Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

by **Tony Bennett** 05.08.16 22:21

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

In July 2008, the Portuguese police and its judiciary, in the person of the regional Attorney-General, issued reports in which they said there was insufficient evidence for charging any one individual or individuals with responsibility for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Two possible hypotheses were ‘archived’, or, as it were, left on the shelf, awaiting what they said would need to be ‘new and credible evidence’ sufficient to justify re-opening their investigation.

These were: (1) Madeleine had been abducted by a person or persons as yet unknown, or (2) Madeleine had died in the McCanns’ apartment and her body had been hidden.

The contrary view: she died in an accident after 5.30pm on 3 May

A different view from that of the Portuguese judicial authorities was set out by the investigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral, on 22 July 2008, in a book, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, and by one of his senior investigators, Detective Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, in an interim report dated 10 September 2007.

Tavares de Almeida’s view

This was how Tavares de Almeida expressed the investigation’s preliminary conclusion – I just reproduce his first six points:

“From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:

1 the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007

2 simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

3 in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted

4 Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann

5 at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications yet that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident

6 from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

Goncalo Amaral’s view

These are the relevant extracts from Goncalo Amaral’s book (AnnaEsse’s translation):

“MADELEINE'S HOLIDAY

“On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery.

“THE INTERROGATIONS

“We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.

“A DISAPPEARANCE, A WINDOW AND A BODY

"It is now important to present a summary of this case, based on our deductions: reject what is false, throw out what we can't show with sufficient certainty and validate that which can be proven.

“Point 5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
“The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
“1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
“3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
“4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident…”

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

I will refer to the theory that Madeleine died from an accident (or worse) after 5.30pm on 3 May as ‘The PJ Theory’.

If Madeleine died after 5.30pm on 3 May, what would the McCanns have had to do?

First of all, what is known for sure about the period between 5.30pm and 10.00pm?

Do we know for sure that Madeleine was with her family in her apartment at 5.30pm?

Well, that depends on whether or not you accept as gospel the claims of Gerry and Kate McCann, Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington that Madeleine was at a high tea in the Tapas restaurant from (according to Gerry McCann) 4.45pm onwards to somewhere between 5.30pm and 6.00pm.

But for the purposes of this article, I shall assume that she was.

Then we have the McCanns and their friends dining at the Tapas restaurant. There is agreement from the McCanns, their friends, other holidaymakers and Ocean Club staff that they were all settled at their table at around 8.30pm to 8.45pm.

So, if she had died, as suggested by both Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida, what would the McCanns have had to do between, say, 5.30pm and 10.00pm?

Or more pertinently, between when they arrived back at their apartment (5.30pm to 6.00pm) and sat down in the restaurant for dinner and drinks at 8.30pm to 8.45pm. A period of about three hours.

A preliminary point to raise is: were the twins present when, according to the PJ theory, Madeleine died? It seems unlikely. But according to the PJ theory, she must have been.

So I suggest that all these things must all happened during these three hours:

1 (If the twins were there) The McCanns would have had to make swift arrangements to move them out of the way whilst they decided what to do. That would take some time and probably they would have had to take them to one of their friends’ apartments.

2 They would first have to decide if Madeleine really was dead or could be revived or resuscitated. This may or may not have taken some time to decide.

3 There would then have to be a rapid decision-making process during which all the following decisions would have to be taken:

A Do we take her to hospital?

B If so, what are the risks?

C Can we pass this off as a genuine accident?

D Is there any other reason why we dare not risk going to hospital and possibly facing a post-mortem?

E Would we be investigated by the police?

Then (assuming that they then decided that they are not going to inform the authorities of Madeleine’s death) there are more decisions to be made about what to do with Madeleine’s body:

F Hide it straightaway?

G If so, where?

H Or ’phone a trusted friend first and ask for advice?

I Where can we get a car quickly so as to hide it?

J Have we got anything we can carry her body out in, without anybody thinking there might be a body in it?

K Can we get all this done before 8.30pm, when we’re supposed to meet our friends for dinner?

Maybe other related questions.

