Possible Timeline ? Discuss

I believe CB is implicit in the scam. Why would she feel the need to leave (or be shipped off) PDL short of her contract, the day after her statement on 6/5/2007? And if she had only been with Madeleine for a couple of days why on earth would the McCs feel the  need to invite her round in the following November?

Her first statement (as discussed several times before) states that her contract was from 21st March - 7th Nov 2007, as confirmed by Mark Warner. Her ROG in April 2008 states that her contract was from June 2006 for one year. Did Cat give these dates to cover herself in-case she was questioned about why she left so promptly? Her contract was up = nothing suspicious = she wasn't about to have a nervous breakdown or give away anything she shouldn't. 

My gut feeling is that CB was there on the night that Madeleine died, either babysitting, or saw something that she shouldn't (and was convinced that she was involved). 

Sorry if I'm going over old ground!

Crackfox wrote:.... another thing to remember is CB [Catriona Baker] said she wanted to retract the comment she made that Maddie preferred the company of boys. This suggests there is a withheld statement from KB [Catriona Baker] because there isn't a statement in which she makes this claim in the file is there?

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

Line 52/53 - a very rough translation..

.... she [Catriona Baker] says that she [Madeleine] was a very active and social child, however giving her closest attention to the boys of the group that belonged

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

I don't believe many, or any, of these "nannies" were certified as such. They were people who didn't have a job for whatever reason and wanted to work the holiday scene for a season or two.

It must be noted that a few actually came out on the same flights as the T9 (which in itself is a wee reddish flag). In such a crèche, it isn't required that the kids are taught anything or "kept" occupied, as long as they are amusing themselves, the "nannies " can get to know each other, have a gossip, a cup of tea and, at best, generally keep a watchful eye over the kids.

I believe that the weeks activity sheet was from another time/year (might even be from another resort). Obviously the weather at that time of year played a major role in determining which activities could or couldn't be actioned but I believe too much credence is being given to the girls as being "nannies".

I do a lot of work in pre-school nurseries and, albeit the children are younger, as long as they are happy, quiet, sleeping etc, the nannies (suitably qualified in this case) will entertain themselves, or various children as they see fit. At playtimes they are led outside and play together in more than 1 group, again with the stipulated (by law) number of nannies keeping watch.

Please note that these are nurseries where the children go for 5 days at a time for weeks/months/years.

Crackfox wrote:Exactly! We don't know what she said in her original statement (the missing one)  but it was so important she felt she needed to change it and I think so much has been held back.

What make you think that a Catriona Baker witness statement is missing?

Informal interviews took place on 4th May 2007 which are included in the PJ files.  I can't see any reason to suggest there was any other statements taken by the PJ that aren't in the PJ files.

During the rogatory interviews, off the top of my head I think you will find all the interviewees make reference to previous interviews with Leicester police, as can be seen from Catriona Baker's rogatory interview.  The McCanns specifically named Catriona Baker as a key witness they wanted interviewed during the rogatory process.

The PJ took advantage of this process by sending list of specific questions, in addition to whatever Leicester poice thought they were doing/achieving  The rogatory interviews are on file but I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of these interviews, they didn't assist the PJ investigation in any way shape or form.   Superfluous to requirements I venture to suggest - the McCanns and their mates were back at Blighty, no way did they intened to return to Portugal for further questioning.  Or even to participate in a re-construction as required by the PJ.

I've always wondered, indeed questioned, the Leicestershire Constabulary's role in this convoluted saga.  They were assigned as UK coordinator, in addition to Philomena McCann , it seems they took their role far and beyond the call of duty.

The rogatory interviews, to my mind, were cleverly conceived by Team McCann for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it made them appear to be proactive in requesting additional interviewing. Especially additional people who hadn't been interviewed before (but had been "got at")

Secondly, for those that had been interviewed previously, it gave them the opportunity to heap another layer of confusion and obfuscation.

All very clever and no doubt orchestrated by the "spokesman"

quaestorr wrote:Thank you Verdi. Are you able to say whether the creche nannies would have provided the evening babysitting service? It seems probable, and, if they did, that helps Basil's theory. There would have been written records, I assume, of parents who had booked this service - have they ever surfaced?

Yes, the daycare workers also worked the night shift, so to speak. It is on public record that the McCanns, nor their friends, used the night childcare facilities provided by Warners so it's moot point.

