We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

by **HiDeHo** 04.07.17 12:59

One of the more controversial topics is whether something happened to Maddie earlier in the week. Whether she died or not, there appears to be SOMETHING that 'they' were trying to hide by Tuesday morning...

See SOME of the DISCREPANCY QUESTIONS HERE:
Title: DISCREPANCY LIST & ALL RESEARCH LINKS (from witness statements)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can anyone explain WHY they appeared to be hiding something from Tuesday morning onwards?

Had something happened PRIOR to Tuesday morning?

If so...WHAT?

I tried to prove myself wrong in thinking that it was because something had happened to Maddie by Tuesday morning so decided to try to find some confirmation of which day she was seen during the week. I looked at all the witness statements that claimed to have seen Maddie. It was not to confirm she WASN'T seen.... only to find some credible evidence/proof that she WAS seen.

I had NO IDEA what i would find....

My thoughts were that the last time a witness statement, that I considered as confirmation (specific) of having seen Maddie, then that would be prior to something happening.

I was shocked to find that there was only ONE witness statement that 'confirmed' in my opinion, Maddie to be seen and that was Fatima the cleaners daughter on Sunday lunchtime.

I checked her working hours to confirm the time.... I looked for details that were specific, and apart from her description of them all and seeing them come out of their apartment, she also describes them as going up the stairs with food and plates, which we are told is the lunchtime visit to the Paynes.

She could not have known about that visit unless she saw them.

That was the confirmation for me.

None of the other witness statements showed me any kind of confirmation that the child they saw was Maddie. It doesn't mean that they DIDN'T see her...only that I could not use any of them as confirmation she WAS seen.

Some were describing Maddie in a place and time that according to the timeline for the week, she was not there.

The cook describes her as being at the tapas creche... We know that she was at another creche so was not Maddie...

Millenuim cleaner says she saw the family as she was cleaning the reception...she started work at 9am and started cleaning at 9.30... Maddie and the twins were already signed in at the creche by that time...

Cecilia , public relations for Millenium claims they were at breakfast Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday, although we know the couple were there on Wednesday when it rained, we are told they were only there as a family on Sunday morning.

She describes a child that was very shy and clingy....(Jane Tanner admits her child is shy) so was she mistaken?

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

They needed to show their guest passes to get their food for the inclusive package but were they all recorded as they went in the restaurant or were their cards used (to record 'payment') when they had finished their meals and the card was just shown when entering?

If that is the case then they were seen as part of 'the group' and likely showed their card and went through.

There is no record of the breakfast receipts that would have needed their cards for non payment.

Cards were not issued to children so there would be no record of the children's names.

Were some of the witnesses mistaken about the child they saw? We know that Miguel Matias was insistent that he child he saw dancing with her daddy was Madeleine but CCTV confirms they weren't there so there was another T7 child that resembled Maddie....

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

For those that didn't know Maddie it would have been very easy to mistake her visually, but the personality they describe is very different to Maddie's personality and more like Jane Tanner's daughter....

Is it a coincidence that the OC staff ALL describe a child with a different personality to Maddie even though she had been there for the week and likely overcome any shyness?

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

I will attempt to show all the details of each witness in a dedicated graphic so everyone can decide for themselves whether the witnesses really did see Maddie or whether they were mistaken...

I was looking for some CONFIRMATION she was seen... so maybe they DID see Maddie but I cannot find any that CONFIRM it was Maddie except Fatima the cleaner's daughter...

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

REMAINDER OF WITNESS STATEMENT GRAPHICS TO COME....

Here are some of the summaries of the statements before graphics completed...

