Re: When was Madeleine gone? - NEW POLL...On 3rd May, or before 3rd May?

by Yorkshirgel 15.06.17 9:14

I agree. They are talking about a completely different child. Maybe because they had NEVER seen M at all?

I would like to know why G was not questioned about his statement on the bus. ie 'I am not here to f....ing enjoy myself you know'. If you cannot enjoy yourself on holiday why go? What was he there for then?

It seems nothing has been made of that statement. If anyone has seen anything of the police questioning him about it I would be interested in seeing it.

If he knew he was not going to enjoy himself he must have had a reason. Also it would suggest pre-planning before they even got to Praia da Luz.

by polyenne 15.06.17 9:35

Why the DP film clip on the bus was ever released is a mystery to me.

If you've had a bad journey or fallen out with the missus, I don't believe you'd make that statement. You might be disgruntled or tetchy but you wouldn't seemingly damn the whole holiday. A holiday that seemed to promise so much tennis, water sports and freedom from the kids during the day.

And if it was a meeting of minds and money, then presumably being a part of any "deal", he would have been optimistic and upbeat about the possibilities.

Instead you have someone who is "not going to enjoy himself". Why is that unless he knew something dreadful might happen ?

by JRP 15.06.17 9:49

Tuesday morning Ella is signed in by ROB, but, she is signed in as Emma. The name is crossed out, and replaced with Ella.
So why would a parent spell his own daughters name wrong?

The group only consists of 6 children, how would Nanny not notice, considering on other occasions she signed the sheets herself.

by Yorkshirgel 15.06.17 10:27

People who are not used to telling lies make mistakes.

polyene, more pre-planning? I had not noticed that.

If the nanny had not noticed then she should have noticed. I would not like to think my child was not secure and watched carefully.

by Yorkshirgel 15.06.17 10:41

Amazing how these Portugal police were said to be inefficient, and yet they came to the conclusion in six months that the whole thing was staged. The UK police are still shuffling their feet after spending millions trying to get to the truth all these years later. What is the use of showing a photograph of M when she was 3yrs old after all this time? She would now be a teenager and unrecognisable.

I do not think she was ever there after the first day. I think either something happened or she was whisked away to God knows where on the first flight out. The whole thing smacks of pre-planning to me. When he made his statement on the airport coach no-one on the bus questioned what he meant.... so therefore they knew about the plan. That is my opinion, make of it what you like. The McCanns themselves look fed up at having to repeat the story again and again. It is as if they are sick of hearing about it. Any loving parent would cling to any sighting and with fingers crossed. G smirks, K is dismissive, and annoyed at a policeman who drove too fast for her liking. Not normal imo.

Why didn't the UK police check Norfolk when someone reported a sighting there? There was a connection with Robert Murat. Also a big boat could easily have sailed from Portugal to Norfolk where there are dozens of inlets to the mainland. She could have been whisked away on a boat before the alarm was sounded. Who would have known?

by Guest 15.06.17 13:25

Yorkshirgel wrote: That is my opinion, make of it what you like.

Mmmmm.. of course you are entitled to an opinion but for the benefit of the reader and of course your own valuable time, it would be helpful if your opinion could be based on fact, evidence and/or critical thinking rather than pie in the sky thinking.

There was never a sighting in Norfolk as far as I'm aware. On return from holidaying on the Canary Islands, a gentleman contacted his local police, Norfolk Constabulary, to report a sighting of Madeleine near a restaurant in Corralejo, Fuerteventura. It's all in the files, if you care to look.

As for your circumnavigating the globe to transport Madeleine back to England, from whence she came but hours before - no comment!

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

Have you never been to the Norfolk Broads?

In my view too much credence has been placed on Gerry McCann's chance remark on the airport transit bus... 'F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself' - if indeed he did say that. I can't make out what he said but Gerry McCann being Jack the lad, if he did say those words, his comment could well have been off the cuff schoolboy humour. Do modern 'respectable' parents say things like f*** off in front of their small children? Besides, if there was anything sinister in the remark, why would the video clip have been made public?

by dartinghero 15.06.17 16:14

Verdi wrote:
**SNIP**

In my view too much credence has been placed on Gerry McCann's chance remark on the airport transit bus... 'F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself' - if indeed he did say that. I can't make out what he said but Gerry McCann being Jack the lad, if he did say those words, his comment could well have been off the cuff schoolboy humour. Do modern 'respectable' parents say things like f*** off in front of their small children? Besides, if there was anything sinister in the remark, why would the video clip have been made public?

