The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Theory

Page 37 of 38 Previous  1 ... 20 ... 36, 37, 38  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.06.14 20:32

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
REPLY: Thank you very much for the swift and full reply, that is very helpful.

When I say 'alert', am I talking about the time when members of the general public became involved, the time at which the disappearance went from being a private matter known only to the Tapas 9, to a public matter known by other individuals.  

REPLY: If I may say so, that's a very good way of describing the ambiguity, vagueness and uncertainty which surrounds the entire issue of the alert, what it was and when it was. I agree very much with your description, and would go a little bit further and suggest that there was no actual 'moment' when there was an alert. As you suggest, the message that Madeleine was missing seemed almost to have leaked out, making the very word 'alert' doubtful in this case.  

No
ne of the Tapas bar staff directly witnessed the alert as described by the Tapas 9,

REPLY: Again I fully agree with that important statement of yours. Yet in the McCann-orchestrated reconstructions that we've seen (Panorama, 'Mockumentary', Crimewatch etc.), we have seen the 'alert' described in the way the Tapas 9 have described it, despite (so far as I can see) any corroboration

which is the account of Kate running into the Tapas screaming.  

REPLY: Again, agreed. Although that still leaves the separate issue of 'the scream', said to have been heard IIRC coming from 'the balcony area' 

Instead, the sequence of events that was witnessed seems to have been:

- Russell O'Brien leaves table for 15 minutes,

REPLY: Or maybe longer

his steak is reheated

- Gerry McCann leaves table for 30 minutes, his food wasn't reheated, and he left after O'Brien

REPLY: This is unclear, could you please clarify. Your statement: 'GM leaves the table for 30 minutes' means that he left, and came back. Could you please help us by saying, on the evidence you have studied, when he LEFT, and WHEN he came back (half-an-hour later)
 

- Gerry returns to the table after half an hour

- Kate leaves almost immediately

REPLY: You mean Gerry arrives back, and moments later, Kate leaves. Could you please be good enough to specify form which statements you derive the above two statements? - thanks 

- A few moments later, everyone else except DW left the table

REPLY: I can agree that there is credible evidence that DW stayed there at the table on her own for a while. When you say 'everyone else', could you again be precise please. Your statement seems to imply everyone left EXCEPT KM (who'd already gone) and DW - have I  understood you correctly? 

As the evening progresses we have witnesses who see David Payne and Matthew Oldfield searching in bushes etc., Gerry rushing into the Tapas area while DW is still seated and heading for the pool and children's play area, and a female British tourist turning up at the creche where Amy Tierney and Charlotte Pennington are on duty.  Pretty soon Lindsey Johnson is aware of the disappearance, she puts the missing child procedures into action, and then she phones John Hill.  By this time there are many people searching for Madeleine.

All of this is in the statements in the PJ files.

REPLY: Yes, you're right - but do we have a clear idea of either (a) the timing or (b) the precise sequence of these events? I would suggest not

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.06.14 21:01

In reply to Tony's questions, some statements from the files:

Starikova

'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, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

- Starikova thinks it could have been Gerry who left for 30 minutes
- She believed the woman who left on his return was his wife.
- If it was Oldfield instead, where was he for 30 minutes, and why did Starikova think that Kate was his wife?

Batista

'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 feel that the time of 9:30 is correct for O'Brien leaving the table, as it must have been late enough for them to bring his main meal while he wasn't there.  All three of the Tapas timelines put this time as 9:30, and while I don't give their versions of events much credence, the time of 9:30 fits.

The second to leave must have left after the first, and have been present when the food arrived, as the staff didn't take it away to be reheated.  So even if the period of time was small between the first and second leaving, we could be looking at a time of roughly 9:35 when the second left - it could be later.  According to the some of the timelines by the Tapas 9, Oldfield left at 9:35.  30 minutes after 9:35 would be 10:05.  Giving a few minutes for Kate to leave, then the rest of the group to leave, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the general public started to find out about the disappearance in the period 10:10 - 10:15.

And the typed timeline states that the 'alert' was at 10.00pm approx.  It is the only time on that timeline that has an approximate figure.

And on whether Batista correctly attributed the identity of the second person to leave the table, he also said this in another statement:

'When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl's parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant.'