It's of course possible that the group did use one or more of the childcare workers off the record cash in hand, however there is no evidence to suggest this happened. Even if they did, in no way does it give weight to the very recent theory posted up-page.

They were character witnesses - nothing more nothing less. Had the PJ not intervened, the rogatory interviews would have lasted only a few minutes..

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:

Group 1 (persons with whom the couple dined every night during the holidays)
David Payne, with address at ...> (Leicester) (0,774,884 ####)

Fiona Payne to address in ...> (Leicester) (0,779,627 ####)

Diane Webster, with address at ...> (Renhold, Bedford) (0,123,477 ####)
Russell O'Brien, with address at ...> (Exeter) 0,771,325 ####)
Jane Tanner, with address at ...> (Exeter) (6,780,858 #####)
Rachael Oldfield, with address at ...> (London) (0,777,159 ####)
Matthew Oldfield, with address at ...> (London) (0,777,159 ####)

Group 2 (independent customers and employees of the Ocean Club who saw the behavior of Kate and Gerry on the day of the disappearance):
Dan Smith, with address at ...> (Ocean Club, c / o Mark Warner)
Steve Carpenter, with address at ...> (Ware, Herts) (0,781,577 ####)
Carolyn Carpenter, with address at ...> (Ware, Herts)
Jeremy Wilkins, with address at ...> (London)
Catriona Baker, with address at ...> (Surrey) (0,785,823 ####)

Group 3 (people who saw and/or spoke with Kate and Gerry at the time they noticed Madeleine's disappearance):
Patricia Cameron, with address at ...> (Dumbarton) (079,122 ####)
Paul Seddon, with address at ...> (Salford) (079,262 #####)
Michelle Thompson, with address at ...> (Liverpool) (0,151,280 ####)
Emma Kinghts, with address at ...> (Ocean Club, c / o Mark Warner) (3,519,614 ####)
Alan Pike, with address at ...> (Skipton) (0,781,212 ####)

Group 4 (people who knew the daily routine of Kate and Gerry and their relationship with their children before coming to Portugal):
Janet Kennedy, with address at ...> (Rothley, Leics) (0,118,230 ####)
Amanda Coxon, with address at ...> (Leicestershire) (0,794,042 ####)
Karen McCalman, with address at ...> (Leicesterhire) (0,116,269 ####)
Patricia Cameron, with address at ...> (Dumbarton) (0791 202 ####)
Sharon Lewin, with address at ...> (Leicester) (0,788,780 ####)
Hayley Plummer, with address at ...> (Syston) (0,778,987 ####)

Group 5 (persons closely involved in the routine of Kate and Gerry in Portugal after the disappearance of Madeleine and their emotional state)
Sandy Cameron, with address at ...> (Dumbarton) (0,793,399 ####)
Michael Wright, with address at ...> (Skipton) (0,777,556 ####)
Clarence Mitchell, with address at ...> (Bath) (0,779,628 ####)
Linda McQueen, with address at ...> (Merseyside) (0,780,956 ####)
Nicky Gill, with address at ...> (Liverpool) (079,004 ####)
Justine McGuiness, with address at ...> (Dorchester) (0,780,109 ####)

Group 6 (Professionals who can confirm that there was no abnormality in the way Kate and Gerry treated their children):
Dr. Phil Hussey, with address at ...> (Leics) (0,116,260 ####)
Dr Ian Schofield, with address at ...> (Mountsorrel) (0,116,230 ####)

6 - It is certain that some of these witnesses have already been heard, at least once, in the investigation.

7 - But, at that time, the direction of the investigation was apparently different, [that being] the reason why some of these witnesses were not heard on the matters mentioned above, currently considered relevant to the prosecution of the investigation and who already were, furthermore, the object of actual proceedings, namely the questioning and the interrogations of the applicants.

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

Verdi wrote:

Crackfox wrote:.... another thing to remember is CB [Catriona Baker] said she wanted to retract the comment she made that Maddie preferred the company of boys. This suggests there is a withheld statement from KB [Catriona Baker] because there isn't a statement in which she makes this claim in the file is there?

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

Line 52/53 - a very rough translation..

.... she [Catriona Baker] says that she [Madeleine] was a very active and social child, however giving her closest attention to the boys of the group that belonged

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

Thanks Verdi.

