.1 and redid the video from the start... Hence I forgot some of the portions from the first....but at least the quality was a lot better :)

Sorry about the rant...but its justified big grin

Warning... NEVER USE FILMORA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for going off topic although anything that happened in the last days or so, were probably contrived to fit with the abduction scenario...

Here is a 'crying' video that may be helpful to the topic...

by Realist 26.05.16 13:25

Verdi wrote:

Can you state without reservations that Catriona Baker is an independent witness?
e
No, because I wasn't there, but in American legal terms, it is a violent presumption that she is in fact an independent witness. Both the Portuguese and British police are also of the same mind. This coupled with the fact that it would be beyond the bounds of credibility that the McCanns, or anyone who wasn't a Broadmoor candidate, would have confided in a straight, naive, 19 yr. old comparative stranger with no criminal experience that they had not only killed their daughter, but that they required her to state that she was in her company for the days preceding the 3rd. inst. May 2007.

Catriona Baker's witness statements are contradictory to say the least, more importantly her memory improves significantly between early May 2007 and almost a year later in April 2008, her rogatory interview. The McCanns made a specific request (as was their right) for Catriona Baker to re-interviewed as part of the rogatory process, as they thought her to be a key witness. That request was made (October 2007 if I remember rightly) prior to Catriona Baker's invitation by the McCanns private visit to their home in November 2007.

With ref. to this meeting almost a yr. later, far from being a covert meeting, it was a highly publicised affair, some might conclude a photo opportunity. I wouldn't have thought that a person wishing to persuade another to amend their police statements to their advantage would want the world's press looking in. Obviously, the McCanns were using Catriona Baker, after all their adverse publicity, it was in their interests to show the proletariat, hey, would Maddiy's former nanny be visiting us if she thought we had killed our daughter. In any event, she was already tied down to what she could relate to the British police due to her previous statements to the Portuguese police. For instance, had she told the aforementioned that she hadn't seen Maddie all week and now remembered being with throughout the week preceding her disappearance after visiting the McCanns, I could understand people's suspicions, but again this would be beyond the bounds of credibility.

Perhaps you don't see anything curious here but you must understand why some deduce that something is not quite as it should be.

This brings me to your comment about Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. I'm at a loss to know where this information comes from. Catriona Baker's witness statement taken on 6th May 2007 makes no mention of this and her rogatory interview record states..

I tend to remember reading somewhere that Catriona Baker was first interviewed by the Portuguese police on the morning of the 4th inst. May. I stand to be corrected here and will need review all of her statements before further commenting. Clearly, the police would have rapidly focused their attention on Catriona Baker, because she would have been the last person to have seen Maddie alive outside of the McCanns and their acquaintances. In any event, maybe not initially, but the Portuguese police eventually became convinced of the McCann's guilt and were firmly attempting to pin Maddy's disappearance on them. Even under these circumstances, they believed that Catriona Baker had witnessed Maddie alive at around the 6 pm mark and still are of this belief today. No disrespect to fellow contributors, but the only people who appear to be questioning her version of events are some on this forum and the problem being with this accusation is of course, this train of thought would not only implicate Catriona Baker in a conspiracy to commit murder, it would also have to include a large number of others.

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 13:33

Hobs wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:While compiling this video something struck me about the Australian interview portion at 5.21 approx

Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)

If you go to the Australian Interview 'Did you kill your daughter'... what is SHOCKING is the slip of tongue about to say 'disposed' (of her body)

He is describing how impossible it would have been to hide her body WHILE THEY WERE AT DINNER..

He does NOT describe how they couldn't have 'dispo...hidden her body' at any OTHER time... so once again... He is not lying?

Deception is stressful and the brain doesn't like being stressed so it seeks to speak the truth to relieve the stress.
Outright deception is unusual, as in creating a new reality. Rather, deception by omission or minimizaton is more common.

This is why it is important to believe the subject is telling only the truth, thus anything unexpected stands out.
It is also important to see what is minimized and what is missing, pronouns can be a good indicator as to if the subject is taking ownership of their words.
Changes in tense can indicate story telling rather than factual experienced memory.

An example could be gerry saying he didn't get 16 messages, it was for example 14 but he isn't going to say that. He lets the listener assume that he got no messages.

It is also not only what is said, it is also what is left unsaid.
kate uses phrases such as you know, obviously, and the pronoun you.
These are words meant to convince and convey information that isn't actually said and also shows awareness of the interviewer.

