Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.11 22:10

pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

Lovely to have your contribution to the debate, pennylane, and many thanks as always for your past messages of support.

Disagreements are normally handled politely on here and hopefully I'll maintain that tradition with a fewe reponses to your post which I'll outline below in blue

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw.

Let's leave on one side for a moment some very important points, such as the Smith family members disagreeing with each other about what they saw, Smith's obvious attempt to say 'it wasn't Murat', and Brian Kennedy's intervention when he talked to Martin Smith. We must then face the fact that Smith wasn't certain it was Gerry McCann he saw. he was only 80% certain. Then, in or about January 2008, he made a further statement in which he said he was only 60% sure. That is, you'll agree I hope, a rather slender basis for making an assumption that Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann.

On top of that, I raise once again merely by repetition the obvious point: would anyone carry his dead child through the streets of a popular holiday village? I can't think it's ever been done before - and even in panic mode I suggest this is so unlikely that it can be discarded.

I do appreciate by the way that I am up against Goncalo Amaral's hunch that Smith was right and Amaral's further speculation that Dr Gerald McCann was heading for the beach.

I will come to other reasons why we should reject the notion that Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann with child that night.

We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening.

Here I think we come to the crux of the matter. There are I think lines of evidence that suggest that the events of the afternoon of 3 May were planned by the Tapas 9, on the basis that Madeleine had already 'disappeared'.

A. Take the hugely varying accounts of what Dr Gerald McCann was doing up to 7pm that afternoon. There are half-a-dozen versions. That suggests to me that he was not doing what he has said he was doing, but something else.

B. Take the huge contradictions about the alleged visit of Dr Payne to G5A at around 6.30pm. The contradictions about this event are so great as to suggest that this event never happened. Why then has this visit, as it were, been invented? I suggest it is an attempt to show that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm that day and was seen by a third party - when perhaps she was not alive.

C. Take the evidence analysed by 'kikoratan' which suggests that Dr Gerald McCann and Robert Murat each had their mobile 'phones switched off for the same period of 32 hours: from 3pm on 2 May to 11pm on 3 May. Why could that be? And why did Murat tell 17+ 'porkies' about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May. And why wouldn't Dr Gerald McCann comment on whether he already knew Robert Murat or not?

D. Take the many discrepancies about whether Madeleine had 'high tea' with the nannies that day, or not. Why so many discrepancies? Is this because this event didn't happen either?

These IMO indications that something had befallen Madeleine earlier and that preparations were being made for the unfolding of the abduction hoax.

For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario).

The scenario you have outlined here is of Madeleine's body still being in G5A at after 9.30pm. Now, if that correct, and if as you say ROB (or Oldfield) got 'spooked', can you explain why the party went ahead with an 'alarm' at 10.00pm. If you're right, why not quietly dispose of the body overnight and sound the alarm in the morning? Again, if you are right, and Dr Gerald McCann was really seen by the Smiths carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm-9.55pm, these things would be necessary for the T9 to sound the alarm:

1. Dr McCann finds hiding place for the body

2. Dr McCann hides the body

3. Dr McCann (remember the evidence is his mobile 'phone was switched off until 11pm) has ro rush back to the Ocean Club

4. He then announces: 'Body hidden! All clear! Raise the alarm!'

I ask again if that is a credible scenario. Some even claim Madeleine could have been hidden within the church during this period.

The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong!

I suggest the plan was to have as normal an evening as possible at the Tapas restaurant, with people leaving the table now and then to make it look like they were checking. I suspect that those leaving the table were perhaps arranging the crime scene as suggested in one chapter of Goncalo Amaral's book and as indicated in Tavares de Almeida's report of 10 SDeptember 2007. Dr Gerald McCann says he saw Madeleine alive. Dr Matt Oldfield played his part with a carefully crafted statement saying that he opened the door but didn't actually see Madeleine, and that there was 'more light' than before. His memory about that visit wasn't too good because he had to significantly amend his statement.

I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took...

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

'When the Smiths saw him'. This I think is one of the troubles with the 'Smith sighting'. If one STARTS with the premise that Dr Gerald McCann was definitely seen by Smith at 9.50am outside Kelly's bar, then one has to fit everything around that. If on the other had you discard this claimed 'sighting', and look at all the other surrounding evidence, IMO the following picture develops: Madeleine had already disappeared some time earlier that day or week, and the entire sequence of events from around 8pm onwards was an elaborate charade. There is absolutely no other evidence apart from the dubious Smith 'sighting' that Dr Gerald McCann was anywhere other than in and around the Tapas bar and the Ocean Club until the GNR arrived.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.11 22:16

rainbow-fairy wrote:pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

See items in red below (from our long Murat article):

The Mystery of Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause:

An examination of Robert Murat’s involvement in events following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

By Tony Bennett, April 2010

PART FOUR: CHAPERS I TO K

I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30am but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

6. He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.

7. He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.

8. The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.

9. He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said.

10. On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.

11. He had not driven to Michaela’s house that morning after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law.

12. He now remembered that he and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13. He and Michaela had lunch with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex and her father-in-law, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14. Michaela’s daughter C______ was not with them that day, contrary to his previous story.