I totally agree Verdi and I've said this elsewhere. IMO people are taking his comment far too literally and I think he's being funny... he's on holiday (supposed to be a fun time) but in actual fact international travel with 3 very small children and related luggage can be a stressful and difficult undertaking. I think it's a clear p-take when he is sitting looking harassed and is told to "smile/cheer up (haven't double checked exact wording at the mo) you're on holiday" and gives his grumpy response. He is being teased. This type of humour is not a million miles away from that of people I know.

by Guest 16.06.17 13:15

Yorkshirgel wrote:I thought any input, ideas, thoughts etc would be welcome. They are obviously not so I am going to leave this Forum and go to one that is less critical.

So sorry you've taken umbrage over a little levity [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but if you feel you'd be happier on another forum, that's of course your prerogative. This is not a gossip over the garden fence type venue where everyone amicably agrees with each other, worse still one that encourages misinformation. I like to believe we are all here for the same reason but even then difference of opinion is inevitable and quite often robustly contended - that doesn't equate to abuse [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Here on CMoMM, you have repeatedly posted incorrect information, I have responded with links to rectify your misunderstandings. Again I'm sorry, if this hurts your pride or somehow offends you but the purpose of CMoMM is to get to the truth - this is not helped by spreading false information or by creating forum myths. Your theorizing might appear inspirational to some readers but even you must admit, the ship in the night was a bit off the scale. How can you counter such a notion without a modicum of humour?

Whatever you decide, I wish you well.

NB: I see you're still online so before you go, can you explain this to me please? You said..

"I noticed you did not get a reply to your letter, you know the one I mean. I did warn you not to get your hopes up."

I haven't the vaguest idea what you're referring to.

by JRP 16.06.17 14:37

People are bound to have theories about the case, because that's just human nature, we paper over fact gaps, and sometimes others agree with us, but that agreement doesn't always mean we are right. Many people who form a group can still be wrong.
Also, some theories are best thought about for a little while, before going off and writing them down for the whole world to see.

If you have a theory, it has to stack up as in this instance. Why would a family go on holiday to Portugal for a week, with a pre-plan to put their eldest daughter on a boat back to England within a day or so, which is where they've just flown from?

Also, if this boat idea did happen, then who was the dead body which made the dogs alert in apartment 5a?

Maybe without Verdi, 7000+ people would write all day long, but in my own opinion, it would be a poorer place, and before anyone goes blah blah about that opinion, I've had run-ins with Verdi, and some disagreements with a robust Mr.Bennett over the year or so I've been here, but we're all still alive and well. Just take it on the chin and get over yourself.

by Liz Eagles 16.06.17 16:10

JRP wrote:People are bound to have theories about the case, because that's just human nature, we paper over fact gaps, and sometimes others agree with us, but that agreement doesn't always mean we are right. Many people who form a group can still be wrong.
Also, some theories are best thought about for a little while, before going off and writing them down for the whole world to see.

If you have a theory, it has to stack up as in this instance. Why would a family go on holiday to Portugal for a week, with a pre-plan to put their eldest daughter on a boat back to England within a day or so, which is where they've just flown from?

Also, if this boat idea did happen, then who was the dead body which made the dogs alert in apartment 5a?

Maybe without Verdi, 7000+ people would write all day long, but in my own opinion, it would be a poorer place, and before anyone goes blah blah about that opinion, I've had run-ins with Verdi, and some disagreements with a robust Mr.Bennett over the year or so I've been here, but we're all still alive and well. Just take it on the chin and get over yourself.

I for one am very glad Verdi is a moderator on the forum and he/she works very hard to maintain its integrity.

by Guest 16.06.17 16:47

HiDeHo wrote:
Also...

Take into consideration...

'Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her.'

Could the description be of Jane Tanner's daughter who WAS (supposedly) at breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and who was also very similar in appearance with similar colour hair and only 3 months difference in age?

I have taken it into consideration HiDeHo. At the risk of being repetative, my comments on another thread on the subject..

"Even the witness at the Millenium restaurant reception desk is unconvincing. Her purpose was to check between guests that had breakfast included in their package and those who had to pay for their meal - this would involve checking off names on a list. How could the McCann family be confused with another family also listed as entitled to breakfast? If Ms witness was doing her job, she would know there were two families listed i.e. McCann and O'Brien and know whether one or two were breakfasting on any one day. Not that the McCanns took advantage of the inclusive breakfast but that makes my point even more apparent. Why or how could she possibly think that the O'Brien child was the McCann child when checking off the name O'Brien on the list - what about the adult faction? Was O'Brien a McCann clone or was McCann an O'Brien clone?"