Catriona Baker
Cecilia Dias Firmino
Charlotte Pennington
Elisa Dias Romao
Emma Wilding
Georgina Jackson
Jeronimo Salcedes
Maria M A Jose

Other Witnesses

Bridget O'Donnell
Jeremy (Jes/Jez) Wilkins
Stephen Carpenter
Maria (Cleaner)
Daniel Stuk
Georgina(Tennis coach)

Police Files
Goncalo Amaral

Not in Files
Miguel Matias, manager of the beach-side Paraíso restaurant
Alice & ? - Took children sailing May 3rd

Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada

Profession: Cleaner

Saw Madeleine and family outside 5A heading for lunch at Paynes Sunday
CREDIBLE

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo
PR Millenium

Saw Madeleine at breakfast -

Mistaken identity?
Described a shy child - Madeleine did not go to breakfast at Millenium after Sunday

Catriona Baker -

last saw MBM before 6 pm on 3rd May, when collected by Kate -

Credibility?
Made very few comments about Madeleine until after McCanns invited her to Rothley in November 2007,
prior to the rogatory interviews

Maria M A Jose -

saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant. -

Mistaken Identity
(child she refers to went to creche next to tapas, maybe Payne's daughter?

Jeronimo Salcedes
- bartender,

saw MBM on the 3rd May near the restaurant. (note: question about this because
although it appears in the 'snippets' post in the staff thread in the Files section,
his actual statement says he couldn't recall having seen them) -

Cannot remember seeing her

Georgina Jackson -

gave MBM a tennis lesson with other children on Tue 1st May , 10-11am

Non Specific.
'she was among a group of children'

Emma Wilding -
saw Gerry book MBM in to creche on the 3rd May and also saw her in the afternoon -

Does not know Madeleine well - Mistaken
(thought Gerry picked her up from creche- was Kate)

Elisa Dias Romao -

saw MBM every lunchtime, worked Tue, Wed & Thurs

Non Specific

Charlotte Pennington -

told MBM stories and talked to her on 3rd May -

Questionable Credibity

Other Witnesses

Bridget O'Donnell
Did not claim to see Madeleine (all pink and pretty was Sharks mini tennis)

Jeremy (Jes/Jez) Wilkins
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

I**** was in the group for children between three and four years old, her crèche worker was Emma and it was only after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that I realised that she was in the same group as I****

SC: Hummm... I remember talking to Gerry, because I had to go and fetch I*** and they were playing in the small garden and he was (inaudible), I***** and I thought it was Maddie, I am not absolutely sure but, he seemed to me to be a decent type, a good father, affectionate with his children, very easy to talk to, very good with the children, with a comfortable manner even when talking to I**** about little things, completely dedicated to the children.
.

Mistaken

by Guest 04.07.17 15:32

Just to say thanks HiDeHo for all your hard work in putting this post together. It will take some time to read thoroughly and absorb, although I'm familiar with a lot, there's certainly some information here I didn't know or have forgotten. - I'm sure as always it will be well worth the effort yes

.

If nothing else, it will give readers who are so reticent to understand why the time of Madeleine's alleged disappearance is under such intense scrutiny and of course, why some consider it a distinct possibility that Madeleine met with her fate earlier that week.

Good work!

by **HiDeHo** 04.07.17 16:25

This is a very controversial topic so I would like to make it CLEAR!

Im not looking to prove she WASN'T seen... I am suggesting something may have happened to her earlier in the week and looking for confirmation that she WAS seen and I would be WRONG in suggesting something happened.

In 9 years I have never seen ANYTHING to discredit the possibility...in fact MOST information 'fits' with something happening earlier.

I am giving my best effort to give everyone the opportunity to see my research and to question it at any time.

If there is ANYTHING that confirms without (relative) doubt that she WAS seen then please show it! I will change my thoughts accordingly...

Why haven't we seen any of her creche activities.lovingly remembered?

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

Don't worry about the time Verdi...It's going to take some time for me to do the remaining graphics, but what is important to form an opinion is to READ the graphics. Any comments (about the witnesses) made without reading the graphics and understanding everything I have pointed out will be speculative as without fully understanding them it's very easy to make a blanket statement saying that the witnesses DID see Maddie...

Hence it's important for me to spend the time to explain the details that I discovered many years ago, led me to believe something happened earlier and to post accordingly over the past 7 years since researching this info.

I don't create a theory to make it fit... I take the info from the files, come to a conclusion and then try to prove it wrong...