15. They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.

16. He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.

17. He previously said he had woken at 9.00am on Friday 4 May. He now admitted he had telephoned Michaela at 8.27am and must have got up earlier.

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 22:31

Nina wrote:Rainbow-Fairy a snip from an earlier post,

1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

I think the night of the 3rd May was when the "abduction" was to be made public. So if there was a substitute Madeleine at the creche and high tea through the week, why then keep this girl until late on the night of the 3rd, for what reason? To have to then walk through the streets with her, or, was it part of the abduction scenario.

No one has ever come forward as being the one walking the streets at this hour and on this day

Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened.
I'm really not sure - this is a headspinner - just what the McCanns wanted Wink

Or maybe its the Gemini curse - I can see about seven sides to every story, which is not always helpful, believe me!
As for why they would keep the 'substitute' til 'abduction time' - Honestly? Who knows? This involves second-guessing the McCanns and I find it exceedingly hard to imagine why they do certain things BUT she would obviously be needed at creche, high tea and pick-up time. Possibly it was thought easier to take her away from the scene later at night than very early evening OR maybe she had to be there until 'kick-off' to cover any unforeseen circumstances - being seen, visitor to flat, a hundred things. Truth is, I doubt we'll ever know frankly. Poor Madeleine.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.11 22:41

rainbow-fairy wrote:Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened...

I agree.

The answer is IMO (2), and in this connection let us remember when the Smith 'sighting' was first publicly announced - namely months after the event.

Now, if Smith had come forward on 4 May and said: 'My goodness, me and my family saw a man carrying a child at just before 10.00 last night', then a public announcement would have been made that day and Smith's description given out to the media.

But did Smith report his 'sighting' immediately? Not I think for a couple of weeks or so.

If he really did see someone (and I have my doubts), I suggest it was most likely a holidaymaker taking his child back to his apartment with him after she had fallen asleep whilst he was out.

ETA: For those who think Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann, consider this: whilst he was walking around Praia da Luz carrying a child, he could easily have been seen by any one of dozens of Ocean Club guests who would recognise him. Just as happened with Jez Wilkins, in fact...

by pennylane 13.11.11 23:47

Hi Tony, thank you for your informative reply, I shall certainly read it thoroughly when I am not so tired, and try not to be so fixated on my opinions Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 725573

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 725573

I agree with yourself and others that they are covering something up earlier in the week.... I felt it may be due to what type of holiday they were on and who they were meeting up with?? When Madeleine first went missing in 2007, I really suspected something had happened to her earlier than the Mc's were saying, and I held this opinion for some time, but the more I read the less convinced of this I became, and it all seemed so hastily cobbled together.

You are quite right I should have said "when the Smith's allegedly saw him," as I realise this is not a certainty.

I have drawn a different conclusion from yourself regarding the McCanns finally mentioning the Smith sighting in 2009... I think the Mc's tried their utmost to avoid it like the plague because it was legitimate.... and so they waited as long as they could, but with Amaral and all and sundry discussing it daily.... they could no longer ignore it, and saw their mockumentary as an opportunity to finally mention it whilst diluting it down, and morphing Tanners alleged abductor into the Smith's one, thus allowing Gerry his much needed get out clause.
Thank you again Tony, I shall try and expand my horizons, although it has taken a long time to arrive where I am. Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 444319

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 444319

pennylane x Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 260239

by listener 14.11.11 0:03

pennylane wrote:

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

The car being 'aired'?

Dogs and the car?

Mileage on the car?

Many hundreds of 'English/foreign owned,timeshare' vacant appartments?

Which appartment? The Smith sighting may well turn out to be a 'false herring' - but I believe she was stored somewhere

by jd 14.11.11 1:01

Looking at it in black and white & taking the personalities out of the equation....someone that cannot be positive about anything except for being positive about who they definitely know they didn't see, says very clearly the motive for their statement

Also, they cannot be sure about the description on who they saw... yet...they can be sure who it was definitely not! Wasn't born yesterday!

He couldn't see the mans face on his alleged sighting so how can he know it was definitely not Murat?

All the sightings are red herrings and nobody saw any sightings that night. It is total garbage and absolute lies on all sides and a waste of time speculating on, there was no sightings

by jd 14.11.11 1:07

And if a professional gang abducted Maddie, does anybody seriously think that they would be would be wondering around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes carrying her. We are led to believe with all the false sightings years later and the propaganda in the press that a professional gang took her. Im sorry but professionals do not act in this way, only amateurs who do not know what they are doing could possibly wander the streets for 40 minutes. Lets get our heads on please!

Its all lies....lies to make money

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 6:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened...
I agree.

The answer is IMO (2), and in this connection let us remember when the Smith 'sighting' was first publicly announced - namely months after the event.

Now, if Smith had come forward on 4 May and said: 'My goodness, me and my family saw a man carrying a child at just before 10.00 last night', then a public announcement would have been made that day and Smith's description given out to the media.

But did Smith report his 'sighting' immediately? Not I think for a couple of weeks or so.

