The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

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

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by HiDeHo on 16.07.17 17:56

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....
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher

Posts : 2684
Reputation : 780
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

Back to top Go down

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

Post by joyce1938 on 17.07.17 0:01

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
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 847
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by HiDeHo on 17.07.17 1:11


POST MOVED TO MINI TENNIS THREAD - CLICK HERE to read on this thread:

If the mark IS a watermark from court cleaning, there are a few questions...

How long after a court is cleaned would it be usable?

IF the court was cleaned on TUESDAY morning before the mini tennis and before the tennis lessons started at 9am, (so cleaned around 8am?) would it still look 'wet' three hours later at approx 11am?

Court cleaning shows for Tuesday lunchtime but we dont have Sunday or Monday tennis sheet.  

How often would the courts be  cleaned. The best opportunity would appear to be between 12.30pm and 2.30 when the lessons started again.

If we knew when the court could be wet (if its a watermark) then that may indicate when the photo was taken.


If it is NOT considered a watermark then I encourage anyone that disputes the possibility, to give an example of the alternative possibility.  I believe this is a very important issue as it could 'prove' the photo was not taken at mini tennis.  


If it CAN be disproved by any other explanation, with visual examples, then I will ensure that its widely known there is not an issue with this photo regarding the watermark.

I am not familiar with tennis courts, but am willing to hear from anyone that can explain how it could happen

Was the court cleaned Sunday or Monday lunchtime and the tennis balls pic of Maddie taken while they were having a knockabout before 2.30pm when the lessons started on one of those day?

If so....then it was NOT taken at mini tennis and Kate lied about taking the pic (or Rachael lied about Jane taking the pic)

ie.  Was Madeleine REALLY at mini tennis?





The social tennis 6.00pm -7.30pm was organised by Dan or Georgina so would not likely allow children on the court (and would not likely be cleaned in the 4 hrs prior to the social tennis)

Monday Ladies
Tuesday Mixed
Wednesday  Beat the Pro
Thursday Mens social


[size=12][size=13]56 to 658 MarkWarner Daily Tennis Court Bookings list[/size][/size]
[size=13]03-Processo 03 Pages 656 to 658[/size]Tuesday 01 May 200703_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_656
[size=12][size=10][/size][/size]
Wednesday 02 May 200703_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_657
[size=12][/size]
Thursday 03 May 200703_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_658
[size=12][/size]
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher

Posts : 2684
Reputation : 780
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 17.07.17 12:36

@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?  bignono

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.
'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID_SANTOS.htm

[/size]

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by HiDeHo on 17.07.17 14:05

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...










avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher

Posts : 2684
Reputation : 780
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 17.07.17 18:13

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!
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 547
Reputation : 616
Join date : 2017-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 17.07.17 20:27

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 secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 17.07.17 21:07

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!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sar on 19.07.17 9:18

"The trouble with Catriona Baker is her seemingly unecessary prominence." in some quarters that could be seen as something close to exhibitionism?

sar

Posts : 686
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 20.07.17 12:54

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.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by polyenne on 20.07.17 14:15

"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.
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 383
Reputation : 274
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 20.07.17 15:52

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.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by polyenne on 20.07.17 16:07

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"....................
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 383
Reputation : 274
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 20.07.17 17:19

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.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 547
Reputation : 616
Join date : 2017-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by sar on 20.07.17 19:09

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.

sar

Posts : 686
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 20.07.17 20:48

@sar wrote:"The trouble with Catriona Baker is her seemingly unecessary prominence." in some quarters that could be seen as something close to exhibitionism?
I need to know what quarters you are talking of before your question can be answered.  Assuming it is a question?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by skyrocket on 21.07.17 11:21

@Phoebe - morning. I think the usual routine given was high tea; playtime; bath/story; bed, wasn't it. On the 3 May, the Mc statements say that there was some plan to bring their children back down to play after baths but I think that was all tied up with the 'Incredible Tale of Dr Payne'.

@Verdi - you and me both. The stated creche arrangements are dubious IMO - I know I have trawled through all this before but I think it is worth going over it again as briefly as possible:

- firstly, it is important to understand that the OC is divided into 3 definite sections/areas: Waterside Gardens (Tapas area + the whole of the adult pool complex and the OC main reception/indoor pool building); Ocean Club Gardens (starts to the right of the main reception car park and takes in the Millenium complex to the north east); Waterside Village (south of the Waterside Gardens and extending down to the beach area).

- secondly, MarkWarner bought out the OC when their Piedra del Rei resort wasn't completed on time. The tented 'childcare centre' (purpose built in 2006?) accommodated their signature kids clubs - similar centres exist in their other resorts.

Now comes the interesting bit:

There are 3 parts to this - the existence of a resort map for the OC, produced by MW for its website (and possibly in the welcome packs as hard copy?); the childcare description text/wording used on the MW website for the OC; and, the accompanying photo of the OC tented childcare centre used.

A. From 19 May 2006 to 9 July 2007 the MW website text states the following:

Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort

Childcare

Located in the Waterside Garden is our fully equipped childcare centre offering our award winning childcare for children aged 4 months and upwards. There is a colourful crèche with an outdoor play area and the nannies organise regular beach trips and other supervised fun activities for the children. Hours are 9am till 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm.

