Re: PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours?

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.18 12:58

Verdi wrote:I should be interested to see where Netty Estelle's musings lead mid 2018 - early 2019.

Again I ask, why travel as a family with a group of friends to act out a plan to sell or murder their own child. Even if they did, is it really likely they would do the dirty deed in/from the apartment occupied for the holiday? Think Eddie and Keela!

Methinks Ms Estelle is wee'ing up the wrong lamppost.

NB: There's no such thing as the perfect crime.

Yes, the "unreliable" dogs that the Government, police and media don't mention, the "unreliable" dogs that even ex-murder detective Colin Sutton dismisses with his theory that the most likely scenario is that Maddie "was stolen to order by slave traders and smuggled into Africa for a rich family who wanted a white child."

I suppose IF Maddie's fate was pre-planned then the deed would have to be carried out somewhere, so why not PdL? Maybe the premeditated dirty deed went wrong because she died accidentally. It's only the evidence behind the sofa that makes me believe she died accidentally, but I still think her fate was known before she got on that plane in the UK.

No way in hell would a loving mother behave like this if her daughter had unexpectedly died days earlier:

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

I'm not buying it (to coin a phrase from Wendy Murphy).

by Guest 05.03.18 13:08

sallypelt wrote:And that post was posted over two years ago, YET there are still people who refuse that this circus was anything other than what McCann & Co have been telling us.

It's a bit of a poser ain't it?

I can only think people, if they truly exist, that continue to blindly believe the total innocence of the McCann debacle, are either clinically deluded, or uninterested or unaware of the facts of the case.

Then again, there's always the McCann defence league i.e. friends, family and associates to fall back on. You only need a few faithful adherents with multiple cyber identities and hey presto - you have yourself a virtual army.

by willowthewisp 05.03.18 13:45

Verdi wrote:
sallypelt wrote:And that post was posted over two years ago, YET there are still people who refuse that this circus was anything other than what McCann & Co have been telling us.
It's a bit of a poser ain't it?

I can only think people, if they truly exist, that continue to blindly believe the total innocence of the McCann debacle, are either clinically deluded, or uninterested or unaware of the facts of the case.

Then again, there's always the McCann defence league i.e. friends, family and associates to fall back on. You only need a few faithful adherents with multiple cyber identities and hey presto - you have yourself a virtual army.

Hi Verdi,I voted for 3 Days,based purely on the secondment to Portugal from Exeter to his mothers abode by Robert Murat dated 30 April-1st May 2007 Arrival,International Rescue,is/was Robert Murat controlled by Security services,that's a question no one has answered,we know about tapped Phone lines to his mother's abode,but surely they were carried out by Portugal PJ,Not English sources,Our Man in Havana?

by Mark Willis 05.03.18 14:53

Then there's Brunt on telephone first name terms with Mother Murat and Mr Murat, himself up to his 7 foot forehead in it.

by Scone76 05.03.18 15:10

How can anyone believe the High Tea on the day she was reported missing? There are at least FOUR different versions of who picked up the children and at least three what Kate/Gerry did, only assume Amaral wasn't in full possession of the statements when he was disgracefully removed.

Also clearly Murat was up to something illegal or a crank as why would he lie at least 17 times, I think he probably was involved in some way with the McCanns and I'm convinced he new at least Gerry before that week.

by kaz 05.03.18 15:27

JRP wrote:Can I just add one more question to the 29 above.

30 How did they get over their loss so quickly

This is the big stumbling block for me. How?

Because of this I'm of the opinion that Madeleine was still alive AFTER the so called abduction and the dogs' findings 'fixed' so that people would think she was dead and stop looking for her. Whether she is STILL alive is doubtful. If she was alive on the Thursday the crèche records would not have needed to be falsified. Obviously all the subterfuge would still be required to bring some sense to a non existent abduction.
It's always the dogs' reactions that are the fly in the ointment. Take that away and it all becomes more 'possible .' Just my current opinion. It changes regularly as more information comes to light.

by Guest 05.03.18 15:31

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi,I voted for 3 Days,based purely on the secondment to Portugal from Exeter to his mothers abode by Robert Murat dated 30 April-1st May 2007 Arrival,International Rescue,is/was Robert Murat controlled by Security services,that's a question no one has answered,we know about tapped Phone lines to his mother's abode,but surely they were carried out by Portugal PJ,Not English sources,Our Man in Havana?