If he really did see someone (and I have my doubts), I suggest it was most likely a holidaymaker taking his child back to his apartment with him after she had fallen asleep whilst he was out.

ETA: For those who think Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann, consider this: whilst he was walking around Praia da Luz carrying a child, he could easily have been seen by any one of dozens of Ocean Club guests who would recognise him. Just as happened with Jez Wilkins, in fact...

Tony, I can see what you mean. However, I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind!
1)If it really were a 'fabricated' sighting designed to support team McCann/Murat, why then would he make the lead actor so similar sounding to Gerry? Then time them so far apart? I don't see how it would help in any way?

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 7:22

jd wrote:And if a professional gang abducted Maddie, does anybody seriously think that they would be would be wondering around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes carrying her. We are led to believe with all the false sightings years later and the propaganda in the press that a professional gang took her. Im sorry but professionals do not act in this way, only amateurs who do not know what they are doing could possibly wander the streets for 40 minutes. Lets get our heads on please!

Its all lies....lies to make money

jd, who has mentioned professional gangs? I haven't seen any mention of it on this topic?
Can I just politely pick up on something from the post above this one, please? You mention that the sighting is not credible because they didn't see the face but were certain it wasn't Murat. With all due respect, a person's face isn't their only identifying feature, is it? I can spot people I only know 'by sight' from behind and their way of walking. Didn't they say the 'knew Murat by sight'? This would make it even more likely that they could discount it being him without needing to see a face. Didn't he have a peculiar gait from his earlier motorbike accident?
Not saying you're wrong and the 'sighting' definitely happened, just that you don't need to see a face to know who someone isn't, if you get me!

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.11 8:46

rainbow-fairy wrote:Tony, I can see what you mean. However, I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind!
1)If it really were a 'fabricated' sighting designed to support team McCann/Murat, why then would he make the lead actor so similar sounding to Gerry? Then time them so far apart? I don't see how it would help in any way?

Let us see the original Martin Smith statement (as translated on the 'mccannfiles' website), made on Saturday 26 May - three weeks and two days after Madeleine disappeared:

++++++++++++++

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10H40
Location: DIC Portimao
Name: MARTIN SMITH

The witness states:
— That he comes to the process as a witness.
— Being of Irish nationality, he does not understand Portuguese in its written or oral form and is accompanied by an interpreter.
— That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment. Concerning this period, he states that he arrived in Portugal on the 30th of April, 2007, with a booked return date of May 9, 2007. He arrived at Faro airport and flew out from Dublin.
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar' about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.
— After leaving the bar, he travelled in the opposite direction and reached a set of stairs which gave access to Rua 25 de Abril (25th of April Street). On this artery they followed a second street, parallel to Rua 1 de Maio (1st of May Street) whose name he does not remember. He was heading toward his apartment (Estrela da Luz complex) which is located a little above the street Travessa da Escola Primária (Primary school crossing). As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual. [in other words, he says he thought on the morning of Friday 4 May that this man might have been carrying Madeleine - T.B.]
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height [5' 9" to 5' 11" - T.B.]. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
— Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child who was carried by the individual could have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family.
— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.
— At being asked, states that when he saw the individual he was accompanied by his wife, MARY SMITH, his son, PETER SMITH, his daughter-in-law, S***, his grandchildren of 13 and 6 years of age (children of PETER) TA*** and CO**, his daughter AOIFE (12 years of age), and his other two grandchildren (AI****** (10 years old) and EI**** (four years old). These are children of his daughter B***** who was in Ireland.
— States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.
— He adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other so they would have seen the individual in different positions.
— He adds a sketch indicating the route and the locale of the sighting.
— He has nothing else to offer the investigation.
— And nothing more was said. He reads and finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs together with the interpreter.

++++++

Much to comment on there, rainbow-fairy, but the description is fairly vague - average height for a male, average build, short brown hair, didn't see him properly but it wasn't Robert Murat. On the date of Martin Smith's statement, Robert Murat had been pulled in for questioning 12 days previoulsy (14 May).

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 8:56

pennylane wrote:I have drawn a different conclusion from yourself regarding the McCanns finally mentioning the Smith sighting in 2009... I think the Mc's tried their utmost to avoid it like the plague because it was legitimate.... and so they waited as long as they could, but with Amaral and all and sundry discussing it daily.... they could no longer ignore it, and saw their mockumentary as an opportunity to finally mention it whilst diluting it down, and morphing Tanners alleged abductor into the Smith's one, thus allowing Gerry his much needed get out clause.

pennylane, yes! I agree with you. It is the only logical reason I can think of to explain why SUDDENLY a sighting that had never been ackowledged was suddenly used to their advantage. Let's face it, their 'version' hardly tallies with Smith's, does it? It is, as you say, watered down and spun to their requirements. And even if this was a 'fabricated sighting' designed to help Murat (why he'd need it I don't know since records placed him at home all night) they would hardly mention it at the time since it implicates Gerry!
No, I firmly believe it became a thorn in their side, a boil they couldn't lance. What choice did they have but to twist it (like they have so many other pieces of evidence) to their advantage. They'll probably decide us posters on here are advantageous before long. Actually, they already have! They've alluded to 'people like us alone in our bedrooms spilling bile over the internet' - in other words, question 'Their Word' you are a sad, demented loser! Vote Team McCann!!!

