So if HideHo/Lizzy is right in doubting whether there is any credible evidence that Madeleine was seen after Sunday... ...it would follow, as night follows day, that there would also be no credible evidence that she was heard after Sunday.
And that would put an even larger question mark over Mrs Pamela Fenn's claim over the 'crying incident'.
In any case, the interview given by Mrs Fenn to journalists where she says: "Ignore what I'm supposed to have said, it's all rubbish" sounds like the authentic voice of Mrs Fenn. Was she put up to making that curious statement about the 75 minutes' continuous sobbing, Tranner-gate-man, and the non-existent burglary which happened 1/2/3/several weeks earlier where she tried to grab the burglar's ankles as he leapt from a first-floor window?
HideHo's very detailed explanation and hypothesis also undermines the theory of Goncalo Amaral, supported by e.g. Pat Brown, 'Textusa' and 'Unterdenteppichgekehrt', that Madeleine must have died after 6pm on Thursday 3rd May. HideHo is clearly suggesting - and with good reason - that Madeleine 'disappeared' long before then
----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for posting that Jill, and thanks for the questions Tony. I will respond on here and my reply can be taken to CMOMM or I will try to respond there as well ----------------------------------------- 1) ...it would follow, as night follows day, that there would also be no credible evidence that she was heard after Sunday.
A 1) Not necessarily. My claim is that I cannot find PROOF of anyone seeing (or indeed, hearing) Maddie after Sunday lunchtime.. Many statements claim to have seen her but there is not ONE that I find as proof. Many were non specific, or were likely describing another child, or the witnesses were not considered fully credible Only the cleaner's daughter that saw her outside their apartment with the rest of the family heading up to the Paynes apartment for lunch, wearing 'lighted' shoes, along with her statement follows with her leaving at the time of her work hours ending, leads me to believe it is a very credible statement... I'm not claiming she WASN'T seen, but I cannot find one statement to prove that she was... There seems to be nothing, but that is not evidence she wasn't seen. ------------------------------ 2) And that would put an even larger question mark over Mrs Pamela Fenn's claim over the 'crying incident' In any case, the interview given by Mrs Fenn to journalists where she says: "Ignore what I'm supposed to have said, it's all rubbish" sounds like the authentic voice of Mrs Fenn. Was she put up to making that curious statement about the 75 minutes' continuous sobbing, Tranner-gate-man, and the non-existent burglary which happened 1/2/3/several weeks earlier where she tried to grab the burglar's ankles as he leapt from a first-floor window? ------- A2 ) I have no reason to believe that Mrs Fenn did not hear the crying, but do we really know WHO was crying? The Oldfield's apartment was below Mrs Fenn's apartment and we know that Rachael had claimed to have given Jane Tanners oldest daughter baths in the evening, so could it have been E**a? The Paynes apartment was adjoined to Mrs Fenn, could it have come from there? Maybe it WAS Maddie and this is an issue that I will address in the next question. If something had happened to Maddie before Tuesday, was she (I'm sorry to say this) suffering at that point for whatever reason? We really don't know WHO was crying, but the likelihood of there being more than one child in that room is remote... (unless other children were sedated heavily). ------------------------------------------------- Last question and probably the most important... 3) HideHo's very detailed explanation and hypothesis also undermines the theory of Goncalo Amaral, supported by e.g. Pat Brown, 'Textusa' and 'Unterdenteppichgekehrt', that Madeleine must have died after 6pm on Thursday 3rd May. HideHo is clearly suggesting - and with good reason - that Madeleine 'disappeared' long before then ---------------------------------- A 3) Anyone that knows me knows I don't listen to what I am 'told'. Almost everything I claim is something I have researched for myself.
Unlike many others I did not look at the 'evidence in the files' and try to figure how it could all fit together. I started from scratch, and the first thing I wanted to know was to compile the statements to see how they all compared.
I spent time reading and compiling timetables and timelines based sometimes on each 15 min period of each day... Over 200 timetables of different time periods in the holiday or for different topics.
That's when the DISCREPANCIES became obvious.
It seemed logical to me that any 'major' discrepancy (ie one that is not attributed to memory) would, maybe, happen because there was something to hide... This, to me, meant that the day/time the discrepancies started to happen could be the time they were trying to cover up the truth...
I discovered MANY discrepancies and curiosities, that put together in the context of the week really showed me that there had to have been SOMETHING that happened for those contradictions/curiosities to have been 'needed'.
Tuesday was the day that they started, but one of the more interesting ones was on Wednesday morning...
The cleaner came on Wednesday to clean and said there was a cot in the parents bedroom (she doesn't mention it was an extra bed). Both Kate and Gerry DENIED the cot being in their room.
WHY? Its not a big deal, one wouldn't think but they were very clear to deny it...and THAT makes it interesting... When you add that information to it being the morning FOLLOWING the crying, then add the 7am calls from Kate to her friend Amanda, followed by the beginning of the text messages to Gerry's phone that they BOTH DENIED, it starts to look as though there was some kind of damage control by deying the truth of these issues.
