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

by **HiDeHo** 07.07.17 14:44

Thanks to roz on Twitter thread for this comment from Russell O'Brien...

Further details that show a likelihood that Cecilia Public Relations in Millenium was describing Ella, Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien's daughter...

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

by Guest 07.07.17 23:25

I've seen it said that a Tapas restaurant cook was one independent witness who verified Madeleine's presence at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

Witness Statement
Maria Manuela Antonia Jose
Date: 06 - 05 - 2007
Place of Work: OC

She has worked at the OC, since 25 March 2006, in Luz, as a cook in one of the restaurants within the complex, called the Tapas Restaurant.

With relation to the facts being investigated, she confirms that on the 4 May 2007, at about 18h30, when arriving for work at the complex, she heard from her supervisor, Steve, that a female child who was staying with her parents and siblings at one of the OC apartments had gone missing on the previous day (3rd May 2007).

When she was informed about the disappearance she did not realise which child this was, it was only later, upon watching the television news that night and after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crÃ¨che, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

Upon questioning, the witness confirms that on the day of the disappearance, she worked at the restaurant from 10h00 to 18h45, when, having finished her shift, she went home, where she remained with her 13 year old son until approximately 10h00 the following day (4th May).

On 4th May 2007, due to the fact that she had a medical appointment at the Lagos Health Centre followed by an appointment at the Portimao Court at 15h00, she only began work at 18h30 (dinner service, which lasts until 24h00).

With relation to the facts being investigated, she only knows what she heard from the media or from conversations with her colleagues.

Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

She information that it of use to the investigation, and has nothing more to add, but repeats that the girl was with her parents on holiday at the resort, together with her two twin siblings.

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

I don't know what picture of Madeleine seen on the television this witness is referring to but clearly it wasn't an up to date photograph as these weren't publicized until long after the 3rd/4th May.

Another case of mistaken identity.

by **HiDeHo** 08.07.17 6:29

Thanks Verdi

I haven't yet had time to do the remaining graphics but one thing tells me that she was mistaken...

She claims Maddie spent her day in the creche next to the tapas...

We know that Maddies creche was over by the main reception... hence her statement shows she was likely mistaken as to which child she saw...and certainly is no PROOF that she saw Maddie...

'she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the creche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

by skyrocket 08.07.17 9:30

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the Channel 4 News was showing the Christmas red dress head and shoulders; the Interpol first release of pink top/white dots; AND Corner's video of Madeleine dressed up as snow white seated at a table (if he shot this video, my impression is Madeleine didn't particularly like him - in almost all the video I have seen of her, she smiled the instant the camera was pointed in her direction). Portuguese TV may well have been supplied with the same or may have picked up on Channel 4's coverage.

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

Re:Maria Manuela from the Tapas Restaurant, I find it hard to believe she would have been able to remember any specific child, current photos or not. We're back to the 10/11 little blonde girls - had there only been 2 or 3 there that week, possibly. The tapas tea (which I do believe was a daily event for children) laid on by Mark Warner as part of the half board deal was available to all children, irrespective of whether they attended the kids club. Children not in the club could be brought to the area next to the tapas restaurant at 4.45pm until 5.30pm for food. If they were signed into kids club they were supervised by the nannies until 5.30pm at which time supervision was passed over to parents. If they were not signed into kids club, parents had to supervise them throughout. This means that there would have probably been more children eating tea than attended kids club.

From the news reports and gossip, Maria Manuela knows that Madeleine should have been there; she knows that Madeleine was on holiday with her parents and twin siblings; she knows that Madeleine was in the kids club (although she is obviosly not sure which one); she knows that Madeleine and her siblings had tea at the Tapas; she knows that Madeleine is a 3 year old, blonde haired little girl. I think her testimony, although given with the best of intent, is unreliable.

Why is there no-one who says - 'Yes, I saw the family of 5 McCanns walking down the street on such a day at around about such a time?' What about the sunglasses seller? What about all the other guests?????? Surely some one plausible (not the nannies; not Cecilia) saw all of them together during the week apart from Fatima on Sunday. Madeleine alone would not have stood out; the McCanns as a family of 5 would - 3 cute young blonde children. Had I been there and seen the family once for a moment or to in passing on the street, I would remember it. Did they not go anywhere together that week??

by Kathian1997 08.07.17 11:31

My daughter has three sons. The eldest is two years older than the twins, so about the same ages as the McCanns children would be. I'm sure that they would be remembered wherever they went when they were 3 and 1 ish! Once seen never forgotten at that age I can assure you! So as skyrocket says you would remember a family of 5 should you see them walking around a smallish compound which wasn't that busy at the time. Which makes me wonder, did they go out all together at all during the week?

by Guest 08.07.17 12:50

HiDeHo wrote:Thanks Verdi

I haven't yet had time to do the remaining graphics but one thing tells me that she was mistaken...

