We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
Page 3 of 4 • Share
Page 3 of 4 • 
1, 2, 3, 4 
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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 (30th) 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).
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 (30th) 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).
roz- Posts : 173
Activity : 285
Likes received : 102
Join date : 2016-11-29
Location : Finland (but Irish)
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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.]
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.]
JRP- Posts : 601
Activity : 1176
Likes received : 573
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 66
Location : UK
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 10.07.17 23:54
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.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.]
Inconclusive
!____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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.
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.
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 11.07.17 12:13
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.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...
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.
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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 image.]
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.]
[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.]
[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.]
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 image.]
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.]
| |||
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] | |
Category: When Did Madeleine 'Disappear' BEFORE 5.30pm or AFTER?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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.]
[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.]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 11.07.17 15:54
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.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.
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.
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 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.
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.
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
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...
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...
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Phoebe 13.07.17 23:25
Frustratingly, the statements of Alice Stanley (who allegedly accompanied the group to the beach and took them out on the catamaran, a few at time) and Chris Unsworth (who sailed with a couple or 3 at a time) are not in the published files. Therefore what they told police is unknown. Given the small number of children they interacted with at a time, they should be able to recall who they saw, especially if Cat's. claim about Madeleine being scared and clinging is true. Madeleine's demeanor, if as described, could not have gone unnoticed by them. Personally, I reserve judgement on whether she was seen on the 3rd until these are available. If it turns out that they don't recall seeing her, that points in one direction, but if by any chance they remember her well and spoke to her, for example, to persuade her it was perfectly safe, then that would obviously impact opinion.
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 13.07.17 23:43
Still no takers?HiDeHo wrote: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...
It infuriates me to know that the criticism keeps coming yet not one of the critics are prepared to come forward and explain why they think the question of Madeleine 'disappearing' earlier than the 3rd May is so absurd.
At the risk of being repetitive, you have taken great pains to research every witness statement in great detail looking for conclusive evidence that Madeleine was seen by an independent witness on any day between lunchtime Sunday 29th April and the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.
If these critics are so sure of their facts - why not come forward and produce the evidence?
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by skyrocket 14.07.17 8:54
Raj Balu Rogatory:
With relation to my movements on Thursday, May 3, 2007, between 18:00 and 23:00.
At 16:45 my son was lunching (this is a mis-translation: the Portuguese word 'lanchar' translates primarily as 'snack' but also as teatime/lunchtime) with other children in the Tapas area.
From 5:30 onwards, the bar was full, as normally happened, with the majority of people there.
Bridget O'Donnell (wife of Jeremy Wilkins) says the following in her 14/12/07 article:
The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool. We talked about the children, about what we did at home. We were hopeful about a change in the weather. We eyed our children as they played. We didn’t see anyone watching.
Charlotte Pennington tells us in the media (much of what Charlotte says is questionable) that the 3 May tapas teatime was so sociable that it dragged out to 6pm (although bear in mind the nannies went off duty at 5.30pm - would they really hang around?).
The T9 have told us that the usual regime was kids teatime in the covered area next to the tapas restaurant/bar between 4.45pm and 5.30pm; playtime in the grassed play area next to the mini pool for up to an hour; back to the apartments for baths. However, Thursday 3 May was different. The T7 and their children were absent - down at the Paraiso; Madeleine was tired; playtime was skipped and the Mcs say they returned to their apartment around 5.30/5.40pm.
So, according to Raj, Bridget, and Charlotte on the 3 May at around 5.30pm the Tapas area is full (minus the T7 + kids) - remember all Mark Warner children are entitled to the free teatime meal/snack, not just those attending creche. Parents have grabbed a quick beer or glass of wine and are chatting to other guests whilst standing around watching the kids run riot in the play area.
The Mc's tell us that at around 5.30/5.40pm they leave the area (together) unusually early because Madeleine is tired (the twins obviously didn't get the choice to play). Kate picks Madeleine up and carries her back.
Apparently, not a single parent/other guest saw the family of 5 leaving (or even there in the first place?).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I'm going to turn this around a bit. You're thread title states 'We can't be sure that Maddie wasn't seen......' but what are the chances that guests/parents (forget the nannies for now) who have been meeting up with the Mcs all week at the same time - who are horrified at what they are told transpired on the evening of 3 May; many who have young, 3 year old daughters themselves - do NOT come forward and scream from the roof tops that they saw the complete, happy McCann family of 5 in the tapas area/leaving that afternoon/evening?? Don't forget that we are talking about centre of attention, loud Glaswegian joker guy GM, attractive, blonde wife KM with equally broad accent, and 3 cute blonde kids. Did no-one query where the rest of the group was that afternoon? Not a single person? Did no-one talk to the Mcs at all?