Then there’s another very tricky question to answer:

L Who do we tell about this?

M Just David and Fiona?

N Just Russell and Jane?

O All four of them?

P Matt and Rachael as well?

Q What can we say to the staff, to our other friends we’ve met on holiday?

R How are we going to explain this away?

They then will have to consider these questions:

S What is our excuse for not having Madeleine anymore?

T We could say that Madeleine must have wandered off somewhere

U We could say that we took her down to the beach and she got swept out to sea

V Maybe other ideas were discussed

W Or could we get away with faking an abduction

Let us presume at this point that they decided to tell all their friends: Dave, Fiona, Russell, Jane, Matt, Rachael (I assume at this point that those who say that Madeleine died after 5.30pm fully accept that the McCanns must have let all their Tapas 9 friends know what had happened to Madeleine - and that they all agreed on a plan - though I am aware that some still maintain that maybe, in this scenario, the McCanns didn’t say anything to any of their friends, none of whom therefore knew that Madeleine was dead).

In such a scenario, the McCanns would probably contact their friends on their mobiles. Or quickly nip round and knock on their doors.

Could they have discussed this desperate situation bilaterally? Surely not. They would have to have a meeting about it – at the very time they were all getting the children ready for bed and beginning to dress up for dinner.

In such a scenario, how likely is it that all six friends would have agreed within, say, 5-10 minutes that they would all play their roles in a fake abduction?

I suggest that it is unlikely in the extreme.

Even had they all rapidly agreed to go along with an abduction hoax later that evening at 10.00pm, there would be all manner of questions and suggestions.

We also need to bear in mind that on the basis of the PJ theory as it stands, this was a holiday to a place the McCanns had never been to before. They knew no-one in the area who could help them. They had no immediate access to a car, and so on. Madeleine had been happily playing with her brother and sister, her friends in the Lobsters club, and her Mum and Dad for six days.

So the McCanns and their friends would be rapidly tossing these sorts of ideas around:

X Where are going to hide the body?

Y What about down the beach?

Z In the sea, using a boat?

AA In a derelict house in Praia da Luz?

BB Get hold of a car and drive the body somewhere well away from Praia da Luz.

Then, again assuming that they had all agreed to a plan of action, there would be loads more questions about (a) the apartment and (b) how to execute the hoax.

CC The apartment. If there had been a bad accident, or something equally bad had happened, who would clean the room?

DD How would it be done?

EE Was there any blood to clear away?

Then there would be questions about how the abduction hoax was going to be performed.

FF Who will raise the alarm?

GG What shall we all do after we raise the alarm? – Do we go frantically pretending to look for her?

HH Or do we ring the police?

II Do we inform the Ocean Club?

JJ When shall we do all this?

KK Do we need someone to pretend to see an abductor?

LL Who will do it? Jane perhaps?

MM What time shall we get her to say she saw someone?

NN Where shall we positon the abductor?

OO What about a description? She needs to have a believable description to give to the police.

Then we come to them all sitting down for dinner at 8.30pm to 8.45pm. Do those who suggest Madeleine had died after 5.30pm believe that all nine of the Tapas 9 could have, with every appearance of calm, nonchalantly sat down for dinner that night as though nothing had happened? With the body already hidden by that time? – somewhere where no-one could find it? The room cleaned of any blood? The abduction hoax ready scripted and ready to carry out?

Could they chat away merrily to the Carpenter family and ther children, for example, knowing that their first-born daughter had suddenly died within the past three hours?

I suggest it is unlikely in the extreme.

Some suggest that maybe the body wasn’t hidden before 8.30pm, but lay there while they were eating, with someone - presumably Gerry McCann - carrying his dead daughter to a temporary or final resting place somewhere after that.

Some of course suggest that Gerry McCann went back to the apartment during the meal, picked up his dead daughter clad in her pyjamas, and carried for about half a mile or more through the streets of Praia da Luz, being seen at 10.00pm by the Smiths, who negligently failed to do anything about their extraordinary sighting for 13 days afterwards. We have discussed the likelihood of that scenario on CMOMM. The theory would require Gerry McCann to have made an extremely risky, not to say crass, decision to walk for some 15 or 20 minutes across the village at the very moment that his wife and/or others was raising the alarm.

