Could Something Have Happened to Madeleine Earlier in the Week?

jd wrote:

tigger wrote:

Just thought, methods seem eerily similar to those used by double glazing salesmen? Now who would know....

mmmmm yes!!!...who could this be

PeterMac wrote:

jd wrote:During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team:
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
SNIP He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.

So, Kate, what do you make of JT's sighting now ? Still convinced that it was the "assumed" and "hypothetical" "abductor" ?

PeterMac wrote:

jd wrote:During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team:
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
SNIP He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.

So, Kate, what do you make of JT's sighting now ? Still convinced that it was the "assumed" and "hypothetical" "abductor" ?

crewman wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

jd wrote:During the evening of Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jeremy and Bridget were visited at their home address by DC 1756 and DC 4356 from the Leicestershire OP Task team:
LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY
OFFICER’S REPORT
Date: 05/11/07
SNIP He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure.

So, Kate, what do you make of JT's sighting now ? Still convinced that it was the "assumed" and "hypothetical" "abductor" ?

Interesting. So, regardless of Jane Tanner's honesty with respect to the sighting - which is pretty suspect, given the many subsequent alterations made to her recollection of it- any significance given to it is effectively neutralized by it being a description of a fairly typical and routine event that went on at about that time every night on the resort anyway.

Then Jez, ROB and Gerry walked to the creche to pick up the children

Rob showed Gerry the short cut

Gerry signed out Madeleine at 12.20pm but ROB did not sign out E**a.

Jez told Gerry about the availability of the creche in the evening where they provided blankets to carry the children home.

Jez states on Thursday
[/size]
Quote:
From previous conversations had with Gerry, I am of the notion of the usual routine of the group in relation to checking on their children when they were in the Tapas Bar.


[size=12](NOTE: It rained on Wednesday and Jez missed the lessons that were changed to the afternoon so it is likely that one of these 'conversations' happened on the Tuesday (implanting the possibility of an abduction opportunity, maybe?)

I often wonder if Jez explanation of carrying the children in a blanket is what inspired bundleman)

PeterMac wrote: And if we follow that line, this may be why Jez and Gerry, "assuming" they were where they said they were, paid absolutely no attention to a man carrying a small child wrapped in a blanket.
When I say 'paid no attention' I mean in the sense that their brains simply did not register what they were seeing, just as you do not register every car that passes along a road. It is so normal that although you may actually have seen, your brain does not 'notice'.
It does not explain why they allegedly did not notice JT, since that would be out of the ordinary, especially for Jez.

But either way, as you observe, it effectively neutralises and renders nugatory JT's alleged sighting, and puts Katie back to square 1.
There is now even less "evidence" of an abduction than there was. Less than nothing.
Which must mean that almost any other explanation, for which there is even the slightest evidence, will take priority.

jd wrote: And if we follow that line, this may be why Jez and Gerry, "assuming" they were where they said they were, paid absolutely no attention to a man carrying a small child wrapped in a blanket.
When I say 'paid no attention' I mean in the sense that their brains simply did not register what they were seeing, just as you do not register every car that passes along a road. It is so normal that although you may actually have seen, your brain does not 'notice'.
It does not explain why they allegedly did not notice JT, since that would be out of the ordinary, especially for Jez.

But either way, as you observe, it effectively neutralises and renders nugatory JT's alleged sighting, and puts Katie back to square 1.
There is now even less "evidence" of an abduction than there was. Less than nothing.
Which must mean that almost any other explanation, for which there is even the slightest evidence, will take priority.

aiyoyo wrote:
Surely the Police must have figured that out as well. I wonder what they are sitting on that is kept under lock and key.

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Surely the Police must have figured that out as well. I wonder what they are sitting on that is kept under lock and key.

If there was an evening creche, there must have been records. There MUST have been a decent signing OUT procedure. Otherwise .... !
The PJ may know exactly who the alleged bundleman was, (and indeed who all the other bundle-people were), and have TIE'd him very early on (Traced, Interviewed, and Eliminated).

Moa wrote:Are trying to prove that the Mccanns did regualr checks on their childre and use this statements as prove on that:

Throughout the week, at least 3 employees of the Tapas restaurant who waited on the McCanns and their friends all verified checks:

Joaquim Baptista

When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.

The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest’s absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.



Ricardo Oliveria

When asked, he says that he remembers that it was usual during dinner for one or two members of the group to leave the table for about 10 or 15 minutes and given the fact that on various occasions he saw walkie talkies on the table, he supposed that they went to check on their children who were in their respective rooms.


Jeronimo Salcedas

Frequently,when I served the table, I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.

So two of the witnesses see more than one walkie talkie / monitor on the table. Wasnt it only the Paynes having this monitor? Sop they should then have one monitor on the table , the vaiters clearly did see more than one. And why would they go in groups? and why where they gone for 15 minutes? I mean if you where in the backyard of your house, you would not use 15 minutes to go in and check your kid, and they did say it was just like dinning in your garden.. i cant see how this site WTW can put this stuff out there and not see that something is not right about their story...

russiandoll wrote:How anybody can come to the conclusion that these witness statements are supportive of the checking on the children scenario is beyond me.
Unless these men were seen entering and then leaving their respective apartments, also seen going to the area where sleeping children were located, there is no corroborative evidence at all that checks were being done.
gone for 15 mins at a time? Lots of things they could have been doing.

using the toilet
doing something they wished to conceal from their partners [ sneaky smoke, sneaky taking of illegal drugs, sneaky look at sport on tv,sneaky flirtation with night creche staff who were babysitting in nearby apartments, lots of things they could have been doing]

Would like to ask some of these supporters why they think men only were gone...no doubt something I have read before would be the response.the men were being gallant to save the women a walk in the dark [didnt one of the tapas females , Jane Tanner I think, say she found the walk quite spooky....yeah right, but fine for a 3 yr old to try to locate her parents according to their baby- listening agreement]

jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!

Stella wrote:

jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!

Who saw them "staggering" jd?

jd wrote:

Stella wrote:

jd wrote:Don't forget they were staggering from the table after all the alcohol!!!

Who saw them "staggering" jd?

That first line was said tongue in cheek! after all the alcohol they had been drinking (I know I would be after drinking this amount)

jd wrote:I wasn't accusing, just being sarcastic in this ridiculous story

Stella wrote:

jd wrote:I wasn't accusing, just being sarcastic in this ridiculous story

This is one of the problems with not being able to hold real conversations I guess, in forum land it is sometimes difficult to tell if someone is being serious or not. You had me convinced at first.

" That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street. Although Gerry and our friends had been trying to protect me from further distress by not telling me about this sooner, when they did I was strangely relieved. Madeleine hadn’t just disappeared off the face of the earth. There was something to work on.
This man was around thirty-five, forty years old, dark-haired and of southern European or Mediterranean appearance. His everyday clothes – beige or gold-coloured trousers and a dark jacket – gave Jane the impression he was not a tourist. He was carrying the sleeping child horizontally across his arms, the child’s legs dangling. Though she had no reason, at that point, to be at all suspicious of him, clearly there was something odd enough about what she saw for her to register the image. While he had been dressed for the cold evening, the child was barefoot and not covered by a blanket. Although Jane had never seen or known about Madeleine’s Eeyore pyjamas, her description of this child’s night clothes – light-coloured pink or white pyjamas with a ‘trailing’ or floral pattern and turn-ups on the bottoms – matched Madeleine’s almost exactly. From the style of these pyjamas, she had also assumed the child was a girl.