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.06.14 21:39

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:In reply to Tony's questions, some statements from the files:

Starikova

'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, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

- Starikova thinks it could have been Gerry who left for 30 minutes
- She believed the woman who left on his return was his wife.
- If it was Oldfield instead, where was he for 30 minutes, and why did Starikova think that Kate was his wife?

REPLY:  Following Starikova's testimony and your line of argument, WLBTS, we arrive at this:

1. Gerry left the table approx 9.30pm (but you interpret her as meaning Matthew Oldfield) 
2. He arrived back about 10.00pm
3. On Gerry's arrival back at 10.00pm, Kate went for her check (if you say it was Matthew Oldfield that left for half an hour, then that means Gerry McCann is at the table 9.30pm to 10.00pm) 
4. No-one else left the table during this period (9.30pm to 10.00pm)
5. We are not told by Starikova of anything about Kate rushing back screaming from her check
6. She tells us that the following 7 all left the table moreorless simultaneously: DP, FP, RO, MO, RO'B, JT, GM

That makes it totally impossible for any of the Smiths to have seen Gerry McCann in their stated time-frame, 9.50pm to 10.00pm. IF the Smiths ever saw anyone at all, on Stariokova's evidence, it could not have been Gerry McCann.

Also, according to Starikova, DW already knew at 10.00pm that Madeleine was missing, hence your latest idea that the alert was not until 10.10pm to 10.15pm is wrong according to Starikova
  

Batista

'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;

REPLY: Russell O'Brien?

- 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;'

REPLY: Matthew Oldfield or Gerry O'Brien?

I feel that the time of 9:30 is correct for O'Brien leaving the table, as it must have been late enough for them to bring his main meal while he wasn't there.  All three of the Tapas timelines put this time as 9:30, and while I don't give their versions of events much credence, the time of 9:30 fits.

REPLY: Hold on a moment. During what period of time does Russell O 'Brien do the following: discover his daughter has vomited, clean her and her blanket and clothes, change her clothes and bedding, find and switch on and programme the washing machine?

The second to leave must have left after the first, and have been present when the food arrived, as the staff didn't take it away to be reheated.  So even if the period of time was small between the first and second leaving, we could be looking at a time of roughly 9:35 when the second left - it could be later.  According to the some of the timelines by the Tapas 9, Oldfield left at 9:35.  30 minutes after 9:35 would be 10:05.

REPLY: So where do you say Gerry McCann was during this period?
 
 Giving a few minutes for Kate to leave, then the rest of the group to leave, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the general public started to find out about the disappearance in the period 10:10 - 10:15.

REPLY: In that case, you are saying that Gerry McCann's absence from the table was

And the typed timeline states that the 'alert' was at 10.00pm approx.  It is the only time on that timeline that has an approximate figure.

And on whether Batista correctly attributed the identity of the second person to leave the table, he also said this in another statement:

'When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl's parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant.'

REPLY: You are attempting to say who was at the table and who wasn't during the period 9.30pm to 10.15pm - Yes?

And you are focussing on the statements of Starikova and Batista - Yes?

Just to make your analysis clear, when do you say that each of the following was away from the table during the period 9.30pm to 10.15pm?

DP
FP
FO
MO
RO'B
JT
GM
KM
DW

Thanks
 

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.06.14 21:42

Some other events that happened (or are claimed to have happened) subsequently:

A female British tourist who is the mother of a child in 'Toddlers 2' arrives at the creche (Lily? making this Fiona Payne?), which is a few minutes walk from 5A - surely no more than 3 or 4 minutes.  Amy Tierney, Charlotte Pennington and Jackie Williams are on duty at the creche.  The woman tells them that Maddie has disappeared, and Amy T. gets on the telephone to Lindsey Johnson, who is in charge of the creche but not present.  Now here some of the statements contradict each other.  Amy T. says that Lindsey J. confirms to her over the phone that a child has disappeared.  However, Lindsey states that Amy told her about the disappearance.  If both statements are true, the only way that I can reconcile these accounts is if Lindsey went to check while on the phone to Amy, found out about the disappearance, and confirmed that fact to Amy.

Lindsey Johnson states that she found out about the disappearance around 10.20.  She goes to the OC and puts the missing child procedures into place, which involves sending various parties to search specific zones.  She then calls John Hill, and this call is recorded as happening at 10.28.

Various witnesses recall hearing shouting from the direction of apartment 5A.  Mrs Fenn heard it around 10.30.