So far...in this case..... I haven't.

by **Cammerigal** 04.07.17 22:42

Your theory is also supported by the lack of photographic evidence of Maddy at play on holiday during the week. Apart from the last photo (Sunday?), those pre printed search photos were not contemporaneous, but of a very young maddy. Which is of a' small blonde English girl' that would be agreed as seen by independent witness guests and OC staff.
All could be part of the staging of the alibi and sowing false leads and confusion

by Guest 04.07.17 23:57

HiDeHo wrote: but what is important to form an opinion is to READ the graphics.

My opinion is already formed, even though I might have overlooked one or three witness accounts. Not only the absence of a reliable independent witness who can say beyond a shadow of doubt that Madeleine was seen after lunchtime on Sunday 29th April but all the other compelling evidence that casts doubt on Madeleine being around and about during the week, prior to the shout of 'abduction' around 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May.

Whilst I appreciate the need to be thorough when presenting a case for consideration, in fairness to the majority of the witnesses interviewed (in particular the Ocean Club staff), I don't expect them to have much in the way of valuable information to assist the investigation. They were just doing their jobs, why should they be expected to identify a strangers child only seen in passing - if even that.

As I said, it might at least help critics to understand why some see a big question mark over the time of Madeleine's alleged disappearance. At least I hope so. In the past when I've tried to get people to identify tangible witness statements to verify a living Madeleine after the first day or say, I haven't yet had a named witness presented - replies like 'look at the files, there were a number of witnesses'.

Perhaps by reading your work these people might start to look at the evidence in a different light. I won't hold my breath in anticipation winkwink

.

by Phoebe 05.07.17 8:55

Basically, it boils down to the 3 nannies, Cat, Charlotte and Emma (the latter claims to have had Madeleine in her charge for half an hour one day while high tea was being organised). The other crucial witnesses are the sailing instructors who either did or did not take Madeleine sailing on Thurs. It is frustrating that there are no statements from them in the files - surely they were interviewed?

by Ruffian 05.07.17 11:02

The PJfiles that we see are incomplete, many files untranslated and witness statements that deemed not relevant not released

We can see flow charts in the files the investigation used in order to best understand the comings and goings to the creche so this aspect was investigated and not at any time questioned in the files. The case, when shelved, concluded Madeleine was last seen on the 3rd May

There were other families that made use of the creche, many other guests staying at the resort and none of those statements are seen in the files, one would presume/hope those people were spoken to

On the following days, over 700 persons that might possess any relevant
information about the disappearance were formally and informally
questioned, the PJ having used, for that task, over 100 employees from
several departments in Portimão, Faro and Lisbon, which worked on a
consecutive basis of 24 hours per day.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

GA maintains MM went missing on the 3rd, the files concludes the same so in order for this theory to fit one would need discredit the facts as presented

Time and Place – Between 21H05 and 22H00 of the day 3 May of 2007,
at the G5A apartment, located at the touristic resort ‘Ocean Club’, Vila da
Luz, Lagos.

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

Why would any items Madeleine made during her time at the creche be logged in the files. The investigation seem confident she did attend so proof of activity would not be required. IMO that is stretching things abit far.

As for the holiday photographs , we cannot know if that all the photo's the investigation collected were scanned into the PJFiles we see or just a sample collection

The resort was busy so to expect staff to single out one child amongst many would also, imo, be a stretch. Most young children are very confident in the company they know/ trust but can be quiet and shy with those they don't. Madeleine was shy of her 4th birthday so still very young, her behaviour reflected her age
Its also a stretch to expect another child to answer to Madeleine's name for almost a week. If a child was substituted then who was that child's substitute?

I do not know what happened to Madeleine but i do know that from the PJfiles we do see there is nothing that proves she died on that holiday.

by Phoebe 05.07.17 11:19

@ Ruffian "I do not know what happened to Madeleine but i do know that from the P.J. files we do see there is nothing that proves she died on that holiday." The cadaver dog alerts clearly indicate the presence of a corpse in 5A, the blood dog found blood matching Madeleine's in the exact same location, a child has never been seen again. It's not rocket science to draw a conclusion. True, no body has been found, but these are enough for me and there are several instances in which convictions have been brought in the absence of a body. On the point that the resort was busy, the creche was not. The ratio of nannies to children in the toddler age-group was extremely low.

by Ruffian 05.07.17 12:38

With respect my previous answer was in relation to a members comment.
Staying on topic, as requested

Your post has been moved here along with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you wish to further debate the subject

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

Mod.

