Re: Could Something Have Happened to Madeleine Earlier in the Week?

by jd 06.01.12 0:52

PeterMac wrote: And if we follow that line, this may be why Jez and Gerry, "assuming" they were where they said they were, paid absolutely no attention to a man carrying a small child wrapped in a blanket.
When I say 'paid no attention' I mean in the sense that their brains simply did not register what they were seeing, just as you do not register every car that passes along a road. It is so normal that although you may actually have seen, your brain does not 'notice'.
It does not explain why they allegedly did not notice JT, since that would be out of the ordinary, especially for Jez.

But either way, as you observe, it effectively neutralises and renders nugatory JT's alleged sighting, and puts Katie back to square 1.
There is now even less "evidence" of an abduction than there was. Less than nothing.
Which must mean that almost any other explanation, for which there is even the slightest evidence, will take priority.

Bang on the money!

by aiyoyo 06.01.12 1:42

jd wrote: And if we follow that line, this may be why Jez and Gerry, "assuming" they were where they said they were, paid absolutely no attention to a man carrying a small child wrapped in a blanket.
When I say 'paid no attention' I mean in the sense that their brains simply did not register what they were seeing, just as you do not register every car that passes along a road. It is so normal that although you may actually have seen, your brain does not 'notice'.
It does not explain why they allegedly did not notice JT, since that would be out of the ordinary, especially for Jez.

But either way, as you observe, it effectively neutralises and renders nugatory JT's alleged sighting, and puts Katie back to square 1.
There is now even less "evidence" of an abduction than there was. Less than nothing.
Which must mean that almost any other explanation, for which there is even the slightest evidence, will take priority.

Surely the Police must have figured that out as well. I wonder what they are sitting on that is kept under lock and key.

by **PeterMac** 06.01.12 9:05

aiyoyo wrote:
Surely the Police must have figured that out as well. I wonder what they are sitting on that is kept under lock and key.

If there was an evening creche, there must have been records. There MUST have been a decent signing OUT procedure. Otherwise .... !
The PJ may know exactly who the alleged bundleman was, (and indeed who all the other bundle-people were), and have TIE'd him very early on (Traced, Interviewed, and Eliminated).

by aiyoyo 06.01.12 10:23

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Surely the Police must have figured that out as well. I wonder what they are sitting on that is kept under lock and key.
If there was an evening creche, there must have been records. There MUST have been a decent signing OUT procedure. Otherwise .... !
The PJ may know exactly who the alleged bundleman was, (and indeed who all the other bundle-people were), and have TIE'd him very early on (Traced, Interviewed, and Eliminated).

True. To come to the conclusion there was no bundle-man and they are no longer even bothered to look at leads suggest the Police have strong evidence Maddie died in the Apt, and they know it's pointless to waste time chasing leads and sightings.

I suspect they have solved the crime just just did not know which of her parents to charge. This bit is my educated guess.

Also since carrying children back to the apt,sometimes covered in a blanket, is a common sight then I am sure other than Jez Wilkins, at least some of the T9 if not all of the them would have noticed that sort of sights as well.
After all most people dined and returned at about the same time when the Tapas Restaurant closed, unless the Mccanns and friends deviated elsewhere I cant see how they can be the only ones who missed noticing something like that.

The bundle man was either JT's invention based on her prior knowledge of that (night creche return scene) or the Police had eliminated the man.

by jd 06.01.12 11:12

Martin Smith also says it was normal too

"......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."

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

by Guest 06.01.12 11:54

Are trying to prove that the Mccanns did regualr checks on their childre and use this statements as prove on that:

Throughout the week, at least 3 employees of the Tapas restaurant who waited on the McCanns and their friends all verified checks:

Joaquim Baptista

When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.

The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest’s absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.

Ricardo Oliveria

When asked, he says that he remembers that it was usual during dinner for one or two members of the group to leave the table for about 10 or 15 minutes and given the fact that on various occasions he saw walkie talkies on the table, he supposed that they went to check on their children who were in their respective rooms.

Jeronimo Salcedas

Frequently,when I served the table, I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.

So two of the witnesses see more than one walkie talkie / monitor on the table. Wasnt it only the Paynes having this monitor? Sop they should then have one monitor on the table , the vaiters clearly did see more than one. And why would they go in groups? and why where they gone for 15 minutes? I mean if you where in the backyard of your house, you would not use 15 minutes to go in and check your kid, and they did say it was just like dinning in your garden.. i cant see how this site WTW can put this stuff out there and not see that something is not right about their story...

by **Nina** 06.01.12 12:59

Moa wrote:Are trying to prove that the Mccanns did regualr checks on their childre and use this statements as prove on that:

Throughout the week, at least 3 employees of the Tapas restaurant who waited on the McCanns and their friends all verified checks:

Joaquim Baptista

When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.

The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest’s absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.

Ricardo Oliveria

When asked, he says that he remembers that it was usual during dinner for one or two members of the group to leave the table for about 10 or 15 minutes and given the fact that on various occasions he saw walkie talkies on the table, he supposed that they went to check on their children who were in their respective rooms.

Jeronimo Salcedas

Frequently,when I served the table, I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.

So two of the witnesses see more than one walkie talkie / monitor on the table. Wasnt it only the Paynes having this monitor? Sop they should then have one monitor on the table , the vaiters clearly did see more than one. And why would they go in groups? and why where they gone for 15 minutes? I mean if you where in the backyard of your house, you would not use 15 minutes to go in and check your kid, and they did say it was just like dinning in your garden.. i cant see how this site WTW can put this stuff out there and not see that something is not right about their story...

Hi Moa, I don't think that these 10 to 15 minute absences from the table means they were checking their children. it just means that two or more left the table at the same time, were gone for imo a very long time. What I would be very interested in is did the absentees return together. Again imo these lengthy trips and according to Joaquim Baptista it was the men was not just to check if their offspring were sleeping.

by russiandoll 06.01.12 13:48

How anybody can come to the conclusion that these witness statements are supportive of the checking on the children scenario is beyond me.
Unless these men were seen entering and then leaving their respective apartments, also seen going to the area where sleeping children were located, there is no corroborative evidence at all that checks were being done.
gone for 15 mins at a time? Lots of things they could have been doing.

using the toilet
doing something they wished to conceal from their partners [ sneaky smoke, sneaky taking of illegal drugs, sneaky look at sport on tv,sneaky flirtation with night creche staff who were babysitting in nearby apartments, lots of things they could have been doing]

Would like to ask some of these supporters why they think men only were gone...no doubt something I have read before would be the response.the men were being gallant to save the women a walk in the dark [didnt one of the tapas females , Jane Tanner I think, say she found the walk quite spooky....yeah right, but fine for a 3 yr old to try to locate her parents according to their baby- listening agreement]

by Guest 06.01.12 14:55

russiandoll wrote:How anybody can come to the conclusion that these witness statements are supportive of the checking on the children scenario is beyond me.
Unless these men were seen entering and then leaving their respective apartments, also seen going to the area where sleeping children were located, there is no corroborative evidence at all that checks were being done.
gone for 15 mins at a time? Lots of things they could have been doing.

using the toilet
doing something they wished to conceal from their partners [ sneaky smoke, sneaky taking of illegal drugs, sneaky look at sport on tv,sneaky flirtation with night creche staff who were babysitting in nearby apartments, lots of things they could have been doing]

Would like to ask some of these supporters why they think men only were gone...no doubt something I have read before would be the response.the men were being gallant to save the women a walk in the dark [didnt one of the tapas females , Jane Tanner I think, say she found the walk quite spooky....yeah right, but fine for a 3 yr old to try to locate her parents according to their baby- listening agreement]

Beeing gallant up my rat ta ta ! 15 min to check?
And why where there more monitors than one? I think that is prove enough that they did not have a check system among the group, according this statements that the Mccanns so truly believes in states there where multiple walkie talkies/baby monitors on the table !! So no reason to go check the rooms then is it ? And they already said only the Paynes had one but still multible vaiters saw more than one walkie talkie on the table !

by jd 06.01.12 16:02

Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!

If the women found it spooky to go back to check on their own, you have to ask the question why did you leave the kids totally on their own in a spooky area then? If you are too spooked to go and check, what situation are they in?

I think the 15mins check is a total setup in order to back up their fairy tale story. MW gave them top table every night so they could be there at 8.30pm each night to carry out the plan of the staff and holidaymakers saying they saw them leave the table when they made their statements

I am sure there was something somewhere about gerry watching football at the apartment one night

by Guest 06.01.12 16:07

jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!

Who saw them "staggering" jd?

by jd 06.01.12 16:18

Stella wrote:
jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!
Who saw them "staggering" jd?

That first line was said tongue in cheek! after all the alcohol they had been drinking coffee

(I know I would be after drinking this amount)

by Guest 06.01.12 16:25

jd wrote:
Stella wrote:
jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!
Who saw them "staggering" jd?

That first line was said tongue in cheek! after all the alcohol they had been drinking (I know I would be after drinking this amount)

But according to Russell O'Brien's Rogatory Interview, no one was drunk all week.
I think we have to be a little bit careful about what we write, that it is factual and not taken literally, when accusing others of doing something.

by jd 06.01.12 16:29

I wasn't accusing, just being sarcastic in this ridiculous story

by Guest 06.01.12 16:33

jd wrote:I wasn't accusing, just being sarcastic in this ridiculous story

This is one of the problems with not being able to hold real conversations I guess, in forum land it is sometimes difficult to tell if someone is being serious or not. big grin

You had me convinced at first.

by jd 06.01.12 16:37

Stella wrote:
jd wrote:I wasn't accusing, just being sarcastic in this ridiculous story
This is one of the problems with not being able to hold real conversations I guess, in forum land it is sometimes difficult to tell if someone is being serious or not. You had me convinced at first.

This is so very true, sometimes you write in the tone you are saying it but it can be lost in translation on just reading the words splat

by Guest 06.01.12 18:34

[quote="jd"

I am sure there was something somewhere about gerry watching football at the apartment one night[/quote]

There's a topic about the football match. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 06.01.12 18:50

I thought, in an attempt to help, I would write the appropriate paragraph of Katie's autobiography, so that she can insert it in subsequent editions.

" That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street. Although Gerry and our friends had been trying to protect me from further distress by not telling me about this sooner, when they did I was strangely relieved. Madeleine hadn’t just disappeared off the face of the earth. There was something to work on.
This man was around thirty-five, forty years old, dark-haired and of southern European or Mediterranean appearance. His everyday clothes – beige or gold-coloured trousers and a dark jacket – gave Jane the impression he was not a tourist. He was carrying the sleeping child horizontally across his arms, the child’s legs dangling. Though she had no reason, at that point, to be at all suspicious of him, clearly there was something odd enough about what she saw for her to register the image. While he had been dressed for the cold evening, the child was barefoot and not covered by a blanket. Although Jane had never seen or known about Madeleine’s Eeyore pyjamas, her description of this child’s night clothes – light-coloured pink or white pyjamas with a ‘trailing’ or floral pattern and turn-ups on the bottoms – matched Madeleine’s almost exactly. From the style of these pyjamas, she had also assumed the child was a girl.

Of course, those were my thoughts at the time, and who can honestly blame me for wanting to consider every option, and to put a good interpretation on anything that was said.
Sadly, however, it was explained to us that the parents who used the evening creche picked up their children about 10pm to take them home. That way their children’s safety and welfare was ensured at all times, even when the parents were having a bit of “us time” in any of the various restaurants around the complex.
What made it worse, in one way, was that they explained that if a child was asleep when the parent came, the creche would lend a blanket, so that the child could
be wrapped up warmly and carried the few hundred metres home without waking up.
I say ‘worse’ because Jane first said she thought the child she had seen was wrapped in just such a blanket, and only later remembered the pyjamas. Even then she said they were pink, whereas Madeleine’s py-jam trousers were white, as we showed the world a few days later.
So for us it was ‘worse’. Our hopes were raised, and then dashed.
Now we really were back to square one.
No sign of entry; no sign of exit; no time in which anything could have happened; but also no Madeleine.

Now only the PJ could help. We had full trust in Snr. Amaral.

by **HiDeHo** 06.01.12 18:55

I may be absent from posting very much for a little while. I am using this thread's timeline as the basis for what may be very long video but one that I believe will be worthwhile.

Many/most people do not have the time (or inclination) to keep a constant vigil on all the information available and therefore may only have a vague overview about the holiday activities and discrepancies.

A suggestion was made to create a video of this nature and knowing that it takes me about 20-40 hrs to make a 15 min video, I knew it would be a monumental task but then I realised....why was I questioning it?

Madeleine is, of course, worth the effort.

I will attempt to put all the basics of each day of the holiday together, interjecting with the discrepancies.

I believe that this will highlight the coverup as appearing to be earlier in the week and subsequently there will probably be more questioning whether something happened to Madeleine before Thursday. (as I have always believed).

I have already put several hours into it (just to be sure it was something that I could do) and I am VERY excited about how I believe it will turn out. It will be lengthy but if I can keep the days seperate it may be a handy 'tool' to be used as reference.

There is a LOT of information to include so it may be at least a couple of weeks (bang goes my social life![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ) in the making but thanks to my reference forum where I have been compiling discrepancies and timelines for the past 4 years, I have the information easily available [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have also managed to retain a 'visual' of the holiday activities, so with any luck I won't leave anything important out, but I always welcome input, so if there is anything that I have not included in the OP (sorry, still trying to fix the text) don't hesitate to let me know.

My belief that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week is mainly because thats when the discrepancies start....The week SHOULD have been described easily and show very little oddities except a few memory lapses.

Can anyone share the MAIN reason they believe something happened earlier?

by jd 06.01.12 18:58

PeterMac is what you written in blue from kate??

A thought struck me that they didn't tell kate until the next morning, she must of been there when they wrote the timeline on the sticker book...or did they all go off and leave her while they decided on the timeline events

by Guest 06.01.12 19:00

No JD, like Kate's own writings, do not take what PeterMac has said seriously!

by jd 06.01.12 19:05

Jean wrote:No JD, like Kate's own writings, do not take what PeterMac has said seriously!

Im tired today!!

by russiandoll 06.01.12 19:20

Before I started reading creche sheets and phone records closely, had read a lot in the released files and on forums, however it was the book by Kate McCann that waved a huge red flag in front of my face.
Tedious details about mundane events, approx 15 pages to describe 28-2 May 2007, RUN, TENNIS, CRECHE, LUNCH, CRECHE, TEA, MILK, BISCUITS, BATH, BED... but next to nothing about April 30th, reference to shopping at a local supermarket and the regular evening meal at the tapas place, but of the events of the day, nada, nul, zilch.
Now if this was a day when [ I learnt later] boring routine was disrupted for something a bit different, Maddie in creche only 15 minutes in the afternoon while twins remained in their day care club........why did Kate not relate as part of her account of the truth, what Madeleine was doing for 2 hours before twins were picked up? Did they take her for a paddle in the Atlantic, take her for ice cream and to a play area for some great alone time just for her? The child was supervised by an adult for 2 hours, so what went on? Why this silence from Kate who is so eager to tell us the mundane details of bedtime routines on holiday.
The silence about this date speaks volumes. Something connected to Maddie's disappearance was happening then imo.

by jd 06.01.12 19:37

russiandoll wrote:Before I started reading creche sheets and phone records closely, had read a lot in the released files and on forums, however it was the book by Kate McCann that waved a huge red flag in front of my face.
Tedious details about mundane events, approx 15 pages to describe 28-2 May 2007, RUN, TENNIS, CRECHE, LUNCH, CRECHE, TEA, MILK, BISCUITS, BATH, BED... but next to nothing about April 30th, reference to shopping at a local supermarket and the regular evening meal at the tapas place, but of the events of the day, nada, nul, zilch.
Now if this was a day when [ I learnt later] boring routine was disrupted for something a bit different, Maddie in creche only 15 minutes in the afternoon while twins remained in their day care club........why did Kate not relate as part of her account of the truth, what Madeleine was doing for 2 hours before twins were picked up? Did they take her for a paddle in the Atlantic, take her for ice cream and to a play area for some great alone time just for her? The child was supervised by an adult for 2 hours, so what went on? Why this silence from Kate who is so eager to tell us the mundane details of bedtime routines on holiday.
The silence about this date speaks volumes. Something connected to Maddie's disappearance was happening then imo.

by Guest 06.01.12 20:05

russiandoll wrote:Before I started reading creche sheets and phone records closely, had read a lot in the released files and on forums, however it was the book by Kate McCann that waved a huge red flag in front of my face.
Tedious details about mundane events, approx 15 pages to describe 28-2 May 2007, RUN, TENNIS, CRECHE, LUNCH, CRECHE, TEA, MILK, BISCUITS, BATH, BED... but next to nothing about April 30th, reference to shopping at a local supermarket and the regular evening meal at the tapas place, but of the events of the day, nada, nul, zilch.
Now if this was a day when [ I learnt later] boring routine was disrupted for something a bit different, Maddie in creche only 15 minutes in the afternoon while twins remained in their day care club........why did Kate not relate as part of her account of the truth, what Madeleine was doing for 2 hours before twins were picked up? Did they take her for a paddle in the Atlantic, take her for ice cream and to a play area for some great alone time just for her? The child was supervised by an adult for 2 hours, so what went on? Why this silence from Kate who is so eager to tell us the mundane details of bedtime routines on holiday.
The silence about this date speaks volumes. Something connected to Maddie's disappearance was happening then imo.

Was it may 1th the blinders got repaired and Kate asking for instruksion for using the washing machine`?

by tumbleweed 06.01.12 21:47

Sorry for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial comparison, etc.

by Guest 06.01.12 21:50

tumbleweed wrote:Sorry for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by tumbleweed 06.01.12 21:54

Moa wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:Sorry for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **sharonl** 06.01.12 22:28

tumbleweed wrote:Sorry for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial comparison, etc.

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

by tumbleweed 07.01.12 10:07

sharonl wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:Sorry for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial comparison, etc.

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

I think I've exhausted google image results, and had even looked at the link Moa gave many times before but apparently overlooked that picture of her. I thought it was Kate in the icon picture, tbh. But just another of Madeleine's seemingly endless array of faces.

To get back on topic, does anyone know the answer to Moa's question about the blinds and the washing machine?