John Hill promptly arrives at the OC, and says that he went to reception to see if the police had been called.  However, the receptionist states that a Tapas staff member arrived and asked him to call the police.  The first call to the GNR was placed at 10.42.  Given that John Hill had only received the call from Lindsey J. at 10.28, he seems to have gone swiftly into action and treated it as the emergency it was.

John Hill goes to 5a, and gets Gerry to accompany him to reception, where the GNR are called a second time at 10.51.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.06.14 21:46

@Tony Bennett wrote:
snip

I am well aware that you would like this to be another discussion about 'Smithman', and that you absolutely believe the sighting to be a fabrication.

As such, there is no point in my discussing this further with you, as you have covered this subject in detail on many fine threads on this forum.  I have been advised previously by moderators to avoid discussing the subject with you, and to generally avoid any threads that you participate in, so I must respectfully abide by their wishes.  As you have entered into this one and addressed me in particular, I shall have to do the honourable thing and withdraw from further discussion with your good self.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.06.14 22:13

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
I am well aware that you would like this to be another discussion about 'Smithman', and that you absolutely believe the sighting to be a fabrication.

Not at all, WLBTS, it was a genuine discussion about what you think happened between 9.30pm to 10.15pm (as I think anybody reading this thread would agree).  Inevitably that has implications for who Smithman might be, but that is entirely peripheral to the subject of what the movements of the Tapas 9 were between 9.30pm and 10.15pm, which is what I'm discussing    

As such, there is no point in my discussing this further with you,

You have (completely incorrectly) redefined what the discussion is about

as you have covered this subject in detail on many fine threads on this forum.  I have been advised by moderators to avoid discussing the subject with you,

Ah! So let me get this clear. You have been advised (though not presumably ordered) by the Moderators to avoid discussing Smithman wtit me? And you have extended this to avoiding any discussion which remotely bears on Smithman. Yes?
  
and to generally avoid any threads that you participate in, so I must respectfully abide by their wishes.  

I wonder if this applies to me as well? The two of us discussing something is bad for the forum it seems. This would seem to have the following result:

1. You should not take part in any thread in which I've posted

2. I should not take part in any thread in which you've posted.

Funny old rule


As you have entered into this one and addressed me in particular, I shall have to do the honourable thing and withdraw from further discussion with your good self.

But then I must also 'do the honourable thing' - and if you arrive on a thread before me, I shall have to withdraw. Honour and fairness demandsit.

Without checking, I think you were on the 'Theory' thread before I was.


Therefore I now am doing the honourable thing and am withdrawing from this thread. So it's not goodbye from you, it's goodbye from me.

I shall have to check with the Moderators what happens if both of us are already on a thread - presumably neither of us can join in any longer.

I shall not re-vist this thread, so if you now feel able to resume, it would certainly help future discussion if you would say, from the benefit of your analysis, when, from 9.30pm to 10.15pm, you think each member of the Tapas 9 left the table.

Thanks - and farewell from me to you all on this thread
   

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.06.14 22:18

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:In reply to Tony's questions, some statements from the files:

Starikova

'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, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

- Starikova thinks it could have been Gerry who left for 30 minutes
- She believed the woman who left on his return was his wife.
- If it was Oldfield instead, where was he for 30 minutes, and why did Starikova think that Kate was his wife?

REPLY:  Following Starikova's testimony and your line of argument, WLBTS, we arrive at this:

1. Gerry left the table approx 9.30pm (but you interpret her as meaning Matthew Oldfield) 
2. He arrived back about 10.00pm
3. On Gerry's arrival back at 10.00pm, Kate went for her check (if you say it was Matthew Oldfield that left for half an hour, then that means Gerry McCann is at the table 9.30pm to 10.00pm) 
4. No-one else left the table during this period (9.30pm to 10.00pm)
5. We are not told by Starikova of anything about Kate rushing back screaming from her check
6. She tells us that the following 7 all left the table moreorless simultaneously: DP, FP, RO, MO, RO'B, JT, GM

That makes it totally impossible for any of the Smiths to have seen Gerry McCann in their stated time-frame, 9.50pm to 10.00pm. IF the Smiths ever saw anyone at all, on Stariokova's evidence, it could not have been Gerry McCann.

Also, according to Starikova, DW already knew at 10.00pm that Madeleine was missing, hence your latest idea that the alert was not until 10.10pm to 10.15pm is wrong according to Starikova
  


But before I leave, I really must address this, as you've made up some facts.

