Libel Diary 2 and 2a from Blacksmith

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/libel-diary-3-amaral-haters-their.html
Is this a listing of telephone calls made to the PJ on 3rd May 2007?

Dawnie wrote:http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/libel-diary-3-amaral-haters-their.html
Is this a listing of telephone calls made to the PJ on 3rd May 2007?

Hi Dawnie,

This link comes first I think, yours is part 2a, this is part 2...............

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/libel-diary-2-giving-abductor-head-start.html

candyfloss wrote:

Dawnie wrote:http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/libel-diary-3-amaral-haters-their.html
Is this a listing of telephone calls made to the PJ on 3rd May 2007?

Hi Dawnie,

This link comes first I think, yours is part 2a, this is part 2...............

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/libel-diary-2-giving-abductor-head-start.html

Yes its calls made to the GNR Police, the two highlighted, first one came in at 2241, so yes 40 minutes after they discovered Madeleine missing.

In this case, my impression is that K and G complaints a lot. No one helpt looking, the police where slow to arrive , did not do a good job , im sure you all have heard this.

In this Sigrid case ( another thread) that we had reasently in Norway, her parents , before Sigrid was found, did not have any expactation that people should go out look for her. And they where so GREATFUL for each single person using their private time to join searchgroup, and was out searching. Also her parents was out searching, all of their familie , everyday until she was found... And everyday for this four weeks, they gave thanks to everyone who helped them search after each day...The fact that so many people helped them warmed their hearts, and made this horrific time easier to cope with..
They also respected all the work the police did, and showed grattitude towards them.. Respected what the police said in what they should relice of information about her etc.. And they did not ask for a helicopter or demand anything from the police, trusting them to know their job..

All they did was IMO totally opposite of what K and G did.. And thats interresting since Sigrid parents where 100 % innoccent for sure...( the two men taking Sigrid is arrested and in jail now)

They ( k and G ) did not call the police until 22.41, 40 minutes after they for sure knew she had been taken. - Sigrid parents called them imediatly and started look for her imediatly , 5 minutes after she was supposed to be back home and had not showed up.. They knew right away something was wrong and acted on that imdeiatly.

Also, I read yesterday in one of the threads on here, how wilkinson asked if they needed help to look, and G said no to that.. No parents of real abduction would turn such a offer down imo..Ofcourse they would have said yes and showed lots of grattitude to that person for helping in the search..Not say no, makes no sence..

I have no doubt that the believers of the McCann's story will come up with the time on the call log as being the time it was entered on the records and not the time the call was made.....explaining the 40 minute delay.
I am quite sure from the tone of Kate's book that she and her husband do not care about the disgust felt by the people of Portugal over their sense of entitlement after Maddie had vanished; not a trace of gratitude or apology for the fact that all that time and money had to be spent due to their own admitted negligence. It is shameful.

I'm baffled by this. I saw Blacksmith's article and then I saw him engaging in a spat with the "Amaral haters" as he calls them and did a bit of reading.

I have to say that the whole issue surrounding timing of the calls and who called when is completely confused in the witness statements. The most reliable timing in there appears to be John Hill's, who says he was contacted at 22:28. Assuming he recalls the time from checking his mobile phone, then as long as that phone has an accurate time on it, he's pretty much nailed the time that he was alerted. He goes on to say it was Lindsay who called him.

This indicates that Lindsay knew about the disappearance prior to calling John Hill.

So, on to Lindsay. She says she was told by Amy T at about 22:20 of Madeleine's disappearance. She then put into place the missing child procedure and must have called John Hill. Times sound about right, no problem so far.

Moving on to Amy Tiernan it gets a bit muddier... She says that she was on duty and that "the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed" so that (assuming that 10pm was the time of the disappearance being noted) puts Gerry's visit to the reception at about 22:20 and it's reasonable to believe that Amy called Lindsay at that time. She also says the police arrived 30-35 minutes later, putting their arrival at about 22:50 or so.

We then have Emma Knight, who also gives a very accurate time - 22:17 - when she says she was called by Lyndsay. Assuming her mobile records were used and the time was right, this means that it was a further eleven minutes between Lyndsay calling her and calling John Hill. Presumably this was a time when the news was filtering up the chain of command and procedures put in place were being acted on. All feasible so far and assuming Lyndsay called Emma as soon as Amy called her, times match to within a few minutes.

Where it really begins to fall apart a bit is when the other Ocean Club employees get involved...

Firstly I think we have to accept that there were only two calls made to the GNR from the Ocean Club that night. One at 22:41 and another at 22:52. The telephone company provided this information and it's clear to see. If there were calls made from mobile phones to the GNR there doesn't seem to be any mention of it at all.