At that point it appeared that they were trying to cover something up from Tuesday morning onwards... (heavily covering up on Thursday morning) so I needed to see if my thoughts were correct or if I could prove myself wrong....
Having NO idea what I would find, I decided to compile and scrutinise all the statements from everyone that had claimed to have seen Madeleine during the week... Fatima, the cleaners daughter was, imo, credible, but I needed to find if at least ONE of the statements proved my 'something happening before Tuesday' wrong. (NOTE: I never claim she 'died' before Tuesday)
Initially like most others, I used Thursday as the day, but because the volume of the discrepancies on Thursday were so great I was believing it was Wednesday.
Georgina the tennis coach claimed to have seen her at mini tennis on Tuesday morning so I was questioning between Tuesday morning and Wednesday for some time...
Once I realised that Rachael's statement about the tennis was directed at THURSDAY and not Tuesday, with many resulting discrepancies, I decided to return to Georgina's statement and realised that she was not specific about seeing Madeleine, only that she was 'among a group of children'
She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent.
Catriona was with them so Georgina may not have known who each child was by name and made that statement based on her records of the Lobsters mini tennis. It is certainly not proof that Madeleine was there. . At that point 'something happening' could be moved earlier and to this day 5 years since I did that research on statements, I have found NOTHING between Sunday Lunchtime and Tuesday morning...
So, in answer to the question, why I have different beliefs to others, it is because we all base our opinions on our own knowledge (hence it is important to share knowledge) ...Pat claims after 6pm and Textusa has an enormous amount of research, I know that 'Unterdenteppichgekehrt' based her theory entirely on the files that we know about.
Having a different theory to Goncalo Amaral is certainly difficult to explain, other than his theory was likely based on the investigation and early statements and not the very eye opening rogatory statements.
Also, witness statements claim to have seen Madeleine at 5.30 -6pm and he could not discredit those sightings (even if they were incorrect).
I really cannot explain any more than that...
I see major discrepancies that start on Tuesday morning leading me to believe they were trying to hide something at that point, and in trying to double check myself I could not find any statement that shows proof she was seen during the week...
As I always say, its up to each one of us to decide for oneself, but it must be based on knowledge to have credibility...My theory is obviously unique and based on knowledge and research that is only familiar to myself...(although open to view and scrutinise), so it is no wonder I may be relatively alone in my theory and opinions, but it IS based on what is in the files...
One more thing... An earlier demise, answers a LOT of questions that exist in the 6pm Thursday scenario...but that's another thread
This is the forum that all my research is stored..
I see you have highlighted this portion of my answer...
One more thing... An earlier demise, answers a LOT of questions that exist in the 6pm Thursday scenario...but that's another thread
I think it is important to address this as it helps to 'confirm' what the big picture actually was that week. Remember, their statements were designed to conceal and we can't believe them blindly.
If one DOES start to look at something happening earlier then these curiosities start to become clear... (just a few off the top of my head)
Firstly, I don't believe for one second they neglected their children... MANY reasons for that (another thread) and if you look at something earlier happening it starts to explain that the week wasn't as one would expect....
The McCanns became very detached from the rest of the group... Was Kate grieving during this time?
They all made a big deal about them not going to breakfast and lunch (by Monday) but what if this was because they didnt want Diane or anyone to see that Madeleine wasn't with them..
Wednesday evening Jez Wilkins claims that Gerry and Russell arrived together... and was told that Kate was putting the children to bed... If so, why wasnt Jane with them.. or was it that Kate was grieving and Jane stayed with her?
The quiz mistress did not see Kate at the table on Tuesday...so is our 'belief' that they were ALL at the table every night (except the ones who claimed to be sick) just something they wanted us to believe...?
The police asked everyone whether the Irwin sisters were sat at the table with them....WHY? They all denied, but was this possibly who made up the 'female' numbers at the table? (just a thought)
DNA was not found in the apartment...
Why did all the Ocean Club staff claim Maddie was shy? (images available) Apparently Jane's daughter was very shy, looked similar to Maddie... and she was booked in at times when Maddie was booked out (with the alternate times for each of them blank)
Was the abnormal late night on Wednesday (an hour after closing with the waiters wanting to go home) the time when they made the last arrangements for Thursdays 'abduction'?
What a coincidence that the McCanns were not at the Paraiso on Thursday... Was this so the T7 could 'detach' themselves from what was about to happen and not alert Dianne Webster that Maddie was not there?
Speculation, maybe, but worth a thought...
There are LOTS more questions with possible answers but...another thread :)
@PeterMac wrote:Mrs Fenn may have heard one or both of the twins, crying and in distress at not being with her elder sister . . . (or parent, obviously) !
That would leave her evidence intact, with no reason to suspect her of mistake or fabrication. Daddy Daddy = Maddie Maddie
That is a reasonable supposition, but for several things.
1. For starters, Mrs Fenn, in her statement, takes the trouble to say this:
"...she heard a child cry, and that due to the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger".
This seems, on the face of it, a rather clumsy attempt to suggest that it was definitely Madeleine that she heard. How can she possibly distinguish between the crying of a 2-year-old-child and a 3-year-old child? It makes no sense.
Or to put it this way, it makes about as much sense as Martin Smith claiming, over 4 months later, that he recognised Gerry McCann as the man he said he'd seen 4 months earlier 'because of the way he was carrying his son on his left shoulder'.
I've long believed it was one of the twins that was shouting "Maddie, Maddie" not an older child shouting "Daddy, Daddy".
Similarly to your reasoning above I go back to the McCs assertions that no one referred to Madeleine as 'Maddie'. This was a careful setup to reinforce what Mrs Fenn heard as "Daddy, Daddy", since by deduction it couldn't have been "Maddie, Maddie" that was heard as this was never used as her name - in McCannWorld.
Yet another retrofit.
As I mentioned before... the Oldfield's apartment was directly underneath Mrs Fenn and we know that Racheal sometimes bathed Jane Tanner's older child, so is it possible it was her?
If it did come from 5A, why was there a cot in the parent's bedroom?
Grande FinaleRegarding the Vicky Boyd magazine article, GM finished tennis at 11.10am on thursday morning a time when Maddie was supposedly signed in at the creche. So how could she be playing football with Louie Boyd for an hour ?
The big pointer to me though is that there is no mention of the TWINS in this article BUT also of note (if this was supposed to have happened on the Thursday lunch the story clashes with the "LAST PHOTO" as she is said to be wearing a blue skirt)
The story also contradicts O'donnels account of Thursday lunchtime.
I'm with Hi-de-ho on this one, no definite proof of life after Sunday Lunch
If this happened at all on a previous day say, then where were the twins supposed to be ? More likely mistaken identity again is my opinion.
(The Boyd's own photo's appear to me, to be at the Ocean club poolside on Saturday/Sunday.)
There is so much about this article that discredits it to be of any value.
One sentence reveals it as not only being non credible but one has to wonder if they were ever by the children's pool in the OC.
There was no waterslide!
The two children were kicking a football around in the play area for about an hour? This was during lunchtime from the creche. The McCanns had (supposedly) gone down to poolside from 1.30pm - 2.40pm and during this time taken the last picture.
There is no credibility in any of the article and I havd no trouble discounting it as being proof that Madeleine was seen by them on Thursday.
Below I have touched on a non discussed issue, that appears to be very confusing, but with scrutiny, actually is quite a huge discrepancy that could damage the credibility of the Last picture being taken on Thursday..
Gerry playing tennis? Rachael and Jane claim to have been playing tennis at this time and no mention of Gerry pkaying on the other court.
According to Jane she saw the family and Madeleine was shouting through the fence at her...
Rachael, however has a different recollection...
Rachael only mentions seeing the parents and (this is where it gets very confusing and worthwhile of being a topic on its own) claims to have seen Madeleine for the last time earlier that morning while Maddie was at mini tennis.
Firstly, this would mean that Rachael DID NOT see Maddie during her tennis game (when the last picture was supposedly taken)
According to records the Lobsters mini tennis was TUESDAY in which case it raises a few questions:
1) Was Rachael confused about the tennis being Tuesday instead of Thursday? If so, was TUESDAY the last time Rachael saw Maddie?
2) If Rachael didn't see Maddie at the time of the last picture, was she really there? If she wasn't there it leads to another question...
3) If Rachael wasn't there then Jane wasn't playing tennis with her and didnt see Maddie shouting through the fence at her!
Debunks Jane and Rachael seeing the family at the pool for the last picture! In other words, were Rachael and Jane 'supposed' to confirm the last picture being taken?
Going back to Rachael... She claims to have seen Maddie playing mini tennis Thursday morning... In a scenario that Rachael was trying to be 'helpful' placing Maddie alive on Thursday, she may have seen the Sharks mini tennis game and not realised that Maddie's game was on Tuesday so decided to be helpful an put Maddie playing tennis, alive and well on Thursday morning...
This would account for the scenario (if it happened at all) that Jane and Kate did not mention seeing Rachael at mini tennis (on Tuesday)
Gerry was also supposed to be at mini tennis but he was playing tennis himself until 11.15 so couldn't have been there!
Add to this that the police questioned Rachael on which court she saw the mini tennis being played.. She answered incorrectly (according to tennis records.)
As can be seen the above 'mini tennis' issue along with Jane and Rachael supposedly playing tennis on Thursday lunchtime highlights some disturbing contradictions...
If Rachael was lying about seeing Maddie for the last time at mini tennis that (Thursday) morning then why did she not see the same as Jane? Maddie shouting through the fence!
One of them is telling a porkie and leads to doubts as to whether they were there... If Rachael wasn't there then Jane wasn't there either... If Jane and Rachael WERE there then is Jane lying about seeing Maddie shouting through the fence?