She claims Maddie spent her day in the creche next to the tapas...

We know that Maddies creche was over by the main reception... hence her statement shows she was likely mistaken as to which child she saw...and certainly is no PROOF that she saw Maddie...

'she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the creche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.

She was/is a cook so I think one can safely conclude that for the most part she was cooking and/or preparing food, she wouldn't have been engaging with the children or their parents.

At best she might have seen all the little lovelies through a hatch or whatever but to be able to identify a single child, I think highly unlikely. Much like Bridget O'Donnell and all her little pink blond girls!

by **sandancer** 08.07.17 12:59

Kathian1997 wrote:My daughter has three sons. The eldest is two years older than the twins, so about the same ages as the McCanns children would be. I'm sure that they would be remembered wherever they went when they were 3 and 1 ish! Once seen never forgotten at that age I can assure you! So as skyrocket says you would remember a family of 5 should you see them walking around a smallish compound which wasn't that busy at the time. Which makes me wonder, did they go out all together at all during the week?

I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five "

We are told about Kate leaving/entering with the children by the patio doors , while Gerry uses the front door .

Dropping the children off , or picking them up from respective Crèche always one parent , no mention of the other children .

No body talks about seeing them all together on the failed visit to the beach , around the complex or reliably all together at " high tea " , eg other parents .

Breakfast and lunch taken separately , Did anyone see them together as a " family of five " ?

by Guest 08.07.17 13:21

sandancer wrote:I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five "

The subject's been extensively questioned in the past sandancer. Indeed, in my view, it's one of the chief reasons to believe that Madeleine came to harm much earlier in the week.

Don't forget the shortcut they claim to have used between apartment 5a and the childcare rooms !!! LOQKY LOQKY!

by **sandancer** 08.07.17 13:55

Verdi wrote:
sandancer wrote:I have to say this is something I hadn't thought about !

Apart from the cleaner , and the first breakfast visit to the Millennium NO mention of them being together as " a family of five "
The subject's been extensively questioned in the past sandancer. Indeed, in my view, it's one of the chief reasons to believe that Madeleine came to harm much earlier in the week.

Don't forget the shortcut they claim to have used between apartment 5a and the childcare rooms !!! LOQKY LOQKY!

I can't recall any of their Tapas friends mentioning seeing them all together either , in any of their extensive rambling incoherent , use 20 words when 2 or 3 would do not to mention err , erm , you know statements . Reading them always leaves me tearing my hair out though , so I might have missed something !

Imho , it's an important question to ask , when were they last all seen Together , in the belief mine included that something happened to Madeleine well before the alarm given on the 3rd .

Just to go " off topic " for a moment .I'm watching Wimbledon , no invitation to the Royal Box yet for the avid Tennis players Kate and Gerry , one would think Gerry would want to support a fellow Scot Andy Murray , maybe offer some advice !
Sorry folks , I'm getting prone to wandering thoughts I blame my advancing years . specs

by Guest 08.07.17 15:31

sandancer wrote:
Imho , it's an important question to ask , when were they last all seen Together , in the belief mine included that something happened to Madeleine well before the alarm given on the 3rd .

Indeed, it's of primary importance. Answer so far - the witness statement of the apartment 5 cleaner's daughter, saw the entire family at lunchtime on Sunday 29th April 2007..

Witness statement

Taken by officer Jose Luis, Inspector

Date : 2007: 05: 08

Name: Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada

Profession: Cleaner

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread.

As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate.

Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

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

Apart from that, I'm not aware of any other confirmation of a family of five being seen together. This thread of HiDeHo's is available for anyone who questions the compelling theory that Madeleine disappeared prior to Thursday 3rd May, to either provide evidence to the contrary or to present a reasonable argument as to why they are so vehemently opposed to the theory - no takers yet!

I can wait waiting

.