So finally I ask: is the PJ theory that Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May credible?

I ask this not to undermine the work of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, who, after all, only had four months’ worth of evidence to consider before they wrote their interim report.

I ask this not to attack any of those, including some well-known names amongst established Madeleine McCann researchers, who defend this theory and have stuck by it.

I raise these questions only to tease out whether the PJ theory is a reasonable hypothesis that can be built on and developed…

…or whether it is now time to completely abandon it.

by Roxyroo 05.08.16 23:00

Great post, as ever Tony. A lot to think about!
I just get the impression the rest of the Tapas 9 lied to cover their own asses by saying they were doing all these checks, when they weren't at all. They realised they would have to lie and say they'd been checking otherwise would all look neglectful. I really can't see ALL of them being involved in the hoax abduction, surely this would play on at least one of their consciousness by now!
Its incredible that none, apart from Tanner, has done any interviews with media!
As ever I.m stumped!

All my own opinion, of course!

by **Tony Bennett** 05.08.16 23:21

Roxyroo wrote:I just get the impression the rest of the Tapas 9 lied to cover their own asses by saying they were doing all these checks, when they weren't at all... I really can't see ALL of them being involved in the hoax abduction...

Well:

Jane Tanner invented bundleman

She also said bundleman was Murat

Russell O'Brien obligingly wrote out two alleged timelines of events

Russell O'Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne all claimed they'd seen Murat near the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May - thus trying to incriminate him - but later withdrew their evidence

David Payne said he couldn't speak about the case because of a 'Pact of Silence' and told his rogatory interviewer that his interview was 'not the place' to discuss certain subjects

Matthew Oldfield was hardly convincing in his blundering attempt to suggest that at 9.30pm there was 'a bit more light' coming into the room and that he might have/might not have seen Madeleine - cunning! - craftily suggesting that an abductor might have taken Madeleine between 9.10pm and 9.30pm

But my point simply was IF, IF, IF, this was a carefully planned abduction hoax, how could it possibly have been conceived, concocted and executed within 2-3 hours of Madeleine being killed? - which is Dr Goncalo Amara's current theory?

by Verdi 05.08.16 23:51

Roxyroo wrote:Great post, as ever Tony. A lot to think about!
I just get the impression the rest of the Tapas 9 lied to cover their own asses by saying they were doing all these checks, when they weren't at all. They realised they would have to lie and say they'd been checking otherwise would all look neglectful. I really can't see ALL of them being involved in the hoax abduction, surely this would play on at least one of their consciousness by now!
Its incredible that none, apart from Tanner, has done any interviews with media!
As ever I.m stumped!

All my own opinion, of course!

I've said this time and again - there was absolutely no reason for the group of friends holidaying with the McCanns or the McCanns themselves to cover their tracks in order to avoid accusations of neglect. Ostensibly they were regularly checking on their children every night whilst out dining - there is no way this claim can be refuted by way of evidence. There is only their word as is the case with this entire sorry saga.

Furthermore, to ensure there were no neglect repercussions they could easily have come up with another story line, like one of them stayed at their apartment every night to look after the children - they all but did that by claiming that one of the adults or one of the children were unwell on different nights.

No neglect fears necessary.

You have to ask yourself why, if any one of the group weren't involved in some way, they went to such extremes to support Gery and Kate MCann, even as far as declining to assist the Portuguese investigation by participating in a reconstruction. Keep reverting to the same issue - this is about a missing three year old child, you don't put your own reputation and security at risk to support a couple of friends/acquaintances without good reason. When asked one of the group was reported to have said 'they had to run everything past Gerry before saying anything' - a claim that has morphed into a pact of silence. OK, so I don't believe much of what's reported by the press but the apparent cohesion between the group over the past 9+ years I think speaks for itself.

Why has David Payne and Gerry McCann remained publicly silent about the Gaspar statements and other documented information implicating David Payne in issues signalling child abuse?