Not forgetting Murat's cousin Susan Eveleigh and her cosy socializing with the notorious jailbird, Max Clifford - ex-PR guru extraordinaire..

It is part of the odd dynamic of this story that when I phone Sally Eveleigh, Murat’s cousin, who also lives in Praia da Luz, her first remark is that she cannot utter a syllable about Murat without the O.K. of her British press agent, the famously rambunctious Max Clifford. And when his blessing is secured, her second is: “Wonderful, darling, see you shortly. Robert can’t talk to you, because he’s an arguido. But we’ll have a bit of a party, won’t we?”

Unanswered Prayers: Vanity Fair - January 2008

by Scone76 05.03.18 15:50

Also Gerry's comment on the plane always bother me whatever did he mean? Was that a clue to premeditation?

by kaz 05.03.18 16:06

Scone76 wrote:Also Gerry's comment on the plane always bother me whatever did he mean? Was that a clue to premeditation?

I think that comment just passes as 'dry humour' in the McCann household.
Wouldn't he have said , '' Anyone would think WE .................enjoying ourselves'' if he meant it in a sinister way?

by Guest 05.03.18 17:12

I voted "don't know".

It's confusing.

It appears last minute, haphazard and rushed with everyone around the table getting their story straight on the backs of children's colouring books.

But I do think something happened earlier in the week and Madeleine was not well from Monday/Tuesday onward. I also think that's why Kate slept in that room because she was keeping an eye on her.

They messed up and there was a compelling reason not to report a death.

All just opinion based on the PJ files.

by polyenne 06.03.18 14:30

Apologies if this has been added elsewhere but it's an interesting piece : http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/a-mothers-and-fathers-grief.html?m=1

by **Jill Havern** 06.03.18 14:41

It's already posted here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **HiDeHo** 06.03.18 16:03

My thoughts are very simple...

The contradictions and discrepancies started Tuesday morning.. WHY? Is there ANY other reason for trying to hide the truth?

Last sighting that i consider to be credible under scrutiny and not POSSIBLE mistaken identity was Sunday lunchtime.

So, for me SOMETHING happened AFTER Sunday lunchtime and BEFORE Tuesday morning (Using the files)

I dont know WHEN she died. I see nothing in the files to confirm WHICH day, but as far as the faked 'abduction' I CANNOT believe for one second it could be accomplished Thursday evening/night.

I refer to post I made on another thread...

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

by Ruffian 06.03.18 16:55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She has no knowledge of any suspicious situation.

Reads, ratifies and signs.

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

by JohnyT 06.03.18 20:46

Well I don't know what to think anymore but I will say this. Every one of you, pick three couples to go on holiday with, then ask them to cover for something as bizarre as this. Would they do it? Even if a few would, would they all?
Btw I'm a non believer of the abduction theory.

by polyenne 06.03.18 20:51

They would if they were “in a pact of silence” because of the very reason they were at the Ocean Club that week. Oh, think of the shame of it all to their families, friends and peers

Up to their necks they all are (with the exception of the MIL perhaps)

by Crackfox 06.03.18 23:52

I haven't voted because I'm torn between 2-3 days or premeditated. I'm not convinced by any of the photographic evidence and that, the lack of any forensic evidence (apart from the blood and cadaver ) and very strange behaviour from the off makes me lean increasingly towards a premeditated scenario with M spending very little time where she is alleged to have been and there being another significant location.

by Guest 07.03.18 0:21

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

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

Not knowing the layout of the Tapas restaurant I can't be precise but you need to question exactly where this employee was working. The logical assumption would be a kitchen. Could be al-fresco but that I doubt when talking of feeding a crowd of hungry kids - I can't imagine BBQ was on the menu.

Good point there worthy of consideration - what did they eat? I don't think it was ever mentioned, not that there is any reason why it should have been but it raises the question whether this Tapas high-tea ever happened as regards the McCanns and their group of friends. It doesn't appear to accord with the crèche register.

That aside, I ask how a cook inside or outside the kitchen, would be able to say with any degree of certainty that s/he could identify a strangers child (amidst a number of other children). The witness statement was taken on 6th May 2007, three days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance, the most she could have seen is the photograph/s circulated for identification purposes. As has been discussed ad-infinitum, the images provided by the McCanns to assist the investigation bore no true resemblance to the Madeleine seen in the playground and poolside photographs.