In short - although she claims to have known the McCann family, surely she would be aware that they had not breakfasted at the Millenium restaurant on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday. If the O'Briens turned up for breakfast, they would announce themselves as O'Brien NOT McCann and the witness would tick them off on her list as O'Brien. How could she possibly think the family was the McCann family? The McCanns ostensibly had three children - the O'Brien/Tanner only had two children.

If you get my drift.

by roz 16.06.17 16:54

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo- (Millenium receptionist) – She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her.

Russell O’Brien -My Ella you know would, would, wouldn’t say boo to a goose you know when even a relative comes to the house and she’ll kind of hold your leg for a little while and I think Madeleine’s maybe not as shy as Ella but from, from the brief meetings they had I don’t think she, she came across as a, as a reckless child who just sort of disappeared you know was always out the gate of the house or anything like that you know she was always in the house, she didn’t do anything daft.
He describes Madeleine as ‘happy, bubbly, err relatively headstrong…. a little girl full of, full of life, full of beans’…..,

It seems to me that Cecelia C could possibly be mistaking Ella for Madeleine.

by **HiDeHo** 16.06.17 18:38

The McCanns were at breakfast on Wednesday according to Dianne Webster but no indication if Maddie was with them

by roz 16.06.17 20:57

As far as I understand it, entry was gained to the restaurant by showing ‘a member card’.
I imagine that since it was the only restaurant that served breakfast, it would be quite busy in the mornings. (8am – 10am)

Pedro Alexandre Gonzaga Ribeiro 2007/05/06 Waiter and Bar Worker Millenium
For security reasons and given that the restaurant has a receptionist, the entrance of guests is registered, in order to frequent the adjacent areas cards must be shown, with the individual's name, apart number and arrival and departure dates. He states that according to what he has said regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of anything abnormal, he notes that guests in the resort possess a member card (one per adult).

by Guest 17.06.17 1:46

roz wrote:As far as I understand it, entry was gained to the restaurant by showing ‘a member card’.
I imagine that since it was the only restaurant that served breakfast, it would be quite busy in the mornings. (8am – 10am)

Pedro Alexandre Gonzaga Ribeiro 2007/05/06 Waiter and Bar Worker Millenium
For security reasons and given that the restaurant has a receptionist, the entrance of guests is registered, in order to frequent the adjacent areas cards must be shown, with the individual's name, apart number and arrival and departure dates. He states that according to what he has said regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of anything abnormal, he notes that guests in the resort possess a member card (one per adult).

I thank you for finally seeing the light by acknowledging the fact there is no way the Millenium restaurant PR receptionist could have mistaken the McCann family for the O'Brien ensemble.

thumbsup

by roz 17.06.17 6:15

On the contrary - I think it quite possible, given the serious situation, that Russell O’B used the Mc Canns guest /member card to enter the restaurant (with the shy 3 year old) for the buffet breakfast.
Cecilia at the reception then ticked the Mc Cann name off the list.

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo 6.5.07, Receptionist-Millenium OC
She works from 07.00 to 12.00 from Tuesdays to Saturdays. She says that she only attends to guests at breakfast time except on Wednesdays when there is Barbecue Night at the restaurant and when she welcomes guests for dinner, working from 18.00 to 22.00.
When asked, she says that due to her work she knows most of the guests given that most of them visit the Millenium as it is the only restaurant that serves breakfast.
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.

So it was actually only Tuesday and Thursday morning that Cecilia would have had contact with the ‘Mc Canns’.

We know that Gerry and Kate did not go to the Millenium for breakfast.

I will add, that in my opinion, this swapping of the member cards would have been done to create confusion if witness statements were to be taken later.

by JRP 17.06.17 12:33

roz wrote:On the contrary - I think it quite possible, given the serious situation, that Russell O’B used the Mc Canns guest /member card to enter the restaurant (with the shy 3 year old) for the buffet breakfast.
Cecilia at the reception then ticked the Mc Cann name off the list.

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo 6.5.07, Receptionist-Millenium OC
She works from 07.00 to 12.00 from Tuesdays to Saturdays. She says that she only attends to guests at breakfast time except on Wednesdays when there is Barbecue Night at the restaurant and when she welcomes guests for dinner, working from 18.00 to 22.00.
When asked, she says that due to her work she knows most of the guests given that most of them visit the Millenium as it is the only restaurant that serves breakfast.
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.