They must all have been involved - there is no plausible argument to consider otherwise.

by DENNISSALLY 06.08.16 23:43

Congrats Tony a great thought provoking post. In my personal opinion I certainly do not believe all of the T7 were aware that the parents were involved in her disappearance. I do believe they were watching their own backs as when the abduction theory was forced they knew they could be in trouble for leaving their own children unattended. They were a all professional people who most certainly should have known better, they all could have been in serious trouble leaving their children unattended (apart from DP and FP who had child monitor's) I believe that's why the time lines of checking was so messed up and contradictory. They all had to agree to have been checking and thats why it was written down, why write it down if it were true you don't forget and have no need to write it down you tell the PJ and they write it down through translators.
Did Madeleine die on the 3rd of May? I don't believe so, I believe she died before that! GM and KM seemed to have distanced themselves from the group, not going to lunch with other group members and using different doors entering and leaving 5A. I don't believe it's plausible for KM and GM to keep their composure by dining out that night and the time lines to me makes it impossible to pull it off on the night of the 3rd of May.
Was David Payne involved? Yes he most certainly was and the reason I believe that is the Gaspars statements and his interaction with GM . I and millions of others would never allow a man to talk about my child in a clearly sexual way and if you do then clearly your comfortable to do that and that to me means TRUST! It was not just once he was heard speaking about a child and any father worth his salt would put an end to that kind of discussion about his own daughter ( punched in his dirty mouth if am honest ) There was trust there between GM and DP perhaps enough to ask him to say he saw Madeleine and the twins in late afternoon on the 3rd looking all angelic and white and happy! That to me screams of bullshit and rehearsed.

by DENNISSALLY 07.08.16 0:06

In my opinion not a hope in hell would all the members of the T group knowingly cover up the accidental death or other of a beautiful little girl they knew on a personal level. They believed themselves in the abduction and for that reason they covered their own backs and covered GM and KM's back in the checking.
As for Jane Tanner's sighting, God only knows, her discription morphed into so many different accounts I do ask myself was she fame hungry wanting to be so important in it all she got way over her head, if she gave a false statement to try and prove Madeleine was abducted then she was in on it up to her neck!

by Verdi 07.08.16 0:21

@DENNISSALLY

You don't think it possible that all the group were complicit in a staged cover up - you think it probable that most of the group of friends believed the abduction claim - you think that Madeleine most likely disappeared before the night of 3rd May 2007.

How exactly does that compute?

Have you considered the possibility that the checking system/neglect issue was designed to give a hypothetical abductor the opportunity to hypothetically abduct?

by DENNISSALLY 07.08.16 0:58

In my opinion absolutely not do I believe every member of that group covered up a accidental or other tragic event. If so and they did cover up the accidental or other tragic event then god help us the world is sicker than I think.
For what reason would they all cover it up? I have great life long friends and even family and never would I cover up knowingly cover up the death of a child or adult. If and thats if they did then why? I don't for a second believe it's connected to wife swapping or that all the group were in some way in some sort of child sex thing going on.
In my opinion and my personal views I don't for one second believe every member of that group knew Madeleine died in whatever circumstance and covered it up. It's not plausible to me that they were all told Madeleine had died and all decided to make a pact that they would say this or that, a pact yes to get stories straight to cover their own backs because they believed the abduction theory from KM and GM. Yes I believe DP had more input and more knowledge of what happened and again I say because there was trust between him and GM.

by DENNISSALLY 07.08.16 1:06

I don't believe Madeleine was abducted! If I did Verdi I wouldn't be here on this site.

by **sharonl** 07.08.16 9:12

If we consider the following:

The large number of contradictions in the statements of the McCanns and their friends (The friends wouldn't need to lie if they were completely innocent, therefore the McCanns would have to give truthful statement to correspond with those of the rest of the group and there would be fewer contradictions)

Jane Tanner & Russell O'Brien, together, created two different timelines of the events of that night.