I venture to suggest it being impossible for an Ocean Club restaurant cook to be able to say she saw Madeleine at a specific time and day. I doubt if the cook saw Madeleiene at any time on any day.

Not reliable!

by Guest 07.03.18 0:35

Crackfox wrote:.... makes me lean increasingly towards a premeditated scenario with M spending very little time where she is alleged to have been and there being another significant location.

Presuming "M" to be Madeleine, what other "significant location" are you referring to? Besides, how does this fit in with "a premeditated scenario"?

by **Hobs** 07.03.18 1:09

kaz wrote:
Scone76 wrote:Also Gerry's comment on the plane always bother me whatever did he mean? Was that a clue to premeditation?
I think that comment just passes as 'dry humour' in the McCann household.
Wouldn't he have said , '' Anyone would think WE .................enjoying ourselves'' if he meant it in a sinister way?

Don't assume you think what he meant, listen only to the words he said.

He told us he wasn't there to f****** enjoy himself and then Maddie disappeared shortly after.
Leakage.

by Phoebe 07.03.18 1:19

The children were not customers/diners at the Tapas Bar restaurant in the traditional sense of the word. They did not sit at tables, read the menu, give their orders to waiters who approached each table, then wait to be served. Instead they all ate a suitable, set menu, on a terrace adjacent to the normal Tapas Bar dining area. The children's tea seemed to kick off around 4.45.p.m when they were all brought from their various creches by the nannies to the Tapas area to eat. Tea ended at 5.30 after which the nannies were off duty. During this time the Tapas was still serving its regular adult customers. I suspect the very few waiters on day-shift were occupied with the latter and that the children's tea was brought out by various kitchen staff helped by a nanny or two. In this way I can well imagine the cook (N.B. not chef) helping to bring food to the children's table. Therefore, Maria Jose (the Tapas day cook) may well have ventured out of the kitchen when helping the nannies. Whether she really saw Madeleine or not I couldn't say, but I see no reason why she would claim to have seen children when she didn't. Why would she bother to lie? I'm also sure the P.J. asked her how she, as a cook, came to be out of the kitchen! They aren't stupid. Remember, all statements are but an agreed precis after a much longer interview, not a verbatim recording of every single word that had been uttered during that interview.

by **HiDeHo** 07.03.18 3:33

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

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

Not knowing the layout of the Tapas restaurant I can't be precise but you need to question exactly where this employee was working. The logical assumption would be a kitchen. Could be al-fresco but that I doubt when talking of feeding a crowd of hungry kids - I can't imagine BBQ was on the menu.

Good point there worthy of consideration - what did they eat? I don't think it was ever mentioned, not that there is any reason why it should have been but it raises the question whether this Tapas high-tea ever happened as regards the McCanns and their group of friends. It doesn't appear to accord with the crèche register.

That aside, I ask how a cook inside or outside the kitchen, would be able to say with any degree of certainty that s/he could identify a strangers child (amidst a number of other children). The witness statement was taken on 6th May 2007, three days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance, the most she could have seen is the photograph/s circulated for identification purposes. As has been discussed ad-infinitum, the images provided by the McCanns to assist the investigation bore no true resemblance to the Madeleine seen in the playground and poolside photographs.

I venture to suggest it being impossible for an Ocean Club restaurant cook to be able to say she saw Madeleine at a specific time and day. I doubt if the cook saw Madeleiene at any time on any day.

Not reliable!

I could not consider Maria the cook statement as being a confirmation of seeing Madeleine for a few reasons...

Firstly, she admits to not knowing Maddie and only recognised her from the photos of her. (The photos of a much younger Maddie?)

She describes a child who spent the day in the creche next to the tapas restaurant. We KNOW Maddie went to the kids club above the reception 10 minutes away.

I suspect she was mistaken...

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

This leads me to another issue that is questionable...

'Manuela' the cook claims to have cooked for the McCanns table that night.

This could not have been Maria Jose as she left the tapas at 6.45pm and did not return until the following evening.

So WHICH tapas cook was it on the video?

Here is the staff rota for the Tapas... The 'cooks' are highlighted. Three of them. Which one is in the video?