The apparent silence (perhaps the PJ have something) throws a lot of doubt on the rogatory statement of Cat Baker whose recollections about the hightea on 3 May are vague at best; and on the media statements of Charlotte. Neither are reliable proof that Madeleine was seen at that time, IMO.
Mr Edmonds' infamous photo would be a clincher in terms of sitings during the week - if it exists and is clear, surely it would benefit the Mcs to release it?
Sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - quite difficult to stay within your thread criteria, I keep straying the other way (towards wasn't rather than was)!!
With relation to my movements on Thursday, May 3, 2007, between 18:00 and 23:00.
At 16:45 my son was lunching (this is a mis-translation: the Portuguese word 'lanchar' translates primarily as 'snack' but also as teatime/lunchtime) with other children in the Tapas area.
From 5:30 onwards, the bar was full, as normally happened, with the majority of people there.
Bridget O'Donnell (wife of Jeremy Wilkins) says the following in her 14/12/07 article:
The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool. We talked about the children, about what we did at home. We were hopeful about a change in the weather. We eyed our children as they played. We didn’t see anyone watching.
Charlotte Pennington tells us in the media (much of what Charlotte says is questionable) that the 3 May tapas teatime was so sociable that it dragged out to 6pm (although bear in mind the nannies went off duty at 5.30pm - would they really hang around?).
The T9 have told us that the usual regime was kids teatime in the covered area next to the tapas restaurant/bar between 4.45pm and 5.30pm; playtime in the grassed play area next to the mini pool for up to an hour; back to the apartments for baths. However, Thursday 3 May was different. The T7 and their children were absent - down at the Paraiso; Madeleine was tired; playtime was skipped and the Mcs say they returned to their apartment around 5.30/5.40pm.
So, according to Raj, Bridget, and Charlotte on the 3 May at around 5.30pm the Tapas area is full (minus the T7 + kids) - remember all Mark Warner children are entitled to the free teatime meal/snack, not just those attending creche. Parents have grabbed a quick beer or glass of wine and are chatting to other guests whilst standing around watching the kids run riot in the play area.
The Mc's tell us that at around 5.30/5.40pm they leave the area (together) unusually early because Madeleine is tired (the twins obviously didn't get the choice to play). Kate picks Madeleine up and carries her back.
Apparently, not a single parent/other guest saw the family of 5 leaving (or even there in the first place?).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I'm going to turn this around a bit. You're thread title states 'We can't be sure that Maddie wasn't seen......' but what are the chances that guests/parents (forget the nannies for now) who have been meeting up with the Mcs all week at the same time - who are horrified at what they are told transpired on the evening of 3 May; many who have young, 3 year old daughters themselves - do NOT come forward and scream from the roof tops that they saw the complete, happy McCann family of 5 in the tapas area/leaving that afternoon/evening?? Don't forget that we are talking about centre of attention, loud Glaswegian joker guy GM, attractive, blonde wife KM with equally broad accent, and 3 cute blonde kids. Did no-one query where the rest of the group was that afternoon? Not a single person? Did no-one talk to the Mcs at all?
The apparent silence (perhaps the PJ have something) throws a lot of doubt on the rogatory statement of Cat Baker whose recollections about the hightea on 3 May are vague at best; and on the media statements of Charlotte. Neither are reliable proof that Madeleine was seen at that time, IMO.
Mr Edmonds' infamous photo would be a clincher in terms of sitings during the week - if it exists and is clear, surely it would benefit the Mcs to release it?
Sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - quite difficult to stay within your thread criteria, I keep straying the other way (towards wasn't rather than was)!!
skyrocket- Posts : 755
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
Join date : 2015-06-18
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Phoebe 14.07.17 12:36
Charlotte's claim that tea went on til 6 pm is hard to swallow. The Balu and Berry children had finished by 5pm and their statements suggest tea began no later than 4.45 pm, probably earlier as the Balu child was eating by 4.45 pm. It seems she felt the need to shorten the period of time since claiming to have last seen Madeleine. Perhaps the guests did not come forward to testify that they had seen the McCanns and children as they were not asked to? News reports of the time all carried the story that Madeleine had been alive and well that afternoon and disappeared between 9 and 10 pm. The fact that they might have seen her earlier would not have been relevant unless the P.J. opted to question them about how she had seemed, which may not have happened in some cases. There are no available statements from people with potentially crucial testimony as to whether they saw Madeleine at creche or tea on any given day eg. the Naylors, Manns, Totmans. Patels. The statements of Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth are also not available. The absence of all these leaves a vacuum in the evidence available, so it's impossible to state with 100% certainty that not a single parent or guest witnessed Madeleine alive on the 3rd. For all we know one or more of these might claim/ have claimed that they definitely saw or interacted with her.
