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

by Guest 28.07.18 12:45

In my view the importance of the childcare workers witness statements is grossly exaggerated.

From the perspective of the early investigation, Madeleine disappeared from apartment 5a at approximately 10:00pm on the night of 3rd May 2007. The interviewing of Ocean Club/Warner employees was routine policing, they would have been asked a specific set of predetermined questions and answered in a similar vein; by example Q. 'did you know Madeleine McCann' A. 'no'. Apart from anything else, the witness statements were not recorded verbatim - easier still to misrepresent what was said.

Primarily the PJ would have sought information about the parents and their child's general disposition and the parent/child relationship and/or if they witnessed anything suspicious or unusual in or outside the Ocean Club complex that might assist the investigation.

However, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to name but three, went that extra mile - reason enough to question their respective motives. They stand out over and above the rest, Catriona Baker in particular - why did she become so personally involved? On the surface, if all is to be believed, Ms Baker didn't know Madeleine or her parents - I find it difficult to reconcile her behaviour with that of a detached stranger.

If you're looking for something suspicious or not quite right, it can always be found with a little juggling of words or situations, misinterpretation, adding and taking away to manipulate the true meaning. That's precisely how barristers work in a court of law!

by Guest 29.07.18 23:50

Inquired employees:

A huge list of names which I will not write here for the right to privacy of these people.

The baby sitters that talked to the media in previous interviews are on the list.

CATRIONA T. S. BAKER
STACEY PORTZ
CHARLOTTE E. A. PENNINGTON

PJ Final Report

by Cookiecat 02.08.18 3:01

Next they will be saying MARGARETA of ROMANIA. Ported the royal boat .. she looks a bit like posh spice .. took off ..with the outshining special quality child .. fits with dreams that Kate had cough ..et al .. balls imo something happened .. GM n KM know but by going down rabbit hole of great conspiracy giving GM the get out clause of 'confusion good .'. They knew people .. important people but it got out..of hand too much money and power to back down for a goverment to admit duped and used as focal concern.. never.To start saying links with saville .. Ball ..Kitty . Football .. Nuclear power .et al ..they maybe exist but... GMKM Team they can dismiss as all crazy .. truth as one supposed dective said ..in plain sight.. nepotism out of hand and sadly a little girl forgotton like many others... there are many join the dots in this alas I think its much simpler and sad.. just mo .. the pj were right and focus should be how to support them get case reopened or moved forward..the pj can do it they have files .. we just need right legal person to push .. because if there was a trial it would all come to head.Instead of going off on tangents exploringing why Maddie is a global patsy can't we argue how to get the case moved on .. think Gilford four just one good lawyer and case done?? For a child, an innocent child ?

by Guest 02.08.18 12:43

Cookiecat wrote: ...... the pj were right and focus should be how to support them get case reopened or moved forward..the pj can do it they have files .. we just need right legal person to push .. because if there was a trial it would all come to head.Instead of going off on tangents exploringing why Maddie is a global patsy can't we argue how to get the case moved on .. think Gilford four just one good lawyer and case done?? For a child, an innocent child ?

When you have time to get better acquainted with the forum, past and present, you will see it's primary objective is to keep moving forwards towards the truth. A lot of dedicated members, again past and present, have devoted their own time over the past eleven years for this very reason.

For your information..

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

If you have an argument to present that can help in this respect, perhaps you would like to join HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom'? I think I can say without reservation, your input would be most welcome. Give it some thought and if you decide to proceed, just contact HiDeHo by PM and she will give you the low down.

thumbsup

by dmc1899 13.05.19 21:13

HiDeHo wrote:
Ruffian wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] In order to make your opinion work you have had to dismiss witness statements and the anomalies across the creche sheet entries for other children

Fancy graphics look nice but the information within them is misleading
You cannot judge how a child will react in different situations with any certainty. Especially when that child is a stranger to you. Its all speculation on your part in am attempt to fit the files around your opinion, cherry picking what you believe and dismiss

Ruffian... Please understand I am not claiming anything based on opinion.

