What really happened? Part 1 - The timeline

by Paddingtom 19.08.24 14:33

There has been a great deal of discussion about the timelines. We know at least four versions exist none of which are the same and all have their unique problems.

They were all written after MM was declared missing on 3^rd May 2007 and have varying degrees of detail. There are the two stickerbook timelines written in the hours after her disappearance, Kates personal version, not much more than a summary, and the extremely detailed word processed version written much later after the problems with the previous timelines were becoming apparent.

I want to concentrate on the two stickerbook timelines as they were written without the benefit of knowing all the problems they would cause and therefore are probably the closest we will ever get to knowing the truth. But, make no mistake, they are not accurate and are designed to deceive.

Restaurant staff confirmed that Russell was missing for 15 minutes and Gerry was missing for 30 minutes which ties in nicely with our timeline.
They also state that the alarm was actually raised at 9.30.pm not 10.00pm which does not tie in nicely with our timeline.

I want to examine what the timetable would look like if it actually finished at 9.30p.m

Just for the purposes of the experiement I will use Timeline1.(actually the second) but either would do.

APOLOGIES: I have had to put lines between the items to keep them apart.

Original    Revised

8.45 p.m.                                                                                           8.15 p,m
Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3                                                                        Matt returns 8.30-8.35 - listened at all 3
- all shutters down     - all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well Jerry 8.40-8.45 in the room + all well
? did he check ? did he check

9.20/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child    8.50/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3    9.00 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3

9.35 - Matt check see twins 9.05 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns 9.20 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine    9.25 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised    9.30 pm - Alarm raised

It simply does not work. Theyre having a meal before the table is ready and Gerry wouldnt have seen Jez.
So lets see what happens if we only change some of the details. We know Gerry .was missing at 9.15 which ties in with the original timeline and we know we want Jane to see Tannerman at 9.20. so lets stick with the timeline up until that point and adjust the rest accordingly.

I have mentally removed the far too early and clearly impossible times as we are sticking to a 9.30.pm alarm and the remainder I have made bold:

Original    Revised

8.45 p.m. 8.15 p,m
Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3 Matt returns 8.30-8.35 - listened at all 3
- all shutters down    - all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well    Jerry 8.40-8.45 in the room + all well
? did he check    ? did he check

9.20/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child    8.50/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.30 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3    9.00 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3

9.35 - Matt check see twins 9.05 - Matt check see twins

9.50 - Russ returns 9.20 - Russ returns

9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine 9.25 - Kate realised Madeleine

10pm - Alarm raised 9.30 pm - Alarm raised

It begins to make a bit more sense.
Notice the 9.00 – 9.05 entries for both the original and the revised are almost the same as regards Matt.

So lets put them together as one timeline in chronological order with the duplication of Matt removed:

8.45 p.m.
9.00 - Russ. ~~Ella~~ Matt check all 3

9.05 - Matt check see twins
- all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
? did he check

9.20/5 - ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

9.20 - Russ returns

9.25 - Kate realised Madeleine

9.30 pm - Alarm raised

It all makes perfect sense. Weve got Matt and Russ checking the children at 9.00pm and Russ discovering his child is ill, but its fine because Matt is on hand and dispatched to inform Jane.
necessitating her return to the apartment and the notorious encounter with Tannerman at 9.20p.m. She is however able to take over from Russell and he returns to the restaurant where the staff re-heat his food for him. The police statements all tie up with this scenario and it fits in nicely with what we know and an alarm taking place at 9.30.p.m.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] STARIKOVA VITORINO. - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady.

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA. - Table waiter:
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child.

I think it is an accurate account of the timeline for that night. It is fairly straightforward and simple enough for everyone to learn. Perfect.

The trouble is, they changed the alarm time to 10.00p.m. for the benefit of the police which meant Russ had to be moved forward half an hour and Matt had to have an extra check at 9.35p.m. to cover the extra time. It also meant that Jane had to do a second visit after Matt alerted her to her sick child, although it is not mentioned in the timeline, only their police statements.
No matter, she had achieved her purpose of seeing Tannerman at 9.20.p.m.and her extra visit was insignificant.

