Re: Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 18:43

Why was THURSDAY chosen as the day that the ‘Abduction’ was to be revealed?

Regardless of which Date and Time she expired for reasons unknown.

Why wait so long if it happened so much earlier? To what advantage?

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Loss of appetite perhaps?

by **crusader** 09.04.21 18:46

That is a very good question Jill and one only the McCann's can answer. I would love to know and if they were asked by the PJ or operation Grange

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 19:51

Silentscope wrote:Why was THURSDAY chosen as the day that the ‘Abduction’ was to be revealed?

Regardless of which Date and Time she expired for reasons unknown.

Why wait so long if it happened so much earlier? To what advantage?

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Loss of appetite perhaps?

No loss of appetite.

From Monday onwards the McCanns had breakfast in their own apartment, or so they claim. The certainly fed the twins in the apartment but it is unclear whether they had breakfast elsewhere later in the mornings.

Cat Baker said in her statement (shall have to locate it) that she didn't see the McCanns until breakfast time, IIRC, on the Friday morning.

Why, if they were not eating out before Thursday, did they start eating out after Thursday? Not wanting to be seen as a family of four perhaps?

Edited: It was Saturday, not Friday

This is an extract from the statement of the nanny who was so traumatised that she couldn't function, couldn't sleep, couldn't eat.

"I did not see Kate or Gerry that night. The next time I saw them was on Saturday at breakfast, as on Friday I spent most of the morning with the Portuguese police giving a statement. On Saturday I was next to the tapas Bar zone when Gerry and Kate appeared. They were still agitated and anxious for news."

P.J. POLICE FILES: CAT TEREASA SISILE BAKER ROGATORY (mccannpjfiles.co.uk)

by Doug D 09.04.21 20:09

Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 20:45

Doug D wrote:Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

My point is that if they block - booked the Tapas bar as a result of something happening to Madeleine early in the Holiday, why would they NOT have booked it for Friday as well?

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 20:57

Doug D wrote:Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

Now that's an interesting point.

A pre-planned change of behaviour? So they pre-booked the Tapas to see them through to Thursday but didn't require it after?

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 21:21

Either the Restaurant was going to be too full with other witnesses, who would probably all want to help with searching the area.

Or Friday was not advantageous to the plan for some other reason.

Unless someone has another suggestion?

by **crusader** 09.04.21 21:27

Also no table 211 after the 3rd.

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 21:34

Silentscope wrote:Either the Restaurant was going to be too full with other witnesses, who would probably all want to help with searching the area.

Or Friday was not advantageous to the plan for some other reason.

Unless someone has another suggestion?

If they had pre-booked the Tapas for the week, and the reasons that they had claimed, I would imagine that on Friday, the last day of the holiday, they would definitely want to eat together. Where else were they planning to eat that would have been close to the children?

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 22:17

Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

by **Jill Havern** 09.04.21 22:27

Silentscope wrote:Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

If they didn't book anything, surely it would look even more suspicious than it already did?

They had to keep up the pretence.

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 22:29

Silentscope wrote:Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

Exactly. They knew on Sunday that they only needed to pre-book the Tapas until Thursday.

by Doug D 09.04.21 23:48

Seem to be missing the point. The MW tennis group had their usual end of week booking for the Tapas on Friday as it was the last night for many of the weeks holidaymakers so most of the T9 would be there anyway. Tennis group booked for 12, presumably as the norm, but no doubt could accommodate a few more depending on the number of players that week who were interested.

by **crusader** 10.04.21 0:14

8. Have you read this thread?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

If so, please could you go through each of those 12 sets of contradictions and fully explain ech one? We would all be grateful for your input on this.

1 The Smiths statements did indeed vary. If they were part of any cover-up I think they would have stuck to the same story. Martin Smith first named Gerry as the man he saw in a 20/9/07 statement.

