What do YOU think happened to Madeleine?

silverdoe wrote:
[size=1][size=15]The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted
[size=15]me which I didn‟t mention while I was at the Police Station was one
of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you
know for comments and err [/size][/size][/size][size=1][size=15]so that could have been what the, you
know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of
Simon ALDRIDGE‟S who you know who kindly bought the phones
and they actually bought the phones to the Portimão Police Station
and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them
back upstairs.

--------

00:22:29 Reply
"Err I don‟t remember having any text conversation with any err
Portuguese newspapers so I presume that Portuguese number, they,
sorry yeah the other, the, the other Portuguese person I spoke with
was err there was err a Solicitor in err Lisbon who err the
conversation it may well have been with Lisa LACARNIE because
that was a friend of their family who they, they‟ve got[size=13] a business in
the UK but they deal with Portugal and Lisa said if you need any err
Portuguese advice then there‟s err Paolo, and again I‟ve got his
number in my other phone which might clarify that bit.”
[/size][/size][/size]

silverdoe wrote:Willowthewisp - My friends and I took our kids on holiday, I trust my friends
with my life, but, with bathing children I have always done mine myself when 
young and if they were at a sisters or grandparent's, that's different, but the
Gasper's hardly knew the Payne's, I found that very odd (If it happened) to
allow someone you don't hardly know to bathe your children.
But then I ask, what did the Gasper's have to gain by lying about their statements?
I don't even know what to make of the so called Payne visit, after all, again, Kate says one thing, David says another - This is why things are taken out of context, because nothing adds up. 
Madeleine and Sean, then just Sean or Madeleine, I can't remember which tbh, door locked, door unlocked, 15 min, half an hour.....
Seemingly innocent or not? It does have to be taken into account to rule it in or out and you do have to look at everything logically, does it make sense? No. Then why not? That's the question!!

silverdoe wrote:Willowthewisp - This is what's confusing, what we have or haven't been told?
What are lies, twists, half truths or the truth?
The 12 mil is an issue understandably with many. But also we can read the statements and see the discrepancies in the statements, and whilst in normal cases it can happen, in this case the amount of discrepancies there do see again, 
to many, like lies.
Even experts with years of experience, body language experts, ex police or investigators etc have stated nothing about the tapas groups statement's adds up - So why haven't O.G interviewed them again?
I'm not an official with the case so I wouldn't know why they were held back, all I know is, look at the page numbering's. A lot are missing

silverdoe wrote:Corruption is rife Willowthewisp, in every country, but some crimes, the police
do hold back information if one day they wish to prosecute - They always hold back a trump card....You never know

aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.

willowthewisp wrote:

aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.

Hi aquila,there is always Facebook or Donald's favourite Twitter,he's doing enough to terrorise the world isn't he.perhaps he may have Michael fallon join him to kill more Yemen People with Arms sales to Saudi Arabia,is that better for you?

aquila wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:

aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.

Hi aquila,there is always Facebook or Donald's favourite Twitter,he's doing enough to terrorise the world isn't he.perhaps he may have Michael fallon join him to kill more Yemen People with Arms sales to Saudi Arabia,is that better for you?

I'm bowing out but not before saying willowthewisp you are out of order and you know it, you have already posted in some sort of  lackadaisical way pretending you didn't know better on one of my comments today and tagged words onto a sentence that I wrote to make it look I wrote that stuff. All this from a person who knows well how to use a forum and how to post.

I very much dislike your drifting in between being half coherently able to write in English and then being perfectly capable whilst dwelling in some sort of muddy water to post political nonsense without actually giving an opinion on anything.

As for Verdi, I like Verdi because he/she has a grasp on the facts of the case and can produce them in an instance, works hard to harbour those facts and has a personality and an opinion. I often tap Verdi on the nose.

I dislike the Mark Willis chap who disrupts the forum with meaningless mangle and Verdi entertains and responds.

Give Verdi a chance to be honest and true to the demise of a three year old little girl.

silverdoe wrote:But you see, that's the thing. It should be a free speaking choice for every one, 
we are all allowed a voice, and surely we all want to be a voice for Madeleine?
Whatever has happened to her, let's not deny, Kate and Gerry are the ones responsible for it, and the tapas group made the polices job harder than necessary and still they done the best they good.
Mistakes were made, but has operation grange, 13 million later done any better? NO. They done far worse, and worse still have not even interviewed the parents or the group which they should do and I am always willing to be proven wrong with facts through discussion, but I won't be silenced by anyone for having an opinion different from there's, no one should be, or belittled for it as I said before. I didn't get upset for being corrected, it's discussing, that's all. 
The fault lies solely at the party or parties who or if has harmed Madeleine in any way, what's followed has been a farce by all involved - Sorry, that's the truth. Neglect to say the very least Willowthewisp you keep pressing the police, I'm not being rude, just saying, the police didn't harm Madeleine? 
This topic has been titled, what do YOU think happened to Madeleine, and not Are the police corrupt? Or maybe I'm wrong? Anyhow, if I am, feel free to correct :)

silverdoe wrote:Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said, 
why lie about making it?