Moving on to the statement of the receptionist at the time, Helder Luis, he states quite categorically he "was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00" and that "he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos" and "shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again." Well hold on there, there's a world of difference between being a few minutes out (as Amy/Emma/Lyndsay appear to be) and being (at least) 41 minutes out. If he was contacted between 9:30 and 10pm and immediately contact the police, where is the record of that call? The first call has to be at 22:41:29 as we know from the records and presumably the second one at 22:52 is when John Hill walks into reception with Gerry?

However, it gets more confused... Vitor Santos in his statement says, "he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet." Well hang on... we know from the phone company records that the call was at 22:41 and not any time between 22:00 and 22:15... He continues that the receptionist says, " that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR." So that all seems quite detailed and plausible apart from the timings which are WAY out and not just a few minutes.

Vitor adds more details though... "When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father." So when Vitor gets to the OC at sometime between, say, 22:20pm and 22:35pm, John Hill and Gerry are already in the reception with the GNR? And yet the GNR weren't called until some minutes after this time... Vitor's timings are looking suspect, it must be said.

Further confusion - Emma Knight says the police arrived some time around midnight to half past. Amy T says they were there before 11. Vitor says they were there not long after half past 10. Matt Oldfield says that he went to reception to ask them to contact the police at five past or ten past ten. Why doesn't Helder mention this? He says that the Tapas bar contacted him and he called the police immediately. Matt Oldfield says he was having to argue quite hard to persuade the receptionist to call as they assumed Madeleine had wandered off.

More times: George Crosslands says he was called by John Hill at 22:15 (and yet John Hill himself says he wasn't told until 22:28) and that when he got to the OC 10 minutes later, John Hill was already there (some minutes before he was even contacted... good effort) and that the police arrived at 22:50.

If you want even more confusion, refer to Arlindo Pelega and Jeronimo Salcedas's statements! Pelega says the commotion started at 21:20 and by 21:40 the table was empty in the Tapas bar. Salcedas states in his first statement in May that the table was empty at 22:20 - 22:30 and yet by the time of his rogatory this had changed to 21:30 to 22:00 but he's not really sure...

Confused? I am. I haven't been able to establish the chain of who told whom what and when to start the whole chain of events of. I assume that as Amy Tiernan was on duty, she was the first person contacted but I have no idea who by. Maybe by Helder the receptionist after Matt Oldfield had been in? Or was it in response to the call from the Tapas bar he says he had?

Anyhow, all that seems clear is that only two calls were made and the first of those was at 22:41. I don't think it's fair to blame the McCanns for the lateness of the call though. They probably assumed that after Matt had rushed off to reception that the call had been made. Up until 22:41 it looks as though the OC were following through on their procedure for missing children as they wouldn't want to drag the GNR out on a wild goose chase if Madeleine was hiding in the bushes. At some point they obviously took it seriously enough to call the GNR and then when John Hill arrived in reception with Gerry, they were told to do it again to reinforce the urgency. Kate McCann's claims that she knew with certainty that Madeleine had been abducted and not wandered off wasn't really communicated to anyone that could call the police as far as I can tell (none of them spoke Portuguese so they needed an OC employee to do it), so can she be blamed for it taking the OC staff a good half hour more to get around to calling?

I can't believe that there appears to be no clear work on establishing the exact chain of events that night. Who told whom? Starting with Amy T - how did she find out and who did she tell? The timings are all so jumbled and confused that it's hard to see exactly what happened when, but apart from the way out timings of Vitor dos Santos, Salcedas and Pelega, the rest seem to match fairly well. I'm not exactly sure what Blacksmith expected the McCanns to do... stand over the receptionist until he called? If, as seems to be confirmed, they were rushing about and someone told Matt to go and get the police called, they kind of thought they'd done the job by about five past ten as far as I can tell.

Is there any more information out there that I've missed in all this? It seems to be very confused from what I've read.

C.Edwards wrote:I'm baffled by this. I saw Blacksmith's article and then I saw him engaging in a spat with the "Amaral haters" as he calls them and did a bit of reading.

I have to say that the whole issue surrounding timing of the calls and who called when is completely confused in the witness statements. The most reliable timing in there appears to be John Hill's, who says he was contacted at 22:28. Assuming he recalls the time from checking his mobile phone, then as long as that phone has an accurate time on it, he's pretty much nailed the time that he was alerted. He goes on to say it was Lindsay who called him.

This indicates that Lindsay knew about the disappearance prior to calling John Hill.

So, on to Lindsay. She says she was told by Amy T at about 22:20 of Madeleine's disappearance. She then put into place the missing child procedure and must have called John Hill. Times sound about right, no problem so far.

Moving on to Amy Tiernan it gets a bit muddier... She says that she was on duty and that "the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed" so that (assuming that 10pm was the time of the disappearance being noted) puts Gerry's visit to the reception at about 22:20 and it's reasonable to believe that Amy called Lindsay at that time. She also says the police arrived 30-35 minutes later, putting their arrival at about 22:50 or so.