So it was actually only Tuesday and Thursday morning that Cecilia would have had contact with the ‘Mc Canns’.

We know that Gerry and Kate did not go to the Millenium for breakfast.

I will add, that in my opinion, this swapping of the member cards would have been done to create confusion if witness statements were to be taken later.

She works 7 - 12 from Tuesday to Saturday, she only attends to guests at breakfast time, except on Wednesdays when there is an evening BBQ when she works 18.00 - 22.00
So as I understand it, on Wednesdays she works 7 - 12 and comes back later to work 6 - 10

by Guest 17.06.17 12:53

HiDeHo wrote:The McCanns were at breakfast on Wednesday according to Dianne Webster but no indication if Maddie was with them

A very vague recollection if I might say..

Dianne Webster witness statement - 11th May 2007

- Prompted about the routine during the holiday period, she clarifies that she usually took breakfast in their apartment, since the Restaurant "MILLENNIUM" was quite removed from the building in which she was staying.
- Still, she explains, on May 2, the eve of disappearance of MADELEINE she had taken her breakfast in the restaurant "MILLENNIUM", since it was raining that day and she did not have an opportunity to partake of the morning sports.
----------

One year later she had this to say..

Dianne Webster rogatory interview - April 2008

4078 ”Tell me about the Wednesday then as far as you can remember from there.”

Reply ”Well that morning I did go to the Millennium with Dave and Fiona err for breakfast because there was no tennis and I think we, we sat there and I think, I seem to recollect seeing Kate and Gerry then who were sitting with us and I think they’d just finished their breakfast or something, again I’m not clear on that.”

by Guest 17.06.17 13:18

roz wrote:On the contrary - I think it quite possible, given the serious situation, that Russell O’B used the Mc Canns guest /member card to enter the restaurant (with the shy 3 year old) for the buffet breakfast.
Cecilia at the reception then ticked the Mc Cann name off the list.

I give up!

You see, this is how myths are created and why it's essential that unsubstantiated information be knocked on the head before it grows legs and wanders off into cyberspace for eternity.

This subject was kicked-off by some bright spark insisting that Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo is a reliable independent witness, who confirms having seen a living Madeleine on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - but she's not a reliable witness is she. Besides, why the subterfuge? The McCanns said they didn't breakfast at the Millenium, which is corroborated by other group members - why would they say they weren't there when they were? There's nothing to be gained. If they'd said they were there but in fact weren't, I could perhaps understand but there's no earthly reason why they would pretend not to be there when they were there. They took breakfast in their apartment - end of!

confused

The pivotal focus should be why the McCanns absented themselves from communal breakfasting and lunching every day after Sunday 29th April 2007.

So, back to square one - still no reliable independent eye witness that can confirm a living Madeleine after lunchtime on Sunday 29th May.

by roz 18.06.17 18:03

That is the point I was making Verdi. I think Cecilia do Carmo was mistaken, possibly deliberately misled, into thinking the Mc Canns were there, and that the shy 3 year old Ella was Madeleine. A lot of people would be walking through the Millennium reception area for breakfast, some with their children (and toddlers in tow); showing guest cards and Cecilia merely ticking their names off the list. (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday)

I totally agree with you; ‘so back to square one - still no reliable independent eye witness that can confirm a living Madeleine after lunchtime on Sunday 29th May’.

by Yorkshirgel 04.05.18 11:59

Shoot me down if you like, but I believe this was all pre-meditated. Hence the remark made by GM 'I am not here to enjoy myself'. What was he there for then? A family holiday and he says he was not going to enjoy himself. I do not believe 'MM' was there in the apartment, in fact the photo looks staged to me. Perhaps they lived in another apartment altogether? Also it beggars belief that GM would have had to come all the way back to UK to find some DNA belonging to MM. There would have been multi opportunities to get her DNA. ie sticker book, tennis racket, the pre-school group, her hairbrush, cuddle cat. Is it a stretch too far to say that, because of the secrecy surrounding this case, MM was an experiment in cloning related to the story in the news recently about populating Mars? I know how far fetched and weird that sounds, but as cloning is banned in this country it would have created an almighty problem for the government if it was revealed they had authorised work of this kind. There were so many scientists and doctors at this 3* resort, out of season, that this alone is something suspicious to wonder about. I do not think the photo of 'MM' playing in the park on day one is who we are told it is. I think this little girl was removed and went back to UK, leaving photostated photographs, well it is one possibility. OR that if it was a clone child and the dogs, which I believe, found evidence of a body, the clone child was removed from Portugal and they made sure she left no trace.

by Guest 04.05.18 13:07

How nice to see you posting again Yorkshirgel and still with your customary style of creative thinking. Although this current assessment of the case differs somewhat from your past musings, without a scrap of evidence to change your view I hasten to add. This is not blue sky thinking, it's pie in the sky thinking and really needs to be stamped out before it grows a pair of legs.

