Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?

by Basil with a brush 09.02.18 4:38

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Basil with a brush wrote:It has to be before the "They've taken her!" night. In all reality, they'd have to have been far too damn lucky to pull off what they have in such a short space of time. I also don't believe she was moved in their hire car a few weeks after this, but that..something very close to her...was.
Like what?

Didn't Amaral say there was bodily fluids in the car that could only come from a refrigerated/frozen body?

Hmm, I may need help on that one Get'emGoncalo, but it could surely be a number of items that were very close to the cadaver early on. Maybe whatever she was initially wrapped into. Blanket, sheet, other clothing, and maybe to the point of saturation. I think it was from that which the traces were found. Although it's a mystery of all mysteries and anything is still possible, I have to follow a feasible path to some degree. I don't think transporting your deceased child to another destination a few weeks after reporting her missing is even reasonably feasible. Even if they were to think ''Nobody would dare to do this, so who's going to notice?'' It's still one hell of a risk. Transportation of just materials which may be soiled or saturated with bodily fluids is another matter and is more feasible.

It's very possible I'm wrong of course, and probably am. But Im a trier facepalm

You've have now thrown a spanner in my works, when you mentioned above that you lean strongly towards it being pre-planned before the holiday.......Thanks for that thud

Back to the drawing board I go.

Do I think this mystery will ever be solved? .......Probably only when I stop feeling intrigued by it all. If I ever get that feeling, I'll let you know I'm heading off in to the sunset, and that the end to it all is now in sight Wink

Love Basil

by Crackfox 09.02.18 13:31

Basil with a brush wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Basil with a brush wrote:It has to be before the "They've taken her!" night. In all reality, they'd have to have been far too damn lucky to pull off what they have in such a short space of time. I also don't believe she was moved in their hire car a few weeks after this, but that..something very close to her...was.
Like what?

Didn't Amaral say there was bodily fluids in the car that could only come from a refrigerated/frozen body?

Hmm, I may need help on that one Get'emGoncalo, but it could surely be a number of items that were very close to the cadaver early on. Maybe whatever she was initially wrapped into. Blanket, sheet, other clothing, and maybe to the point of saturation. I think it was from that which the traces were found. Although it's a mystery of all mysteries and anything is still possible, I have to follow a feasible path to some degree. I don't think transporting your deceased child to another destination a few weeks after reporting her missing is even reasonably feasible. Even if they were to think ''Nobody would dare to do this, so who's going to notice?'' It's still one hell of a risk. Transportation of just materials which may be soiled or saturated with bodily fluids is another matter and is more feasible.

It's very possible I'm wrong of course, and probably am. But Im a trier

You've have now thrown a spanner in my works, when you mentioned above that you lean strongly towards it being pre-planned before the holiday.......Thanks for that Back to the drawing board I go.

Do I think this mystery will ever be solved? .......Probably only when I stop feeling intrigued by it all. If I ever get that feeling, I'll let you know I'm heading off in to the sunset, and that the end to it all is now in sight

Love Basil

Just a thought but could it be the fridge that was transported in the hire car? I tend to agree that the other scenario is too risky.

by sar 09.02.18 14:31

...did someone not expect them to take her? and if not why not

by **HiDeHo** 09.02.18 16:21

Basil with a brush wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Basil with a brush wrote:It has to be before the "They've taken her!" night. In all reality, they'd have to have been far too damn lucky to pull off what they have in such a short space of time. I also don't believe she was moved in their hire car a few weeks after this, but that..something very close to her...was.
Like what?

Didn't Amaral say there was bodily fluids in the car that could only come from a refrigerated/frozen body?

Hmm, I may need help on that one Get'emGoncalo, but it could surely be a number of items that were very close to the cadaver early on. Maybe whatever she was initially wrapped into. Blanket, sheet, other clothing, and maybe to the point of saturation. I think it was from that which the traces were found. Although it's a mystery of all mysteries and anything is still possible, I have to follow a feasible path to some degree. I don't think transporting your deceased child to another destination a few weeks after reporting her missing is even reasonably feasible. Even if they were to think ''Nobody would dare to do this, so who's going to notice?'' It's still one hell of a risk. Transportation of just materials which may be soiled or saturated with bodily fluids is another matter and is more feasible.

It's very possible I'm wrong of course, and probably am. But Im a trier

You've have now thrown a spanner in my works, when you mentioned above that you lean strongly towards it being pre-planned before the holiday.......Thanks for that Back to the drawing board I go.