We then have Emma Knight, who also gives a very accurate time - 22:17 - when she says she was called by Lyndsay. Assuming her mobile records were used and the time was right, this means that it was a further eleven minutes between Lyndsay calling her and calling John Hill. Presumably this was a time when the news was filtering up the chain of command and procedures put in place were being acted on. All feasible so far and assuming Lyndsay called Emma as soon as Amy called her, times match to within a few minutes.

Where it really begins to fall apart a bit is when the other Ocean Club employees get involved...

Firstly I think we have to accept that there were only two calls made to the GNR from the Ocean Club that night. One at 22:41 and another at 22:52. The telephone company provided this information and it's clear to see. If there were calls made from mobile phones to the GNR there doesn't seem to be any mention of it at all.

Moving on to the statement of the receptionist at the time, Helder Luis, he states quite categorically he "was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00" and that "he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos" and "shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again." Well hold on there, there's a world of difference between being a few minutes out (as Amy/Emma/Lyndsay appear to be) and being (at least) 41 minutes out. If he was contacted between 9:30 and 10pm and immediately contact the police, where is the record of that call? The first call has to be at 22:41:29 as we know from the records and presumably the second one at 22:52 is when John Hill walks into reception with Gerry?

However, it gets more confused... Vitor Santos in his statement says, "he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet." Well hang on... we know from the phone company records that the call was at 22:41 and not any time between 22:00 and 22:15... He continues that the receptionist says, " that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR." So that all seems quite detailed and plausible apart from the timings which are WAY out and not just a few minutes.

Vitor adds more details though... "When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father." So when Vitor gets to the OC at sometime between, say, 22:20pm and 22:35pm, John Hill and Gerry are already in the reception with the GNR? And yet the GNR weren't called until some minutes after this time... Vitor's timings are looking suspect, it must be said.

Further confusion - Emma Knight says the police arrived some time around midnight to half past. Amy T says they were there before 11. Vitor says they were there not long after half past 10. Matt Oldfield says that he went to reception to ask them to contact the police at five past or ten past ten. Why doesn't Helder mention this? He says that the Tapas bar contacted him and he called the police immediately. Matt Oldfield says he was having to argue quite hard to persuade the receptionist to call as they assumed Madeleine had wandered off.

More times: George Crosslands says he was called by John Hill at 22:15 (and yet John Hill himself says he wasn't told until 22:28) and that when he got to the OC 10 minutes later, John Hill was already there (some minutes before he was even contacted... good effort) and that the police arrived at 22:50.

If you want even more confusion, refer to Arlindo Pelega and Jeronimo Salcedas's statements! Pelega says the commotion started at 21:20 and by 21:40 the table was empty in the Tapas bar. Salcedas states in his first statement in May that the table was empty at 22:20 - 22:30 and yet by the time of his rogatory this had changed to 21:30 to 22:00 but he's not really sure...

Confused? I am. I haven't been able to establish the chain of who told whom what and when to start the whole chain of events of. I assume that as Amy Tiernan was on duty, she was the first person contacted but I have no idea who by. Maybe by Helder the receptionist after Matt Oldfield had been in? Or was it in response to the call from the Tapas bar he says he had?

Anyhow, all that seems clear is that only two calls were made and the first of those was at 22:41. I don't think it's fair to blame the McCanns for the lateness of the call though. They probably assumed that after Matt had rushed off to reception that the call had been made. Up until 22:41 it looks as though the OC were following through on their procedure for missing children as they wouldn't want to drag the GNR out on a wild goose chase if Madeleine was hiding in the bushes. At some point they obviously took it seriously enough to call the GNR and then when John Hill arrived in reception with Gerry, they were told to do it again to reinforce the urgency. Kate McCann's claims that she knew with certainty that Madeleine had been abducted and not wandered off wasn't really communicated to anyone that could call the police as far as I can tell (none of them spoke Portuguese so they needed an OC employee to do it), so can she be blamed for it taking the OC staff a good half hour more to get around to calling?

I can't believe that there appears to be no clear work on establishing the exact chain of events that night. Who told whom? Starting with Amy T - how did she find out and who did she tell? The timings are all so jumbled and confused that it's hard to see exactly what happened when, but apart from the way out timings of Vitor dos Santos, Salcedas and Pelega, the rest seem to match fairly well. I'm not exactly sure what Blacksmith expected the McCanns to do... stand over the receptionist until he called? If, as seems to be confirmed, they were rushing about and someone told Matt to go and get the police called, they kind of thought they'd done the job by about five past ten as far as I can tell.

Is there any more information out there that I've missed in all this? It seems to be very confused from what I've read.

Well I certainly agree the timimgs are a jumbled mess but I can't agree that its not fair to blame the McCann's for the delay... If we believe their version, the child was missing purely through THEIR NEGLIGENCE. Why on earth should they expect the OC to call the police? Its not as if they or the wider group were incapable of making calls - we know they sat on their phones ringing the UK - friends, family, media, ambassadors... Were it me I wouldn't call ANYBODY before the police (even if I thought my child had wandered), I'd rather look a bit stupid than risk leaving it to somebody else... And yes if I'd asked the reception to call I would stand over them til I was certain they had been called! Its this whole air of 'somebody else's fault' pervading the McCanns that frustrates me. If they truly lost her through their own out-and-out negligence (which leaving 3 under 4's alone is nothing less imo) why should they not take SOME responsibility for calling? Still, I'm sure the delay and chaos suited them just fine...

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Well I certainly agree the timimgs are a jumbled mess but I can't agree that its not fair to blame the McCann's for the delay... If we believe their version, the child was missing purely through THEIR NEGLIGENCE. Why on earth should they expect the OC to call the police? Its not as if they or the wider group were incapable of making calls - we know they sat on their phones ringing the UK - friends, family, media, ambassadors... Were it me I wouldn't call ANYBODY before the police (even if I thought my child had wandered), I'd rather look a bit stupid than risk leaving it to somebody else... And yes if I'd asked the reception to call I would stand over them til I was certain they had been called! Its this whole air of 'somebody else's fault' pervading the McCanns that frustrates me. If they truly lost her through their own out-and-out negligence (which leaving 3 under 4's alone is nothing less imo) why should they not take SOME responsibility for calling? Still, I'm sure the delay and chaos suited them just fine...

I agree that whatever happened to Madeleine was down to their negligence, never going to disagree with that. They weren't there when "it" happened and I only wish they would more unequivocally take responsibility for that rather than use the circuitous phrases that they tend to. However I'm not suggesting for a minute that they expected the OC to call on their behalf, more that I find it plausible to believe that if events happened as described they would have been in the first stages of complete panic around 10pm and shortly thereafter and tearing about looking for Madeleine nearby (hence some of the witness statements mentioning Gerry near the pool, but there's still (again) too much confusion surrounding those reports too) so that when Rachel suggested that Matt went to the reception to get them to call the police they would have no reason to expect that the receptionist wouldn't have immediately done so. I think that it sounds like Matt had some difficulties with the receptionist who was probably thinking "stupid english tourist, too much wine, you've probably forgotten which of your apartments you've left the children sleeping in" or words to that effect and could have been much more forceful about calling the police.

But still I doubt that at that immediate time, the McCanns were quite so forceful in their claims that it had to be an abduction. It seems plain that many people believed she could have wandered off or else they wouldn't have been looking for her close by, right? Therefore Matt probably didn't see an immediate urgency to stand over the receptionist with the proverbial big stick until he called the GNR. All I'm trying to say is that I disagree with Blacksmith on his pinning the blame squarely on the McCanns for the delay as, to the best of their knowledge at the time, they probably thought the police were alerted in the first 5 to 10 minutes after discovering Madeleine wasn't there.

Again, I think it plausible that if the McCanns or one of their friends close by at the time had contacts in the media/high places who spoke English, they could contact them. In a foreign land where they couldn't speak the language then what would be the point in trying to call the police when you couldn't tell them what was going on? Again, I don't know for certain, but I think I'd try to find someone locally as soon as possible to make that contact and as far as I can see from the witness statements, it would appear that this was pretty much what happened. I've still no real idea (yet more confusion) about who was actually called by the McCanns or their friends on the night as, once again, there are many and varied reports but I can't say that anyone other than the police and maybe family (but I think I'd have probably left that until the morning in case Madeleine was found as I don't know what I'd expect my parents/sister to do in such circumstances) would have been high on my list of people to contact in such circumstances so I do find myself wondering what their reason for that course of action was. People do strange things in stressful situations I suppose and without knowing for certain who was called and by whom it's kind of daft to speculate wildly in my book.

Re your last point, it would make sense if they were trying to cover something up (which I think they are still... not sure what, but I don't think the entire truth is coming out) to have all the confusion, agreed. Please don't anybody follow this up with a "quote" from Gerry about confusion being good unless you've actually found where he said it as I've never actually managed to find that quote when I've looked! I've grown to learn to look far more closely at what are supposed to be "facts" in this whole circus of late and I'd rather see the source for these claims than blithely accept them as fact, as that's as blinkered as some of the fervent pros!

Again, I think it plausible that if the McCanns or one of their friends close by at the time had contacts in the media/high places who spoke English, they could contact them. In a foreign land where they couldn't speak the language then what would be the point in trying to call the police when you couldn't tell them what was going on?

Are you on a wind up?

jd wrote:

Are you on a wind up?

Flipping heck. No! I may have expressed myself badly. Of course there's a point in calling the police. My point is that it's only worth doing so if you speak the language they do. Otherwise it's far better to get the representative of the resort to do so on your behalf so they can explain things. Of course this presupposes that the police would not be able to speak English but I don't think that's necessarily a poor presupposition in the circumstances.

I have absolutely no idea what happened that night, I'm just saying I disagree with Blacksmith saying that the McCanns are to blame for it taking 41 minutes to call the police as I think that it's likely they thought the police had been called on their behalf after Matt Oldfield went off to reception.

If you have any problem with the semantics or meanings of that, please let me know.

I am also, as expressed in my earlier email, bloody intrigued about how many different timings you can get out of a group of people about the events of a couple of hours on a specific night. A reconstruction would be ever so useful in highlighting all these reported timings and getting a few people to reconsider, perhaps.

If the "fault" lies with the OC staff for the delay with calling the police, why is it that the McCanns blame the police for turning up late? It doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing much about their behaviour makes sense.

C.Edwards wrote:

jd wrote:

Are you on a wind up?

Flipping heck. No! I may have expressed myself badly. Of course there's a point in calling the police. My point is that it's only worth doing so if you speak the language they do. Otherwise it's far better to get the representative of the resort to do so on your behalf so they can explain things. Of course this presupposes that the police would not be able to speak English but I don't think that's necessarily a poor presupposition in the circumstances.

I have absolutely no idea what happened that night, I'm just saying I disagree with Blacksmith saying that the McCanns are to blame for it taking 41 minutes to call the police as I think that it's likely they thought the police had been called on their behalf after Matt Oldfield went off to reception.

If you have any problem with the semantics or meanings of that, please let me know.

I am also, as expressed in my earlier email, bloody intrigued about how many different timings you can get out of a group of people about the events of a couple of hours on a specific night. A reconstruction would be ever so useful in highlighting all these reported timings and getting a few people to reconsider, perhaps.

Fair point with the amount of people surrounding them and not speaking Portuguese you probably wouldn't phone yourself, but there were plenty of opportunities they could have got the police called with OC staff, nannies, friends and with PDL being a highly ex-pat area (so not to really foreign land to Brits) there would not only be British who speak Portuguese but also most of the Portuguese can understand at least the basic English. The most curious thing is why dianne webster stayed at the Tapas seemingly unphazed by all that was happening. In her position (assuming the disappearance was true) I would at least expect her to make sure the police were being called...didn't seem to cross her mind

jd wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:

jd wrote:

Are you on a wind up?

Flipping heck. No! I may have expressed myself badly. Of course there's a point in calling the police. My point is that it's only worth doing so if you speak the language they do. Otherwise it's far better to get the representative of the resort to do so on your behalf so they can explain things. Of course this presupposes that the police would not be able to speak English but I don't think that's necessarily a poor presupposition in the circumstances.

I have absolutely no idea what happened that night, I'm just saying I disagree with Blacksmith saying that the McCanns are to blame for it taking 41 minutes to call the police as I think that it's likely they thought the police had been called on their behalf after Matt Oldfield went off to reception.

If you have any problem with the semantics or meanings of that, please let me know.

I am also, as expressed in my earlier email, bloody intrigued about how many different timings you can get out of a group of people about the events of a couple of hours on a specific night. A reconstruction would be ever so useful in highlighting all these reported timings and getting a few people to reconsider, perhaps.

Fair point with the amount of people surrounding them and not speaking Portuguese you probably wouldn't phone yourself, but there were plenty of opportunities they could have got the police called with OC staff, nannies, friends and with PDL being a highly ex-pat area (so not to really foreign land to Brits) there would not only be British who speak Portuguese but also most of the Portuguese can understand at least the basic English. The most curious thing is why dianne webster stayed at the Tapas seemingly unphazed by all that was happening. In her position (assuming the disappearance was true) I would at least expect her to make sure the police were being called...didn't seem to cross her mind

Dianne Webster's role in this and her relationship with her daughter I find rather puzzling. I understand her husband couldn't join her so she went alone with the family but she slept on a sofa bed (?) so her grandchildren could have a room each. She stayed behind at the Tapas while all the commotion was happening because Fiona had told her to. I imagine she looked after the children a fair bit of the time too so the parents could get on with their holiday activities. But how could she possibly be ignorant of the truth about what happened to Madeleine?

Well Mrs Fenn offered to call the police for GM at 22.30, but he said they`d already been called.

Trouble with some of the statements is that some interviewees have not been asked the right questions. Emma Knight (Rog.) isn`t asked for timings or the names of exact locations, its difficult to piece it all together and envisage where exactly everyone was. Amy Tierney`s is unclear in places - it was being translated by Murat. Many of the statements need clarifying.

