Illustrated Holiday Timeline, Discrepancies and Videos

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 10:28

I originally posted this three years ago. I thought it may be of interest to those that haven't seen it, or are unfamiliar with the details, discrepancies and locations of the week...

LOTS more information, statements and timetables on this original page...

Title: Holiday Timeline and Discrepancies - Did something happen to Madeleine DURING the week?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

NOTE: The following is based on 4 years of research, separating the statements into 15 minute time periods. There is a link available to EVERYTHING.

Some of the over 200 TIMETABLES based on time periods and specific events during the week can be found here:

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

Timelines can be viewed listed under specific headings on this page:

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

We all come to this investigation with different levels of knowledge and with different areas of interest...

Some focus on the latest news...Some focus on connections...Some like to focus on hating the McCanns...

My area of knowledge in the case is about what happened during that few days of the holiday...

You will see me repeat several times about the years I spent researching the timelines and discrepancies...That isn't because of requiring accolades... I did it because it is my passion to form an opinion based on knowledge and when asked I cannot pull a theory out of thin air...I form my opinions based on the information I have studied in the case and I hope that gives me credibility for members that have not had the time or opportunity to research to any extent.

I base all my videos (nearly 200) on the research and details from the files.

That being said, I NEVER want anyone to believe something just because it is my, or anyone else's, opinion. You MUST draw your own conclusions based on what you have CONFIRMED to be true. Never blindly believe anything...that is what we try to do on HDH, is give you details and provide the links so you can confirm for YOURSELF.

After discovering some 'explosive' information yesterday I decided it was time to give you an overall knowledge of the 'week' so you could see for yourself a little of what I 'see' so you can maybe understand what my theories are based on.

This is all from memory so I will not be giving any links but will be more than happy to provide links to any of the following information.

I will try to explain to you some of the things that happened during that week in chronological order as I recall from the research, so you can maybe understand why I believe something happened much earlier in the week.

Everything is based on the files or 'facts' that we know. Please ask if you would like a link to any of the details.

SATURDAY:
A normal holiday arrival.

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

They arrived mid afternoon...Went to the tapas at 5pm for information about the Ocean Club and details about its amenities.

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

From what I understand, half day creche was included but the second half of the day was 'extra'

They left there and went to the Millenium restaurant with all the childen. Ate their meal and went back to the apartment...ready for the start of their holiday.

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

MILLENIUM GROUNDS

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

SUNDAY:

They all went to the Millenium for breakfast but the McCanns decided that it was difficult walking with the twins as they didnt have a buggy.

We don't know too much about Sunday. The cleaners daughter saw them all outside the apartment at around 1.15pm... Madeleine holding bread and probably heading up to the Payne's apartment for lunch. (The last credible sighting of Madeleine during that week. imo)

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

They also went to the pool around lunchtime... A lovely sunny day...temps around 23c (I believe that the 'last photo' was taken on this day)

Matthew Oldfield was (apparently) sick and did not go to the tapas on Sunday night but oddly, Russell O'Brien claimed that he went to check on Matthew and Rachael's child...

They dined at the tapas restaurant that night. Meals were included as was the wine.

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

MONDAY:

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

Kate played tennis (every day?) at 9.15am - 10.15am Gerry played from 10.15 -11.15am
Jane Tanner met up with friends of hers that were staying nearby (the Gorrods).

Speculation is that the McCanns went to Sagres but this has never been confirmed.

Creche records show that Madeleine was taken out of the creche after a few minutes and the twins shortly after but also not confirmed as the records are difficult to understand/believe.

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

Something may have happened with the shutters on Sunday as the maintenance men were called in. (came on Tuesday) Curiously Matthew claims to have had a problem with his blinds also (they were in the apartment next door) but no record of having them fixed.

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

No other details...it was a day when noone seemed to want to discuss. Kate claims in her diary that everyone was at the tapas.

TUESDAY:

This is the day that everything started to happen....

The McCanns decided to have breakfast in the apartment rather than walk to the Millenium because they didn't have a buggy for the twins..... and bought food from the Baptiste store nearby.

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

According to tennis records and Georgina the tennis coach, this was the morning that Madeleine had MINI TENNIS.

The mini tennis was discussed by Kate, Jane and Rachael and became very confusing as Rachael claims it was Thursday and Jane claims it was Wednesday. However. for the details of the mini tennis from them all one would expect the 'occasion' is remembered more than the date (I will address Rachael and mini tennis later regarding a separate issue of the day she claims it to have been)

MINI TENNIS was between 10am and 11am (records show 10.30-11)

Catriona (Madeleine's nanny) was present with the children so Georgina really did not have reason to know the children's names and she did not CONFIRM Madeleine was there...just mentioned it was Madeleine's group (Lobsters) that was playing.

Kate claims to have run back to the apartment to get her camera to take a pic... Rachael claims it was Jane who took the tennis balls Pic and Russell claims it was not Jane.

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

Neither Kate nor Jane mentions Rachael being there despite Rachael claiming Kate sitting with her for the time previous to the mini tennis (when Kate was actually playing tennis and going to see the Maintenance men who were in her apartment at some time showing her how to work the washing machine and fixing the shutters )(had something happened to Madeleine and shutters were involved before this time?)

Lets keep in mind that if Rachael was lying about being at the tennis she may have thought it was Madeleine's mini tennis on Thursday when the other group played ((Sharks)

One of them claimed that Gerry came over to join them while they were watching Madeleine.... Gerry was playing tennis until 15 mins after Madeleine had finished playing so he couldnt have been there....