Here are some real facts relating to the above:

- Starikova did not state that the person she saw leaving the table left at 9:30
- I did not state that the person Starikova saw leaving the table was Matthew Oldfield
- The statement 'if the Smiths ever saw anyone at all, on Starikova's evidence, it could not have been Gerry McCann' isn't true, as Starikova's evidence does not support your claim
- Your last sentence is also untrue, you have nothing to support this 10.00pm figure that you have claimed.

You have built this case on one made up fact and deduced other made up facts from it.  Starikova did not say that she saw someone leaving at 9:30, nor that DW was alone at the table at 10pm.  Starikova stated that she saw the father of the missing child leave the table for about 30 minutes.  As did Batista.  Neither gave a time of 9:30.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.06.14 22:24

@Tony Bennett wrote:
The two of us discussing something is bad for the forum it seems.

That is what I have been advised, and why have I done my best to avoid discussing things with you for a while.  Nobody has suggested that you do the same, nor am I. Personally, I'm happy to discuss things until I'm blue in the face, and am of the opinion that I should be able to post wherever and whenever I like, as long as I abide by the rules of the forum.  But if not posting keeps the forum happy, I'll do that instead.  Anyway, this is a discussion that should be done in PMs, so I'll have to take it there if this discussion is to carry on.

C'est la vie.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Woofer on 25.06.14 23:27

Oh dear - that was a good discussion - it was helping me get facts in order  sad1
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

TB request for clarification

Post by coati mundi on 26.06.14 0:00

TB, I am fairly new to this forum and I would like to know why you think the "Smithman" sighting is a fabrication. Since you appear to question the account of events put forward by those present (and I presume that I can't put it much more explicitly than that, given your legal circumstances) why do you discount, and even construct what might appear to be a conspiracy theory against those who find some credence in this alleged sighting, which may well be good evidence against one of those responsible for what happened?

I don't know whether you are too constrained to say what you really think happened, but your  outright dismissal of the "Smithman" sighting is puzzling to me.

I also would like to say that I admire you for continuing  to try to expose the truth of a case that stinks to high Heaven to anyone who cares to examine it.

coati mundi

Posts : 94
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2014-02-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 1:10

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
John Hill promptly arrives at the OC, and says that he went to reception to see if the police had been called.  However, the receptionist states that a Tapas staff member arrived and asked him to call the police.  The first call to the GNR was placed at 10.42.  Given that John Hill had only received the call from Lindsey J. at 10.28, he seems to have gone swiftly into action and treated it as the emergency it was.

John Hill goes to 5a, and gets Gerry to accompany him to reception, where the GNR are called a second time at 10.51.
Alert around 22:10? Police called 22:42? John Hill notified at 22:28? Nah. No way josé. Way way earlier. The receptionist Helder could have been informed around 21:20-30ish by chef Peleja or someone working under him, and called the police immediately. Shortly after that, John Hill was there, agitated that the GNR still hadn't arrived yet. 


Vitor dos Santos, Housing Manager:


"With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
 
Luis Helder, Receptionist
 
"was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.

That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the childs father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
 
Arlindo Peleja, Executive Chef (all restaurant kitchens):
 
"when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.


Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty" http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Okeydokey on 26.06.14 1:29

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:In reply to Tony's questions, some statements from the files:

Starikova

'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, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

- Starikova thinks it could have been Gerry who left for 30 minutes
- She believed the woman who left on his return was his wife.
- If it was Oldfield instead, where was he for 30 minutes, and why did Starikova think that Kate was his wife?

Batista

'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 feel that the time of 9:30 is correct for O'Brien leaving the table, as it must have been late enough for them to bring his main meal while he wasn't there.  All three of the Tapas timelines put this time as 9:30, and while I don't give their versions of events much credence, the time of 9:30 fits.

The second to leave must have left after the first, and have been present when the food arrived, as the staff didn't take it away to be reheated.  So even if the period of time was small between the first and second leaving, we could be looking at a time of roughly 9:35 when the second left - it could be later.  According to the some of the timelines by the Tapas 9, Oldfield left at 9:35.  30 minutes after 9:35 would be 10:05.  Giving a few minutes for Kate to leave, then the rest of the group to leave, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the general public started to find out about the disappearance in the period 10:10 - 10:15.