PS: Don't you have to pay big money to get through the Wimbledon gates?

by **HiDeHo** 08.07.17 15:45

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

by Phoebe 08.07.17 16:27

The reports of the last high tea Madeleine allegedly attended are quite contradictory. Some claim the children left to go to the Tapas bar at 4.30, others at 4.45. High tea is supposed to have ended at 5.30pm when the nannies relinquished care of their charges yet Charlotte P.(if memory serves correctly) claimed Thursdays high tea was such a crowded, jolly affair that it went on til 6pm. Both McCann parents, or only one were in attendance depending on whose story one believes. It clearly needed further probing. Having read Snr. Gomes' letter however, wherein he points out how unlikely it was that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body in the short time-frame of 9pm-10pm one wonders why the police did not atke the obvious step of looking at the possibility of a much earlier death. Political pressure perhaps? IMO this letter is almost accepting of the McCanns' claims and I can see where Mark Rowley got his excuse to exclude Gerry saying "he was where he was". The letter mentions the Smith sighting and states that it couldn't be Gerry as his friends place him at the Tapas restaurant at this time and the waiting staff (according to the letter) did not contradict this. It appears that just as the need to investigate events prior to the 3rd became glaringly apparent, the process was archived. Cost, man-power and the obvious protection the McCs enjoyed killed it off, (IMO of course.)

by **HiDeHo** 08.07.17 16:36

For various reasons, I don't think we can ever find out exactly what happened... All I am attempting to do in this thread is to establish...with reasonable evidence...that Maddie was SEEN during the week.

So far I cannot find another witness statements that isnt at least questionable and therefor cannot be considered as 'proof' that she was seen...

Fatima is the ONLY witness that, so far, appears credible and not mistaken...

Remember...I am not trying to establish that she WASN'T seen. I am trying to establish that she WAS seen.

The above graphic shows THREE people that were around at high tea and not one of them clams specifically that Madeleine was there!

by Phoebe 09.07.17 15:06

I find it hard to believe that Cecilia De Carmo could be mistaken. Either she is telling the truth about seeing them at breakfast and they are lying about breakfast arrangements or she is lying. It is acceptable that she could mistake Madeleine for another Ella or Lily if the group all arrived together but she claims to have seen the WHOLE McCann family at breakfast. As another poster has already pointed out a family of five, with three small blond children, two the same age, would be memorable. Who is she confusing Kate with? Even if the T9 all arrived for breakfast each day en masse (and we have no reason to believe they all marched in together as a group) Jane and Rachel are brunettes and Fiona bears no strong resemblance to Kate. Who is Gerry (to whom Madeleine seemed so attached) being mistaken for? David, Russell and Matthew look nothing like him. In her statement she says her job was to admit guests for breakfast and check that they were entitled to eat free as part of their holiday package. I imagine this meant some interaction with them. She mentions trying to interact with Madeleine and finding her too shy to respond. Were there any written records such as a list they were ticked off on? If she is lying, who told her to? It is unlikely to be the McCanns as she belies their claims re breakfast.

by **HiDeHo** 09.07.17 16:55

Phoebe wrote:I find it hard to believe that Cecilia De Carmo could be mistaken. Either she is telling the truth about seeing them at breakfast and they are lying about breakfast arrangements or she is lying. It is acceptable that she could mistake Madeleine for another Ella or Lily if the group all arrived together but she claims to have seen the WHOLE McCann family at breakfast. As another poster has already pointed out a family of five, with three small blond children, two the same age, would be memorable. Who is she confusing Kate with? Even if the T9 all arrived for breakfast each day en masse (and we have no reason to believe they all marched in together as a group) Jane and Rachel are brunettes and Fiona bears no strong resemblance to Kate. Who is Gerry (to whom Madeleine seemed so attached) being mistaken for? David, Russell and Matthew look nothing like him. In her statement she says her job was to admit guests for breakfast and check that they were entitled to eat free as part of their holiday package. I imagine this meant some interaction with them. She mentions trying to interact with Madeleine and finding her too shy to respond. Were there any written records such as a list they were ticked off on? If she is lying, who told her to? It is unlikely to be the McCanns as she belies their claims re breakfast.

The reason for this thread is not to prove Madeleine WASN'T seen....

Maybe Cecilia WASNT mistaken and she did indeed see the family.

I am trying to establish the LAST TIME we have some kind of EVIDENCE/CONFIRMATION/PROOF that she WAS seen/

There are so many questions regarding Cecilias statement about seeing Maddie that it CANNOT be used as any kind of proof... even if she DID see Maddie.