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 8:57

pennylane wrote:I have drawn a different conclusion from yourself regarding the McCanns finally mentioning the Smith sighting in 2009... I think the Mc's tried their utmost to avoid it like the plague because it was legitimate.... and so they waited as long as they could, but with Amaral and all and sundry discussing it daily.... they could no longer ignore it, and saw their mockumentary as an opportunity to finally mention it whilst diluting it down, and morphing Tanners alleged abductor into the Smith's one, thus allowing Gerry his much needed get out clause.

pennylane, yes! I agree with you. It is the only logical reason I can think of to explain why SUDDENLY a sighting that had never been ackowledged was suddenly used to their advantage. Let's face it, their 'version' hardly tallies with Smith's, does it? It is, as you say, watered down and spun to their requirements. And even if this was a 'fabricated sighting' designed to help Murat (why he'd need it I don't know since records placed him at home all night) they would hardly mention it at the time since it implicates Gerry!
No, I firmly believe it became a thorn in their side, a boil they couldn't lance. What choice did they have but to twist it (like they have so many other pieces of evidence) to their advantage. They'll probably decide us posters on here are advantageous before long. Actually, they already have! They've alluded to 'people like us alone in our bedrooms spilling bile over the internet' - in other words, question 'Their Word' you are a sad, demented loser! Vote Team McCann!!!

by Guest 14.11.11 9:03

If the smiths really saw someone or not. could be significant or could not..Depending on what you believe happened to Madeleine.

Whatever the truth is, I think it is a good thing for the Mccanns. Gerry can use this sighting in his favour, he don't have to lie he can finally speak truthful about something. If the smiths saw someone, Gerry knows either , 1, it was not him carrying the child, it was someone else from the group,2, he knew she was alredy dead and stored another place and therefor he knows whatever smith is saying they saw it wasn't him or Madeleine. That can be the reason why they haven't payed the sighting much attention , and at the same time keeps the sighting close in their "investigation" because in their spins of lies it backs up the abduction theory. As for the time differents, well maybe the smiths saw someone at that time , and even if it doesnt fit to JT sigting in time or direction,, Mccanns desperatly wants it to. To make their story more credible. Maybe it was a good thing for the Mccanns that The smiths went public about it beeing Gerry? Because it was easy for them to prove that it wasn't him , and in that way the sighting would publicly make their abduction story more trutful?
Maybe the Smith sighting was just a lucky thing for them , that was not planned or arranged at all ?
Some people can be veru deluded at all the media attention, and the feeling of importents bringing information in a high profiled case like this. Maybe that was the story about the Smiths..One feather becoming 5 hens.....

by Guest 14.11.11 9:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Nina wrote:Is there only 17% that the police retained? Is there a set percentage that has to be released? Sorry for the questions I just thought that only a small part had been released.

I thought it was the other way round! If I'm totally honest, I don't actually know for sure! I've got it somewhere that about 82% or so had been publicly released. It takes me so long to load up a page to check elsewhere so its not feasible for me to do. I'm on a mobile you see, and where I live signal is abysmal - I can go two or three hours with none - hence why my replies are sometimes so late. Was meant to join up to a landline and broadband soon but my terrier has just today chewed through the cabling!
Whatever the number, I think its 'prosecution material' - the really damning stuff that wasn't quite enough to ensure a successful trial, but maybe with some more it could be. Although the McCann publicity has done so much, worldwide, could they get a fair trial anywhere (one of the main reasons for the continued publicity, IMO)

Nina and rainbow fairy. Some time ago I tried to look into this very subject and from 'my' findings and it may not be correct to the exact page, allowing for the blank pages, but I'm confident it will show a more accurate picture than some would have us believe.

With the help and much appreciation of Pamalam’s site, I have listed every volume and exactly how many pages each volume contained. Some are numbered, others (a few) are left blank and therefore still numbered by Pamalam.