And the typed timeline states that the 'alert' was at 10.00pm approx.  It is the only time on that timeline that has an approximate figure.

And on whether Batista correctly attributed the identity of the second person to leave the table, he also said this in another statement:

'When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl's parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant.'

Just one minor point - whilst the reheating of the food may be entirely innocent, that sort of thing is a classic way of establishing alibis...the equivalent of asking the barman the time, so the barman remembers you asking the question when he is interviewed by Police.

Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 1:32

Also note that Arlindo Peleja, 20 minutes after being informed the child's missing, finds the table at the Tapas empty at 21:40. With clothes left at the table, but noone there anymore.
 
Nothing there at 22:00, no Gerry telling Kate to go check at 22:03, cause 22:03 is what they declared to the police of the time for Kate to go check and find Maddie gone.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 1:41

No Dianne Webster either, by the way. Peleja says the table was empty.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 26.06.14 8:47

MarcoG wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
John Hill promptly arrives at the OC, and says that he went to reception to see if the police had been called.  However, the receptionist states that a Tapas staff member arrived and asked him to call the police.  The first call to the GNR was placed at 10.42.  Given that John Hill had only received the call from Lindsey J. at 10.28, he seems to have gone swiftly into action and treated it as the emergency it was.

John Hill goes to 5a, and gets Gerry to accompany him to reception, where the GNR are called a second time at 10.51.
Alert around 22:10? Police called 22:42? John Hill notified at 22:28? Nah. No way josé. Way way earlier. The receptionist Helder could have been informed around 21:20-30ish by chef Peleja or someone working under him, and called the police immediately. Shortly after that, John Hill was there, agitated that the GNR still hadn't arrived yet. 


Vitor dos Santos, Housing Manager:


"With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
 
Luis Helder, Receptionist
 
"was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.

That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the childs father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
 
Arlindo Peleja, Executive Chef (all restaurant kitchens):
 
"when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.


Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty" http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm

Thoroughly disagree with this.  The fact that the phone records show that reception called the GNR at 22.42 and 22.51 blows all of these out of the water.

These are only a few statements where the times appear to be earlier.  The vast majority of the other statements agree with the times I have given, and the phone records which are a matter of fact.

Helder Luis's statement for example.  The times he gave don't add up.  If he immediately contacted the GNR, then the time was 22.42.  Not before 10.

You can disagree with the times of the phone calls, that's your opinion.  But they are on record, so of all the evidence available they are correct.  Lindsey Johnson's call at 22.28 and the calls to the GNR at 22.42 and 22.51 are matters of fact.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 26.06.14 8:51

MarcoG wrote:No Dianne Webster either, by the way. Peleja says the table was empty.

And several members of the Tapas bar staff saw her at the table alone and said this in their statements.  And DW did leave at some point leaving an empty table.

Do you want me to quote those statements, or can you find them yourself?  big grin 

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by tigger on 26.06.14 9:34

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:No Dianne Webster either, by the way. Peleja says the table was empty.

And several members of the Tapas bar staff saw her at the table alone and said this in their statements.  And DW did leave at some point leaving an empty table.

Do you want me to quote those statements, or can you find them yourself?  big grin 

Iirc DW went to 5a with the group and was sent back by Fiona. So everybody is right if you like.
Sorry, can't be much bothered to get the evening timeline into sharp focus as the more we keep looking at 3/5, the more  details are found that don't fit.  To the great delight of TM imo.

The 3rd is not that important imo. It's similar to the great mediaeval debate on the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin.
T9 evidence worthless.
MW/OC evidence - much  found  to be significantly changed within a short time or with widely varying times.
Nannies evidence - similar scenario.

Conclusion: stick to facts and those witnesses who had nothing to gain from telling lies, e.g. The waiters, the Smiths.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Tangled Web on 26.06.14 10:01

I, too, was very interested in the debate between TB and WLBTS. It does help to get facts straight in the mind, especially being a busy mum like me and not having the time to go through all of the statements with a fine tooth comb. It's important these issues are chewed over. JMHO!

Tangled Web.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by cassius on 26.06.14 11:38

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
snip

I am well aware that you would like this to be another discussion about 'Smithman', and that you absolutely believe the sighting to be a fabrication.

As such, there is no point in my discussing this further with you, as you have covered this subject in detail on many fine threads on this forum.  I have been advised previously by moderators to avoid discussing the subject with you, and to generally avoid any threads that you participate in, so I must respectfully abide by their wishes.  As you have entered into this one and addressed me in particular, I shall have to do the honourable thing and withdraw from further discussion with your good self.
The more the venerable poster above disparages the Smith family the more the dirty work he does for TM.

cassius

Posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-15
Age : 93
Location : hmp barlinnie

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 14:18

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

You can disagree with the times of the phone calls, that's your opinion.  But they are on record, so of all the evidence available they are correct.  Lindsey Johnson's call at 22.28 and the calls to the GNR at 22.42 and 22.51 are matters of fact.
These phonecalls you mention don't exclude other phonecalls earlier. The actual phonerecords of the police are not publically available. Check the files, the conversation within the police about those. And fact is, that the GNR were investigating a crime somewhere else by the time of the first calls.
 
I don't agree that you can put aside these independent witnesses, like for example the receptionist seeing John Hill around stated times, and the housing manager establishing the same (time and Hill). Your theory about John Hill being someone else just doesn't fit, especially because the kitchen manager (of the Tapas as well) confirms the possibility of truth in the receptionist's statement that the latter was informed by Tapas staff, both telling a (far) earlier time than 22:00.
 
Of course my Webster-empty-table-remark was a bit charging, for fun, but also for emphasis on the FACT, that nothing about the T9's timeline adds up.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 26.06.14 14:43

MarcoG wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

You can disagree with the times of the phone calls, that's your opinion.  But they are on record, so of all the evidence available they are correct.  Lindsey Johnson's call at 22.28 and the calls to the GNR at 22.42 and 22.51 are matters of fact.
These phonecalls you mention don't exclude other phonecalls earlier. The actual phonerecords of the police are not publically available. Check the files, the conversation within the police about those. And fact is, that the GNR were investigating a crime somewhere else by the time of the first calls.
 
I don't agree that you can put aside these independent witnesses, like for example the receptionist seeing John Hill around stated times, and the housing manager establishing the same (time and Hill). Your theory about John Hill being someone else just doesn't fit, especially because the kitchen manager (of the Tapas as well) confirms the possibility of truth in the receptionist's statement that the latter was informed by Tapas staff, both telling a (far) earlier time than 22:00.
 
Of course my Webster-empty-table-remark was a bit charging, for fun, but also for emphasis on the FACT, that nothing about the T9's timeline adds up.

No, it's a matter of comparing these few statements that mention an earlier time, with the many statements that mention a much later time, and corroborate each other, and are corroborated by the telephone records.  If you believe that these few people were the only ones who got it right, then you must also believe that a large number of other people were hugely mistaken and got their times very wrong indeed, and got their times wrong in a coincidental manner so that their incorrect times agreed with each other's incorrect times.

I'm not the one who is putting the evidence of witnesses aside here, you're doing that. It speaks of trying to make the evidence fit a particular theory, rather than forming a theory based on evidence. You seem to giving credence to a couple of witnesses who agree with your view that the 'alert' happened way earlier, whilst putting aside the vast majority of witnesses who attest to it all happening later on.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 14:59

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

You can disagree with the times of the phone calls, that's your opinion.  But they are on record, so of all the evidence available they are correct.  Lindsey Johnson's call at 22.28 and the calls to the GNR at 22.42 and 22.51 are matters of fact.
These phonecalls you mention don't exclude other phonecalls earlier. The actual phonerecords of the police are not publically available. Check the files, the conversation within the police about those. And fact is, that the GNR were investigating a crime somewhere else by the time of the first calls.
 
I don't agree that you can put aside these independent witnesses, like for example the receptionist seeing John Hill around stated times, and the housing manager establishing the same (time and Hill). Your theory about John Hill being someone else just doesn't fit, especially because the kitchen manager (of the Tapas as well) confirms the possibility of truth in the receptionist's statement that the latter was informed by Tapas staff, both telling a (far) earlier time than 22:00.
 
Of course my Webster-empty-table-remark was a bit charging, for fun, but also for emphasis on the FACT, that nothing about the T9's timeline adds up.

No, it's a matter of comparing these few statements that mention an earlier time, with the many statements that mention a much later time, and corroborate each other, and are corroborated by the telephone records.  If you believe that these few people were the only ones who got it right, then you must also believe that a large number of other people were hugely mistaken and got their times very wrong indeed, and got their times wrong in a coincidental manner so that their incorrect times agreed with each other's incorrect times.