Jane Tanner invented the only piece of evidence to support the abduction claim - Tannerman

According to a Daily Mail article, cadaver scent was found on Jane Tanners clothing

Both Jane Tanner and Robert Murats hair was found at the Sol e Mar apartment

Russel O'Brien was allegedly found to be at a dis-used Barn with Gerry, where Police found a blood stained towel with fibres matching some that were found in the McCanns Renault Scenic.

David Payne claimed to have seen Madeleine in the evening of May 3rd, on a visit to the McCanns apartment - its very unlikely that Madeleine was there, and also, due to major contradictions, that this visit actually took place.

David Payne said that this was their business and that they had pact of silence

Matthew contradicted himself on the checking of the McCann children

This is just for starters. And, if Madeleine had died on the Sunday, why did no one in the group tell the police that they hadn't seen Madeleine since then?

At the very least, David, Russel, Matthew and Jane must have been aware that there was no abduction. Their behaviour would have been much different if there had been.

I don't think that there is anything to suggest that Diane Webster was told the truth but I stand to be corrected.

According to a press report, the PJ suggested that the McCanns were swingers. The nannies, as we have seen were caught half stripped in a nightclub. It makes you wonder what kind of holiday this was.

by kaz 07.08.16 9:24

DENNISSALLY wrote:In my opinion absolutely not do I believe every member of that group covered up a accidental or other tragic event. If so and they did cover up the accidental or other tragic event then god help us the world is sicker than I think.

It's probably even SICKER than we relatively normal people are capable of believing and I am, unfortunately , rapidly coming to that conclusion. When I see photographs of the smiling , smirking McCanns taken mere days after their beautiful daughter's disappearance I am filled with horror and incomprehension. Are they HUMAN? And therein lies the problem. We judge them through the eyes of normality and I wonder sometimes if these errors of judgement are leading us astray with our theories. You and I couldn't doll up and dine out and hold 'normal' conversations with acquaintances hours after our child's demise but the McCanns? Remember Kate McCann the morning after the disappearance reading a statement on TV? Where were the red rimmed swollen eyes from crying, the bags from sleeplessness? Instead we had the vision of an immaculately made up, bejewelled Doctor Kate McCann.
I do find it difficult to believe though that the ..................I'll be kind here..................that the 'accident' happened on the 3rd but if this wasn't the case the whole sorry business descends into a pit of evil. The cover ups , the forgeries , all those people willing to perjure themselves. My mind doesn't want to be tainted and fights going down that road but for the sake of a little girl who went on holiday and never came back I know I must.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.16 9:35

DENNISSALLY wrote:In my opinion absolutely not do I believe every member of that group covered up [an] accidental or other tragic event. If so and they did cover up the accidental or other tragic event then God help us the world is sicker than I think. For what reason would they all cover it up?...In my opinion, and my personal views, I don't for one second believe every member of that group knew Madeleine died in whatever circumstance and covered it up. It's not plausible to me that they were all told Madeleine had died and all decided to make a pact that they would say this or that...

So do you believe that on the evening of 3 May when:

* one of the Tapas group ripped off the cover of Madeleine's Sainsbury's Activity Sticker Book, and

* Russell O'Brien began writing two timelines on that cover, featuring Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor at 9.15 to 9.20pm, and

* Jane Tanner maintained that she really had seen this abductor, whose description ('not a tourist' etc.) seems to have been based on fellow holidaymaker Wojchiech Krokowsk, and who later was certain it was Robert Murat, and later still said she was '60-80% sure' that an image of a man with a moustache and straggly hair was the very man she had seen back on 3 May...

...all genuinely, 100%, honest-to God, believed that Madeleine really had been abducted?

You do?

Serioulsy?

by sallypelt 07.08.16 10:19

DENNISSALLY wrote:In my opinion absolutely not do I believe every member of that group covered up a accidental or other tragic event. If so and they did cover up the accidental or other tragic event then god help us the world is sicker than I think.
For what reason would they all cover it up? I have great life long friends and even family and never would I cover up knowingly cover up the death of a child or adult. If and thats if they did then why? I don't for a second believe it's connected to wife swapping or that all the group were in some way in some sort of child sex thing going on.
In my opinion and my personal views I don't for one second believe every member of that group knew Madeleine died in whatever circumstance and covered it up. It's not plausible to me that they were all told Madeleine had died and all decided to make a pact that they would say this or that, a pact yes to get stories straight to cover their own backs because they believed the abduction theory from KM and GM. Yes I believe DP had more input and more knowledge of what happened and again I say because there was trust between him and GM.