volume 1 1-217

volume 2 218-520

volume3 521-831

volume 4 833-1118

volume 5 1119-1384

volume 6 1385-1709

volume 7 1710-1943

volume 8 1944-2222

volume 9 2223-2499

volume 10 2500-2724

volume 11 2725-3057

volume 12 3057-3891

volume 13 3892-3601

volume 14 3602-3844

volume 15 3845-4127

volume 16 4129-4414

volume17 4415-4713

TOTAL PAGES 4,713

Cartas Rogatorias

File 1 1-69

File 2 1-264

File 3 1-56

File 4 1-72

File 5 1-69

File 6 1-4

File 7 1-4

File 8 1-7

File 9 1-3

TOTAL PAGES 548

Apensos V

volume 1 1-252

volume 2 253-424

volume 3 432-586

volume 4 661-899

volume 5 900-1160

volume 6 1161-1425

volume 7 1427-1679

volume 8 1680-1922

volume 9 1923-2106

volume 10 2107-2353

volume 11 2358-2534

volume 12 2535-2749

volume 13 2750-2953

volume 14 1-116

TOTAL PAGES 3,069

Outros Apensos 1

volume 1 1-283

volume 2 284-338

volume 3 339-551

volume 4 552-811

volume 5 812-984

volume 6 986-1222

TOTAL PAGES 1,222

Apensos 2

volume 7 1-149

volume 8 1-8

volume 9 1-14

TOTAL PAGES 171

Apensos 3

volume 1 1-53

volume 2 54-145

TOTAL PAGES 145

Apensos 4

volume 1 1-284

volume 2 285-307

TOTAL PAGES 307

Apensos 8

volume 1 1-292

volume 2 293-538

volume 3 539-685

TOTAL PAGES 685

Apensos 9

volume 1 1-146

TOTAL PAGES 146

File 10 1-40

File 11 1-195

File 12 1 -113

File 13 1-428

TOTAL PAGES 776

GRAND TOTAL 11,782

As you can clearly see, there was not 30,000 pages released to the general public on the DVD. When Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court of Justice talks about the 11,000 pieces of information, she is generalising IMO about the actual 11,782 pages that it would seem was released on the DVD.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

From ‘Case Files Released Portuguese Reports (1)’

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id151.html

“The process, which was archived on the 21st of July 2008, was made available during the afternoon today, and is composed of approximately 30 thousand pages, distributed over more than fifty volumes, appendixes, rogatory letters and reports, among other documents”.

by pennylane 14.11.11 9:29

rainbow-fairy wrote:
pennylane wrote:I have drawn a different conclusion from yourself regarding the McCanns finally mentioning the Smith sighting in 2009... I think the Mc's tried their utmost to avoid it like the plague because it was legitimate.... and so they waited as long as they could, but with Amaral and all and sundry discussing it daily.... they could no longer ignore it, and saw their mockumentary as an opportunity to finally mention it whilst diluting it down, and morphing Tanners alleged abductor into the Smith's one, thus allowing Gerry his much needed get out clause.
pennylane, yes! I agree with you. It is the only logical reason I can think of to explain why SUDDENLY a sighting that had never been ackowledged was suddenly used to their advantage. Let's face it, their 'version' hardly tallies with Smith's, does it? It is, as you say, watered down and spun to their requirements. And even if this was a 'fabricated sighting' designed to help Murat (why he'd need it I don't know since records placed him at home all night) they would hardly mention it at the time since it implicates Gerry!
No, I firmly believe it became a thorn in their side, a boil they couldn't lance. What choice did they have but to twist it (like they have so many other pieces of evidence) to their advantage. They'll probably decide us posters on here are advantageous before long. Actually, they already have! They've alluded to 'people like us alone in our bedrooms spilling bile over the internet' - in other words, question 'Their Word' you are a sad, demented loser! Vote Team McCann!!!

Good morning rainbow-fairy, Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 260239

I think it is going to be very difficult for any of us to shift our opinions now. Each time I read the Smith statement, I become more convinced it was Gerry carrying a barefoot Madeleine, not less. There is a definite split in opinion on this issue that has not changed with time.

Unfortunately, we have in some ways been advantageous to TM as you say. By discussing their glaring errors, we have forewarned and forearmed them. Hence their story has been altered ad nauseum, as have their phrases and body language. For instance you can often see Gerry desperately trying not to scratch his ear nowadays; and they have finally cottoned onto saying.... they are planning something in the future 'but hope Madeleine will be home before then.' It took them quite a while to wake up to this glaring omission in their worn out mantra methinks. Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 94409

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 94409

by jd 14.11.11 9:29

rainbow-fairy wrote:
jd wrote:And if a professional gang abducted Maddie, does anybody seriously think that they would be would be wondering around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes carrying her. We are led to believe with all the false sightings years later and the propaganda in the press that a professional gang took her. Im sorry but professionals do not act in this way, only amateurs who do not know what they are doing could possibly wander the streets for 40 minutes. Lets get our heads on please!

Its all lies....lies to make money
jd, who has mentioned professional gangs? I haven't seen any mention of it on this topic?
Can I just politely pick up on something from the post above this one, please? You mention that the sighting is not credible because they didn't see the face but were certain it wasn't Murat. With all due respect, a person's face isn't their only identifying feature, is it? I can spot people I only know 'by sight' from behind and their way of walking. Didn't they say the 'knew Murat by sight'? This would make it even more likely that they could discount it being him without needing to see a face. Didn't he have a peculiar gait from his earlier motorbike accident?
Not saying you're wrong and the 'sighting' definitely happened, just that you don't need to see a face to know who someone isn't, if you get me!

rainbow-fairy they have been insinuating a professional gang may have taken her for years leaking out stories to the public and all the so called sightings around the world etc but a professional gang would never be walking around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes. Its rubbish to imply this if JT's and Smiths sighting are true as if they are true then only a total idiot and amateur would be walking the streets

I see what you are saying with regards to Murat but don't forget Smith also says he only ever saw Murat once in his life a few years previous...He therefore cannot make a positive identification on someone he hasn't seen, especially only from their body. There are many who look to have the same body as Murat and only the face can be a positive identification so to come out with this is just a lie. You can't on one hand say you haven't seen the person but on the other say you can positively identify them or be 100% that you know it was not that person. To be this positive you have to know them and he says he didn't know him

by aiyoyo 14.11.11 9:34

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened...
I agree.