Do I think this mystery will ever be solved? .......Probably only when I stop feeling intrigued by it all. If I ever get that feeling, I'll let you know I'm heading off in to the sunset, and that the end to it all is now in sight

Love Basil

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

Just because the car was rented 3 weeks later does not mean that if her body was moved that it was then

Indications show that the smell from rotten meat, which was end of July, were suspicious.

Goncalo Amaral points this out in this video (see approx 2.00 mins)...

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

by Basil with a brush 10.02.18 7:52

Thanks HiDeHo.

To save me trawling through threads again, can you just confirm to me that the hire car (Renault Scenic) was the very same car which was hired a few weeks after 3rd May, and was kept by them through July and right up until their return to the uk?

It doesn't change my thoughts on them moving their deceased child in their car, but it is interesting with regards to the refrigerator and other items being moved.

Apologise if that's a pain, but your research, I value.

Basil

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 1:18

Basil with a brush wrote:Thanks HiDeHo.

To save me trawling through threads again, can you just confirm to me that the hire car (Renault Scenic) was the very same car which was hired a few weeks after 3rd May, and was kept by them through July and right up until their return to the uk?

It doesn't change my thoughts on them moving their deceased child in their car, but it is interesting with regards to the refrigerator and other items being moved.

Apologise if that's a pain, but your research, I value.

Basil

Thanks Basil. Yes that was the car they rented which was returned after their return to England by, who is believed to be, John Geraghty

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the dogs evidence found in the car at the beginning of August?

If what appears to be body fluids leaked over the wheel (according to news reports about decomposition, and Mr Amaral) How do you explain that?

What are your thoughts on the blood found in the car?

(I apologise if I have missed your explanation)

by Guest 11.02.18 2:11

Yes that was the car they rented which was returned after their return to England by John Geraghty

Letter 27 September to Amaral from DCCB inspectors re: investigation

- The Scenic was rented on 27 May with an additional driver, Cameron, and, at the end of August, Wright was added to the contract. It was returned to the rental offices on 23 September by an unnamed person described as six-foot, short grey hair, 60-65 years, whose signature on the delivery note is illegible.

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 7:04

Verdi wrote:
Yes that was the car they rented which was returned after their return to England by John Geraghty

Letter 27 September to Amaral from DCCB inspectors re: investigation

- The Scenic was rented on 27 May with an additional driver, Cameron, and, at the end of August, Wright was added to the contract. It was returned to the rental offices on 23 September by an unnamed person described as six-foot, short grey hair, 60-65 years, whose signature on the delivery note is illegible.

Thanks Verdi. I have edited.

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 18:02

I would like to address an issue that is claimed without back up of proof...

I have addressed the issue before but have been updating and so far am addressing the issues with the claims that OF COURSE the nannies saw Maddie.

I do not suggest for one minute that any of them were lying but can we REALLY take their statements as reliable PROOF that it was Maddie they are describing... Particularly because the posted pic was of a younger child that is different to how she looked when on holiday (last picture)

AS ALWAYS... I welcome ANY suggestions where I have missed any RELIABLE 'proof' that she WAS specifically identified

PLEASE REMEMBER... I am not saying she WASN'T seen, only that i see no reliable proof that she WAS SEEN!

So far I am concentrating on the Nannies...

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

by Phoebe 11.02.18 18:49

@ HiDeHo. I'm afraid with regard to Cat there is no easy way around it. She is either telling the truth or lying about seeing Madeleine alive and well on Thurs. She claims Madeleine sat on her lap afraid and cried. Under such circumstances it would, IMO, be impossible to not address the child by name or to observe her very closely.
What makes anyone think Stacey Portz was referring to lunch break when she spoke of seeing Madeleine "frequently" when the twins were being collected? She never mentions lunch at all.

by mezzyd 11.02.18 19:51

With Cat Baker, the sitting on the lap & crying incident is described in the rotatory statement in 2008, but in the statement taken immediately after the disappearance she says "at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy". I would say that the earlier statement probably has more credence than the rotatory. Also with Amy Tierney's statement, if she was a manager/supervisor, would she actually have had any day-to-day contact with the children or would she just have been available in case of problems? She was supposedly the one who printed the photos for the police, but as the photo which was used appeared different to the others of Madeleine that week, did she really remember seeing her? Also the fact that she stated the club was closed on Sundays, which it clearly wasn't, shown by the registers & schedule of activities, casts further doubt on her statement.

