Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler; Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann documentary

Verdi wrote:Title of thread..

Re: Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler; Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann documentary

Back on topic please good people.

That's all you needed to say, Verdi, instead of getting aggressive with pauloalexandre. He's new here, as I am, and it doesn't make one want to continue when you make it personal like that.

Pat Brown wrote:Journalist Sandra Felgueiras speaks out that she found the McCann behavior strange. She later confesses to have believed the dog evidence. Then she states that she was lied to by police and she has changed her mind about the case and is embarrassed she ever questioned the McCanns’ innocence. This was the only surprise in the series for me. What happened to Sandra?

When you consider Pat Brown claims to have been misquoted when interviewed for the Australian 2017 documentary, I wonder how she truly feels about this complete change of direction allegedly reported by Nexflix. By all appearances the Ocean Club guest Neil Berry makes an elaborate contribution with never been seen before photographic evidence of the back end of a child said to be Madeleine McCann but is clearly considerably younger than the child in the same image said to be his daughter, who made friends with Madeleine at the child daycare. Logic dictates this claim to be a downright untruth.

The Australian 2017 production was a mass deception, it makes me even more suspicious about what can be seen and heard. Technology advances by the day, if you can manage your home or workplace by the use of computer aps, what else is possible I ask myself?

momac wrote:

Verdi wrote:Title of thread..

Re: Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler; Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann documentary

Back on topic please good people.

That's all you needed to say, Verdi, instead of getting aggressive with pauloalexandre. He's new here, as I am, and it doesn't make one want to continue when you make it personal like that.

To momac,

There is a little dead girl.

There is a forum of people from all walks of life trying to find out what happened to her and to bring justice.

There is no real justice that will bring back the life of a little girl.

Why you need to feel the need to tackle Verdi in any way is beyond me.

Verdi moderates this forum and not only that brings you an enormous wealth of carefully documented information.

Be careful who you criticize. It is certainly not CMOMM you should be looking at and most definitely the moderator.

Does Sandra now support Mr & Mrs?  I haven't watched any of it and wont be but it's not clear to me on this thread where she stands.

Does she now support two people who say that they left their 3 babies alone night after night in a foreign land and in a strange flat to go out eating and DRINKING with their pals?  Leaving a child who was very, very tired, who had a history of nose bleeds and had asked why they did not come when they were crying? 

Why only criticise Rocky A in the Netflix film?

It doesn't add up to me.

tiki wrote:Didn't they go to the Millennium restaurant on the Sunday or was that Saturday. It's in the files anyway and they did take the kids but with so many nobody could say Madeleine was definitely there.

Gerry McCann's statement - 10th May 2007

[Saturday 28th April 2007]

----- The reception committee over, the nine adults and eight children went on foot to the MILLENIUM restaurant. They went back to the secondary reception, turned left and, at the end of the road, turned right up to the main street that led to the restaurant. Because it was a long way, at some time the deponent and his wife picked up and carried the twins in their arms, but not MADELEINE who was always on foot.

----- They arrived at the destination between 18h50 and 19h00 having set themselves up at a large table where they all ate dinner, including the children who were seated between the adults, never leaving the place except for one of the twins who went to the bathroom with the deponent. About an hour later they finished dinner returning, again on foot by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning at the next street. He adds that, as they were all very tired they went directly to the apartment arriving at 20h10/20h15, the route back having been slightly faster given that the twins were carried all the way.
~~~~~~

[Sunday 29th April 2007]

----- The following day (Sunday) the children woke up at 08h00, he and his wife having woken up at 07h30. They dressed and about 08h40 left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, because they were not all seated at the same table.
~~~~~~

----- The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30, it being that the deponent and KATE left for dinner at the TAPAS at 20h30. Between 19h30 and 20h30 they took a bath and drank wine, Portuguese or New Zealand, and a beer.

----- In the following days they always took breakfast at home, shopping the day before, generally maintaining the daily routine described above. When the children were at creche they had tennis classes, KATE at 09h15, he an hour later, from Monday to Thursday.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14479-key-witness-statements-for-information-only#372886

plebgate wrote:Does Sandra now support Mr & Mrs?  I haven't watched any of it and wont be but it's not clear to me on this thread where she stands.