At lunchtime Gerry walked with Jez Wilkins to the creche to pick up Madeleine at lunchtime. Gerry made a point of telling Jez that they left the children alone... Jez explained to him that the evening creche was available and that they provided blankets to bring the children home.

After lunch they all walked to the beach with the twins in a buggy ( ?). It was a chilly day and the twins did not want to enter the water so they bought 5 ice creams (5? was this to confirm there were 5 of them at that point?) and they watched a guitarist at the restaurant...describing him in great detail.

Returning to the place Madeleine in the creche at 2.50pm. Gerry bought sunglasses from one of the street vendors on the way back. (was this because the last picture had been taken on Sunday so by saying he didnt have sunglasses lent credibility to it having been taken after Tuesday?)

Once Madeleine was back at the creche, she went on an 'ice cream trip' which, according to TravelAdvisor, was something that was agreed and paid for separately...(so why had they just been and had ice creams?)

TUESDAY EVENING was when things really started to become odd...

They all went to the tapas except Russell who stayed in his apartment because his youngest daughter was sick.

According to the quiz mistress who supervised the TRIVIA quiz from about 9pm (and then joined the table until approx 9.50pm) NO-ONE left the table and as she recalled, she did not see Kate during that time and does not remember seeing David Payne...

There was one place setting that looked like someone had been there and left. (9pm is when they usually start the appetisers)

So...was Russell, Kate and David Payne missing?

At 10.16pm Kate starts to receive a 'flurry' of calls (5) until 10.27pm (presumably at the apartment as they claim they didn't take their phones to the restaurant)

Shortly after Mrs Fenn in the apartment above claims to have heard crying getting increasingly stronger with what sounded like 'Daddy, Daddy, Daddy' and it seemed to have come from a toddler for about an hour and quarter until 11.45pm.

(Turn down volume before watching - May be disturbing to some)

It is always presumed to be Madeleine but we know that Rachael claims to have bathed Jane Tanners older daughter in their apartment (while Jane was doing something else?) and their apartment was also directly next door to the McCanns and both were beneath Mrs Fenn.

She heard patio doors close and the crying stopped. Was someone using the patio doors to enter...or to exit?

She did not tell them about this as she didnt want to distress them further.

I believe this was the night they claimed that Amelie was crying and Madeleine came into their room.

There is a video clip of the hairdresser claiming that Mrs Fenn told them that the McCanns visited another bar, Chaplins that night but hearsay and may not be true.

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

WEDNESDAY MORNING

Very early around 7am Kate had 3 calls to her friend in England..Amanda (who is married to a pathologist)

Shortly after at around 8am, Gerry starts receiving the first of 14 text messages...

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

It was raining on Wednesday so the tennis was cancelled.

Dianne Webster decided to go to breakfast at the Millenium... Jane stayed at the apartment.

Dianne recalls seeing the McCanns at the Millenium despite them saying they didnt go for breakfast.

At some point during Wednesday morning the cleaner were let into their apartment and the McCanns left via the balcony door. (see video)

She made the beds and noticed a cot in the McCanns bedroom. Gerry and Kate BOTH deny the cot was there (why?)

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

Around lunchtime Kate went for a jog (in her pink trainers) with Matthew and apparently was bitten by a dog causing blood on her leg.

WEDNESDAY EVENING

Jez Wilkins was at the tapas when Gerry arrived with Russell and was told that Kate was putting the children to bed...She did not seem to arrive while he was there...

Where was Jane? With Kate? (Had something happened to Madeleine and Kate was grieving?)

Did they EVER arrive?

The group stayed at the tapas late that night. The waiters wanted to leave at midnight but the group stayed there until approx 1am. (Was there something important they needed to discuss?)

According to Kate and Gerry the left just before 11pm...Gerry left first and when she was back at the apartment Gerry was in bed...He claims Kate spent a few moments in bed and because of his snoring went to sleep in Madeleine and twins room...however when one looks at the bed in their room it shows no signs she laid in it.

Kate claims she was annoyed with him and didn't know if he knew she slept in the other room.

THURSDAY MORNING...

They awoke about 7am and Madeleine came to them and (according to May 4th statements) asked why they hadn't come when the TWINS were crying...

However...In Gerrys May 10th statement he changed it to MADELEINE was crying and it remains that version to this day...

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

What I find is curious is that Kate claims she would have not thought any more about the comment except once Madeleine was missing she recalled it and thought it was important...

Oddly, she told Jane and Fiona on Thursday night BEFORE Madeleine disappeared!

Not only that...If, as she claimed she told them on Thursday night then surely she would have told them the version she told the PJ on May 4th that it was the TWINS that were crying...so WHY did Jane and Fiona BOTH claim that she told them the version that MADELEINE was crying...this was the 'corrected' version 6 days later...so was it made AFTER they changed the version and if so WHY did they lie about being told on Thursday night?

THE FOLLOWING FEW HOURS ARE VERY IMPORTANT....and keep in mind these details are taken from their EARLY statements the following day so there should be NO QUESTION about memory...

Upon leaving the apartment Kate claims they ALL left through the front door... Gerry claims Kate and the kids left through the patio doors.

He left Kate to go down the steep steps with three children so he could lock the doors of an EMPTY apartment?

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

They tell us they dropped off the Twins at the tapas creche and Gerry took Madeleine to the Kids club creche at the reception while Kate played her tennis game at 9.15am (his followed at 11.15am)

There is no record of the twins dropped off on Thursday...

The following hours are very difficult to explain because of the contradictions and possible lies....

Rachel claims she sat with Kate by the pool awaiting Madeleine's mini tennis and when the children arrived (around 10.30am) claims Jane was there and took the photo of Madeleine with the tennis balls.

She ALSO claims that THIS WAS THE LAST TIME SHE SAW MADELEINE (was she trying to be helpful? Had something happened to Madeleine earlier and she saw little blonde girls, Madeleine's age playing tennis and thought that Madeleine should be there?)

The police were persistent in trying to establish with her WHICH courts the children were playing on. The court she identified was the INCORRECT one according to the tennis records.

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

Jane and Russell claim to have both been at the mini tennis of the group that was NOT Madeleine's but was called the Sharks and was the same age group (Sharks)

They both recall speaking to Nigel...he had a camera and they discussed about how difficult it was to take pictures of children and how it could be misinterpreted.

During that half hour (10.30 - 11am) Jane left and went to the beach where she met Fiona and David on the way back from windsurfing...both cold and heading back to the apartment to change.

Jane arrived at the beach in time to catch her older daughter (3 months younger than Madeleine and in the same group as Madeleine) getting ready to go back to the creche after their 'mini sail'

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

She took pictures of her daughter but no mention of Madeleine (pics not available in the files)
Jane's statement tells us that Russell went to the beach with her.

Although Rachael tells us she was at mini tennis on Thursday, there is no mention of her by Russell or Jane.

Bridget O'Donnell tells us in an interview with the Guardian that she saw the children (all pink and pretty) but does not specifically mention Madeleine.

She also tells us that Gerry and Kate spent time talking with the Tennis coach.

Fiona claims to have been with her by the pool and they both went to pick up Fiona's youngest daughter (in the same room as Madeleine) and Madeleine.

Kate signed Madeleine out at 12.25.

Kate says in her statement that she went back to the apartment first and prepared lunch for the children.

Gerry says that it was HIM that went to pick up Madeleine and he remembers that because he took the short cut.

Kate says she went back to the tapas creche to see if Gerry had picked up the twins... Neither of them appear to know and Catriona the nanny does not recall WHO picked up and dropped off Madeleine on Thursday.

This is very interesting as the police timeline diagrams claim that although Kate and Gerry claim the twins were in the creche....there are NO creche records for them....

Maybe they were not released as I have always believed....but the diagrams tell us something different....

Thursday morning diagrams do not show the twins were at the creche....

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

[this comment needs confirmation from the 'Diagram of events'...Please ignore until further notice
Jane mentions (in the diagrams) that they (TWINS) were picked up from the creche and Fiona claims they were with her ALL AFTERNOON!

If that is the case then HOW was the last picture taken?]

PLEASE SEE MESSAGE 4 on this thread..

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

Further confirmation that it was suspicious about whether Madeleine was there for the last picture at 2.29 on May 5th comes from Rachael....

She had said in her statement that both Jane and her played tennis that lunchtime...Supported by Jane Tanners statement...

Jane claims that Madeleine was shouting at them through the fence...Rachael does not mention this...and fort a good reason...

Rachael claims that the LAST TIME she saw Madeleine was during mini tennis...

Was that mini tennis on Thursday (when she was mistaken and Madeleine didn't play) or was it on TUESDAY when Madeleines group played (In which case the last time she saw Madeleine was Tuesday?)

Either way... Rachael (by default) did NOT see Madeleine by the pool when they were playing tennis as she says the LAST time she saw Madeleine was when she was playing tennis (whether Tuesday morning or Thursday morning)

If that was the case...is it true that Jane and Rachael were playing tennis and Madeleine wasn't there for the last picture?

Is Rachael lying about the last time she saw Madeleine?

Jane claims to have seen Madeleine and Rachael didnt...are they BOTH lying about being there?

If they are both lying about playing tennis at the time the Last Picture was supposed to be taken.....is it pssible they were 'being helpful' but both had got the story wrong?

How could Jane see Madeleine but Rachael didnt?

Were they both there? (If they were lying...WHY?)

Were the McCanns there?

Most importantly ...was Madeleine there?

The McCanns claim they took the twins back to the creche at 2.40 (approx) and drpped Madeleine off at her creche at 2.50pm...

So...WHY did Fiona claim..(according to the diagrams) that SHE had the twins that afternoon?

WERE the twins at the creche or is it a story made up to support the 'Last Picture' (which I believe was taken on Sunday with just the exif data changed)?

THURSDAY AFTERNOON

During the afternoon Gerry and Kate were able to book a tennis court where they played before Gerry continued playing with one of the other guests.

Kate went for a jog and passed the T7 who were down on the beach at the Paraiso.

Clips from the footage is available to view, showing the timeline of their duration in the Paraiso restaurant.

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

The owner/manager claims Miguel Mattias, claims to have seen Madeleine dancing with her daddy at the restaurant and passed the footage to the PJ.

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

The footage confirms that Madeleine was not there and that he appears to have mistaken one of the other T7 children as being Madeleine (confirming the possibility of other witnesses being mistaken) and looked similar to Madeleine.