The answer is IMO (2), and in this connection let us remember when the Smith 'sighting' was first publicly announced - namely months after the event.

Now, if Smith had come forward on 4 May and said: 'My goodness, me and my family saw a man carrying a child at just before 10.00 last night', then a public announcement would have been made that day and Smith's description given out to the media.

But did Smith report his 'sighting' immediately? Not I think for a couple of weeks or so.

If he really did see someone (and I have my doubts), I suggest it was most likely a holidaymaker taking his child back to his apartment with him after she had fallen asleep whilst he was out.

ETA: For those who think Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann, consider this: whilst he was walking around Praia da Luz carrying a child, he could easily have been seen by any one of dozens of Ocean Club guests who would recognise him. Just as happened with Jez Wilkins, in fact...
Tony, I can see what you mean. However, I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind!
1)If it really were a 'fabricated' sighting designed to support team McCann/Murat, why then would he make the lead actor so similar sounding to Gerry? Then time them so far apart? I don't see how it would help in any way?

My two cents worth.

I think Smith might have seen a holiday-maker carried a sleeping child back home, but because his sighting was not immediately informed to police hence no announcement or appeal for 'that man' to come forward. Had Smith informed the police the following day for example, at least the police can issue a public announcement asking the man to come forward for elimination.

As it was, the man would have gone home to his country little realising the huha or the spammer thrown in the works just because he happened to be spotted taking his sleeping child home.
Bear in mind not everyone, especially people outside of UK, follows the case; and not every country covers missing Madeleine. At best, because of mccanns keeping themselves high profile, a scan mention might be hidden in small column between pages in foreign papers which would have easily gone unnoticed. Besides some people don't buy the papers while there are those others who buy but ignore foreign domestic news because of it being inconsequential that will not affect their lives.

Likely the man had gone home, and not bothered keeping up on Madeleine news, even if he'd heard about it during the holiday.
Moreover, no country outside of Uk carries comprehensive coverage of the mccanns story, so people overseas wouldn't have learned about the Smith's sighting even if it was reported in the UK.

Logic dictates it wasn't gerry because where was he going with a lifeless Maddie to make it back in time for the alarm. Not only timing wise it was impossible but risk wise it would be a suicidal.
Going by the mccanns manipulative and calculated history, sly gerry would never do anything so stupidly risky as daringly carrying a dead child uncovered down the alley. For that scenario to have happened ie for him to have gone that far away (opp direction of his apt) it would mean he's had to be away from his table for quite a while - he needs to go to his apt, pick up maddie, make sure coast is clear and hurried away with an uncovered lifeless child all by himself - err..I dont think a group of intelligent people would plan so badly when they could easily utilise any one of their numbers to act as look out), then expected to get back in time for alarm and not expected to be seen by anyone.

According to his statement, his checking time was much earlier at about 9.00ish then gone back to the bar, followed by the next check done by his mate, Oldfield (?). So if he was seen back at the table by say latest 9.30, how did he manage to go back to the apt again in between Oldfield's check to pick up maddie to be in the lane smith saw him in?

The disposal of Maddie would have been planned carefully and carried out covertly with help and supervision by his mates acting as look out. It would mean Maddie would have been dead at least 20 hours or more before the alarm was raised.

Remember May 3rd was the only day mccanns' routine deviates from normal.
More pertinently, can anyone imagine their holiday friends agreeing to such a risky and stupid plan that will implicate all of them?

by Guest 14.11.11 9:44

For anyone who believes Madeleine died early on in that holiday and IMO there is plenty of evidence that suggests this, there is no way in a million years, the little child seen in a man's arms, if indeed the Smith sighting is even credible, could ever be Madeleine.

IMO, she had already been dead for 5 days and no one IMO is ever going to carry a 5 day old corpse through any street.

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 9:47

Moa, many of your points are very persuasive.

by Gillyspot 14.11.11 10:20

Stella

Thanks for sharing how much we do not have available.

I am aware that some relates to people who were questioned but were deemed irrelevant in the case but the quantity not shared seems quite massive so there must surely be some critical information withheld.

Assuming this to also be withheld from the McCanns also then if Scotland Yard have this extra information then who knows they may not give us the whitewash we expect. Fingers XXed Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 3934901622

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 3934901622

by rainbow-fairy 14.11.11 10:53

Stella wrote:For anyone who believes Madeleine died early on in that holiday and IMO there is plenty of evidence that suggests this, there is no way in a million years, the little child seen in a man's arms, if indeed the Smith sighting is even credible, could ever be Madeleine.

IMO, she had already been dead for 5 days and no one IMO is ever going to carry a 5 day old corpse through any street.