Does she now support two people who say that they left their 3 babies alone night after night in a foreign land and in a strange flat to go out eating and DRINKING with their pals?  Leaving a child who was very, very tired, who had a history of nose bleeds and had asked why they did not come when they were crying? 

Why only criticise Rocky A in the Netflix film?

It doesn't add up to me.

I heard that Madeleine had nose bleeds, but only as an excuse by the family to negate the dogs' findings, in which they had detected the presence of human blood.

Did they ever mention that on other occasions?

Verdi wrote:

tiki wrote:Didn't they go to the Millennium restaurant on the Sunday or was that Saturday. It's in the files anyway and they did take the kids but with so many nobody could say Madeleine was definitely there.

Gerry McCann's statement - 10th May 2007

[Saturday 28th April 2007]

----- The reception committee over, the nine adults and eight children went on foot to the MILLENIUM restaurant. They went back to the secondary reception, turned left and, at the end of the road, turned right up to the main street that led to the restaurant. Because it was a long way, at some time the deponent and his wife picked up and carried the twins in their arms, but not MADELEINE who was always on foot.

----- They arrived at the destination between 18h50 and 19h00 having set themselves up at a large table where they all ate dinner, including the children who were seated between the adults, never leaving the place except for one of the twins who went to the bathroom with the deponent. About an hour later they finished dinner returning, again on foot by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning at the next street. He adds that, as they were all very tired they went directly to the apartment arriving at 20h10/20h15, the route back having been slightly faster given that the twins were carried all the way.
~~~~~~

[Sunday 29th April 2007]

----- The following day (Sunday) the children woke up at 08h00, he and his wife having woken up at 07h30. They dressed and about 08h40 left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, because they were not all seated at the same table.
~~~~~~

----- The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30, it being that the deponent and KATE left for dinner at the TAPAS at 20h30. Between 19h30 and 20h30 they took a bath and drank wine, Portuguese or New Zealand, and a beer.

----- In the following days they always took breakfast at home, shopping the day before, generally maintaining the daily routine described above. When the children were at creche they had tennis classes, KATE at 09h15, he an hour later, from Monday to Thursday.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14479-key-witness-statements-for-information-only#372886

Ok, so... if Madeleine died on the 29th of April, for how long was her body lain behind the sofa? I'm assuming it takes about an hour to produce the "odour of death"?

I thought they went to dine in the Millenium restaurant, as it was farther away from the apartments and it was much more of a pain in the ass to do the "checks". If there were such "checks"...

__________________________________________________________________________

Keep on topic please.  Mod

plebgate wrote:Does Sandra now support Mr & Mrs?  I haven't watched any of it and wont be but it's not clear to me on this thread where she stands.

As I haven't seen the Netflix production I can't vouch for the accuracy of this interview transcript, courtesy of blogger Textusa. From what I've seen elsewhere, the basics are much the same..

Filomena Cautela (FC): Sandra Felgueiras, I must say, I had to do a lot of work for you to come here and it was not only out of the great admiration for you but because I did binge-watching, which is called kind of, 2 days in a row to see the damn documentary of Maddie McCann's documentary and I got sick with it, that’s it. And I think everyone who saw the documentary, I don’t know if anyone here in the audience has seen, but .... the documentary is big, it's 8 episodes, and you ... it's extraordinary, because you appear very, very much in the documentary, and you talk a lot in the documentary. Did you have the notion that they were going to put so much of your interview?

Sandra Felgueiras (SF): No, I had no idea.

FC: Because in truth that is going to be there for everyone to see forever and it's an international documentary, it's worldwide, people can see it worldwide, you had no idea you are, you're not, you're not one of the documentary’s biggest protagonists, but they used your testimony a lot ...

SF: They used, they needed to ... to ... they built that narrative of let’s discredit everything that was done in Portugal ...

FC: ... exactly ...

SF: ... and let's explain that Madeleine is alive and effectively what I was telling them corresponded to the intention they had and they ended up pouring it into eight episodes, and I tell you frankly that the first time I saw it, because I’ve already seen it twice ...

FC: … Yes

SF: ... I did not see them fully ...

FC: ... you didn’t see?

SF: ... the episodes twice but I've seen it once, one and a half ...
FC: ... ok ...

SF: ... because I appear up to the fifth, I went to see several times, why? Because the first time I was uncomfortable, the second one I understood better, and the third I took it all in ...

FC: ... ok ...