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 13:15

PLEASE NOTE:

This thread is NOT claiming that Maddie died earlier in the week. (although the results could indicate the possibility)

I am searching for ANYTHING that could be considered evidence/proof/confirmation that Maddie was SEEN during the week.

The purpose is NOT to prove she wasn't seen!

I don't claim that she DIED earlier in the week. I don't know.

Forensics suggest, and the Tavares report suggests that she had died in the apartment by 10pm on May 3rd 2007.

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

What I am attempting to look for is SOMETHING to 'prove' that any claims of something happening earlier in the week are INCORRECT. So far I have found nothing!

Goncalo Amaral claims she was seen at 5.30pm on May 3rd BASED ON A WITNESS STATEMENT that was available to the investigation before October 2nd 2007.

He has described theories about what MAY have happened but there is nothing in the files to explain WHAT happened and WHEN.

One of his theories is that Maddie may have climbed on the back of the sofa, looking out the window at her dad and Jez Wilkins chatting on the pavement.

If that was the case, Gerry returned back to the Tapas by approx 9.20pm with no knowledge of anything happening.

What time was Maddie's body discovered and by whom?

Is it POSSIBLE for her body to be found AFTER 9.30pm and for everything to be in place after decisions made, her body removed and the plan for all the T7 to 'act' out the faked abduction, including Jane Tanner's 'abductor', timelines written and the GRIEF of her death that would be overwhelming?

Everything accomplished within half an hour or less?

ANOTHER theory that the investigation suggests is that she may have died after 5.30pm.

Daniel Stuk the tennis coach claims Gerry was playing tennis until about 7pm.

Would it be possible for Gerry to return to the apartment, something happen to Maddie resulting in death and for everything to be decided and dealt with before 8.30pm and for them both to leave for the Tapas at the normal time with NO SIGNS OF GRIEF?

If that was the case their daughter had just died! How could Kate go to the tapas, order her usual daiquiri and chat with her friends and order a meal as if nothing had happened and showing no signs of grief?

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

All of the above scenarios (and more) are reliant on a WITNESS (Catriona?) that claims she was seen at 5.30pm?

We have NO IDEA what happened with the investigation in the 9 months following...

There has been a suggestion that something may have changed....

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

HOWEVER.....

This thread is NOT intended to disregard the theories of the PJ files or Goncalo Amaral. It is looking for details to SUPPORT his theory by finding 'evidence' that Maddie WAS seen during the week....

I am ASKING for anyone to SHOW the 'proof' she was seen. Although this OP is still in progress as it takes a while to compile all the graphics for the statements, the files are available and I welcome anyone showing me a statement that is credible enough to 'prove' with little doubt, that any suggestions of something happening earlier are TOTALLY WRONG!

I have not claimed in this thread that Maddie died earlier in the week. I am not saying that Maddie couldn't have died on Thursday.

What I AM trying to establish is whether the possibility of something happening earlier cannot be true....

So far I do not see ANYTHING to discredit the possibility that something happened earlier.

ALSO... I claim 'something' happened earlier. We don't know if she became fatally ill and the reason that Kate and the family did not join in the activities (breakfast, lunch etc) with the others because she was looking after Maddie...

We also don't know if she was suffering tremendous grief during the week and couldn't be seen in public for any length of time .....

We know very little and I would like someone to show me a statement that proves Maddie was seen and the possibility of something happening earlier in the week is wrong!

by Ruffian 05.07.17 14:16

Ruffian wrote:With respect Verdi my previous answer was in relation to a members comment.
Staying on topic, as requested

On the point that the resort was busy, the creche was not. The ratio of nannies to children in the toddler age-group was extremely low.

If that is true then that would make the claim a substitute child was used harder to believe.

The theory would need to be explained further:
How would it be effectively achieved without raising suspicion
How would they explain to another child their sudden name change
Who would have been put in place of the child substitute

Lizzy can you explain this part of your theory

by Phoebe 05.07.17 14:20

Technically, I suppose the following is possible. Madeleine dies shortly after her parents leave for the Tapas at around 8.25pm. Let's say this is long enough for cadaver odour to develop. Gerry discovers her either before or after speaking to Jez and hides her nearby. He returns to the Tapas and pretends all is well. Kate goes to check at sometime before 10pm (based on those who claim an earlier alert) and finds her missing. Her initial response is genuine. During the search after the alarm is raised Gerry takes Madeleine from wherever he has hurriedly hidden her and rushes off to hide her somewhere better. Kate and the others believe she has either wandered off and come to harm or been abducted. They realize they will all be blamed for leaving the kids alone and come up with the "checking" fairy-tale and Tannerman. The police come and a search is unsuccessful. During the night Gerry tells Kate about finding Madeleine dead and points out that they could lose everything, including the twins, if the truth comes out. Kate becomes hysterical and has to be restrained (bruises on wrists) but eventually agrees to back the abduction story. That might account for her earlier behaviour and the odd sending for a priest in the middle of the night. Later that morning, they move her again. From once relatives/friends arrived the next day Kate is on medication which blunts normal emotional response. I'm not saying I think this is what happened but I suppose that, however unlikely, it is not impossible.

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 15:08

Ruffian wrote:
Ruffian wrote:With respect Verdi my previous answer was in relation to a members comment.
Staying on topic, as requested

On the point that the resort was busy, the creche was not. The ratio of nannies to children in the toddler age-group was extremely low.

If that is true then that would make the claim a substitute child was used harder to believe.

The theory would need to be explained further:
How would it be effectively achieved without raising suspicion
How would they explain to another child their sudden name change
Who would have been put in place of the child substitute

Lizzy can you explain this part of your theory

Thanks Ruffian. Yes... I do have my thoughts on how this COULD all be accomplished.

It doesn't rely on any conspiracy theory, only on the knowledge that the week was a normal week at the beginning of the season, where no-one was really making note of anything out of the ordinary...

Anything could have been accomplished, as the McCanns were just another family and not outstanding in any way.

It wasn't bustling with people making it difficult to remove her body unseen.

Creche records were not used in the same way as a school register would be used to keep a record of attendance, so much as having a record of where to find the parents in case of an emergency.

The children were coming and going at all times of the day...not always when they were in the creche building but when they were outside doing some of the activities.

They weren't required to be in the creche, so there would likely be nothing to alert the nannies if some of the children didn't attend. If one child attended the first day, but did not return the rest of the week, would it be easy for any of the nannies to identify her precisely, considering there were about 13 children sharing the same creche room and several other blonde girls of the same age?

Thats the basis on how it was possible for Maddie to have not been there during the week...

She would likely not have been missed...

How this was achieved with the creche records is a different scenario, and that too, can be explained as POSSIBLE...

Did the nannies scrutinise the creche register? Did they personally go to the door each time a parent arrived and welcome the children or did the parents access the register at the door and send their children into the room?

We know the discrepancies started to happen Tuesday morning...indicating the possibility of something having happened and attempts to hide the truth...

Curiously on Tuesday morning Gerry and Russell (and Jez) walked together to pick up their children.

Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign his daughter out...

In the afternoon Gerry signed Maddie in but Russell did not sign his daughter in...

At 5.30pm in the tapas Russell signed his daughter out but Gerry or Kate did not sign Maddie out...

ONE CHILD IN AND ONE CHILD OUT?

I'm not saying that DID happen, only the possibility that it COULD have happened...

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

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 15:37

Now I have explained what could POSSIBLY be an explanation of how it could have been achieved, I would like to return to the TOPIC...

Is there ANY 'EVIDENCE" that Maddie was seen during the week?

As I keep mentioning, this isn't an attempt to prove she WASN'T seen ... I'm not claiming that she WASN'T at the OC during the week.... I am only asking for some kind of proof that she WAS seen!

ie...PLEASE show me a statement or something that can be considered proof, as without that 'evidence', something happening earlier cannot be considered impossible.

by Rogue-a-Tory 05.07.17 16:04

Ruffian wrote:

I do not know what happened to Madeleine but i do know that from the PJfiles we do see there is nothing that proves she died on that holiday.