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 19:58

My point is... can ANY of the statements be considered RELIABLE proof that Maddie was seen?

(I'm not claiming she WASN'T seen...only that there is no reliable statement to say, without reasonable doubt that she WAS seen)

The point behind this 'exercise' was to establish a DAY that could consider that Maddie was seen FOR SURE and unfortunately (apart from Sunday lunchtime by Fatima) I see NONE!

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 20:27

Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo. I'm afraid with regard to Cat there is no easy way around it. She is either telling the truth or lying about seeing Madeleine alive and well on Thurs. She claims Madeleine sat on her lap afraid and cried. Under such circumstances it would, IMO, be impossible to not address the child by name or to observe her very closely.

What makes anyone think Stacey Portz was referring to lunch break when she spoke of seeing Madeleine "frequently" when the twins were being collected? She never mentions lunch at all.

Phoebe. I understand you view it as cut and dried... She either saw her or she didn't, but to consider she LIED? I see no evidence she blatantly lied.

TWO things to keep in mind, is that I suggest (and absolutely believe) an alternative once putting oneself in that position.

There is no question that nannies, even after looking after children regularly, have difficulty remembering names... Never mind in creche with sometimes 14 active children.

IF she was in the position of identifying a girl that she didn't see after the first day or so, she would likely second guess herself and think she must have been mistaken about one of the children (Ella?)

Would ANYONE claim at this time that she doesn't remember the child she is TOLD she was supposed to be looking after? Keeping in mind that she could NOT have realised the implications once the 'abduction' from the apartment came into question.

I would not consider that 'lying'. Her credibility for her job would have been in jeopardy.

The McCanns were lying..... Catriona had to deal with them TELLING her that Maddie was alive that day and at the creche and would not have felt confident enough to claim they were wrong.

AFTER the disappearance, when making her initial statement, WHY would she claim to have NOT seen Maddie on Sunday morning? Had she decided by then that the 'other' girl must have been Maddie. (It was ELLA that did not go to the creche on Sunday)

At this point she may also be remembering the other child (Ella?) as being shy and timid and scared of the boat.

ALSO.... Keep in mind that she was able to remind herself of her early statements and had the opportunity of changing them!

AGAIN... Is Catriona's testimony so water tight with no discrepancies that we can be reasonably SURE she wasn't mistaken?

ESPECIALLY after visiting the McCanns, it would, without question, be detrimental to her credibility.

SO.... Is Catrionas testimony reliable PROOF that Maddie was seen?

Apparently not!

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

by **HiDeHo** 11.02.18 21:02

Phoebe wrote:
What makes anyone think Stacey Portz was referring to lunch break when she spoke of seeing Madeleine "frequently" when the twins were being collected? She never mentions lunch at all.

Rightly or wrongly I interpreted 'picked up' as being from the creche and not when she joined them at high tea.

--- From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day.
• She also knew Madeleine as she would frequently come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;
NOTE: If this is in reference to lunchtime pickup (as opposed to high tea) then it could have only been Monday and Thursday that Madeleine was signed out before the twins. (not frequently) Shinead, who looked after the twins only saw Madeleine once!

Shinead Maria Vine (TWINS Nanny)
. She affirms that she saw Madeleine McCann once when she arrived during the week, but that she did not know, as the deponent was working only with the Toddler group;

. She did recognise the family, as she was responsible for the twins, children of the couple and siblings of Madeleine McCann;

. Questioned, the deponent states that she did not notice anything abnormal in relationship between the children and the parents, when they came to pick up the twins, they seemed happy to see them; [Note: No mention of Maddie]

AGAIN...

Can those statements be considered RELIABLE PROOF that Maddie was seen during the week?

by Phoebe 11.02.18 21:35

IMO it is highly unlikely that Ella went sailing. She had just undergone foot surgery followed by an infection which threw into doubt whether she would be well enough to go on that holiday. According to her mother she was forced to wear a slipper (presumably because of bandaging and discomfort) and cautioned to keep the foot dry. Therefore I cannot see how Cat could mistake Ella for Madeleine at any stage during that week. Ella would have been a very conspicuous child all that week, precisely because she the only child in a slipper and she was forbidden from swimming and water-based activities. Cat claims to have taken note of allergies and medical considerations. If so, she must have been informed of Ella's condition and the slipper would have been a clear identifier - the child with a slipper on her sore foot is Ella who must not be allowed to get her wound wet.

If Cat was unsure about whether she had actually seen Madeleine that Thurs. during the mini sail surely she would just skate over the event and claim yes, Madeleine was there, and no, nothing unusual occurred at all. Instead she states that Madeleine drew attention to her presence by crying and being frightened to the point of needing to be comforted on her lap. I don't see any room for mistake or mis identification. Either this is true or it is a lie. The parents may have encouraged her to "believe" that Madeleine was there but the needless embroidering of the mini-sail tale is all down to Cat.

by MayMuse 11.02.18 23:13

Are there any photos of Ella in a slipper or bandages or is this just her mothers word?

by **HiDeHo** 12.02.18 2:39

MayMuse wrote:Are there any photos of Ella in a slipper or bandages or is this just her mothers word?

Jane claimed she wore SLIPPERS

Jane Tanner wrote:
4078    “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply    “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”

4078    “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply    “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”

4078    “What if.”
Reply    “Yeah, okay we will go.”

4078    “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply    “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, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”

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

by Basil with a brush 12.02.18 3:02

I'm totally with the hounds and what they found. I'm just trying to fathom how, what they found, might else have gotten there, if I can't quite accept them driving around with their dead child in the car. I've read and watched thanks. I need more time here HiDeHo. You've given me more to think about, especially with regard to their acquaintances also having had access to this vehicle over a period of time.......I may be a while popcornandcola

by **HiDeHo** 12.02.18 3:17

Basil with a brush wrote:I'm totally with the hounds and what they found. I'm just trying to fathom how, what they found, might else have gotten there, if I can't quite accept them driving around with their dead child in the car. I've read and watched thanks. I need more time here HiDeHo. You've given me more to think about, especially with regard to their acquaintances also having had access to this vehicle over a period of time.......I may be a while

Basil :) You MUST NOT feel you HAVE to follow what others, like myself, say. It's SO important that you follow your own beliefs.

I'm not here to try to change anyone's mind. I consider my 'job' is to give the info that I 'know' so everyone can decide how to process it.

We ALL have different degrees of knowledge. Its SO important to never blindly believe.

I absolutely respect you choice to retain your own beliefs until you find differently.

In the meantime, if you have any other questions, please ask! Either myself or others will guide you to the links that you can view for yourself... or... I probably have a graphic on the topic..lol

Thank you again. I LOVE to see people like yourself showing an interest. It's why we are all here!

by Basil with a brush 12.02.18 6:39

Absolutely. There are some things I'm certain of and doubt I'd be swayed otherwise. Having said that, there is a lot I'm not. Of which, I take your advice of course. Think I've strayed somewhat from your original topic with regards to the car, so will let you get on. As you were bow3

by MayMuse 12.02.18 7:22

HiDeHo wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Are there any photos of Ella in a slipper or bandages or is this just her mothers word?

Jane claimed she wore SLIPPERS

Jane Tanner wrote:
4078    “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply    “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”

4078    “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply    “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”

4078    “What if.”
Reply    “Yeah, okay we will go.”

4078    “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply    “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, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”

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

Thanks for this, Jane said slippers, plural....pity both feet are not visible to see if matching, but that shoe looks like a full trainer ..so no slippers worn that day maybe? Unless just one (on the other foot) which I imagine a small child not liking mismatched footwear? Actually find it difficult to believe anything JT says!

by **Ladyinred** 12.02.18 8:30

Is that JT's daughter, Ella, in the above photo?

It looks like DP with his own daughter to me.

by Basil with a brush 12.02.18 9:06

Surely that's his own daughter in this photograph. I don't think I could cope with looking at it anymore otherwise.

by skyrocket 12.02.18 9:27

Yes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], it is actually Ella. There are other shots with both Ella and Lily on DP's lap - Lily is smaller.

From comments made in both their statements, I'm not convinced that either of the Mcs went anywhere near the Minis Club during the week.

In both of their 4 May statements they say the following (copy taken from GM's statement):

'After breakfast the children would stay in the resort crÃ¨che, called the Kid Club, doing various activities such as painting and collage, etc, until about 12.30, they were always supervised by various members of staff, in a ratio of one member of staff to every three children'.

Note the staff ratio stated. On the creche sheets the Minis show up to 7 children/session. Most sessions average 4/5. Each sheet shows the sub-groups name 'Lobsters' and 2 also include Cat's name at the top. There is no reason for the Mcs not to have been aware of how many children Cat was supervising, give or take 1.

However, if the Mcs only contact with the creche groups was with the Toddler2's, they might be forgiven for stressing the ratio of 1:3 in their PJ statements.

In GM's 10 May statement, he says the following about Sunday morning (the first day):

'The deponent, his wife and three (stressed?) children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route where they arrived at 09h40, the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, collecting a bag with clothing and creams for the children [then] going inside the resort area. The twins stayed at the creche next to the TAPAS, which was for children of two years of age, and then he and KATE took MADELEINE to the other creche for older children situated on the 1st floor at the main reception of the resort, arriving there at 09h50'.

MarkWarner Kids Club required that each child took a bag with sun cream; hats; etc. It is likely that the twins shared a bag, but why does GM state that they collected a bag rather than bags? Slip of the tongue?

Then we have what the Mcs apparently said to the PJ dog teams (prior to the dog searches) when they were asked what areas of Luz Madeleine visited during the week:

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

'After arriving at the scene, the first three members of the team, the officers gathered some information from the girl's parents about the places they tended to frequent with the children during their stay in P da L up until now, the parents replied that the only areas that their daughter would frequent since their arrival, was Praia da Luz beach, always accompanied by babysitters and resort pool area, where there was also a playground'.

As I've pointed out before, no mention of the Main Reception building where the Minis Club was (supposedly) sited.

Another slip of the tongue?

Did Madeleine attend the creche at all?

by **HiDeHo** 12.02.18 12:07

Ladyinred wrote:Is that JT's daughter, Ella, in the above photo?

It looks like DP with his own daughter to me.

Some of the GREYSCALE photos from the files

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

by MayMuse 12.02.18 13:51

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Greyscale photos above image 6 , is that Ella wearing sandals?
If so not much of a protective bandage or slippers ?

Sorry not sure how to just add that particular photo.

And the last image, is that Ella on the right (looking at the image) if so who is the child on the left as she looks a much older child, and I thought that Madeleine was the older of the children and that is not Madeleine.

Were these photos definitely taken in PDL in May 2007?

by **HiDeHo** 12.02.18 15:03

MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Greyscale photos above image 6 , is that Ella wearing sandals?
If so not much of a protective bandage or slippers ?

Sorry not sure how to just add that particular photo.

And the last image, is that Ella on the right (looking at the image) if so who is the child on the left as she looks a much older child, and I thought that Madeleine was the older of the children and that is not Madeleine.

Were these photos definitely taken in PDL in May 2007?

Although not confirmed, I believe the child with sandals is the Paynes daughter Lilly. She can be seen in the other photo of Dianne and Fiona holding their two children

The older child is Ella who was only about 2 months younger than Maddie.

With the similar colour hair and approx the same age, this is the point behind this thread.

I feel its POSSIBLE that during the week... a normal week with no reason for anyone to be making note of what the future may hold, that Ella attended the creche and was mistaken (after the fact and particularly if Maddie did NOT go to the creche for the last few days) for Maddie.

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

I am uncomfortable posting these pics, even though they are in the files, but after more than 10 years I am not sure that people realise how similar the two girls were, but the resemblance is critical to help understand the possibility of the suggestion in this threads OP.

by MayMuse 12.02.18 15:33

Thank you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that brings clarity to my confusion.
Ella whilst a few months younger than Madeleine appears to me to be a bigger built child.

Agree there are similarities to Madeleine.

by **HiDeHo** 12.02.18 15:40

This is the photos file page...

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

These are the photos after I separated and numbered them randomly

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

by Phoebe 14.02.18 13:39

Just a thought HiDeHo. According to The McCs Madeleine had a coloboma in her right eye. The pictures of Madeleine chosen by them certainly show a noticeable mark. Even if this were deliberately exaggerated or enlarged in these pictures wouldn't it be a risky strategy to go public about this if they had been fooling Cat with a swapped child? Surely it stands to reason that it would have made Madeleine stand out to any nanny who closely interacted with her? We tend to look in peoples' eyes when speaking to them and in my experience a coloboma does attract one's notice. If Cat did interact with Madeleine closely and daily, as she asserts, it is unlikely that she would not have noticed this identifying flaw. It is also, IMO, unlikely that she would not have spotted the difference between Madeleine and any substitute child?

Latest topics