Interesting to see the reason it was not noticed is because of the translations.


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

These statements from CB, like many others, have just so much spurious and needless detail. You just know it’s padding.

It’s been raised many times before that there doesn’t appear to be anything that Madeleine (or any of the other T7 kids) made during their days in the crèche.

This is based on the assumption that their days were structured (as per the weeks Activity Sheet). As I’ve said before, I believe this has all been swiftly produced to suit the unfolding events.

I’d even go so far as to suggest that, given an accident earlier in the week and the gathering of assets soon afterwards, a root & branch review would have had time to be carried out to ensure such “records” were completed and in place, if nothing more than to protect MW/OC from their own accusations of neglect.

Verdi wrote:

Crackfox wrote:Exactly! We don't know what she said in her original statement (the missing one)  but it was so important she felt she needed to change it and I think so much has been held back.

What make you think that a Catriona Baker witness statement is missing?

Informal interviews took place on 4th May 2007 which are included in the PJ files.  I can't see any reason to suggest there was any other statements taken by the PJ that aren't in the PJ files.

During the rogatory interviews, off the top of my head I think you will find all the interviewees make reference to previous interviews with Leicester police, as can be seen from Catriona Baker's rogatory interview.  The McCanns specifically named Catriona Baker as a key witness they wanted interviewed during the rogatory process.

The PJ took advantage of this process by sending list of specific questions, in addition to whatever Leicester poice thought they were doing/achieving  The rogatory interviews are on file but I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of these interviews, they didn't assist the PJ investigation in any way shape or form.   Superfluous to requirements I venture to suggest - the McCanns and their mates were back at Blighty, no way did they intened to return to Portugal for further questioning.  Or even to participate in a re-construction as required by the PJ.

I've always wondered, indeed questioned, the Leicestershire Constabulary's role in this convoluted saga.  They were assigned as UK coordinator, in addition to Philomena McCann , it seems they took their role far and beyond the call of duty.

Thanks Verdi I didn't see that.

Verdi wrote:

Basil with a brush wrote:With no apparent after hours childcare facilities available.

Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.

    * Mornings: 9am-12.30pm
    * Afternoons: 2.30-5.30pm
    * Dining Out Service 7.30pm-11.30pm

(children are watched in a room above the main Ocean Club 24hour reception; there is no extra charge for this service but parents must take and fetch their own children)

    * "Baby sitting Service": 7.30pm-1am

(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)

Basil with a brush wrote:Can anyone help me throw these possibilities in the bin?

With pleasure

...spoilsport

..but, isn't there still the possibility she may have become involved with them on some other level (intimately with one of the fellas) and witnessed and been privy to whatever the child's fate was? Was she perhaps allocated one of those listening services (the logs are extremely sketchy after all) but was busy getting it on, as we might say, with one of the group? 

I'm just seeking, maybe a little bit more of an innocent and unwilling, chaotic involvement on her behalf before I decide otherwise.

I'm still absolutely convinced she's lying.

I just want to say that I am very uncomfortable seeing someone outside of the T9 etc. named as a liar.

I have seen nothing in the files to indicate it (at least initially) and after the fact I find it very plausible that she was 'manipulated' or 'intimidated'.

Personally I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to a young girl that was only 19 at the time. 

There is nothing to suggest she was complicit in any way other than to change her statements after her visit to Rothley, which MANY people may have been intimidated by, if they may have been pressured' to 'adjust' the statements.

Nothing is impossible of course but for now I consider it speculation and unless/until I can provide links for people to decide for themselves (if she had lied) then its important for me to avoid speculation.  

I feel I have a responsibility to ONLY provide info that can be linked to the files (or quotes or interviews) so that my comments can be checked for validity.

Everyone  has a right to their opinion, and it's not for me to say if anyone is right or wrong, but I do feel the need to place myself apart from speculation that cant be substantiated, particularly when a young girl at the time, if innocent, is named as a liar which she likely doesn't deserve.

I hope you understand.

polyenne wrote:Group 2 (independent customers and employees of the Ocean Club who saw the behavior of Kate and Gerry on the day of the disappearance):

So, all focus on Thursday 3 May, not any day prior when something may have occurred.