The interim report of the PJ September 2007 clearly stated Madeleine died in apartment 5a. Call me an old fool but I'm expecting that it had good evidence to make that conclusion.

by Rogue-a-Tory 05.07.17 16:10

HiDeHo wrote:

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

Some years before Madeleine disappeared we went on a pretty drab Med holiday with our daughter of a very similar age.

Since it rained most mornings that week so our daughter visited the crèche every day. Needless to say my wife’s case was choc-a-block with all manner of artwork that we still have many years later.

So I’d agree, the Mcs should have an art gallery full of things Madeleine created prior to 3 May 2007 that are absolutely treasured as the last things she created before disappearing.

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 17:04

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

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

Some years before Madeleine disappeared we went on a pretty drab Med holiday with our daughter of a very similar age.

Since it rained most mornings that week so our daughter visited the crèche every day. Needless to say my wife’s case was choc-a-block with all manner of artwork that we still have many years later.

So I’d agree, the Mcs should have an art gallery full of things Madeleine created prior to 3 May 2007 that are absolutely treasured as the last things she created before disappearing.

Exactly... The lack of any of her crafts being made public does not mean she didn't do them...

If they WERE available it would have been SOMETHING that I would consider an indication that she was seen during the week....

Why is there NOTHING (except a few photos that COULD have been taken on different days to those claimed...)

by Ruffian 05.07.17 17:13

test
Admin please delete this comment. I seem to be having problems posting so sent this just to test

by Ruffian 05.07.17 17:20

I fail to see how your comment explains how a substitute child was used
In you theory you claim Ella was used in Madeleine's place and yet they were both signed in the creche on the 3rd

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

The PJ investigated the comings and goings and established MM went missing that day I can only conclude that information as presented in the files is correct

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

by JRP 05.07.17 17:27

All kids do art, whether it was at a creche or at school.

Photographing their art would I guess depend on the era.
Film and printing snap shots was something people planned, you'd have 24 or 36 photos to take, so maybe you wouldn't waste a shot on the kids artworks as they'd be going home anyway.
2007 though, was in an era when digital cameras really took off, film was dying and people photographed things, friends, family a lot more because a digital snap shot now costs nothing.

But, there's non of her in the creche, or with the other kids, or in the apartment, never mind the pics of art, where's the pics of her?

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 18:54

Ruffian wrote:I fail to see how your comment explains how a substitute child was used
In you theory you claim Ella was used in Madeleine's place and yet they were both signed in the creche on the 3rd

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

The PJ investigated the comings and goings and established MM went missing that day I can only conclude that information as presented in the files is correct

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

QUESTION IS OFF TOPIC. This thread is trying to establish when she WAS seen...not to PRESUME she was.... but I will respond regardless...

I did not say Ella was used in Maddies place. I was saying that only one child was signed in and one child was signed out...

One child arrived and one child left three times that day....

One child may not have been accounted for....

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

Regarding Thursday....

Before presuming everything was as we are told, I would like to have some questions answered....

Some of them have been compiled into the following two videos....

McCann DISCREPANCIES Thursday May 3rd 7.30am - 9am

McMINUTE DISCREPANCIES: Who picked up Madeleine from the creche on Thursday?

QUESTIONS....

Why did they claim Madeleine said the TWINS were crying but was changed a week later that it was Maddie and Sean crying?

If Kate told Jane and Fiona on Thursday night at the tapas (even though she claimed she didnt think about it anymore after the morning) then why did they say it was Maddie and Sean? Why didn't they repeat what Kate had told the PJ the Friday morning that it was the TWINS crying? Did they repeat what they were told AFTER it had been changed and not on Thursday at the tapas?

Why can't Gerry and Kate remember (from the morning before), WHICH doors they used to leave the apartment?

Why do Gerry, Kate and Fiona ALL disagree about WHO picked Maddie up from the creche and why does Catriona claim she couldn't remember?

