Anyone for scraps?

For the benefit of everyone like me who's never heard of the word mardy!
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I hope that tomorrow is a better day for you Daisy.

Nothing to forgive Daisy afaiac. 

Speaking of little scraps, here's one from the Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas statement:



(...)

Date: 2007/05/06

Occupation: Barman / Waite
They would arrive for dinner according to daily bookings which they did themselves at the reception, he remembers the bookings were always made for 20.30 or 21.00. This booking could be made on the same day until 16.00, it was necessary to show proof of accommodation as well as the number of persons included in the booking. He says that the group arrived in phases but no long delays occurred.
(...)


So, this means that at the reception (and also with the waiters) all info about the guest dining behaviours by apartment was known. If any of the receptionists or waiters were colluding with the kidnappers, they could have easily passed on the info.

True Fierjepper but it doesn't explain the findings of the dogs.

Some thoughts....



"Playing one of their games" ...... Who , the kids?  .... The sofa game?   The sofa that got pushed against the wall!, did it have rollers? what if a child put their weight between the sofa and the wall and then fell because the rollers allowed the sofa to move (woosh!) all of a sudden?

Daisy wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

Daisy wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

Jauna Loca wrote:Something that was a real [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]moment for me was Mrs Webster's statement (not sure if it was to PJ or in England) where she said she hadn't left
the table when KM came screaming down the path that Maddie had been taken because she thought it was "just another of their games" or words to
that effect.
Makes you wonder what they'd gotten up to for the rest of the week if she saw this as nothing out of the ordinary!

Yep, that was an odd one!

I've recently re-read all three of DW's statements and can't recall her saying anything like that. Could any of you point me in the right direction please? Or is there another statement besides the two she gave in Portugal (4th & 11th May 2007) & the rogatory interview in UK (April 2008)? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I've seen it mentioned before on a number of occasions...whether it's accurate is another question, there are quite a few "myths" that have become established.  Might have bene in a PJ statement...I'll see if I can track it down.

Thanks Okeydokey.  I have looked but can't seem to find it in any of her statements. Probably like you say just another internet myth. I think it's in all our best interests to weed the myths out and stick to the facts. No offence meant to any poster here.

I've seen that too somewhere...

stumbled on this from Dianne Webster's statement:

4078    ”How did she look?”

 Reply    ”Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”

I thinks that's a strange thing to say in response to one of the groups missing children...'what do you want me to do'... Old Webster should have went back to the Payne flat and made sandwiches!!

The 'New Zealand wine': Why did KM state that they had drank some New Zealand wine in the apartment and not just 'some wine'? I think I know why. There is quite a lot of anthropological research on drinking as this is treated quite differently in and within different cultures. To state 'some wine' or just 'a few drinks' means that the individual is focussed on the alcohol. To state 'New Zealand wine' (or any other named brand) takes it to a different level of semantics and means that the individual wants the listeners to believe that the focus was not the alcohol but the experience of consuming a certain thing because of the taste. I hope I am making myself clear. For example, I have a couple of friends - she does not drink and does not allow him to drink. He subsequently does not 'drink' but is allowed to go to real ale bars and festivals because it is not 'drink' - no! it is not anywhere near as 'common' as that. He is not 'drinking' he is tasting real ale!

whmon wrote:The 'New Zealand wine': Why did KM state that they had drank some New Zealand wine in the apartment and not just 'some wine'? I think I know why. There is quite a lot of anthropological research on drinking as this is treated quite differently in and within different cultures. To state 'some wine' or just 'a few drinks' means that the individual is focussed on the alcohol. To state 'New Zealand wine' (or any other named brand) takes it to a different level of semantics and means that the individual wants the listeners to believe that the focus was not the alcohol but the experience of consuming a certain thing because of the taste. I hope I am making myself clear. For example, I have a couple of friends - she does not drink and does not allow him to drink. He subsequently does not 'drink' but is allowed to go to real ale bars and festivals because it is not 'drink' - no! it is not anywhere near as 'common' as that. He is not 'drinking' he is tasting real ale!

Might be something in that. But might be something to do with sales receipts.

Sorry Okeydokey - I might be being a little slow but I don't understand what you mean by 'it might be to do with sales receipts'?

The Infidel wrote:

I thinks that's a strange thing to say in response to one of the groups missing children...'what do you want me to do'... Old Webster should have went back to the Payne flat and made sandwiches!!

I think it's odd that she had no idea how long she was there. Surely the one thing you would be doing in that situation, alone at the table waiting, not knowing what's going on is looking at your watch.  A cynic might think it sounded like she (and perhaps everyone) has been told or has agreed to be vague on times in their statements.

Hi, all, from a long time follower; have posted occasionally, years ago under different user names, and on 3A and Mirror Forums.  Excuse any duplication, but these are the bits and pieces which stick with me:

Madeleine’s pyjamas.
Sydney Morning Herald

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

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."  (John McCann)

In the early days, Kate McCann showed an identical set of Ey-ore pyjamas  (belonging to Amelie?) on TV, said to be the same as those Madeleine was reportedly wearing at the time of her disappearance, presumably in a smaller size.  A puzzling question is:  if the children had the same pyjamas, why would Amelie identify those she was being dressed in as specifically belonging to Maddie, rather than accepting them as her own identical set?  An interesting question might be: why dress Amelie in Madeleine's (spare?) pyjamas rather than keep them clean and available in anticipation of her soon being found? They may have taken at least four sets of pyjamas for all the children, of course, in which case there would still be some available for Maddie. But if there were so many available, why would it be necessary to put Maddie's pyjamas on Amelie? They had lots of people around, it's doubtful the laundry would have been left to pile up for that long. Even so, and according to the Telegraph - 'The friend said a pair of Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas had been among the clothes thrown into the back of the car when the McCanns left the holiday apartment. They left in a hurry, throwing their belongings into carrier bags, plastic sacks and even loose, because they were trying to avoid the media.'  So, at least three sets of PJs for Maddie mentioned - those she was wearing when abducted - those in which Amelie was dressed - and the pair which was, still unwashed, when leaving the apartment, and thrown in the back of the car  (and possibly four if one set was being kept back, clean and available, in the event of her return).  How many pairs of  pyjamas,realistically, does one take on a week's holiday, when there are three children to pack for?  Interesting that John McCann mentioned this episode in interview. Maybe he was puzzled/uneasy about Amelie being dressed in Madeleine's pyjamas - maybe clothes sharing was not routine, and he could not help commenting on it, in the same way Amelie may have been too young to understand some things, but not too young to draw attention to the (unusual?) event of her being dressed in her sister's pjs.


Gerry playing around with the shutters
In an early account, Jes Wilkins  was reported as having said that when he met Gerry on the street, he had found him messing about with the shutters.  How would this not be suspicious, given the circumstances?

Is she asleep?
Early report of one of the Smith family asking the man carrying the child towards the beach 'Is she asleep?'  Why would anyone ask the question if she was obviously not awake. That someone apparently felt the need to ask raises the possibility that something did not seem right, and there was unease as to whether the child was merely sleeping.

Fridge Photo
A national newspaper (online) carried a photograph of GM removing a fridge from a holiday apartment which belonged to a friend;  the story was that he was taking it to the tip as a favour for the landlord. The photograph and story were later removed. Can't be sure where it appeared - possibly it was The Times Online. There's been a lot of heated discussion about the fridge as online myth, but the photo did appear online, so someone must have it and some media people must know of its existence.  

The hair elastic - poolside last photo
The pink band has possibly been photoshopped in. It looks to not be attached to the hair above, and there appears to be a cut and paste line a half an inch or so below the band. Kate makes a deal about having carefully removed a bead from Madeleine's hair. Is there some significance to the bead/band and her mention of it?  When this possibility was raised on this forum a long time ago, it was jumped on defensively by one poster who was very keen to stamp on the suggestion.  The large hi-resolution image (forget where now available) does raise image manipulation as a possibility, however. Many of the online photos have been compromised through accidental reduction in quality by those posting them, but the large hi-res image of the poolside photo appears to still be of good quality.  I don't consider any of the other photos to have been manipulated - it's only that one which raises a question, for me.

Question
Were all the McCanns pushchairs (owned or hired, at home and on holiday) present and accounted for?

Grown Men: Composing a timeline on Madeleine's sticker book - why?
Jane Tanner describing the clothes she was wearing. Why did that seem necessary?
Gerry McCann: 'Confusion is good.'
Kate McCann: 'It was our holiday, too.'
Gerry McCann: "Nothing was so bad as the night we found her."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Apologies if I've duplicated what others have thought/written - I haven't had time to read through all the earlier posts yet.  :-)
__
Unrelated, but as I'm posting :-

In the interests of accuracy, and to avoid what seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding by some: the parents have not, themselves, used the term 'coloboma' to describe Madeleine's eye condition.  They described it as a defect, a mark, or as a fleck, all along. It was 'a good marketing ploy', and the mark was used in the 'LOOK' posters, etc  Even so, it was actually forum contributors (perhaps as far back as the Mirror days) who 'diagnosed' Madeleine with the 'coloboma' and put the term out there, and more recently became very indignant when the parents said, 'actually, we don't think it is a coloboma - it's more a fleck' (or words to that effect).  That was their position all along - it was forum folk who insisted upon it being a 'coloboma' as opposed to the family's' 'mark' or 'defect'.  I've followed the case since the beginning and watched the defect, or mark, 'evolve' online into the 'coloboma', often with conjecture as to what dire medical conditions can accompany that condition. Not to say Madeleine might not have had one (who but an eye specialist could know?) -  just to point out, that it's not what the parents themselves had ever said, or how they described or presented it.

There's no denying though, that whatever the mark in the eye was called, there was a massive publicity campaign right from the start to draw it to everyone's attention.

Then suddenly in 2011 the McCanns claimed on TV they'd never made much of it and it's not mentioned in Kate's book!

Maybe they personally hadn't made much of it but they let the publicity campaign go ahead on their behalf.

Yes agreed NFWTD and despite the police advising against divulging the info.   In the LOOK poster the mark looked much bigger than a fleck and people definitely thought it was a big mark to look out for.

I seem to recall that there was an interview when Gerry said words to the effect "Technically its called a coloboma"

PeterMac wrote:I seem to recall that there was an interview when Gerry said words to the effect "Technically its called a coloboma"

heehee PeterMac, just as well we have people here with very good memories.  

Great post Sparrow!    



quote 'Gerry McCann: "Nothing was so bad as the night we found her."  unquote




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




what does Kate say at 57 seconds?

Is there any link to the report that Jez Wilkins saw Gerry playing with the shutters?  It's very important if true.  But if there's no concrete source I'm seeing it as a myth.

PeterMac wrote:I seem to recall that there was an interview when Gerry said words to the effect "Technically its called a coloboma"

 so do I.

russiandoll wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I seem to recall that there was an interview when Gerry said words to the effect "Technically its called a coloboma"

 so do I.

It is from the Piers Morgan Interview.....which is a sticky on this forum..



K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

MORGAN: If people see somebody they think could possibly be Madeleine, who should they call?

what happened to my edit? My Piers Morgan extract never went through, so thanks for that CF.

 As for not making much of it, they allowed this to be done,  this was not the work of forum posters


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

Here is an odd scrap. There is a photo of a young Kate McCann, aged about 10, with a friend. She is wearing blue trousers. The face is obviously pasted on another child's head! This is from Icke forum, Today's News, Madeleine thread. Now why on earth??

worriedmum wrote:Great post Sparrow!    



quote 'Gerry McCann: "Nothing was so bad as the night we found her."  unquote




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




what does Kate say at 57 seconds?

I've posted somewhere else on this. Kate definitely says ".....and that's when I noticed that Madeleine was there". The crucial word NOT has been abducted!

juliet wrote:Here is an odd scrap. There is a photo of a young Kate McCann, aged about 10, with a friend. She is wearing blue trousers. The face is obviously pasted on another child's head! This is from Icke forum, Today's News, Madeleine thread. Now why on earth??

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


I have seen this photo before. It seems okay to me unlike some of the photos supposedly of Madeleine.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Great post Sparrow!    



quote 'Gerry McCann: "Nothing was so bad as the night we found her."  unquote




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




what does Kate say at 57 seconds?

I've posted somewhere else on this. Kate definitely says ".....and that's when I noticed that Madeleine was there". The crucial word NOT has been abducted!

That's what I thought I heard...

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

juliet wrote:Here is an odd scrap. There is a photo of a young Kate McCann, aged about 10, with a friend. She is wearing blue trousers. The face is obviously pasted on another child's head! This is from Icke forum, Today's News, Madeleine thread. Now why on earth??

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


I have seen this photo before. It seems okay to me unlike some of the photos supposedly of Madeleine.

That photo looks fine to me too.  Indeed, why on earth would it be manipulated?  Simplest answer is that it hasn't been :)