Stella, I don't know if you missed my post on a previous page, but I mentioned about you Creche Enquiry thread and the 'substitute Maddie'. I don't for one minut believe a dead Maddie was carried through PdL 3rd, mainly because I believe she was already moved and stored.
However, could Gerry have been returning 'substitute Maddie'?

by Guest 14.11.11 12:19

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stella wrote:For anyone who believes Madeleine died early on in that holiday and IMO there is plenty of evidence that suggests this, there is no way in a million years, the little child seen in a man's arms, if indeed the Smith sighting is even credible, could ever be Madeleine.

IMO, she had already been dead for 5 days and no one IMO is ever going to carry a 5 day old corpse through any street.
Stella, I don't know if you missed my post on a previous page, but I mentioned about you Creche Enquiry thread and the 'substitute Maddie'. I don't for one minut believe a dead Maddie was carried through PdL 3rd, mainly because I believe she was already moved and stored.
However, could Gerry have been returning 'substitute Maddie'?

I used to think that it was Gerry carrying one of the other tapas children, to create the illusion of a child heading for the beach to get into a boat. But after some very convincing arguments on the Smith sighting thread, I'm now dismissing this sighting altogether, as I think it is a red herring. I think the reason the McCann's also dismissed it, is because they needed everyone to focus on Tanner's sighting and the descriptions of both men do not match.

by **Nina** 14.11.11 13:21

Stella many thanks for the info re what was released.

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 82678

I wonder whose job it was to sift through and decide what to release. Looking at was, and how it has been examined by such as us here, and some of the Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 442375629

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 442375629

moments I bet there is Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 0197

just waiting for the moment.

by Guest 14.11.11 13:26

Quite Nina. It's like when Gerry says there is "no evidence", he never mentions that approximately two thirds of it has been witheld. Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 110921

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 110921

by **Nina** 14.11.11 13:32

Stella wrote:Quite Nina. It's like when Gerry says there is "no evidence", he never mentions that approximately two thirds of it has been witheld.

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 50899

and that is what they want to get their hands on, well tough Mrs and Mrs that is Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 1683281855

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 1683281855

, but you will know what it is, eventually Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 899715

.

Sorry for the frivolity but these stats have really lifted my spirits.

by Guest 14.11.11 13:51

I know how you feel Nina, I felt the same way at the time. A few other people have claimed a different figure to that, but they have never produced anything for you to be able to see how they arrived at their figure, like I have. So I am sticking with mine. Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 4 110921

by Bebootje 14.11.11 14:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
On top of that, I raise once again merely by repetition the obvious point: would anyone carry his dead child through the streets of a popular holiday village? I can't think it's ever been done before - and even in panic mode I suggest this is so unlikely that it can be discarded.
I do appreciate by the way that I am up against Goncalo Amaral's hunch that Smith was right and Amaral's further speculation that Dr Gerald McCann was heading for the beach.
Gerry wasn't IMO heading for the beach. He could have been heading for the church which is located in the direction of the beach. The location where the man was spotted was near the church if i remember right. About the timelines. If Gerry was spotted a little bit earlier than 21.50 by the Smiths' and the alarm was rised a little bit later than 22:00, say 22:10 or 22:15 (according to the Fenn statement it was 22.30 when she overheard the noise coming from below, and it corresponds with the statement of the waiter who says the alarm was raised between 22.00 en 22.30), Gerry would have had enough time to make his way back.
The period of the tapas holliday was not high season and the streets weren't crowded with people. In fact, the women were affraid to do the checks on the children because the dark stillness of the surroundings of the appartment and let the men do the checks. Furthermore Gerry could have taken the desolate route towards the church. That it was never done before is no argument for dismissing this possibility, there is a first time for everything. Besides there was no alternative (no car) for transport and Madeleine wasn't yet reported missing, so maybe they took that risk. The initial (media)neglect of this sighting by the McCanns and the fact that on the other hand he was visited by Brian Kennedy/Methodo 3 makes me believe that in fact it is a very significant one.

We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening.
Here I think we come to the crux of the matter. There are I think lines of evidence that suggest that the events of the afternoon of 3 May were planned by the Tapas 9, on the basis that Madeleine had already 'disappeared'.

A. Take the hugely varying accounts of what Dr Gerald McCann was doing up to 7pm that afternoon. There are half-a-dozen versions. That suggests to me that he was not doing what he has said he was doing, but something else.

B. Take the huge contradictions about the alleged visit of Dr Payne to G5A at around 6.30pm. The contradictions about this event are so great as to suggest that this event never happened. Why then has this visit, as it were, been invented? I suggest it is an attempt to show that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm that day and was seen by a third party - when perhaps she was not alive.

C. Take the evidence analysed by 'kikoratan' which suggests that Dr Gerald McCann and Robert Murat each had their mobile 'phones switched off for the same period of 32 hours: from 3pm on 2 May to 11pm on 3 May. Why could that be? And why did Murat tell 17+ 'porkies' about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May. And why wouldn't Dr Gerald McCann comment on whether he already knew Robert Murat or not?