There is a BIG difference in showing 'proof' that she was seen as opposed to trying to prove/show that the witnesses were not mistaken.

I have NEVER claimed the witnesses are lying and if anyone suggests that then they have not understood what I am asking.

If a witness statement does not give reasonable proof that they specifically saw Maddie with no (or little) doubt then their statement cannot be considered as 'evidence' Maddie was seen.

I have searched and been on the lookout for ANYTHING since 2010 when I first compiled this research. NOTHING!

However, I am always open to SOME kind of proof and I will change my thoughts accordingly.

ie. If Fatima's statement fitted with the McCanns claim of going to lunch on another day and it fitted with her work schedule etc then I would ABSOLUTELY change the 'last sighting' to whichever day that would have been.

I am NOT trying to make things 'fit'and I cannot change my thoughts because I cant change the files.

Only something I have missed would allow me to change my thoughts.

I have only offered details that could explain why Cecilia may have been mistaken. The FACT is that her statement is not proof...

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

by Phoebe 09.07.17 17:12

Two other Milleneium workers also claim to have seen the McCanns with Madeleine at breakfast,- Ana Marilia Do Carma Silva and John Young, the latter a British waiter. Again, I can understand these mistaking Madeleine for another child but not her parents for anyone else. The parents were constant features on T.V. and in newspapers immediately after the 3rd so they had clear images to compare with their memories. If these claims were made to a newspaper I could believe they were all looking for their 15 mins of fame but they were made to police in formal questioning. Why lie, if they did? Surely it would be easier to say I don't recall or I can't be sure rather than assuring them they had seen the family? It can't be fame hunting, the files were under judicial secrecy. I understand that what they claim cannot be proven. In the same way, I can claim I saw my neighbour this morning and waved to him. If he were to go missing today, no one witnessed our greeting, it is not on CCTV and there are no photos. The police would have to decide if I was a credible witness or not. In the absence of tangible evidence the police must rely on eye-witness testimony which they deem credible. Equally, there is no actual proof that the McCanns did breakfast at their apartment, that relies on the testimony of themselves and their friends.

by **HiDeHo** 09.07.17 17:29

Phoebe wrote:Two other Milleneium workers also claim to have seen the McCanns with Madeleine at breakfast,- Ana Marilia Do Carma Silva and John Young, the latter a British waiter. Again, I can understand these mistaking Madeleine for another child but not her parents for anyone else. The parents were constant features on T.V. and in newspapers immediately after the 3rd so they had clear images to compare with their memories. If these claims were made to a newspaper I could believe they were all looking for their 15 mins of fame but they were made to police in formal questioning. Why lie, if they did? Surely it would be easier to say I don't recall or I can't be sure rather than assuring them they had seen the family? It can't be fame hunting, the files were under judicial secrecy. I understand that what they claim cannot be proven. In the same way, I can claim I saw my neighbour this morning and waved to him. If he were to go missing today, no one witnessed our greeting, it is not on CCTV and there are no photos. The police would have to decide if I was a credible witness or not. In the absence of tangible evidence the police must rely on eye-witness testimony which they deem credible. Equally, there is no actual proof that the McCanns did breakfast at their apartment, that relies on the testimony of themselves and their friends.

As per my post above... you could be right. They MAY have seen Maddie but we can't say for sure that the actually DID see Maddie.

Miguel Matias was CONVINCED (even after the fact) that he saw the parents and Maddie at the Paraiso.

We know for a FACT that he didnt.

He was MISTAKEN!

If he had given an official statement and we didn't have the CCTV footage that shows they were not there then his statement COULD have been considered a sighting, but he gave no specific indication that the child he saw was Madeleine so it could not be considered as proof, and as it happens of course it wasn't Maddie.