HIGH TEA

Gerry claims to have been at high tea while the children were there and Kate arrived after her jog at approx 5.30pm

Catriona the nanny claims that Gerry WASN'T there and that he was playing tennis....which is very odd as who would have told her that? WHEN?

Catriona was 'invited' to the McCanns home during November prior to the Rogatory statements and may have learned details and became confused.

Oddly, she also remembers details such as Kate wearing a jogging outfit.

Kate consistently claims that Madeleine was very tired an Madeleine asked her mother to carry her home.

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

The children were signed out at 5.30pm.

Kate then carried her back to the apartment but Gerry claims they went to the patio doors and he let them in through the back. If, indeed, Kate had een carrying Madeleine, How did she manage the twins on her own, climbing the steep steps at the rear of the apartment.

This was a few hours before Madeleine disappeared and yet Kate claims she went in through the front doors.
What mother would not remember the door used 3 hrs before she claims she saw her daughter for the LAST TIME! Was it GERRY that got it wrong?

Did they REALLY go back to the apartment at that time?

They can't agree on what door was used even the following morning when they gave their statements?

THURSDAY EVENING

There are too many inconsistencies about the following few hours...

Russell claims that Kate and the children were there during the mens tennis...

Kate claims she went back to the apartment and took a shower AND a bath?

She claims she was in a towel when David Payne stopped by to pass a message on to her from Gerry ( about 6.30pm) asking if she needed help to take the children to the recreation area...

Kate claims he was there for about 30 seconds...

David Payne described the children at length....obviously from the detail he spent more than 30 seconds in the apartment.

Mrs Fenn (according to an interview program with Goncalo Amaral) saw David Payne on the balcony about 7pm

Gerry had gone to tennis at 6.00pm...the others had arrived a while later from the Paraiso restaurant.

David Payne was back at his apartment at 7.10pm.

The police asked Fiona...they finally had her agree that she had no idea where David Payne was between 6 and 7pm.

Fiona went out jogging while the children were bathed and just before it was time to go to the tapas, which made them a little late.

AT THE TAPAS

Gerry and Kate and Rachael and Matthew Oldfield arrived first Jane (separate to Russell) arrived a little later.

At 9.00pm Matthew decided to 'chivvy' the Paynes as they hadn't arrived.

He walked up to the apartment and met them on the way down...but STRANGE...

Matthew claimed he saw them at the corner of the road by the front of the apartments....

Fiona claimed she saw him near the gate at the BACK of the apartment....

David claims he saw him near the swimming pool...

Dianne claimed that she CATEGORICALLY did not see him at all on her way to the tapas....at least until her Rogatories when she said she may have seen him as Fiona and David had REMINDED her... (Reminded?)

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

DINNER

During the dinner, the waiters claim that ONLY the men ever got up from the table and noone really knew WHY they left the table (until after the 'disappearance' when they PRESUMED they left the table to check the children.

To be continued....

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY SO MANY DISCREPANCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK (starting Tuesday Morning) IF NOTHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE UNTIL THURSDAY NIGHT?

Were they trying to hide something?

by Phoebe 06.07.17 12:01

@ HiDeHo. Firstly, thanks again for all you painstaking work over the years, the videos and beautiful music. roses

So much food for thought! I was unaware or had forgotten that Fiona claimed to have had the twins all afternoon on Thurs. That cannot be as they were not brought to the beach. Kate's story of the dog-bite is strange. As a medic she would have known she needed a tetanus shot, regardless of previous vaccination. I am very interested to see that only morning creche sessions were included in the holiday price. What would have happened to all those nannies duty rosters if there had been no up-take for extra afternoon sessions? Would they have been assigned other duties or been free? I believe this is important as IMO creche did not run at all as outlined by the schedule and creche records. I also thought the McCs had only breakfasted in the Millenium on Sunday morning. I didn't realize they had also gone there on Monday morning? I do believe Mrs. Fenn's story of the crying, mainly because the McCanns and their friends were so desperate to tell us of the numerous occasions when children were crying - Amelie disturbing Madeleine's sleep, Ella O'Brien having a meltdown while being bathed, the twins and/or Madeleine crying on the Wed. night. I believe these were confusion-cover for the real event.

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 14:23

Please keep in mind that I wrote this from memory 3 years ago... some things may have changed. ALL info needs to be checked before it's used in any way as fact.

I did my best but would appreciate any corrections...

by skyrocket 06.07.17 14:46

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

Can you just clarify this statement for me:

'Jane mentions (in the diagrams) that they were picked up from the creche and Fiona claims they were with her ALL AFTERNOON!'

Can't find this but probably me!

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 14:49

That was on my list to double check... the diagrams can be confusing at times... but I will get back to you shorty :)

I have searched for the diagram since but with so many available its been difficult.

I may have to remove that comment until I find it.

by skyrocket 06.07.17 15:01

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - thanks for getting back to me quickly. Don't remove it for now - someone may find it. I'll have a look myself. The reason I was interested is that when I examined the Paraiso photos carefully I spotted the top of a little, very blonde head which could have been Amelie. I haven't said anything before as I could imagine the response but if there is other evidence that the twins were with Fiona, well..........

I have some other points about Ella:

If we look at Ella O'Brien and her foot (small op just before the holiday), Jane tells us that the doctors told her the following before they left:

'the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah'.

and:

“She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered..'

The Lobsters have 2 pool sessions scheduled before Thursday, presumably held in the indoor pool which we hear NOTHING about anywhere (wouldn't you think swimming in this pool might have been a fun family/or adult activity if the outdoor pool was so cold?). Anyway, interestingly, the first session is on the Sunday at 3.30pm - exactly the time Jane signs Ella out on the Sunday. The second is on Tuesday at 10am - we see Ella signed in at 9am by Russell but then no sign out time. Was she there after 10am (or even 9am)? We are told that she did go for the mini sail on Thursday - but we don't know if this is true. Also, how was she getting about in her slippers - walking to the Millenium; walking backwards and forwards to the mini club; etc - no mention of this at all?

The foot issue (if true) raises the probability that Ella O'Brien would have stood out as: Ella O'Brien - the little girl with the sore foot who couldn't go swimming and was wearing slippers.

However, look what Russell says about their arrival at the Ocaen club:

'I recall we all went to the pool as the kids wanted to swim, it was a windy and cold I’d say it was mid afternoon time, I remember that the PAYNE’S and MC CANN’S arrived at some point whilst we were all at the pool'.

Note 'kids' can only have meant Ella, Evie and Grace as the rest hadn't arrived. Hardly likely that Grace would have said she wanted to go swimmimg. No mention of Ella's foot and why would they go swimming if it was 'windy and cold?' As usual, nothing makes sense.

by skyrocket 06.07.17 15:17

Could the Fiona Payne/twins reference have come from the 4 May diagram?

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 15:31

This is the diagram in question...

It has SO much information that I have yet to get my head around as its in Portuguese but all the arrows etc, show the Twins were with the other families in the afternoon...

Each block of text tells who made the statement...its the timeline from the PJ

VERY interesting...

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

by Guest 06.07.17 15:59

HiDeHo wrote:This is the diagram in question...

It has SO much information that I have yet to get my head around as its in Portuguese but all the arrows etc, show the Twins were with the other families in the afternoon...

Each block of text tells who made the statement...its the timeline from the PJ

VERY interesting...

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

Sorry to trouble you - do you have he link to hand where this can be found in the PJ files? No problem if it's too time consuming, I'll have a look later when I've got more time.

by skyrocket 06.07.17 16:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -thanks but yikes!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - my thought as well, but not much better quality here:

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

However, I hate to say this but I actually think it might show the twins with the Mcs for lunch and then by the pool and back to the creche. It is very misleading and that's how I read it but I'll re-check as I'm in a rush now. The lines for each person are not clear but the Mcs box definitely (above) says 'criancas' as in children plural. I think it's a question of number/types of lines in and out of boxes. If I'm wrong I apologise in advance.

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 17:03

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -thanks but yikes!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - my thought as well, but not much better quality here:

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

However, I hate to say this but I actually think it might show the twins with the Mcs for lunch and then by the pool and back to the creche. It is very misleading and that's how I read it but I'll re-check as I'm in a rush now. The lines for each person are not clear but the Mcs box definitely (above) says 'criancas' as in children plural. I think it's a question of number/types of lines in and out of boxes. If I'm wrong I apologise in advance.

Please don't apologise...

There is certainly some question, but it should be kept in mind that it is not the timeline claimed by the PJ but determined by each person identified in the boxes...

Gemeos (twins) are shown to be included with Jane Tanner and Fiona Paynes timeline...

The McCanns (and Sarah Williamson?) may also be telling the story of what they were doing...

What actually DID happen that afternoon . Keep in mind that the pj files do not give us the creche records for the twins on Thursday morning...

Guessing the text and into translate gets me this from Jane and Fiona...

This will take a lot of understanding (hence I wasnt able to complete the effort 3 years ago)

If anyone can volunteer to translate the boxes on the large diagam it would be very helpful and much appreciated.

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

by **HiDeHo** 06.07.17 17:28

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:This is the diagram in question...

It has SO much information that I have yet to get my head around as its in Portuguese but all the arrows etc, show the Twins were with the other families in the afternoon...

Each block of text tells who made the statement...its the timeline from the PJ

VERY interesting...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Sorry to trouble you - do you have he link to hand where this can be found in the PJ files? No problem if it's too time consuming, I'll have a look later when I've got more time.

This was in the title of the page... Relatorio de analise dos primeiros 11 volumes

From my previous research I got as far as asking the question about last picture... but the full diagram needs to be assessed before we can presume anything...

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

Unfortunately there are a lot of of files we could use...missing Sad

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

by Phoebe 06.07.17 20:52

Looking again at the creche records something strikes me. Why do the Lobster records specify "with Cat." on 30th April and May 2nd but not on any other day? If Cat was in supposedly charge of Madeleine's group every day why the need to note this in handwriting across the top of these two day's records. Indeed, why note it at all? The twins "Jellyfish" group has no note of which nanny was in charge. It fuels my suspicions that Cat did NOT mind Madeleine's group every day as she claimed.

by Guest 07.07.17 1:16

HiDeho wrote:This was in the title of the page... Relatorio de analise dos primeiros 11 volumes

OK, so I've looked at the file reference, I can't read the PJ charts but I understand from the methodology that they are based on the witness statements. What else could it be.

As I previously said of another example of the charts contained in the files, the analysis of the creche register, it is but a PJ in-house working document - a generalisation of the groups movements according to their witness statements. In my view these charts do not in any way assist with further understanding the depths of intrigue surrounding this case.