I strongly advise that you read the following which hopefully will dispel any further thoughts on the lines of your latest commentary.

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

Please note: The content of the above follows years of research and analysis of the case of missing Madeleine McCann by a dedicated team of volunteers. I don't ask that you agree on any point of finer detail but at least consider the content before pursuing groundless theories.

by Julie R 28.05.18 12:48

Yorkshirgel wrote:Shoot me down if you like, but I believe this was all pre-meditated. Hence the remark made by GM 'I am not here to enjoy myself'. What was he there for then? A family holiday and he says he was not going to enjoy himself.

Have you not heard people make tongue-in-cheek remarks like "I'm not here to enjoy myself" before? To me it's quite obviously Gerry's sense of humour, because he's known as the grumpy one who is a work-aholic (incidentally he was involved in several publications in 2007 which must have taken a lot of his time: research in cardio therapy not cloning.)

by inspectorgadget 29.05.18 0:29

Verdi wrote:How nice to see you posting again Yorkshirgel and still with your customary style of creative thinking. Although this current assessment of the case differs somewhat from your past musings, without a scrap of evidence to change your view I hasten to add. This is not blue sky thinking, it's pie in the sky thinking and really needs to be stamped out before it grows a pair of legs.

I strongly advise that you read the following which hopefully will dispel any further thoughts on the lines of your latest commentary.

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

Please note: The content of the above follows years of research and analysis of the case of missing Madeleine McCann by a dedicated team of volunteers. I don't ask that you agree on any point of finer detail but at least consider the content before pursuing groundless theories.

Why is "Verdi" allowed to continually abuse posters on this site ? This poster adds little to what is already known but is so quick to castigate posters for their own opinions. This is a genuine questions to the admins. This person does your website no credit.

by Guest 29.05.18 1:40

inspectorgadget wrote:Why is "Verdi" allowed to continually abuse posters on this site ? This poster adds little to what is already known but is so quick to castigate posters for their own opinions. This is a genuine questions to the admins. This person does your website no credit.

At the top of the forum homepage you will see a rolling banner .... we can only support consideration of the available evidence, and informed comment.

Not only to maintain the integrity of CMoMM but to also maintain the quality of work achieved since it's creation, it's of paramount importance to rid the forum of groundless theorizing - at the risk of repeating myself, again.

In essence, CMoMM is an investigative, research and information centre. The forum's legacy for now and the future is to maintain that integrity by maximizing on presentation of theory based on truth and fact - it really is that simple yet unachievable if allowed to deviate from it's purpose. That is what the admin team strive to maintain for now and the future.

It's with regret that you think my contribution to the forum is inadequate, however as member of the admin team I have a function to perform and perform it I will, offend or please. It's mighty grand to read your words that "most of this information is already known" but known to whom? If it be a few hundred or a few thousand, what's the harm in spreading the word to a few million - or more? The readership of this forum goes way way beyond it's membership, our target audience is endless.

If you have anything positive to contribute, I (and no doubt other members) will gladly discuss with you. Please don't feel abashed, your opinions are welcome as all others.

thumbsup

by Guest 10.04.19 18:30

The main and primary reason I believe something happened to Madeleine before the 3rd is because the McCanns (and some of the Tapas 7) went so very peculiarly (not to mention spectacularly incompetently) out of their way to reinforce the idea that she was alive and well on the 3rd.

Why would they have done that if she was alive and well on the 3rd?

They wouldn't is the only logical answer.

by Carmen_Rose 13.04.19 22:30

I think it was 3rd May, but earlier in the day. I don't think it would have been possible to keep Madeleine's body in the apartment from the day before or earlier, for obvious reasons. (The body would have begun to decompose, and smell).

I see a lot of people voted 'before 3rd,' and I therefore stand to be corrected!

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

ETA

The many people on CMOMM who believe that Madeleine died before Thursday 3 May, maybe well before then, do not believe that Madeleine's body was hidden until 3 May.

They believe it was hidden or disposed of as soon as practicable after she died, while an abduction hoax was beginning to be planned. Most of those (but not all) either believe that the Smith family saw a completely different man and child - nothing to do with the McCann family - or believe that the Smithman sighting was fabricated

- Moderator