So having designed a clear, workable timetable that they acted out perfectly, what on earth possessed them to tell the police the alarm was raised at 10.00p,m, and give themselves all the problems that they did?

To be continued.......

by Silentscope 19.08.24 14:55

by Keelafreeze Yesterday at 11:28

There is another series of videos up on YouTube by an American who has done good research and quite clearly doesn’t buy the ‘official narrative’.
However, he claims in the Portuguese files there’s a statement from an Ocean Club bartender called Jeronimo Salcedas and that he saw Maddie beside the restaurant on May 3rd at 16.45. I’ve never heard/read that before…is it true?!

by Keelafreeze Yesterday at 11:31

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
18m 36s in

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 12:44

There is a statement giving to Leceistershire Police on the 23 April 2008
By Jeronimo Rodrigues Salcedas

In his statement he says the following=

Since Madeleine’s disappearance, I have seen her picture many times in the media, but cannot honestly affirm that I remember seeing her in person before the dissapearance from the Ocean Club, There were many children and I never paid much attention to any of them

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 12:59

He also made a statement to the Portuguese Police on 2007/05/06
Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas=

When asked if he is aware of Madeleine’s disapearance, he replies yes and says that it is a very delicate situation and nothing else has been spoken about since she disappeared. In spite of having already observed many photo’s of Madeleine he claims that he could not state with certainty that he had seen her at any moment, the same goes for whom he now knows to be her twin siblings. The specifics of his work do-not leave him much time to focus his attention on the children that were around, although as he stated previously he worked with children of Madeleine’s approximate age for almost 4 years

by Keelafreeze Yesterday at 13:01

Thank you pinkgladioli!
I was confused when it came onscreen about a sighting of Maddie at that time.
The guy bases his theory on the timeline between this non existent sighting and 10pm, and is very much in the ‘disappeared on May 3rd’ camp.

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 13:25

I’ve just listened to the bit in the video and what is stated re Jernonimo Salcedas which is clearly wrong

I wonder if there other discrepancies are featured in his videos?

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 17:18

MARIA MANUELA MARTINS DA SILVA - Resident
Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58?she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge.
After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people.

JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS - Barman/Waiter
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 17:21

Keelafreeze wrote:There is another series of videos up on YouTube by an American who has done good research and quite clearly doesn’t buy the ‘official narrative’.
However, he claims in the Portuguese files there’s a statement from an Ocean Club bartender called Jeronimo Salcedas and that he saw Maddie beside the restaurant on May 3rd at 16.45. I’ve never heard/read that before…is it true?!

No

by crusader Yesterday at 22:25

[size=30]SALCEDAS (Phone No "91 768 ####) - bartender:[/size]
[size=30]- He saw the missing Madeleine, for the last time, yesterday at 16.45h next to the restaurant;[/size]

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 22:43

Witnesses !
"In spite of having already observed many photos of Madeleine he claims that he could not state with any certainty that he had seen her at any moment, the same goes for whom he now knows to be her twin siblings. The specifics of his work (a bar tender, nothing to do with kids' high tea) do not leave him with much time to focus his attention on the children that were around...

When asked, he says that many children would be present around the Tapas restaurant during the day, as just outside the restaurant there is a small playground, near to the pool. The presence of children would reduce significantly at night time, also because there were fewer people dining in the restaurant, about 20 - 30 meals were served.

With regard to the group Madeleine's family belonged to, he remembers there were nine adults, he does not know how many children were associated with them as they brought them to dinner."

Had M been in the creche on that day, she wouldn't have been seen at 16:45.

by crusader Yesterday at 23:07

In Salcedas first statement on 4th May, he said he saw Madeleine at 4.45pm next to the restaurant, so that much is true.
In his other two statements, he made no mention of this.

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 23:48

crusader wrote:In Salcedas first statement on 4th May, he said he saw Madeleine at 4.45pm next to the restaurant, so that much is true.
In his other two statements, he made no mention of this.

How could he have seen M if he claimed, after having looked at pictures, he "could not state with any certainty that he had seen her at any moment" ?
Besides, the creche kids weren't brought to the Tapas area before 5pm.
It's not the only contradictory item in Salcedas' statements.
The only point he seems to be very sure of (and he hardly could have invented it) is the special scream as he never had heard before.