Madeleine McCann: timelines, where to start?

timelines, where to start?

first we do not have a true starting point, the only set time that can be used until that is covered, can be the logged time of the phone call to the gnr. a call from the desk in the main reception, by the receptions of duty. that time is 22.41 hours. it is in itself not the ideal time to work from.

the police was asked to assist because a female child, almost 4 years was missing.
so no crime, and in itself not a crime. so by that there cannot be said 5a was a crime scene. it was just the scene where maybe something happened. what will decide often later if there was a criminal element in that.

missing has quite a broad spectrum. those points only reflect in this case.

1.the missing victim could have left on her own actions.

this is something that cannot be decided on estimates of others' about the capability to do that.
the chance is fairly good a nearly 4 years old child could leave unit 5a and so is capable enough to do that. that does not make it a given, but a possibility.

2.the victim could leave unit 5a with direct assistance of a third party still alive. so what could be seen as harder tasks to do at that age, could be covered by a third party. this in itself would not make it a crime, that would depend on the intent.

3.the victim could have left by the direct actions of a third party, and again intent counts to split that in the good and the bad. only for the bad intent it results in a crime.

Still, these are the 3 possibilities for leaving unit 5a still alive.

4. the victim also could have come to harm, and if that ended up in a fatality, and then there is assistance of a third party needed to leave unit 5a, this reaches much quicker into a crime.
it becomes even a more serious crime when it was done to hide other actions, that almost all can be called criminal too, with some rare exceptions.

2 and 3 cannot be directly named as certainly criminal, because the intent could be saving the child, to get her out of danger, or when already come to harm to seek help to deal with her. 3 and 4 include a situation the third party still had the idea that it was a child alive.

all that is on the table cannot be excluded in this case, the only thing for sure is, that this victim did leave unit 5a.

if we look a bit deeper into possibility 1, it still was a possibility, there was no responsible adult around all the time, or in a way to hinder that child leaving unit 5a.

the reactions of the parents, who must to be seen as the people who knew her best at the scene available, are controversial. from she could never have done that, because she would leave 5a not by leaving the doors and gates closed, but there was no way, to secure the information about the state of all points of entry and exit of unit 5a.

so no independent declaration about what was closed, locked or not could be gathered from the scene.

from stories first in the media, and later bits from formal statements made, we can get the understanding at least the mother did not see any stands in the way for the victim to leave unit 5a, when she would go looking for her parents, or to escape expected danger.
it is even presented to be part of the conversation that evening of may 3, 2007 with friends at the table in the tapas restaurant.

parents are usually not the best source about abilities in their offspring. first it are children, they will have to learn things, so one time can be just the first time, and succeed.
but children often like to please their parents, or can also be a bit lazy, many parents keep up doing things the child would do in other situations without that parent just on their own.

so to get a better understanding of how capable a child truly is, you need a lot of others, that see the child in situations without parents.

from being able to leave unit 5a it looks not to be put off by the opening of doors, or gates, or even the child gate. and there are no elements in the formal statements that even tells the child gate and garden access gate have been closed. and been closed up again after a check was made. but the focus for saying no, was in the closing them after taking passage through.

opening and closing of the sliding door on the patio side can not be excluded, there are many home video’s much younger children know how to fix that. and a child would not need to get curtains a side, but can walk behind them.

all people around the victim give the impression they lived mostly in a laid back holiday mood. so no sharp minds that truly would take notice of the doors, also, at least 2, and if you accept the matt check too, even 3, who could have made changes when opening and closing them.

to be continued….

there is a lot of talking about inside doors, such as the bedroom all 3 children slept in, but for that door too, there is not really to filter that into a clear pattern at all.
the father even tells early on, he took a last look and changed that same door to a more open position. and even all the 3 adults do tell how they remember them in the position when arriving, when leaving that is much less clear. only matt escapes handling the door of that bedroom.

no usable traces of handling these doors are found. also after the given alarm by the mother, many others could knowingly and unknowingly have touched the door and changed its setting.
it was a strange remark, when the mother told the door setting was changed, because it was different from how they left it when leaving unit 5a to go to the restaurant. but the father states he was in unit 5a to do his check, matt states that checking to, later on that evening.
(operation granges left that check out of their reconstruction.)

touching doors and door frames we often do without realizing we do that. something many of us know about, because try to escape them, when they are freshly painted and still have to dry. also doors are not often perfectly hanged in the frames, so there can be little energy needed to change the setting when the door is set loose.
what also means a inside door kan simply change in how it was set, when outside doors are opened, and people moving around inside unit 5a.

so the mother was not the last who handled the door, the father states he was, there are the father and maybe matt been around that door, before the mother came near it again.
also the child could as made known have walked through that same door, she did that before, maybe a bathroom break.
so i never understood why she describe that different setting of the door, directly as strange.

i do not like that bit of her story much, it starts out with the sloppy checking, just listening inside near the patio door, so far i can get that, that would fit in the same range of behaviour that made them decide to use a not locked door. both reflect on wanting her own comfort, without truly thinking through the possible risks. and they had to take the longest route when using the front door. it would even be more natural if they used directly the small alleyway around the garden sides of block 5 and turn through the passage to the front and walk the walled pathway in front of the front doors of block 5. the access through that walled pathway was more near 5d.

only when she looked a moment extra or longer at the bedroom door she became more alert. that does not fit with the laid back attitude she started from, and as she supposedly was not the last who handled that door, and others been around it before, that could hardly be strong enough to change to a state of more awareness and look into that.
and the laid back attitude only changed for the position the door was in, there was no will or want to look into that bedroom, and visually check on the children at all.

what also still is mind-breaking is the complete whooshing story itself. i never found a way to work out that, it sounds even as a very rare kind of draft. the effect of open to the outside, like an open window, a not closed door happens when you open another source to the outside. certainly when it was felt at the moment she wanted to set the door at a smaller angle, and even looked back, to the patio doors that were still been described as closed.

going by physics it can hardly been likely to called a draft, quote a heavy wind force, but that must have been also a very rare blow, because it was only there on that moment, but had not earlier closed the setting of that door to at least almost closed.

the crime scene pictures do not offer much to paint a scene with blowing curtains, not by the with both arms painted scene of both sides of the curtains, including the net curtains, blowing upwards. one half of both the curtain and the net curtain been stuck between the wall and the single bed under that window. in a position that can simply not have lead to blowing upwards.

and that is the problem from having mostly words.

but this was the finale, the scene just before the mother noticed her child was not in her bed.

to be continued……

so as it are only words, and i have some points i can not place soundly from that story, and there are multiple versions out there, most even directly by mouth of the mother, i can only look from what we got.

why i did pick this as the finale and by that the moment that can be used as moment the event has ended, is because after this part of her story, the mother starts looking, she said, inside unit 5a. looking and searching can change the scene.

i never understood why she did not want to go into the details of that moment during her arguido statement. this finale or final stage of a possible infringement of a unknown third party is very important to the investigation. it was the only chance to reflect on what that third party could have done inside unit 5a. where you could attend the forensic search for traces of that in a more prominent way too. it works pretty simple, that final stage unit 5a inside was in, minus the actions during her looking and searching can mean finding gold. even much later on.

forensics like to use surfaces that have no infringement of bystanders. it always wants to be able to look back in time, for traces that are connected to the possible crime, not a mix that also has traces left after the final stage of the crime. it is never easy to have a correct list of all who set foot and hands in the scene, but almost impossible to tell when that was.
and bystanders do not have to be just that, the future suspect could be under them too.

and at that time it was already known. that it was not only the mother who had hands on the inside, but many others too. some of the friends, not all declare to have been in 5a so much, but all have been inside, or very near before the forensic team could start.
there are even two different periods of time, there is the first period before the officers of the gnr arrived, and a period after that, in both the scene became compromised.

the looking and searching mother. you can not put that into a mistake or call it harmful, this must be guided by the intent. the intent was not likely to compromise something, but simply finding the victim.

at least this is the common acceptable thinking, if we go from truthful words.
still look and search for something that is missing is around as ’compromised the scene’.
and it is pretty standard in cases of missing people. and you can not really escape that.

all others that walked in on the scene, and stayed around on the inside and the patio, and near unit 5a, that was a bigger problem. the family itself, at least some of the friends been inside 5a. all on the patio or at the front door side. people from the ocean club, from mark warner child care.

so when around 23.00 hours the gnr arrived at unit 5a. it was already impossible to get a good insight who had been where, and how many already left the scene, but had been there.

the officers concludes from a first investigation of the scene in and around unit 5a, that a child wandering out was a possibility and by lack of other traces, for that moment also the most likely cause why the child was missing.

and then they made the usually mistake, as is done in 99% of the cases when a child goes missing, and that is not securing the area, so there is something to work with if the scene is changed into a crime scene. the extra excuse for how they came to that was that by their insight no longer a scene to secure was left. they also had no signs to tell it could be a crime scene.

the result was that most questioning was also done inside and just outside unit 5a, even when the first contact with the pj was about a quarter of an hour after their arrival, because of the time of day, and the distances, it took the pj to around 01.00 hours to get there.
this was not a full alert directly, that would have been maybe very different when the officers of the gnr had found signs of a third party and crime could be involved. but only because the parents themselves only wanted to present it as an abduction by their strong opinions.

in missing children's cases and even most missing adults, there is hardly an uncompromised scene to work from. it is better to see as a start of a kind of social gathering by all who just want to be of help. in itself missing is not a crime. the energy and all actions are put on finding the missing child, or adult. in many cases there is not even crime involved, for many there is, and for others it stays a question mark.
but the crime usually is not in the front of our human minds.

it is maybe better explained by not being able to afford the risk, of not taking every, even very small opportunity to save a life. not only in the minds of the people near that person, but also the wider public, and even in the minds of trained police officers.
that using every chance to save a live takes so much of the energy available and also in all minds, that we simply forget there also can be a serious crime to solve.
for what the first asks, it usually will hamper the second. and you simply can not foresee what the outcome of that will be. and for ethical reasons we usually not even make a choice, the maybe still living victims simply is first for all other.
even knowing you can end up with no answers to where the missing is, and also no answers if a criminal element is part of it.

hindsight makes things look so much easier, but that has that as a overall habit. many that looks to be mysterious cases are with hindsight almost always easy.

to be continued.......

many more things happened in unit 5a that first 24 hours.

so besides all kind of activity that could compromise the scene, there was also the moment the other children been taken out, this was shortly after the pj arrived, and wanted to clear unit 5a from people. this also brought workers from mark warner’s child care in the bedroom itself, that took the bedding to reuse during the rest of the night for the children to sleep.
only the cots and the mattresses left behind.

after a first round of pictures had been taken by the pj, there also must have been permission to take out necessary personal belongings.
this is a part that has in my view many question marks. i never found a report specifically about this, usually a formal report with exact time, names who gathered things, who supervised that. and i can not think about a reason why it was allowed to take all personal belongings including those of the victim out of unit 5a.

such reports can simply be excluded from the files, because they could be just been made as direct work related paperwork. the internal used protocol for that is not known.
or maybe i am more used to a very strict handling i know, that all what arrives on a possible crime scene and all that left it has to be documented and if possible into extreme detail and even pictures made. all that has to be touched of taken would be done by a dedicated officer, others can only be on the scene under a strict hands off, do not touch approach.

also usually taking personal belongings is very restricted to medication that needs to be taken, and clothing only for one night at best, all to keep it as much as possible to a stand still of the final stage.

it would be easy to use just thoughts on this, what usually only does end up in just a misunderstanding. protocols to handle scenes can be different, so it is more curiosity , than forming an opinion about it and use it to build a bit of a case.

the timelines that investigations work with are often multiple versions, each starting on different points. it can take a lot of time before they can be fitted together into one story.

so for the forensic searches inside unit 5a, the final stage, before the mother started to look and search there. is the start and finish in one, investigations are always looking back into a past time. in this case there never became a true starting point for that.

and it certainly is not the sole timeline that has none. final points are easy to reach often. only that would not tell what happened or that it has a criminal element in it.

this case still lacks a true point where it all started, and also a true final point of ending.

the first entry of the police can be gathered from the time logged to the phone call to the gnr.
22.41 hours. there was a next one a bit later from the same connection.

there are no earlier calls from the ocean club available between 21.00 hours or 23.00 hours to the gnr, on may 3, 2007.

it is a bit unusual that the call was made by a third party, without a direct family member present. the third party, here the receptionist from the ocean club can certainly be explained by the language barrier, but that it was asked by a none parent of the child makes it unusual.
friend matt was send out to handle that.

matt only had seen madeleine as a very young baby, and after they arrived the saturday before, and only short periods of time during the week.
i would expected that people from their medical background would have a bit more of a natural understanding that details are important. and a parent would go asking for police assistance.

such little things does not make it easier for the police operator on the phone, to get already extra information, about the missing child, the urgency to send help.
it was also already late in the evening, so that means everywhere less available police officers, and out side the large urban areas, very large area’s to patrol and serve on incoming calls. it still was low season, on the brink of getting more and more tourists in from abroad, so numbers of officers would not jet up for that.

what we have little knowledge about is what the message to the police exactly was, or how sound the english of that receptionist truly was. what matt told exactly to him, and with how many urgency.

was the second call, what was needed to let the police operator known it was a high urgency case, was the first message, a little girl walked out and they can do with a bit of help in looking for her, that could have kept the urgency out. and the second call was the one that did.

there seems to be a quite chaotic situation after the alarming of the mother, and the arrival of the pj. searches started quickly, first by all the males of the tapas9, and fiona. what is known about these searches, and more over the searching of the father, does not build a strong motivation to put all odds only on an abduction. searching in the walled off part near the pools, later looking under cars in the parking in front of building 5, looking on the galleries of the upper floors of building 5, does not show that, it does more showing as looking for a child that simply got wandering.

it seems that the males started alerting at first more of the other holiday guests in the ocean club, and from them more and more locals joined in.
and also leads to a public around unit 5a.

the ocean club/greentrust phone pyramid to the higher management did function well.
top down seemed hardly used, besides the nannies working for mark warner’s child care.

i had a bit of a frowning, when a nanny commented in the media how they put out the lost child protocol, as they always did, and always located the lost child, a nanny that arrived on the same day as madeleine did. not exactly the kind of pr that works for a tour operator who has child care as a selling point.

still there is very little information from these hours of searching, what was searched, what not, what makes it hard to get a bit of an insight, in what did escape attention. it was said the workers from the ocean club and mark warner, mostly child care nannies used maps with section to search.

also very little became known about who of the tapas 9 been informally interviewed before their formal statements the next day. and what they have been doing. most of the males kept searching for some time, except de father. the females jane, rachel and diane covered mostly their own children and grandchildren. fiona stayed mostly with the mother.

the who was doing what is not very much made clear with timestamps on it. the workers already started to make another unit ready, but the mccanns and children choose to stay at the payne unit.
but what all of them did that night is simply not very clear. the parents left their younger twins in the payne unit, to start as told some searching, around first daylight, but not really a time on it, they been seen arriving back by the police officers who kept wacht outside unit 5a around 07.00 hours in the morning.

if the only case at hand was a missing child because it just wandered out on her own, times would not been important, but as soon as the child was not found, it simply does.
not only when you want to look in family involvement, but also if third parties could be involved after a wandering out.
local searching also can be useful, in many cases third parties take a child for sexual abuse, because many of them, and even more the younger ones are quickly disposed of, dead or still alive and often still near the places they been taken from.

the forensics could do still very little, because there have been no signs of a break in, or a struggle, they looked in that again by daylight the next day. no sign of a crime, or what kind of crime, simple means you can do very little. this investigation started early on with a remit of a possible abduction with a row of question marks.

the work the forensic investigation could take on, was maybe even build on the left open patio door, it is unknown how long it has taken before that was known to the police. amaral told it was done like at other times when a break in happened.

in such moments it is often just a given, that have to make use of their imagination, or retell the story with a n over the top sauce, to even get the kind of forensics done, because you do not know, but realize you can need it later on. budgets have not much mercy in cases there is no sign of a criminal element. sometimes you have to cancel that problem, by making the story bigger, or flat out tell a story with less truthful points than you want, but sometimes you simply have to.

and yes, it would be hard to find police officers who do not like it better if all possible crime scenes could be worked forensically as if it was a clear murder case. besides the budgets, the law can be the stand in the way too. no crime means no criminal investigation, the rest can only be look at it. hardly deserves the title of investigation.
often is means going by your guts, and hope they are right, if not, just stand up and listen to the usually not very nice talking of your superior officer.

to be continued………

criminal investigation, means you step in rights all people simply have by law, that is not very nice, so that means the rules before you are allowed to do that are pretty strict.

but if the guts of the officers are of the same sound, it is just seek a way to proceed on, and get what you can reach for.

and maybe this is also the reason why the family was allowed to take out most of their personal belongings, when there is no crime, you can not restrict that much. you can ask for their cooperation but you cannot say no.

another bit of work that same night was interviewing jane tanner, who during one of her checks said to have seen a man with a child leaving the surrounding area of block 5.
the police took jane to the police office and tried to work out a portrait of the man, she said to have seen. this only resulted in a egg with hair, the original is never published, but it was all there was, the pj had at that time only a front side system to work out a portrait, not a side view.

the picture of the egg is a reproduction from one of the commercial owners in praia da luz, to whom the pj showed it. eggman grew on into tannerman, first face less, but after, what looked a knitting together of the sighting of another week before the mccann family arrived in praia da luz, was taken together, it took quite a few weeks.
to only some years later on, in october 2013 to be morphed into totman another holiday guest. still that could not solve all questions around witness and the man she said to have seen.

but back to the first night, there was very little to work from, the picture in circulation was of an at least year younger madeleine. that was said be found on a camera and or usb stick or memory card, let’s take it a bit with wide margins, by the husband of jane russell, on one moment and this is a bit of a confusing story, between the alarm given this photo was said printed on a printer that ended up out of reach in france, but it is known that the officers of the gnr got the pictures handed over. so all of this must have happened pretty early.

the same tapas9 friend russell also must have written at some time after the alarm and some hours after midnight made two different timelines on the blanc sides of a child's sticker book.
russell must have stuck around inside unit 5a, because he shows up when jane told the police about her sighting as being inside unit 5a with the father. it is a confusing bit, because first it was rachel who walked up to an officer of the gnr to tell about jane her sighting, jane has talked later about that with the pj, when the father and russell been in the room in unit 5a, and later one of the officers of the gnr must have asked if jane already was been able to tell the pj about her sighting.

so all in all when daylight came, there simply was no uncompromised scene, there still was no criminal element that could help out to make it into a criminal investigation, so officially not a crime scene too. only parents who would only accept an abduction by a stranger must happened.

so the investigation started with some difficulties from a possible abduction???, it is very normal that the investigation changes from one crime to another, and in this case was except a missing child nothing that even could fill up an indication of even that. but it is as a type of crime serious enough to make much more investigation tools usable.
the police is not the head of an criminal investigation, that role is for the prosecution officer, that is dedicated to that investigation. so that will be the head you have to sell and defend all you want to do in a case too. the lighter tools are often up to the choice of the police officer, but there always comes a moment you have to sell what you do to the prosecution officer.
and if you want to make use of investigation tools that tread deeper into the rights and freedom of a citizen, you first have to get approval for it from the prosecution officer.

what can be quite hard. the full array of tools is very large, some tread deeper into rights than others, some can be also very expensive. it is often very different for the different law enforcement agencies what they have on protocol and by that guidelines what will tell, what you can use without upfront permissions, they are usually based on how serious the crime in a case is seen, but when you want to use different tools, new tools, it needs upfront permission, and sometimes you even have to wait until an investigation judge checked if it indeed is in priority is with the crime and case too.

only when there is nothing to find, that you can put a crime on, officially you can do nothing.
and this is why missing people cases are often very hard. all you can do is use the second police task of helping who needs help, but that is much more restricted.
there is also very little difference in how to work such cases.

so when you miss all these nice things we see happening in crime series on tv in every case, it usually simply means that there is no crime to find to work from.
what in this case also happened.

so one of the seniors in rank in this case, must have talked a lot, a very young child, bla bla, very vulnerable, a door next to the street left open, easy access, so not traces, parents think only an abduction happened, we don’t know that, but it would be very wise to start with that.
it are guests to our country, bad publicity if we can do nothing, bla, bla bla. and a prosecution officer said, okay start from there.
permissions from prosecution officers are usually not easily given. often understandable, but never what you really hope for.

usually you are given 24 hours to find a crime if one happened, but you do need enough signs that did.
and never in the portuguese investigation did they find something to get the question marks of that first remit of investigating a possible abduction???. at least nothing that is strong enough to keep up such a remit. there are indications and some leads that could fit in a theoretical abduction, but they never build up to a feasible story. other possible crimes did.

this first part was not very differently handled than other cases around missing children.
without something to show a third party involvement at the start it is just work with what you can get and too often that is not much or nothing at all. missing does not tell anything in itself about what has happened.

officially the second portuguese investigation ended in no crime to establish.

so for a timeline it was also hard to say when it ended in this case, if a possible crime indeed happened. inside unit 5a, it already reached a final stage but only that part did, and of an unknown time, if there have been activities after it, it is unknown what happened elsewhere, and when that truly ended a possible crime.

so even there are certain points to start of, there never was a secure start and end point, when a criminal element was part of the case.

to be continued…..

the statements.

there is always a problem with all kinds of statements, they are from words spoken by people, and people can have their own reasons to be a bit wary when it is about telling the truth or a complete story. there can be many different reasons, from protecting themselves, others, not to disturb relations in jobs, private lives and many more. it is not only restricted to crime to stay silent, speak untrue words, or hide the truth in other words.

this is up to a all but perfect memory storage in the common human brains, the back filling a mind can do automatically and filling complete holes by just expectations or even conspiracies. time can be enough to be a true cause of not remembering, mix up memories, of changed memories by influences outside the mind.

memories from moments or events that had no special emotional load to that person, are usually at best vague in our memories. extreme emotions can make us observe only a very small target out of a full event. some minds are primed by learning or habits to only take on small parts too.

so besides being connected to a crime, there are many things to keep in mind that makes words not great as trustworthy information to work from.
and often it is just an extra, or all you have.

and this case has many words, and little to build a clear situation from it. most people also been there only short term, hardly ties there, and on holiday or irregular work, temporary work. simply no roots, that means there also is the missing of a pattern of habits.
that would be of little help when a memory is there, but no longer complete to a time and place.

there are many different techniques to interview witnesses, and also a very bad one, it is very hard to keep in mind you can not feed a witness with information to build a story on, that is not theirs. there also can be a lot of emotion in the one you interview, and some like so eagerly to help, they just react in telling what they think you like best.
the over 8500 sightings of ‘must be this girl’ in this case is a good example of that wanting to help.
and there are sadly also people who simply want to be a witness, because it brings on attention on and for them.

the first part of a witness hearing is usually to get an idea what kind of person you have in front of you, it starts with taking the personal information. the intro’s do not often end up in a formal statement, so that would mostly a guess for who reads them and want to use them.

and we already miss all the informal words, there is always a informal stage, and it can take quite some time before you do know you want a formal statement to use through a part of an investigation. as leads in an investigation can , and often do change, the dates of the formal material can sometimes help to see what was worked on in a period of time.
so the list of statements in the pj files do not tell how important all that formal information really was, the date can be an indication about when, but can be a false one, because statements can be mostly prepared before the statement is signed, but it can be much later, or in a specific lead in a certain period of time it became a good approach to ask for a formal statement, most do simply stay in the informal stage.

but it is hard for the public too, when there is no true starting point and/or known ending in a case.

to be continued….

the words, do they really tell the story?

this is relating to the formal statements, as they are made in a reporting style, not verbatim, as is very usual with witness statements. it are not citations, but more the points noted and told, that usually fit in with a line under investigation.

quite hard, because it was very unclear what could have happen from signs and traces on a scene, it must have been just lets hear and see. all to get at least some basic information to fix that in basic lines to investigate.
this also a difficult part, because the police had little to go on, to name a crime, for the public there was already a crime going on, or happened. most of that was influenced by the early on words in the morning news in the uk. where family members of the family mccann, told they have been told, the shutters been jemmied open, the window broken open and the door was found wide open, and the child abducted.

when that got under public attention it was already known in portugal, the shutters, doors or windows had no traces of a break in at all. no officers have seen any of them in a position as told by parents and their family.

so we as the public started early on with a different story. still the police got a lot of the same from then still witnesses the parents and their friends.

you never expect 9 duplicates in stories told, nor that everything can be backed up from other information. i put a lot of work in these 9 statements, and took also all others of people who been around in that area, and who’s statement was in the pj files. i started as usual just in my head, i could not get it around at all, it would not fit to one event, even with the margins quite wide open for it. i tried do do it on paper, got a few maps printed to work on, but still, it just did not work. i even used our last resort manner, by lending a box of lego and a box of play mobil figurines from the boys next door.
the biggest problem that kept showing on, was there was simply not enough time, to break in, grab a child and make a run to be seen by jane tanner, and even without jane’s tannerman that still showed. worse when the window and shutters been used as , always have an extra way out if someone does walk in, that is even much harder.

using the later statements and everything that became known in the many years after, i never had the luck to fit their story into one simple timeline.

you cannot use the system of the democratic vote on witnesses. it does not work if 50 say yes, and one says no, the yes must be the truth, it simply means there is more work to do, to find out which one is correct.

the father was in his first statement untruthful when his wife was truthful, both cannot be. it took days before that became corrected. for me how that comes together, would mean, all words by his mouth need a question mark, until there is information available that can be checked against.

operation grange took out the around, or even after 21.30 hours check by matt out of the story. and matt has said he first checked his own child, by going around the front, walked up to 5d to see if russell was ready to go back. walked through the passage between block 4 and 5 to the walled alleyway behind block 5 to the street turned left to the gate and stairs of unit 5a, so that could be already quite a bit later.
and still redwood replaced the ideal abduction time between 21.30 and 22.00 hours.

besides the two timelines by the tapas 9, made between alarming time and before 04.00 hours on may 4, as the absolute maximum. because most police officers left the direct area of unit 5a. it also is a bit vague, if one or both been handed to the police, or that the police found one or both.

there is a timeline to gather from all the statements of the tapas 9, and all others. and there is said that there was a very different timeline found, when the searches in relation to the dogs in the villa was done, in the papers/diary of the mother.
there also is a not fully published timeline given to the pj by the first ‘private detectives’, what actually was more of a crisis management or mercenary company called ‘control risks’.

the only thing that can be get from it, that the alarm could have been given around 22.00 hours, but never on 22.00 hours. some place it much earlier, gerry mccann by his watch even at 22.13.

has it meaning?

there is a lot known about that week at the end of april 2007 and the beginning of may 2007 around praia da luz. it is quite massive even, but all these things happening and also in the months and even years after that week are just moments in time, the hard thing is to look into them if they also do or can have a meaning in the case of madeleine mccann.

i myself always like to work from ordering events based on possibilities, and rank them on probability or most likely. the problem that you have to manage is connecting them into this specific case.

because there is no exact timeline available, not even an sound estimate of when things happened and what that lead to, i am still not vested in one single theory. but as it works for me to work from the first portuguese investigation, the one that had all the information first hand, i put that on my still open opinion on place number 1. all other theories must be better than this one.

the first hypothesis of that first portuguese investigation offers a high level of not only possibility, but als in probability. there are still many open questions, but it has no points that could not be handled by humans as a species.

recent studies in the scent of death, and also in relation to working with cadaver dogs, makes it even more plausible for me.

but there are many points that have elements that need more explanation, if all took place on that thursday evening of may 3, 2007 and maybe an aftermath of it after that, all events and words before that evening can not even have a meaning in this case, but there are many points that can get a meaning when that evening of may 3, 2007 only was the finale of events that happened before that evening.

it still has all to do with timelines, until the truth of that week is known, we cannot even make a full timeline for that period at all. most written out timelines just are from a very specific source or starting point.
the problem is, that it is not very hard to sketch a story from all points you can pick as the true start of this case, but none of them is to make without too much of speculations and back-filling. speculations are just fit something in, backfilling is giving meaning to stuff that did happened, but unknown if it is part of the case.

it does work often to make your own write ups from all possible starting points, but when you get some of these nice markers, and you use a colour for hard information, speculation another and the third colour for back-filling, it is easy to see how much holes there still be around.

but i would like to look a bit more into all these points that can be used for a different story than that of the first portuguese investigation. all these points need to get a meaning when the start of this case happened before that evening of may 3, 2007. the problem will be to not walk in the trap of putting meaning on it to make it fit, that would be just the big mistake you try to avoid, it must be the case that build that story, not your opinion or your fantasy.
thursday, the oddities and question marks out there.

we do look with hindsight, so i like to work back in time too.

first more time available, means it opens up a lot more possibilities, but not always as much probabilities. most is still information to take from words, words itself are not usable to prove anything.

i want first to look at the thursday moments that the name of madeleine is noted on the attendance sheets of the creche.

they are to find here;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE.htm

and the information to use will be mostly from the statement of the nanny that handled the group lobsters that week. catriona or cat baker.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA-B.htm

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

this will be mostly my own impression and thoughts. so my opinion above anything else.

the part of these statement i think of interest is the trip to the beach, to get into a boat and a driving vehicle i still not fully can understand, from banana boat to catamaran like, but in itself it has no meaning for my musings.

nanny cat started to work these creches from 21 march, 2007. her first statement gives a comprehensive story about how the child care arrangements have been set up. i take from that, all the nannies had the same training, what can hardly be explained different than in house trained staff. her age was about 20 years, at least that was given in news articles in autumn 2007.

the nannies been hired as play leaders through mark warner, that by her words has a contract with the ocean club to arrange child care for all guests booked in the ocean club.

cat baker is one of the important witnesses to state if madeleine was alive the morning and afternoon of may 3,2007.
from her statements that can only be taken as yes, she was.

but i want to look a bit more into the activities, i never clouds find out how much experience cat baker had in looking after children, and her group of 3 to 5 years olds is not the most easy one. that age needs still a lot of hands on work and extra supervision around water, in traffic and even using materials. children of these ages are not having a long concentration span.

from het statement cat implies she had a task in getting a program with activities together. for her group it is in the files, but planning two water activities on the same day, early season, in a holiday setting was the first my eyes caught. so the parents got twice that day their offspring back in a wet condition, not very practical at all. at least the mccann family likes us to believe, twice was not enough, the last picture at the pool with a awfully dry looking madeleine makes that worth some extra frowns in the eyebrow department.
that scored already 5 points out of 10 to put a question mark on that picture being from thursday. but that deserves its own attention.

but i would like to look at the first waterbound activity, the beach outing, well it was far more a boat outing.

from her first statement;
The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything.

the second statement was with attention on that ‘beach outing’ of the thursday morning.
On the Thursday they went sailing next to the beach;

2. then Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach. The distance is about 100 metres but not in a straight line;

- On that day they sailed in a small yellow "catamaran";
- Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat. Three children sailed with her at one time;

- Chris Unswork transported the children in a red amphibious boat (life-saving boat) until the boat reached the open sea, and, a few minutes later, returned them to the beach to pick up three other children from the group;

that first sentences is unthinkable, you can loss sight of one or two when you have a large group indoors, but as soon as you take young children outside, you know how many you have, even more stronger when you know you take them out on the ocean. you can allow yourself to mix up names, ages, what child belongs to what parent, but you do count them to at least end up with that same amount you took out.
that not knowing how many children she took and got back with.
i have over 30 years experience in being part of activities with children in my spare time, and it is even the usual joke to laugh about that counting the kids, all i met do it constantly, teachers too, it is base rule number one. you can explain an accident to parents, but you cannot explain you just lost on. and having up to 7 children in a given party at best, counting would be easy, but still a must do. cat had even less. so she had or 5 or 6, and 5 needs a fair bit of extra explanation, why a name on the attendance sheet was not there that morning.

but it does not stop there. planning an activity children can get very wet is usually the reason why it would be the last activity before the parents took them home, just because it is more practical to let that problem solved by the parents instead of dripping children in the activity room. it was still morning, still spring, so not even reaching above 20 degrees celsius outside.

but look back to the boats. there are 6 names on the attendance sheet, chris could take 3 children in one go to alice on the yellow boat, what mathematics you put loose on the numbers of the story cat baker told in the rogatory statement she gave, it is impossible to handle that, and get herself with a child called madeleine on her lap, without leaving other children alone behind on the beach.

also that year later cat remembered a nice sob story about a madeleine that was scared in the little boat, but in the days after it happened;

‘The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything.’

and it is that same outing that netflix found daddy neil berry, to tell the adventures about a hat of his daughter jessica, that did a whoosh into the ocean, and had a very brave madeleine, who jumped into the ocean to save a hat.

and still people have problems that others think this story doesn't add up at all!

more thursday nannies.

it does not stop with the morning nanny cat was on duty, the afternoon has some question marks too.

the thursday afternoon cat starts out with 4 children, 2 boys, and 2 girls. one of the girls left early, ella o’brien was taken by her father russell to join the party on the beach, because all others besides the family mccann decided to have their children their meal at tea time in the little restaurant on the beach front.

so nanny cat had only 3 children left, and if we look who these children are, we can find out that one of the boys am is also dining out in the tapas restaurant with the rest of his family that night. the other boy wt, son of the later episode by operation grange where tannerman was made known as most likely, almost sure totman, was taken out early too, at 5.13, or 17.13 when we use the same time scale as the rest.
russell never signed ella out, cat replaced that by noting 4.30.

so there could have been only 3 children left in her care to walk to the tapas area to hand them over to their parents, and only one was a girl.
and it is very possible both boys never joined in on the so-called high tea meal.
still cat baker cannot say in words that madeleine was there. at least they did not end up in her statements.

it gets even stranger when another nanny walks in, who had the care in the baby club next door, but just joined in to read madeleine a story, only never got to tell when that afternoon, was it during chalk space figures, it cannot been during the dive and find pool time, because that had to happen in the tapas area, walking out of baby care would hardly be acceptable by mark warner child care, and reading a story during mini dance is a bit difficult.
at least nanny cat never noticed it at all that nanny charlotte took one of hers.
it is a bit that can indeed be a start to an indication madeleine was not there, or even that cat baker was not there. lousy day in the office and cat sneaking out for some time on her own could also be possible, and would explain why she was at least vague in her memories.

and there is quite a lot missing around the creche, information that could still easily be checked at that time. like talking to the parents of all other children who take part in the creche group, the procedure of filling the attendance sheets, where that was one during signing in, and signing out.
parents are usually not very good in filling out these forms, they have quite a talent for escaping doing that. so let them do that on their very own, often does not work at all.

faking attendance can not be that hard, if that was handled in a very laid back way, it is not even likely there was even help from others needed to just do that.
the same with the activities, lots of things made, where did that ended up. was that withheld until the friday show the parents the mini dance show, so they had not a holiday unit full of the handy work of their children.

it would be nice if some parents had established it was indeed their writing and signature on these sheets. even the ones who found their access to the media never told about that.

again from netflix and neil berry a picture showed up of a group of children at play, with a little person seen from the back to be told that was madeleine, but nothing else ended up from the lobsters group that week.

cat baker even tells that the parents mccann accompanied madeleine in multiple activities, still they are not seen back in any of the statements of them. only bits that tells of the plight to get the 3 in and out. no shared memories besides a meeting on the tennis court on multiple times given by the tapas group.
nothing about the thursday afternoon, when the parents mccann had their in a spur of the moment booked tennis lesson and on the other side of the fence madeleine had her dive and find time.

such bits can be lost because of the usual reporting style for witness statements, instead of verbatim statements, but it even escaped all other feel good stories in the media and a book by the mother.

still the problem with these little things, they could have been handled informally, and cut out as not of influence of this case. formal statements in reporting style are known to take down only what is of importance for the investigation lines still on the board at that moment.
so it could be as simple as being checked of in personal case notes of the officers, and handled during debrief time the next meeting.

if this case has its true start only on the thursday evening, all before has not even need of a meaning. but even little gaps like this can be of use when you look in other zero hours.
but it would still be hard to call it factual information. it only can be talked into a meaning when you place your zero our back in time. but you still will need to reach hard information that can be called facts, and just words can never to that alone.

still closing your eyes and not wanting to look in all possible scenarios would not work well too. but you need to find a good foundation to not let it just end up in a sand castle.

there can be a problem with hindsight too, what also counts in for witnesses themselves, they to can not unknown what the find out, so many things stated can become mixed between what was and what becomes known. what i almost found fascinating was how easy it was to get help from others, without them knowing what they helped with.
many alibis are even just taken from something you always do, a habit to be somewhere or do something in that manner, that others put it as a given to a moment in time.

repeated situations easily fall in the law of habit. so it is not always really knowing, but just back filling with what usually happens.

if we look at the activity sheet of the lobster group madeleine was supposedly a part off.
we only know a few mentions about a tennis lesson and or coming on the tennis courts when gerry mccann was still playing, we know a bit about the beach outing, what was a boat activity, and 2 other moments been on the beach with the creche, only one is on the charts. one picture of what could be a parachute game.
so there is very little to fit these activities in a pattern for that week and look for witnesses that could tell about it. all other stories of seeing madeleine in day time are from the media, one that was found out more the result of making a story, the other information never made it into the pj files. stranger it never caught the media for the feel good stories too.

pictures and video made by people there that week been collected through ceops, very strange, because you would expect the already in use contact by leicester police through crime stoppers could handled that easily, but they did not made it into the pj files, and it is even a big question if they ever made it to the portuguese investigation. it must have been even very easy to blur the children and other adults faces and use them to tell madeleine was just still part of it all.

even the last picture at the pool with little sis and daddy never made it to the pj, it only was used to paint a feel good story in the papers, and it is not very likely that it was taken that thursday at all. that week is plausible, but that exact date and time, could very easily changed. good old explorer had even a little menu to fix that. in time of its presentation it has more the look of a big bubba mitchell pr stunt, not so much as proof of life and well being.
maybe why it was never used that much for that by the family side. and they did not have to the media and public handled that way better.

it kept many of the streets in discussion about photo shop, wrong date, but the reality is that if the portuguese police has information to understand there was no need to establish anything before the evening, they would most likely would not put energy in it at all. simply if thy could work from that information, all before has no meaning in the case at all, it does not matter much if the information was circumstantial, formalizing is very easy if needed.

and with many things that information can be only unknown to us the public. it is certainly not the same as just setting aside all other options, and maybe they trusted too much on many not portuguese people they talked too, the stance looks to be shining through as a difference between the cultures of portuguese people and the ones of the more north western parts of europe. i can not say it for sure, but the impression i got was that ‘being a witness’ is taken much more serious by portuguese people, including the part that a witness can not tell anything different than the truth. there always will be the simple solution to get a ‘i do not know’ in a declaration of words.

and the use of reporting style statements can not tell if a question was not asked, or was not answered, they are more of a functional format during an investigation, pretty short, even from many hours of talking with witnesses, but it is usual to only take down in them what is of importance for the investigation in that time.
there also still will be the notes made during the hearing and it is usually very easy to ask witnesses more questions.

so from that you cannot use information that is simply not there and make use of it as if it was. giving a meaning to what is not there can easily result in just building sandcastles.
and it is easy to forget where the sandcastles are around in theories, and how can it be called anything else than speculation.

random questions. part 1.

there are many statements of all kinds of people, and you have to read them all, all have random bits that give a bit of explanation, other points are just indeed of question marks.

one of interest is the rogatory statement of steve carpenter. it is one of the people who has given earlier on a statement, this was restricted, unknown why, could be as simple as because it was a statement made under uk law, not portuguese, so not up to the pj to publish it.


https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm


what this statement tells us that the officer that handles the hearing is not up to date with the area of the ocean club. but to make use of the sun to educate you, is quite baffling.
i am writing this while reading it again.
so the area is given by that same officer, with help of the sun we have to suppose as; a resort that is a closed holiday complex.
such are the moments it gets your mind in a frenzy, and the question mark gets out, how serious was that uk police to assist in these rogatories. because you cannot work from a sketch of the area that never existed, except in the sun. there never was a closed holiday complex.
the only thing on the scene that could be closed too, the patio door was left open.
it is not meant to bash an officer on the job, it is a higher desk and rank that is there to catch the blame for it. why send your officers out with that to prime their mind doing a hearing, so unproductive. how can this officer build up a true understanding of the layout and meaning of the ocean club?
the sun has done enough to fry up public minds, but to do that to a police officer on duty.
who ever thought that a sound idea! other maps been readily available on the internet in 2008, and even google earth was already there.

there is also a bit about his children, who have also been in the creches, one in the same age group as madeleine. given between 3 and 4 years of age. it does not matter how correct that age per group is here, it is just the understanding of this parent. but his daughter aged 3.5 years was in the care of nanny emma that week.

carpenters understanding it as the same group as madeleine, i think there is the beginning of an answer there, most of us already have picked up that there could be multiple groups, but what still is unclear is, if the same age groups and maybe even some just under or above that shared the same room inside and also took part in the same schedule of activities.

and that is why this one follows on the cat baker information. cat baker with her 6 little clients on the boat trip, and the story in her beach outing statement can only result in some left behind on the beach without any responsible adult to look after them.

if carpenter reflects her to the same group, from all in the same room, on the same activities, it can mean cat baker can been in the boat when chris transported them to the yellow boat alice handled. and emma could keep watch on the other children on the beach.

cat baker does not talk at all about emma, or children under the care of other nannies in the same set up.

so we have to look at the statement of emma wilding.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm
first this emma has relevant experience in child care and education, and a good choice when you also have also very young and by that hardly experienced workers around.
she knows of the parents mccann and madeleine, not in her group, but met them multiple times.
emma also tells madeleine spent most of her time in the creche. she also tells to have noticed madeleine on thursday may 3, 2007 during creche hours.

there is only one picture, i ever have seen, a pretty grainy one of the room that was titled creche. what has the outlook of a typical kindergarten school setting, with multiple groups of small desks and chairs. it looked as taken from a brochure.

this is of course only where we met the same difficulty with knowledge of the area, as that uk police officer, we only had the media to work it out. the officers of the gnr and the pj had not even a need to ask questions about the outlook and set up of the creches and the room they used, because they have simply walked in and used their very own eyes, just the informal information to skip many possible misunderstandings we armchair ones share with the uk police officers that handled the rogatories.

emma is less secure about what outdoor activities madeleine take part in with cat’s group, so it is not a given emma and her group take part in the boat outing. but she did not say no, she did not. or could this mean, the boat trip was just as planned with both groups together at wednesday.
there was a joining of the both groups on may 2, the day before in a beach outing that is not on the schedule, the wednesday was the original day for the boat outing called minisail, but is marked as changed by an arrow for circle games grass time with the thursday.

going by cat baker we still miss a beach activity she places as one of 3 during this week on tuesday, wednesday and thursday.

i never am fond of such small points that can be cleared away easily by asking some easy questions, in most cases it would be handled informally, if that is enough to take it out of the case at hand, no further energy is needed. just to keep it out of your thinking processes in that case. i still reach for my phone when i read such stuff, so hard to unlearn things you have done for many years.
we cannot ask these very simple questions, so we have to go on a fishing expedition to find small bits and bops to explain it, but as long as it is not secured it always keep a tendency to grow into myths. even when it is not even really important, it is just clutter better sorted and done with.

and the only question it all has to answer from the creche is was madeleine there that thursday may 3, 2007. emma is pretty clear with a direct positive for that, cat baker is not very clear.

back to carpenter,

thursday may 3, 2007, it was the second time carpenter went into the tapas restaurant, at around 19.00 hours, he saw a male with his 3 children and learned not his name, but that he would take a plane the next day because the mother of the children lived there.

from that we can deduce this was philip edmonds and his sons of 6,7 and 8 years of age, the possible flight is also noted on the booking list of mark warner clients. residence of edmonds is given there as switzerland too. so not really anything that would reflect on the madeleine case.

what needs a question mark is that carpenter tells in his own words; I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children.

but going by all other statements and the time the carpenters left the tapas restaurant, only gerry had done one single check, and kate none at that time. he already had told he knows gerry and kate both from sight, had played tennis with them, and greeted them in passing.
it could simply take ‘a couple’ as one unit matter of speaking, still it is something that breaks the timeline given by both parents and others of the tapas 9 friend group.

carpenter had only his second visit to the tapas restaurant that week, so it was certainly not mistaken from an established pattern of behaviour and by that mixed up with another evening.

about the time the carpenters left he said; Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves.
>so that makes around 21.15 and 21.30 hours.

the next information also goes against the tapas 9 timelines; My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".

what we know from the media mostly through some of the nannies; as another woman heard something as gabby, maddie, etc. later that evening.

nothing here can be from a mixup because of languages between carpenter and the officer.
also nothing to make them into inner circle to the tapas 9 group. there was contact with mostly gerry mccann after may 3, 2007, and later on even contact with a sister of gerry mccann too by phone.
kate was only known by sight, and little carpenter noticed about the 3 children mccann.

the only mix ups that can be in this is that it ended up taken originally in english, was translated for the pj, and translated again for us to use from the pj files.

the rest is more about his time searching and murat and after the evening. the ‘after the facts’ material.

besides being of course, one of the fathers who carried their own daughter home through the streets of parai da luz.

the officer statement made clear she signed it of for being fully processed on may 17, 2008.
even for a rogatory statement that is very long!

the fiction of tannerman.

the idea that the madeleine mccann case is one of the crime of abduction is only founded on the words of the parents mccann, who directly saw and told that abduction was the only possible way to explain why madeleine was missing.

many years later one of the higher ranks in the met police reframed it into a burglary gone wrong, and that abduction was the only possibility, because she was too young to go her way and build her own life.

yes, abductions do happen, abduction to a stranger are very rare. what makes it one of the possibilities on the list to investigate, it even did, because it was at the start the only crime that could be used to open up a criminal investigation, what missing alone cannot do. still it had already a lot of question marks with it.

the big problem was and still is; evidence and there is none from inside unit 5a. the break in we are informed about the morning after, mostly by uk news outlets, was not in agreement at all with the traces in and on unit 5a. no damage on the shutters, the windows, doors and not the very common sign that a burglar had searched through unit 5a at all. nothing was said to be stolen.

so to paint this story in the preferred tales within the borders of the united kingdom does not seems easy to take as true at all. the met police by giving their preferred hypothesis at least kicked out all luring men seen by many witnesses, because logic will kick them out of the story, if criminals stake out a place, it will be because they want to know of habits, because what people do during the day, is often not the same as what they do during an evening or night. there are also not very much places to lure effectively from around unit 5a, because of the wall around the garden, and the foliage of plants against that wall on the inside.

and burglars is not the usual name for people who want to take a child. you can technically not even steal a child, because no one has ownership of them.
and if this started as a burglary, nothing about the children around would have had a need to study and lure at.

and there are simply more possibilities that do belong on the list to investigate, a missing child is not the full story, children can go missing on their own energy, action and mind.
only when somewhere after that, or when the child did not took that route we get into the third parties actions. and we have all kinds of people around who can have a role in that, there must be at least be access to get to a child, and the younger a child, the less access there usually is, because there is a duty of care, that most parents do take care of.
they do it on their own, or make use of other responsible adults. and by experience ending up in statistics it is exactly that same group that is the same most children have to fear to find a candidate that brings harm to them.
the fully outsider is very rare.

so the first possible abductor we know of was tannerman, still that had more attention in the media, than for the investigation, it was very hard to get such a guy even inside unit 5a. the timelines and statements makes that in about 2, maybe 3 minutes tannerman must already been in unit 5a, or still get in. and it was not an easy get in , grab a child and go out. no, a supposed abductor had to break in without any traces on the frontside (carpark) of unit 5a and open at least noisy shutters in a very silent area. get a window open, and climb in, or used a way to open the wooden front door, only the type of lock is not very usual and takes at least a full minute , usually more to get open, through lock picking.
the window could not have been used for entry or exit, because the lichen on the windowsill was still undisturbed. even simply passing over a sleeping child could not be easily done, because of the width of the window opening, and not bring damage to the lichen layers.

there are fingerprints found on the opening mechanism of the window, in a position that indicated of opening said window, but these have been from the mother.
no smudges from wearing gloves became visible.

you would in common not see places that had nothing as a result when instigated for traces, only the places where results are found do. so not listed does not equal to not looked into.
police files are not crime novels. they are made to use by police officers. and they are used to how they come together. if they think themselves something can be of importance later on, like when the lines of the investigation change and they often do, they would cover that in their own notebooks.

there was no disturbance inside unit 5a at all. and with what starts out as a burglary is often disturbed, because opening things can make noise so they restrict that usually by only opening them. no such signs are known to be seen by anyone.

so tannerman had also still to sedate 3 children in many theories, and still got out with one of them, in total of 2 to 3 minutes time max. through the wooden front door, because when jane saw tannerman the patio side was still covered off by gerry and jez, in conservation and herself, by the words of jane and jezz near the little gate at street level in the wall belonging with unit 5a. by gerry his words on the other side of the road.

what jane said to have seen was not fully possible, she never could have seen that tannerman left from the area in front of block 5. the wall was too high and with the foliage looking over the car park was impossible.

pictures from 2014, but a good illustration of the wall;
https://www.alamy.com/the-flat-in-praia-da-luzportugalwhere-madeleine-mccann-went-missing-image69095360.html

also no one mentioning hearing or seeing cars or other movements. jez and gerry did not even noticed jane, all on a deserted street. the moyes from the third floor who had been hanging out on their balcony have seen and heard nothing too.

even after operation grange got tannerman out of it, to be supposedly julian totman who got lost in front of building 5 in his way to block 4 next to it and walked in the wrong direct when he already had gotten his child from the evening babysit services.

after that jane would take time out when she rounded the corner and had to walk to the entry to thew pathway on the carpark side before their doors. jezz too because he would trot up to his unit in block 4. jane also had to come back over the same route, later russell and matt walked that route, matt got back through the pathway on the pool side to get his check made inside unit 5a, but he already had asked russell in 5d if he would come too. russell got back later, was replaced by jane again, route unknown, russell had to walk back to the restaurant.

all had lines of sight on large parts of the side entrance and the frondoor entrance of unit 5a, not only on their way to their units, but also when getting back.
the moyes taking a drink after arriving home on their balcony have heard nothing, seen nothing from below.
others who crossed the area by car , twice before 10 saw nothing, one female who passed the front of unit 5 did not see anything around 22.00 hours, others by car, inbound with two people, back only the female who brought her guy to his working space noticed nothing.
the tapas chef had seen cars but nothing that moved when arriving or leaving the tapas area. and even the mistaken as tannerman suspect totman have not seen others. he must have at unknown time that evening have walked to the baby sit service and back again, passing block 5 too.
also the couple carpenter passen the street back home.

no one came forward for the whole of the evening from the block opposite at the car park side of block 5, nor from the block next to it on the other side of the road.

a supposed abductor had to be kept unseen during his way to inside unit 5a, during his actions getting access, the tapas9 said to keep their eye on the backside from the restaurant. in the frontside entering with a lock pick set would take time too, still all must have been done unnoticed, the same for walking around in the rest of the ocean club, and he had quite a walk if you put tannerman into the same person as smith man.

but for letting that happen the guy also had to change its hair style in between.

that said to be a deserted street was in reality not deserted at all, only people crossing it just outside the range of sight of the others.

and the tannerman story grew into much more than logic can explain to take of in the time needed.
most of the information is only from words and timelines made by the tapas 9, well enough to cover themselves, but there is ample room to abduct, and do also all other things that come with that. timelines that seems to be much more vested on a tannerman.

timelines copyright team mccann. part 1.

there are by now multiple timelines that all can be called produced by team mccann, the first two even during the night of may 3 into may 4, 2007.

the originals as handed by to the pj are to find and see here;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

the copy that has the name gerald on it, it is still not known if it was meant as a signature, it is very different from the signature of the only gerald in this group, we do know under the name gerry mccann.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2578a.jpg

and the other different version;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2579a.jpg

and there is a third document in this file. handed on may 10, 2007 by a uk liaison police officer. and going from the date i dare to speculate this is a copy of the timeline made under guidance of control risk, a company that in that market segment they work, is also known as a mercenary company, but they usually are named as the first detective agency that assisted the mccanns, with the comment that mark warner payed for it.

this are the copies delivered to the pj.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_889.jpg
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_890.jpg

it is a question why page 888.jpg is missing. also it seems not to have been translated into portuguese, the originals are in english too.

there is a bit more in the pj files about this third control risk associated timeline;

it is used as part of the timeline and statement analysis done by the pj, on all they had, and the report is produced during september of 2007. the date at the end of the report is given as september 10, 2007.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

this is one of the rare occasions we get to look over the shoulders of this investigation. it is not a simple listing of lines, but has a lot of notes of the officers too.

there is other material from analysts there from earlier dates in the same file.

the words of officers in these kinds of documents must be read with margins. they are usually only a state of consensus from the information available at that moment in time based on what is available in information., not directly a conclusion that makes it into facts.


but there is more in the timelines group produced by or with corporation of the mccanns, but the fourth is not in the pj files and we only know of its existence because goncalo amaral told about it during an interview years later.

there are still links on you tube, that also have subtitles in english;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSSMZ9hbkuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc

this is the title of the video with the interview;
Maddie McCann O Mistério Gonçalo Amaral - CMTV April 23rd 2016

when the links no longer work, just look for the titles on you tube or dailymotion.

both seem to have the less known you tube feature available of showing a transcript, you find it if you click in the description under the title of a video click on more.

they will show an auto generated transcription of what is said at that moment with a time notation to it. it is certainly not perfect, and it often works only acceptable if you get the english transcript. there is no auto translation on these transcripts. but they can be used to copy lines into a translation app or website. deepl.com free version works well, but it can be nice to use more than one. and if you can find one from the original language that translates to english that can work great.

the better know auto generated subtitles are available through clicking on the wheel symbol of settings. i get the most horrible results if i use it from dutch to english, simply unusable.

you cannot use the results truly as citations. that is a problem with all kinds of translations, they become directly second hand, because there is influence of the translation and translator. so again, keep some wider margins when used, can fix that.

it is nowadays almost impossible to access the websites in the version other countries use, google accounts itself made that hard, you possibly have to make accounts with a vpn on first. as soon as you location is known, you are put in your own region. i had that before for the tech giants and accounts with them changing their habits. the country they put you in does make a difference in some matters. google.com is simply not the same as google.nl. so things can not always be everywhere available. if so, ask and we can look to find a way around it.

part 2.

but there is a translated transcript of this interview of course available on gerrymccannblogs too;
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/108april16/JoanaMorais_CMTV_23_04_2016.htm?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR27BEj55KXjIXkI2TuFE2z85d9DxQm3HwyCTZbdSJLiPHBYaOlRtFVbcBI_aem_AVpILBx4R7PRSTkNYinH367ysFH0wDDu41LAsx2NjdOeiwi1t9JkI31SGJYsSoYiavtAHLTjuSFwHjc2zTdVyZ-4

i will copy the ‘timeline’ part here;
At 9:10 AM, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.

The crèche staff take the children to the beach. Between 10:30 and 11 hours, Madeleine plays on the beach with other children . Kate collects the children from the crèche at 12:25 and returns them (to the crèche) at 14:50 hours.

A few hours later (around 16:00) Kate is jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she returns to the crèche to pick up her three children and to take them back home to apartment 5A.

At the same time Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends (that is the other three couples) drink on the esplanade (terrace) of the restaurant Paraíso, in Praia da Luz (17:35 hours on the CCTV video caption).

The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in a buoyant mood. Their children are with them. (It looks like) a tranquil (and enjoyable) end to their afternoon.

Short break in the voice-over with more images shown

At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.

The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”

Dinner time approaches.

The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.

In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.

Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.

The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).

According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.

But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.

It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.

(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).

Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)

Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)
—------------- end of copied part—------------

but reading the full article gives a nice background story to that first portuguese investigation.
also is to get that such investigations do not easily set or speak anything into facts, or set in stone. the lesson we can take from such interviews is that it is okay to feel unsure, that a hard and vested opinion is not needed in looking into cases like we do too.
that the case itself must always be kept central, and that you need a lot of information and look if there are facts and circumstances in it to build a story, or hypothesis, that other information can break the windows in a hypothesis, and can take that line of thinking out of an investigation with it. you have to fit each handed piece without really changing it.

that bits will be just at best can be pencilled in with the very lightest shade of grey. that the question is not always; what do we know?, but much more has to be, what can we use, and what not to work from?

and these 4 timelines of the same 9 people are not even so much about what is different, but more about why there are differences. they are not all equal in their effect.

the re-enactment and reconstruction/reconstitution

because of the uncertainties in the timeline of the thursday evening by the tapas 9 and jes wilkins, the pj wanted them to take part in a reconstruction of everything that happened between 17.30 and 23.00 hours.
it never happened, where in portugal the pj simply can summon witnesses into such events, it does not work well if all the birds are flown out of the territory.

there was not much liking for taking part from the start, from nuisance, to fear of the media, being suspected, or other mostly negative steers to not seeing it of their liking to take part, after the conversation through stuart prior as the middle man between taps 9 and jes w. was going on, advising lawyers of some changed a meagre want to take part into it all mostly no’s.

kate and gerry mccann had not much choice in it, they were still under their arguido status and could hardly use excuses to not take part.
gerry found one about the date, but seemed to have another appointment with the portuguese justice, something as not timely made his place of residency known, at least that is what you get if you look up the possible offence. and on the same day they had replaced the event already because it did not fit with matt oldfield his agenda, on the original date.

it is worth the read;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

sometimes it even starts to look like a kind of black mailing.

and they all had a must know what the pj sought as a result. not something any law enforcement anywhere like to bring under discussion. they tried to say that, even hauled in an eu convention, but no, so the pj stayed behind empty handed late spring 2008.

one of the reels that was used was, how this would help the search for madeleine?

all took the reason into their own pockets by their suggestions, you easily land in a communal idea they did not wanted to go back, or the arguido status must first be lifted and some nice stuff in black and white printed that they all became the status of untouchables, and the portuguese law does not seen to have made reservations for such, not any other i know of has such things.

everyone who looks into the details of these statements will land in the question, how a supposed third party got in, did its thing and got out again too.

and with statements it is always difficult to really follow what the witness did exactly. we only see jumps from one place to the other, but saying i walked from a to b, can happen in many ways, and the time one need can be different.
so to get it all together it is nice to see the person itself do it simply over and over again, it usually is not just do it once, the video is made, but it is a kind of interview too. you bring back the witness on the full route, you get to see what the witness can see, hear or smell. it can bring even some memory back.
our own cloud in our memory has many ways to keep it there, and retrieving it does not work with a single set of software. we have all also a lot of habits in how we walk, how quickly, how we understand and take time.

but if you also need to look for a third party, all that movement there, will have an effect on that party too. so it can lead to places to hide, places to observe. and it is easy to see if usually one of the younger police officers can take it off in the moments that are left open to act, if such acts take place.
and as much as you can get it to exactly the same circumstances works much better, than when it is daylight.

places that in that later growing more and more darker hour could be used can also tell more about a third party.

and based on the statements tannerman could never happen as third party in this case. and tannerman was late that spring of 2008 still the anti hero of the tapas 9.

and it could have been also the last resort to get all these witnesses testify on their own merit, they already had produced 3 timelines together, all 3 with little differences, you do not like to have in this matter.

the tapas 9 and jes, seem to be much more bothered for their own and a bit of the company they kept, than solving this case.

at least they did not mind doing a reconstruction in itself, so they did simply their own, with the camera on them, and showed it to the world, well it did not go fully as they must have expected;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=1s

Madeleine McCann - Cutting Edge Show 070509 - Tapas 9 Reconstruction