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

by Phoebe 09.07.17 19:06

@ HiDeHo - Please don't think I'm picking holes, just trying to answer the question posed logically. I imagine the Millenium workers and nannies would be regarded by the P.J. as being more reliable since Miguel Matias only claimed to have seen them once during an hour at the Paraiso and had no reason to ask their names or know who they were. He also gave/sold this claim to the press rather than being interviewed by the police during a formal statement-taking. I suspect he might have been one of those 15 mins of fame seekers. Apart from the shuttle-bus video there are only two solid proofs that Madeleine was actually on that holiday - the playground picture and "last photo". Even the tennis balls photo does not prove Madeleine was in the O.C. as it could be any tennis-court. Other than these there is no hard proof of her being on that holiday other than eye-witness sightings and creche records. It boils down to whether these can be accepted or whether they are mistakes or deliberate untruths.

by **HiDeHo** 10.07.17 2:04

Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo - Please don't think I'm picking holes, just trying to answer the question posed logically. I imagine the Millenium workers and nannies would be regarded by the P.J. as being more reliable since Miguel Matias only claimed to have seen them once during an hour at the Paraiso and had no reason to ask their names or know who they were. He also gave/sold this claim to the press rather than being interviewed by the police during a formal statement-taking. I suspect he might have been one of those 15 mins of fame seekers. Apart from the shuttle-bus video there are only two solid proofs that Madeleine was actually on that holiday - the playground picture and "last photo". Even the tennis balls photo does not prove Madeleine was in the O.C. as it could be any tennis-court. Other than these there is no hard proof of her being on that holiday other than eye-witness sightings and creche records. It boils down to whether these can be accepted or whether they are mistakes or deliberate untruths.

Thanks Phoebe and OF COURSE I don't think you are picking holes lol

I welcome all information on the case and you reminded me about Miguel Matias taking his story to the media.

He was possibly of the belief it was Maddie as he gave the CCTV footage to the PJ but in the big picture he is just one of the many claims of people to have seen Maddie that does not offer it as 'proof' of seeing her. In his case, though, we know he was mistaken or wrong or trying to get his claim to fame.

by Phoebe 10.07.17 11:24

@ HiDeHo

I think thread has been very useful in getting me (for one) to look closely yet again at that week. There is no hard proof that Madeleine was alive and well, just testimony of those who claim to have seen her. But I did see some things in the process to which I had previously not paid attention. For example, Grace Oldfield was most reluctant to attend creche - so much so that her father dodged the task of dropping her off there whenever he could. It makes me wonder how well Madeleine reacted to it, especially given that she was signed out after 15 mins on the Monday afternoon. I believe the creche set-up was a shambles, something Mark Warner was keen to keep quiet, hence the swift moving of the nannies out of the P.J.'s further reach. It reminded me of what had gone on when I was a student and working in a similarish set-up. Thinking back to those experiences I can well believe that the three nannies who claim to have seen Madeleine on that Thurs were not telling it as it was. I also found that Chris Unsworth was interviewed but that is not included in the files DVD. Ditto for Nathan Scarll who was already known to most of the group before the went to the O.C. In contrast to Kate's claim that they wouldn't have minded if Madeleine had opted out of going to creche (as they loved her company) Matt describes activities without his child needing minding as "What you could get away with". Whether Madeleine was seen or not something was wrong from the early days of the holiday IMO. There has to be a reason for so much amnesia re. the simple daily events.

by roz 10.07.17 13:06

We also have the statement from 12 year old Tasmin S;

Tasmin M Sillence - 9th of May 2007, (snipped)
On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony.

When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

It seems that it was early Monday morning (30^th) that Tasmin says she saw Madeleine on the balcony of the Mc Cann apartment - 5A.
We have no description of what Madeleine was wearing, but Tasmin’s statement does give a detailed description of the man she saw there, so much so that a photo-fit was created and an identification of the man was later made.
Madeleine was signed in to the crèche that morning at 9.30 by Gerry.

That was also the day that Madeleine was signed out of the afternoon crèche after only 15 minutes (3.15pm – 3.30pm).

by JRP 10.07.17 22:42

Tasmin doesn't say it was Monday, she says she saw Madeleine on the balcony the man was looking at on Monday.
I took it to mean she saw the man on Monday staring at the balcony. On another day, which day she cannot remember, she saw Madeleine on the balcony.

"When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

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

by Guest 10.07.17 23:54

JRP wrote:Tasmin doesn't say it was Monday, she says she saw Madeleine on the balcony the man was looking at on Monday.
I took it to mean she saw the man on Monday staring at the balcony. On another day, which day she cannot remember, she saw Madeleine on the balcony.

"When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

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

Precisely! Nor can it be assumed that the small child she claims to have seen on the balcony was Madeleine. She couldn't have had a clear sighting, apart from distance, the view would have been obscured by the railing - looking up from below so to speak.