We offer a ‘dining out service’ (only available for parents using the Millenium and Tapas restaurants) in the crèche on a drop-in basis in the evenings for children aged 4 months to 9 years. For those parents wishing to dine at alternative restaurants in the village, babysitting is available on request at additional charge. Our Indy Club for 14-17 year olds is situated near the Ocean Club Gardens.

There is no resort map/childcentre photo/further description of club locations - there is no indication that any of the children's clubs are based in the main reception building and the fact that the beach trips are tied into the same sentence as the colourful creche and the outdoor play area suggests that the beach trips (minis and older) set off from there.

There are no trawl records between 9 July and end October 2007 (that I can find) for this section of the MW website - probably for obvious reasons.

B. By the end of October 2007 (latest), the MW website is showing a resort map.

The map clearly states that the 6+ age range kids clubs are next to the Millenium Restaurant; that the minis (3-5 years; and the toddler 2's (2 years)) are both in the tented creche next to the Tapas Restaurant; that the toddler 1's (1 year) and the babies (4-11 months) are in the end property below the tapas tennis courts but still in Waterside Gardens (this has been highlighted by another poster, seemingly in the know, as being used for the baby club at the time). No indication what-so-ever that any rooms above/near to main reception are being used.

The accompanying text states:

Award-winning childcare


The Ocean Club offers a unique 'dine out' service. Simply get your little ones ready for bed and drop them off at our kids club. We'll watch over them whilst you go out and enjoy yourselves and you can pick them up on your way home.

The childcare photo on the same page clearly shows the new tented creche at the OC (not a generic MW creche photo) - the children shown in the photo are mini club age.

C. By 10 Dec 07 the above text has been removed but the map (with same club locations indicated) and photo remain in place.

D. Between 5 April 08 and 18 April 2008 the page in question is expanded (just in time for the 08 summer season guests) to cover a number of activities available and a new childcare description for 2008 appears:

Childcare







There are 6 childcare clubs that operate in the summer season. The Baby Club, Toddler Club and the Mini Club run all season. With the Junior and Kidz Clubs open until 5/9 and then from 18/10 - 31/10. Our Indy club for 14-17 year olds operates during the school holidays. For more information please see our childcare section.

By 4 May
this description has been expanded to include the year, 2008:

Childcare







There are 6 childcare clubs that operate in the summer season. The Baby Club, Toddler Club and the Mini Club run all season. With the Junior and Kidz Clubs open until 5th September 2008 and then from 18-31st October 2008. Our Indy club for 14-17 year olds operates during the school holidays. For more information please see our childcare section.

By 4 Feb 2009
the description has changed again to 2009:

Childcare









There are 6 childcare clubs - The Baby Club, Toddler Club and the Mini Club which operate throughout the season, and the Junior and Kidz Clubs are open from 4th July to 4th September 2009 and again for half term week 24th October 2009 for one week. Our Indy club for 14-17 year olds operates during the school holidays. For more information please see our childcare section.

E. Sometime between the 18 April 2009 and 17 July 2009 big changes are made in the childcare set up:
The childcare centre photo is removed from the page; the map is changed to show the older children (+6 years junior/kids clubs) still next to the Millenium Restaurant BUT both Toddler 1/2 have been moved to this location as well; the mini club (3-5 years) has been moved to somewhere within the main reception building; and, the baby club has been discontinued.

The accompany text now reads:


Childcare







There are 5 childcare clubs - The Toddler Club and the Mini Club which operate throughout the season, and the Junior, Kidz and Indy Clubs operate on the following dates:
Junior/Kidz Clubs - 3rd May - 29th August & 18th - 31st October
Indy Club - 12th July - 29th August
For more information please see our childcare section.


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

This is as far as I need to go to make the point, which is simply this
:

Between May 2006 and July 2007 (gap of records follows to October 2007), the childcare arrangements for 4 months and upwards are described as being in the fully equiped childcare centre located in the Waterside Gardens area of the resort (next to the the Tapas Restaurant). The oldest club is described as being at the Millenium site but no mention at all of any clubs in the main reception building.

The OC description is quite basic on all accounts up to the changes in October 2007 when descriptions of facilities/activities are introduced. By the end of October 2007 a resort map and photo clearly show the mini club in the tented creche (which supports the above).

Between October 2007 and around April 2009, the MW website has been updated regularly - during this period the mini club (as the main example) is clearly shown as located in the tented creche next to the Tapas Restaurant, both on the resort map and in the creche photo.

I would suggest therefore, the records show an apparent status quo in the childcare locations between inception in Spring 2006 and Spring 2009.

However, from everything we read - statements; media comments; books; etc; we are led to believe that the childcare set up was totally different in Spring 2007.