Kate also uses the pronoun you rather than the expected I.

she doesn't tell us how she actually feels, it is how we(you) would feel.
It is distancing language and is unexpected in such a case where maternal instinct and bonding as a mother would be strong.
This begs the question as to why kate is so distant to Maddie and points to a possible motive.

When we listen to kate and gerry speak, they are leaking the truth as to what happened.
Sometimes it is subtle and other times it is blatant.

They do so without realizing.

One think that was more than interesting to me... Chatting to a professional body language person, who had obviously not seen many of their videos... I showed a few to ask his opinion.

While he was watching and chatting he suddenly seemed to go into shock and 'OMG' comments... I wondered what on earth had happened... I had just hear about Cliff and thought it may have been that he was a fan or something....

No..... He heard the moment where Gerry said 'dispose....hid her body'

He didn't want to see any more didn't want any more to do with the case....He was in shock...

If THATS not 'telling' I don't know what is...

by MayMuse 26.05.16 13:46

Australian Interview 'Did you kill your daughter'... what is SHOCKING is the slip of tongue about to say 'disposed' (of her body)

He is describing how impossible it would have been to hide her body WHILE THEY WERE AT DINNER..

He does NOT describe how they couldn't have 'dispo...hidden her body' at any OTHER time... so once again... He is not lying?

@hideho
I must have watched that video at least 10 times to review what GM says (or doesn't ) the first time I heard it just gave me chills!
The slip of the tongue of the 'dispo... hidden her body' is more telling for me. The word "disposed" would come naturally for medical staff and it does as it is the first word his brain brings forward, he then quickly changes it to 'hidden'...The slip of the tongue may be because he is a Dr (like they have excused Kate's ~~running~~ calling for help as it is what is 'drummed' into them in medical training as seen in the interview with Sandra Portuguese presenter)

"Dispose" ... To throw away, get rid of or sell on to someone
"Hidden" ... To hide something, conceal, put in a secret place

So...
To dispose of something which is not wanted.
To hide something to retrieve later like a dog does with a bone.

I believe GM told (part) truth too, automatically as he knows Madeleine is 'gone' the word 'dispose' would come; yet he knows she was 'concealed' hence the word alteration to 'hidden' which is significant in my opinion.

The "at dinner" was his "timeline" for the 3rd to show that he possibly couldn't have done that action then? But what about another day & time?
Hope this makes sense as not as good as others here in explaining thoughts.

Thanks for all you do as your videos help to put the 'confusion' in order m1264

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 13:55

Realist wrote:
Verdi wrote:

Can you state without reservations that Catriona Baker is an independent witness?
e
No, because I wasn't there, but in American legal terms, it is a violent presumption that she is in fact an independent witness. Both the Portuguese and British police are also of the same mind. This coupled with the fact that it would be beyond the bounds of credibility that the McCanns, or anyone who wasn't a Broadmoor candidate, would have confided in a straight, naive, 19 yr. old comparative stranger with no criminal experience that they had not only killed their daughter, but that they required her to state that she was in her company for the days preceding the 3rd. inst. May 2007.

Catriona Baker's witness statements are contradictory to say the least, more importantly her memory improves significantly between early May 2007 and almost a year later in April 2008, her rogatory interview. The McCanns made a specific request (as was their right) for Catriona Baker to re-interviewed as part of the rogatory process, as they thought her to be a key witness. That request was made (October 2007 if I remember rightly) prior to Catriona Baker's invitation by the McCanns private visit to their home in November 2007.

With ref. to this meeting almost a yr. later, far from being a covert meeting, it was a highly publicised affair, some might conclude a photo opportunity. I wouldn't have thought that a person wishing to persuade another to amend their police statements to their advantage would want the world's press looking in. Obviously, the McCanns were using Catriona Baker, after all their adverse publicity, it was in their interests to show the proletariat, hey, would Maddiy's former nanny be visiting us if she thought we had killed our daughter. In any event, she was already tied down to what she could relate to the British police due to her previous statements to the Portuguese police. For instance, had she told the aforementioned that she hadn't seen Maddie all week and now remembered being with throughout the week preceding her disappearance after visiting the McCanns, I could understand people's suspicions, but again this would be beyond the bounds of credibility.

Perhaps you don't see anything curious here but you must understand why some deduce that something is not quite as it should be.

This brings me to your comment about Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. I'm at a loss to know where this information comes from. Catriona Baker's witness statement taken on 6th May 2007 makes no mention of this and her rogatory interview record states..

I tend to remember reading somewhere that Catriona Baker was first interviewed by the Portuguese police on the morning of the 4th inst. May. I stand to be corrected here and will need review all of her statements before further commenting. Clearly, the police would have rapidly focused their attention on Catriona Baker, because she would have been the last person to have seen Maddie alive outside of the McCanns and their acquaintances. In any event, maybe not initially, but the Portuguese police eventually became convinced of the McCann's guilt and were firmly attempting to pin Maddy's disappearance on them. Even under these circumstances, they believed that Catriona Baker had witnessed Maddie alive at around the 6 pm mark and still are of this belief today. No disrespect to fellow contributors, but the only people who appear to be questioning her version of events are some on this forum and the problem being with this accusation is of course, this train of thought would not only implicate Catriona Baker in a conspiracy to commit murder, it would also have to include a large number of others.

@Realist

We know very little about the investigation and certainly the comments by Goncalo Amaral did not include any of the knowledge from the Rogatory interviews, so I am comfortable having spent 4 years compiling and comparing the statements into 15 minute intervals throughout the week to see TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES that the police at that time would not have been able to (possibly) see or make comments on...

1) Major discrepancies (not related to memory failure) started happening by Tuesday morning... WHY? What were they trying to hide..

2) I have not found ONE credible and specific sighting of Maddie throughout the week since Fatima on Sunday lunchtime...

That is the basic groundwork odf the week according to their statements.

I do NOT say that Maddie died earlier in the week, only that something appears to have started happening on Tuesday morning that needed to be covered up....and curiously not aspecific sighting of Maddie since the discrepancies started happening...

Apply logic and you have a scenario that MAY suggest something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...

It also covers those that believe she died on Thursday...

I don't look for theories, I highlight the details from the statements... Something that was not possible for Goncalo Amaral to know about... The rogatories were not taken for another 6 months...

Why would you PRESUME Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. That hasn't happened as far as I can see!

What do you base your remark on? Police SAYING she was last seen at 6pm? Of course they have to publicly claim she was seen because thats what the statements say...

Doesnt mean they believed them

As I have mentioned before (unless you can provide me with anything confirmed that Catriona specifically and credibly mentions seeing Maddie at 6pm...

Also I have made it clear that I absolutely do not believe in any way that Catriona has lied or been drawn into some effort to deflect from the truth...

At least not KNOWINGLY...

by Realist 26.05.16 13:58

plebgate wrote:

Some people don't buy into the prior to 3rd May scenario, so maybe you could tell us what Mr. Payne might possibly have been engaged in around 7pm 3rd May Realist?

Indeed they don't, Plebgate, myself included. As previously stated, the only possible reason the McCanns could have had for inventing the Payne visit was to show that Maddie was still alive at 7 pm. and being as they had a witness stating she was alive at 6 pm, that would tend to intimate that she had disappeared between 6 pm and 7 pm.

In the vein that Monsieur le Bennett thinks I am a supreme fantasist to be of the opinion that the McCanns had killed their daughter, disposed of her body and concocted a kidnapping fable all within the space of around 3 hrs. heaven forbid what his opinion would be of a person who thought all these multi-tasks had been completed within the space of 1 hr.

Must not limit discussion to one scenario when there are posters here who agree with Rocky A's accident on 3rd May, so would be interesting to hear a theory from you instead of "pertinent" questions all the time.

I have already on a number of occasions stated my theory as to what transpired, I've also admitted that the aforementioned is fatally flawed due to the time span involved. In fact all of the pre 6 pm. 6 pm- 9 pm and 9 pm -10 pm theories are fatally flawed, so maybe there is another more viable alternative that isn't so flawed. If you can configure that one out, you're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

by Realist 26.05.16 14:18

HiDeHo wrote:

@Realist

We know very little about the investigation and certainly the comments by Goncalo Amaral did not include any of the knowledge from the Rogatory interviews, so I am comfortable having spent 4 years compiling and comparing the statements into 15 minute intervals throughout the week to see TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES that the police at that time would not have been able to (possibly) see or make comments on...

1) Major discrepancies (not related to memory failure) started happening by Tuesday morning... WHY? What were they trying to hide..

2) I have not found ONE credible and specific sighting of Maddie throughout the week since Fatima on Sunday lunchtime...

That is the basic groundwork odf the week according to their statements.

I do NOT say that Maddie died earlier in the week, only that something appears to have started happening on Tuesday morning that needed to be covered up....and curiously not aspecific sighting of Maddie since the discrepancies started happening...

Apply logic and you have a scenario that MAY suggest something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...

It also covers those that believe she died on Thursday...

I don't look for theories, I highlight the details from the statements... Something that was not possible for Goncalo Amaral to know about... The rogatories were not taken for another 6 months...

Why would you PRESUME Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. That hasn't happened as far as I can see!

What do you base your remark on? Police SAYING she was last seen at 6pm? Of course they have to publicly claim she was seen because thats what the statements say...

Doesnt mean they believed them

As I have mentioned before (unless you can provide me with anything confirmed that Catriona specifically and credibly mentions seeing Maddie at 6pm...

Also I have made it clear that I absolutely do not believe in any way that Catriona has lied or been drawn into some effort to deflect from the truth...

At least not KNOWINGLY...

These are all fair comments, Hideho and I have appreciated your video clippings which tend to indicate you have spent a considerable amount of your personal time in researching this case. I have some other matters to attend to this aft. but I will peruse all of Catriona's statements later and get back to you.

by Verdi 26.05.16 15:24

@HiDeHo wrote: More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Precisely my point.

by Verdi 26.05.16 15:31

BarryTheHatchet wrote:He also said he "wanted to create information". In other words, make stuff up.

Gerry McCann: We want to create information that will lead us to us helping find Madeleine..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_uruLYWB0

One of the few occasions when Gerry McCann gets a bit flustered by reporters.

by willowthewisp 26.05.16 15:34

Verdi wrote:@HiDeHo wrote: More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Precisely my point.

Hi Verdi,Realist is now changing his avatar to Houdini being put in a straight Jacket over Catrionas 3 May 2007 claim(non)what she had seen near the Tapas Bar(Pinnocio Bar)? banana

by Verdi 26.05.16 15:38

Totally irrelevant to the thread but I've just rediscovered this little gem that I thought had long since disappeared. I'm posting the link before it gets lost again..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP-hfN5APW4

Again the work of HiDeHo.

ETA: @ 2:45 minutes - but it's essential to watch the whole thing to get the gfeneral idea of the McCanns comportment prior to the grand finale.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 15:46

https://youtu.be/3k5Q7QZNfFA

The above is the one that gets me, see how ID is watching, watching... All eyes on GM!

by Verdi 26.05.16 15:46

willowthewisp wrote:
Verdi wrote:@HiDeHo wrote: More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Precisely my point.
Hi Verdi,Realist is now changing his avatar to Houdini being put in a straight Jacket over Catrionas 3 May 2007 claim(non)what she had seen near the Tapas Bar(Pinnocio Bar)?

Houdini? Sure it's not Houdunit?

Odd thing about these various stories about who was where when and why - never any authentic independant witnesses to back them up.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 15:49

This is another one which is highlighting missing children specific focus on Katrice Lee & Madeleine, spot the difference. Aired in 2009

https://youtu.be/66svGpHjTf4

by MayMuse 26.05.16 15:51

Verdi wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
Verdi wrote:@HiDeHo wrote: More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Precisely my point.
Hi Verdi,Realist is now changing his avatar to Houdini being put in a straight Jacket over Catrionas 3 May 2007 claim(non)what she had seen near the Tapas Bar(Pinnocio Bar)?
Houdini? Sure it's not Houdunit?

Odd thing about these various stories about who was where when and why - never any authentic independant witnesses to back them up.

Which must have been glaringly obvious to the PJ so why is OG seemingly turning a "blind eye"?

by Doug D 26.05.16 16:29

HiDeHo @ 1.24:

‘I hadn't though to that possibility. Do you have any example?’

I’ll have to start logging them when going through video interviews.

Just from your video above @ 5.22, to me the question seems to be asked of KM as the interviewer is looking left, but GM answers and @ 6.44 the question is asked of GM and KM answers.

Oprah @ 5.06, looking right to KM ‘Do you believe she is still alive?
GM responds ‘There is actually no reason to think she’s not alive…’ so he doesn’t answer the question and KM just looks down.

It may just be being supportive of each other when one of them doesn’t know what to say, but it would have been interesting to see them ‘live’ and watch their full body language and hand signals, without the different camera shots and angles you get from these TV interviews.

by **HiDeHo** 26.05.16 17:10

Verdi wrote:@HiDeHo wrote: More importantly... Can anyone point to the portion of Catriona's statement that say she SAW Madeleine at high tea?