If anything they are a backward step as the timings etc. are an inaccurate depiction of the groups movements during the week. Not from the perspective of the PJ investigation, they clearly had their reason for the methodology - however for the purpose of a greater understanding of the mystery of Madeleine McCann's alleged disappearance, they contribute nothing - only add to the confusion.

by **HiDeHo** 07.07.17 5:19

They do appear to be 'timelines' based on witness statements, and of course most of their statements are riddled with inconsistencies, but I am curious why you would consider them a 'backwards step'?

Does this also include the timelines created from the witness statements?

by JRP 07.07.17 11:32

I always find your posts interesting HiDeHo, and your minute detailing of the timeline and all the other stuff you do is amazing.

This post has been fascinating, so a couple or three observations/questions, which of course nobody has to answer.

If two people have different recollections about the time/day of a certain event, then does one account have to be correct, or, can both accounts be wrong?

If there are inconsistencies in a statement, could they be deliberate inconsistencies, and if so, can an inconstancy be an outright lie?

If there are inconsistencies in one or more statements, does putting them into a flow chart make them accurate, or are they just very neat inaccuracies and easier to read?

What we are doing is comparing witness inconsistencies with creche sheet inconsistencies, and coming up with inconsistencies.

There used to be computer programmers term for this which was pretty sweary, "Put sh*t in, get sh*t out"... I took the sweary words out, so I hope everyone follows it smilie

If Jez Wilkins walked with Gerry to pick Madeleine up from the creche, did Jez Wilkins see Madeleine?

Here's what is on mccannpjfiles regarding Wilkin's Rogatory.

Relative to the encounters between the 29th of April and the 3rd of May;
I played against Gerry in the tennis lessons and we played a game outside the lessons together with two friends who made up part of his group. Kate was in the immediate area of the resort but the reason for our meetings was normally tennis. We got along well together.

Relative to seeing them with Madeleine and the other children;
I do not have grand memories of Madeleine but did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche. My last memory of the twins, specifically, was in the company of adults (I think they were friends that travelled here) in the pool zone and also on the day that we left, Saturday 5th of May, 2007.
I never saw any member of the family inside or possessing a vehicle.

Relative to the encounter with Gerry and Kate on the 3rd of May 2007;
I had a tennis lesson with Gerry from 10h00 to 11h00. After the lesson we went to fetch the children from the creche. I saw Gerry and Kate near the pool relaxing. I remember that they were talking to a British tennis instructor whose name is George or Georgina. I remember that she was telling them a bit about her personal life. Later that day, I went once again to collect the children from the creche and believe I saw them there, but I cannot affirm with exactitude if it was that day or if had been on a previous day. We did not see each other again on this day.

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

by polyenne 07.07.17 11:44

It would appear that most, if not all, statements contain some inconsistencies - either pure obfuscation (by the T9) or by poor recollection of others.

Either way, if you build a timeline based on one consistency heaped upon another, it is highly probable that you will end up with a timeline that is so wide of the mark as to be frankly worthless in any meaningful way.

I believe this to be part of the McCann ploy from the outset. Even if an "unconnected" witness gives a precise time, a T9 statement giving an alternative time creates an anomaly with the subsequent question : which one is correct ?

by JRP 07.07.17 12:17

Did Jez Wilkins see Madeleine.

I think he and others saw Madeleine by association, and by that I mean, People saw one or other McCann or both McCann's at the creche. They presume that the only reason that they would be at the creche would be to deliver or pick up a child, that child being obviously Madeleine.
They see the Adult, and associate one of the children to be Madeleine, but that doesn't prove Madeleine was there.

I see one of my neighbours passing my house on foot, I know she is going to the school up the road, to pick up her 5-6 ish year old blonde daughter for lunch.
I see here pass four times in all. The first journey she walks alone, to go to pick her daughter up, and again when they both come home, the third time she walks her daughter back to school, and the fourth final journey is the neighbours return home alone.
However, in reality, my neighbours daughter is obscured from my view by my garden wall which is taller than her, I only see the adult neighbour passing.
I associate the journeys with the child, therefore I presume the child is there, otherwise all the journeys have no purpose.

Unless of course the purpose is to deceive.

Yes, my name is Michael Paine!

by Guest 07.07.17 12:36

HiDeHo wrote:They do appear to be 'timelines' based on witness statements, and of course most of their statements are riddled with inconsistencies, but I am curious why you would consider them a 'backwards step'?

Does this also include the timelines created from the witness statements?

Sorry, I can't be more specific as regards the particular charts you've used - not only do I not understand the Portuguese language but the print is too small for me to read. I can just about make out times, dates and names which confirm my initial point. The times specified by the team of analysts appear to be a base time, a working hypothesis, rather the the exact times stated by the witness statements and documentation contained in the PJ files. It's further confusing an already confused sequence of events.

Personally, I don't think this route is leading anywhere but a blind alley. It is after all only the work of a team of analysts (no disrespect to a generally worthwhile occupation), trying to link together the groups movements throughout the week. An impossible task considering the conflicting chain of events presented by the McCanns and their group of friends.

by skyrocket 07.07.17 12:40

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with both your points.

'There used to be computer programmers term for this which was pretty sweary, "Put sh*t in, get sh*t out"... I took the sweary words out, so I hope everyone follows it'

Perhaps though, that was the point of the exercise for the PJ (I think they were/are probably much more astute than certainly myself). Collate everything the T9 said about 3 May onto one sheet so any discrepancies stand out (both between the T9 and when compared with other statements). In other words, reverse your programmers term - '****' out, more than likely proves or shows **** in.

Recognition by association is a vital point - I only recognise people's partners if they are with the person I know. I certainly wouldn't recognise people's young children unless they stood out for a reason (such as I posted above - Ella O'Brien not being able to swim and wearing slippers, if any of that is true). Was it 10 or 11, 3/4 year old blonde girls? How would anyone differentiate other than by association. See what Stephen Carpenter said after he was asked if he had seen the McCanns with Madeleine (he wont commit himself despite trying to be positive about GM which makes me wonder if he had thought about the association factor since the disappearance):

DCF: 'Oh yes, not from there, it was even before Madeleine disappeared. Did you see them with Madeleine and the other two children'
.
SC: Humm...I don't remember what I said in my statement, I am not sure about this because when I think about the past, and I know that he was playing tennis and I imagine something different, that's why...humm I can't specify hours and dates.

DCF: Ok. If you can remember the occasion upon which you saw them, how was the children's behaviour'.

SC: Humm. I can't reply because I was not concentrating on this type of thing, that's why...hmmm, I cannot even reply to this.

DCF: No, but I was thinking from the point of view of common sense, after the disappearance of Madeleine, any doubt that you could have had.

SC: Oh, after the disappearance'

DCF: No, what I was thinking here was that after her disappearance, you would probably have reflected upon whether you saw anything.

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

The release of the old images of Madeleine also helped to muddy the waters in terms of recognition - everything was for a reason, which is why I can't believe that the disappearence happened on 3 May. There is no logical reason for these photos to have been released unless Madeleine disappeared earlier in the week and there was a need to create confusion in people's minds regarding her appearance.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - everything I have seen that you have produced is of great value IMO, your work has collated; clarified and highlighted a vast amount of information. There is no way of knowing somethings value unless someone takes the trouble of looking at it closely - most of us haven't got your patience and willingness to dedicate so much time to this case. clapping

by Phoebe 07.07.17 12:44

We have to remember that statements such as Jez Wilkins are are an agreed precis of what was discussed rather than a verbatim report. For example, when Jez's statement says "He does not have grand (I presume grande, meaning big or many) memories of seeing Madeleine but did see her on some occasions with her parents in creche" he could well mean just that, that he did see HER, not just her parents. She may have run up to one of her parents or spoken or responded to her name within Jez's sight. Given that the nannies statements seem to indicate that they were asked how the parents seemed to interact with Madeleine and she with them, Jez may have been asked about how Madeleine seemed on these occasions. If he answered that all seemed fine and normal, this may not have been noted in the final report , but could be important as it could explain why the P.J. felt Madeleine was present and well on that particular day. I also feel that every attempt should be made to translate and understand the action diagram posted by HiDeHo and any others. They may or may not contain extra, different or contradictory information which might be noteworthy. For example, after the annex diagrams of Madeleine's daily creche attendance each day it is noted that Madeleine was always looked after by Cat. Baker from the Sunday to the Thurs and always for the same hours. We know this is not true from the interview records and creche log, so must the P.J. so who told them this and when? IMO no piece of what could be important information should be disregarded before thorough investigation. The suggestion that Madeleine may have come to harm before Thurs is so huge and vital that anything which could help prove/disprove this hypothesis needs the closest scrutiny IMO.

by polyenne 07.07.17 12:53

IMO no piece of what could be important information should be disregarded before thorough investigation. The suggestion that Madeleine may have come to harm before Thurs is so huge and vital that anything which could help prove/disprove this hypothesis needs the closest scrutiny IMO.

I absolutely agree Phoebe. There are 1 or 2 on this forum that come across as very dismissive of any belief other than their own. That is not helpful...we are all here striving for the same end result.

Yes, the ability to prove anything is the difficult part but, as I've always said, it can be one little nugget that just might open the door.

by JRP 07.07.17 13:27

This is what Jez Wilkins said in his rogatory statement,

"I don't have grand memories of Madeleine, but did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche".

Now, of course his words could be true; he did see Madeleine in the creche with her parents, and if he did, she was alive and well at the time. He doesn't mention the day or the time however, so it's a little vague.
He doesn't mention her running up to them, or her name being called and her response, so we have what we have.

HiDeHo mentioned that Jez Wilkins walked with Gerry to the creche, on the journey Gerry confides in him that they leave the kids alone in the evening, and Wilkin's tells Gerry about the evening creche, and that they provide blankets to carry children home in. (Apart from Tannerman/Crecheman who presumably didn't want one).

So on this occasion of accompanying Gerry to the creche, did Wilkins see Madeleine? I presume not, as the memory he has of her might be clearer. If he accompanied Gerry McCann to the creche to pick Madeleine up, and he didn't see her, why didn't he see her?

Nannies and Wilkins state they see the McCann's at the creche, there aren't many who see her in other areas, so does the McCann's being at the creche cause a subliminal association that Madeleine was at the creche, when she wasn't really there?

by sar 07.07.17 15:02

+1 HiDeHo, amazing collection of work, a personal fave is Chaplins!

by Guest 07.07.17 15:28

polyenne wrote:IMO no piece of what could be important information should be disregarded before thorough investigation. The suggestion that Madeleine may have come to harm before Thurs is so huge and vital that anything which could help prove/disprove this hypothesis needs the closest scrutiny IMO.

