"Portuguese police to look into the “personal” relationships between the McCanns and the Tapas 7….?"

"Question by trancebabe: Portuguese police to look into the “personal” relationships between the McCanns and the Tapas 7….?
Perhaps they have been reading Andrew T’s posts.
Also on Gerry’s blog he says it is heartening to meet “ordinary” people.
Hold on a minute, how patronising can you get. These “ordinary” people
could well be the people that donated to the “fund” that is paying his
mortgage. He just can’t get away from the fact that he sees himself as a
celebrity can he. He also says that it is encouraging that Mr Rebeldo’s
detectives are “seemingly” reviewing all the evidence in the case. I
find the use of the word “seemingly” strange and unnecessary. What does
he mean by it? It is surplus to requirements in the sentence. What do
you think?"

Not sure what this is all about, it has todays date on it though but sounds like it could have been written a long time ago?

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

I think it is an old article when Mr Rebelo was in charge, he was the one who took over from Goncalo Amaral. I think there is now a lady in charge which SY are liasing with, but I can't remember her name. I'm sure someone will know and post her name.

Moving thread to debate section.

From the horses'/tapas group's mouths:

1. The McCanns went on holiday with 7 adults, only 2 of whom, the Paynes, they could call friends.

2. The McCanns were acquainted with the others. They had not seen some for a few years.

3. Some of them had not seen Maddie for years, and had never seen the twins until this holiday.

4. 2 of these male acquaintances took it upon themselves to do some checking of McCann children.

5. Both of these men were absent from the table during the crucial times evening 3rd May.

6. These same men were absent , separately, from the dining table, and in the vicinity of the McCann apartment where the children were sleeping unattended, for the entire duration of an evening meal. One was absent the first evening the group had dinner at the tapas bar, [29th April], the other recalls that it was either 30th April or 1st May.

7. The partner of the man absent on the Sunday was absent Wednesday 2nd from dinner. She is another person who was not a friend, but an acquaintance of the McCanns.

8. There were only 2 evenings when the group were all together at the table , the 3rd and one evening earlier in the week.

Given the circumstances of a vanished child, should not the movements of the two men be thoroughly examined?
Their claimed illnesses are not facts. Is there any reason that these people should be deemed trustworthy?

It is a fact that statisitcs show that those closest to a victim are the ones involved in any harm befalling him or her.

Surely no police officer is going to accept " trust me, I'm a doctor ".

Terrific RD. Also: Only time when all the children in Lobster are together is morning of 2nd.,(Q: where were all the parents and what were they doing?)
Kate drops M off at 9.20 am. Madeleine is picked up at 12.30 but not Kate’s or Gerry’s signature.

I think this could be the key to the case if it is not an abduction, or an accident.

I have seen a few theories knocking about, but they are just theories and nothing with much evidence.

Unfortunately the link didn't work Bristow, but thanks for posting.

How intriguing! I have often wondered about the dynamics of the group. I think Gerry was the alpha male, and Fiona alpha female, but thats just my guess. Perhaps I should keep my theories to myself for the moment, lol, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

bristow wrote:"Question by trancebabe: Portuguese police to look into the “personal” relationships between the McCanns and the Tapas 7….?
Perhaps they have been reading Andrew T’s posts.
Also on Gerry’s blog he says it is heartening to meet “ordinary” people.
Hold on a minute, how patronising can you get. These “ordinary” people
could well be the people that donated to the “fund” that is paying his
mortgage. He just can’t get away from the fact that he sees himself as a
celebrity can he. He also says that it is encouraging that Mr Rebeldo’s
detectives are “seemingly” reviewing all the evidence in the case. I
find the use of the word “seemingly” strange and unnecessary. What does
he mean by it? It is surplus to requirements in the sentence. What do
you think?"

Not sure what this is all about, it has todays date on it though but sounds like it could have been written a long time ago?

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

Agree on 'seemingly' sounds like a plant for the future.

Have tried but am unable to copy over parts of the statements and RIs, without all kinds of extra print denoting text size appearing in my draft.

It is interesting to read how Madeleine was described by the adults who knew her well [Paynes] and the others who barely knew her at all. Given that they all admit to seeing little of the McCanns and especially the children during the day, they have a lot to say about her. I find it remarkable for adults who had not seen her for a long time and only saw her very briefly during the holiday days to give such full descriptions. At children's tea and post-tea play they surely would have been spending most time attending to and observing their own youngsters.

To save people having to re- read the statements and RIs I will try later to post the relevant sections without saving as a draft, it was fine intially copying over the text from mccannfiles, it was reopening after saving the draft here that showed all the unwanted text.

I find it very interesting and would appreciate peoples' opinions.

HOW THE GROUP DESCRIBED MADELEINE

first statements :

the women who did not know Maddie well :


JT : Madeleine was a lovely, very friendly, very active, playful girl. She likes to jump around. She was intelligent and (the witness) does not believe that if a stranger had approached she would not have shouted.

RM/O : Concerning Madeleine, she is a happy child, good natured and full of energy. She considers it impossible that a stranger could take her without her shouting or crying. She is a smart child who knows right from wrong.

DW : The informant does not know Madeleine well, because
she lives a long way from the McCanns, and she cannot say very much
about Madeleine's personality. Nevertheless, she reports that Madeleine
was calm but active and energetic and well brought up. She is an attractive and a good child.



and from the woman who does know Maddie well, the fewest words.

FP : She knew Madeleine well and describes her as very intelligent and she would not go with a stranger without screaming or protesting, unless she was very tired or sleeping.

of note : are they all describing the Maddie they knew or parrotting the opinions of others?
FP knew Maddie well, has seen her enough to estimate her intelligence, yet she gives a more limited description than DW.
JT and RO barely knew her and only saw Maddie on this holiday at
children's tea and play afterwards. They reasonably note her energy and
other aspects of her personality likely witnessed at kids' tea /play.
How have either managed to estimate how bright she was? No mention of
any activities where this could have played a part, listening to Maddie
asking questions about a story being read to her, or a tv programme she
was watching. Watching her using her sticker book, colouring or making
things. This part re Maddie's intelligence had to be based on what her
parents or the Paynes said about Maddie, surely. All stated to firm up
the opinion that she had to be sleeping when she was taken, promoting
the JT sighting. I am dubious about RM/O's saying Maddie was smart to
emphasise her knowing it would be wrong to go with a stranger. Again
this is to shore up the she was taken from her bed and sleeping scenario
to match JT's sighting.

DW imo gives the most credible description based on what she had seen of Maddie and her limited knowledge of the little girl.


the men who did not know Maddie well :


ROB : nothing about Madeleine's personality.

MO : That Madeleine is very lively, obedient, communicative and extrovert

and from the man who does know Maddie well :

DP : He describes Madeleine as being a communicative girl, happy, obedient and very well behaved.

of
note : DP who knows Maddie well gives almost the same description as MO
who barely knows her, you would expect more from DP, just as you would
from his wife, re the type of child Maddie was.

ROGATORIES.

the women who did not know Maddie well :

JT - asked if she saw much of Maddie during the holiday

Not that much really because only really because she didn’t come
to breakfast, so we saw
the other children at breakfast and their lunch, but because they tended
to have breakfast and lunch
separately, the only
time I really saw her was at, erm, after high tea when we were playing
in the play area, was the main
times that I probably
saw her during the week”. “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because, probably a bit of, we
were almost a bit worried how Ella and Madeleine would get on, because
Ella’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know
whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very,
erm, outgoing and. But, I mean, they did, they got on and they had a whale of a time. But, yeah, very, very lively, chatty,
a chatty little girl. I mean, to be honest, I know Madeleine probably
less well than I know Kate and Gerry, because often, with Kate and
Gerry, we saw them, it was like at fortieth birthday parties and that
sort of thing. So, Madeleine herself, I wouldn’t say as, I didn’t know her as a little girl, whereas, you know, the other children, Millie and the other ones, you know, I saw very regularly”.
4078 “So your impressions of Madeleine is that she is confident, happy?”
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “Intelligent?”
Reply “Yeah, very, yeah, you know, very”.
4078 “And is there anything about her that would make her stand out from the rest of the children in that group?”
Reply “I think just the fact she is very outgoing, you know. As I say, Ella, in her nature, is a bit more, you know, quiet and, erm, a bit more probably reserved. Well, again, I don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.
4078 “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”
Reply “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader, but she would be at the centre of it, so”.
4078 “I don’t want to put words in your mouth and I don’t want to ask inappropriate questions either”.
Reply “No, just ask”.
4078
“How you described Madeleine, up to what point was she sort of the
leader, if you like, was she verging on the, because some children can
be downright annoying”.
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “When they’re over confident?”
Reply “No, again, I think this is what I was almost wondering, whether, with Ella being sort of the stand-back type, whether, but, no, she wasn’t like that at all, she was just”.
4078 “In a nice way?”
Reply “Just happy. In a nice way, yeah. No, she wasn’t, erm, she wasn’t a brat, no, I mean, that’s you could describe, she wasn’t, no, bratty or sort of, I can’t remember the word I’m trying to look for, precocious”.
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply
“No, she was just very, and she was obviously, you know, they were
enjoying themselves, they were running around screaming, you know, sort
of chasing them round the play area, you know. That’s my main memory of
Madeleine from the holiday, is in the play area, you know, we were sort
of chasing them around and, you know, just being, just running around,
quite happy”.
4078 “Just fun?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah”.

RM/ O : 'Erm I mean she was you know, a very bubbly little girl, erm very cheery, erm very sort of caring, she was very good with er smaller children,
erm you know I just remember Grace falling over and sort of Madeleine
going to pick her up and help her, erm you know, sort of full of fun,
lots of energy, running around, sporty, erm one game
that sort of we used to play in the evenings by the recreation area was
you know, somebody would pretend to be a monster and they'd all sort of
say, 'chase me, chase me' and Madeleine was always kind of the
one who started that off, erm sort of say, 'oh let's play monsters' and
so you know it would be Matt or Dave or Russell sort of running around
chasing all the kids, erm'.


578 'What about her intelligence''
Reply 'Erm a bright little girl I think, erm I mean oh, her, I suppose I
don't know her well enough to, to really comment on that but I mean,
she was, you know she was sort of very together and certainly acted her
age or sort of you know older than her age, she was very sort of self
aware, erm'.


00.14.43 1578 'Do you know if she was aware of stranger danger for example''
Reply 'Yeah I'm sure she would have been, I mean I don't know personally but erm you know I think'.


1578 'To your knowledge, was she the sort of little girl that would have gone with a stranger''
Reply 'No I don't, no I don't think she would have done, no, erm no, I
mean, I mean, I don't, you know I didn't know Madeleine well enough but I
know Ella who was you know a couple of months younger than Madeleine
and you know, I mean she would, she wouldn't go off with a
stranger and you know just from sort of all our backgrounds and the way
that the children are brought up, erm you know I don't think Madeleine
would either'.

DW : ”Well she was a lovely little girl, you know, err very petite, err quite a striking girl,
”Well she was just a normal happy, little girl, you know she was a nice girl.”

and from the one woman who knew her well :

FP : nothing re the type of child Maddie is/was.


note : DW again gives the brief, to the point description of a child not known well.

FP says nothing, so her description over all of her statements
is limited to how intelligent Maddie was, despite being one of the two
adults who knew her well.

RM/O gives a description
completely congruent with a child she had seen at children's tea and
play afterwards, apart from her assumption that Maddie was stranger
-aware.

The most remarkable description comes from JT,
knows the child as little as RM/O, yet has so much to say about her
personality, a year after the "event " , in huge detail. I am struck by
how, despite it being natural to compare Maddie to her own daughter of
the same age,she is linked to Ella in so much of the description. Why
was she bothered about how well the 2 girls would get along on that
holiday ? They were not alone at tea or afterwards and limited to each
other's company where they might rub each other up the wrong way. If
they were alone, one being a leader and the other a follower might be
supposed to cause less friction, not more. In creche, they were among
other children of a similar age and as they did not know one another
would possibly gravitate towards other children and not one another.
Why was JT so concerned, especially as her husband states that on this
holiday Maddie seemed to have mellowed a bit, was not quite the live
wire as witnessed on previous occasions?[ He had rather strange
expectations of a toddler at her own birthday party if he expected a
bubbly toddler to be anything but " mellow" imo ]

I believe that
her concerm about this contrast in the children had its roots
elswhere. I am convinced after close scrutiny of the creche records
[where" ROB "seems to forget his own child's name and his apartment
number ] that Madeleine's name was entered on the record when she was
not attending and when Gerry was hanging around with other fathers. If
the two girls had such a basic difference in character, would one be
easily mistaken for the other? Did not at least one creche nanny
describe Maddie as quiet? And would it more likely be a shy, sensitive
child rather than a child who started a monster game who would be scared
on a boat ? Just my musings..


and the men :

ROB : does describe Maddie, “Yeah, well I can’t, I can’t confess to
knowing Madeleine well I mean that’s fair enough, we didn’t, we saw her intermittently, birthdays, barbeques, but she was a, on the occasions I’ve met her she was happy, bubbly, err relatively headstrong on previous meetings actually she seemed to have mellowed a little bit when we went on holiday, you know a girl, you know a little girl full of, full of life, full of beans,

MO : nothing re type of child Maddie was.

DP : err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine
err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know
pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF
and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as
I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very
happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you
know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”
1485 ”Mm.”
Reply ”You know I, you know a fact I’ve come across already you know she was a, she’s a very bright child you know, she wouldn’t be the kind of mischievous child who you know and just try and get out of the flat and
you know get up to mischief and that, you know, there’s fun in all
children but she certainly wasn’t that kind of child. She was very
bright.”

A fulsome desription by DP, strangely not echoed by his
wife who appears to have met Maddie as often as her husband. The
physical description does not strike me as sinister as it does some
people, although it makes for uncomfortable reading how he repeatedly
refers to Maddie's beauty. I think he is emphasising this at the outset
to explain why of all the children she would catch the attention of a
person with bad intent towards her, even though another in the party
stated that the only thing which made Maddie stand out amongst the other
children was because of how outgoing she was.

I am puzzled
mainly by the descriptions of Maddie given by JT and FP. One way too
fulsome for a child she barely knew, the other as good as empty of
detail considering how well she knew the little girl. Incongruous to my
mind.