Ribisl wrote:
Dianne Webster's role in this and her relationship with her daughter I find rather puzzling. I understand her husband couldn't join her so she went alone with the family but she slept on a sofa bed (?) so her grandchildren could have a room each. She stayed behind at the Tapas while all the commotion was happening because Fiona had told her to. I imagine she looked after the children a fair bit of the time too so the parents could get on with their holiday activities. But how could she possibly be ignorant of the truth about what happened to Madeleine?

I find dianne webster very intriguing. At the time she seemed oblivious to everything and not having a great deal of concern, her original statement comes across as being the only one that one could say is truthful and which in a lot of places contradicts the mccanns. Yet in the April 2008 RI she seems to have a total change of tact. One would guess by then she got the kennedys!

@ Woofer - Good point about Mrs Fenn at 22.30

@C.Edwards
Well done for putting together the times recorded by various witnesses. It must be giving someone at SY an almighty headache trying to make any sense of it all. I agree mostly with your assessment and why there could have been such a delay between the initial alarm being raised and the police being called. Besides, I cannot see a good reason for the MCs to want to delay contacting the police, or to be seen to be dragging their feet, once they'd prepared the scene and set the ball rolling. Apart from the apparent lack of anybody taking charge of the situation and reliance on a whole chain of communication (in two languages), I could well imagine the MW staff having to go through a set procedure first in order to eliminate possible misunderstandings before calling the police because getting the police involved means bad publicity. So I believe the delay was largely caused by them and not by the MCs.

jd wrote:

Ribisl wrote:
Dianne Webster's role in this and her relationship with her daughter I find rather puzzling. I understand her husband couldn't join her so she went alone with the family but she slept on a sofa bed (?) so her grandchildren could have a room each. She stayed behind at the Tapas while all the commotion was happening because Fiona had told her to. I imagine she looked after the children a fair bit of the time too so the parents could get on with their holiday activities. But how could she possibly be ignorant of the truth about what happened to Madeleine?

I find dianne webster very intriguing. At the time she seemed oblivious to everything and not having a great deal of concern, her original statement comes across as being the only one that one could say is truthful and which in a lot of places contradicts the mccanns. Yet in the April 2008 RI she seems to have a total change of tact. One would guess by then she got the kennedys!

@ Woofer - Good point about Mrs Fenn at 22.30

David Payne's and DW's mobiles were silent for resp. 75 and 90 hours, both switched on their mobiles on the evening of the 3rd at 7.30 and 8.00 p.m.
Matt Oldfield only switched his on about 10.00 pm. to talk to Rachel.

ShuBob wrote:If the "fault" lies with the OC staff for the delay with calling the police, why is it that the McCanns blame the police for turning up late? It doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing much about their behaviour makes sense.

I don't know if you can call it the OC staff's "fault" for not calling immediately. They are on the record as stating they have procedures to follow and they weren't to know the full circumstances at the time they were being asked to act. It's plausible that Helder the receptionist delayed calling as this was part of the procedure to follow - basically "don't call the police until you've thoroughly searched the area" or words to that effect. Even with a frantic tourist insisting on calling the police standing in front of you I can believe that the receptionist would (rightly, in my opinion) believe they knew the best course of action to take and this could very well involve that delay that now seems evident.

What I don't understand is why Helder does not refer to Matt Oldfield's appearance in reception at 10:05 - 10:10 or thereabouts. Unless he's retrospectively trying to cover his delay, which in light of the subsequent media circus may have reflected badly on him... "why didn't you call the police immediately? A friend of the couple's was right there in front of you and you failed to act with the necessary urgency." I don't think it's reasonable to expect the receptionist of a leisure resort to have knowledge of police procedures and "the golden hour" in child abductions so he can't have been expected to leap into action to put in place a road block into Spain, etc. as at that point he'd still have thought that the girl was hiding somewhere nearby. I don't really see that there is much fault or blame to apportion on this particular subject as it's plausible the McCanns thought the police had been called pretty early on, it's plausible that Oldfield thought the receptionist was going to call the police after being asked and it's plausible that the receptionist was following company procedure in delaying until the local area had been searched.

It still amazes me that there appears to be no established (or at least it's not published anywhere I can find) definitive sequence of known events. It should be pretty easy to establish who spoke to whom and it SHOULD have been established. It may well have been, it just seems odd that if it was sorted out, it's not included in the case files released. I'd love to know how Amy Tierney found out. Who told her? Where was she and how was she told? Did a breathless McCann or friend rush in to her office? Was she called by the receptionist? Did the tapas bar call her? Who did she then tell and how? Face to face? By landline? Mobile? There should also be definitive records of when the GNR arrived (Da Costa and Rocque to start with) as that sort of thing should be recorded.

Many statements seem to indicate that the police arrived around 10:45 - 11pm but the first call, we know, was at 22:41 and, according to Rocque's statement he and da Costa were in Oxiadere when they were radioed about the situation. Assuming it took them a minute or two to sort themselves out and start driving it's still about 15 or 20 minutes drive to PDL from Oxiadere so they shouldn't have been there much before five past or ten past 11 and this doesn't match up with quite a few of the statements. It's maddening to see what should be basic information missing (surely the GNR vehicle has a tracker? Or the phone records of the police would indicate where they were and at what time?) that would help pinpoint the timings more accurately.

Woofer wrote:Well Mrs Fenn offered to call the police for GM at 22.30, but he said they`d already been called.

Trouble with some of the statements is that some interviewees have not been asked the right questions. Emma Knight (Rog.) isn`t asked for timings or the names of exact locations, its difficult to piece it all together and envisage where exactly everyone was. Amy Tierney`s is unclear in places - it was being translated by Murat. Many of the statements need clarifying.

I think that Gerry McCann assumed that the police had been called as Matt Oldfield had been to reception by this time - hence his reasonable assumption that the police had been called.

I agree with you about the wrong questions being asked. It's utterly clear that someone should have been establishing the timings better. When you can immediately see huge discrepancies in timings that leap out, surely the thing to do is press those people for far more information. "Hang on a minute... you say that he was already there and yet he says he wasn't called for 10 minutes AFTER you say you saw him. Let's start again... where were you when you first heard...?" - that sort of approach.

Interesting points being made here so wanted to join disucssion - first ever post.

Great research and good points from C Edwards with lots of sense and balance. However, while the McCs may have been initally entitled to have taken the view that the GNR were to blame for their claimed late appearance, with the release of the files which they have scrutinised at length how reasonable is it to not only maintain that view but to publish it in their book? Someone pointed out it was the parents responsibility to ensure the police were contacted, even in the melee and hysteria that ensued the discovery the child was missing. Ok, so they may have entrusted that to other people and it seems to have gone wrong but but strange that avaialbility of the true facts in witness statements did nothing to change their stance on this. This type of thing does nothing to help them or anyone else involved and simply mars the image on which they have spent so much time, effort and money. Just my opinion.

C.Edwards wrote:

ShuBob wrote:If the "fault" lies with the OC staff for the delay with calling the police, why is it that the McCanns blame the police for turning up late? It doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing much about their behaviour makes sense.

I don't know if you can call it the OC staff's "fault" for not calling immediately. They are on the record as stating they have procedures to follow and they weren't to know the full circumstances at the time they were being asked to act. It's plausible that Helder the receptionist delayed calling as this was part of the procedure to follow - basically "don't call the police until you've thoroughly searched the area" or words to that effect. Even with a frantic tourist insisting on calling the police standing in front of you I can believe that the receptionist would (rightly, in my opinion) believe they knew the best course of action to take and this could very well involve that delay that now seems evident.

What I don't understand is why Helder does not refer to Matt Oldfield's appearance in reception at 10:05 - 10:10 or thereabouts. Unless he's retrospectively trying to cover his delay, which in light of the subsequent media circus may have reflected badly on him... "why didn't you call the police immediately? A friend of the couple's was right there in front of you and you failed to act with the necessary urgency." I don't think it's reasonable to expect the receptionist of a leisure resort to have knowledge of police procedures and "the golden hour" in child abductions so he can't have been expected to leap into action to put in place a road block into Spain, etc. as at that point he'd still have thought that the girl was hiding somewhere nearby. I don't really see that there is much fault or blame to apportion on this particular subject as it's plausible the McCanns thought the police had been called pretty early on, it's plausible that Oldfield thought the receptionist was going to call the police after being asked and it's plausible that the receptionist was following company procedure in delaying until the local area had been searched.

It still amazes me that there appears to be no established (or at least it's not published anywhere I can find) definitive sequence of known events. It should be pretty easy to establish who spoke to whom and it SHOULD have been established. It may well have been, it just seems odd that if it was sorted out, it's not included in the case files released. I'd love to know how Amy Tierney found out. Who told her? Where was she and how was she told? Did a breathless McCann or friend rush in to her office? Was she called by the receptionist? Did the tapas bar call her? Who did she then tell and how? Face to face? By landline? Mobile? There should also be definitive records of when the GNR arrived (Da Costa and Rocque to start with) as that sort of thing should be recorded.

Many statements seem to indicate that the police arrived around 10:45 - 11pm but the first call, we know, was at 22:41 and, according to Rocque's statement he and da Costa were in Oxiadere when they were radioed about the situation. Assuming it took them a minute or two to sort themselves out and start driving it's still about 15 or 20 minutes drive to PDL from Oxiadere so they shouldn't have been there much before five past or ten past 11 and this doesn't match up with quite a few of the statements. It's maddening to see what should be basic information missing (surely the GNR vehicle has a tracker? Or the phone records of the police would indicate where they were and at what time?) that would help pinpoint the timings more accurately.

Be that as it may, the McCanns appear to blame the police for arriving late but they could only respond AFTER they'd received the call. If the McCanns are desperate for someone to blame for the delay, it shouldn't be the police. That's the point I'm making.

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting points being made here so wanted to join disucssion - first ever post.

Great research and good points from C Edwards with lots of sense and balance. However, while the McCs may have been initally entitled to have taken the view that the GNR were to blame for their claimed late appearance, with the release of the files which they have scrutinised at length how reasonable is it to not only maintain that view but to publish it in their book? Someone pointed out it was the parents responsibility to ensure the police were contacted, even in the melee and hysteria that ensued the discovery the child was missing. Ok, so they may have entrusted that to other people and it seems to have gone wrong but but strange that avaialbility of the true facts in witness statements did nothing to change their stance on this. This type of thing does nothing to help them or anyone else involved and simply mars the image on which they have spent so much time, effort and money. Just my opinion.

Thank you. This is the point I've been trying to make.

ShuBob wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting points being made here so wanted to join disucssion - first ever post.

Great research and good points from C Edwards with lots of sense and balance. However, while the McCs may have been initally entitled to have taken the view that the GNR were to blame for their claimed late appearance, with the release of the files which they have scrutinised at length how reasonable is it to not only maintain that view but to publish it in their book? Someone pointed out it was the parents responsibility to ensure the police were contacted, even in the melee and hysteria that ensued the discovery the child was missing. Ok, so they may have entrusted that to other people and it seems to have gone wrong but but strange that avaialbility of the true facts in witness statements did nothing to change their stance on this. This type of thing does nothing to help them or anyone else involved and simply mars the image on which they have spent so much time, effort and money. Just my opinion.

Thank you. This is the point I've been trying to make.

Ah. Get you now! Yes, I can see your point. I can understand that the McCanns are unlikely to issue an apology as they feel mistreated by the portuguese police, but your point is valid; once the facts became apparent that the police were only called at 22:41, it should have been the end to criticism of "late arrival".

ShuBob wrote:

Be that as it may, the McCanns appear to blame the police for arriving late but they could only respond AFTER they'd received the call. If the McCanns are desperate for someone to blame for the delay, it shouldn't be the police. That's the point I'm making.

Yep, simples.

In fact they should be thankful to the police for not being more precise with their interview questions - this cloudiness has probably helped them get away with it.

C.Edwards wrote:It still amazes me that there appears to be no established (or at least it's not published anywhere I can find) definitive sequence of known events. It should be pretty easy to establish who spoke to whom and it SHOULD have been established. It may well have been, it just seems odd that if it was sorted out, it's not included in the case files released.

Yes, it should be a straightforward process. Talk to each person present and find out where they were and what they did. It would understandable if people were not too specific with times they used their phones, but the phone company records would provide that record, precise to the second. Also the police would know how important it is to establish a clear timeline, it would be the framework around which their investigation took place, and they would be well practised in doing this. Yet still, a simple coherent timeline does not exist, so we have to ask why.

It seems to me that just as the physical alleged crime scene was contaminated, possibly inadvertently, possibly deliberately, so was the virtual crime scene in terms of the timeline. The mass of conflicting and contradictory information put forward made it impossible to establish the whereabouts of the various parties. It must have been incredibly frustrating to the police, and presumably they would have seen it as being distinctly suspicious.

There is at least one more phone call that must have been made at some point that is critical to any understanding of this. By 11 pm the British Ambassador in Lisbon, John Buck, was on the phone to the national director of the PJ. He would only have done so on instruction from London, and as he is the ambassador, that instruction must have come from either ministerial or very senior civil service level. Of course we don't know what the content of that call to the director of the PJ was, but we do know that (acting under instruction) he was completely supportive of the McCanns to an extent which defies logic in a case where so little was (apparently) known.

Even if the consular service were to act so decisively they would do so with a lower level official, not the ambassador who is the direct representative of the sovereign. They move very cautiously, they are effectively the nation's response to an event, so all possibilities are carefully considered before any move is made.

It is all very curious, and the fact that the day the McCanns were made arguidos Buck resigned not just from his Lisbon post but from the diplomatic service itself suggests that there is something he was very unhappy with about it all. That man has a story to tell, but I doubt that it will ever be told.

The notion that the whole foreign and diplomatic service could move so quickly to have responded as they did in less than hour is completely implausible. The only possible explanation is that whoever it was in London that instigated the move knew about events in PdL long before 10 pm on May 3rd. This opens a very large can of wormed indeed.

Sorry! Double posted somehow!