All that I discuss is based on what I see in the files.

I have studied the witness statements for 8 years and so far have not found ONE (after Sunday afternoon) that gives me any indication that the child they are describing is likely Maddie.

Please show me one if you feel I am wrong. I welcome ANYONE to show me a witness statement that identifies Maddie specifically.

'Fancy Graphics'? Please explain ANY of the information being misleading?

I don't use speculation to fit the files around my opinion.

As most can see, its the FILES that direct me to what I discover!

However, its understandable, and your prerogative, to have your own opinion, particularly if you haven't looked at the research over the last 10 years.

Dear HiDeHo and Jill Havern,

I've only recently joined this forum, but I have followed your contributions via social media for several years. Thank you both for your impressive and persistent efforts. I look forward to collaborating with you and the others on this forum to move closer to a meaningful resolution to this scandalous event.

I was very glad to read the subject of this post because having made the PJ Files my home for the past two years, I have reluctantly started to consider that the date of "disappearance" was not in fact May 3rd. But, as with almost every other deduction that I reach with this case, I'm struggling with it.

I'm struggling simply because of Occam's razor - the number of people that would need to be tricked into thinking Madeleine was alive is significant. The creche workers, some Tapas bar workers, possibly a cleaner or two. Also, this would not have been for one evening, or a couple of hours, it would have been for four days, with multiple activities.

Of the entire Tapas group, the only one individual who's witness statements I would even consider as being remotely truthful would be Diane Webster (Fiona Payne's mother). My reading of her situation and statements are that of someone that is a little naive at best and not obviously complicit in what took place - to me anyway. She confirmed to both Portuguese police and UK police that she saw Madeleine alive on the Wednesday (2nd May).

If I ask the question, is it possible that the nannies, bar workers, Diane Webster all innocently misidentified one of the other children as Madeleine - I think it is possible yes.

Do I think it is likely? I don't think it's likely.

But, do I think it is more likely that she was alive up until the Thursday evening? No, I think she was dead and buried somewhere before Thursday 3rd (and it may have been a freezer she was buried in).

If she was alive on the Thursday, why would we be presented with a pool photograph from the McCann team which is clearly from the Sunday and we're told it was from the Thursday?

Phoebe makes a great set of points in her posts. These people are intelligent and shrewd. Whoever came up with this plan for an abduction, is not that intelligent nor shrewd in my opinion.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this guys.

by Guest 13.05.19 22:29

to the forum dmc1899, good to have you on board.

I don't understand why you've posted your comments by quoting a past exchange but I'm sure all will be revealed in due course. I will however leave your first post here for the time being.

Meanwhile, I won't insult you by offering any assistance as a new comer, joined just today, as you clearly know where you're at!

thumbsup

by dmc1899 16.05.19 19:52

Thank you Verdi, great to be on-board.

You mentioned HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom' above, however I don't seem to have "reached the post limit" to be able to direct message her for more information.

I'm interested in this Classroom if anyone can share information about it.

Thanks.

ETA

You wrote: "I have reluctantly started to consider that the date of "disappearance" was not in fact May 3rd. But, as with almost every other deduction that I reach with this case, I'm struggling with it...because of Occam's razor - the number of people that would need to be tricked into thinking Madeleine was alive is significant. The creche workers, some Tapas bar workers, possibly a cleaner or two. Also, this would not have been for one evening, or a couple of hours, it would have been for four days, with multiple activities".

ANSWER: This point has been put many times on CMOMM. If Madeleine died Sunday, who actually knew who Madeleine was at this time? The McCanns. The Tapas 7. Catriona Baker. Who else? It is doubtful if any other person on that holiday knew who Madeleine was. Thus, supposing Madeleine died say Sunday evening, it would be very easy for Catriona Baker, being the sole nanny of Madeleine's creche (Lobsters), to arrange for the forging of the creche records. Who else would know about Madeleine? Another thing to bear in mind is that this is simply not an Occam's Razor case. The multilayered lies, half-truths, deceptions and fabrications demonstrate that this is an extraordinary case, by any yardstick.

- Moderator

by Guest 16.05.19 23:04

dmc1899 wrote:Thank you Verdi, great to be on-board.

You mentioned HiDeHo's 'Virtual Classroom' above, however I don't seem to have "reached the post limit" to be able to direct message her for more information.

I'm interested in this Classroom if anyone can share information about it.

Thanks.

I'll gladly contact HiDeHo on your behalf, I'm sure she will welcome your interest in her project. We'll see what we can do to make things happen high5

.

Be patient thumbsup

!

by Guest 17.05.19 0:10

Hello again dmc1899,

I've sent a message to HiDeHo asking her to let me know how she wishes to proceed with your valued offer to become a pupil of her Virtual Classroom, either by reply to me or contacting you direct on this thread.

She is online every day/night so it shouldn't be too long a wait.

Meanwhile I thank you!

by Guest 17.05.19 14:14

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

Just to update you, HiDeHo has opened my message and is online as I speak.

Hopefully she will respond sooner rather than later. If perchance HiDeHo contacts you direct by some other means, could you please let me know so I can rest easy.

Thanks thumbsup

.

by Guest 23.05.19 2:18

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

Sorry about the delay. I still await a response from HiDeHo as to how she wishes to proceed with your kind offer of assistance.

Have patience - Rome wasn't built in a day smilie

!

by dmc1899 24.05.19 21:00

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

Sorry about the delay. I still await a response from HiDeHo as to how she wishes to proceed with your kind offer of assistance.

Have patience - Rome wasn't built in a day !

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

by dmc1899 24.05.19 21:10

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], your research on this specific topic (death/injury prior to May 3rd) is most welcome and as with most of your other research, it's impressive.

There are two verified events which may bolster your theory.

1. Block Booking of the Tapas Restaurant

I have always thought that the block booking of the Tapas restaurant, with the explicit justification of "because we will be leaving our children", made on the Sunday evening by either Russell or Matt (I can't recall) to be significant. One of the key things to look for in deception is the insistence on someone giving you justification for their actions without being asked for them.

Is it possible that as early as the Sunday evening at least some members of the Tapas group were informed of an incident and had already "started things rolling" with this booking?

Again, it's hard for one to believe that before Sunday night something had happened, the Tapas were informed and agreed to go with the plan and booked the table for the week.

Hard to believe, but still possible.

2. Murat Engagement

If Murat was involved in this, then the date and time that he booked his flight would be significant. If he was involved then things were bound to be serious enough that a death had occurred or was imminent. His flight was booked on the Monday evening if I recall. Again, if he was not involved then this was simply a coincidence.

Thoughts welcome.

by Guest 27.05.19 22:53

dmc1899 wrote:
Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry about the delay. I still await a response from HiDeHo as to how she wishes to proceed with your kind offer of assistance.

Have patience - Rome wasn't built in a day !

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

I received a quick reply from HiDeHo saying she's working on it. I sent another PM five days ago which she hasn't opened even though she's been online. I can only guess she's busy with more pressing matters. Shame because the 'Virtual Classroom' was created for members to join and help HiDeHo with her research projects but it's standing idle and it's not even summer holidays - yet titter

.

If I hear anything further I will let you know of course.

soz

by Guest 14.06.19 1:26

Hello dmc1899, so here you are again.

Did you hear anything from forum member HiDeHo as regards your offer of help in the Virtual Classroom?

It seems such a pity that your kind offer of help has gone to waste.

You could of course continue discussion by adding your own commentary. I know how well respected HiDeHo's research is on CMOMM, it would be good if you could rekindle interest in specific subjects.

All donations gratefully received thumbsup

. If you need any help to kick-start just say the word.

winkwink

Latest topics