Look over here, not over there  

Quite so! No doubt throughout the week when seemingly they weren't doing much else, they had ample opportunity to rehearse how they would behave on Thursday 3rd May. Thing that sticks out for me above all else - why did the group of friends go to the beach that day without the McCann family, such was the offending excursion, Kate McCann makes special reference to her disappointment, dragging her daughter Madeleine into the foray. At least she mentioned Madeleine so I guess that can be seen as a plus.

By the time the McCann reconstruction was televised in the UK, Gerald McCann must have become quite adept as a movie producer/director. Jane Tanner always was a bit of a loose cannon, I wouldn't like to put my life in her hands.

polyenne wrote:.... if nothing more than to protect MW/OC from their own accusations of neglect.

It would be extremely helpful if people didn't believe everything they see and read in the glossy holiday brochures.

The reality is seldom in accordance with how the tour companies portray their product.

I say for the umpteenth time, the staff (invariably youngsters) contracted for seasonal work at a holiday resort, ain't there because they are dedicated or furthering their career. They are there for the sun sea sex and sangria - to coin a phrase. The employers know that, it's cheap labour - tourists come and tourists go, what care the tour operators that a few disgruntled clients make a complaint?

Just another day at the office.

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Crackfox wrote:.... another thing to remember is CB [Catriona Baker] said she wanted to retract the comment she made that Maddie preferred the company of boys. This suggests there is a withheld statement from KB [Catriona Baker] because there isn't a statement in which she makes this claim in the file is there?

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

Line 52/53 - a very rough translation..

.... she [Catriona Baker] says that she [Madeleine] was a very active and social child, however giving her closest attention to the boys of the group that belonged

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

Thanks Verdi.

Interesting to see the reason it was not noticed is because of the translations.


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

I would like to suggest a possible reason for the confusion over Cat's statement about giving attention to the boys, being a mistranslation. In some languages, notably Spanish, where there is a similar masculine & feminine version of the same noun, the plural version which include both masculine & feminine would be formed by adding an s to the masculine word.
Menino = boy
Menina = girl
Meninos could mean boys or boys & girls
Meninas = girls.

If Cat's statement was about boys & girls, ie sociable with all the other children, Murat might well have chosen to translate that by the word meninos, then when the files were translated back into English meninos mistakenly translated as boys only.
I think this is a plausible theory but please correct me if this does not apply to Portuguese.

mezzyd wrote:would like to suggest a possible reason for the confusion over Cat's statement about giving attention to the boys, being a mistranslation. In some languages, notably Spanish, where there is a similar masculine & feminine version of the same noun, the plural version which include both masculine & feminine would be formed by adding an s to the masculine word.
Menino = boy
Menina = girl
Meninos could mean boys or boys & girls
Meninas = girls.

If Cat's statement was about boys & girls, ie sociable with all the other children, Murat might well have chosen to translate that by the word meninos, then when the files were translated back into English meninos mistakenly translated as boys only.
I think this is a plausible theory but please correct me if this does not apply to Portuguese.

I don't doubt you are right, a mis-translation by either Murat or the volunteer who translated the Portuguese document back into English. Masculine/feminine nouns can easily cause confusion when interpreting/translating - that's one reason why it's essential to engage the services of a professional translator/interpreter for any important document.

However, the reason for the subject being clarified was only to correct a misunderstanding about a missing/withheld statement.

HiDeHo wrote:There is nothing to suggest she was complicit in any way other than to change her statements after her visit to Rothley, which MANY people may have been intimidated by, if they may have been pressured' to 'adjust' the statements.

There can be no tangible reason for Catriona Baker's visit to the McCanns home in Rothley, unless she were there on a mission - I doubt anyone held a gun to her head, the visit was of her own volition and for a specific reason.

If Catriona Baker was pressured or intimidated into 'adjusting' (changing) her original statement, then she was later lying, whichever way you care to look at it. If she were offered an incentive, then she was still later lying - if she was threatened, then she was still later lying. There is no acceptable excuse for Catriona Baker's actions.

The obvious course of action for anyone, even a teenager, being manipulated/forced into committing perjury, would be to tell someone - preferably the police but failing that anyone who will listen and help you cope with the situation.

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:There is nothing to suggest she was complicit in any way other than to change her statements after her visit to Rothley, which MANY people may have been intimidated by, if they may have been pressured' to 'adjust' the statements.