Precisely my point.

So (unless someone can find a statement ) this shows EXACTLY how I took credible and specific sightings back to Sunday...

I will bet that MOST people think that it is CONFIRMED that Catriona saw her at high tea..

Catriona does not claim it and curiously only refers to Kate being there with the TWINS on her early statement!

That in itself should shock everyone.

by Realist 27.05.16 0:03

Realist wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

@Realist

We know very little about the investigation and certainly the comments by Goncalo Amaral did not include any of the knowledge from the Rogatory interviews, so I am comfortable having spent 4 years compiling and comparing the statements into 15 minute intervals throughout the week to see TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES that the police at that time would not have been able to (possibly) see or make comments on...

1) Major discrepancies (not related to memory failure) started happening by Tuesday morning... WHY? What were they trying to hide..

2) I have not found ONE credible and specific sighting of Maddie throughout the week since Fatima on Sunday lunchtime...

That is the basic groundwork odf the week according to their statements.

I do NOT say that Maddie died earlier in the week, only that something appears to have started happening on Tuesday morning that needed to be covered up....and curiously not aspecific sighting of Maddie since the discrepancies started happening...

Apply logic and you have a scenario that MAY suggest something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning...

It also covers those that believe she died on Thursday...

I don't look for theories, I highlight the details from the statements... Something that was not possible for Goncalo Amaral to know about... The rogatories were not taken for another 6 months...

Why would you PRESUME Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. That hasn't happened as far as I can see!

What do you base your remark on? Police SAYING she was last seen at 6pm? Of course they have to publicly claim she was seen because thats what the statements say...

Doesnt mean they believed them

As I have mentioned before (unless you can provide me with anything confirmed that Catriona specifically and credibly mentions seeing Maddie at 6pm...

Also I have made it clear that I absolutely do not believe in any way that Catriona has lied or been drawn into some effort to deflect from the truth...

At least not KNOWINGLY...

Firstly. I notice that in her deposition to the Leics. police taken on the 18th April 2008, Catriona stated that she made a statement to the Portuguese police on the Friday morn. following Maddiy's disappearance, which would have been the 4th May, but the actual date on this statement is the 6th May. I presume this discrepancy is due to the time it took to be translated and written up.

With regards to Catriona actually witnessing Maddie at around 6 pm, according to the evidence, you are absolutely correct and I was mistaken. Catriona only testifies to seeing her up until 2 45 pm. on the Thurs. aft. She can only presume that Kate McCann picked her up around that time, although the Creche records Kate as collecting her at around 5 30 pm(the copy on my computer relating to the actual time is undecipherable)This doesn't necessarily prove anything, because the records could have been altered, although it would have required the assistance of another person, or Catriona herself.

You are also correct with your assertion that the police can only go on the evidence, with the proviso, until it is disproved. Are you aware of the police having specifically disproved any of the evidence, apart from the fact that it is riddled with inconsistencies.

The part of your riposte that I don't understand is the penultimate para. where you state ''Also I have made it clear that I absolutely do not believe in any way that Catriona has lied or been drawn into some effort to deflect from the truth'' I'm sure you appreciate the difference between an inconsistency/ memory loss and a gargantuan pack of lies which constitute a conspiracy to commit murder. For instance, Catriona states in her deposition to the Portuguese police dated the 6th May 2007 that she was with Madeleine every day and I appreciate you only suggest something may have happened to her between Sunday through Tues. but if this were the case, I'm sure you'll agree that being with her every day wouldn't fall into the category of being an inconsistency/memory loss, it would in fact make her party to a conspiracy to commit murder.

Catriona also states that Maddie was in good health, content and happy when she last saw her, which also wouldn't be an inconsistency etc if in fact she had been suffering from some kind of obvious sickness/anxiety problem. Whichever way one cuts the cake, Catriona is either telling the truth which sinks the earlier disappearance of Maddie theory, or she's lying which opens up the possibility of her going missing prior to the 3rd. May 2007.

If the latter, one has to ask the question, would the McCanns have entrusted a naive 19/20 yr. old menial worker with the knowledge they had killed their daughter, disposed of her body and were going to pretend to the authorities that she had been kidnapped, not to mention of course, enlisting her help to accomplish the task.

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