SF: ... and why did I become uncomfortable? Because I do not know if for those who did not follow like I who lived that with intensity, the Madeleine McCann case, did effectively understand what I meant to say. Because I wanted to say something very simple: a journalist does not reveal her sources, the journalist only needs to talk to them and need to talk to Gonçalo Amaral because of a very concrete question and ... and dangerous one, that's how I was deceived. And I was deceived in what?

FC: Exactly ...

SF: I was told that the blood sample found in the car and in the McCanns' bedroom, or rather the McCanns’ living room, belonged without a margin of doubt to Madd ... Madeleine McCann ...

FC: ... exactly ...

SF: ... and that created in me the conviction, because I piously believed in Gonçalo Amaral, and with him I had a relationship started as source-journalist ...

FC: What surprises me is that all the people who are here believed this, I think that all the people in Portugal believed that the parents had something to do with that and nowadays if I ask this audience, which I won’t do, but if I ask this audience what do you think, Madeleine McCann's parents have to do with that or not, I'm sure a lot of people will say yes, and I thought so too ... I then saw the documentary!

SF: But notice, the public opinion thought so, because for several months, they heard it said with a lot of intensity the parents are suspects, and this created in everyone the conviction that this was true and raised doubts in journalists, until that in July 2008, a year later ...

FC: ... yes ...

SF: ... finally come the secret files that have become public and we can read because the process has been in secrecy of justice, what the results of the laboratory of Birmingham actually said that confirmed the analysis of blood, the biological sample, wasn’t even blood…

FC: ... they were not from Maddie?

SF: No, the report was frightening because the report said this, and I remember perfectly, the blood sample has 5 alleles in 20 possible, in the bedroom, and in the car 17 in 20. The sample ...

FC: What does that mean?

SF: It means that a blood sample, a biological sample ... for example, yours, your alleles, your genetic makeup corresponds to 20 alleles, if they find 17 out of 20, it means it's very probable ...

FC: ... that it’s mine.

SF: ... that it is yours, now the problem is that the last paragraph of this report from the experts said: however the sample is so insignificant and so tiny that here in the laboratory where we are, there are more than a hundred people who have an identical sample, and that makes this sample criminally irrelevant.

FC: So it's a lie.

SF: Hey, man, when I read that, I called Goncalo Amaral and I'm sorry, you're playing in the mayonnaise, here is ... what has happened here? “Oh, no, they did not translate the last paragraph here and then I was convinced it was ... but look, the dogs sniffed, the dogs smelled, one sniffed cadaver and the other sniffed blood and they alerted ...”, effectively they alerted, only the dogs do not go to court, do they? Dogs ... they are, they are dogs!

FC: The dogs, they are dogs!

SF: They are dogs, that's it, it’s... and so the dogs also did not find Madeleine, and until there’s proof to the contrary, if you have the probability, even if it's minimal, tiny that the child is alive, you’re not going to embark on the thesis the parents killed her and now let’s forget it, we’re not going to look for her.

FC: Exactly.

SF: And this left me deeply angry.

FC: Me too! I'm still not well, after what you are telling me!

SF: No, but notice, no, just to explain because this point is quite important to me. I was first uncomfortable because I thought, people will see this and they will think: "Sandra Felgueiras is a total fool who reveals sources." No, point number one, I am not a total fool, and second, I do not reveal my sources, but I have a very, very clear principle in my head forever, there is an article in the journalists’ code of ethics which says we can, I say we should, tell the truth whenever we feel deceived by a source, and that's what happened. So, I would not be correct with myself and let alone with the viewers who heard me and ...

FC: ... you did not say they lied to you ..

SF: Look, I felt that I lied to you because I was lied to ...

FC: ... so it is.

SF: ... and if I did not say this, probably it would be more comfortable for my career, for my good name, for a lot of things...

FC: ... yes ...

SF: ... but it would not be comfortable for what is my motto that is the truth, and tell the truth, no matter what the costs, hurts who has hurt, even if in this case it hurts me. I have to ask something that is not exactly common among journalists.

FC: So it is.