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

'Manuela' claims to have been cooking on the grill that night, but also had knowledge of Madeleine going to the creche near the tapas... (Madeleine did not go to that creche she went to the kids club above the reception)

How could it be Maria Manuela Antonia Jose? She left at 6.45pm until the following day and wasn't at the tapas that night.(See statement above)

It wasn't Maria de Jesus R. Almeida as Thursday was her day off.

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

It wasn't Svetlana Starikova Vitorino as she claims 'During the times meals are served, she works outside the restaurant for some of the time, near to the grill and it is possible that she saw the girl on some occasion. However, she says that she does not have a clear idea of Madeleine, as many children were about, who looked quite similar to her.'

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

For those that question the research on 'who saw Madeleine' I think you can see clearly that the above detailed research shows there is NO CONFIRMATION that any of the cooks in the tapas have confirmed they saw Maddie whether in their statement or in the video.

Most of the above was my very early research in 2008. Can anyone show me if there was ANOTHER cook that I may have missed?

I just want to add that I find it very tedious when 'people' (I'm NOT referring to members in here..lol I understand that many may disagree and thats ok) claim that there were lots of sightings of Maddie. They CLEARLY have NOT done any research themselves yet choose to discredit mine!

by Basil with a brush 07.03.18 4:23

Somebody most definitely died in their apartment. The only person not to return home from that holiday was their daughter. So I'll guess it was her the hounds sniffed out, and they did sniff her out. Make no bones (sorry) about that.

The only supposed sighting on the said night, comes from somebody who visited the rest of the crowd for a meeting back in the UK. That just doesn't wash does it? So Thursday is most definitely out. That would cause me to think at the very least, she was gone a day or two before.

I don't think it was premeditated, but I do strongly believe sexual abuse had taken place and that this along with medication contributed to the death/disappearance.

The holidaying group are absolutely involved in some way. Very possibly one in particular, who liked all the children he was holidaying with, to be very clean. This group's general silence since, speaks volumes to me.

I'm still struggling to work out how and who transported her or materials associated with her after her demise, but whoever it was, wasn't careful enough with that hire vehicle, that's for sure.

As for those that still believe the crazy possibility of an abduction. The mother made a couple of vital errors. Firstly she ran away from her other two children (put a couple of million other mothers in that scenario and see what they do) and secondly, she didn't answer those (awfully taxing, when your little girl is supposedly experiencing God knows what) questions. She was guided very poorly here. Still, you can't be expected to get it all right. As has been mentioned, there's no such thing as the perfect crime.

by Ruffian 07.03.18 8:27

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

by Ruffian 07.03.18 8:31

The above stills show the iconic photo of MM being broadcast on the 4th May. The Cook states she recognised madeleine from watching TV.

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

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

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

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

by Ruffian 07.03.18 8:51

Whilst in Amsterdam, for the launch of the Dutch version of his book 'A Verdade da Mentira', Gonçalo Amaral took time out to answer some questions.

The questions/anwers are not verbatim but from notes:

Q: Have you considered the possibility that Madeleine died on the previous night or even when Mrs. Fenn heard the crying?

A: Naturally - the investigation begins with establishing if the person who disappeared, does actually exist and then, who was the last person to see her - the investigation shows clearly that she was last seen around 17.30.

Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?

A: No doubt whatsoever.

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

by polyenne 07.03.18 8:52

If "High Tea" was supposedly at 4.45pm, how come all the kids were signed out generally at 5.30pm.

It's all hogwash......................unless of course either the logs were falsified or it was in a position where it could be signed as they were leaving "High Tea"

by Ruffian 07.03.18 9:15

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

by polyenne 07.03.18 9:28

Just because they weren't "noticed", doesn't necessarily mean discrepancies weren't apparent.

It is quite obvious (from the hard work that a number of key members put in at CMOMM and other fora) that significant cross-referencing and investigation is required to even begin to see cracks appearing.

This is not to detract from the PJ investigation but it must also be remembered that they were being "leaned on" to reach a specific conclusion.

by sar 07.03.18 11:16

polyenne wrote:If "High Tea" was supposedly at 4.45pm, how come all the kids were signed out generally at 5.30pm.

It's all hogwash......................unless of course either the logs were falsified or it was in a position where it could be signed as they were leaving "High Tea"

Who has "High Tea" anyway? Esp. circa. 2007? Described as "Out-dated" and "Elaborate" in dictionary.