How do you explain Matt Oldfield's disjointed account of his visit on the evening of the 3rd of May? Don't you find it strange that this was the ONLY time that another member of the group, other than the children's own parents, "checked" on the McCanns children, and ONLY on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

Here is a paragraph from another site. I will post it here, as it save me time typing it out, as it says everything I want to say about the visit:

Snipped

According to the McCanns, at 9.30pm Matthew Oldfield supposedly offers to check on Madeleine and the twins. However, there is something wrong about this account. Matthew Oldfield states that he did not see Madeleine. What good is a check to see if everything is alright which fails to check on Madeleine? He would be failing in his duty towards the McCanns if the scenario was genuine. Why didn’t he see Madeleine? Obviously, she wasn’t asleep in her bed. There are two factors here. One is that Matthew Oldfield was not prepared to state he saw Madeleine. It would mean he was the last person to see Madeleine alive, and make him a prime suspect when the police arrived, and mean he would be accused of perverting the course of justice if discovered to be lying. The second factor is that if he claimed he saw Madeleine, then it would cast doubt upon Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting of the abductor at 9.15pm.

End

Link to full article: https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/matthew-oldfield/

by kaz 07.08.16 10:47

It's also interesting that the original activity book timeline ( I say original because it appears to be the second timeline that formed the substance of the witness' statements ) Matt was conspicuously absent from the 9.30 - 9.55 time slot. The three additional entries concern Russell and Matt. To add them to the 'script' ( and I'm convinced it is a script) must have served an important function. I can't help but think Matthew's statement that he didn't actually see Madeleine was his bit of protection and it would probably be worthwhile checking up on his statements where he claimed to have seen Madeleine alive and well prior to the 3rd. Are any of these qualified to give him some sort of protection from being found out as a liar ? I can see my next hour is going to be busy!
The other addition to the later timeline makes sure that Russell has returned. Another important reason no doubt. Curious.

by sallypelt 07.08.16 10:51

kaz wrote:It's also interesting that the original activity book timeline ( I say original because it appears to be the second timeline that formed the substance of the witness' statements ) Matt was conspicuously absent from the 9.30 - 9.55 time slot. The three additional entries concern Russell and Matt. To add them to the 'script' ( and I'm convinced it is a script) must have served an important function. I can't help but think Matthew's statement that he didn't actually see Madeleine was his bit of protection and it would probably be worthwhile checking up on his statements where he claimed to have seen Madeleine alive and well prior to the 3rd. Are any of these qualified to give him some sort of protection from perjury? I can see my next hour is going to be busy!
The other addition to the later timeline makes sure that Russell has returned. Another important reason no doubt. Curious.

Personally, I don't believe that Matt Oldfield was ever in the McCanns apartment. Why say the curtains were "green" (if he did say this, as some are claiming) when they were blue. Wouldn't it have been more convincing if he said "I never took any notice of the colour of the curtains".

by Carrry On Doctor 07.08.16 10:56

Great Post Tony

Your comprehensive reasoning for ruling out the evening of the 3rd is complimented by the many pointers to MBM not being around after Sunday/Monday of that week.

That aside, I would like to vote in the poll but my answer would be;

4. He already has.

We look forward to GA's second book.

by sallypelt 07.08.16 11:01

Maybe it is worth posting Matt Oldfield's PJ statement, regarding what he SAID he did, on 3rd of May 2007:

Prompted to outline what had happened on 3 May, the deponent the following:
- he woke up about 06h30/07h00 going to take breakfast at Millennium at 08h00 with his wife and daughter. He does not recall who [else] was with them. He knows that GM, KM and their children did not breakfast there because they always did that in their apartment.
Regarding the other group members he cannot remember who was in the Millennium that morning. He is sure that he was not accompanied by the whole group given that they were not always accompanied by the same people during this meal - thinking that only DP or ROB would have been there with their respective children.
Adding that as each day passed there were fewer group members who went there for breakfast, opting to have it in their apartments, due to the distance of the restaurant from their residences.

After breakfast he walked to the beach, arriving about 09h30 to go sailing. He knows that on that morning DP and FP were also there, not recalling if he went there with either of those individuals or if they were already there when he arrived. He was sailing until about 11h00 due to which he was late for the tennis class he had booked for that time, together with his wife.

About 12h10 he went with his wife to pick up his daughter from kids club.

Subsequently the three of them went to the Payne apartment for lunch. He clarifies that he lunched there with the Paynes, their children and mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT. He does not recall if KM and GM were there. [a memory lapse? Surely, if you are lunching with someone, you would know who was there, it's not as if it was a big party]

                       Later, sometime between 13h30 and 14h00, he and his family went to their apartment to put their daughter down for a sleep, remaining there until about 14h15/14h30 - the time at which he decided to go to find ROB, he also having returned to his own flat, to call him for them both to go sailing.

After their sport (sometime between 15h30 and 15h45) they both went to the beach where they met up with the rest of the group, including children, staying there until about 17h00. He clarifies that GM, KM and their children were not at the beach.

Leaving the beach they went to the beach restaurant where they fed the children while the adults limited themselves to a few drinks.

About 18h00 he, ROB and DP went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00. He clarifies that when they arrived at that meeting GM was already there, with KM and her children watching the match, the rest of the women and children joining them [KM and children] later. [Didn't Kate say that after she picked up Madeleine from the crèche, Madeleine was pale and tired and therefore, stayed in the apartment. Wasn't this the evening that GM asked DP to go and see where Kate and the children were?]

At 19h00 he, ROB and DP had finished the match, having then gone to their respective apartments in which they found other members of the group.

The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where GM and KM were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, ROB arrived.

The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.

About 5/10 seconds after the checking he returned to the restaurant seeing that all other group members were already there. They proceeded to order dinner [immediately] after which GM went to his apartment to check his children.

Asked if, at that instant, JT also went to her flat, he says he does not recall, adding that they were gone at the same time as each other.

by Verdi 07.08.16 12:28

sharonl wrote:
I don't think that there is anything to suggest that Diane Webster was told the truth but I stand to be corrected.

According to a press report, the PJ suggested that the McCanns were swingers. The nannies, as we have seen were caught half stripped in a nightclub. It makes you wonder what kind of holiday this was.

I'm in two minds about Diane Webster. On the surface she appears to be the odd one out but I can never get my head around the fact that she willingly went along with the plan to leave all the children alone every night in their respective apartments. This is not normal grandmother behaviour. It's not as though she was part of the 'so into each other' gang - I'm frankly surprised she didn't volunteer to babysit every night.

Not that I believe the checking system story but failing that, the situation puts Diane Webster in a more precarious position.

Just for the record..

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 Zzocnanniesd

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 Zzocnanniesd

I do however feel that 'swingers' is not quite the word applicable to the McCann gang.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.08.16 12:35

Carrry On Doctor wrote: ...I would like to vote in the poll but my answer would be;

4. He already has.

@ Carrry On Doctor

I am perplexed.

The poll question is: "Should Goncalo Amaral now abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007?"

Could you please point me to any link at all where Amaral has gone on the record and explicitly abandoned the claim that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on 3 May 2007?

I'd be most grateful. I've never read anywhere that he has

by Verdi 07.08.16 12:49

sallypelt wrote:
Subsequently the three of them went to the Payne apartment for lunch. He clarifies that he lunched there with the Paynes, their children and mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT. He does not recall if KM and GM were there. [a memory lapse? Surely, if you are lunching with someone, you would know who was there, it's not as if it was a big party]

More especially a gregarious boisterous hulk + wife, with three very young excitable children running around. Who needs a colander to strain the cabbage when you've got the collective Tapas statements so full of holes.