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by HiDeHo 14.07.17 13:18
skyrocket wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I'm going to turn this around a bit. You're thread title states 'We can't be sure that Maddie wasn't seen......' but what are the chances that guests/parents (forget the nannies for now) who have been meeting up with the Mcs all week at the same time - who are horrified at what they are told transpired on the evening of 3 May; many who have young, 3 year old daughters themselves - do NOT come forward and scream from the roof tops that they saw the complete, happy McCann family of 5 in the tapas area/leaving that afternoon/evening?? Don't forget that we are talking about centre of attention, loud Glaswegian joker guy GM, attractive, blonde wife KM with equally broad accent, and 3 cute blonde kids. Did no-one query where the rest of the group was that afternoon? Not a single person? Did no-one talk to the Mcs at all?
The apparent silence (perhaps the PJ have something) throws a lot of doubt on the rogatory statement of Cat Baker whose recollections about the hightea on 3 May are vague at best; and on the media statements of Charlotte. Neither are reliable proof that Madeleine was seen at that time, IMO.
Mr Edmonds' infamous photo would be a clincher in terms of sitings during the week - if it exists and is clear, surely it would benefit the Mcs to release it?
Sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - quite difficult to stay within your thread criteria, I keep straying the other way (towards wasn't rather than was)!!
First, skyrocket, I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for your research. It forms a major part of my 'Calendar' (May - September) and I don't think i have ever had the opportunity to thank you :)
Title: MAY Calendar with Phone Pings
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Regarding 'staying on topic', I think it WAS important to limit comments to finding ANY statements that showed 'proof' that Maddie was seen but its very limiting....
There doesn't seem to be ANY statements that show us, without reasonable doubt, that she was seen during the week after Sunday lunchtime... PLEASE ADVISE WITH ANY INFO THAT SHOWS THIS AS INCORRECT.
There are SO many questions regarding that week...
Personally I try to ignore any discrepancies that are based on 'times'. When not clock watching I can easily be wrong in a guess on time by a few hours. I have always tried to focus on SPECIFIC discrepancies that are not based on memory or timing. eg. Two people supposedly at the same place at the same time and yet they record the details differently.
Maybe we could start to move on a little bit from the PROOF she was seen but continue to stay on the topic with the QUESTIONS as to whether she was seen.
I have ONE PARTICULAR discrepancy that has never fully been discussed as it gets confusing, but ultimately could show that the last picture was NOT taken at 2.29pm on May 3rd.
IMPORTANT to find alternative support of the LAST PHOTO being in question because of the weather....
I find it difficult to explain this in a simple manner, but if anyone can understand and add to it in any way, I would be more than appreciative. I've been holding on to this for several years, so looking forward to the opportunity of having some focus on it.
I will just give a 'rundown' of the scenario without links etc to keep it as simple as possible and hope it's of interest to someone....
Maddies group played mini tennis on Tuesday morning...
Rachael claims she was at mini tennis and it was the LAST TIME she saw Maddie but was on THURSDAY morning yet she claims that she was with Jane when she took the tennis ball pic. Was she mistaken on the day and therefore the last time she saw Maddie was on TUESDAY?
At 2.29pm (around the time of the last photo) Thursday, Rachael claims to be playing tennis with Jane.
Jane claims to have seen Maddie shouting at them through the fence. (confirming family were at the pool at that time?)
Rachael does not mention seeing Maddie and by claiming she LAST saw her at mini tennis Thursday morning (even though it was played Tuesday) she is 'telling' us that she did not see Maddie shout through the fence or with the family at the pool a few hours later.
We have Rachael claiming she was playing tennis with Jane but DIDN'T see Maddie
We have Jane claiming she DID see Maddie specifically shouting through the fence at them.
IF something had happened to Maddie earlier in week, did Rachael see the mini tennis being played and was trying to be 'helpful' by saying she saw Maddie (for the last time on THURSDAY) without realising it wasn't Maddie's group (which means she was likely NOT there on Tuesday to have seen her either or she would have realised it was a different group (Sharks)?
