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

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.

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...

Still no takers?

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?

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)!!

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.

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...

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 !!!!

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!

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 link.]

@ 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

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"

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 ?

[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.

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 .

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:

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

04-Processos Vol IV Pages 856 to 858

Service Information 
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 4^th 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 15^th 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 21^st March 2007.
 

-          Alice S*******, from Cambridge, Sailing Instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the first time on 21^st March 2007.

 
-          Fraser N****, Water sports instructor at the OC, arrived in Portugal for the time on 21^st 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 18t^h 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 link.]


PLEASE SEE NEW TOPIC ABOUT THE TENNIS BALLS PHOTO..

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

AN INTERIM CONCLUSION OF THIS THREAD.



This thread was posted 12 days ago and we have not seen ANY firm statements that shows us, without reasonable doubt, that Maddie was seen during the holiday week after Fatima Sunday lunchtime.

Its important to NOT MISUNDERSTAND the purpose of this thread...

This is NOT to find proof that she WASN'T seen.  ALL statements show that it is POSSIBLE that she was seen and there is certainly NO EFFORT to suggest any of them are lying.

This is about trying to find some CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that she WAS seen.  Statements that are specific, where there is no question that the child they saw was DEFINITELY Maddie.

Any question regarding the possibility they were mistaken, and it cannot be confirmed as 'proof.'

I'm not looking for statements from witnesses that claim to have seen her but have questions whether Maddie would have been there at that particular time.

We know MANY witnesses claim to have seen her, and they may be correct but its not necessarily PROOF if it cannot stand up to scrutiny.

If there is anyone claiming to see 'proof' that Maddie was seen, then WHY HAVE WE NOT SEEN IT?

If we could discover there is credible evidence that Maddie was seen after Sunday lunchtime then that would DISPROVE the possibility that something happened earlier in the week...

CURRENTLY THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE IT IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE EARLIER IN THE WEEK ...

IT STILL REMAINS A POSSIBILITY.

Until then, I will patiently wait....

I was my impretion that the tennis ball picture ,was one evening she went and watched daddy play just before bedtime.and she was picking up balls there joyce1938

HiDeHo wrote:AN INTERIM CONCLUSION OF THIS THREAD.



This thread was posted 12 days ago and we have not seen ANY firm statements that shows us, without reasonable doubt, that Maddie was seen during the holiday week after Fatima Sunday lunchtime.

Its important to NOT MISUNDERSTAND the purpose of this thread...

This is NOT to find proof that she WASN'T seen.  ALL statements show that it is POSSIBLE that she was seen and there is certainly NO EFFORT to suggest any of them are lying.

This is about trying to find some CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that she WAS seen.  Statements that are specific, where there is no question that the child they saw was DEFINITELY Maddie.

Any question regarding the possibility they were mistaken, and it cannot be confirmed as 'proof.'

I'm not looking for statements from witnesses that claim to have seen her but have questions whether Maddie would have been there at that particular time.

We know MANY witnesses claim to have seen her, and they may be correct but its not necessarily PROOF if it cannot stand up to scrutiny.

If there is anyone claiming to see 'proof' that Maddie was seen, then WHY HAVE WE NOT SEEN IT?

If we could discover there is credible evidence that Maddie was seen after Sunday lunchtime then that would DISPROVE the possibility that something happened earlier in the week...

CURRENTLY THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE IT IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE EARLIER IN THE WEEK ...

IT STILL REMAINS A POSSIBILITY.

Until then, I will patiently wait....

It would appear that, apart from perhaps Catriona Baker, through the eyes of the critics, the chief independent witness who confirms having seen Madeleine and her family arriving for breakfast at the Millenium restaurant during the week is the meet and greet receptionist, Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo.

Conveniently overlooking the fact that the McCanns and their group of friends say the McCanns didn't use the Millenium restaurant for breakfast during the week, opting instead to breakfast at their apartment.  Unless they are accusing the McCanns and their friends of lying but that wouldn't do would it? 

That aside, another witness from the Millenium restaurant, a waiter - David Jose Araujo Veloso dos Santos, had this to say on 8th May 2007..

'When questioned he says he remembers the family of Madeleine McCann, who used the restaurant where he works once[size=16] on Saturday 28th April, but he adds that he did not have any conversation with them.

When questioned about the relationship between the parents and the children, he says that he did not really notice, but that he was given to believe that there was nothing strange about it.'

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

[/size]

Ah yes... Cecilia...

Cecelia not only describes seeing them on days they weren't (apparently) there but describes a child that is so like Jane Tanners daughter, its almost uncanny.

Shy, timid and clinging to her father.... ALL characteristics that Jane and Russell describe of their daughter, who (we are told) WAS there on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday...

If, according to some, it was actually a confirmed sighting of Maddie, I wonder why Cecilia wouldn't describe the TWO children that were very shy and clingy...

The guest passes were for adults only and didn't include the children on them.  Likely scrutinised and used mostly for 'payment' after the meal.

Regardless, I'm not sure how anyone could consider her testimony as PROOF it was Maddie she saw...

Cecelia BELIEVED it was Maddie and MAYBE IT WAS, I certainly do not accuse any witnesses of lying, but can it be considered it was EVIDENCE that Maddie was see?

Of course not...


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

Charlotte Pennington in her statement says that Madeleine introduced herself to her - 
 "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness;"
She claims to have spoken to Madeleine and read to her on the 3rd May as well as directly interacting with her on Sunday 29th April. She also claims to have seen the same child in creche during the week. I find no margin for error. She either saw her or she is not telling the truth. Ditto for Cat who claims to have been on duty minding Madeleine that afternoon. As Madeleine was the only girl, along with another little boy, who remained in creche that afternoon it is incredible that this could be a mistake. Again, she is either lying or telling the truth.  I can understand those who had no reason to interact often or directly with Madeleine perhaps confusing the day or experiencing a case of mistaken identity, but not these two!

Charlotte Pennington had quite a lot to say about Madeleine 'Maddy' McCann and her own involvement, before and after the alleged disappearance.

She is a fantasist who clearly likes to be centre stage - her version of the truth should be taken with a mine of salt, or better still ignored!

The trouble with Catriona Baker is her seemingly unecessary prominence. 

If the version of the truth is to be believed, she was only a child minder (or educator as Charlotte Pennington liked to call herself) looking after Madeleine at the daytime creche.  Why did she go the extra mile - why did the McCanns think her a key witness who should be re-interviewed during the rogatory process.  Why did she make a private visit to the McCanns home, at their invitation, between their departure from Portugal and the rogatory interviews held the following year?

Madeleine allegedly disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007, unless Catriona Baker was baby sitting on that night, why is she such an important figure in this unsolved crime?  In essence, all she needed to do was stick to her original statement, no different from the rest of the child care staff.

These little peccadillos bring to question the authenticity of Catriona Baker's claim to have been in Madeleine's company during the week and last seen, at least by implication, at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Like so many witnesses in this case, independent and otherwise, their recall evolves over time from an initial vague recollection to a later full blown detail.

Please don't anybody say she'd been 'got at'!  Unless you are already implicated in some way, there is no reason to be 'got at'.  She was there at Rothley by her own will - nobody made her go there.

Catriona Baker's innocence in this case is tenuous to say the least.  For that reason alone, I don't think it can be said that she can bear witness to a healthy living Madeleine late afternoon on Thursday 3rd May - nor any other day of the week post Sunday 29th April.  Inconclusive!

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation (Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)


Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.


10 September 2007   [snipped]

There is however another question about the timing, which is:

'The last time the child was seen outside of the GROUP [Catriona Baker?], by someone that can prove that moment, it was around 17h:35m, when the parents went to fetch her from the Creche, which can enlarge the gap of time, between the disappearance and the alarm, to four hours.
----------

The day, 03 of May of 2007, had gone by, until dinner time, in a natural way according to the adopted style.

After getting the children from the Children's centres and the creche they went to the apartment, little after 17:35h.

But' Kate went running for half an hour at the beach and then went to the apartment and' Gerald went to play tennis.

While the tennis play was taking place another element of the group that had been in touch with Kate, in the apartment [David Payne?], in a period of time that could have taken between 30 seconds, according to Kate, and 30 minutes, according to Gerald.

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

"After getting the children from the Children's centres and the creche they went to the apartment, little after 17:35h"

But they didn't "get the children" because, as was stated by the nannies, the children were "brought to the Tapas area for High Tea". So there was no need to get them and, assuming the attendance registers were in the children's centres, no way for parents to sign them out around 5pm.

I admit to being a bit confused about the creche arrangements.  If indeed this high tea routine is to be believed,  I can only assume that the register was taken to the Tapas bar for the parents to sign their children out, although I don't recall it ever being confirmed. 

Catriona Baker's witness statement 6th May 2007

'When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.'

No mention of high tea on any day.  Moving on to Catriona Baker's renewed vigour of memory recall during the rogatory interviews held in April 2008 - after the clandestine meeting of heads at Rothley Court Hotel November 2007 - she says..

"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch [Gerry McCann according to the creche records] but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her [Kate McCann according to the creche records]. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area [at 5:30 pm Kate McCann signed Madeleine out] and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis."


"Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas bar area...."  If I were present at high tea, I would say 'Kate came to get ....'  Went denotes departure - came denotes arrival !?!

Turn that around, inside out , upside down, whichever way you like, no way can it be declared beyond a shadow of doubt that Catriona Baker saw Madeleine at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

I believe this is one area that the PJ probably know more about than has been officially released. Together with holiday photos, I just find it hard to fathom that the testimony or photos from other holidaymakers, especially those with children (and most especially, in Madeleine's group) have not been correlated and cross-referenced to understand more about the signing in/out procedure, whether the daily high tea existed and whether any of the kiddies scheduled activities actually took place.

Unless of course the rules for the "special reason" why "they" were all at MW during that low-season week were "NO PHOTOS" and "STAY SCHTUM"....................

According to Cat. and the register of activities, on the afternoon of May 3rd Madeleine's group "went swimming". Who dried the children off afterwards? From experience 3 year olds don't manage this very well. There were 3 possible swimmers Madeleine and Alexander Mann (Ella wasn't allowed to swim because of her foot) and William Totman, who didn't arrive until 3.30pm, just in time for swimming. Presuming they showered afterward, as common practice, did Cat help them and then dry off the two little boys and Madeleine herself? Unless they shared the swim with the "sharks" group it can't have been much fun with only 3 children. I presume Cat or another nanny was in the water with such young children. If it was just Cat and the Lobsters, who watched the children while she dried off and dressed? Finally, if Madeleine had just had a swim and shower that afternoon why was Kate bathing her again almost immediately after high tea? We know it was allegedly habitual for the McCann children to be bathed, dressed in nightwear and be brought to run around outside afterwards so it was hardly done from concern that time had elapsed between bathing and bed. Nothing about this rings true.

thanks Phoebe, as a nipper I was always last to get dried and dressed after swimming!  Everyone one would be waiting and ready to go home but I would always take ages!!!  Struggling to get jumper over head / shoes on and tied etc..... so as ever in this case timings are everything.