Why does Fiona claim the LAST TIME she saw Maddie was at mini tennis on Thursday. Maddies group played on TUESDAY and she describes Jane taking the tennis balls pic...... Why did she say she saw her on THURSDAY? Was she really there on Tuesday or did she see the other group playing on Thursday and decide to claim she saw Maddie to confirm she was alive on Thursday?

She claims she went to play tennis with Jane at the time the last picture was taken. Jane claims Maddie was shouting through the fence... Rachael didn't claim to have seen her (or THAT would have been the last time she saw her) so WHY didn't she see Maddie shouting through the fence? Why did only Jane see her there? Were they REALLY there?

If Rachael didn't see Maddie...does this mean that Maddie wasn't there at the time the last photo was taken??? It is suggested with great research that it was taken on SUNDAY... Does this help confirm the findings?

(and lots more)

There are FAR TOO MANY QUESTIONS about this topic for me to be able to answer right now, and is deserving of a dedicated thread...

I will open a new thread a little later and ask further comments on this thread to remain on topic with WHEN WAS MADDIE LAST SEEN?.. Thanks

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

by Phoebe 05.07.17 19:13

If Madeleine was in creche all week her "artwork" folder may not have been due to be collected until her last session there on Friday and the police may not have shown any interest in it, believing nothing was amiss in creche. If the creche did run as claimed, I think it would have been impossible for any substitute child to have been mistaken for Madeleine or for her absence to have gone unnoticed. On Thurs afternoon, for example, Madeleine was the sole girl in her group with only two other boys after Ella had been taken to the beach. This leaves no room for mistaken identity if she was, as claimed, being minded by Cat. Baker who (allegedly) had been her nanny all week.

by JRP 05.07.17 19:56

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She wasn't at school, she was on holiday. How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be. Going to the creche wasn't compulsory, so surely she would take home her art or whatever after every session, every day?

by Phoebe 05.07.17 20:39

JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She wasn't at school, she was on holiday. How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be. Going to the creche wasn't compulsory, so surely she would take home her art or whatever after every session, every day

I 'm basing this on my own experience. When my children attended holiday creches/play-groups they never brought anything home each day. Pictures etc. were displayed on the creche wall for the duration of their stay and if they wished, they could take them home in a folder on the last day. Three children bringing home pictures/models every day would soon clutter-up a holiday apartment. I don't understand the relevance of your point "How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be?" The nannies were each rostered to be in creche with their assigned, small groups for morning and afternoon sessions each day, irrespective of which children chose to avail of it. My point was Cat. Baker was the nanny assigned to Madeleine's little group for EACH session that week. I presume the first thing she did was ask the children in her group (usually only 4 or 5) their names. If she was, as claimed, minding just Madeleine and one other little boy on that Thurs afternoon she should be expected to know whether she saw her or not.

by **HiDeHo** 05.07.17 21:06

Phoebe wrote:If Madeleine was in creche all week her "artwork" folder may not have been due to be collected until her last session there on Friday and the police may not have shown any interest in it, believing nothing was amiss in creche. If the creche did run as claimed, I think it would have been impossible for any substitute child to have been mistaken for Madeleine or for her absence to have gone unnoticed. On Thurs afternoon, for example, Madeleine was the sole girl in her group with only two other boys after Ella had been taken to the beach. This leaves no room for mistaken identity if she was, as claimed, being minded by Cat. Baker who (allegedly) had been her nanny all week.

Emma Wilding was the other nanny in the same creche room as Maddie. She didn't remember seeing Maddie...

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

Witness statement of Elisa Angela Dias Romao 2007.05.09

Receptionist located at tapas entrance

'With respect to the group made up by the couple, the missing child and her two siblings, whom she later found out were twins, the deponent remembers having seen them at the "Garden Club", where the pool and the Tapas restaurant are located.'

(...)

'On this same day, [Thursday] at around 17h30 she remembers having left the reception area and going to get her salary, but she does not remember having seen Madeleine and her parents enter the Tapas restaurant. '

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

Three people one would expect to have seen Maddie that afternoon.... Catriona her nanny.... The other nanny that shared the same creche room and the receptionist who would see them coming in and going out through the reception at the entrance to the tapas....