(Applause)

FC: Oh Sandra, let me just say, thank you very much for what you have just told me, I do not know if the people there at home understood exactly, I think so, what we are talking about, but in fact the courage that you had to come and say, look, I've given this news and the news you gave spread all over the world, and the whole world starts to have a completely different opinion of Maddie's parents, and you had the courage of when you knew the truth to say, I now know this, you, as you just said you could have said nothing and you said it. The problem is that I think then the whole world was no longer listening, and I think the problem is that the whole world only maintained in their head that, ah, they're guilty ... We'll continue to talk with Sandra ...

SF: And here is ... and that is the biggest problem of all, you know?

FC: So it is, so it is, that's why I really liked for you to have come here, thank you very much!


Sandra Felgueiras’ appearance in this program did not have much repercussion on the Portuguese media.

This is what we could find after googling about it:

On RTP:

https://www.atelevisao.com/rtp/sandra-felgueiras-admite-ter-sido-enganada-por-goncalo-amaral/

Sandra Felgueiras admits being deceived by Gonçalo Amaral

March 29 2019

Ana Daniela Pereira

The documentary about the disappearance of Maddie McCann continues to be spoken about and it was in this week’s edition of '5 para a Meia Noite' week that Sandra Fegueiras, a RTP journalist who followed the case of the English girl, decided to clarify her participation in the documentary.

Sandra Felgueiras told Filomena Cautela that her source on the blood samples question was Gonçalo Amaral himself, the former inspector who led the case of the disappearance.

"This created in me the conviction of the involvement of the parents, because I believed in Gonçalo Amaral. With him I kept a relationship of source and journalist for several months, " she explained.

However, when the reports are made public, Sandra Felgueiras says she discovers that she had been deceived. "The report was frightening and said as follows: The blood sample has five alleles in 20 possible (from the bedroominfinitlyl) and in the car 17 in 20. However, the sample is so insignificant and so tiny that here in the laboratory there are at least 100 people who have an identical sample, which makes this sample criminally irrelevant”, she said.

Sandra confidenciou também que ligou a Gonçalo Amaral para lhe pedir explicações. “Se há a probabilidade de a criança estar viva, por mais mínima e ínfima que seja, não se parte para a tese ‘os pais mataram-na’ e não se procura mais. Isto deixou-me profundamente revoltada”, admitiu.

Sandra also confided that she called Gonçalo Amaral to ask him for explanations. "If there is a probability that the child is alive, no matter how minimal and tiny, one does not take part in the thesis 'the parents killed her' and don’t look for her anymore. This left me deeply angry”, she admitted.

In the documentary, the journalist had already presented this version of the facts, stressing that she felt deceived by the source - Gonçalo Amaral - situation that the ex-inspector denies categorically.


On ‘VIP’, a gossip magazine:

https://www.vip.pt/sandra-felgueiras-sobre-o-documentario-de-maddie-mccann-eu-fui-enganada

Sandra Felgueiras on the Maddie McCann documentary

"I was deceived"

National

The journalist Sandra Felgueiras was this Thursday, March 28, in RTP's program 5 Para A Meia Noite, and spoke about the Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

The Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' was released two weeks ago. The journalist Sandra Felgueiras, one of the protagonists, reveals that she felt "uncomfortable" when she saw the series.

"I went to see it several times because the first time I was uncomfortable, the second I understood better and the third I took it in," begins by saying in the program 5 Para a Meia Noite, RTP, this Thursday, March 28, explaining then the reasons of such discomfort.

"I don’t know if the people who did not follow the case like me, who lived that intensely, understood what I meant. I wanted to say something very simple”, she explains, referring to the fact that not only did she reveal that one of her sources was the then inspector of the PJ Gonçalo Amaral but also that he had lied to her.

"A journalist does not reveal her sources. I only needed to talk about Gonçalo Amaral for a concrete and dangerous reason. I was deceived. I was told that the blood sample found in the car and the McCanns' living room belonged to Madeleine”, recalls Sandra Felgueiras.

The journalist and face of the investigation program Sexta às 9 further admits that she feared that the public opinion had a negative impression on her testimony in the Netflix documentary.

"I was uncomfortable because I thought people would find 'Sandra Felgueiras is a total fool who reveals sources'. No, I'm not a fool, and second, I do not reveal my sources. But I have a very clear principle in my head. There is an article in the code of ethics that says that we should tell the truth whenever we feel deceived by a source. And this is what happened".

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/03/sandra-felgueiras-5-para-meia-noite.html

It's very disappointing but as I said previously, it doesn't impact the official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The videoed interviews are available for all to see, any change in Ms Felgueiras' direction is of no consequence. Especially when you consider the general thrust of the Netflix production, which from what I've read, is just another page in the McCann defence propaganda machine.

I honestly cannot understand Sandra Felgueiras logic here. I didn't think the DNA was ever that reliable as in the analysts were at fault.more than anything because they could not be that accurate. However, to keep banging that drum, the dogs were accurate but though they are not admitted in court without supporting evidence how can they be ignored. This is the death of a child we're talking about and by the hands of her own parents clearly after cadaver alerts. It simply beggars belief that this crucial evidence is as if it never happened and millions of people are chasing phantoms. Unbelievable, no wonder Goncalo Amaral has kept on pursuing the case, it has to be so frustrating and why have they not taken up offers of new DNA techniques . Is it possible that could she'd some light but then the McCanns don't want that.

tiki wrote:I honestly cannot understand Sandra Felgueiras logic here. I didn't think the DNA was ever that reliable as in the analysts were at fault.more than anything because they could not be that accurate. However, to keep banging that drum, the dogs were accurate but though they are not admitted in court without supporting evidence how can they be ignored. This is the death of a child we're talking about and by the hands of her own parents clearly after cadaver alerts. It simply beggars belief that this crucial evidence is as if it never happened and millions of people are chasing phantoms. Unbelievable, no wonder Goncalo Amaral has kept on pursuing the case, it has to be so frustrating and why have they not taken up offers of new DNA techniques . Is it possible that could she'd some light but then the McCanns don't want that.

These DNA techniques aren't exactly new. I watched Mark Perlin on the REALLY channel 'evidence of evil' programme last night and I don't think it was made last week.

To think that Scotland Yard and/or the PJ are not aware of current DNA techniques is to render oneself as gullible.

To buy into the laying down of a gauntlet by media is much the same.

pauloalexandre wrote:

plebgate wrote:Does Sandra now support Mr & Mrs?  I haven't watched any of it and wont be but it's not clear to me on this thread where she stands.

Does she now support two people who say that they left their 3 babies alone night after night in a foreign land and in a strange flat to go out eating and DRINKING with their pals?  Leaving a child who was very, very tired, who had a history of nose bleeds and had asked why they did not come when they were crying? 

Why only criticise Rocky A in the Netflix film?

It doesn't add up to me.

I heard that Madeleine had nose bleeds, but only as an excuse by the family to negate the dogs' findings, in which they had detected the presence of human blood.

Did they ever mention that on other occasions?

Instead of asking me questions why not take a look around the internet and find Mr's September 07 arguido interview.   You might learn something for yourself.

Maybe you could post a link as to where you heard that it was the family who used this as an excuse. 

I agree with aquilla's previous posts to you.

Mark Perlin, Ph.D., chief scientific and executive officer of Cybergenetics, is a 2017 Pittsburgh Smart 50 honoree and Impact award winner


Mark Perlin co-founded Cybergenetics in 1994 to interpret DNA data for medical diagnosis and gene discovery. Five years later, the business pivoted into a higher profile field: forensic analysis of crime scene DNA.

It was 10 more years before Perlin, who is the company’s chief scientific and executive officer today, first testified in a 2009 case in which a fraction of DNA was found under the murder victim’s fingernails. He had to explain to the judge — and eventually the jury — how his TrueAllele technology separates DNA evidence from multiple sources into genotypes, then uses computers to determine how strongly the evidence matches a single person, or other evidence.
...........

This Mark Perlin's TrueAllele has all the markings of another quasi scientific field on a par with Peter Hyatt's Statement Analysis .

plebgate wrote:

pauloalexandre wrote:

plebgate wrote:Does Sandra now support Mr & Mrs?  I haven't watched any of it and wont be but it's not clear to me on this thread where she stands.

Does she now support two people who say that they left their 3 babies alone night after night in a foreign land and in a strange flat to go out eating and DRINKING with their pals?  Leaving a child who was very, very tired, who had a history of nose bleeds and had asked why they did not come when they were crying? 

Why only criticise Rocky A in the Netflix film?

It doesn't add up to me.

I heard that Madeleine had nose bleeds, but only as an excuse by the family to negate the dogs' findings, in which they had detected the presence of human blood.

Did they ever mention that on other occasions?

Instead of asking me questions why not take a look around the internet and find Mr's September 07 arguido interview.   You might learn something for yourself.