Verdi wrote:

silverdoe wrote:Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said, 
why lie about making it?

Yes I know what you said and my reply was, I repeat... 

"Nor does it indicate anywhere that he lied about making the telephone call.  I can't remember is not the same as I didn't make the call."

willowthewisp wrote:

silverdoe wrote:

---

Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said, 
why lie about making it?

hi silverdoe,it sort of slipped David's mind,that phone call,but what is more interesting is that DCI 1485,knew of this phone call,but when asking David at his interview in April 2008,"that this information,(phone call)wasn't relevant or Pertinent to missing,Madeleine,within that forum,similar to the Gasper and other statements, at DCI 1485 disposal,that shone no light into what had happened in Portugal,of who was in the apartment,"When the Husband returned,but whose Husband"?

silverdoe wrote:Verdi I respect you're opinion but I will disagree with you on this one if you don't mind? :-)

Verdi wrote:

silverdoe wrote:Verdi I respect you're opinion but I will disagree with you on this one if you don't mind? :-)

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact as I have evidenced. 

You can't disagree with a statement of fact - or can you?

Julie wrote:Of course you can disagree with a statement of fact. History students (for example) are trained to do exactly so. You must decide whether the source of that 'fact' is trustworthy. In this case the source of that specific fact was Gerald McCan. I rest my case!

Verdi wrote:

Julie wrote:Of course you can disagree with a statement of fact. History students (for example) are trained to do exactly so. You must decide whether the source of that 'fact' is trustworthy. In this case the source of that specific fact was Gerald McCan. I rest my case!

Then it's not a fact in the true sense of the word is it.

FACT [noun]

A thing that is known or proved to be true.

synonyms:    reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More
truth, naked truth, verity, gospel

antonyms:    lie, fiction

Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

synonyms:    detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't

Used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
-----------------

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't.  The rogatory interview transcript bears testimony to that simple fact.

I rest my case!

HiDeHo wrote:I would really like to see others' theories as they stand right now.

I don't think many of us establish a scenario and then make it fit.  I believe most of us look at the details and inconsistencies and look at why they exist and how they may impact the theory each of us believe may be possible.

It would give us the opportunity of other member's research and how it may compare to our own.

We must always have an open mind.  I see alternative beliefs held by members I respect and try to use their theories to compare, add or confirm what I believe may have happened.

I have changed my thoughts from those I held at the beginning.

I wrote this in March 2008, prior to the Rogatories. I find it interesting to see the amount of information that we had at the time regardless of the PJ secrecy.

Some of it is, of course, different to what we later discovered.



Title: What I Believe May Have Happened In STORY Form.

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

My theory is based on the discrepancies and inconsistencies, by scrutinising their statements (both early statements and Rogatories)

There are many strange 'activities' on Tuesday. Circumstances that do not seem to fit into a 'normal' week.

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

Tuesday contains a few curiosities (imo)

The maintenance men needing to fix the blinds and show Kate how to use the wahing machine.(Kate claims Gerry broke them on Sunday and they were fixed Monday - curiously, Matthew also claims to have broken his blinds on Sunday)

The trip to the beach with the description of 5 ice creams (as if to confirm how many people) and the strange 'in depth' description of the guitar player.(a possible suspect?)

They used a buggy they claimed they didn't have.

On their return at 2.30pm, Madeleine immediately went back to the beach for the ice cream trip and play on the beach with the creche! (is there a possibility of this activity being used as inspiration for the trip?)  ROB also signed Ella in at the same time.  Madeleine was not signed out that afternoon.

(There is always the possibility that some of these statements may be referring to another day)

Rachael's description of the mini tennis (Madeleine's group played on Tuesday) is attributed to Thursday in her statement where she also claims it was the last time she saw Madeleine.

I can understand her mixing up the days but to claim it was the last time she saw Madeleine leads me to believe that she is possibly lying about being at the tennis, in which case she would not be able to differentiate between the other group or Madeleine's group playing OR she didn't see Madeleine after Tuesday!