There can be no tangible reason for Catriona Baker's visit to the McCanns home in Rothley, unless she were there on a mission - I doubt anyone held a gun to her head, the visit was of her own volition and for a specific reason.

If Catriona Baker was pressured or intimidated into 'adjusting' (changing) her original statement, then she was later lying, whichever way you care to look at it.  If she were offered an incentive, then she was still later lying - if she was threatened, then she was still later lying.  There is no acceptable excuse for Catriona Baker's actions.

The obvious course of action for anyone, even a teenager, being manipulated/forced into committing perjury, would be to tell someone - preferably the police but failing that anyone who will listen and help you cope with the situation.

 Looking at the big picture... I disagree.

I believe she was initially confused who Maddie was and just felt her recollection was not correct.

They are clever and would have handled her WAY beyond a 19 year old's ability to question the issues.

MOST people cannot or do not face up to the McCanns for obvious reasons...

Are we to expect a 19/20 year old to stand up to them?

I don't think so.

Team McCann is a VERY intimidating force.

HiDeHo wrote:I just want to say that I am very uncomfortable seeing someone outside of the T9 etc. named as a liar.

Absolutely HIDeHo. Apologies if it were myself that made you feel uncomfortable.


If it was I. I have to point out, I didn't say she was a liar. Only that I believed she was lying. I would hope that people in my world don't think I'm a liar either, even though I may have lied from time to time.


Although having said that. I'm sure some members of the said Tapas nine or more, aren't seen as liars on a regular basis in their world either....but as far as I can see, concerning this mystery, they are lying. So why not her also?


I was just trying to find reason to suggest that she was somehow pulled into all this in a more innocent, naïve way......initially.


Maybe for her, it was too difficult and scary to backtrack and far easier to go along with the bigger lie. Even more so after the 'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave' hotel meeting.

Like you say, she was young.


Basil

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  (that always makes me chuckle)

I was not referring to you (I did not use your quote) or anyone else in particular.  I apologise if you felt my words were aimed at you independently.

I have seen it said before and though your post may have inspired me it was not aimed at you.

It is not for me to say others cannot claim that.  I was only stating my point of view.

The McCanns and their friends (and Team McCann) and not necessarily Dianne Webster, have shown me, by their statements, that they were trying to hide something from Tuesday morning onwards.

Catriona MAY have become 'involved' in some way after the fact. (during a trip to Rothley?)

However, although I believe they were ALL in the wrong place at the wrong time and maybe CHOSE to become complicit in some way, for whatever reason, I don't believe for ONE SECOND that, (at the time) Catriona was complicit.

Maybe its just my opinion and there is always the possibility that I am wrong, but until/unless I see something to indicate that she KNEW something during that week I will defend her.

She was an outsider to the situation and was drawn into it for no reason, except to maybe be of assistance to them in defending their timeline.

I am not oblivious to what may have happened afterwards, but I cannot be drawn into suggesting she was PART of the McCanns lies.

THEY are responsible for what happened and Catriona happens to be one of the 'fall guys', along with maybe the T7, who were USED to protect them.

For whatever reason, and according to the files, Maddie died, hopefully from an accident that she did not suffer, but the McCANNS chose to hide her body and simulate an abduction and it seems they are such a MAJOR force that others were intimidated to go along with their requirements.

I'm sure many of you remember my 'Message to Matthew' which wasnt intended to be a direct plea to him personally but once posted seemed to take wings and ultimately was sent to him at the hospital.

I am personally FURIOUS that so many people have been hurt by their actions and hurt even more to think that a young girl, on a summer job, to be considered part of their disgusting selfish cover up.

HiDeHo Message to Matthew 2008 wrote:

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

A message posted in 3A approx 2008.  There was no intention of it being any more than a regular comment to a thread but was published on many blogs and apparently a copy sent to the hospital where Matthew worked…. I wrote it from my heart…

Matthew....

I realise that sometimes memory can play tricks but recognising Thursday May 3rd as such an important day, I'm sure that a day or so later it would not have been difficult for you to remember the main details and there would be no reason for them to not be consistent with your other friends.

Therefore I ask you this....



Chivying the Paynes
 
You claim to have gone to chivvy the Paynes just prior to 9.00pm May 3rd.
 
You claim to have passed the at the top of the road...