Maybe you could post a link as to where you heard that it was the family who used this as an excuse. 

I agree with aquilla's previous posts to you.

Why do you have to be arrogant?

Why don't you go away and stop playing silly games?

BYEEEEEEEEEE.

plebgate wrote:Why don't you go away and stop playing silly games?

BYEEEEEEEEEE.

I was and am not playing silly games.

I haven't looked at all of the PJ files. I was just asking you if you knew a situation where they mentioned Madeleine's nosebleeds. A situation where I might have been unaware of. You respond to me in a condescending manner.

Do you also talk to people like this in real life?

Verdi @ #52
 
‘By all appearances the Ocean Club guest Neil Berry makes an elaborate contribution with never been seen before photographic evidence of the back end of a child said to be Madeleine McCann but is clearly considerably younger than the child in the same image said to be his daughter, who made friends with Madeleine at the child daycare. Logic dictates this claim to be a downright untruth.’
 
I think this is probably a genuine, but poor photo of the group with Cat Baker at parachute play, which also ties in with the register and the activity program on Sunday morning, for what worth, not like the 'blown away hat' nonsense.

Do you then think that the rear view of a little girl is Madeleine McCann?



Correct me if I'm wrong, Neil Berry reportedly said his daughter made friends with Madeleine whilst at the childcare facilities.  As I said up-page, the other child in this photographs appears to me to be considerably older than Madeleine McCann's 3-4 years.

Where are the other children in the lobster group - hiding in the bushes?


I don't doubt the photograph is genuine but I do doubt the reason it suddenly appeared for inclusion in the Netflix production.  I believe if it's a photograph of Madeleine McCann at the Ocean Club, some time between 28th April and 3rd May 2007, it would have surfaced years ago.
 -
Jim Gamble, former CEO of the CEOP (geeez, it's like reading the local paper), urged tourists to upload their holiday photographs on a specific website he created for the purpose, plus the PJ files contain holiday images - where is this photograph?

As for the lobster groups activities during that week .  One of the hired childcare workers said the creche wasn't open on Sunday mornings, I think that most likely except for just introducing themselves and meeting their playmates.

momac wrote:

Verdi wrote:Title of thread..

Re: Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler; Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann documentary

Back on topic please good people.

That's all you needed to say, Verdi, instead of getting aggressive with pauloalexandre. He's new here, as I am, and it doesn't make one want to continue when you make it personal like that.

@momac,

As you appear to have an issue with the integrity of team admin, I would be very grateful if you could PM me with your grievance so we can resolve the issue in a dignified manner, rather than disrupting an active thread.

Thanks.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Yes I do think that's MM.

Also think Jessica may well be standing on a box or something so she can hold the parachute as high as Cat to roll the ball down to the other boys. The kids are not old enough to co-ordinate the ball moving in a circular movement around the parachute, which is what older kids would try and do. 

As for ages of the other four signed into Lobsters on Sunday morning:

J Berry             4
 
E Naylor         3
 
A Mann           3
 
W Totman      3

Point taken, the child by the side of the animateur could well be standing on something.

That aside..

Creche register

End of session on the morning of Sunday 29th April 2007- 12:30pm

Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada Profession: Cleaner - witness statement

At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description.

Thursday 3rd May 2007

2.29pm: The last photograph of Madeleine is taken at the pool. The camera clock reads 1.29pm but the family says it was out by one hour.



If the 'last photograph' - the poolside, was indeed taken on Sunday 29th April 2009, as evidence suggests, then Madeleine's clothing must have been changed once or twice between 12:30pm and 2:30pm. The testimony of the cleaner's daughter is not precise but the parachute photograph featured for the first time in the Netflix production and the the poolside photograph are very precise as regards clothing.

Dear Sandra Felgueiras,

Human cadaverine and human blood.

Two dogs, independently.

In 17 places uniquely associated with the McCanns.

No other places.

That is all.

Regards,

BlueBag

BlueBag wrote:Dear Sandra Felgueiras,

Human cadaverine and human blood.

Two dogs, independently.

In 17 places uniquely associated with the McCanns.

No other places.

That is all.

Regards,

BlueBag

Sandra Felgueiras: "Dogs... they are, they are dogs!" (5 Para a Meia-Noite)

Sandra has been got to.

Simple.