The interviewing officer also questioned her on which Court the children played an she described Court 1 confidently but the children in both groups played on Court 2 according to the tennis records. (This tells me they were questioning whether she really DID see Madeleine's tennis lesson)

Jez, Gerry and ROB all went to pick up their children at the same time at lunchtime, but ROB did not sign Ella out.

Ella was signed in (coincidentally) at the same time as Madeleine after her return from the beach and in the afternoon Madeleine was not signed out.

Are the records in the view of the nannies or can they be signed out of view?

At this point in the week Madeleine was just another child to look after and I question whether Catriona needed to be vigilant as to which children were present as, unlike a school atmosphere, children were not obliged to be there at any particular time.

No need to mention that Mrs Fenn heard the crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm and Kate's mobile had a flurry of calls for the 15 minutes prior to the crying being heard. 10.16pm-10.27pm

Was Kate nearby or IN the apartment?

Were the calls related to the crying?

Was she in the tapas between 10.15 and 10.30?

Did she leave at 11.00 with Gerry?

Why didn't the quiz mistress recall seeing Kate or David Payne?  She noticed a place setting as if someone had left.

Why didn't anyone get up and check on the children between approx 9 and 10. According to the quiz mistress noone left the table while she was there.

Amelie was crying and Madeleine slept in parents room because Amelie was crying.

The cleaner saw a cot in their room the next morning but they deny it.

Was Madeleine sleeping in that cot?

Why were there early morning calls to Amanda around 7  in the morning?

So many questions, so few answers and of course proves nothing.

What it DOES show is that it is POSSIBLE something was being 'covered up' for that day. IMO

Wednesday shows very little activity from their statements.  Although they were asked specifically they gave very few details, despite the rain that morning that could have easily jogged their memory.

They seemed to avoid the day, except Jane Tanner who , in both her early statements, and her Rogatory statement seemed to attributed Tuesdays activities to this day and ROB corroborated her statement.

Dianne saw Kate and Gerry at breakfast even though they claimed to not go that week.

Thursday starts with Gerry and Kate unable to be specific about Madeleine's claim of who was crying and who she told.

Gerry, Fiona and Kate do not agree on who picked Madeleine up from the creche.

Catriona claimed that Gerry was not at high tea and yet Kate and Gerry claim he was there.

Kate claimed she carried Madeleine back to the apartment and Gerry opened the patio doors for them.

Gerry claimed they all went in through the front door.

Fiona was 'pressured' to admit that she does not know what David Payne did between 6pm and 7pm.  Why?
----------------------------------------------------

Taking all the above into account (and lots more) I feel there is something they were trying to hide, earlier in the week and I cannot help but wonder if this is because something happened to Madeleine.

I see the discrepancies start on Tuesday but there are also some questions about Monday. A day we know little about.

The last witness sighting of Madeleine was Sunday lunchtime by the cleaners daughter as they were leaving the apartment to (maybe) go to the Paynes for lunch.

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

On Monday, Madeleine was taken out of the creche after 15 minutes in the afternoon.  here were discussions about a trip to Sagres on Monday (though not sure they were valid, I feel it is worth keeping in mind)

The police continually asked whether they were seen in a car during the week.  Why would they ask if they did not suspect there was something 'untoward' happening?

My main theory is based on the above information.

The cleaners daughter seeing them go to the Paynes for lunch suggests they anticipated sharing lunchtimes together (as would be expected from a group of friends holidaying together)

To suddenly stop going to breakfast and join with the others at lunchtime suggests to me the possibility that if something had already happened to Madeleine that this would serve two purposes.

One would be for Kate to spend time grieving but also to allow less time for others to see that Madeleine was 'missing' (Dianne Webster) but also give the T7 the opportunity to not have to 'lie' about seeing Madeleine every day.

I really believe that this time was used to clean the apartment, grieve, and make preparations for the 'abduction', as well as to find a suitable spot to hide Madeleine's body (freezer).

Their phone records were deleted and I feel these contacts may have given a clue as to the activity needed for preparation.

Why delete phone calls if everything happened on Thursday night?

A quick summary is that something may have happened on Sunday/Monday.

Madeleine was fatally sick and whether rescusitation or death behind the sofa on Tuesday with the cot being used in the parents bedroom that night and Madeleine's bed showing no signs of being used (according to GA).

ROB, DP and Kate were not confirmed as present at the tapas on quiz night, the night of the crying.

Wednesday was used to make arrangements, therefore very little known apart from JT who claimed Tuesdays activities for that day.

Wednesday night they stayed at the tapas after hours (with waiters waiting to go home) to make last minute arrangements for the following night and to prepare them for a day that they would have to account for at a later time.

Thursday night was not about leaving the children alone, it was about the execution of the fake abduction.


IMO