IF something happened earlier was Jane claiming specifically that Maddie was shouting through the fence at them to be 'helpful' in establishing that she saw Maddie on THURSDAY?
If Rachael didn't see Maddie as Jane claims, does that mean she WASN'T there?
If Jane DID see Maddie while she was playing tennis and Rachael didn't see Maddie then was she REALLY playing tennis with Rachael?
Was Rachael really there?
Was Jane really there?
More importantly, was MADDIE REALLY THERE?
If not then how could the last photo be taken?
Ignoring the discrepancies about Tuesday mini tennis (to try and keep it simple lol), here is the mini tennis video addressing Jane and Rachael and the last time they both saw Maddie (or didn't see Maddie)
See 1.53 into the video for the above info and statements...
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by polyenne 14.07.17 13:24
Hmm, in 2015 a Christopher Unsworth, a qualified windsurfing instructor (2006-2008) was looking to get back into the sport.
Where was he ? Working at EXETER university......that connection again !!!!
Where was he ? Working at EXETER university......that connection again !!!!
polyenne- Posts : 963
Activity : 1575
Likes received : 590
Join date : 2017-03-31
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by HiDeHo 14.07.17 13:56
Phoebe wrote:Charlotte's claim that tea went on til 6 pm is hard to swallow. The Balu and Berry children had finished by 5pm and their statements suggest tea began no later than 4.45 pm, probably earlier as the Balu child was eating by 4.45 pm. It seems she felt the need to shorten the period of time since claiming to have last seen Madeleine. Perhaps the guests did not come forward to testify that they had seen the McCanns and children as they were not asked to? News reports of the time all carried the story that Madeleine had been alive and well that afternoon and disappeared between 9 and 10 pm. The fact that they might have seen her earlier would not have been relevant unless the P.J. opted to question them about how she had seemed, which may not have happened in some cases. There are no available statements from people with potentially crucial testimony as to whether they saw Madeleine at creche or tea on any given day eg. the Naylors, Manns, Totmans. Patels. The statements of Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth are also not available. The absence of all these leaves a vacuum in the evidence available, so it's impossible to state with 100% certainty that not a single parent or guest witnessed Madeleine alive on the 3rd. For all we know one or more of these might claim/ have claimed that they definitely saw or interacted with her.
Yes Phoebe, you could be right, but this thread has (until now) been about PROOF she was seen, not indications that she MAY have been seen. Thanks for your input on this thread... It's really important to me to see all info regardless of which way it takes me.
I don't have a need to be right.... I want the TRUTH!
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by HiDeHo 14.07.17 17:53
One would presume that the photos would be proof... Personally I don't believe there was any need for photoshopping, only changing the EXIF data would have been necessary...
Something that struck me about the tennis photo is that the court seems to have been wet and is in the process of drying...
Could the photo have been taken shortly after a court cleaning as we know there was no rain by Tuesday morning when this photo was claimed to have been taken...
How could there have been a court cleaning prior to 10.30am?
It was scheduled on the tennis records to happen at Tuesday lunchtime.
Does that indicate the probabilty that this photo was NOT taken at mini tennis as claimed by Kate (who says she took it) and Rachael who says Jane took it)?
BTW the comparison pic of asphalt drying was my own personal photo from my driveway with the green insert from the court surface, but shows the similarity perfectly.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Something that struck me about the tennis photo is that the court seems to have been wet and is in the process of drying...
Could the photo have been taken shortly after a court cleaning as we know there was no rain by Tuesday morning when this photo was claimed to have been taken...
How could there have been a court cleaning prior to 10.30am?
It was scheduled on the tennis records to happen at Tuesday lunchtime.
Does that indicate the probabilty that this photo was NOT taken at mini tennis as claimed by Kate (who says she took it) and Rachael who says Jane took it)?
BTW the comparison pic of asphalt drying was my own personal photo from my driveway with the green insert from the court surface, but shows the similarity perfectly.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Phoebe 14.07.17 18:29
@ HiDeHo. I would say that the available evidence re. those who claim to have seen Madeleine is questionable. However, the nannies, especially Cat and Charlotte, could not be mistaken IMO as they claim to have had one to one interaction with her on May 3rd. The contradictions in their claims need to be satisfactorily explained before one could accept their testimony. I worry about coming to a conclusion before knowing what all witnesses said. Unsworth and Stanley gave formal statements, but what they said is unknown outside of the police. Given their role on the 3rd they should be able to say if they had seen Madeleine or not. They are not "potential" witnesses, they are actual witnesses who gave sworn evidence, unfortunately, that evidence is unavailable. If/when those parts of the files are made public a more comprehensive account of May 3rd should emerge. My gut feeling (but that is all it is when there is a possibility of evidence which might yet contradict it) is that Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd.
Re. the tennis photo, it could be wet or perhaps wear and tear has scuffed colour from the surface? The base line area of tennis courts always tends to take more wear than other parts. On grass and clay this area is often scuffed to bits after a tournament
Re. the tennis photo, it could be wet or perhaps wear and tear has scuffed colour from the surface? The base line area of tennis courts always tends to take more wear than other parts. On grass and clay this area is often scuffed to bits after a tournament
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Nina 14.07.17 19:12
I have always been concerned about how clean Madeleine's sandals and socks are. If she had been running about on a court made of this material surely there would have been some marks particularly on the underside and side of of her sandals if not on the soles of her sandals and thus on her socks. Even more so if the courts were wet.Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo. I would say that the available evidence re. those who claim to have seen Madeleine is questionable. However, the nannies, especially Cat and Charlotte, could not be mistaken IMO as they claim to have had one to one interaction with her on May 3rd. The contradictions in their claims need to be satisfactorily explained before one could accept their testimony. I worry about coming to a conclusion before knowing what all witnesses said. Unsworth and Stanley gave formal statements, but what they said is unknown outside of the police. Given their role on the 3rd they should be able to say if they had seen Madeleine or not. They are not "potential" witnesses, they are actual witnesses who gave sworn evidence, unfortunately, that evidence is unavailable. If/when those parts of the files are made public a more comprehensive account of May 3rd should emerge. My gut feeling (but that is all it is when there is a possibility of evidence which might yet contradict it) is that Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd.
Re. the tennis photo, it could be wet or perhaps wear and tear has scuffed colour from the surface? The base line area of tennis courts always tends to take more wear than other parts. On grass and clay this area is often scuffed to bits after a tournament
Not a hint of a mark though.
____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina- Posts : 2862
Activity : 3218
Likes received : 344
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 81
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Phoebe 14.07.17 21:13
The claim that the tennis photo was taken at a mini-tennis session has never sat well with me. If I wanted to catch the moment of my child's early attempts at tennis I would ask them to pose with a racket. The sandals are unsuitable but, in fairness, if Madeleine left creche early on Monday afternoon K and G may not have known tennis was scheduled for the next morning. However, I would have expected the nannies/coach to have had her remove her floppy hat, especially as it was dull. There is no sign of any activity on that court, no other people, no lose balls. Mini tennis is usually played with softer, larger balls than shown as 3 year olds normally have limited development of hand-eye coordination. My instinctive response to this picture has always been that it captured Madeleine acting as a ball-girl for a few moments while the adults knocked about gently. The object seemed to be how "many balls can you gather up" rather than "show us how you've learned to hit/receive the ball"
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by sandancer 14.07.17 22:21
If as Kate claims she took this photo , but had to run back to the apartment to get her camera first . I'm pretty sure a 3/4 year old Madeleine wouldn't stand there in the same pose waiting for Mummy to come back ! Children live in the now , not wait a few minutes while Mummy runs off she'd want to be back with the others joining in and having fun .
Don't they tell us Madeleine liked playing tennis , so where had she played it before ?
Don't they tell us Madeleine liked playing tennis , so where had she played it before ?
____________________
Be humble for you are made of earth . Be noble for you are made of stars .
sandancer- Posts : 1283
Activity : 2374
Likes received : 1095
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 71
Location : Tyneside
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by skyrocket 15.07.17 10:58
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - you're very welcome! I'm glad to have helped your tireless work in some small way. 
skyrocket- Posts : 755
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
Join date : 2015-06-18
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by Verdi 15.07.17 21:11
For some reason the television channel I'm half watching at the moment seems to think the viewer wishes to see hour upon hour upon hour of Royal stuff.
Apparently (I wonder why) the most weighty criticism leveled at the Royal family is the cost to the tax payer, when they don't actually do anything. I'm now reliably informed (snort!) by the Palace sycophantic spokeswoman, in an attempt to justify the inordinate cost of maintaining the Royals lifestyle, that "they do so so so much" !!! Major problem here - she didn't get around to saying exactly what it is they do !!!
Bit of a déjà vu moment here I think - just like asking critics to provide evidence that Madeleine was, beyond a shadow of doubt, seen on any day during the week Monday 30th April to Thursday 3rd May.
Ho hum .
Apparently (I wonder why) the most weighty criticism leveled at the Royal family is the cost to the tax payer, when they don't actually do anything. I'm now reliably informed (snort!) by the Palace sycophantic spokeswoman, in an attempt to justify the inordinate cost of maintaining the Royals lifestyle, that "they do so so so much" !!! Major problem here - she didn't get around to saying exactly what it is they do !!!
Bit of a déjà vu moment here I think - just like asking critics to provide evidence that Madeleine was, beyond a shadow of doubt, seen on any day during the week Monday 30th April to Thursday 3rd May.
Ho hum
.____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex forum manager
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?
by HiDeHo 16.07.17 16:31
Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo. I would say that the available evidence re. those who claim to have seen Madeleine is questionable. However, the nannies, especially Cat and Charlotte, could not be mistaken IMO as they claim to have had one to one interaction with her on May 3rd. The contradictions in their claims need to be satisfactorily explained before one could accept their testimony. I worry about coming to a conclusion before knowing what all witnesses said. Unsworth and Stanley gave formal statements, but what they said is unknown outside of the police. Given their role on the 3rd they should be able to say if they had seen Madeleine or not. They are not "potential" witnesses, they are actual witnesses who gave sworn evidence, unfortunately, that evidence is unavailable. If/when those parts of the files are made public a more comprehensive account of May 3rd should emerge. My gut feeling (but that is all it is when there is a possibility of evidence which might yet contradict it) is that Madeleine was dead before the night of May 3rd.
Re. the tennis photo, it could be wet or perhaps wear and tear has scuffed colour from the surface? The base line area of tennis courts always tends to take more wear than other parts. On grass and clay this area is often scuffed to bits after a tournament
Cat and Charlotte, could not be mistaken IMO as they claim to have had one to one interaction with her on May 3rd.
One would think they would not be mistaken but both of their statements have many contradictions that neither of them could be considered 'proof' of Maddie being there on any specific day.
Unsworth and Stanley gave formal statements, but what they said is unknown outside of the police.
There is nothing to indicate that Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley were formally interviewed
Service Information wrote:Service Information
856 to 858 - Service information regarding informal conversation with various Ocean club functionaries 2007.05.09 04-Processos Vol IV Pages 856 to 858
Date: 09-05-2007
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: Inspector Pontes
Subject: Informal Conversation
An informal and individual conversation was held with the following witnesses after having examined all involvement relevant to the current investigation, it was found that the following reports do not imply anything of significance:
- John Hill, MW Resort General Manager at the OC, born on 04/10/1976, resident in Espiche, who arrived in Portugal for the first time on 4th March, 2006.- Nathan D***** S*****, Waterfront Manager (recreation company - boat trips, of which he is the manager) at the OC, resident in Luz, having arrived in Portugal on 15th March 2007, immediately entering into the functions described above. This is his first time in Portugal whether for leisure or work purposes.- Lauren D****** from West Sussex, Sailing instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal on 21st March 2007 for the first time.
- Sebastian G*******, from Derbyshire, Sports Instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 21st March 2007.
- Alice S*******, from Cambridge, Sailing Instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 21st March 2007.
- Fraser N****, Water sports instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the time on 21st April 2007.- Benjamin W******, from Gloucester, employee of the OC in Luz (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Christopher U******, from Leeds, employee of the OC in Luz, (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Stephen C****** from Bristol, employee of the OC in Luz, (residence unknown, apartment hired by the resort).
- Robert C***, from Doncaster, Maintenance Driver, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 18th May 2007.
Signed.
Re. the tennis photo, it could be wet or perhaps wear and tear has scuffed colour from the surface? The base line area of tennis courts always tends to take more wear than other parts. On grass and clay this area is often scuffed to bits after a tournament
THE COMPARISON CONFIRMS THE POSSIBILITY THE COURT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DRYING
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
PLEASE SEE NEW TOPIC ABOUT THE TENNIS BALLS PHOTO..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics» Where is the PROOF Maddie was active during the week? Who Saw her? Were OC staff mistaken?
» Recent police activity - by Operation Grange?
» New questions arise about Madeleine McCann case - Chris Freind
» On it goes...
» 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)
» Recent police activity - by Operation Grange?
» New questions arise about Madeleine McCann case - Chris Freind
» On it goes...
» 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)
Page 3 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
