Monday April 30th - day 2

The 29th should have been the day they all went to creche. Cat Baker stated that she wrote out their bracelets, however, that was before she ever met either Maddie or her parents and that begs the question how she would know all details needed.
Absolutely not a single statement from anyone is fully corroborated by another.

So on Sunday morning there is the Nanny, writing out the bracelets before the creche starts. x number of children arrive, x number of bracelets are fixed (for the duration of the holiday) to x little wrists.
The checking in and out of the creche must be explained to each parent in turn and none of them will turn up at the same time like a class of students, so..
Sunday morning Maddie and the twins are seen by the cleaning lady - what time?
The McCs had breakfast at home as from Sunday apparently, all the others went to the Millennium, so this visit must have been after breakfast at the Millenium. The children were carrying plates of food to take upstairs. We're surely looking at about 11.00 at the earliest here, as I don't think the cleaners would disturb holiday makers earlier.
What are the times on the creche sheets for that day? (Sorry, I never really got into the creche sheets - so many brighter people did it all).

I need to refresh my memory fully on events for the 29th but I totally agree and am puzzled by the bracelets. What children were carrying food upstairs? as the mccanns were on the ground floor so did they go to the paynes for lunch? I thought the mccanns had lunch by themselves?

I think this is the creche sheet for 29th April, and the activities scheduled for the day. The creche sheet looks normal to me except for Ella who went to creche (afternoon)when jane tanner said she didn't.... and only stayed in creche for 45 mins it looks like. And it looks to be jane tanners signature on the sheet
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nina wrote:Are there any photographs where any of the children are wearing these bracelets? I cannot find one.

The only ones where we could see those would be on the black and white snaps from the camera card. Be hard to see.
Surely the other Tapas must have taken snaps of their children which weren't whooshed - or perhaps not.

It's not just the creche sheets, it's the bracelets as well.
MW's child minding services seems to have been rather slap dash. I still can't work out how listening is going to tell you all is well. Asinine.

Then Pennington arrived on the same day as the Tapas at MW. Cat Baker was invited to Rothley in November 08 and said to be their vital witness, so vital in fact that the McCanns arranged a hotel for her and told the press they were protecting her privacy - not exactly in those words.

Now we have quite a list:
two compromised nannies,
no bracelets,
compromised creche sheets
...?


I also see on the programme that there was a mini dance on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, so Maddie making an appointment on Wednesday evening to show her dance to mummy the following day doesn't wash. Unless it was on Thursday night, but I think Kate dropped this story later on.


5a should also have been festooned in collages, drawings, gloop things etc. judging by the packed programme of the creche.

tigger wrote:

Nina wrote:Are there any photographs where any of the children are wearing these bracelets? I cannot find one.

The only ones where we could see those would be on the black and white snaps from the camera card. Be hard to see.
Surely the other Tapas must have taken snaps of their children which weren't whooshed - or perhaps not.

It's not just the creche sheets, it's the bracelets as well.
MW's child minding services seems to have been rather slap dash. I still can't work out how listening is going to tell you all is well. Asinine.

Then Pennington arrived on the same day as the Tapas at MW. Cat Baker was invited to Rothley in November 08 and said to be their vital witness, so vital in fact that the McCanns arranged a hotel for her and told the press they were protecting her privacy - not exactly in those words.

Now we have quite a list:
two compromised nannies,
no bracelets,
compromised creche sheets
...?

Only one conslusion to be drawn from the fact neither WN nor the individual nannies -what a sorry lot, btw- were sued for compensation, can be, that somebody elses guilt/liability was beyond any doubt.

Now, who could that be?

In the US, MW would have ceased to exist, having succumbed to multi million dollar claims.

Not here, not a trace of a claim against them. EVEN THOUGH their personnel supposedly advertised the absence of the parents in some register in the reception area. (Really?)

tigger wrote:

Nina wrote:Are there any photographs where any of the children are wearing these bracelets? I cannot find one.

The only ones where we could see those would be on the black and white snaps from the camera card. Be hard to see.
Surely the other Tapas must have taken snaps of their children which weren't whooshed - or perhaps not.

It's not just the creche sheets, it's the bracelets as well.
MW's child minding services seems to have been rather slap dash. I still can't work out how listening is going to tell you all is well. Asinine.

Then Pennington arrived on the same day as the Tapas at MW. Cat Baker was invited to Rothley in November 08 and said to be their vital witness, so vital in fact that the McCanns arranged a hotel for her and told the press they were protecting her privacy - not exactly in those words.

Now we have quite a list:
two compromised nannies,
no bracelets,
compromised creche sheets
...?


I also see on the programme that there was a mini dance on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, so Maddie making an appointment on Wednesday evening to show her dance to mummy the following day doesn't wash.


5a should also have been festooned in collages, drawings, gloop things etcs. judging by the packed programme of the creche.

So if something did happen to Madeleine at the creche and she died as a result, MW would not only be held responsible but also would be at the risk of having their trade licence taken away and the owners possibly being charged. So they'd pull all the strings to save their own necks and the McCanns too who had their own reasons for wanting to cover up her dimise???

In the US, MW would have ceased to exist, having succumbed to multi million dollar claims.

Not here, not a trace of a claim against them

And MW had already been investigated in 2005 for their nannies neglect of children in the Alps resort, plus a BBC documentary in April 2007 was filmed to be broadcast that exposed MW bad nanny practices in Egypt. Nothing has ever been said against MW in 5 years yet Maddie disappeared on their property...says so much to me. The only way out if MW were responsible for Maddies fate would be......Abduction scenario

Charlotte Pennington and Jez Wilkins were on the same flight as ROB/JT and MO/RO on April 28th

Now we have quite a list:
two compromised nannies,
no bracelets,
compromised creche sheets

And look at the behaviour of nanny cat baker and the mccanns. Cat Baker was so distraught she was offered counselling, sent away within 24 hours after giving her statement

The young nanny, described as 'fun and vivacious', has been deeply affected by Madeleine's disappearance, telling friends of nights without sleep and a complete loss of appetite.
Writing to one concerned friend nine days after Madeleine disappeared, she admitted: 'I was her nanny, so it's been tough for me, you wouldn't recognise me.
'It's hit me so hard I've hardly slept or eaten. My mum came to see me, but transferring me to "San Ag" has put me back at stage one as I am so stressed again.
'Love you loads, thanks for writing. I'm sorry I haven't been in touch, I have not been out of the house much.'

Cat Baker only knew of Maddie for a few days, I'd expect Maddie's nanny in the UK to feel maybe something like this as they had the time to build a relationship but in PDL the nanny only had a few days so its strange she has this reaction, especially as the abduction had absolutely nothing to do with her and in essence Maddie was just another child amongst many she has to look after in her job. I'd expect her to feel sad but not suicidal. To me she would only have this reaction if she felt guilty about something......

By contrast while nanny Cat was going through personal hell, the mccanns whom I would definitely expect to be feeling something like that.... were infact......
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Talk about chalk and cheese!...Its the wrong way round isn't it?

Here's a bit from Dr. Roberts: 'Bunkered' just to illustrate the creche record problem.
I think the virtual beach visit was on the 1st.


Mark Warner Nanny, Catriona Baker, gave a statement to the PJ on 10 May 2007, during which she told them that the only days they took the children to the beach were Tuesday afternoon (1 May 2007) between 15:30 and 16:30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock. (04-Processos, volume IV . Pgs. 870 to 873). She says nothing about any of the trips having been delayed or cancelled.

Which means the McCanns, having decided to take their children to the beach that afternoon for a change, delivered Madeleine back to an empty creche for the last hour and a half (commencing 3.45 p.m. approx.). Cat Baker will have left at least fifteen minutes earlier - for the beach. And the beach being no more than fifteen minutes walk away, the 'lobsters' should already have arrived on the sand before the McCanns had even set off for the creche. Did the two groups pass each other en route? Did the McCanns simply hand over the children there and then? 'Hi Cat! You can take over now. We'll just nip back and sign the registers an hour ago!'
unquote

And some more:

On the 2 May she is deposited, at 2.45 p.m. by Kate McCann, and collected later, at 5.30 p.m., by Kate Healy. Nothing strange in that you might think. As the author of 'Madeleine' explains, she didn't become Kate McCann until 4 May. Except of course that on each and every register she signed for the Mark Warner creche, beginning on April 30 (or possibly even April 29), she did so as K. McCann.unquote

Ribisl wrote:

tigger wrote:

Nina wrote:Are there any photographs where any of the children are wearing these bracelets? I cannot find one.

The only ones where we could see those would be on the black and white snaps from the camera card. Be hard to see.
Surely the other Tapas must have taken snaps of their children which weren't whooshed - or perhaps not.

It's not just the creche sheets, it's the bracelets as well.
MW's child minding services seems to have been rather slap dash. I still can't work out how listening is going to tell you all is well. Asinine.

Then Pennington arrived on the same day as the Tapas at MW. Cat Baker was invited to Rothley in November 08 and said to be their vital witness, so vital in fact that the McCanns arranged a hotel for her and told the press they were protecting her privacy - not exactly in those words.

Now we have quite a list:
two compromised nannies,
no bracelets,
compromised creche sheets
...?


I also see on the programme that there was a mini dance on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, so Maddie making an appointment on Wednesday evening to show her dance to mummy the following day doesn't wash.


5a should also have been festooned in collages, drawings, gloop things etcs. judging by the packed programme of the creche.

So if something did happen to Madeleine at the creche and she died as a result, MW would not only be held responsible but also would be at the risk of having their trade licence taken away and the owners possibly being charged. So they'd pull all the strings to save their own necks and the McCanns too who had their own reasons for wanting to cover up her dimise???

Continental law again: if anything happened to the child, by fault or default of MW's, MW would have been responsible/liable.

It is bewildering the McCs dis not hand in a claim against MW, for:

1. failing to advise them that PdL was a paedophile-abductor ridden environment;
2. despite this being the case: alotting them apartment 5a, ground level, open to any intrusion (paedo or otherwise);
3. on top of this: writing down the fact that the parents were boozing every nightfor anyone to see (lounge register) leaving paedo-prey baby children in their easily accessible ground floor accomodation;
4. failing to prevent their drinking every consecutive night, and so not preventing them from neglecting their babies being drunk every night;

and so on and so forth.

Funny, MW got of scot free. Wonder why.

Not a breath of scandal attaching to them.

Reminds me of a certain Italian cruise line, who, recently having hired a certain Clarence Mitchell, managed to spread the word that of a miriad of possible suspects/accomplices/responsibles, only just one dumb seaman -drunk, stoned or otherwise- was the guilty one.

Reminds me of a certain Italian cruise line, who, recently having hired a certain Clarence Mitchell, managed to spread the word that of a miriad of possible suspects/accomplices/responsibles, only just one dumb seaman -drunk, stoned or otherwise- was the guilty one.

Interesting that when authorities cover up they use the 'they were drunk' line!

Funny, MW got of scot free. Wonder why.

Not a breath of scandal attaching to them

.

Because they were pulling all the strings imo & got their people on board right from the start

Interview with Goncalo Amaral:

Q: Do you think the children were sedated?

A: There is no doubt.
(Here he told an anecdote: that Kate called a colleague of Gonçalo Amaral's in the PJ, in August, to ask them to check the twins for traces of sedation. Apparently Kate was alone when she called, and a bit upset. That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the request.)

Q: What do you think is the meaning of the blood behind the sofa?

A: Possibly from an attempt at resuscitation.

copied over from the thread " having met Dan in the car " where Kate's diary for 30th April was posted.

I still think this date is crucial in terms of what happened to Maddie.




Am going to copy this reply over to
April 30th info, it does not really belong here but when the diary entry
for this date was posted here I looked very closely at it...again.

There
is no obligation for anyone to itemise what they did with their
children during a holiday, but when one has vanished and when you claim
that you believe that child and your family were being observed prior to
" abduction", you will surely try to list the opportunities for such
observation.
Outside the creche then..unless you believe the
abductor to be a creche worker or someone obtaining info on the family
movements from that worker.

Maddie was outside the creche for 2
hours afternoon Monday April 30th, and outside of parental care for a
good portion of that time according to her mother's diary.
So who was caring for Maddie, what was she doing and where?

What
were the adult friends doing that afternoon? Was any one of them
available to mind Maddie, or were they all engaged in their activities?
If it was unusual for any of them to look after Maddie while her
parents were running or at tennis, [their usual daytime activities] that
person would surely remember the one occasion that he or she did this.

Am going to take a close look at what they all said they were doing on that afternoon.

Maddie
was absent from creche, so present elsewhere. Unless she had vanished
by that time, as has been discussed many times before.


p.s no time to read the RIs again now......will do so later and post. I am guessing that I will find that ROB wil be the one to have a hazy memory re Monday April 30th, but will have recalled in some details his other days' activiteis.

copying this over from the same topic re Dan in the car...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Yesterday at 11:47 pm
from bobbin's post

: Monday 30.04.07
Breakfast apartment? apartment cleaning
Kids clubs:
Tennis 09.15-10.15 K
G 10.15-11.15
*? washing machine / blinds
Lunch – our apartment then → balcony F and Dave
Kids club?? beach (note: was this the day Maddie came out after only 15 mins)
+ / – 16.00 K run 25 min.
16:30 Tennis lessons
High tea
18:30? tennis night for women
Recreational area
Afternoon: K and J Supermarket
Rest. – everyone

this was indeed the afternoon when Maddie left creche at 3.30, after
15 minutes, twins remained in theirs and there is no description of
activities in the book for the 2 hours until the tea time when McCann
children reunited.
Who was M with during this period? Kate talks of a
run starting 30 minutes after M signed out of creche. She then went
straight to a tennis lesson.
Then tennis lessons plural..for her and Gerry ? Sounds like it.
So who was supervising Maddie and where was she?
based on the above she was not with either parent for quite some time.

GERRY MCCANN.

FIRST STATEMENT

Speaks of arrival day 28th , then Sunday 29th April, ending with the following : "Towards 7.30/8 pm, the children were put to bed until the next morning, when the described routine described would start all over again.
The next day was 30th, a day when the routine he described about the 3 children returning to and remaining in creche until children's high tea was NOT REPEATED. This was when Maddie wa taken from creche after 15 minutes at 3.30 and spent at leat 90 minutes when her whereabouts, activities and whose care she was under is unknown.
Discussion then jumps to the daytime of 3rd May.

NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH APRIL.


SECOND STATEMENT MAY 07.
Matthew and Rachel absent from Millenium breakfast Sunday 29th, Mattthew ill overnight Sun.
On the following days they always took breakfast at home, shopping on the day before, generally maintaining the daily routine described above. When the children were at the crèches they had tennis classes, KATE at 09h15, the deponent an hour later, from Monday to Thursday.
Tuesday 1st spoken about in detail.
Thursday 3rd mentioned, no daytime details apart from crying incident.
evening of Wednesday 2nd mentioned,
back to 3rd, this time a lot of detail about daytime activities.

NO MENTION OF MON 30TH APRIL.



JANE TANNER. FIRST STATEMENT MAY 07.
Only speaks about activities 3rd May.

SECOND STATEMENT MAY 07
Sunday, 30 April, she met a couple she knew from Exeter, Jim [sic: James] and Charlotte Gorrod,
DATE CONFUSED.
Speaks in detail about 2nd.
clarifies previous details re 3rd.

NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH APRIL.



MATTHEW OLDFIELD.
FIRST STATEMENT
That since they arrived in Portugal, until last night, the days were all the same.
At lunchtime, the habit was to meet up in one of the apartments occupied by the group to have lunch there with the children. In the afternoon, the children have a sleep in their respective apartments under the supervision of an adult. The other adults do sporting activities within the complex. After their afternoon sleep, the children return to the "Kids Club."
He then speaks about 3rd May and closes with the following :

"That during the holiday, and notably during the day yesterday and during dinner, nothing appeared unusual to the interviewee. That there wasn't the slightest change in the behaviour of any of the group, notably in that of Kate or Gerry and their respective children. "
SO NO INDICATION FROM MO THAT MADDIE WAS EVER OUT OF HER CRECHE ROUTINE ON ANY DAY.
NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH.

SECOND STATEMENT.
in conversation with David Payne on a date he does not recall with certainty but likely to have been on 7 or 8 May, he [David Payne] confided in him that that, at that time, Kate Healy had been particularly reluctant about coming to Portugal because she had had a bad feeling [premonition] about the children of the group and the non-existence of the "baby sitting" service.
29th, ref made to first tapas meal
30th morning.tapas reservation for rest of their stay made.
he recalls that the three had had intestinal problems: he on 28 April; from memory, his wife on 30 April or 1 May, and his daughter on 7 May.
ALL VERY GENERAL RE UNCHANGING ROUTINES; ONLY MENTION OF 30TH IS RE TAPAS RESERVATION.



KATE MCCANN.
Speaks of 28th [arrival day ], reports exactly like Gerry that between then and 3rd noticed nothing unusual apart from Maddie saying May 3rd morning that she had cried for them previous night.
Speaks in detail of activities Sunday 29th.
As did Gerry, she closes the account of the 29th with the following :
" At around 8pm, the children were put to bed until the following morning, when the described routine started all over again. "
KATE WAS THE PERSON WHO CHANGED THE DESCRIBED ROUTINE THE NEXT DAY, A DAY WHICH SHOULD STICK IN HER MEMORY AS IT WAS THE ONLY DAY MADDIE WAS PICKED UP EARLY FROM HER AFTERNOON CRECHE SESSION.
Kate then jumps as did Gerry to 3rd, giving the impression that details not required as routines repeated daily, when creche record shows that this was NOT the case.
NO SECOND STATEMENT TAKEN



DAVID PAYNE.

Concerning the days spent in Portugal, the interviewee describes them as being all very much the same.
He states that his family, composed of his mother-in-law Diane, his wife Fiona and their two children, spent their days more independently than other members of the group. They were most often with the couple Russell and Jane.
The couple Gerry and Kate had breakfast in the apartment. It was usual to have dinner together every night. With the exception of Saturday, when they all dined at the, "Millennium," restaurant,
Then speaks solely about 3rd, no details of activities for any particular day since arrival.
NO SECOND STATEMENT TAKEN.

FIONA PAYNE.
Speaks of arrival day, 28th, what apartment allocated.
Like her husband, speaks of routine following days, no particular days described.
Then like her hisband speaks solely of 3rd.
NO SECOND STATEMENT TAKEN.


RACHEL M/ OLDFIELD.
FIRST STATEMENT.
Speaks of nothing apart from general daily routines. Since their arrival until yesterday evening, when Madeleine disappeared, the days have all been the same.
Then speaks solely about 3rd.

SECOND STATEMENT.
Speaks only of 3rd, apart from " Questioned, she said that on the day they arrived, her husband Matthew felt sick with diarrhoea and vomiting, a situation that lasted until Sunday morning. Furthermore, on Wednesday, in the early morning, she also felt sick with the same symptoms."


NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH.



DIANNE WEBSTER
FIRST STATEMENT
Mentions arrival day then describes her general routines up until 3rd.

SECOND STATEMENT.
[color:046d=000000]on
May 2, the eve of disappearance of Madeleine she had taken her
breakfast in the "Millennium"
restaurant, since it was
raining that day and she did not have an opportunity to partake in the
morning sports.
daily routines spoken about in general.
asked for and only gives details of events after 7pm 3rd.

NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH.



RUSSELL O'BRIEN.
FIRST STATEMENT.
The informant completely corroborates the statements by his partner Jane Tanner and Rachael Mampilly

Until yesterday, May 3rd 2007, he has no knowledge of anything suspicious or strange happening around the group of friends or their children.
jumps straight to detail of 3rd as days followed a set routine.

SECOND STATEMENT.
Questioned regarding his routine during the holidays, he confirms in all of his previous declarations and that his version is absolutely in line with his companion's Jane Tanner.

• He made note of the activities on the 3rd of May This note consists of all the facts presented, of his activities and those of the group. They are in accordance with the version already represented by his wife, Jane Tanner.
Speaks of evening 3rd
Mentions discussion with Nigel on tennis court re discomfort of taking photos of children due to issues surrounding paedophilia issues in media.
NO MENTION OF MONDAY 30TH APRIL.

KATE MCCANN, GERRY McCANN, MATTHEW OLDFIELD, DAVID PAYNE DO NOT SPEAK AT ALL ABOUT DAYTIME 3RD MAY. FIONA PAYNE SKIMS OVER DAYTIME 3RD.

The whole week is really vague, we had this debate about Gerry having time to play Golf which I think personally he did, others said there wasn't time but to me the timeline for the week is so vague there is plenty of time

Mrs Fenn's niece also stated there was a celebration around the pool Sunday or Thursday, she can't remember but only visited her aunt Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday and knows it wasn't the Tuesday - I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else, I don't know if anybody else has?

Dr. Roberts: mcCannfiles.com.
(the illustrations don't copy with the text so perhaps better to read on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By Dr Martin Roberts
25 February 2013

TIME AND TIDE

Gerry McCann announced before the recent Leveson enquiry, "I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech...I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory..."

Perhaps then it is time, at last, to do a little, perfectly admissible 'purporting.'

Time, the 'grim reaper,' takes its inevitable toll in many ways, not the least of which being of one's memory. And, in that particular context, it does not take weeks, months, or years over doing so.



Lobsters' schedule for the week of Madeleine's stay
The McCanns have, not infrequently, been cavalier with time itself, their various accounts of seemingly unimportant incidents during their week in Praia da Luz dragging events, in a largely forward direction, away from their actual point of occurrence. To give but one example, Kate McCann, in her only book to date, makes wholly unequivocal reference to her own photography of daughter Madeleine during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday morning, when it is perfectly clear from the Ocean Club's printed schedule that said mini-tennis took place on the Monday morning. Were it an isolated case one might be prepared to accept this as a one-off error in recall. Unfortunately it is neither.

KM (Statement to police, 6.9.07):

'When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on Tuesday night for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45 p.m., she says that is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, so she stayed to sleep with her and Gerry in their bedroom. She says that before Madeleine appeared in her bedroom, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine came into the room almost at the same time she heard the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she, or Gerry, went to the children's room, however she asserts that Amelie cried for a short time.'

KM (in 'Madeleine,' p.59):

"...some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us."

After four months Kate McCann was unable to recall whether either of the parents (both present) looked in on their younger daughter. After four years, she writes, without hesitation, that Gerry did so. That in itself is an impossible cognitive development. But then one has to take husband Gerry's account of the incident into consideration, an account which he gave to police on 10 May, i.e. no more than a week after the pair announced their daughter was missing. From Gerry's re-telling one gets the impression he was not even there:

"He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom, with KATE, as she had told him that one or both twins were crying, making much noise."

Kate McCann's experience of her husband's presence and behaviour that Tuesday night appears to have been illusory. But it would seem that the McCanns were not alone in not knowing whether they were coming or going.

Anomalies in the creche records, extending back in time from May 3, 2007, have previously been examined (see: Seventeen Come Sunday/It Never Rains, McCannFiles October 2012). They include one R. O'Brien being somewhat uncertain of their apartment's location. From May 2nd he/they would appear to have made up their mind(s), but, judging from their earlier indications, the decision cannot have been an easy one to make.




Lobsters' attendance record, Monday 30 April 2007
On the Sunday afternoon Ella O'Brien was staying in apartment G5D. The very next morning (30th April) she was staying in 5B, while, in the afternoon, none other than R. O'Brien himself attended the creche, though normally resident in 5D. The following morning (Tuesday 1 May) Emma (afterwards amended to Ella) O'Brien was back in 5B. She must really have liked it there, because it was her given address that afternoon also. And it would have been again on the Wednesday morning (2 May) had someone not altered it to read G5D where she remains for the afternoon and throughout Thursday.

How very odd.

Equally strange, and with particular reference to timing, is a pair of entries made in the creche register for May 2.

Judging from the various scripts used to write down the children's names, this aspect (the role, if you will) was not pre-recorded by the nanny or nannies on duty that day. Rather the complete entry, i.e. name, room number, parent's location, time and signature would have been the responsibility of the parent/guardian in question. Like completing a visitor's book really. Adopting just that analogy, if we think of entry number five being made on a given date, and at a given time, then entry number six, which follows it, cannot usually be made any earlier. Uness we are considering attendance at the Ocean Club creche where, on the morning of Tuesday May 2, the registration of Jessica Berry and Ella O'Brien at 9.30 a.m. is followed by that of Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann – ten minutes earlier, at 9.20. (All other arrivals recorded that week are perfectly sequential).

And so to theorizing.

Pursuant upon earlier discussion (2012), one might reasonably conclude that Madeleine may not in fact have attended the 'Lobsters' creche between Tuesday 1 and Thursday 3 May at all, despite written entries in the register to the contrary, apparently. Such a line of reasoning must however provoke the question of why anyone should elect to falsify such a record, if not to conceal the fact. Well (and here's where a little 'left field' purporting comes in), the answer might well reside in why that same register was possibly in error even on the afternoon of Monday 30th.

Despite the McCanns accent on routine, at the time and since, they seem no sooner to have established one on the Sunday than they deviated from it the very next day. Whereas all of the children were re-submitted to their specific clubs after lunch on the Sunday, Madeleine rejoining the Lobsters at 2.45 p.m. (accompanied by Gerry, whilst Kate delivered the twins elsewhere ten minutes earlier), on the Monday afternoon Madeleine arrived fully half-an-hour later at the Lobsters, in the company of her mother, who, after proceeding to drop off the twins once more, returned to extract Madeleine again barely fifteen minutes after her arrival (in at 3.15 p.m. out at 3.30 p.m.). That's what the register tells us.

There can be only two perspectives on the movement of children into and out of a playgroup, that of the parents on the one hand and the facility on the other. If Madeleine were required for some significant purpose shortly after 3.30 p.m. that Monday, then why deposit her at the creche at all? For the sake of fifteen minutes she could more easily have remained with one or other parent or temporary minder, as the kids' club was not exactly en route to the younger group's location. If however staff at the kids' club thought it expedient to request Madeleine's urgent removal for whatever reason, then this eventuality would later have been reflected, surely, in one or other statement given by those staff concerned. It is not.

The only two sensible explanations for Madeleine McCann's extraordinarily brief sojourn at the Mark Warner kids' club that Monday afternoon can therefore be discounted.

Which means that the true explanation is an unusual one.

Did not Kate McCann once intone, "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."?

Meaning, indubitably, that something happened at a time when the children were not asleep, i.e. in the daytime (and they didn't do afternoon naps but played instead).

So what might have happened that Monday lunchtime to make Madeleine and her twin siblings unexpectedly late for their afternoon playgroup sessions, when Gerry was clearly unable to share in their delivery (it fell to Kate to go in both directions)? And did Madeleine really make the journey? Or was her name simply entered, first for appearances sake, and then, very shortly afterwards, to avoid a noticeable absence?

As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

Well he doesn't appear to have helped out with the children that Monday afternoon, that's for sure.

Thank you for posting this Tigger, I was not aware that he had written anything in recent days. Have spent my time reading and re- reading
the statements and RIs. Plus looking at the phone and creche records, cross referencing is a chore.
When I read the book I was very puzzled why when there is so much tedious detail about routines, Kate had not chosen for a change in the narrative to devote some words to when things were done differently. May 2nd according to her book and the group's various statements is another very vague day..when something was going on, however for me the fact that there is almost universal silence from the group re- 30th is the big red flag. So many " can't really remember what I did that day ", and " would have done..." rather than DID any particular thing.

At face value looking at creche sheets and going with rolodog's theory on the " Having met Dan in the car " topic, one might be forgiven for thinking Maddie was removed from creche after a mishap. 30th p.m, the gravity of her injury underestimated even by doctors, and she deteriorated and ultimately died. I have a problem with this because rolodog iirc beleives Maddie died late on 1st , I can't imagine an injury which would have seen a little girl remain stable for 36 hours and then have a sudden turn for the worse which quickly resulted in death, though I am not a doctor of course.....I would think that someone supervising her at OC would have noticed some change at some stage post- injury, and alerted medical services for her to be checked.
Also the creche records show anomalies from the day before, 29th, with Gerry not just signing in the Naylor girl but also signing Robert Naylor's name instead of his own.
Regarding the McCann/ Naylor signings, if you look closely at the creche sheet and compare to Gerry's style of writing capital letters, there is the same little flick at the start of writing the A, the same horizontal of the L slanting upwards, the same last stroke of the N and the same way of writing the R where the loop does not join the vertical. Add to that some of ROB entries for Ella, wrote Emma, wrote wrong apartment , and some signatures look forged.

The main issue for me though is both Kate and Gerry saying in their signed statements, that following Sunday 29th actvities, bed and next morning routine began all over again.
The next day was the ONLY day Maddie did not spend what would become her regular am and pm attendance at creche. It was Kate who signed her out........how, why would she then state that the routine was the same as the Sunday?

Have not finished going through all the RIs but statements soon after May 3rd do not show any of the group mentioning 30th apart from a couple of brief allusions to the tapas booking and one being ill, none mention minding Maddie the afternoon 30th. There was a time when Kate was running after signing Maddie out, and there was another activity mentioned that afternoon before children's tea.......so who was caring for Maddie ? What on earth was going on?

from Dr M Roberts : my bolded.


TIME AND TIDE

Gerry McCann announced before the recent Leveson enquiry, "I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech...I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory..."

Perhaps then it is time, at last, to do a little, perfectly admissible 'purporting.'

Time, the 'grim reaper,' takes its inevitable toll in many ways, not the least of which being of one's memory. And, in that particular context, it does not take weeks, months, or years over doing so.



Lobsters' schedule for the week of Madeleine's stay
The McCanns have, not infrequently, been cavalier with time itself, their various accounts of seemingly unimportant incidents during their week in Praia da Luz dragging events, in a largely forward direction, away from their actual point of occurrence. To give but one example, Kate McCann, in her only book to date, makes wholly unequivocal reference to her own photography of daughter Madeleine during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday morning, when it is perfectly clear from the Ocean Club's printed schedule that said mini-tennis took place on the Monday morning. Were it an isolated case one might be prepared to accept this as a one-off error in recall. Unfortunately it is neither.

KM (Statement to police, 6.9.07):

'When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on Tuesday night for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45 p.m., she says that is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, so she stayed to sleep with her and Gerry in their bedroom. She says that before Madeleine appeared in her bedroom, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine came into the room almost at the same time she heard the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she, or Gerry, went to the children's room, however she asserts that Amelie cried for a short time.'

KM (in 'Madeleine,' p.59):

"...some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us."

After four months Kate McCann was unable to recall whether either of the parents (both present) looked in on their younger daughter. After four years, she writes, without hesitation, that Gerry did so. That in itself is an impossible cognitive development. But then one has to take husband Gerry's account of the incident into consideration, an account which he gave to police on 10 May, i.e. no more than a week after the pair announced their daughter was missing. From Gerry's re-telling one gets the impression he was not even there:

"He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom, with KATE, as she had told him that one or both twins were crying, making much noise."

Kate McCann's experience of her husband's presence and behaviour that Tuesday night appears to have been illusory. But it would seem that the McCanns were not alone in not knowing whether they were coming or going.

Anomalies in the creche records, extending back in time from May 3, 2007, have previously been examined (see: Seventeen Come Sunday/It Never Rains, McCannFiles October 2012). They include one R. O'Brien being somewhat uncertain of their apartment's location. From May 2nd he/they would appear to have made up their mind(s), but, judging from their earlier indications, the decision cannot have been an easy one to make.




Lobsters' attendance record, Monday 30 April 2007
On the Sunday afternoon Ella O'Brien was staying in apartment G5D. The very next morning (30th April) she was staying in 5B, while, in the afternoon, none other than R. O'Brien himself attended the creche, though normally resident in 5D. The following morning (Tuesday 1 May) Emma (afterwards amended to Ella) O'Brien was back in 5B. She must really have liked it there, because it was her given address that afternoon also. And it would have been again on the Wednesday morning (2 May) had someone not altered it to read G5D where she remains for the afternoon and throughout Thursday.

How very odd.

Equally strange, and with particular reference to timing, is a pair of entries made in the creche register for May 2.

Judging from the various scripts used to write down the children's names, this aspect (the role, if you will) was not pre-recorded by the nanny or nannies on duty that day. Rather the complete entry, i.e. name, room number, parent's location, time and signature would have been the responsibility of the parent/guardian in question. Like completing a visitor's book really. Adopting just that analogy, if we think of entry number five being made on a given date, and at a given time, then entry number six, which follows it, cannot usually be made any earlier. Uness we are considering attendance at the Ocean Club creche where, on the morning of Tuesday May 2, the registration of Jessica Berry and Ella O'Brien at 9.30 a.m. is followed by that of Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann – ten minutes earlier, at 9.20. (All other arrivals recorded that week are perfectly sequential).

And so to theorizing.

Pursuant upon earlier discussion (2012), one might reasonably conclude that Madeleine may not in fact have attended the 'Lobsters' creche between Tuesday 1 and Thursday 3 May at all, despite written entries in the register to the contrary, apparently. Such a line of reasoning must however provoke the question of why anyone should elect to falsify such a record, if not to conceal the fact. Well (and here's where a little 'left field' purporting comes in), the answer might well reside in why that same register was possibly in error even on the afternoon of Monday 30th.

Despite the McCanns accent on routine, at the time and since, they seem no sooner to have established one on the Sunday than they deviated from it the very next day. Whereas all of the children were re-submitted to their specific clubs after lunch on the Sunday, Madeleine rejoining the Lobsters at 2.45 p.m. (accompanied by Gerry, whilst Kate delivered the twins elsewhere ten minutes earlier), on the Monday afternoon Madeleine arrived fully half-an-hour later at the Lobsters, in the company of her mother, who, after proceeding to drop off the twins once more, returned to extract Madeleine again barely fifteen minutes after her arrival (in at 3.15 p.m. out at 3.30 p.m.). That's what the register tells us.

There can be only two perspectives on the movement of children into and out of a playgroup, that of the parents on the one hand and the facility on the other. If Madeleine were required for some significant purpose shortly after 3.30 p.m. that Monday, then why deposit her at the creche at all? For the sake of fifteen minutes she could more easily have remained with one or other parent or temporary minder, as the kids' club was not exactly en route to the younger group's location. If however staff at the kids' club thought it expedient to request Madeleine's urgent removal for whatever reason, then this eventuality would later have been reflected, surely, in one or other statement given by those staff concerned. It is not.

The only two sensible explanations for Madeleine McCann's extraordinarily brief sojourn at the Mark Warner kids' club that Monday afternoon can therefore be discounted.

Which means that the true explanation is an unusual one.

Did not Kate McCann once intone, "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."?

Meaning, indubitably, that something happened at a time when the children were not asleep, i.e. in the daytime (and they didn't do afternoon naps but played instead).

So what might have happened that Monday lunchtime to make Madeleine and her twin siblings unexpectedly late for their afternoon playgroup sessions, when Gerry was clearly unable to share in their delivery (it fell to Kate to go in both directions)? And did Madeleine really make the journey? Or was her name simply entered, first for appearances sake, and then, very shortly afterwards, to avoid a noticeable absence?

As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

Well he doesn't appear to have helped out with the children that Monday afternoon, that's for sure.

Yes, you were the first I thought about when I read that.

Now we may disregard her presence in the creche on the 30th as an 'erroneous' signing in - deliver the twins to their creche - come back, and sign her out without ever having delivered a child in that time. Simple enough. 'Sorry - forgot we're going out' sort of thing.
Which now takes us back to the 29th - what do those creche records look like? Because if she wasn't there as from the 30th - was is Maddie on that day or which Nanny would have been there on that day. In other words, was it possible to sign in another child or failing that, would a Nanny on the 1st (we can scrap the 30th) have known a difference if it was another child than the one who attended on the 29th?
And as you say: Also the creche records show anomalies from the day before, 29th, with Gerry not just signing in the Naylor girl but also signing Robert Naylor's name instead of his own.
We're then looking at only 3 days of fudging. I think she was never at the creche at all.

An accident in the creche seems very unlikely. Imo there needed to be an abduction to get the desired results. It didn't come off in the long run but that's another story.

My only problem with something happening earlier is that GA is adamant that M was last seen on the 3 May at 17.30 by an independent witness

I know you'll probably say that it was the substitute that was seen but I'm sure GA would have looked at these options

I am not convinced that you would need a sub to sign a non- attender into creche.......will say why later, things to do !

sally66 wrote:My only problem with something happening earlier is that GA is adamant that M was last seen on the 3 May at 17.30 by an independent witness

I know you'll probably say that it was the substitute that was seen but I'm sure GA would have looked at these options

GA had to go with what he could prove - I don't think he believed David Payne who only made a statement regarding this after Amaral had asked the McCanns about a 6 hour gap when no one had seen Maddie except her parents. I think Dr. Roberts has written A Payne in the Glass - you'd have to look on McCannfiles for that.
He also didn't believe the McCanns or the T7, but they gave statements and signed these. As good as being under oath. They got out of committing perjury as there was no court case.

It's quite possible that the PJ doesn't believe Maddie was alive earlier in the week. They have to get a conviction. Everything we are 'purporting' here is well reasoned but it won't stand up in court. That's the job of the police - to provide proof. Not circumstantial evidence.

GA stressed time and time again that his book was to clear his name and all information was from official records (in interviews he has hinted at other evidence which was not published).

Thank you for the replies, this is another area that has always bugged me, that the weeks timeline is such a shambles yet GA insists 3 May 17:30 last sighting

Could all the confusion be about hiding what they were really doing rather than that something had happened to M earlier?

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

I noticed there is little about the phone calls on the 30th.

I'm no good at getting the coloured graphs across so here is the reference. mostly on page 7.

Kate has one call on the 28th. None on 29th or 30th. On May the first all hell breaks loose. Calls in the morning finishing with 6 in quick succession just before the crying starts.
Kiko thinks it's highly unlikely that 48 hours of silence followed by this activity means that something happened on the 1st of May. Why the 48 hours of silence?

The 30th is glossed over in many way, there are a number of posts on the above thread about 30th april.
The trip to the supermarket arouses my curiosity. JT thinks she can remember it.

Two more to do with JT - an injury to her daughter's foot which she skips over and she once mentioned her daughter threw a tantrum. Hmm.
30th is the day imo. Emergency starting on the night of the 29th?

I will need help from a bi-lingual Portuguese/English person for what has been a long term query for me.
In Goncalo Amaral's original writing where we read it as if he states that Maddie 'died' on 3rd May, can there be a clarification in translation that changes the meaning a bit?
Does he say 'she died' i.e. this was the date until which she had been alive, but had stopped 'being alive', on 3rd May.
Or does he say 'on the 3rd May, Maddie was dead' therefore she could not have walked and wandered, nor have been abducted as a 'live' child, but her 'dead body' would have been removed since it was not in the apartment (and later of course, the infallible dogs signalled cadavour and blood which was shown to be Maddie's).
The reason I ask this is because, Portuguese/ Spanish/Italian/French are basically 'Latin' based languages.
In French, 'elle est morte', can be either she 'died' and she 'is dead'. 'Mort' actually means 'still' i.e. 'without movement' and hence the meaning 'dead'.
In Anglo/Germanic language, we have 'sie starb' =she died, and 'sie ist tod' =she is dead. So we make a distinction.
What is the Portuguese equivalent?
The point is, Goncalo Amaral could well be saying that the investigation felt at the time that there appeared to be a credible witness to Maddie's live presence at 5.30, but that in spite of that, she was nevertheless dead, on the evening of May 3rd, i.e. a Live Maddie, was not to be found.
Here he would not need to be specifying if HE has/had any thoughts that she could have died at any day or time previously.
There could be two separate facts in the statement.
1. The investigators felt that a witness seemed to be credible at the time of his writing.
2. That she was not alive on the evening of 3rd May, hence a 'live' child was not abducted.
We are reading it as if Goncalo is saying that she died on 3rd May, when in fact he might be saying that she was 'dead' on 3rd May.
Who is that bi-lingual person, please, who can help here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I've always thought that GA and the PJ in general went with what they could take to court. I believe that happens quite often in criminal cases.

Some crimes can never be proved so one has to go with what will stick. There were so many people involved bearing false witness, that it would be impossible to sort out.
Besides that, they were pressed by their own superiors who were in turn pressed by GB and associates - (btw. would you trust Socrates further than you could throw him?). It GB hadn't intervened and don't forget they weren't out of the woods in September - it took almost a year of manipulation and downright perverting the course of justice before they were free of arguido status, before the press was gagged.

The documents held back by the PJ are interesting, telephone records, creche sheets. etc. Dr. Amaral is a very intelligent man - left alone to do his job, he'd have nailed the whole thing, I'm sure. He wasn't sacked because he was incompetent but because he was far too good at his job.

The telephone records are non-existent for the 30th and the 1st, just one call each for Kate (the Swansea one I believe and in the context of assuming that date was the crucial one - see the Swansea connection topic) and one for Gerry.

The late afternoon/evening was the pointlessly mentioned trip to the supermarket with JT. Cleaning materials?

Nice post tigger

parapono

tigger wrote:I've always thought that GA and the PJ in general went with what they could take to court. I believe that happens quite often in criminal cases.

Some crimes can never be proved so one has to go with what will stick. There were so many people involved bearing false witness, that it would be impossible to sort out.
Besides that, they were pressed by their own superiors who were in turn pressed by GB and associates - (btw. would you trust Socrates further than you could throw him?). It GB hadn't intervened and don't forget they weren't out of the woods in September - it took almost a year of manipulation and downright perverting the course of justice before they were free of arguido status, before the press was gagged.

The documents held back by the PJ are interesting, telephone records, creche sheets. etc. Dr. Amaral is a very intelligent man - left alone to do his job, he'd have nailed the whole thing, I'm sure. He wasn't sacked because he was incompetent but because he was far too good at his job.

The telephone records are non-existent for the 30th and the 1st, just one call each for Kate (the Swansea one I believe and in the context of assuming that date was the crucial one - see the Swansea connection topic) and one for Gerry.

The late afternoon/evening was the pointlessly mentioned trip to the supermarket with JT. Cleaning materials?

Thanks tigger, I think this helps then to put Goncalo's '3rd May' comment, that Maddie 'died on 3rd' into perspective.
We have done so much analysis and come up with a date(s) that does not concur with the possibilities on 3rd, and yet we know Goncalo knows so much more, so much is held back.
As he has shown himself to be such an upright man, one who speaks the honest truth, we had a conflict in our minds as to how to make the 3rd fit.
I am content that it was either a nuance of the 'translation' issue, or was what was necessary at the time, based on information presented, to get the arguidos status lifted.
More has followed however, because Goncalo would not be silenced, nor would those ordinary members of the public who have followed this case and delivered analysis which, I guarantee, the McCanns in their narcissistic arrogance, never imagined would come from so many untold corners of the world, via the internet, to show their inconsistencies up for what they are, 'compound lies'.

re bobbin's question about Portuguese grammar.

1. When used adjectively with ser or estar, "morto" means "dead"; when used
passively with "ser" or actively with "ter", it means "killed".
(text taken literally from an English course on Portuguese)

So,
the correct translation of "he is dead (is deseased)" would be what?
Está morto? Ou É morto? Or can one say both in Portuguese with the same
meaning?
Clearly "being dead" is an irreversable state, which would account for "ser". However, I've read "Está morto" also.

Beware,
"ser" with the pretérito passado is used in the passive tense, as in
"ele foi morto por um inimigo - he was killed by an enemy"...
However, to circumvent that particular "problem", the sentence "He is dead" is being translated as "Está morto"?
(although
- according to the "general" rules - it would be more obvious (obvious
to us, poor non-portuguese that is, trying to understand why/which...
;-))) to translate it as "Ele é morto", being a characteristic, an
irreversable state even)

A question for a native Portuguese to answer, I guess...



2. I'm not a native Portuguese speaker, but it seems to me that, upon
finding someone dead, you'll say Está morto!. He does not move, has no
vital signs, you realize he's dead, so you exclaim Está morto! But if
somebody asks about your father and he's been dead for a long time, you
would answer 'é morto". Am I right?


3. I'm a native speaker and the correct way is "Está morto!".

4. "é morto" it wrongly said, the correct way would be "morreu", " o meu
pai morreu" (my dad has died) or "ele morreu" (he died), "está morto hà
alguns anos" ( it is dead for some years), "morreu hà alguns anos" (died
some years ago).


what did GA write in the original Portuguese? Am looking, can't find ......

russiandoll wrote:re bobbin's question about Portuguese grammar.

1. When used adjectively with ser or estar, "morto" means "dead"; when used
passively with "ser" or actively with "ter", it means "killed".
(text taken literally from an English course on Portuguese)

So,
the correct translation of "he is dead (is deseased)" would be what?
Está morto? Ou É morto? Or can one say both in Portuguese with the same
meaning?
Clearly "being dead" is an irreversable state, which would account for "ser". However, I've read "Está morto" also.

Beware,
"ser" with the pretérito passado is used in the passive tense, as in
"ele foi morto por um inimigo - he was killed by an enemy"...
However, to circumvent that particular "problem", the sentence "He is dead" is being translated as "Está morto"?
(although
- according to the "general" rules - it would be more obvious (obvious
to us, poor non-portuguese that is, trying to understand why/which...
;-))) to translate it as "Ele é morto", being a characteristic, an
irreversable state even)

A question for a native Portuguese to answer, I guess...



2. I'm not a native Portuguese speaker, but it seems to me that, upon
finding someone dead, you'll say Está morto!. He does not move, has no
vital signs, you realize he's dead, so you exclaim Está morto! But if
somebody asks about your father and he's been dead for a long time, you
would answer 'é morto". Am I right?


3. I'm a native speaker and the correct way is "Está morto!".

4. "é morto" it wrongly said, the correct way would be "morreu", " o meu
pai morreu" (my dad has died) or "ele morreu" (he died), "está morto hà
alguns anos" ( it is dead for some years), "morreu hà alguns anos" (died
some years ago).


what did GA write in the original Portuguese? Am looking, can't find ......

very interesting work there russiandoll, thank you, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]and it highlights a difference in expression.
With the active verb form now identified as 'morreu' I can now see that Portuguese permits the word 'to actually die' as opposed to being 'already dead'.
To die = verb, wheras to be dead =adjective.
I too am searching for the original and have failed so far.
I think it will be interesting to know the nuance of what Goncalo might have actually intended.

I've copied some posts from another topic here because they are very relevant here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:46 am




Someone asked for info as to what Kate wrote in her book about her activities on this date.
Very interesting. as you would expect, a lot written about 28th [ 4 pages approx] when the family travelled and about their first full day in PDL , 29th April [approx 6 pages]
It then looks like there will be a brief summary of days to come as following a predictable pattern due to the fact she and Gerry liked a routine [ 1 page].... as if the next thing you might read after a brief outline of activities will be a fuller description of the notorious date, May 3rd.
This does not happen , however, there is a fair amount of detail for May 1and 2,[ 5 pages] and then as expected an entire chapter is devoted to the fateful day.
What sticks out like a sore thumb is that she writes NOTHING about the daytime activities of 30th April.
The following is all that the reader learns:

" On the evening of Monday 30 April I made my first foray to Baptista with Jane." [ref to trip to local supermarket]. "We wanted to stock up on a few essentials as the next day was a public holiday. We all managed to make it for dinner at the tapas restaurant that evening. Again , there was quite a cold wind , but there were plenty of amusing stories and mickey-taking to keep us cheerful."
There is a brief mention of the cleaner and her routine for the apartment and then it's straight on to May 1st.

Borrowed the book from local library, a most interesting read and as far as I am concerned, her silence about April 30th speaks volumes.
It is imo a significant date.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:33 am




" On the evening of Monday 30 April I made my first foray to Baptista with Jane." [ref to trip to local supermarket]. "We wanted to stock up on a few essentials as the next day was a public holiday. We all managed to make it for dinner at the tapas restaurant that evening. Again , there was quite a cold wind , but there were plenty of amusing stories and mickey-taking to keep us cheerful."


Cleaning materials perhaps?

• 
  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Guest on Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:21 pm




" On the evening of Monday 30 April I made my first foray to Baptista with Jane."

I too thought this comment was really strange. Kate told us that the Millennium was to far away for breakfast and that every day they would have lunch in their apartment. So where did all those groceries come from?

lunch on the 29th & 30th, breakfast on the 30th [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:38 pm




Kate says that Gerry went to this supermarket 29th April to get a few items for lunch and cereal so that they could have breakfast from then on in their apartment. So breakfast in 5a from 30th onwards.

What really struck me as bizarre was Kate's reasonably full account of ALL days apart from 30th April.

28th when they only spent part of daytime hours there due to travel : 3+ pages

29th : 6+ pages

May 1: 2+ pages

May 2: 2 pages.

zero.....nada...nul....NOTHING ABOUT A FULL DAY SPENT IN PDL 30 APRIL AND THEN ONLY A BRIEF REF TO SUPERMARKET AND EVENING MEAL AT TAPAS.


Maybe just me ,but it makes the date 30 April very significant. Why the almost total silence over this date when she has described all others in varying amounts of detail. Fair enough if all other days after 29th merged together because of the routine of their activities.....but she does not do this in her book and then jump to 3 May. That would not be so remarkable. The fact that this is the ONLY day she chooses not to record at all apart from 2 brief references to shopping and eating, makes it a stand-out issue .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
russiandoll
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:50 pm




As the supermarket trip took place evening 30th April and tapas meal was later on that evening.....Kate Mc Cann chooses to SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the activities of herself, her husband, her companions and her 3 children during daytime of 30th April.
ONLY 6 LINES written about 30th April when there are approx 16 PAGES devoted to writing about the holiday from 28th April until May 2nd.

The last we read of 29th is that she and Gerry were back in 5a at 11pm after their tapas meal.
No record of any activities until evening of 30th.
So an unusual day it would seem reasonable to conclude.
Any ideas why?[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:51 pm

Newintown wrote:" On the evening of Monday 30 April I made my first foray to Baptista with Jane." [ref to trip to local supermarket]. "We wanted to stock up on a few essentials as the next day was a public holiday. We all managed to make it for dinner at the tapas restaurant that evening. Again , there was quite a cold wind , but there were plenty of amusing stories and mickey-taking to keep us cheerful."


Cleaning materials perhaps??

Separate toothbrushes for the children weren't essential though. I would imagine the baptista store sold them?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
unquote (all from the Tapas phone autopsy)