2. He didn't appear to lower his head according to Peter Smith.
Martin Smith said in his 30/1/08 statement, said it was the way Gerry turned his head down which was similar to the way the individual did on 3/5/07, I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

3. He knew the man they saw not Robert Murat because he knew him by sight.
He said in his 30/1/08 statement , he has been contacted by Brian Kennedy to take part in a photo fit exercise, he said he has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

4. Aoife said she didn't see the girls face, she appeared to be sleeping.
Peter said her eyes were closed.
Martin said her eyes were closed.

by **crusader** 10.04.21 0:33

5. Martin Smith said he had given no stories in his 30/1/08 statement.

6. Martin was heard saying " I thought they were Father and Daughter so I wasn't suspicious. All other media.

7. The statement of Peter. All others media,

by **crusader** 10.04.21 0:39

8. He did indeed change from did not notice the body clothing in 26th May statement, to darkish
top maybe a blazer in 30/1/08 statement.

9. Correct, didn't see audio so cant comment.

10. Said he met Murat twice in May and August 2006 in Luz bars, in May 08 statement.
All others media.

by Liz Eagles 10.04.21 2:22

To me the reason the disappearance and probable death of Madeleine is the embarrassment it would cause to all those people in authority in UK.

It's hard to believe the life of a little tot means so little.

Jim Gamble pitched his star on the bandwagon. I wonder how he feels now.

Just about every celebrity pitched themselves in a media frenzy. I wonder how they feel now - well I would wonder except for the fact their lives have moved on and there are other brands to promote.

by Guest 10.04.21 2:26

sharonl wrote:
Silentscope wrote:Either the Restaurant was going to be too full with other witnesses, who would probably all want to help with searching the area.

Or Friday was not advantageous to the plan for some other reason.

Unless someone has another suggestion?

If they had pre-booked the Tapas for the week, and the reasons that they had claimed, I would imagine that on Friday, the last day of the holiday, they would definitely want to eat together. Where else were they planning to eat that would have been close to the children?

As Doug D has already pointed out, the Tapas restaurant was booked on Friday nights for the tennis club. The McCann group used the tennis facilities all week, stands to reason they would be part of the tennis club Tapas booking for the night of Friday 4th May 2007.

Mathew Oldfield witness statement - 10th May 2007

Prompted about the dinner reservations/bookings at Tapas, he relates that the first time thay made a reservation was on Sunday, not knowing who had made it. Asked if it could have been ROB the deponent admitted that that was possible, reiterating to not know for sure who had made it.

Relating to the other days, he clarifies that on Monday morning his wife undertook such reservation, adding still that it would have been for all the remaining days except for Friday, 4 May, as there was to have been a Tennis Club dinner that night.

I doubt Matthew Oldfield would lie about something that could be so easily checked.

by Liz Eagles 10.04.21 2:31

Pat Brown inched herself in to a media frenzy giving herself attention.

I agree with Verdi.

by **Silentscope** 10.04.21 9:30

Jill Havern wrote:
Silentscope wrote:Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

If they didn't book anything, surely it would look even more suspicious than it already did?

They had to keep up the pretence.

So why did they NOT?

They should have made up something to show they were still ‘on Holiday’ and planning to have a ‘normal’ time somewhere. The possibility is that they might have been expected at the Tennis function - but it does not sound like it to me according to the Statements from Mr Oldfield provided by Verdi. It seems Friday has got no mention in any interviews, books or publications as far as I know. Strange that no-one has ‘backfilled’ that night?

Judging from the size of the Seating area, the Restaurant had the capacity to take on their booking.

Interesting in any case.

by **Jill Havern** 10.04.21 10:03

Sorry, I didn't read your question properly.

by **Silentscope** 10.04.21 10:19

I am on a different wavelength, but on the right channel!

No problem wink

by Doug D 10.04.21 11:34

Booking sheets for the week show 4 tables of 4 as the limit, so 16 people per time slot. The tennis booking for 12 people was for 8.15 and only one eat-in earlier at 7.30, with nothing later.

Not clear how long a meal sitting was expected to take, but the last sitting was at 9pm, with some staff booked every day until midnight, so they expected the later eaters, and this would have included the tennis lot, to have a longish session.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

by **Silentscope** 10.04.21 11:46

Relating to the other days, he clarifies that on Monday morning his wife undertook such reservation, adding still that it would have been for all the remaining days except for Friday, 4 May, as there was to have been a Tennis Club dinner that night.

It would be good to confirm if the ‘Mark Warner Tennis group’ included the McCann party or not.

Oldfield never said ‘We did not HAVE to book, as we were part of the Tennis party’ - Mark Warner Staff were expecting 12 Tennis members. They must be able to say who they were?

by Guest 10.04.21 18:12

It's already been pointed out, more than once, that the Tapas restaurant was reserved for the Mark Warner tennis club on Friday nights - that includes Friday 4th May 2007.

The reservation is documented on file.

The witness statements were not recorded verbatim.
The McCanns and their group of friends were interviewed as witnesses - not suspects.
The police interviewer would ask specific questions and the interviewee would respond - routine policing.

There is nothing to be gained by speculating what Matt Oldfield, or any other member of the group, did or didn't or should've or shouldn't say.

The fact of the matter is, the Tapas restaurant was reserved for the tennis club on the night of 4th May 2007, whether or not the group would or wouldn't have been part of that reservation is immaterial and will not lead any further into discovering the truth.

by **Silentscope** 10.04.21 19:56

I put it to the Forum that regardless of when whatever happened THURSDAY was the last day that the ‘Abduction’ could be arranged for the following reasons.

1. The Tennis Club meeting, whether they were booked in, or not, would result in too many other potential witnesses being around.

2. Those extra persons could have seen something they were not supposed to IF the body was removed on that night.

3. Most of the Tennis players and Trainers would be known to the Arguidos and they might not want to put them in the position of being ‘duped’.

4. If the McCann group was expected by Mark Warner Staff as part of the Tennis party, there is no problem. If not, the Questions remain.

Why did they only block book until Thursday, and where else were they planning to go or do on Friday night?

Why could the ‘Abduction’ NOT be reported on Sunday to Wednesday?

Why could it NOT have been Friday?

by Guest 10.04.21 21:18

Oh dear... when is this speculation nonsense going to end?

Madeleine McCann's disappearance was reported on 3rd May 2007, and so far, no one has been able to fully determine what precisely happened to her.

What has been pointed out is that the statements by the McCanns and their Tapas friends are contradictory, illogical and inconsistent with the physical evidence.

Guessing why the disappearance was not reported days before or days later requires making an assumption that we know exactly what crime was committed against Madeleine... and we do not!

Can we just stick to the evidence, please?

by **Silentscope** 10.04.21 22:43

@Paulo Alexandrewrote:

Guessing why the disappearance was not reported days before or days later requires making an assumption that we know exactly what crime was committed against Madeleine... and we do not!

The Crime of Abduction is defined in German law as soon as the Child is removed from its place of Residence or Care without the permission of the Parent or Gaurdian. What has happened to her afterwards is not relevant. Even if the Child is later returned unharmed it is still an offence.

The Evidence is the Child is not where it should be.

The Parents did not consent to its removal from the Family unit.

The Parents say they played no part in her disappearance.

Evidence enough for me.

by Guest 10.04.21 23:18

by Guest 11.04.21 0:08

Silentscope wrote:@Paulo Alexandrewrote:

Guessing why the disappearance was not reported days before or days later requires making an assumption that we know exactly what crime was committed against Madeleine... and we do not!

The Crime of Abduction is defined in German law as soon as the Child is removed from its place of Residence or Care without the permission of the Parent or Gaurdian. What has happened to her afterwards is not relevant. Even if the Child is later returned unharmed it is still an offence.

The Evidence is the Child is not where it should be.

The Parents did not consent to its removal from the Family unit.

The Parents say they played no part in her disappearance.

Evidence enough for me.

First of all, Madeleine disappeared in Portugal, not in Germany.

Secondly, there is not a scrap of evidence to substantiate the notion that Madeleine McCann was abducted. The available evidence actually contradicts this idea.

And finally, are you here for honest reasons or do you just want to waste time?

Latest topics