I absolutely agree Phoebe. There are 1 or 2 on this forum that come across as very dismissive of any belief other than their own. That is not helpful...we are all here striving for the same end result.

Yes, the ability to prove anything is the difficult part but, as I've always said, it can be one little nugget that just might open the door.

How refreshing to see a comparative newcomer who feels qualified to comment on the conduct of other CMoMM members.

The time of Madeleine's alleged disappearance is indeed of vital importance, as I said, I don't think this collection of analysts diagrams is going to lead to anything enlightening but [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I look forward to reading your contribution to finding that missing piece of the jigsaw (excuse the cliché).

It is worth noting however, HiDeHo welcomes alternative thinking and/or criticism - it's how she develops her research, gives her the opportunity to challenge her own work. That's what I call constructive - agreeing with anything and everything just because of the originator is not productive. HiDeHo has worked like a trojan for the past ten years in the name of Madeleine McCann, I have a great deal of respect for her - that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything she, or anyone else, produces.

You need to understand that questioning specifics does not equate to disrespect!

by **HiDeHo** 07.07.17 15:43

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:They do appear to be 'timelines' based on witness statements, and of course most of their statements are riddled with inconsistencies, but I am curious why you would consider them a 'backwards step'?

Does this also include the timelines created from the witness statements?
Sorry, I can't be more specific as regards the particular charts you've used - not only do I not understand the Portuguese language but the print is too small for me to read. I can just about make out times, dates and names which confirm my initial point. The times specified by the team of analysts appear to be a base time, a working hypothesis, rather the the exact times stated by the witness statements and documentation contained in the PJ files. It's further confusing an already confused sequence of events.

Personally, I don't think this route is leading anywhere but a blind alley. It is after all only the work of a team of analysts (no disrespect to a generally worthwhile occupation), trying to link together the groups movements throughout the week. An impossible task considering the conflicting chain of events presented by the McCanns and their group of friends.

Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

We KNOW the week is nothing like they claim, but each timetable I compiled gives us the contradictions...not those from memory... but exacting contradictions that do not rely on memory, and then when possible comparing them to other witnesses...

I learned most of what I know by studying their statements, compiling timetables and seeing WHEN the contradictions started...

Category: All Timetables

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

Topics	Author	Replies	Views	Last Post

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

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

0

690

09/02/2012 1:09 AM

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

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

0

870

02/28/2011 12:53 PM

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

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

0

1699

12/08/2010 7:42 PM

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

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

0

616

10/09/2010 7:36 AM

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

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

1

1089

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
07/10/2010 8:03 AM

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

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

0

1788

07/10/2010 7:57 AM

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

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

0

558

07/10/2010 7:53 AM

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

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

0

579

07/10/2010 7:46 AM

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

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

0

1179

07/10/2010 7:42 AM

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

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

0

675

07/10/2010 7:38 AM

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

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

0

905

07/10/2010 7:34 AM

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

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

0

899

07/10/2010 7:31 AM

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

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

0

627

07/10/2010 7:25 AM

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

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

0

1801

07/10/2010 7:21 AM

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

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

0

1244

07/10/2010 7:01 AM

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

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

0

757

07/10/2010 7:00 AM

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

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

0

534

07/10/2010 6:44 AM

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

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

0

537

07/10/2010 6:42 AM

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

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

0

604

07/10/2010 6:39 AM

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

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

0

606

07/10/2010 6:37 AM

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

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

0

472

07/10/2010 6:31 AM

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

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

0

1057

07/10/2010 6:29 AM

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

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

0

1261

07/10/2010 6:24 AM

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

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

0

1813

07/10/2010 6:20 AM

THATS what I base my conclusions on

I find their statements one of THE most important details in the case.

I can't change the conclusions I have because I can't change what the files 'tell' me...

Maybe the diagrams will not give any further information... Maybe they will...

Until I have translated and checked them, then I can't say one way or another....

by Guest 07.07.17 15:53

HiDeHo wrote:
Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

I refer only to the PJ's analysts charts in Portuguese, produced I think early 2008.

Time is of the essence - I will elaborate later thumbsup

.

by polyenne 07.07.17 17:17

I don't "need to understand" anything Verdi. How condescending.

You appear to relate my recent membership of this forum as some reason to suggest that my hypotheses are less valid than others who've been here longer. I've been following this case since 2007 though not necessarily on this forum.

I'm taking a break from commenting for a while due to your haughty attitude which sometimes borders on belligerence. I can sometimes see why some people choose to leave the forum. Perhaps your position as moderator has gone to your head.

You'll probably mod this out. All IMO of course

=============================================================

CMOMM members are reminded to take their grievances to PM.

Other forum members and guests do not visit CMOMM to read petty personal squabbles.

Thank you.

Mod.

by Phoebe 07.07.17 18:12

Has anyone ever contacted Dr. Amaral to ask him whether he is satisfied that Madeleine was seen alive and well during the week and to flag up the findings of so few verified sightings? Surely this would answer the question once and for all. No one knows more about what happened that week (outside of the T9) and it appears he did not abandon his interest in the case once he left the P.J. Is there anyone in a position to put such a query to him? We rely only on those published, translated files which are available. We have no way of knowing what was asked and answered but not recorded in final statements during numerous formal and informal questioning.

by skyrocket 07.07.17 18:32

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting. thumbup