Why wouldn't MW state that the mini/baby clubs were in the main reception building in 06/07 if they were? There is NO mention of this anywhere before 2009 despite constant web page updates. Were the minis in the main reception building during the early part of the 07 season and then moved to the dedicated childcare centre next to the Tapas before the end of the season in October and then back to the main reception building in 2009? Really?
So many parents involved - why would any of them lie? Would none of them have let something slip by now?
So yes @Verdi - very confusing all round.
AND - just as an add on before we get back on track with the topic of this thread, for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the creche records having been falsified, please can you answer me this one:

Why would blank creche record sheets printed out presumably from a pdf file (or Word for that matter) have blatant discrepancies unless they had been fiddled with?

Examples:
Lobsters 30 May - 'Date' reads 'bate'; 'parents' is missing from 'parents location';
Jellyfish 2 May: - 'markwarner' reads 'rnarkwarner' and 'Parents' is spelt 'Parente';
There are 2 different type faces randomly used for the word 'markwarner'.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 609
Reputation : 598
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 21.07.17 15:35

I won't post a link for obvious reasons winkwink but it would appear the major league of sceptics are still unconvinced that the PJ files cannot provide conclusive evidence that Madeleine was seen by a reliable independent witness between lunchtime on Sunday 29th April and the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

Perhaps they should re-read this thread, this time with a less critical eye and acknowledge the rationale presented, not only by HiDeHo - who seems to be taking the most flak for daring to highlight the questionable subject - but the many members on CMoMM and outsiders who can see the bigger picture.

Otherwise provide a valid argument to counter the conclusion reached as opposed to ad hominem attacks just for the sake of it.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Phoebe on 21.07.17 20:02

@ skyrocket 

From Gerry's 7th Sept 2007 statement -

-" Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers".

Also from Kate's statement May 4th 2007 -

 "After the 5pm dinner, they give the children a bath, prepare them for the night and let them play for a while in a playground next to the tennis courts, still and always under parental supervision."


It does seem bizarre to bathe children, dress them for bed and then bring them back outdoors to run around in a playground! As far as I can make out the McCanns alone followed this strange routine. The rest of the group claimed to allow their children playtime first, then bathed them and put them straight to bed, as one would expect. If the McCann children were being bathed while the others were playing and came out later when the others had left for their baths and bed who did they play with? Frankly I don't believe a word. I suspect they were conscious of how it would sound if they admitted to packing the kids off to creche all day, then bathing and putting them to bed a.s.a.p. 
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 547
Reputation : 616
Join date : 2017-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by skyrocket on 22.07.17 7:58

@Phoebe - as you say, none of the Mcs (et al) accounts can be believed. KM contradicts herself in her 6 May statement. Seems unlikely that parents would bathe their kids and then let them go out and run around and roll all over the grass - getting grubby and wound up in equal measures.

Did they go to the play area after high tea on the rest of the days? Did they go minus Madeleine from early in the week? Might it have been more obvious on the Thursday night that Madeleine was not there because the rest of the group (Ella/Lily) were absent, hence the early return to the apartment straight after high tea? Did anything that any of the T9 say happen that week, actually happen??

Note what Matthew says in his rogatory:


Erm, but a lot of the time we ended up, there was sort of like a play area by the pool with sort of like a plastic, you know, sort of house and little slides, and we spent most evenings, after the kids, because the kids ate a little bit earlier, they ate about sort of quarter to five sometime round there, they'd have their tea, and we'd all move over to this sort of play area, because, I mean, it was fantastic, because there was just like little play houses and things and, you know, sort of lots of grass, so there'd be lots of sort of, they'd sort of chase each other round, they'd play on these bits and, you know, we'd chase them, erm, backwards and forwards, you know, taking it in turns and just sort of stand around and chat. Some people might play tennis at that point in sort of part of the social games, because they did, they did like a sort of mixed, women's night, men's night, social, like that. So there was definitely times when Rachael was on the court, because Grace would be going, like sort of seeing them on the court, she didn't like it, she'd look like at the netting, going 'Mummy, mummy' and 'Come on, come and play'. Erm, so that was pretty much the routine for most nights and we may have gone over and played with that, erm, played with that stuff a little bit earlier as well'.
 

00.46.17 4078 'Was it during those sort of times where you got to know Gerry and Kate a little bit more''

Reply 'Predominantly those, because that's when we saw them most, I mean, it'd be sort of a good hour. And the awful thing was that Madeleine always used to say 'Oh come on be a monster, be a monster, chase me' and, you know, and you think, you know, there really are, you know, it was all pretend at that point, but of course, erm, not as it turned out that, you know, the fact that she said that was, erm. But, you know, it was all, you know, fun, the children running round and then they'd all jump on Dave or jump on Gerry, it was all, you know, they got on great, there was a sort of good range of ages so they had enough people to play with, yeah, it was great, they loved it, running around'.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 609
Reputation : 598
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Verdi on 23.07.17 0:30

Title of thread..

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


Still no takers?  Now why doesn't that surprise me - lost for words are we?

I can wait waiting .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6778
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by HiDeHo on 25.07.17 15:43

Not ONE piece of evidence that Maddie was seen after Sunday lunchtime

We have NOT been searching to prove Maddie WASN'T seen.  It is possible that she WAS.

We are searching for the EVIDENCE and so far, there isn't any!  WHY?


avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher

Posts : 2684
Reputation : 780
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum