Timeline evening 3/5/07 as from 8.00 p.m.

Yes jd, it certainly was the strategy. I am reminded of Michael Mansfield QC discussing the about- to- be released Hillsborough Report and his quoting Mark Twain's proverb that a lie will be half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its shoes on. If you want your version of the truth to be accepted as fact, said Mr Mansfield, make sure you get your version out there first. I am convinced that as far as the McCann story goes, if the finger is pointing there..........look in the opposite direction.

The GNR officers who attended the Ocean Club on the night/morning or 03/04 May 2007
Time
The order of arrival
23:00 José Maria Batista Roque and Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa


23:25/23:50 António Henrique da Conceição Duarte (Sergeant and Commander of the Lagos GNR Post)


00:00 Rui Ségio Lopes Silva and 'Santos' (no statement found)


00:05 Paulo Jorge Carvaihosa da Costa


00:10/00:15 José Carlos Leal Pimentel


01.05/01.20 Paulo Jorge Fernandes Neto

01:10João Vasco da Silva Casimiro


01:55/02:30 Armando Augusto Morais and Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão

russiandoll wrote:Yes jd, it certainly was the strategy. I am reminded of Michael Mansfield QC discussing the about- to- be released Hillsborough Report and his quoting Mark Twain's proverb that a lie will be half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its shoes on. If you want your version of the truth to be accepted as fact, said Mr Mansfield, make sure you get your version out there first. I am convinced that as far as the McCann story goes, if the finger is pointing there..........look in the opposite direction.

When I look at the whole picture, I see one thing that has never been questioned or any finger of blame or anything pointed at.....Mark Warner/Ocean Club

This is mainly because the mccanns have taken 'neglect' which everyone focuses on & therefore no thought goes to MW/OC. This I believe was the mccanns part of the deal so no finger of suspicion could be pointed towards MW/OC

MW have a bad history with its nannies especially and had just invested into OC. Nobody has ever questioned the security there, nobody has ever questioned the lack of lighting around the apartments. The female tapas members have said they were scared to go back and check the apartments on their own because it was too dark, GA has said it was dark at the apartments. In any case security alone should be questioned, let alone after an 'alleged' abduction. Why has the general security at MW/OC never been questioned? After all, an abduction took place on their property.... yet never a question raised

I think the 'abduction' story was designed to totally deflect MW/OC from the story. Yet it was MW/OC who had all the closest connections of the people involved from the start

All seems way too obvious to me

MW had a hell of a lot at stake. They are implicated in this in a big way imo.

russiandoll wrote: MW had a hell of a lot at stake. They are implicated in this in a big way imo.

Yes jd and russiandoll, and so many connections in the highest places,
Lord Tim Bell, of Bell Pottinger.
John Major and the Symingtons, just for starters.
And that brick wall by the McCann's patio, easy for a child to climb onto and fall off.
Can someone confirm for me, I seem to remember Kate McCann saying something about doing some 'pruning' of the bushes by the apartment.
Would those bushes be the ones where cadaver was picked up. If it was bougainvillea it has spines. I seem to remember a reference to getting scratched and thought at the time it was a strange thing to be doing on holiday, along with washing curtains in a holiday apartment.
I am vague here and would appreciate correction if what I am saying is wrong.

I find anyone pruning bushes at a holiday apartment very strange, even if this was in another apartment or house they had been moved to after the holiday week........there are gardeners employed to keep grass, trees and shrubs neat.

I think there was something in kate mccanns diary or in the bewk in chapter 1 about pruning the hedges

In the DCCB report there is reference made about new plants being in the garden of the villa the mccanns rented whilst they were living there

- The owner of the villa said that he had been in the villa after the departure of the McCanns and that it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants, a fact that he commented on with the gardener F**** Do S*****.

- When the gardener was contacted that in spite of the fact that he does the maintenance of the garden, he had not detected anything abnormal in it, namely the existence of new plants, saying that he had some difficulty in maintaining a dialogue with the owner, because of the language barrier.

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

russiandoll wrote: MW had a hell of a lot at stake. They are implicated in this in a big way imo.

Yes, absolutely. This is demonstrated in the MW records, if you suspend reality for a moment and look at them not as records of what 'did' occur that week, but as plausible works of fiction.

Lady-Heather wrote:

russiandoll wrote: MW had a hell of a lot at stake. They are implicated in this in a big way imo.

Yes, absolutely. This is demonstrated in the MW records, if you suspend reality for a moment and look at them not as records of what 'did' occur that week, but as plausible works of fiction.

Symingtons....

I sometimes wonder if an unwitnessed accident happened at creche, a fight over a toy, a trip , a push, a knock on the head, all very common childhood events.
Then say there was a fermenting head injury, a small skull fracture, a bleed on the brain. Maybe after milk and biscuits one evening Maddie fell asleep, became unconscious, maybe inhaled vomit and was found dead the following morning.

What I do not understand is why the parents, fi they thought this had happened when Maddie was in the care of the creche, would go along with a plan to protect the holiday company's interests, even if they were promised that they would be looked after. Forget about taking legal action, which they might have done, why would they not go through the normal process of investigation if it was an accidental death? Why would they want to help MW in any way?
It has never been the McCanns being protected , but big business interest imo.. I still dont understand why the parents would go along with it though.

Adding this to the topic from 'Only in America' blog : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

quote: (From The truth of the lie)
Firstly let me set the scene, this extract from Amaral's book.

Two contradictory lists and a torn children's book
The first investigator who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised was informed of the existence of a plan for checking on the children while the parents dined one hundred metres away.
At the time, Russell O'Brien handed over two lists handwritten on the inside cover of a children's book, a sticker activity book for children more than 3 years of age. We believe the book was Madeleine's and we do not understand why they tore off the cover of the child's book.
A child had just gone missing and all its belongings should be precious to those who loved her. Was there really no other paper around? Not even a simple napkin? The question hangs in the air and the response is yet another contradiction. The lists contained the possible record of the checks in the apartment.

That it was Madeleine's book is not vital to the case but it is a good indicator to what was seemingly transpiring in apartment 5A the alarm was raised.
Not Vital as I say, but worth remembering when I pose a question a little later on.
unquote

The next Extract from Russell O'Brien's Rogatory interview does give us two pieces of information, one extremely important piece of information is that it places Gerry McCann in the apartment at the time O'Brien was writing the timeline, at the same table even, and the other: "I thought it was a cereal box" is worth remembering.
But it is the time that is the critical component in all this

In response to a question from Leicester plod.

Reply Russell O'Brien........ at some stage sort of quietened off and the, the PJ sat down with, you know, came in and sat down with Gerry....

(I thought) that we were writing on the back of a piece of card,I thought it was a cereal box but obviously it was a children’s book,

that (it) was written with me sat at the table in Kate and Gerry’s room. Gerry by this point had certainly calmed down but was, his head was just on the table, you know, like that, he was just staring at the, at the table, very, very quiet and very, very low.
Question Leicester plod....
LP. “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say. When was this drafted up”?

Reply Russell O'Brien
Erm this was drafted er **around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A**
I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat...


Let us now look at some bits from Jane Tanner's Rogatory statements.

I didn’t want to say to Kate at that point, which might sound odd now, you know, ‘Oh why wouldn’t you say straight away to Kate’, but, you know, the thought of telling the mother of a child that you might have seen being carried away is, it’s too horrible to even say.

The nitty gritty.
4078 (Leic plod) “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?”

JT.“That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.

LP. "So when you went into Gerry and Kate’s apartment who else was there?”

JT. “Erm, I think there was Russ, I think Russell came with me and there was Sylvie who was the translator.

I can’t remember which, there was some, there was a PJ chap was sitting on the, by the table.And there was Gerry who was standing by the, the bedroom door”.

LP. “And how was Gerry at that point?”

JT.“Oh he was just, well obviously, obviously distraught.
And I think it was quite hard for me to be saying at that, you know, looking in his face and to be explaining what I’d seen, at that point was quite hard because, you know, Gerry was obviously standing there, I don’t know whether, and you sort of think ‘Oh God, here’s me, if I’d tried to stop them this wouldn’t have happened’ sort of thing.So I think I did feel sort of a bit obviously guilty at that stage even though I didn’t know whether it was anything, but obviously you think ‘Oh bloody hell, what if I’ not stopped it happened potentially”.

LP. “And what was Gerry’s reaction to what you said?”

JT. “Well I don’t even know whether he took it in, I mean, he was just, he was, you know, obviously just standing there looking absolutely horrified, so”.

Short ending.

Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, "Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child." He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table.

At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.
Gerry looks horrified upon hearing this.

Err hello, hello mister English policeman, are you there?

~ ~ ~



Long ending.

Firstly let me dispense with the book.

Having read all that O'Brien has to say I would have difficulty in believing that Monday followed Sunday if such statement came from his lips, but for once and for purposes of this article I shall go with one sentence being the truth.


"I thought it was a cereal box but obviously it was a children’s book."


At first glance it might not seem so terribly important but it does bother me somewhat and makes me ask who handed the torn book to O'Brien, who would feel comfortable enough to tear up a book belonging to a child, someone else's child and a recently "abducted" child to boot?

How likely is it that one of the Tapas Seven would tear up a book belonging to Madeleine? for all their faults I would say they have enough social graces that to do such a thing would be totally alien to them, who then?

Well it can't have been Gerry can it? because according to Jane Tanner she didn't inform McCann until three in the morning that she had in fact seen a possible abductor.

But that begs another question, especially with Gerry being placed in the apartment at the time.

How did O'Brien and Co. conjure up so surreptitiously the timeline, commit it all to paper duly noting Tanner's 9.20pm sighting of the possible abductor without the knowledge of Gerry McCann who was, at the very time the thing was being drafted,was sat with his head resting on the same table.

It's all a mystery to me.
unquote (Only in America)


If the timelines were ready before 00.40 on 4/5, my question is 'how long did they take to be constructed?'. I would think 20 to 30 minutes.
The inclusion of JT's sighting - why has no police officer questioned the contradiction here?

For clarity this post is separate, it can be seen that whilst Gerry was sitting at the table with his head in his hands, oblivious of the timeline being drawn up and in particular of the sighting of the abductor, he was also dealing with phone calls.

0.00.27 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (128 seconds)
0.05.00 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (3 seconds)
0.05.45 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds)
0.06.15 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (2.47 minutes)
0.13.14 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds)
0.13.50 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (407 seconds)
0.21.36 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (23 seconds)
0.23.12 am Gerry calls …. (3.55 minutes)
0.27.07 am Trish Cameron calls Gerry (2.28 minutes)
0.29.37 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (4.53 minutes)
0.36.21 am Kate calls … (31 seconds)
0.37.05 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
0.38.40 am … calls Gerry (6.40 minutes)
0.39.58 am Kate calls voicemail (34 seconds)
0.40.50 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
0.45.15 am Brian and Janet Kennedy call Gerry (1.18 minutes)
0.45.49 am Kate calls voicemail (31 seconds)
0.47.23 am … calls Kate (2.39 minutes)
0.47.41 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (2.15 minutes)
0.53.08 am … calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS

00.40/00.50. PJ Officer V. M. M. arrived on the scene. 00.40/00.50.
The consulate and an unknown caller are the longest calls. I'm particularly interested in the 00.38 call.


Thursday May 3, 2007 :
John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, called Alípio Ribeiro, the Polícia Judiciária’s national director, on the night that Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club.
At around 11 p.m., approximately two hours after the child’s disappearance was communicated, Alípio Ribeiro had to interrupt a private dinner in order to listen to the diplomat.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Which should mean that the call to Alistair Clark, Gerry's friend in political circles, must have been before 11.00 p.m. as I would expect the Ambassador's call to be a consequence of directives from the F.O. who in turn would have been informed by Clark.

Which doesn't work with the following statement:
(23.40 Gerry calls Trish Cameron (11.13 minutes))
Sandy Cameron statement: “On the night of Thursday, May 3, 2007, Patricia received a telephone call from Gerry informing us of the disappearance of Madeleine. Gerry manifested all those emotions one expects from a father who has lost a child in the circumstances. He was distraught and spoke at the same time he cried. He seemed frustrated with the slowness of the searches in Portugal, with the fact that the borders had not been closed, and with the fact that sniffer dogs were not being used. Patricia and I contacted the British Embassy to try and help in this regard.”

That was an early and very long phone call and it seems John Buck was already on the job an hour earlier. Unless the misconception about a time difference makes the Ambassador's call to Ribeiro at midnight.

Whilst the timeline is being written, Gerry is on the phone for 25 minutes! 23 of those before 00.40 when presumably the PJ were arriving.

Somehow that doesn't tally with being stunned and sitting at the table in shock.

It looks more like hurried damage limitation, a timeline which had to be changed to leave out the Smiths' sighting and accommodate the Wilkins/JT alibi.
Imo, Gerry came back from PdL in some distress and only decided then and there that Wilkins would have to be substituted, should the Smiths come forward, it would be too late to have been the abductor who was now rescheduled to have struck around 9.15 instead of 9.45.
Because - had the sighting in PdL gone according to plan, the sighting at 9.55 was spot on for the distance from 5a for an abduction at 9.45. Gerry's presence would have been vouched for by the others. But only by the others, not an independent witness.
9.45 would also explain the empty table around that time and the early witness statements which put the time of vacating the table before 10.00pm.

According to Textusa, Kate got it wrong and called out too early. I can well believe that. So the whole thing was then repeated when Gerry came back from his walk around 10.05.

Two separate alarms would explain quite a lot of the witness statements and Kate getting it wrong wouldn't surprise me at all.

Hi all, I hope someone will see this given that it's attached to a 2012 post. 

Earlier in this thread there is this: