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

by Verity 14.02.18 13:53

Plus, I doubt any child would stand for being called Maddie if her name is Ella. A child would soon correct that error.

by roz 14.02.18 14:24

The child that Cecilia do Carmo thought was Madeleine Mc Cann did not respond or speak to her at all – on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday morning as the family went in for breakfast. She just clung to her father’s leg. So here is one example of a very shy child not saying anything.

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo 6.5.07 (Restaurant Receptionist)
She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area.
Eta - Ps. I don’t know why it is in bold.

by Guest 14.02.18 16:02

Verity wrote:Plus, I doubt any child would stand for being called Maddie if her name is Ella. A child would soon correct that error.

....and so the same old question arises. Whist Ella was playing the part of Madeleine - who was playing the part of Ella?

These witnesses are just doing a mundane job of work. Guests come and go, probably hundreds in any one season, chances of a member of staff working in a restaurant, bar, or recreation area being able to identify any specific guest is very unlikely. Not unless something monumental occured right before their eyes.

The creche workers on the other hand, would at least be expected to know the names of a few kids in their charge. According to Catriona Baker, she prepared ID bracelets for all her little charges.

Bah!

by roz 14.02.18 16:56

I don’t think that such a shy and timid child, as described by Cecilia do Carmo (Millennium Restaurant), would have said very much during her week in the crèche apart from; ‘I’m scared. I’m scared’ – during a little boat trip. That same child might even have needed to be cuddled on her nanny’s lap.
The child as described by Cecilia C sounds very like the mannerisms of ‘shy’ Ella O’B, and not the ‘lively’, ‘chatty’ ‘adventurous’ Madeleine.
I do not think that Cat Baker mistook Ella O’B for Madeleine (but Emma W very possibly did – to name one); on Tuesday 1^st she signed Ella into the crèche (pm). I am thinking along the lines now that Cat used the very few verbal exchanges she might have had with Ella during the week in the crèche and for some reason, she transferred them as being her interactions with Madeleine.
I am of the opinion now that Cat B did not tell the whole truth re Madeleine’s attendance/absence – but not because she was informed by the Mc Canns that ‘Madeleine will not be returning to the crèche as she is dead’.

I think Cat Baker believed wholeheartedly in the ‘abduction’ on Thursday night – (if she had any doubts she would not have went to Rothley Nov. 2007). All imho.

by **HiDeHo** 14.02.18 20:28

roz wrote:The child that Cecilia do Carmo thought was Madeleine Mc Cann did not respond or speak to her at all – on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday morning as the family went in for breakfast. She just clung to her father’s leg. So here is one example of a very shy child not saying anything.

Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo 6.5.07 (Restaurant Receptionist)
She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area.
Eta - Ps. I don’t know why it is in bold.

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

by **HiDeHo** 17.02.18 17:32

I'd like to make it clear that I am not saying this thread is based on what DID happen.

It is a SUGGESTION that I am attempting to find out if it is POSSIBLE!

It follows with 'something happening earlier'.

If the ability to explain Maddie not being in the creche that week is not possible, then that places serious credibility on something happening earlier.

I am making ONE possible suggestion, and if, during the research of this possibility, I find ONE thing that cannot be explained or proves it is NOT possible then I need to rethink the validity of this scenario.

So far I only see details that support it may have been possible.

I am not relying on how LIKELY the register was maintained and filled in correctly by the McCanns because it was LIKELY under supervision at every moment, I am looking at whether it was POSSIBLE that it could have been filed in when no-one was around.

Regarding the names and recognition of the children when sharing a room with approximately 14 children, many seem to believe its not possible to NOT know their names.

I have satisfied myself by speaking to SEVERAL people in childcare and there seems to be NO QUESTION that the likelihood of remembering names easily after even a week (in some cases much longer) in a controlled regular nursery environment is more than possible.

I have not seen PROOF that the children were wearing wristbands...so POSSIBLE the children were not easily identifiable.

In a holiday resort, temporary and random drop off and pick up, early in the season, with (according to BBC Whistleblower regarding MW creche in Egypt) possibly no real training then there is no question in my mind that IF the memories and records were not strictly maintained and therefore subject to the POSSIBILITY that a young blonde child that was there for possibly less than 10 hours, in a room of approx 14 children, many of them similar in appearance, could be SPECIFICALLY remembered.

HOWEVER, a nanny that was TOLD she was there until that afternoon and had been abducted from her apartment, one can understand that it would be too intimidating and would jeopardise her credibility of her job if she was to claim she DIDN'T remember her being there, never mind that the photo provided, was younger version of the missing child.

Had she been shown the LAST photo by the pool she may have recognised her more, and maybe even recognised the outfit.....

Maybe an outfit that she remembered a child that was there on Sunday had worn..... but she hadn't seen her since...

Maybe THATS why the McCanns didn't release the photos from that week....

Maddie may have been recognised by some that claim they hadn't seen her since Sunday.

NOT helpful.....

by **HiDeHo** 17.02.18 18:39

QUESTION:

Where did the children have High Tea?

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

Originally I thought it may have been near the little green rectangular canopy next to the restaurant, but that was maybe the BBQ area.

Could it have been under the tall green canopy behind the creche?

Dianne Webster Rogatory
'....where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”

by skyrocket 17.02.18 20:01

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I've always assumed it was under the orange canopies shown in the photo below. This photo was in The Telegraph in Sept 2008.

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

Apologies if the photo doesn't reproduce here.

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

by MayMuse 18.02.18 1:38

Dianne Webster Rogatory
'....where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”

Looking at Hideho and Skyrockets images produced above, where would the raised area be? And from where could the children be watched..."err behind this, this wall" ....could be where?
Why are all the tapas statements vague?

This is a missing little girl , you'd think they'd lost a suitcase?

by Phoebe 18.02.18 15:58

Page 608
Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

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

The man with the sunglasses in the background has been identified as a police officer. He is later photographed at work with the police after Madeleine went missing. I would expect the police to have spoken informally to him at some stage - after all, he is a Portuguese cop, and he actually witnessed Gerry McCann interacting with Madeleine at first hand! A valuable witness. The Mcs claim that this photo was taken on Wednesday May 2nd and it is recorded as such in the files as shown above. Surely this was a risky strategy by the MCanns? What if the officer had contradicted their given time and said "No, actually, that was 4 days earlier". it would be hard for them to claim a simple mix-up as this should have stood out in their minds as the second-last photo of their child on her last ever playtime after tea. Could he be one of those who claims to have seen Madeleine after Sunday? I ask because I wonder why Goncalo Amaral still seems to favour death on May 3rd.

by **HiDeHo** 18.02.18 17:19

Phoebe wrote:Page 608
Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

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

The man with the sunglasses in the background has been identified as a police officer. He is later photographed at work with the police after Madeleine went missing. I would expect the police to have spoken informally to him at some stage - after all, he is a Portuguese cop, and he actually witnessed Gerry McCann interacting with Madeleine at first hand! A valuable witness. The Mcs claim that this photo was taken on Wednesday May 2nd and it is recorded as such in the files as shown above. Surely this was a risky strategy by the MCanns? What if the officer had contradicted their given time and said "No, actually, that was 4 days earlier". it would be hard for them to claim a simple mix-up as this should have stood out in their minds as the second-last photo of their child on her last ever playtime after tea. Could he be one of those who claims to have seen Madeleine after Sunday? I ask because I wonder why Goncalo Amaral still seems to favour death on May 3rd.

Good question Phoebe

This handout was from May 27th

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

Possibly after the police had interviewed everyone.

The photo before this one is 'missing'

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

by **HiDeHo** 18.02.18 17:47

I consider this IMPORTANT Would appreciate any input/thoughts on this.

I discovered this a long time ago but due to the difficulty in finding the diagrams I have not been able to duplicate this after I 'lost' this pic.

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

What I see is that the TWINS are shown to be in the care of the T7 on Thursday afternoon.

A few things to keep in mind....

1) The twins creche record for Thursday morning is not available in the files (so no signatures)

2) Catriona does not remember who picked up Madeleine Thursday lunchtime or who took her back in the afternoon

3) The Diagram of Events Annexo 61 (Analysis) has been blacked out

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

by Phoebe 19.02.18 16:26

I must correct a piece of information I posted above. The man in the playground photo is not a police officer but Raj Balu. According to Dr. Amaral's book, Balu was questioned about this photograph by the British Police at the request of the P.J. after the latter received the Mccanns' photos Balu apparently accounted for his being captured in that photo, an account which, logically, must have included when and why he happened to be there. His statement re this photo is not included in the released files. The McCanns claim this photo was taken on the day before Madeleine's disappearance. If Balu has also stated that this so, then he is another who claims to have seen Madeleine later that week. If he gave a different date it would surely have raised a red flag for the P.J.

by polyenne 19.02.18 16:57

I personally think the playground photo was taken the afternoon they arrived. The parents might have changed into shorts but the kids appear to be wearing the same clothes as the airplane steps and bus video.

Excited kids want to have fun ASAP

by Phoebe 19.02.18 17:16

polyenne wrote:I personally think the playground photo was taken the afternoon they arrived. The parents might have changed into shorts but the kids appear to be wearing the same clothes as the airplane steps and bus video.

Excited kids want to have fun ASAP

Madeleine's trousers in the video of the airport bus are different, being pedal-pusher length ie. reaching mid-calf, whereas those in the playground photo are full length, indeed slightly too long for her. Lily's top is also different - In the airport video she wears a plain white top whereas in the playground video the top is clearly one with stripes. Gerry also appears to have changed his clothes from a pale, short sleeved T-shirt and jeans to a long-sleeved green top and shorts.

by MayMuse 19.02.18 17:22

Was there a time stamp on this photo? Does anyone know?
I ask because on the 2nd Madeleine was in the crèche in the morning and if recall correctly I think either Cat Baker signed her out or there was a difference in Km's signature?

Edit.. found it apparenly taken on 2nd with others at time 17.15 pm, it's in the Pj files!

by Guest 19.02.18 21:18

Phoebe wrote:The McCanns claim this photo was taken on the day before Madeleine's disappearance.

Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction where this claim was made?

by MayMuse 19.02.18 21:53

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:The McCanns claim this photo was taken on the day before Madeleine's disappearance.

Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction where this claim was made?

It's in the Pj files photo taken apparently in the afternoon dated 2nd May ( given by the McCanns ) three playground photos one with GM and one of Madeleine on own and one with Amelie just seen in playhouse.

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

by Phoebe 19.02.18 22:50

HiDeHo wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi Page 608
Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

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

The man with the sunglasses in the background has been identified as a police officer. He is later photographed at work with the police after Madeleine went missing. I would expect the police to have spoken informally to him at some stage - after all, he is a Portuguese cop, and he actually witnessed Gerry McCann interacting with Madeleine at first hand! A valuable witness. The Mcs claim that this photo was taken on Wednesday May 2nd and it is recorded as such in the files as shown above. Surely this was a risky strategy by the MCanns? What if the officer had contradicted their given time and said "No, actually, that was 4 days earlier". it would be hard for them to claim a simple mix-up as this should have stood out in their minds as the second-last photo of their child on her last ever playtime after tea. Could he be one of those who claims to have seen Madeleine after Sunday? I ask because I wonder why Goncalo Amaral still seems to favour death on May 3rd.

Good question Phoebe

This handout was from May 27th

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

Possibly after the police had interviewed everyone.

The photo before this one is 'missing'

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

by MayMuse 19.02.18 22:58

The handout is dated 2nd May in the files as can be seen... was the 27th just a media release of the photo, I think so as it says "girl missing in Algarve"

by **HiDeHo** 20.02.18 3:31

The playground pic seems to have been issued for a reason. As can be read in Goncalo Amaral Truth of the Lie, were they attempting a major effort to target Robert Murat and as he was seen with this playground' man it looked suspicious?

'It is not known how they were obtained or for what purpose they were disclosed'

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

by MayMuse 20.02.18 8:55

The media must have been given the photos, as with this case it seems there is always an agenda, however i am asking what proof do we have , if any, that the three coloured photos in the files dated 2nd May given by the McCanns were NOT taken on the day claimed. Wednesday 2nd May!
Previous articles I've read have said the playground photo was taken on the afternoon of their arrival Saturday 28th April? Who determined or how was this determined?

Because by all accounts these photos suggest Madeleine was alive and well the day prior to her disappearance!

by MayMuse 20.02.18 20:04

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The playground photos were examined by the PJ, they were given to them by the McCanns and atributed to being taken on the afternoon of 2nd May and one timestamped 17.15... Amaral is saying he doesn't know who released these to the press or why?
They were first shown in the press by Sky on 27th May stating they were of Madeleine playing with family/friends on 2nd May in the ocean club playground.

The PJ entered them into their evidence file with the date of 2nd May as can be seen on appendix notes of 9th May, yet somehow the playground photo has been said to being taken on 28th April ( the day of arrival). From what I can see this doesn't look to be the case as the PJ had them in their possession as evidence, so surely they would have verified them?

The fact that MSM used them with the unidentified "suspicious" male (the PJ had already verified who he was and the UK police said he was nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance who had interviewed him on the 6th May,) yet it was used weeks later perhaps as a suggestion to push forwards the abduction scenario... ? No one corrected them? And like Amaral said why?

Evidence is evidence and without evidence that these photos were not taken on the 2nd, how can they be suggested as taken on the 28th?

With that in mind and your extensive crèche investigations, how would that date change or have an affect on your research, would it make a significant difference?

by Phoebe 20.02.18 21:49

When people think about proof of whether Madeleine was seen during the week they immediately consider the nannies and ocean club staff. It has been claimed that some of these are mistaken or lying. However, according to the McCanns the playground photo was taken on May 2nd. It captures Raj Balu standing right next to Gerry and Madeleine and looking their direction. The P.J were suspicious, they felt he might have been observing the family. Their suspicions were further fueled when Balu was photographed in the company of Murat. The police quickly identified him and asked for him to interviewed. Presumably he was asked to account for how, when and why he came to be in these pictures. He must not have contradicted the day they were said to have been taken as the police record them as being from May 2nd. Therefore, that would mean that Raj Balu is another person who claims to have seen Madeleine on May 2nd.

by Phoebe 21.02.18 18:54

With regard to who else claims to have seen Madeleine during that week, it seems that Jeremy Wilkins is another. It has been suggested that the reason Gerry McCann began to use the short cut to the creche was to disguise the fact that Madeleine was no longer around to be witnessed being taken to or from creche. If this is so then I cannot understand Gerry's behaviour at lunchtime on May 2nd. It appears he happily went to the creche with Jez and Russell to collect their three children. According to Jez's statement, on Tues, before lunch, he played tennis with Gerry. Then -

"After the game we walked together with a third male called Russell or Matt, to pick the children up from the Mini-Club. This is a Creche provided by the holiday company"

Wouldn't you expect Gerry to have made an excuse not to go along with him? What if Jez noticed that no child approached Gerry or left with him? Jez does not say that he saw Madeleine then but he wasn't asked that question. However he does not state that Gerry didn't collect her. He also claims to have seen Madeleine in creche several times_

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".

Given that he did not even get to know Gerry before Monday isn't it logical to infer that the occasions on which he saw Madeleine occurred AFTER Monday as he wouldn't have known who she was before that -
"Relative to my familiarity with Gerry and Kate;
I got to know them on Monday, 30th of April 2007 when I arrived at the tennis lesson".

by MayMuse 21.02.18 20:58

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

A good point although I'm wary of his wife's article , "all pretty in pink"

And it could also be said that IF Madeleine wasn't really at the crèche and Jez had not met prior then how could he recognise Madeleine other than the released photos, but then would he not say that isn't the Madeleine I saw?

What does concern me is that wherever you turn there seems to be people very much in support of the McCanns and their account of the truth....and that is extremely questionable in my opinion. I don't want to call any witness a liar but much of the statements I've read throw a ? mark on many areas.

I always come back to, what else could they be hiding?
What else could have been going on in PDL that week or could there have been something going on that needed to be kept a "secret" something separate to the "disaster" that befell Madeleine?

Would that explain all the inconsistencies and anomalies ?

by polyenne 21.02.18 21:27

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

I too suspect that the “exercise” at MW in PdL that week and the situation that befell Madeleine were two entirely separate elements........however, what throws that into question is the speed with which assets were deployed once the tragic situation unfolded.

Unless :
1. the assets were conveniently in place already as PART of the “exercise”
2. the fate of Madeleine (or possibly any of the other pretty little blond girls for that matter - she may just have been wrong place/wrong time) was also part of the known “exercise”
3. her demise was NOT part of known exercise and was actioned as part of an emergency scenario to assess how the assets coped with a curve-ball being thrown amongst them

I’m really not sure about anything right now

by Phoebe 21.02.18 23:37

What I infer from Jez Wilkins' statement is, that he got to know Gerry on Monday. On Tuesday, they went together to pick up their children from creche at lunchtime. After this he saw, on several occasions, the McCanns in creche with the same little girl, whom he claims was Madeleine.-

"I did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche"..

If it was not Madeleine, he is either lying or we're back to the "fooled by a substitute theory". What I can't fathom is why Gerry would go with him to the creche to pick up Madeleine if he, Gerry, was being so careful about no one spotting that she wasn't there that he even resorted to using less-used short-cuts?

by **Jill Havern** 22.02.18 9:32

A quote from my blog taken from 'The journalist and the film maker'

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

I can't log in to Maddie Case Files to retrieve the article since JillyCL banned me because I support Tony.

But maybe someone else could have a look if they're members?

by Phoebe 22.02.18 12:18

I've just re-read Bridget o'Donnell's article 14/12/07 in The Guardian. Its quite revealing. She comes across as rather self-centred and primarily concerned about herself and her family. She did not want Jez to leave her alone on the night of the disappearance: she mentions the inconvenience of having to duck under police tape to get to the supermarket; she refers to the sympathy shown to her and her family for having had such a dreadful holiday experience.
She definitely believes the McCann story of abduction and is sympathetic to them. However, some of her other comments offer an interesting insight into why people like the Smiths might hesitate to come forward. She describes being hounded by the press and how any comments they gave became dramatic headline news. She recounts how just seven months later her husband's name had been looked up on the internet more than 70,000 times as he was known to be a witness who saw something on the night. She describe how some felt they must have been involved in the disappearance.
- "There was talk that he was a "lookout" for Gerry and Kate; there was talk that Jes was orchestrating a reality-TV hoax and Madeleine's disappearance was part of the con; there was talk that the Tapas Nine were all swingers. There was a lot of talk."
She also recounts rather threatening emails advising her husband that he would "regret it" if he didn't talk to them which made them feel he had to "defend himself".
If what she says holds any truth, I'm not surprised about the Smiths' reluctance to draw such attention onto themselves,

Latest topics