May 10th -The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] thathe met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Fiona claims to have passed you outside 5A
 
David Payne claims to have passed you by the swimming pool
 
Dianne Webster was absolutely sure you weren't there...
 
Until the Rogatory interviews when she says that David and Fiona reminded her.....
 
[size=16]Who is lying?


Mens Social Tennis

You claim to have seen Kate and the children when you arrived and the other women and children joined them later.

when they arrived at that meeting GM was already there, with KM and her children watching the match, the rest of the women and children joining them [KM and children] later.

Kate tells us she didn't go to the tennis courts.  Madeleine was tired and Kate and Gerry carried Madeleine back to te apartment at 5.40 when you were still down at the beach.

You say you finished at 7.00pm and you, David and Russell went back to your apartments, but David did not make it back to the tennis courts until  6.45pm at the very earliest as before he started playing he stopped at Kates apartment nd saw the children including Madeleine.

Where was he? With you or at Kates apartment?

Are you lying or is David lying?


Thursday lunch

You claim to have gone to Paynes for lunch on Thursday.

Fiona says they had lunch alone and you had lunch with Rachael, Russell and Jane.

I would consider that easy to remember so who is lying?

Fiona or yourself?

If so, then why?

Checking the children

You claim to have left the table with Russell at 9.25, (justifying two of you checking 3 apartments).  You walked up to the top of the road and went to your apartment next to the McCanns.

After checking you went to Russells apartment where his daughter was crying and had vomited.  Russell decided to stay and look after his daughter so you walked through his apartment and left through the back way as this was the shortest route for you to check te McCanns children.

You went  a short distance inside the apartment, saw the two cots, noticed more light in their room than in your daughters room next door and you then left.

You claim to have returned to the tapas restaurant at around 9.30pm within 5 minutes of the time you left. 

I would question whether that was possible, considering it takes a couple of minutes to walk the distance to the front doors of the apartments, added to going into your apartment, closing and locking and then visiting Russell and walking through his apartment and through the back gate, up to the McCanns apartment, in through the sliding doors, back down and walking back to the restaurant.

I would guess it took a little longer than less than 5 minutes...Important to be precise as the timeline is important considering Madeleine apparently disappeared around that time. 

It is more likely that you did not return until at least 9.35pm and told everyone that things were fine.

May I ask you.....Were you REALLY checking the children as you say?

Why did you tell Kate you would check on Madeleine?

Why not her 'children'?

I believe that you went on that holiday with the belief that your children would be looked after properly while you shared time with your friends for the evening meal.

I feel there is no question that you love and care  lot for your little girl.

I don't believe that you would leave her alone in the apartment.  I think you all had arrangements in place for the children to be watched.

You were apparently 'ill' on Sunday night,  Rachael was apparently 'ill' on Wednesday night (there is also a question as to whether she was 'ill' on Tuesday night also).

Your apartment was right next door to Kate and Gerry's and only 2 doors away from Russell and Janes apartment, so it would have made so much sense for you to share watching the children and, I believe you did!

How were you to know that something terrible would happen to Madeleine?

Did Gerry tell you straight away or did he wait until he hd figured out what he was going to do, and then ask for your support leaving you no time to think straight or realise the repercussions.

I'm sure he made you feel confident that he knew what he was doing and to trust him.  All you had to do was to avoid discussing the obvious and to just follow the plan.

I am sure you were shocked and devasted about what had happened and probably had many questions that maybe, to this day, remain unanswered.  

Had this situation happened to you, it would have been handled differently and there must have been many hours of discussing this with Rachael (and maybe, Russell and Jane).

You followed the 'procedure', for that night, hoping that you were doing the right thing but what option did you have?

I'm sure there was a lot of pressure to follow the plan as everyone else was, and goodness knows what would have happened had you 'broken ranks' and contacted the police, but you were probably assured that everything would be OK.

You had not done anything wrong and you maybe, didn't know all the details and it all happened so quickly......

I think it was you (or Russell) who did not want the media contacted.  Gerry and Dave wanted to, so you probably had no choice in the matter.

You had no idea of the repercussions from your decision to 'support' Gerry and Kate.

You 'trusted' this man (that you actually found quite boring) but he abused your trust and  because of his arrogance and subsequent greed your life has been devastated.

You didn't deserve that.  You made a mistake and you will 'pay' for it for the rest of your life.

If you could re-live those moments again, there would be no question you would have handled it differently.

I wonder whether its too late to make a difference....

You have tremendous pressure right now to remain quiet about everything that happened.

You are living with the knowledge and you, as well as Gerry and Kate and the others are hoping that the information contained in the police files and the videos of the dogs finding cadaver scent on Kates clothes and behind their couch and in the car, are not going to make headlines in Britain.

You, of course know that once they do, your life, and that of Rachael and your daughter will not only suffer the consequences of what those in the general public will know about your part in the simulated abduction but don't forget what is most important to you......

Can your family and friends have the same respect for you ever again?

Can you imagine a life where you will never again be trusted and the hurt you will have imposed on all the innocent members of your family?

The information WILL become available, you know that...

You wish for it all to go away but you know it won't....You have far worse to go through yet.

There are millions of people all over the world that care about Madeleine, many of them do not know the details that the police report revealed.  You can read it all here...

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

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation[/size]


Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

There are thousands of people that have been privy to reading all the details of the police investigation.  

Unlike Kate and Gerry, who used 'public money' to be able to read it, the files were translated freely by wonderful people that care enough about Madeleine to put their heart and soul into seeking the truth.

All of these people have put in millions of hours.  They would have willingly helped Kate and Gerry in their search for Madeleine had they been asked, at no cost to anyone!

Unfortunately, Kate and Gerry didn't ask anyone to help.  Everyone knows why and so do you...

Matthew, am I underestimating you?

Is the support of Kate and Gerry worth more than your own self respect and the respect of your family?

I know you have the courage to do whats right.

Your family will be proud of you and people all over the world will one day, maybe, be able to forgive you for lying.  You probably felt it was the right thing to do at the time and after that, you thought there was no turning back, but you can make a difference now....

It will not be easy and you will be taking a step that will place you in the line of fire from everyone that has been deceived up until now, but in the end you will have, at least, a little peace,  knowing that regardless of a bad decision you made three years ago in Praia da Luz you will finally be able to hold your head up high.

If you can find it within your heart to free yourself of the pressure by doing what is right, and when the truth is made public, you will find that you have the support of thousands of members from forums dedicated to finding justice for little Maddie.

Only then can Madeleine be laid to Rest in Peace with the dignity and respect that she deserves. 

Matthew....

Do it for yourself, do it for your family but most of all do it for precious little Madeleine...

She no longer has a voice and she needs you.....


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

HiDeHo's Message to Tapas Seven - Tell the TRUTH about Madeleine before the MEDIA do it for you!

I’m sorry if this offends but let’s stop beating about the bush and treading on eggshells.

Basil with a Brush, Catriona Baker, me......if, at some point in time, we lie, we are liars. 

That’s not to say we are habitual liars, but at given moments, if it helps our cause and we choose not to tell the truth, we are liars. Thus, if CB, for whatever reason, did not tell the truth, at that moment she was a liar.

Unfortunately for her, following the meeting at Rothley, her story changed. That there is a red flag and I, for one, do not believe it was forgetfulness. I suspect she was more involved with the McCanns (or another of the T7) that week and, following Rothley, that is why her rogatory was requested.

I accept her youth, naivety, inexperience but if she told an untruth, she was a liar.

Cat Baker- Rogatory 18.4.08 (snipped – my bold) - I was confused and did not understand was happening. They eventually explained to me what had occurred around 22h30-22h35. Emma Wilding told me that Madeleine has disappeared. Leanne Wagstaff also was present. 
Why did Cat say that? What was there to be confused about? What was there not to understand? A child called Madeleine Mc Cann was missing.
I can’t help but wonder if those brief seconds of shock and confusion for Cat that Thursday night (3^rd) was because she KNEW that Madeleine had been ‘missing’ from the creche (possibly for several days during the week - that Gerry and Kate had duped Cat in some way into allowing them to sign Madeleine in) – and that, momentarily she thought it was this that they were talking about - her mind drifted to the crèche sheets - and her own lack of following any Mark Warner procedures (even if there was any on this eventuality).
Then it ‘eventually’ sunk in that Emma W meant that Madeleine was REALLY missing.

I think that young Cat could have been pressured (by the praying Mc Canns) into believing that none of this was relevant now after Madeleine’s ‘abduction’ from the apartment.