None claim to have specifically seen her...

by JRP 05.07.17 21:59

Phoebe wrote:
JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She wasn't at school, she was on holiday. How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be. Going to the creche wasn't compulsory, so surely she would take home her art or whatever after every session, every day
I 'm basing this on my own experience. When my children attended holiday creches/play-groups they never brought anything home each day. Pictures etc. were displayed on the creche wall for the duration of their stay and if they wished, they could take them home in a folder on the last day. Three children bringing home pictures/models every day would soon clutter-up a holiday apartment. I don't understand the relevance of your point "How would the nannies know when Madeleine's next visit would be?" The nannies were each rostered to be in creche with their assigned, small groups for morning and afternoon sessions each day, irrespective of which children chose to avail of it. My point was Cat. Baker was the nanny assigned to Madeleine's little group for EACH session that week. I presume the first thing she did was ask the children in her group (usually only 4 or 5) their names. If she was, as claimed, minding just Madeleine and one other little boy on that Thurs afternoon she should be expected to know whether she saw her or not.

I would say that Cat Baker knew every child in her care that week, and who was there and who wasn't.

My point was, if Madeleine was at the Creche on Monday, how would Cat Baker know she (Madeleine) would be there on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday to pick her folder up?
She could have attended on Monday and never gone back, so I would have thought the kids would take the art after each session. But as you've got knowledge of such places, I'll take your word for how it works.

by polyenne 05.07.17 22:19

Does anyone think the Naylor issue is of interest ? It's one of those things that pops up then disappears again.

I'm still to be convinced that the real Madeleine ever went to the crèche. On that basis, I'd be advocating some pre-meditation but that is one huge leap......

by Phoebe 05.07.17 22:29

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Actually, Emma W. does claim to have seen Madeleine that Thurs. afternoon in creche but does not remember what time she arrived or if she went to high tea. Basically, that leaves Cat. Charlotte and Emma who all claim Madeleine was in creche on the Thurs. Could they all be genuinely mistaken? I doubt so. Could they be lying, I do believe so.

by Guest 06.07.17 15:54

So let's scrutinize Emma Wilding's witness statement in greater detail..

When questioned she states that she knows Madeline's (sic) parents because although Madeleine is not in her group, she frequently speaks to her parents, and finds their concerns and interests normal and typical of parents.

[What occasion did she have for frequently speaking to the McCann parents? One or the other of them allegedly dropped Madeleine off or collected her from the creche. Why would she be talking with the McCanns about Madeleine when Catriona Bakers was their daily supervisor?]

When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture. With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants' teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant. Most of the parents met their respective children here, and the children then remained in their parents' care.

[Is this claim based soley on the creche register? Again why would this witness be opining on a child who wasn't in her care group?]

When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much.

[At the start of the interview, highlighted above, she claims to have frequently spoken to the McCann parents - now she says she didn't talk to him much]

She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual.

[How convenient - now she didn't even notice the father let alone talk to him]

She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch.

[No mention of seeing Madeleine but recalls Madelew's father collecting her]

When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not, and does not remember having seen anybody specifically taking direct and close-up photographs of the children.

[No comment necessary]

She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

[Questionable to say the least]

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.

[Cannot confirm Madeleine going to the Tapas for high-tea, nor whether the parents joined her, as was customary ???]

During this period of time she did not notice anybody or anything out of the ordinary, as her attention was wholly focused on the children.

The End

Tenuous to say the least. Not wishing to change the subject but it's worth noting here that Robert Murat was the appointed interpreter for this witness testimony. waiting

by Guest 07.07.17 12:46

JRP wrote:I would say that Cat Baker knew every child in her care that week, and who was there and who wasn't

Of course should would know - there was only a handful of children in her care throughout the week. It's ridiculous to suggest she wouldn't know a particular child in her care.

That's what brings her vacillating testimony and the creche register into question.

ETA: It's worth noting here - Robert Murat was the allocated interpreter for Catriona Baker' witness statement dated 6th May 2007.

We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

Latest topics