D. Take the many discrepancies about whether Madeleine had 'high tea' with the nannies that day, or not. Why so many discrepancies? Is this because this event didn't happen either?

These IMO indications that something had befallen Madeleine earlier and that preparations were being made for the unfolding of the abduction hoax.

I agree with the above A - D, and the conclusion that these are indications that something happened to Madeleine earlier. And that it took certain time to prepare the abduction hoax. But just because it takes time to prepare I believe that May 2, was the day Madeleine deseased and May 3 was in fact the time for preparing transport of the body and after that raise the abduction alarm. I believe that for several reasons.
1. Fenn overheard Maddie screaming for her Daddy.
2. May 2 changing of the daily routine
3. No independent witnesses of an alive Madeleine on May 3. (We can't say Cat Baker is independend can we, now she enjoys legal McCann team support and personal support of the McCanns.

The scenario you have outlined here is of Madeleine's body still being in G5A at after 9.30pm. Now, if that correct, and if as you say ROB (or Oldfield) got 'spooked', can you explain why the party went ahead with an 'alarm' at 10.00pm. If you're right, why not quietly dispose of the body overnight and sound the alarm in the morning? Again, if you are right, and Dr Gerald McCann was really seen by the Smiths carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm-9.55pm, these things would be necessary for the T9 to sound the alarm:

1. Dr McCann finds hiding place for the body

2. Dr McCann hides the body

3. Dr McCann (remember the evidence is his mobile 'phone was switched off until 11pm) has ro rush back to the Ocean Club

4. He then announces: 'Body hidden! All clear! Raise the alarm!'

I ask again if that is a credible scenario. Some even claim Madeleine could have been hidden within the church during this period.

I suggest the plan was to have as normal an evening as possible at the Tapas restaurant, with people leaving the table now and then to make it look like they were checking. I suspect that those leaving the table were perhaps arranging the crime scene as suggested in one chapter of Goncalo Amaral's book and as indicated in Tavares de Almeida's report of 10 SDeptember 2007. Dr Gerald McCann says he saw Madeleine alive. Dr Matt Oldfield played his part with a carefully crafted statement saying that he opened the door but didn't actually see Madeleine, and that there was 'more light' than before. His memory about that visit wasn't too good because he had to significantly amend his statement.

'When the Smiths saw him'. This I think is one of the troubles with the 'Smith sighting'. If one STARTS with the premise that Dr Gerald McCann was definitely seen by Smith at 9.50am outside Kelly's bar, then one has to fit everything around that. If on the other had you discard this claimed 'sighting', and look at all the other surrounding evidence, IMO the following picture develops: Madeleine had already disappeared some time earlier that day or week, and the entire sequence of events from around 8pm onwards was an elaborate charade. There is absolutely no other evidence apart from the dubious Smith 'sighting' that Dr Gerald McCann was anywhere other than in and around the Tapas bar and the Ocean Club until the GNR arrived.

I don't believe in a disappearence of Madeleine earlier that week. Firstly because of Fenns statement: she stated that it was an older child crying for her Daddy, from the appartment below. That would indicate that Madeleine was alive on May 1.
Secondly the twins would have missed their sister if she was missing for more than one day. There could always be the risk that they would talk about it at the creche. OK they were only two at that time but imagine what a two year old is up to.... Can tell you stories about that!
So yes, I believe in an earlier death, but not earlier than evening/night of May 1. I in fact believe that it was May 2. They needed time to pull strings and prepare the abduction hoax but the story was badly prepared, so bad that IMO they hadn't very much time to think it over.

by Guest 14.11.11 14:37

Bebootje wrote:I don't believe in a disappearence of Madeleine earlier that week. Firstly because of Fenns statement: she stated that it was an older child crying for her Daddy, from the appartment below.

Sorry Bebootje, what she said was, "due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger". Which is a completely different thing altogether. She was saying it was not a baby. One persons two year old, is another persons 3 year old and there is no way you can pinpoint accurately the age of a child by it's cry.

That would indicate that Madeleine was alive on May 1.

The child heard crying could have been any child, or a recording. This is not 100% proof it was Madeleine I'm afraid.

Secondly the twins would have missed their sister if she was missing for more than one day. There could always be the risk that they would talk about it at the creche. OK they were only two at that time but imagine what a two year old is up to.... Can tell you stories about that!

If Kate and Gerry told them that Maddie was still at creche, all the twins could say during their creche visit, which is the only time the twins were away from them, was that Maddie is at creche, which would not be a lie at that time of the day.

So yes, I believe in an earlier death, but not earlier than evening/night of May 1. I in fact believe that it was May 2.

Then who was signed in at creche on the 3rd, had high tea with all the other children at 5.00 and signed out at 5.30, without any of the creche, tapas staff or other parents noticing? I would think that was totally impossible.

They needed time to pull strings and prepare the abduction hoax but the story was badly prepared, so bad that IMO they hadn't very much time to think it over.

by **Nina** 14.11.11 14:45

If it was GM carrying the body of Madeleine then his clothes would have been contaminated with the scent of cadaverine as KM trousers and top were, yet his clothes were not alerted to.