Inconclusive yes

!

by Phoebe 11.07.17 11:34

In answer to HiDeHo's question on this thread I've been wondering about the contradictions in the "breakfast story". Only one version can be the truth and I've come to the conclusion that both the O.C. and the McCs had reason to dissemble. The O.C. and M.W. may well have been concerned about negative publicity over the quality of their arrangements for guests. The T9, despite having very young children, were accommodated well away from the main restaurant, having paid half-board fees. Getting to breakfast and dinner meant quite a walk along unsuitable narrow pavements. Nor did O.C/M.W ever claim that ample buggies were provided or offered (I don't believe the buggy beach-trip ever happened) Even if it had, one reviewer described the place as a nightmare for buggies or wheel-chairs. The O.C. had reason to play this down in the interests of future bookings. Therefore, having seen the McCanns once at breakfast they may well have decided to disavow all knowledge that the McCs had later decided to go to the extra expense and hassle of preparing and clearing up after breakfast for five due to being unfavourably located, thereby missing out on what they had paid for.
The same applies to dining. The T9 were located quite far from the night-creche. Availing of it would invariably have meant that one of the 3 McCann children would have to have been awakened to walk back to the apartments unless 2 trips were made or one of the Oldfields was pressed into service. If it is the O.C./M.W staff who are being economical with the truth then it may be policy to play down these unattractive aspects of their facilities.
On the other hand, the McCs may be denying that they breakfasted more than once at the Millenium to further justify their decision to dine at the Tapas Bar.

by Guest 11.07.17 12:13

HiDeHo wrote: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...

Unhealthy strong criticism has been leveled against CMoMM for daring to suggest that Madeleine may have 'disappeared' sometime in the week prior to Thursday 3rd May. HiDeHo has painstakingly produced detail of information contained in the PJ files that provide compelling evidence that Madeleine was not seen by any independent witness after lunch time on Sunday 29th April with any degree of certainty.

This thread gives the opportunity for critics and sceptics to challenge the facts and evidence presented by HiDeHo.

I'm bumping this as a reminder of the true purpose of this thread. It's a very important issue that lies at the heart of the mystery of Madeleine McCann's alleged disappearance and should stand alone without diversion.

by **HiDeHo** 11.07.17 13:54

Thanks Verdi. I really appreciate having the opportunity to stay on topic to answer the question that forms part of the basis for my conclusion that something happened to Maddie earlier in the week

I have often been 'attacked' by those that have not taken the time or trouble to read and understand the research that brought me to this conclusion.

One major attack is (understandably) that I am questioning Goncalo Amaral and that I am therefore not supporting him. Of course this is not true. I have compiled 25 videos in support of him.

The conclusion and research shows ONE THING .... that after only 5 months in charge of the case, he has developed MANY theories about what happened, but he relies on her being seen at 5.30pm (Catriona Baker?)

I am not questioning Goncalo Amaral's theory. I am questioning whether the witness statements he relied on (prior to the Rogatory statements) may not have been as reliable as he knew at the time.

It is possible that in the 9 months following his removal, that further information was revealed.

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

I don't know when Maddie died. It could have been any time up until Thursday, but if there is NO sighting of her after sunday lunchtime and some MAJOR discrepancies starting Tuesday morning indicating the possibility of an effort to hide something, then my conclusion is that SOMETHING may have happened to Maddie between Sunday lunchtime when she was last seen and Tuesday morning when it looks like there was an effort to hide the truth....

I can only show what I found. I can't change the files to come to a different conclusion....

Title: Who Saw Madeleine?- Credibility & Statement Highlights
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Nannies that saw Madeleine...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Summary of Witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[b][b][b]Title: Who saw Madeleine summary[/b][/b][/b]

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

Title: Nanny Info & Statements Highlighted
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Catriona and Creche Inconsistencies
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Millenium Rota & Statement Highlights
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[b][b][b][b][b]Title: Catriona Baker & the Creche Post[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]

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

Category: When Did Madeleine 'Disappear' BEFORE 5.30pm or AFTER?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Topics	Author	Replies	Views	Last Post

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

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

0

1245

09/16/2011 8:08 AM

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

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

16

14595

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
08/10/2011 3:57 AM

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

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

2

560

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
10/14/2010 6:14 AM

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

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

0

472

08/06/2010 5:26 AM

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

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

0

481

06/20/2010 6:42 AM

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

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

0

1418

06/19/2010 10:36 AM

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

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

0

627

06/19/2010 9:30 AM

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

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

0

1844

06/19/2010 12:08 AM

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

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

0

1226

06/18/2010 11:52 PM

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

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

0

1795

06/18/2010 11:24 PM

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

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

0

454

06/18/2010 10:52 PM

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

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

0

1072

06/18/2010 10:45 PM

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

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

0

553

06/18/2010 10:33 PM

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

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

0

729

06/18/2010 9:58 PM

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

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

0

637

06/18/2010 8:57 PM

by **HiDeHo** 11.07.17 13:55

My months with Madeleine (Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Category: Creche Records / Timeline
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Topics	Author	Replies	Views	Last Post

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

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

15

3184

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
04/18/2017 8:25 AM

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

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

1

1284

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/21/2015 7:56 AM

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

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

2

3509

Post Reply:Guest
07/08/2011 2:13 PM

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

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

5

1386

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/24/2011 5:07 PM

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

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

2

452

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/24/2011 4:02 PM

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

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

0

701

02/08/2011 7:24 AM

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

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

3

5281

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/16/2011 11:14 AM

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

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

1

4737

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/16/2011 11:12 AM

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

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

0

540

11/09/2010 1:43 PM

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

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

1

2301

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
09/15/2010 6:20 AM

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

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

0

828

07/28/2010 5:37 AM

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

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

0

1180

07/28/2010 5:25 AM

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

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

1

792

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
07/24/2010 8:48 AM

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

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

4

4978

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
07/24/2010 8:40 AM

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

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

0

862

06/12/2010 1:07 PM

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

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

1

482

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
06/02/2010 7:51 PM

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

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

0

534

06/02/2010 5:41 PM

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

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

3

1127

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/31/2010 8:01 AM

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

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

1

582

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/31/2010 4:58 AM

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

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

0

833

03/31/2010 4:13 AM

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

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

0

2408

08/23/2009 3:32 AM

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

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

3

12239

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
08/23/2009 3:17 AM

by Guest 11.07.17 15:54

HiDeHo wrote:
I have often been 'attacked' by those that have not taken the time or trouble to read and understand the research that brought me to this conclusion.

One major attack is (understandably) that I am questioning Goncalo Amaral and that I am therefore not supporting him. Of course this is not true. I have compiled 25 videos in support of him.

That's the real issue here isn't it - even in my own little way I've repeatedly challenged people in the past over their insistence that numerous witnesses (including the Tapas group:) have testified to having seeing Madeleine on Thursday 3rd May in particular. When asked who I've had the usual trite response likte - 'I'm not doing the reasearch for you, do it yourself, it's all there....' Round and round in circles is an understatement.

So far your excellently detailed thread has not been any more productive than my futile attempts.

The attitude towards Goncalo Amaral's investigation is typical of the type of feeble unsubstantiated attacks against key members of CMoMM and anyone else who raises questions about how the case has developed over the months/years - indeed since the removal of Dr Amaral as case coordinator, the PJ investigation really didn't move much beyond that aft September/October 2007 i.e. the McCanns return to England and Dr Amaral's transfer. I said millions of times in the past, Dr Amaral was working essentially on the testimonies of the McCanns and their group of friends - what alternative did he have? Just as the investigation was starting to seriously develop he was removed from the case.

The rest they say is history.

I still look forward to the critics/doubters presenting their arguments in response to your extensive work on the subject. waiting

by Guest 13.07.17 15:39

I'm bumping this thread - there is still rumour abroad today that Madeleine was definitely seen by a number of witnesses (including the Tapas group apparently) on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

Perhaps they've missed the opportunity to read the extensive detail presented on CMoMM that dispels that alleged certainty.

Members and guests are urged to read this before continuing their crusade against those who question the time Madeleine allegedly disappeared. Be fair and make up your own minds if there is any merit in doubting that claimed certainty - don't allow your opinions to be blinded by a faction that has so far not been able to justify their weighty criticism agains CMoMM.

by **HiDeHo** 13.07.17 17:16

I agree Verdi.

This thread is the first that has remained on topic to find ANY statement that gives any confirmation that Maddie was seen after Sunday lunchtime...

(a reminder its not to prove that she WASN'T seen)

I have not seen ONE statement (apart from Fatima) that doesn't have questions.... and therefore does not show, without reasonable doubt, that she was specifically seen.

Claims of how it appears to be Maddie they are describing is not considered to be a 'definite' sighting.

I look forward to anyone that can show me a statement or example of proof that I have missed...

Latest topics