Apart from a vague mention here and there with no back-up like tennis practice, the McCanns didn't appear to be interactive with the rest of the group after the initial arrival at the Ocean Club and possibly part of the next day.

by Liz Eagles 07.08.16 12:54

Verdi wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Subsequently the three of them went to the Payne apartment for lunch. He clarifies that he lunched there with the Paynes, their children and mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT. He does not recall if KM and GM were there. [a memory lapse? Surely, if you are lunching with someone, you would know who was there, it's not as if it was a big party]

More especially a gregarious boisterous hulk + wife, with three very young excitable children running around. Who needs a colander to strain the cabbage when you've got the collective Tapas statements so full of holes.

Apart from a vague mention here and there with no back-up like tennis practice, the McCanns didn't appear to me interactive with the rest of the group after the initial arrival at the Ocean Club and possibly the next day.

I love your analogy.

by Carrry On Doctor 07.08.16 13:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote: ...I would like to vote in the poll but my answer would be;

4. He already has.
@ Carrry On Doctor

I am perplexed.

The poll question is: "Should Goncalo Amaral now abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007?"

Could you please point me to any link at all where Amaral has gone on the record and explicitly abandoned the claim that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on 3 May 2007?

I'd be most grateful. I've never read anywhere that he has

Hi Tony

I agree that he has never publicly said this, but he perhaps he couldn't due to ongoing legals.

My point is that I think he privately thinks this, and hopefully his next book will reveal his current and updated thoughts. A lot has changed between him first penning his book and now.

Just my opinion.

by Liz Eagles 07.08.16 13:31

Goncalo Amaral can't be locked up for writing his book. As it is he stands to make a considerable amount of money from his book should the Lisbon fiasco ever end, and end in his favour. A second book in the offing (I stand to be corrected) may well be written but won't be published until there is a decision in Lisbon - until then it remains a bluff and something akin to a budgerigar puffing out its chest when under threat - I really await to be slaughtered for that remark.

The Portuguese legal system has allowed this fiasco and continues to drag out proceedings. Until there is a decision I don't expect to hear much from/about Goncalo Amaral, his new book or anything else.

Just my opinion.

by DENNISSALLY 07.08.16 13:37

I will say again! I do not believe every member of the T group willingly and knowingly covered up the either accidental death or murder of Madeleine Mccann. I have went over it in my mind time and time again and it does not make logical sense to me no matter what other peoples opinions are. Yes I have strong suspicions that DP was in some way involved to what extent am not entirely sure but am sure it's deeply involved. I don't for a second believe they were all child molesters or that evil of a group that they would play a part in the cover up if they knew for sure GM and KM were involved in accidental or murder of their own daughter. Yes JT lied through her teeth about tanner man, her statements to the PJ prove that, it was so riddled with holes if it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. All our members know all their statements were so filled with holes of course they were covering up something and thats were I have to ask what were they covering up? The death of a child or their own backs. I apologise if my views are not pointing to them all being knowingly involved. I do not believe Madeleine was abducted and I would probably swing more to accidental death however not on the 3rd of May. Yes Kate and Gerry know exactly what happened most definitely DP possibly Another member of the group but until am convinced otherwise I have to fall short of naming them all.
I have never heard or seen in the files that Jane Tanner had cadaver scent found on her clothing, if am wrong on that and she did have then I most certainly will review my own thinking again.

by willowthewisp 07.08.16 14:12

A lot of people are criticising the Portugal legal system on defamation claim by the Parents of Madeleine McCann, yet it is thought to be a "Coincidence" that Operation Grange has an an extremely closely timed association to the defamation case?
Especially so when the incredible "Funding" being extended to meet the apparent conclusions to be published from the Supreme Court of Justice,as to whether the case has been upheld in Mr Goncalo Amaral's favour,thought to be in October 2016 and the announcement of their investigation,Operation Grange funding ending when,on an ad hoc "Six Month Basis",just a coincidence?
Wake up people and smell the coffee bignono

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Should Goncalo Amaral now abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007?

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

You cannot be serious

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

When and where did Goncal Amaral abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died after 5.30pm on 3 May 2007?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Re; Madeleine McCann 3 May 2007?

Log in for more topics