I'm not the one who is putting the evidence of witnesses aside here, you're doing that.  It speaks of trying to make the evidence fit a particular theory, rather than forming a theory based on evidence.  You seem to giving credence to a couple of witnesses who agree with your view that the 'alert' happened way earlier, whilst putting aside the vast majority of witnesses who attest to it all happening later on.
I am mentioning those witnesses that actually alerted, called the police themselves, or were alerted in corroboration with each other's statements. You're now trying to make it all just a sum of most votes count. But it's about the people that actually were key. I'm showing you those.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 26.06.14 15:06

MarcoG wrote:
I am mentioning those witnesses that actually alerted, called the police themselves, or were alerted in corroboration with each other's statements. You're now trying to make it all just a sum of most votes count. But it's about the people that actually were key. I'm showing you those.

Nonsense, you're ignoring statements of witnesses such as the Tapas bar staff themselves, who one might argue are fairly key.

These are the calls that went out from the Ocean Club to the GNR, as you can see the GNR were called at 22.41 and 22.52 (I got my digits the wrong way around earlier!).  There is no record of earlier calls from the Ocean Club to the GNR.




whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by Guest on 26.06.14 15:19

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
I am mentioning those witnesses that actually alerted, called the police themselves, or were alerted in corroboration with each other's statements. You're now trying to make it all just a sum of most votes count. But it's about the people that actually were key. I'm showing you those.

Nonsense, you're ignoring statements of witnesses such as the Tapas bar staff themselves, who one might argue are fairly key.

These are the calls that went out from the Ocean Club to the GNR, as you can see the GNR were called at 22.41 and 22.52 (I got my digits the wrong way around earlier!).  There is no record of earlier calls from the Ocean Club to the GNR.



Those are not the phonerecords the PJ needed. Those needed are not in the files. Further, you're discarding the statement of the person who actually called the police, the person who got called by that person, and the executive manager of the tapas who corroborates the time.  
You can't just call every witness evenly key. Terribly sorry, trying to make the T9 timeline fit the facts won't work, because it's all a stageplay. You're even saying that it was not John Hill but another person ordering the phonecalls.
 
Not attacking you, btw. I appreciate and respect your postings.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Theory

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 26.06.14 15:34

MarcoG wrote:
Those are not the phonerecords the PJ needed. Those needed are not in the files. Further, you're discarding the statement of the person who actually called the police, the person who got called by that person, and the executive manager of the tapas who corroborates the time.  
You can't just call every witness evenly key. Terribly sorry, trying to make the T9 timeline fit the facts won't work, because it's all a stageplay. You're even saying that it was not John Hill but another person ordering the phonecalls.
 
Not attacking you, btw. I appreciate and respect your postings.

And among the witnesses that you are discarding are John Hill, manager of the Ocean Club, and Lindsey Johnson, creche manager, who enacted the procedures for missing children. If what you are saying is correct, then both of these people lied or were mistaken (in the same way). There are lots of others. I can list them if you like, all the people who must have been greatly mistaken.

Facts show that the Ocean Club reception called the GNR at 22.41 and 22.52. Members of the GNR stated that they were on patrol in the Odiaxere region when called over the radio to the Ocean Club reception. While they were on their way - in the Valverde region - they were advised over the radio that the child's father had called again. The GNR state that they arrived around 23.00. Looking at the distances between these locations, the times of 22.41 and 22.52 make perfect sense. The times you are insisting on make no sense when looking at the bigger picture.

But as you say, you are convinced that it was all a stage-play, and therefore the only evidence that is of importance is the evidence that agrees with your theory. The difference between you and me is that I don't have a theory as to what went on - I'm just trying to build a picture of what went on that evening based on the evidence. I'm not dismissing evidence because it disagrees with a theory I have already formed. I'm considering evidence alongside all the other evidence. I'm recognising that statements aren't always 100% correct, and that people sometimes make mistakes.

Before reading through all the statements I agreed with your opinion that it happened earlier in the evening. After reading through everything I can find on mccannpjfiles, I have decided that those witnesses describing an earlier time must simply have been mistaken, as otherwise a large number of other witnesses are all mistaken.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 37 of 38 Previous  1 ... 20 ... 36, 37, 38  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum