madeleine mccann, what if it happened earlier?

what if it happened earlier?

if we still start from an accident, simply because there is not the information to make that different, so that would never will go beyond supposing.

we cannot use the dog alerts and the traces it delivered to explain when something happened, for me the alerts around the blue sofa makes an accident plausible. a fall can be a very good fit in that area, and besides by the own actions and energy of a child, of course adult interventions can play a role in that too, but there is no history to bring that beyond a possible.

there are many theories with a diversity of starting points, and this is where the pj files are not of much help. the point you need to cover is how to exclude sightings by other people.

we have little insight about how the pj came to a consensus that this child was still alive until about 17.30 hours. did they only use the word of a nanny, or have they much more information in the informal information to be of use. there are the creche sheets, but as a form itself not unique, they could not be tampered with.

and i think this is very important information, because a good understanding that leaves ample room to wiggle about last seen alive by an independent party does count. it is the information that does exclude all other moments in time.

earlier than 17.30 hours make it much harder to explain, because that needs a lot of debunking of witnesses. and yes, witnesses can lie, or be misled on purpose. at the same time, more hours to use, opens up many more possibilities. not even all useful time can make people think and decide to not want to take part.

it is a given that other people can be simply used, for help and assistance, without having to know and be fully aware where that leads to. if i ask you to hold my bag for a moment, you could not be sure it is indeed my bag, if you do the same multiple days in a row, others easily accept you do it always.

so having the full write up of how the pj got to the last time seen by independent witnesses of 17.30 hours would be of massive help. we only see the creche sheet, the words of a nanny, and the words of the parents and some friends. if you take out the nanny the house of cards comes down.
to get a name of a child on it, without it being truly there. it is pretty vague how the creche sheets been handled, if they been on a clipboard and the nanny or at least one of them would hand that to a parent at the doorway, and by that would notice parent with child come in, is very different from a creche sheet somewhere without direct supervision. not only during signing in, but also with signing out, because that was done in the tapas area, all children come together to get their meal.

if the handling was known, it could be used to just fake attendance. to make use of a situation means the procedure must be known, and used before. the room used for children between 3 and 5 years was upstairs in the main reception building. there are never been much pictures from the inside of that building available, and there was only one low quality picture said from inside that creche, but that could be made in all places that had the typical young children playroom/classroom layout.

i do not like how vague it all is, this case showed pretty early a chance to be complicated. so i would like to see a starting point neatly worked out, last seen alive by an independent party is a true beginning of the case, it is the prelude that will flow into the acting phase of the case. it is the foundation under the case.

so what i miss is questions asked from the parents of the other children in that same group, and groups sharing the same room. how that creche sheet was handled, if all signatures and text was indeed from these parents.

the first statement of the nanny dedicated to the group madeleine was part of, is just a brochure of how it is supposed to be done during creche time. nice to know, but it lacks detailed insight of this indeed happened that week. often hard, because you talk about someone's job, and there is the conflicting matter of a person that wants to keep that job.

even the second statement, more specific about the beach outings, the focus is only on her group and how it is supposed to happen. it lacks details about possible joined responsibility by going with multiple groups and nannies.

just in her early twenties, the start of her career in child care, that give a lot of complications, meaning escaping what really happened that week, if she made choices to escape the protocol they worked with. there was time for a supervisor to prime their minds with some company name protection.

this is not an impartial witness by that complication. it is a good example that witnesses have their own priorities too.

this witness does not state even that madeleine was there, at least it did not end up in the report of the hearing.

mark warner the company that arranged the child care, made the move to ship all nannies in a possible related role in this case, mostly with contacts with the parents out to another resort, in another country. this company had to protect their own product too.
but that means even easy informal or of the record contact was hardly impossible.
the stories about this nanny, that she was very depressed by the experience, given by the media through friends and her mother, the later that year visit at the mccanns home.

all together ends up in many question marks, not all equally important, but it is always nice to see them cleared up.

and we still have no idea if that timing of last seen alive by an independent witness is only resting on this nanny. it is a need to know, it must be set in concrete, otherwise this opens up other possibilities. so it will end up in its form as feed for opinions.
for me it is not reaching that set in concrete level enough. on the other hand, there is also not a statement that tells with certainty in mind, madeleine was not alive at that time. the information available is simply not there, so discrediting the nanny based on what there is, is not a given.

one of the problems to cancel is, for that thursday afternoon, that the lobsters group started out with only 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls. one of the girls, Ella, was leaving early to take part in the beach activities of the tapas 7 group and all of their children.
the groups by cat nanny her own words would be at most 7 to each nanny. she had already reached that number earlier that week.
still in her statement and even later on in the media there is not much about a very quiet afternoon, only 4 to deal with and even one of those left early. so only 3 children walk out to the tapas area, and only one girl. the story out in the media was already that of an abduction with the broken shutters and open window, there was no blame pointed on her own work in the creche. you would expect to see a memory back of that only one child you walked up with to the tapas to have her last meal.

in her rogatory she says the children are grouped together based on their ages. the 3 to 5 years old are called the mini club. the baby club and the mini club are next to each other upstairs in the main reception building.
cat her group went swimming that afternoon. the kids pool was in the tapas area too, but there is no word in the verbatim rogatory about the complete activities including walking up and down between the mini club and the tas area. going by the activity sheet, that walk must have been done twice that afternoon. russell picked ella up from the mini club.

in cat her rogatory statement she says that madeleine played most of her time with ella.

all cats words look fixated on her group alone, nothing about sharing the same activities, or that must be hidden in was done with where she said all the children.
not very helpful because it is not getting out what other witnesses could back her story up.
including the parents of other children. the activity sheet carries only lobsters.

the meal at the tapas area has even many more possible witnesses about that afternoon, but it is unknown who have been there, or how many children joined in.

and this is not only to look at thursday, but all days, not one of the parents of other children, and there has been enough shown in the media, is ever gotten out, with do not be daft, that girl was sitting after mine during meal time. seen it with my own eyes.
only the berry family got out with a dubious story, not first hand, but gotten for their daughter jessica in the same age range as madeleine and supposedly is the only source of diving in the ocean after a straw hat. but where daddy neil sees his daughter as the big friend and play mate of madeleine, nanny cat puts ella into that role. but that little details could be the result of just netflixing.

carpenter only realized after the event, his oldest daughter was in the same group, as madeleine, she even ends up with a scratched out line on may 1, on a lobsters sheet. so even there it gives an indication all children in the creche in the same age group would be kept together in the same area. but there can be multiple nannies around, because the child is under supervision for the full week by the same nanny.

we can fit in nanny emma for also a group of the same age. but it could be of massive help to get all these people that could have been around madeleine in just one story.
but we do not have the full information, on the mark warner arrival list there are at least 14 children that are in the same age group, 7 of the names show up in the lobsters, the other 7 are unknown.

for other holiday makers, the ocean club guest list cannot be used, in most families the children and adults are taken in the same number.

but if both groups have used the same room for the indoor activities, that means there can be 14 children that joined from time to time, and all except one show both parents, zo that makes 27 adults including the tapas 9 members that could tell if they noticed madeleine during in and out times of the creche, or during activities they visited to see their own children. and all children are noted as 3 years old , except two 4 years old. too young to ask serious questions, but all could have told to parents they played with a girl called madeleine or maddie.

the nanny charlot, who supposed to keep an eye on the baby group, that got the silly story out about reading stories to madeleine, is an outlier, it does not fit with the activities of the thursday, and the lady has a lively fantasy, she is one who came out with arriving on the scene and said to hear kate saying things, but even the source of the family would not think possible, because she came much later on the scene.

so there is very little to back up the statements of the nanny as an independent witness, it simply goes not beyond madeleine could have been there in the creche that afternoon, but it is usually very nice to have a lot more to secure it.

that low quality picture that resurfaced during the netflix series, the girl we see from the back must be madeleine, the activity was said parachute time, what is noted for the sunday morning. but it could be any of the 12 girls around that age, and even a year younger would fit.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article14139102.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Madeleine-McCann.jpg

to be continued…..

Of course more detailed information about the weeks activities and family movements is desirable to reach a more conclusive picture but to suggest one or more of the nannies were lying or complicit in some sort of deception, as has been said many times over the years on social media, is grossly unfair to say the least.

Imagine a young lady in her early twenties, taking responsibility for a few very young children on a daily basis and one of them goes missing during the holiday.  How that young lady must have felt and still feels even though not responsible for the care of that child at the time she was reported missing, she must be traumatized enough by the event without accusations of foul play flying about cyberspace.

To throw doubt over the honesty or credibility of a key witness throws doubt over the competence of the Portuguese judiciary, something the British press have relentlessly tried to instill in the minds of their readership from that day to this.

Without access to informal police notes and interviews it's impossible for the outsider to assess a true picture of the weeks events leading up to the night of 3rd May 2007, as it stands we can only trust the Portuguese judiciary's competence and assurance they carried-out a thorough 'no holes barred' investigation.  From what we can see of the files released into the public arena they indeed left no stone un-turned - to coin a phrase, even considering unavailable information.

According to the press and social media alike, they failed on just about every aspect of a routine police investigation but the documented files tell otherwise, even though they lack insight into the complete picture.  Because something is not visible to the naked eye, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Indeed it would be incredible if we, the public, could have access to the entire investigation documentation to work on but that is never going to happen.  Meanwhile no harm in working on available information providing conspiracy theories are not born out of wild imaginings, like they were all in on it!

Talking of which only today I saw on social media a nicely framed graphic depicting the names of those in authority who rushed out to Portugal from the UK to assist the parents McCann but that's perhaps for another day.

witness statements are not the easiest to read, and the cat baker ones are a good example, there is usually not an exact list of questions for all the witnesses, it just depends on position in a case. there is even another statement in the pj files from cat baker, one that usually is the start of hearing a witness. it is not much worked out, and it is noted as points gatthered from her informal statement.

it is to be found here;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KIDS-CLUB-STAFF.htm

it would be wrong to state cat baker never said she saw madeleine that thursday, it is simply not a simple ask a question give an answer. cat tells exactly when she have seen madeleine that day. she even told yesterday she was joyful.
this informal statement was done on may 4, 2007.

words of a witness are not taken for granted, but it is simply information, and it will be the investigation that will tell what the content means in the case. a witness has to understand that they have only one task and that is telling a true story.
that does not mean a witness cannot tell lies, and as in this case the role of cat baker is not a declaration of free will, it was not left up to her to tell the police, they looked for her and asked their questions.

it is well accepted that someone in her position is given the chance to make use of existing notes and forms, in portugal it is even accepted to read an earlier statement before the next hearing starts. so there is no reason to play cat and mouse about that. they really care to keep a level playing field.

and you cannot start an investigation by thinking all people are telling lies. so in the first phase it is just gathering information, the kind that is needed to map out the back ground, who is who.

we simply do not know how exactly was decided by the pj that madeleine was alive at least until 17.30 hours, on may 3, 2007.
there is no report about that in the pj files. as they did communicated it, it must be done under their protocol.
it can simply be that they have enough information to only take the result from it.
even if it was only at first a let's suppose she was most likely still alive until 17.30 when signed out of the creche, there never seems to been a reason surfacing to dispute that.

it is okay to look into different perspectives, but it never was set aside during the investigation, not during the first investigation, not in the second investigation, and it was still in the final report, but only as established fact.
and it is hard to conquer that if you do not know what you exactly have to conquer.

the burden of proof is on the one who defends a theory that is different from that.

cat baker is human, so by that the ability to tell lies can be expected, but that does not prove she actually did.
if she did, it could be simply be from the most common form of intent, and that would be to hide something that matters to herself, or what is less often done with intent to help out others.
people can also be mistaken of have false memories, or misled.
the easy solution is usually check what you can check.

if the words of cat have been sound enough when the rest of the information already pointed to an event on the evening, it does not even matter what cat did in her words. her words could in that way not be of any influence at all.

and it is up to the accuser to prove first that cat baker told lies, and if you think or believe that others have used her as a tool to escape justice, that needs proven too.

and when it all is set on a earlier time, cat baker will not be the only one you have to call out. i am okay with looking into all possibilities, but they all still need to be proven. just suggesting or saying that one lied is not enough.
and it can be hard to keep in mind what we do use, only gets a meaning from our minds, often no longer from the case.
and it is very hard to not start to be judge and jury on the information, instead let that be dictated by the case itself.

and it cannot work by popularity contests either. sounds great is not equal to a checked out story. and in common there is a mix of people, some told lies, some even complete fantasies, some even believing themselves very much, there will be people who are mistaken, people who are misled, people who are truthful but still hard to be believed. even for very different reasons also.
but it does not work as easily as just put a meaning from your own thoughts to it and call it out, that can never go beyond just an opinion. the what if's are very difficult to keep that in reflection to the case at hand.

and it can be hard like with cat baker, yes she is in a position that truth does matter, but she was one of the first outside the direct circle around the child to be heard, but the pj did not stop there. and of course we can bring in opinions. but there is another statement, from another nanny, and unlucky us, it is very hard to find out if that nanny worked that week in exactly the same room, and was or was not joining with her group of children in with activities of the lobsters group from cat.
but we cannot throw information out because we have not enough to check it. an opinion will be as week as that statement itself.

and formal statements are usually made to take down specific information needed in a case. that can be something that was there, or something that was not there. we do not know what information was exactly used by the pj, to get it to last seen alive by an independent party 17.30 hours on may 3. 2007, but they exactly did that, and well before most other statements have been done. so there was no longer a good reason to ask specifically if that witness has seen madeleine at a specific time. they already had found the answer. but many aspects are around the victim in this case, so it is very normal she will get attention in statements after that. but when the victim shows up in a story from a witness it will be in a much softer manner, it would not get that much attention.

i love to see witnesses of the quality of the daughter of the cleaning lady of block 5, i do not think she was fully correct; skirt instead of a dress seems off. there is another witness in this case with that same ability to memorize a situation, she is called aoife smith, but i think the sunday daughter fatima is by many rated as very credible, but aoife is by often the same people rated as fully fake. still this quality of witnesses is always rare. both only on opinion, because the information fatima delivered is only her words, there is not truly something that can back it up. there is made to order back up from little snippets that are around, but that does not equal that that came al together in that sunday moment.

so it is most times easier to select statements based on how useful they really are to tell the story of the case itself, that would not change anything about both these witnesses fatima and aoife, the both classify as great, but that does not add up to being usable information, that is not just pick a moment, but up to the case itself to decide.

Another very important point needs to be factored in when viewing witness statements, in this case that of Catriona Baker, the statements were not taken verbatim - thus they are open to misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise.

If you look at the files, the Portuguese judiciary took great pains to speak with the guests staying at the Ocean Club resort before they left. An arduous task in itself considering the severity of the case, I think their diligence to be more pertinent as regards case detail than the outside observer influenced not only by social media gossip but also press and media coverage.

The Portuguese files are a very good starting point and shouldn't be forgotten or ignored only to make way for speculation and theory without foundation.

indeed, only the rogatories are citations and verbatim, but most in the files also has been from words that are at first spoken translated into portuguese, and later when the files came available translated to english again.
and that can have an effect too. slight differences can give more options in what the reader understand from it.

i am used to the reporting style for witnesses, witnesses are in many countries not under oath or promise, we have that already down in our law, portugal seems to have that too done, so the witness can only speak the truth. there is little rule for protecting the witness, if a witness is in fear of incriminating itself, or want to say nothing, you have to handle that. the portuguese have still their arguido status, and that kept much more the old meaning, the word suspect has long lost in most of europe.
arguido can be used when someone is in need of protection of its rights.

in most european countries the difference between witness and suspect is grown into the first is the innocent bystander, the other is the one who did something. but that is not the true use of suspect. you cannot even state that a suspect is a person under suspicion, it is just a person that by answering a question, by the answer can have the risk to incriminate itself, what does not even have a need to be in the case at hand. included are people who have the risk to be accused of a crime, and needs a advisor in the law to se its right are respected.
you have as an officer of the law also the duty to arrest someone and make it a official suspect when you start to think you are by the questions reaching into accusing that person.

arguido is still much less incriminating the person, so they usually make known why that status is on a person, in this case it was used for people the investigation got a reasonable amount of suspicion, but it also was used to protect witnesses.

and we have only suspect as a term, but have to use that often with a bit of fantasy to give a witness protection, like the right to make use of a lawyer, but also the right to remain silent.
you se that in traffic accident when some people get seriously wounded or someone dies, the other party is given almost always the status of suspect, first because that person has a need help with the law and process during investigations, but also because the investigation has to look into how it came together and if there are criminal offences playing a role. and there are not only questions, it can go much further against personal freedom, like testing on illegal substances, mental stability, eyesight.
but it can even already gathered from the scene it was most likely just an accident, that investigation has to happen.

but now suspect has such a dark load of emotions in view of the public eye, it is the one who done something bad, to have a less dark loaded status would be great. and being arrested and called a suspect says very little about being guilty.
i do not think that is a good thing, it drives information to be kept informal. and that is mostly kept out of view or files.

so one day a usa sheriff found his own solution and started to call people, as pos or people of interest. it are empty words, it has no legal status in law anywhere. but it is popular in public.
the classic meaning of suspect as is still there in the arguido status is great, the motivation can be given with it. so it is much less incriminating to have the arguido status than being called a suspect.

and witnesses have not the right to stay silent, but most would simply use the i have no idea, i do not know that, i did not see that, etc. and officers are trained in knowing what kind of questions there can be asked from a witness.
the ones who forget the protocol end up with unsolved cases, so if you ask a witness a suggestive question with a element of accusing, you cannot use the answer in the rest of the process. so you can not ask a witness; so you broke in that house. and...?

so arguido and suspect have basically the same legal meaning, but have growing apart in its understanding by the public.
in both it is just about a person you have to act against personal rights. it is no declaration of guilt.

when discussing a case online there is no official protocol that give set boundaries, and it often results in hard to understand in house rules of a platform. like singling people out of discussion, single out a specific theory. withholding direct accusing i can see fit, but the freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and freedom of press have in themselves enough boundaries that can respect where the same of others start.
why not keep it stupid simple, by discussion matter instead of the person behind the name.
and it usually end up in mind spaghetti because the reasoning is explained by unlawful accusations cannot be done on specific people, they give them a role they legally most times not have, but it is not an overall rule, so you can say it over all others without any margins that show doubt.

words as evidence and facts are used as empty buckets in public view, they are often abused even to defend lazy opinions.
the lives of armchair detectives would be much easier with a good old dictionary.

this never had the outlook to be a difficult case, it is mostly made complicated by other by all the side shows and interference from other disputes. politics and media both forgot their own duties to their own public. both also the parties that feeding a ongoing public battleground.

what makes it a hard to understand case is already a given by the multiple and very different languages, the different law systems, and even different meaning to principles of law with that.

and there is no such thing a the social opinion, you have simply to take the time to make up your own opinion, you cannot copy simply an already existing one, because you feel not up to making one of your own, and there is not even a rule that you have to have an opinion. just going with what is known is all right too. beliefs are an odd transplantation from religion and have little use in the world of understanding criminal events. beliefs escape motivation and capture to easily a lot of personal emotions in it. there is no need to chose a side, how can that be functional even.

but i think there is nothing wrong in trying to understand a case through discussion on the matter, even when the matter is only words, but it needs at least a lot of margins, keeping in mind that the same words and all other matter can have different meanings and it is hard to work only by the one of your own preferences.

i opened my motivation to se if there really are reasons to dispute the standing opinion of the portuguese police in both their investigation to put the true beginning of this case with the last seen alive motivated by independent witnesses from about 17.30 hours.

cat baker is one of these independent witnesses as far as is known to put that begin of the official timeline of events on.
we also have 4 statements on her name, one informal, 3 formal ones.

there is no report that tell how the pj got motivated to accept that time as their beginning of this case. but it is there from very early on, and it was still there when the case was shelved.
the pj has all the information to make up their motivation, we only can make use of a selection of that same information, plus some that ended up through other sources later on, but we have not the means to check the credibility in most of it.

but it is the first hurdle that you have to get of the table, before looking into other possible starting points in this case.
and that comes with many lower jumps to make, because much of the information is simply based and founded on that pj accepted beginning of this case. it is impossible to separate that fully. so working with it calls for a pencil, much less for solid ink. the same information can give a very different meaning, when the beginning changes also.

the rest of the information that at least can be used to back up alive up to 17.30 hours is mostly there as small snippets and remarks. it would make it much easier if the motivation was just put into a report, even if it was at the start of the investigation a weak accepting, but we can not make use of the information, because it is simply not there.

for me the pj files, the full set as made public are my best source and referential material. even the untranslated volumes can assist in seeing how things progressed in time. and just read it all once would not work well, it is endless going back and forth, using the material as stepping stones for many different and smaller parts of this investigation.
it is not the casebook, that are usually kept in offices, so i use the first book of amaral often in stead of that. a standard casebook, more popular known as the murderbook, even when there is no murder in the case, is much more detailed, but they follow everything from day to day. often with the source of information noted in the side lines.

and with so many people on this investigation the informal information is massive too, we have no access to it, and i miss that most, when you work a case yourself, you can just pick up the phone and talk to the one who brings the information in.
what works great to get from a what if to the meaning of the information itself. and there is often even a possibility to simply go back to the source itself.

and the pj files are there for the same reason for our use, to being able to read back, refresh the correct order of things.
i like to keep checking if a memory is still correct. and minds do slip up and there is so much more in life than only this case.
it has many sidelines that are interested to look into. the thinking can be done everywhere, but checking is the best way to escape building sandcastles, or little versions of a titanic, and your result ends up underwater.

because of all the often very different information, i even can land in very interesting stuff too. my mind is a horrible one in that, it likes so many things. but i do not think it as a waste of time, to reading up in portuguese cultural aspects, the law systems of different countries. how things really work or come together. and the place it all happened is maybe the worst of all for a mind like mine, praia da luz has so much to offer, history, natural and cultural, how both interfere or conquer each other, or give opportunities. it is so much more than just its passage in this case.

The rogatory interviews were an enigma in isolation, perhaps not unheard of but the way they were conducted and the true reason for the process raises a lot of questions.

On the surface the process would appear to have been double jointed, primarily initiated by one faction but used to the advantage of the other.  The parents McCann used the opportunity to request specific individuals to be interviewed - seemingly as character witnesses, whilst the Portuguese police through the auspices of the British police wished to take the opportunity to iron-out loose ends.  Things that needed clarification!

Catriona Baker's private (?) visit to Rothley was curious but there could be any number of explanations, the simplest being she was invited to visit the McCann home and kindly accepted that invitation.  Who knows what she felt and thought then, who knows what she feels and thinks now.

Whatever, she should be allowed to continue life without being under the spotlight, I suggest she's been through enough without being hounded by people who think she's got something to hide just because she was there at the time.

who told madeleine alive during her holiday. page 1.

as i already mentioned there seems to be no report in the pj files about the indications used to get to being alive up to 17.30 hours, so i can not use their motivation, if i want to see if that can be debuncked.

what is possible is looking what they could have used forgetting there from information, there are of course the creche sheets, in itself and with time it would be not impossible to fake such sheets. the forms look as simple forms copied as needed. there is not directly unique information on them, that can not get together with a fair bit of fantasy.

what i do miss, because they are not the kind of paperwork that cannot be faked, is a check with the parents who did sign off on them. 2 or 3 who would declare it must be their original and by them produces information could have helped that. at least there is no information this was asked.

until the case was shelved there seems to be no pictures in the public eye, that show madeleine during an activity that week in the creche.

so most we have to get from statements. so lets see into that, and i will take all indications for the complete week, i used the a-z index of the translated files;

1/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALICE-SILVESTRE.htm

When asked, she says she remembers the McCann family as they often used the restaurant where she worked although she adds that she never had a conversation with them.

**no dated information, only back up in no. 3 and no.5
the only day breakfast was taken by the mccanns their words is sunday.
family dinner only at saturday.

2/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

She confirms that Madeleine is known by her as frequenting the Mini Club, as she was aged almost four.

When questioned about Madeleine's behaviour, the witness says that she is a shy girl but very intelligent for her age, she tended to play with older children, the witness describes her attitude and behaviour as perfectly normal.

The witness confirms that she also knows Madeleine's parents as they would go to fetch her from the club, but she adds that it was normally Madeleine's father who did this.

**this is a hard one, no dated information, also gm took madeleine 3 times out after the morning creche, km dit it once and once cat signed off. but it does not agree with the afternoon session, that is 4x km and a unsigned.
but if we take it on the words amy is right, only after the morning session children would be taken from the club, in the afternoon it was taken from the tapas meal area.


3/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANA-SILVA.htm

She says that the child and her parents frequented the restaurant where they would have breakfast.
When asked, she says that she can not remember the date when they first began to frequent the restaurant.
However she is certain that they frequented the restaurant from the beginning of the week.

** backed up by no. 1 and no.5 , see no. 1, it is not dated.

4/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

Jeremy explained that he used the creche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May.

** with date, but not backed up in gm his statements.

5/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm

When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.

She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.

She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her.
** backed up by no.1 and no. 3

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

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

** multiple reflections to being near the child during this week in multiple statements.
witness also mentions madeleine and ella as playing together. this makes it less likely this witness would be fallen into a mistaken identity.
her story is partly backed up by no. 10, no. 12, and many others.

7/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm

she came across Madeleine McCann many times, explaining that, even though she [Madeleine] did not belong to her [Pennington's] group, this was normal, as the physical space where the children groups are located is contiguous

Witness states that on two different days, Sunday, 29th of April 2007, and on Thursday, 03rd of May 2007, she had direct contact with Madeleine McCann, telling her stories and speaking with her.

8/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

So I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate and Gerry's apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we've looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that we've got that I was you know going to Kate's about six thirty, err and I went into their apartment through the patio doors. The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, but you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you know obviously Gerry wasn't there but they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who'd had such a fantastic time and err yeah then I left there, went and got my stuff, went back to the tennis courts and then err there was me, Matt and Russell and I think Gerry played a little,

9/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm

”Tell me about the Wednesday then as far as you can remember from there.”
Reply ”Well that morning I did go to the Millennium with Dave and Fiona err for breakfast because there was no tennis and I think we, we sat there and I think, I seem to recollect seeing Kate and Gerry then who were sitting with us and I think they’d just finished their breakfast or something, again I’m not clear on that.”

** this could be backing up breakfast at the millennium by at least the parents mccann, from no. 1, no. 3 and no. 5.

”Do you remember if you saw Madeleine that day?”
Reply ”I don’t think I did see her that day because the fact that we’d gone down to the beach in the afternoon and we hadn’t got the kid, the high tea, had we gone to the high tea err with the children then yes we would have seen her, but err I don’t recollect err seeing her because in the morning at the tennis she would have been in the kids club.”


and I don’t, I don’t remember seeing her on that day.


** knows madeleine, but not seen at thursday. but at least we can take that the other days with a kids high tea after creche days was the normal occasion to see madeleine too.

page 2

10/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ELISA.htm

With respect to the group made up by the couple, the missing child and her two siblings, whom she later found out were twins, the deponent remembers having seen them at the "Garden Club", where the pool and the Tapas restaurant are located. They seemed to be a normal family, like all couples in the group, and she never saw any strange or suspicious details.

The couple only left the Garden Club after the children had finished their dinner, which was served by the nannies inside this facility, and which began around 17H00/18H00. It was afterwards that they again left with the children for their respective apartments.

On this same day, at around 17h30 she remembers having left the reception area and going to get her salary, but she does not remember having seen Madeleine and her parents enter the Tapas restaurant.

**no positive for thursday, but more commonly.

11/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm

My first contact with the couple named Gerry and Kate McCann took place in the 24 hour reception when they arrived at the resort accompanied by their 3 children.

I knew about their three children but I never had contact with them.

** looks a bit opposite, but that can happen, so this is something that can be the result of translations, the first contact can also be first seen, but not with direct contact. or have to be understood as first know of. a observation from some distance, but never beyond that.

12/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm

With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants' teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant.

she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much.

She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual

She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.


**the other nanny that had a group of 3 to 5 year old children in the mini club.
it is a very positive answer about thursday afternoon.

13/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm

She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance in the company of her siblings and mother and father, although in the latter case she only observed him from a distance.

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground.

** sighting on sunday, that does fit well with what is said about lunch time in unit 5h that time during the week.
this sighting is seen as trustworthy in most opinions because of the shoes, that much later one came back through words of kate mccann.
14/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm

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

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

'Did you see Madeleine and the twins during the day up until Thursday''


Reply
'Not, not very often. Erm, I mean, the twins probably a bit more, just because picking, you know, picking Lily up at lunchtime or whatever, erm, they'd be picking the twins up. And then at high tea we'd see the kids altogether, that was really the only kiddie time, when they were all together and with Madeleine and the twins. Erm, and then after, after teatime when they'd all play. But that, that was the main part of the day where we saw, erm, Kate and Gerry and, and, you know, the children, their children'.
—------------------------
And Wednesday, to try and jog your memory, was the ladies tennis''
(---)
Oh right. Was Gerry and Madeleine there''

Reply
'Yeah, yeah, we were all there'.
—---------------------------------

you would have picked them up again on the Thursday''(---)

And then it was time to pick up the kids, so Kate and I walked from the Tapas area over to the main reception, going between, you know, there was a sort of path that went between the other Ocean Club complex as well along the road, erm, and she picked up Madeleine and I picked up Scarlet and then we walked back together and that was the only day we ever did, ever did that.

**the last was a question about the thursday, starting from picking up scarlet from the creche at the main reception.

15/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htm

He say that without being absolutely sure he thinks he saw the couple with their three children inside the restaurant on Monday or Tuesday night, he supposes they were there to eat.

**most likely a mistaken identity. no other sources to back that up.

16/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm

With regard to the facts being investigated, she says that in brief moments and in a formal manner (just saying "hello" and "goodbye") she had contact with Madeleine, explaining that she did not belong to her group, these contacts took place when the children were eating, as all the children ate together in the Tapas at the same time.

**not dated.

17/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

E**a O'Brien and Madeleine McCann were in a room in a building near to the reception (4) and English lady called Cat Baker was responsible for them. Apart from her, there were three or four more persons looking after the children, she only remembers one name (Emma Wilding).

(about thursday) The witness played tennis ( with Kate and with Diane Webster. She does not know where Kate's children had breakfast, but knows that the three of them went to their respective rooms in the Kids Club. She supposes that it was Gerry who took them there.

She does not remember whether Madeleine was still in the room when she went to pick up her daughter, E**a. (at lunchtime)

18/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

Jeremy explained that he used the creche facility provided by the resort. This was a child care facility which allowed parents to leave their children, aged between 3 - 5 yrs old, with trained staff at various times of the day. He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

Relative to seeing them with Madeleine and the other children;
I do not have grand memories of Madeleine but did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche. My last memory of the twins, specifically, was in the company of adults (I think they were friends that travelled here) in the pool zone and also on the day that we left, Saturday 5th of May, 2007.
I never saw any member of the family inside or possessing a vehicle.

**first one is dated, but not includes seeing madeleine in person. the second is more in common.

the witnesses,

it is quite a long list of people who ended up giving formal statements about the week madeleine stayed in the ocean club.
i use the a to z list index; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CASE_FILES_INDEX.htm

because it is a lot of work to read all the statements again, i decided to take all sightings, independent of credibility that are there.

i have done about a third already on pages 1 and 2.

i already cannot see why the statement of fatima became for so many the one to date back the day it all supposedly happened down to before the thursday. and even before thursday 17.30 hours. i do like witnesses that are observant and keep details in their memory, like fatima did. but such witnesses are not common, for most people madeleine was just one of many little girls.
going from the mark warner arrival list; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARRIVALS.htm
there are 12 girls listed in the ages of 3 and 4 years old. and madeleine was told by her father almost 90 cm. of height, so there also been multiple younger girls around that week.

last seen alive up to 17.30 hours on may 3, 2007, was not only dependent of cat baker at all. there is enough already in the statements i looked into, that they could been able to build up the day and put their consensus on most likely alive at least up to 17.30 hours on may 3, 2007.

it does not lean on memories alone, but do not forget to look when workers of the ocean club had made their hours, so after about a third of all statements, there is already enough, that there are sound enough reasons to see the build up of being around that week is much stronger, than explain all other sightings and noticing out of the case.
there is already enough to see their is a build up for that week of a memory of madeleine being there.

but i will work through the others too. i have them already made ages ago in just ink, but oi would not dare to bother others to have to work to the maze of my handwriting. most are in my own shorthand too.
all ** are notes i put to them.

of course there will be people who have been mistaken, there can be words lost in a bit of translations. by exception there will be the usual fantastical mind serving something that never happened in the told way. still to get to a start off time, you usually do not need the best quality.

also the agreement on fatima as highly credible witness was mostly made on the shoes, but the pj had not that information.
fatima had to recognize madeleine from a picture in circulation before her statement on may 8, or earlier if an informal statement was made before that. these shoes are a mass product, but the full story is accepted credible because the setting fits too, but only if you use for that the words of the same people you exclude as witnesses for moments later that week and even onto that thursday itself.

or thinking cat baker could mistaken madeleine and ella that week, still they come both together in the same moments.

i can see why the creche attendance sheets do not look very much, and yes, it would pretty easy to make fake ones, i could put that off easily myself. it happens even very often, without really wanting to do that out of foul play. and parents are people to, and there is a allround hesitation to fill out attendance sheets, everywhere. my own experience is the same with parents, and police officers. and usually you have yo play drill sergeant with your eyes on it at all times, otherwise they end up in the same disarray as these. and this nanny was pretty fresh in the job too.

the thursday lobsters attendance sheet can only be an extra plus to the words of many.

the group i did not put on my list, are all people who had no true reason to have contact, or even sight on madeleine, there is until now still none who had such connection, that still said, such a girl was not there, where she supposedly had to be.
negatives are as good to look at as the positives.

but to use the seen on sunday by fatima as last seen alive, you have to discredit many people.
still you cannot fully be sure a lot of people been misled. but the examples of such events are usually still not for such a long term. 24 hours earlier would already be hard to explain. longer is known, but for that usually when people have long term vested habits. under a week of presence is simply to short for that. you cannot say easily 100% impossible, but it is very unprobable. the picture is not there for a girl that was never there after sunday.

page 3

19/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KIRSTY-MARYAN.htm

The deponent further clarifies that the Junior group does not find itself subdivided from the other groups, in that, at this moment, there are not enough children that permit it;
. relative to the facts of the investigation the witness clarifies that in her daily schedule mentioned she only, on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her

** beach was visited by word of cat on tuesday, wednesday and thursday.

20/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEANNE-DANIELLE-WAGSTAFF.htm

She says that she saw Madeleine once during the week she arrived but did not know her as the witness only worked in the Toddlers group.

**unclear statement first as working baby and mini club, later in toddlers club.
undated.

21/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm

He remembered being in the presence of the group Madeleine belonged to, composed of nine adults and eight children on the 28th April, the day they arrived at the resort. Apart from breakfast, which they would eat every day in the Millenium restaurant, dinner on Saturday night was the only meal they had there because the Tapas bar did not serve dinner on Saturdays. He remembered that Saturdays dinner was a buffet service and that he had been very close to the group, giving them all the necessary indications related to the service. In spite not recalling Madeleine's exact features, he presumes she was there with the other children present. He did not notice anything particular about the girl, nor was there any difference in the normal tranquillity in spite of the fact that there were 8 children.

**

22/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30.

** this seems to be a mistaken identity, and not certain, but most likely a daughter of russell o.

23/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm

In the context of her duties which she carries out for the company mentioned, she has had contact on several occasions with a child called Madeleine McCann, observing from a distance. The informant states that the child belonged to the "MiniClub," group in which the children are aged 3 to 5 years.
—-----------
Questioned in more depth, the informant advises us that the group of children belonging to the "MiniClub" category is supervised by her colleague Amy T. who, in her turn, coordinates a group of leaders composed of Catriona B. and Emma W. Both were on duty in the week of April 29th to May 4th 2007.
—-----------
The informant tells us that on a date which she cannot be precise about but which was some time last week, Madeleine McCann participated in a boat trip, organised by the company's crêche. Several children participated in this outing to the sea, accompanied by the employees mentioned above and an expert in water activities, whose name she is not aware of.
—----------
To our questions, the informant replies that given that she had no direct contact with the minor in question, Madeleine McCann, being only the supervisor of the company's crêche leaders,

** here is suggested the boat trip had at least 2 people to take care of the children. cat says she was, emma did not, amy did not, but emma or amy must been included.

24/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNNE_FRETTER.htm

With relation to the facts being investigated, she says that she only had one brief contact, a few seconds with Madeleine - whom they called Madie (sic), when she passed by her, having eaten at the table, where she was.

** undated, worked in the babyclub, next to the miniclub.

25/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-FERNANDES.htm

she remembers, the parents of the missing child, accompanied with said minor, and her siblings, as is the case with various other couples and children, went to dinner in this restaurant on the night of Saturday, the 28th of April;

** not after that, but works in the evening.

26/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_JOSE.htm

and after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crèche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crêche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.
—---------------
Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

**a bit early at the kids high tea.

27/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

about may 3;
About 18h00 he, ROB and DP went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00. He clarifies that when they arrived at that meeting GM was already there, with KM and her children watching the match, the rest of the women and children joining them [KM and children] later.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

but he, erm, sort of went back to, erm, to sort of help with, you know, Kate and the kids and didn't stay to sort of play with us and there was just the three of us and I think the

—----------------
4078 "The first one was, when did you last see Madeleine''
Reply "Err I'm not quite sure when I last saw her because it depending on whether we had lunch together as a group in David and Fiona's, which err we may have done on the last day because it got more common as we went through the week but it was more common for the six in terms of the, David, Fiona, already in the apartment of course with Dianne and err Russ and Jane and Grace and Rachael and I to go up there and have lunch as a group than it was to have err the full complete group there at lunch time. Err but it would seem now, it probably wasn't until the day previously because we'd seen them in the evening after their usual tea so I think on that day, on the final, on the Thursday when we came back up from tennis I'm not sure that Kate and the children err were there outside the tennis court when we arrived because we arrived late and it would have been about bedtime so I can't specifically recall whether I saw Madeleine at that point, but we sort of arrived, err it wasn't sort of big groups who were doing the usual sort of chasing games, they may have gone earlier because everybody else of course was still down with our wives, down in the err down at the restaurant on the beach so it would have been quite sort of the same sort of playgroup and they may have, I think they went back and they were gone by the time I got to the tennis courts.'


** yes, no, maybe….,maybe not…..

28/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAULA_VIEIRA.htm

With respect to the child in question, Madeleine, and her family, the witness adds when she did hear about what happened, she was not able to associate the name with the person in question.
When she saw her photograph, and saw the images of the parents, she did remember having seen them, about two times—the child in question and her family when they were leaving the Millenium Club breakfast (around 9h30/10H00) and only because this was her time to the clean the reception of the establishment.

**undated.

I don't know whether this belongs here or over on the Stop the Myths forum, or perhaps both?

The suggestion, implication, spread across social media when trying to find evidence to 'prove' Madeleine McCann was not seen or heard of after the beginning of the holiday week takes a lot of believing.  Some say she didn't go on that holiday or she didn't even exist but that's not for the level headed to contemplate, so we can stop it right there.

I find it impossible to reconcile with the idea that all those witnesses who attest to seeing Madeleine McCann, to speaking with her, can all be mistaken or guilty of mistaken identity or worse still lying!  There could be doubt over perhaps one or two or even three witnesses but to suggest every one was mistaken is a tall order to believe possible.

I've seen it suggested for example the Ocean Club Millenium restaurant's staff must be wrong because the McCann family didn't use the restaurant after the first morning because it was too far away from their accommodation.  They opted instead to buy food at the Baptista supermarket for consumption in their apartment but we only have the McCann's word for that and their version of events has not been the most reliable.

During Kate McCann's witness interview on 4th May 2007 it was recorded (again not taken verbatim)..

The routines

The day after their arrival, they went for breakfast at around 7.30/8.30 at the Ocean Club, in a bar situated some distance from the apartment. On the following days, because the bar was quite far away, they started buying supplies from the "BAPTISTE" supermarket, located on the same road as the apartment and they had their first meal of the day in the apartment.

However her witness statement taken on 6th September 2007, prior to being made arguido, tells a different story if taken literally..

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment.

Could of course be misinterpretation.

Whether that be so or not, it would have been simple for the Portuguese police to check it out.  Unless of course this is another example of alleged police incompetence.  I think it was also said somewhere else that they had lunch every day in their apartment.

it is why just decided to look for the whole week, and all positive sightings, and if there been multiple i taken the last one.

so in the end it will mostly be up to your own thresholds and ideas about what is credible and what is not.

and there is not always information to back it up. and witnesses can be at points looking of very clear mind and memory, and next you see very dubious stuff in a statement too. each sighting in itself is to be seen as a question, you cannot take anything on face value.

and in such a environment where large groups of people change from week to week, i would not even much very detailed and exact sightings as a given. people are most of their days simple part of a scenery. there is often no need to know people, and witnesses as fatima and aoife are very rare, but even they do not keep all exact details, but usually they get pretty far.
but it are mostly sightings from very small moments in time, seconds to minutes.

there are also some conflicting elements, like the picture that got out the first days, and most of these statements are from very early on, most 4, 5 and 6 may, so they would hardly have seen many others was of a 6 to 12 months younger child.

and these little parts of the statements are mostly used to build up the common background. and to get a specific child walking through it that week. none of these people was given the task to keep an dedicated eye on this child. it is all about a child they had often no direct contact, or even a good reason to have contact other than when it just reached into their work.
the tapas 7 are different, still most of them would not had seen madeleine very often or in a regular pattern.

and this case has in common with many cold cases, that the common background did not make it much into the paperwork.
like good maps. i have no idea if they are available there, here you can just ask for the latest one at every council office.
google earth does not work the same, and you cannot write easily in smaller pathways that are not official ones.
distances in this case are all over the place. so it is much harder to connect sightings. and this works real time doing it yourself very different too. it is often a habit to go there use your own eyes and work from that, but everything can change in some years, months even. so in older cases it is nice to fall back on a good common back ground with maps and written versions.
there are some done in reporting conflicting statements. still pretty short.

and i still have enough statements to read through, and it is always hard, because even with a specific bit to focus on, you see many other things that get your mind at work again. i knew that would happen, it always does, it does not matter how often go read through the same bits of the files, change the order and read on and you find still stuff your mind did not take on earlier.

and as this topic is simply about all other possible times something happened with madeleine, i just decided to look for the whole week, and let the words speak for themselves.
also, madeleine would be in the eyes of most adults around just be child, a girl they would get from it too, but she had nothing that made her stand out of all others, at least not the people who just been near her without a task that was dedicated to madeleine. look for yourself, there are many people part of your common background in daily life, how many could you be sure with a time and date of last seen. most people would not give you a reason to keep that memorized.

for common faces it asks usually at least 3 equal situations to get them memorized. the dutch call that to become part of the furniture. still you need often a lot of other information to get that memory out of your head and being able to reflect on that.
but seeing the same faces many times over on the same place is so much easier to remember, and it often do happen that it becomes a pattern in your memory, not a observation, so our minds are very good in telling us the faces because we expect to see them, not if they are truly there.

it is not very easy to remember just that single person. still i think there is enough from a divers group to tell madeleine was there and most likely for multiple days after arrival. and what is missing is a clear statement of madeleine being absent when she was supposed to be somewhere.

and for the breakfast it is the words of the workers there, against that of others. but how important is that really, breakfast would not be the last option to see her on the thursday. and there was already a story from the first informal statements she was there, that was what the investigation was working against.

if we look for say 24 hours earlier of zero hour, or even thursday morning, you could say, the family not joining in with the group during the beach outing could be used to build up that. it was out of habit as a happening for that week, not for this kind of holiday. out of habit for the other adults ex mccann, because they before only joined up together during playtime after the kids meal =high tea and during dinners in the evening.
thursday was also a day of arrival and departure in the ocean club, so someone looking as just a tourist with a suitcase or heavy bag would not be much noticed as different. where the not joining in the beach outing is already there, the rest lands immediate into full speculation. the twins been in the creche, there was a tennis lesson, kate running, gerry already playing. so it was not showing as an empty block of time that afternoon.
the problem is not that earlier is impossible, but to make it into the stronger theory than the thursday evening, and even that one needs speculation.

and every hour earlier openes up more possibilities in steps they had to take, but at the same time you have to call out more and more people out as liars. and find out why they would lie for what happened and this family. such connecting pieces have not shown up in the last 17 years, and that can not be from not looking for it. and i do not like to do that if i have to call out people just on full speculation alone. for the parents themselves it is already different, there we have some from before, during and a lot from after it happened.

and it even gets harder with the things as breakfast because it are only words in opposite position, they came to breakfast, no we did not go to break fast. there are no details to check on it. that they bought groceries for breakfast and lunch in 5a is only resting on words of the parents. on monday kate supposedly joined with jane to the supermarket, but that tells not why, could as easy as buying a bottle of wine too.
going to buy groceries from a supermarket is easily accepted as true, but it is not checked at all.
and there are many of such small points, we easily accept as sounds true enough, but that is never equal to knowing they did, there is not even a counter statement from anybody working that week in that supermarket.

another snippet that are the guest cards, that are given to all guests, adults and children. no guest cards of the family in the files. but i will work myself through the rest of the list of witnesses, and there are many such points.
and you can not go by words only, and it gets a bit odd when the words of the same person are taken for granted on one matter, but not about any other matter. of course, bits can be true enough, other bits lies or half truths. but that makes you walking out on your own impressions and thinking alone.

page 4.

29/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm

statement from 15/5 is there too;
Afterwards the witness took G***e to the Club. Madeleine and the twins also went to the Club that morning, as well as the other children in the group.

After lunch the children went to sleep. She was not with the McCanns that afternoon until dinner time. She does not know what they did or where they were during that time.

**this is from the used reporting style statement not usable to explain as seen during the morning itself. inconclusive as best. so not a yes, and not a no.
witnesses does not give

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

I think it must have been at about ten thirty, Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their creche activities, erm and Kate didn't have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and Ella, thats one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis b*lls, that sort of pictures'.

578 'How many occasions did you see Madeleine on the Thursday''
Reply 'Erm I think just really at, when she was doing the tennis, having her tennis lessons, as part of her activities, erm'.
1578 'Is that the last time you saw her''
Reply 'I think that was the last time I saw her yeah'.

**no tennis for madeleine by the activity sheet of the creche, other than at tuesday between 10.00 and 11.00 hours.

1578 'How often did you used to see their children, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie''
Reply 'Erm well we saw all the children everyday as well, Sean and Amelie we saw more than Madeleine because they were in cr'he with Grace, erm and Madeleine was in cr'he and it was kind of off, off site, it was at the main reception of the Ocean Club, erm and, and then we'd, we'd always see them at tea time, we'd all have tea together and then after tea we always just went to the sort of recreation area by the tennis courts and the kids would play on the swings and the slides and you know, you'd just sort of chase them around and play games and stuff, so I mean everyday'.

1578 'I think you've already covered this one, when was the last time you saw Madeleine''
Reply 'Erm it was when she was having a tennis lesson, in the morning yeah, about probably between ten thirty and eleven on the morning of the third of May'.
00.41.13 1578 'At the tennis courts''
Reply 'Yes at the tennis courts'.
half nine, ten o'clock onwards, we were chatting when Madeleine arrived for the tennis lesson with the rest of the children from her group, erm I think that was probably about ten thirty, erm and Gerry was there then as well, I think he'd been having a lesson on the tennis courts I think, he was having group lessons, so I think he might have been having his lesson sort of up until then, erm so they were both there then and then erm Matt and I had our tennis lesson

30/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

On the 3rd May 2007 I saw Madeleine in the morning a couple of times this was when I dropped Ella off. I took the kids up to breakfast at the Millennium club and walked to the Ocean Club I was late getting Ella there, the kids were having a great time at the kids club and all appeared to well.

I saw Madeleine at lunchtime I can’t recall if Jane or I collected Ella it’s all a bit hazy now.

I recall that Madeleine and Ella had had a similar lesson the day before.

** lesson reflex to tennis

Maybe, ‘I believe I saw Madeleine at lunchtime’, I’m sure that, erm. And it says ‘I can’t recall if I collected Ella or whether she was brought up by the Nannies, it’s all a bit hazy now’, I think I can probably say the Nannies did not bring the children back at the end of the morning session because there was no tea, they weren’t bringing them back sort of thing. So I think I can probably, I can probably clarify there that, erm, ‘Either Jane or I collected Ella from the’, erm, ‘from the’, erm, ‘Ocean Club, Mini Club’”.
1578 “’Either Jane or I’'”
Reply “Yeah, and it’s slightly out of order here now. The next paragraph, erm, yeah, the wording, it’s a bit, it’s a bit sort of, I mean, there’s, there’s such a kind of, you know, uncomfortable coincidences next, in this next, but this is out of order, this is before we have gone and collected Evie. So after I’ve gone out to play tennis, erm, the next couple of paragraphs occur and then ‘We probably saw Madeleine at lunchtime and one of us probably collected Ella’, so it’s slightly out of, it’s slightly out of synch this”.


“In between ‘play tennis’ and ‘I believe I saw Madeleine at lunchtime’'”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, so that’s coming, ‘I saw Madeleine at lunchtime’ and ‘Me or Jane collected Ella from the Ocean Club’ will be a kind of, a later paragraph. No, this is wrong. Erm”.
1578 “Just bear with me a moment please”.
Reply “I mean, the essence of it is right, but, but the”.
1578 “So we now go to'”
Reply “’I recall’, I mean, it’s a bit, it doesn’t need the ‘I recall’. ‘After’, it’s actually ‘After Jane’”.
1578 “Are these the two paragraphs that we want to'”
Reply “That we’ll be moving to, at the end of that (inaudible)'”
1578 “Yes”.
Reply “It’s actually going to be ‘After Jane’s tennis lesson’. Erm, you can actually delete ‘Madeleine was playing tennis’ at all, because, erm, it wasn’t Madeleine, Madeleine and Ella had done this the day before, erm”.
1578 “Okay. So I shall take out ‘I recall that Jane was having a tennis lesson’'”
Reply “It’s just ‘After Jane’s tennis lesson’”. And then you can actually delete ‘Madeleine was playing tennis, they were having a lesson’, because that, well it wasn’t Madeleine that day at all. Erm, it says ‘After Jane’s tennis lesson’, I’ll try and preserve it as much as possible, ‘I recall that one of the guests’, erm, ‘a man from Southampton came up’ full-stop. ‘His daughter’, it was his three year old daughter, ‘his young daughter was having a’, this, it may be word perfect, ‘was having a’, erm”.
1578 “We have got ‘His daughter was playing tennis’'”
Reply “Well, yeah, his, his daughter was having a tennis lesson, you know, a kid’s tennis lesson, I mean, she was only, she was probably the same age as Ella and Evie, they were in the same, they were all at the same clubs but they had, there were, there were a certain number of children so they had them in two groups, so they didn’t always do the same thing, you know, Beavers and the Lobsters or something. Erm, and, yeah, she was having a, a sort of, well kind of a kiddies tennis lesson”.
1578 “Yes”.
Reply “And the question about Madeleine then, this is exactly the same as Madeleine and Ella had done the day before. Erm, and that’s where that very famous picture of Madeleine with the tennis balls was taken, so. But it wasn’t Madeline on this day, Madeleine and Ella were in the same group and I think they’d been done on, you know, the Tuesday or the Wednesday, they had come up, so they all, there were two kind of mini kid groups, mini club kid groups and they did, you know, they were on like a rota and they did things at different times and on different days. So Madeleine was not there at that point at all. And I think that’s important, particularly, because of what the man said, if Madeleine was potentially being photographed by anyone, it was absolutely clear that Madeleine and Ella were not there that day. It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.


a bit further on; I can’t, you know, hand on heart, say, when I picked Ella up and took her down to the beach before the Nannies took her up to, erm, for high tea, that I saw Madeleine there. But I got in early enough to get Ella out before the end of, well, you know, arrived just before they actually left to go up, so by rights she should have been there”.


How often do you see their children, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie”'
Reply “Erm well it would have been on most of the occasions bar the, bar the evening for those, err and sometimes we may have bumped in, you know may have seen Madeleine when I was picking up Ella from you know, from the, you know the, the kids club in the afternoon, or doing the drop off, so I might see them even independently from, from Kate and Gerry if I dropped off a bit later, or picked up a bit later, so, several, several times, you know usually several times a day


“When was the last time you saw Madeleine”'
Reply “Erm I certainly think I saw her at lunch time on the Thursday, erm when, when sort of Ella, when Ella and her would have come out the, the, the, the, the kids club, as I said earlier on, on, on Thursday afternoon, we did something slightly different and we were all down at, down at the beach front and were gonna eat there, my gut feeling is because I got there to pick Ella up before all of the children from the kids club were taken up to the, the Tapas that I did see Madeleine there, I have to say eleven months on, I, I can’t tell you that I had a picture of her definitely there, but unless Kate and Gerry picked her up separately, she, she would have been there and somewhere in the back of my mind I, I’ve got this picture of me taking Ella out and all the other children, including Madeleine were there but it’s too long after to, to, to really be honest on that and sort of say yes I definitely saw her, cos I, I don’t know I can now”.


I think then when all the children came back up, I think we saw Madeleine and err, and Sean and Amelie and Gerry and Kate, so over lunch time,

** how to get a sound interview into word spaghetti.
the first part of these statements in the rogatory are made from notes of an officer, the video decided not to work that day and there was a retake and reinterviewing later on.

31/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SANDRA_MURTINHEIRA.htm

Regarding the missing child, the witness believes that she may have seen her walking with one of the nannies. However, there are many families with children, and it is normal to see the children with their nannies carrying out their activities.

32/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SARA-ELIZABETH-WILLIAMSON.htm

With relation to the facts being investigated she says that she had various contacts with the girl Madeleine McCann, but says these were formal contacts and very brief, her twin siblings were part of the group she worked with last week. But she says that it was her colleague Shinead who looked after the twins during the current week.

When questioned, the witness says that Madeleine was accompanied by her parents, who were using an apartment at the resort.

She says that the twins were generally left at the creche at 09.00 and that the parents dropped them off before leaving Madeleine in her classroom. Then between 12.00 and 12.30 the parents would pick up the twins until 15.00. Between 17.00 and 17.30 the parents would collect the twins from the creche.

When the parents picked up the twins at lunch time, all the children were together in the same place so they picked up Madeleine as well.

** the last bit is unclear, because the children who been in the baby and mini clubs above the main reception had to be taken from there.
this could be from the different names used, creches for the very young children under 3 and club for the older children.

33/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SHINEAD-VINE.htm

She affirms that she saw Madeleine McCann once when she arrived during the week, but that she did not know, as the deponent was working only with the Toddler group;
. She did recognise the family, as she was responsible for the twins, children of the couple and siblings of Madeleine McCann;

34/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STACY-POTZ.htm

Knew the McCann family since 29th of April as they would drop off their toddlers, Sean and Amelie, in the Toddler Club;
--- From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day.
--- She also knew Madeleine as she would frequently come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;
--- She never had Madeleine in her care.

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

During the holiday you met the following persons, Gerry and Kate McCann, saw their children, Madeleine and the twins, but don't know their names.

**from reading an earlier statement

Hummm... I remember talking to Gerry, because I had to go and fetch I*** and they were playing in the small garden and he was (inaudible), I***** and I thought it was Maddie, I am not absolutely sure but, he seemed to me to be a decent type, a good father, affectionate with his children, very easy to talk to, very good with the children, with a comfortable manner even when talking to I**** about little things, completely dedicated to the children.

36/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SUSAN-OWEN.htm

Relative to the facts of the investigation clarifies that in the discourse of her work in the mentioned establishment, she came into contact on some occasions with a child known as Madeleine McCann, clarifying that the contact was formal and of short duration, and in relation to the fact that the childs siblings were in the deponents group. But refers that it was her colleague Shinead, who took care of the twins that week;

Questioned, the deponent clarifies that Madeleine McCann was accompanied by her parents, who were staying in an apartment in the resort mentioned above, together with her twin siblings (a boy and a girl) of two years of age;

Questioned, the deponent states that she did not have direct contact with the minor at issue, Madeleine McCann, and did not know her habits, and that of her parents, and that no strange situation about the child was reported to her or at any other time during her time in Portugal;
. That she only knows that Madeleine McCanns parents would come to pick her up, as with her siblings, between 17H15 and 17H30, at the location where all the children of the creche got together to have dinner, in the Tapas restaurant, related to the resort in question;

37/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SVETLANA_VITORINO.htm

During the times meals are served, she works outside the restaurant for some of the time, near to the grill and it is possible that she saw the girl on some occasion. However, she says that she does not have a clear idea of Madeleine, as many children were about, who looked quite similar to her. She can also say that she has an idea of the group that dined at a table at the Tapas esplanade, of nine adults, which Madeleine belonged to.


38/ https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/T_M_S_AGE_12.htm

When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

so that ended up in quite a long list, of all people that think, believe or know that they have noticed madeleine during her stay on this holiday.

is it a complete set of data, no it is not, the parents are not part of it, and if you look how many people been around, that never delivered information about the week and their observations it is not complete at all.

even these raw results can have with certainty some false memory stored in witnesses.
we also do not know what and how and even if there was a question asked, about when did you see madeleine last.

what i did notice was how many details by some of the people that made it to this a-z index never been part of these statements. this is not telling the witness kept it hidden, as in telling lies by omission,but the information could be withheld for investigation purposes. it is very common to keep some personal notes to each witness statement, that will also would be about the impression the witness made during the hearing, there can be a verbatim taken down statement, without tape short hand was and is still in use for that. these statements usually only have taken down what is of interest in the ongoing investigation.
for some witnesses that is al;so to see, that when a specific point or multiple of these needs more attention, there is a follow up statement about that too.

but now come the hard question, what can you do with this long list of observations?

and this is the hard part, because it is simply up to us to formulate that question, and that will most likely be not that same question that was answered too by any of the witnesses.

this means your question has a high chance of bias.

it also will be up to us to decide on the quality of the observation, and we are the ones who will put down the criteria to do that.

so that means again high risk of bias.

and then the heavier question how do we use our results.

by doing all 3 it is very hard to escape what is called the texas sharpshooter fallacy, what in short stands for you shooting on a barn wall, walking up to the barn wall and painting bulls eyes around the holes your bullets left.

and we all will have biases if we want to, or not. but you can at least try to escape it as much as you can.

if the question you want to seen answered is, was madeleine seen alive on thursday may 3, 2007, and you do not look into the witness statements but only to the little parts about madeleine observed by a witness, the easy answer is yes.

if you do not fancy that as an answer, you can always put an audit on the witnesses for quality.
one point many times used is, would the witness that says yes, i did notice her, truly knew madeleine well enough to be recognized, or can the witness been mistaken and only put the name madeleine to the wrong other girl.

and that brings on very dark waters, because it is very easy to fall in the trap of accepting things that are not really checked. as always it is a good thing to always read all statements that can answer a question you have, including follow up statements.
before you can start to select the witnesses on how well they knew madeleine, you have to put a margin on well known. still it are our own margins.

we will most likely end up with 4 groups of people in the knowing department.

first the parents, who are not in this list, but they must know madeleine best.

the second group is made up of david and fiona payne and dianne webster, they travelled in the same group as madeleine from home, airport to the ocean club.

the third group is the other friend, russell o’brian, jane tanner, matt and rachael oldfield.
they have all seen madeleine before the trip, but none of them has recent observations in madeleine growing into this age. so the madeleine during this week in connection to the parents mccann is not in their memory.

the fourth group are all who never met or observed madeleine before she arrived in the ocean club.

groups 3 and 4 have both to imprint themselves with how madeleine looked after arrival on the saturday.
we can use the older pictures of a younger madeleine to see that she clearly has changed, what in her age is to be expected. we have nothing that can be used as a control to how good these people each were in recognizing faces and putting names to them.
that is very individual as a trait, and often children can be seen as they must be them, because they are connected in an observation to in this case the family mccann, or the twin siblings. most of us humans are socially engaged in counting people as being the same family, and based on form and impression of age tell ourselves who they must be. or take children in the company of an adult automatically as being part of a family. also we often focus more on other things than studying or paying attention to people around us.

so groups 3 and 4 are the ones who would have more difficulty in having a good image of madeleine in their minds.

and the next bit of bias will start marching in when you beforehand already put some points out to people who can have other reasons to lie.

what you can use the full list for, that it is highly unlikely to make an impression, madeleine was not there at all. and if you peek through all the statements yourself;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CASE_FILES_INDEX.htm is looking for when the witnesses worked or did not work, and deduct from that what the time frame could have been of the observation.
my result of that is that madeleine must have been around on at least multiple days after arrival, including after sunday. not based on exact given time and dates, but from an overall impression.
i looked after i have done it this time, searched through my old case notes, i remembered already i made them in handwriting, short hand by my own system, and in dutch. so i could not be just lazy this round and copy them , so i just started over without using the old ones,
my impression was still the same, there are just too many different moments, by people that have been bound to a place she would expected to be around that week, to see that differently.

and this is very common in most investigations, even when we are around multiple hours, our minds are very selective in what they keep stored as a memory, timing is not a natural and instinctive trait in humans. most observations that we keep are of moments we put away with a virtual post it of something different.

and look at the dates, most are very early made, when the images in memory are usually still there, only exact times and dates are always hard to keep.
for people you put the; this can be a liar stamp on, if an observation is told in an event setting it is more common that the event setting is true, but only the time and date are fiction.

also this was mostly from building up a background of that week in the ocean club of madeleine. the investigation was just started, so also hard to expect more. and this was what the pj had to work with in the early days.

later stories, mostly through the media, are not backed up by the statements.
the dive in the ocean to get back a straw hat, what would be a great story to put to the being alive on thursday morning, did not show up anywhere, except as second hand story by a dad, who has given multiple statements, beside the tales of another young girl, we would expect such adventures would show in a statement of a nanny, or multiple when indeed more been there around the beach outing. and not in the least through other parents of the other children, onlookers from the beach, and kate mccann, who told us she had to carry a tired daughter back to unit 5a. what at that time must have been still a quite wet child.

the picture, well pictures are often not the best evidence, in the days of analog prints, there was of course the situation in between other pictures that could tell something from the negatives. photoshop and easy early app like functions are nice when you want to change the odd bits and pieces.

if the metadata indeed belongs to the picture known as the last at the pool photo, some assistance from handy fingers could not be excluded.
photoshop seems less likely, but still even if that picture had some more work done to the picture itself, or the date, it would not mean we can be sure why it was done.

pr master mitchell walked in the case again at the same date as the picture surfaced, the picture was never given to the pj as proof of life. and in all it could simply be a nice pr move, to show the happy child in a happy family doing nice things, in such an effort it would be simply used as an illustration, and selling it as the last of many happy moments on this holiday would raking the attention of the media in droves.
pr masters are well known for finding it important to paint always the nicer sides of an event.
if that asked to make use of a standard available little bit of software in internet explorer, how difficult could that be.

so not only bad intent is a possible use for such pictures. it was at least not even taken as far to send it to the pj as proof of life. so if bad intent was there, they kept it out of incriminating themselves.

i would never have known how easy it was, if i had not looked in that little drop down menu for a civil justice case i worked at a time. i even showed it in court. it was never there to prove anything, but for using it as a bit of software to put dates and titles to pictures of your own. not all camera and video devices did also send the number of the device itself automatically, and many people in these years still tried to store old analog collections to digital formats. so you could change everything by just typing it in.

but it can be hard to put off the virtual glasses that paint all things happening in a dark mode. many of the actions around a criminal event are simply just very normal actions, and it is not that easy to put them all under the same labelling as criminal.

the same with recognition, the individual quality and investment in memories has very wide margins, from non existent to picture perfect. so it would be hard to easily use it to shift to all observations and decide about unknown to us people how high we can rank them.
and just setting them aside if they do not fit to a format you have vested before you started to look into it, is not the best approach.

so it can hardly go beyond our own thoughts about it, that is how we put meaning to these observations, but we have hardly any means to be sure we have hard information to check them against. also what you accept as hard information is also mostly based on our own opinions, and often it can be hard to follow if you accept words from the same sources in very diverse ways on different matters. .

we cannot set in stone creche attendance sheets, we cannot set in stone the activity sheet of the lobsters, and we can never set in stone words of people. so all we end up usually needs a wide set of margins. to reach a set point that can make it a fact is very hard in this case. facts are at least never the things that rest on our opinions alone. facts cannot change in themselves, they have to be static, facts can still have different meanings. and facts that have a clear and undisputed meaning are rare in this case.

The witness statements, indeed just about every known aspect of the case, is open to misinterpretation and added to the document translations back and forth between languages makes for endless discussion.  There is always room for manoeuvre there, especially if the translator is a bit rusty or not conversant with variations between languages - that's not meant as criticism, only a matter of fact.

So why does practically everything need to be set in stone in certain quarters?  I refer here to those who believe they have solved the case outside of the official investigation, thus not prepared to consider alternative view points - surely the many elements comprising a police investigative force would have widely differing views on each and every angle?

Why then do people outside an investigation who like to call themselves 'researchers' or 'investigators' think themselves to be so on track with their theory that all else should be precluded, silenced if you prefer!  What sort of internet platform allows only those who agree with a particular line of thinking when there is so much ambiguity in the official Portuguese investigation documentation - to say nothing of missing information?

It seems to me a very strange way of conducting an open public forum or other social media platform, it's more like a closed shop where alternative thinking is not welcome, even if they speak from experience or just make good sense in a wilderness of controversy.

In truth very little is known about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it's unwise to feign superior knowledge based on nothingness as it is unwise to 'create' scenario to fit a desired outcome.  Film companies and authors use such tactics to sell their product, to spice it up for the prevailing market but that doesn't make it right - to the contrary!

it cannot be called doing research, that would mean collecting the data yourself, well what there is to work from is already out there. there is no need to devalue the term and understanding of research.

investigation is also something that includes an activity, to a level that will be hard to reach from a chair and stable sitting position.
and is it ever been more than just talk about an investigation others already did? we look and think, and try to find answers in a case about a young child. wanting to know what happened is okay and understandable.
but there is no need to start a war about it. at least this case gives enough opportunity and behaviour to keep that burning based on that alone, but it is not in anyway part of this case, or the gathering of information.

i know how it works when you investigate your own cases, and that is very, very different from what you can work with as an outsider. many of the questions i still have, would be not there, because i just could ask for the answers, go get them myself of ask a team member to get it. as an onlooker it is very irritating at best, but it keeps you level headed to see where your influences has no reach. even in your own cases, the ones you are hired to work them, that can happen often enough.

we only see about 10 to 15% of all information that has gotten into this case. and we do not even can say this is enough to see the full story. only solved cases can be used to reflect on the effectivity of the information.

and it is okay enough for me if others think for themselves that they have all the answers, but it is still up to me to make my own mind up about their production. when that is not up to my standards i still own the freedom to reject it.
and i am myself very bad in the ability to just belief and accept, and follow blindly the one that shouts best, maybe because i long before learned that such adventures just end up in a disappointment.

and what use would it be to fence of a theory, if you already know you do not have all the information, but defend it as it was your life. why not leave open some room for margins. and can a theory be true if it cannot be tested, and that will have a fair bit of problems in this case.

the case itself needs an answer, because we cannot simply accept 4 years young children are gone up in smoke. i do not care with the academic conclusion, we care because of the innocent victim. we all know a almost 4 years old girl can not be responsible for her own disappearance. even if we would find out she did disappear as the result of her own actions, there are social rules and rules by law to not let that happen. both together are simply our safety net. and we all been once nearly 4 years old children. so a whole lot of people would not want to live in a society where even innocent children simply can disappear.
the answer in this case and many others that escape the same exposure is simply needed to reflect if our communal idea about safety are okay.

but for that we need the true answer, and that is still not there.

but all that put out their own theory between their ears, have two choices, keep it for themselves, or put it out to be scrutinized by others.
if you put it out to social media and certainly forums, do not to forget to inform yourself that this means; you ask for other opinions. if you cannot stand the talk, stay out of the forums.

it helps when you understand what the word forum stands for;

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forum
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/forum
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/forum

and the same with the word discussion;

but you could simply use the links before, and just look for the word itself. and yes it is the romans who are at fault, but they choose different words to talk about it in public= forum, and to fight about it in public= arena.

what else can be used to get it to a zero hour?

very little really, at least besides a lot of words, there is little paperwork, or other material in the pj files to make use of.

most of europe is not so fond of cctv as the uk, but the uk tells cctv is not what makes it so much easier to solve possible crimes. in 2007 there was often hardly any cctv outside very high risk areas and on private properties, filming streetlife is usually prohibited for citizen too. often it is just materials that accidentally covers a bit of it from private sources, still not always of high enough quality to be of use.

even now where i live, video capturing street life through law or counsel parties is often only available for direct live viewing, and not in a system that can be replayed again. and often nobody keeps an eye out on it. it is not cheap to cover it all. so it is done by exception or on a need to do for special reasons like a spray of crime in a specific area.

entry is when a need or want is due mostly still done in the classic way, by showing a passport or id card.
so it is still in 2024 sheer luck if something happened that was caught on video.

the same can be said about security on site, usually that is a decision to a company, and still can only be done within the boundaries of their own properties. the ocean club had a security person on the list of workers, but this person doubled up as cleaning tasks on a regular basis of the pools. there can be reason to organize security people, often as a result of having insurance obligations. but it can be very different per country what kind of security is asked, from patrolling private area watchers to over-seeing pools, or beaches.

the ocean club was not a true resort, that was in a fenced off area, it could easily double with an common living area in every place in europe, with small commercial sites and guest only areas, access for all and public roads between buildings and open to all who wanted to make use of it.
the supermarket served a much larger public than only the ocean club guests and workers.
guest could also take visitors to dine in the tapas restaurant and bar. even the millennium restaurant itself was open for use to all public, only the use of the other facilities needed a guest card.

and sadly no guest card are available in the pj files.

also because there is hardly complete paperwork available, what could be the result of portuguese law and common practice, it is hard to get a good overview of who was where, and who could be a witness of that.

but in larger groups of people without a long standing pattern of behaviour and all lack of roots even finding good witnesses that observed their surroundings is much harder. holidays are usually not much prone to keep times and hardly appointments that need covering to be on time. most workers been around during daylight hours. only the main reception worked with a skeleton crew on a 24/7 system.

there been people who had residence in between the holiday lets, but not that evenly spread and because they would be used to the always changing faces already growing into the stance of not being very observant when people looked enough in being a holiday maker.

much info from the ocean club would most likely kept into the informal information. the same for mark warner, and mark warner did end up in giving the most information because the mccann family was one of their clients, they also managed the child care facilities for the ocean club.

so very little is known about alternatives. besides multiple touroperators, who most likely bought their packets of accommodation in through the ocean club, the owners of properties could also make their own decisions about renting out or not. used clearly local managers too, what can be get from the first days when the pj asked for keys to inspect the empty properties too.

all the paperwork behind the lists we know as creche attendance sheets, extra consumption in the tapas bar, the restaurants, other bars residing under the ocean club. the watersport activities.

the creches seems to be the most likely best to use information. but there is still no clear picture to get from the statements of all who worked in the child care arrangements, it stops with the technical side, when available, how many children per nanny in a age group, where it was, the time schedules available. but the practical side got very little attention, nothing like what happened from hour to hour on each day and more special on that thursday. who was around in what role. if you only look at cat baker her statement, it paints easily into an impression she handled her group on her own, and you need all statement to get a better understanding, that this was of a different reality.

still it stays too much in guess work. if you have any experience yourself in staff affairs, you can easily see that a separate manager over two workers, who would each only have to mind 7 children per morning and/or afternoon in the creches/kid clubs, that would get easily way over the top, even more when you look at the prices of childcare, mark warner had only one part of the day included in their package deals. sending children to both daily sessions would mean paying extra.
the attendance sheets do not look as if keeping order in that was overseen by the manager of an age group. so what was the duty of the person in that position.
but other possible witnesses do lack around that too, who cleaned the area used, who was at the reception near the entry, or was there a separate entryway to the second floor at the main reception.

and it is known that it can be very hard to ask to open up to the best standard possible when a possible crime takes place with companies and private affairs that are in or around that.
and that they have not been that willingly in their effort to surrender their work force into giving statements is to get from the managers statements, the not available, because their are other important task to handle. a very common approach and not unexpected, because in this case they had to lose name and reputation easily.

the local knowledge would be directed first at workers of these companies. and green trust, ocean club and maybe most of all mark warner could only lose their reputation of course, so protection is to be expected.
more over the other tour operators that also had guests in the ocean club and private owners kept themselves in the shadows with good results.
as an example we know a tour operator jonathan markson had tennis coaches and they had even reservations, but no one knows really who exactly.

thomas cook was at that time often the holding company of many smaller tour operators in many different countries, but there are guest names on the ocean club attendance list, but we know nothing of what these people had available in activities, child care arrangements.
did they use the same facilities or their own parts, was there other child care possible. like through local services. where did they eat.

so the tapas reservation sheets only show mark warner guests, we know there was a policy that only 16 to 20 couverts could be booked per evening by mark warner guests. but if you look into how large the workforce was, that was way over the top two for only that amount of guests. 2 seatings would be common, and waiters usually can easily work 3 to 5 tables of 2 to 4 guests per seating.
and even with very low salaries, the overhead would never be covered by 16 to 20 couverts in the evening. this was still the low season, maybe an bit busier one for may and june, because it was the cheapest to book at mark warner, as a guest stated.
the waiters did not seem to do much during the high tea for the children booked on half board through mark warner.

so we miss a fair bit of possible witnesses and if we look in the pj files, not that much have chosen to make themselves available from the not mark warner bunch.

even with reading through all the statements it still is hard to keep track of how a typical day unfolded in the ocean club.

there is also missing a good insight in the layout. where all the workers started, how did they got to work, so parking space, places they would be picked up by others and who they are.
having to wait a few minutes for a spouse of other person can make people look around.

and yes this case is by the area it happened, and all other private or company reasons a true nightmare. it is truly all odds against finding the truth. and large companies are not always playing it fair. you have usually be very specific in what you want in paperwork, and check at least multiple times what you get handed over.

the ocean club as a management company would be used to let the other companies like the tour operator pay for their guests. so getting some sheets with tapas reservations does not have to mean you get a full list of all people who have been around at a certain time. and it looks very strong that they only got the mark warner sheets for most.
the only list that seems the most complete is the checking list from the tapas reception.

Having never stayed there or even visited, I can't speak for the Ocean Club's management but from a general perspective gained through personal knowledge, tourist establishments that cater for the cheaper market tend to operate a more informal approach to management and daily administration.

It's not until the proverbial hits the fan they jump into management efficiency mode and scramble around trying to protect their image.  This applies to all areas of administration from reception, to security, to guest welfare, to dining areas, to poolside duty of care.  In fairness guests are on holiday, they want to enjoy a relaxed carefree atmosphere, not a precision military camp.  Of course when something goes wrong and it will, even if only a complaint about the food, they will be looking for someone to blame - and make a nice little profit into the bargain.  And the staff, for the most part seasonal, what youngster wouldn't opt for the freedom of working away from home in the sun?

The tourist is a rare breed when taken out of the home environment.

At the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Portuguese law allowed for case files to be available for the press and media but it's not to be expected every minute detail would be published - a broad outline would suffice for the purpose.  That doesn't imply failure on the part of the judiciary, indeed if you look carefully at the available information it can be seen how diligent the investigation was conducted.  Mistakes may have been made, they are only human, that's no good reason to try and discredit the entire investigation - as the press, media and sofa detectives have tried to do over the years.

The original case coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, removed from the case after 5/6 months following an alleged minor indiscretion, was not a hero and shouldn't be hailed as such. He was only a man, a police officer, doing his job, just the same as the team of police officers working with him. A police investigation is not about one person, they work as a team and are thus equal in terms of policing - if anything it could be said the lesser positioned officers were more deserving of recognition as it was they who were doing the groundwork, providing the information to direct the investigation.

I suggest what the public don't know is far more informative than what they do know!

Always back to basics.  A three year old child has gone missing, batten down the hatches, cover all eventualities, number one priority - protect the company image.  From the point of view of the police, they would follow standard procedure for a missing person, notwithstanding the many obstacles presented by witnesses and circumstantial evidence, they would consider every possibility no matter how unlikely.  If and that's a very big 'if' anyone out there in the public domain can prove the investigative force to be incompetent or failing in some other way, then let it be said!  No, let it be proven!

But keep money out of it!

what i never got my around, was that the ocean club and mark warner kept the mccanns and team up in block 4, it is not that they had no other property they could get them into. what would have kept the media out of the rest of the public.
and even if it was just from a good heart gesture, they would have had so much more privacy.

with still so much stories going around it could hardly be good from a pr point of view. keeping all the people that got in to help the mccanns , and not only one unit, but a very large second one on the third floor of block 4 too, still mixing in with other people who just booked their holiday.

and it was for blocks like 4 and 5 not luxory accommodation, at least not on the groundfloor and first floor, these units have been rented for prices between 225 and 300 euro's for a week, it was only the half board and the activities like the sports and child care that brought up the prices. so for people who just made their own arrangements and cooked themselves is was still in europe a very cheap holiday destination. even more if combined with a cheap flight.

still a lot for many people, but to mix their holiday with the sadness around this case, was a bit harsh. and also the media attention was not to escape from.

and it was very early pretty clear it was not a company at fault. so why they kept the connection going on for so long , there could hardly be a good reason for it. the twins kept on making use of the creches, they even got catering for up to 10 people including wine.

they did flew the nannies out, at least most of who had worked that first wek with the mccann children, at least that is to understand, at least two of them have given in to telling stories to the media.

i mean that charlotte , made her former profession of being a fairy queen showing off, she started the same day as the holiday of the tapas 9 group, and came with the same flight as the o'brien/tanner and the oldfield couple. still she was telling around she had seen the mccan family at the airport.
and worse, telling they had started from the childcare workers the missing child protocol, as they always did, and that they always been found. for someone not even a full week there, that was quite bold. as if it was a common habit to have children going lost, and that a first week worker already perfectly known all about missing children.

that is not what the companies wanted to be confronted with, mark warner already had a bit of not so very great review on their child care in egypt it was i think.
and from that event , i do also not get why they let cat baker tell the story of the beach outing in that way, why not just telling they always do such things with multiple care takers to look after the still very young children. because as she tells it, it ca only result in finding out there must have been some 3 and 4 years old children been left alone on the beach.

and why would it work different for the portuguese police, there often can be information given that, when not can be seen as in a direct connection to a criminal investigation, simply not end up in a statement, and in most witness statements there is no need, that is the nice extra from making them in report style too.

there seems not to be a complete embargo on the workers, most give still the impression they tried to help the investigation. the ones who said not to know the family or the children had also little chance to see them, because of where they worked and the times they had their shifts would make that already unlikely.
it does fit with how that works in cases around children, people are more of wanting to help instead of obstruct because they can, do and want to do just that, or just distance themselves from it.