Madeleine McCann

gozunda

Something Else

bubblypop wrote: »

I read the statement, she did not say she knew he was talking about Madeline, merely she 'believed' he was. Also, she 'imagined'he had looked at child porn on the internet.She made her husband, stay nearby! When this man was bathing her child? Seriously? Would anyone that actually thought a man might be a paedo, allow that guy to bath their child? There really is no proof of anything, it's just feelings & not very strong ones at that.

Whether he was expressly talking about Madeleine is moot. The sexual context and concern were clear from the statement given by couple. That she was concerned enough that it was 'Madeliene' to report these incidents to the UK police is evidence enough that the matter was serious

This is the wifes statement from the PJ files

I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like she referring to Madeleine, would do this?.

When he mentioned ?this?, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around to see did anyone else hear this, or was it just me?. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was something very strange and that it wasn't something that should be done or said.

The husbands statement

During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne.
I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day in the villa, I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 19.30 and 21.00 every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

I remember that when I saw this gesture I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don't know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherina. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as I know, the gesture was not repeated. 

We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it.

limnam

limnam wrote: »

Yera sure there's nothing odd about it at all


in fact it's odd for someone not to sucking their finger and rubbing their nipples around the dinner table...

Never said it wasn't odd behavior, maybe he is odd, maybe he is totally inappropriate or maybe he is a paedophile.
I don't know, but there is no proof of anything in that statement

limnam

bubblypop wrote: »

can you find any proof of anything in that woman's statement
Other than feelings?

You missed the point, but no matter.


I find it very odd that good friends of the McCanns would both go to police to provide statements about the man


Regardless of what he did, this concerns me.


Unlike other friends of theirs her statement comes across of someone who wanted to help, who was worried about what she saw. Who provided the informtion voluntary with nothing to gain.


I also find a grown man sitting at a dinner table sucking on his finger and rubbing his nipple especially around some people he wasn't very close with very odd.


I'm not sure what "proof" you're looking for.


But there's enough in it for me not to outright dismiss it.

limnam

limnam wrote: »

I'm not sure what "proof" you're looking for.

But there's enough in it for me not to outright dismiss it.

Just you know actual proof, eg ' I knew they were talking about Madeline because I heard them say her name '
And was it dismissed? Any reason to think that it wasn't looked into?
I'd be fairly sure that any decent police force ( I am not too familiar with the Portuguese police) would look into all leads.

limnam

bubblypop wrote: »

Just you know actual proof, eg ' I knew they were talking about Madeline because I heard them say her name '
And was it dismissed? Any reason to think that it wasn't looked into?
I'd be fairly sure that any decent police force ( I am not too familiar with the Portuguese police) would look into all leads.

It wasn't provided of "proof" of anything. That doesn't make it any less concerning that their own friends thought that this was important information to be given to the police.


The fact she admitted she couldn't be sure seems to show a level of control.
If it wasn't true, why not just say it was 100% about Madeleine?


It was withheld from the Portuguese police for months. If the British police thought it was nothing why did they withhold? if they thought there was something in it, why was it withheld?



Like a lot of things in this case, it doesn't add up.

gozunda

Something Else

bubblypop wrote: »

Just you know actual proof, eg ' I knew they were talking about Madeline because I heard them say her name '
And was it dismissed? Any reason to think that it wasn't looked into?
I'd be fairly sure that any decent police force ( I am not too familiar with the Portuguese police) would look into all leads.

You clearly missed this ..

Babooshka wrote: »

If they were doing it why wasn't it taken any further? You're very quick to jump on anyone who claims it isn't, but how do you, a member of the public that had nothing to do with a live investigation at the time know there is more to it than something that was misinterpreted? Why did you say "weren't they" blah blah if you knew the facts, I will tell you why, because you just like regurgitating the same old stuff again and again.

The witness statement was taken by the UK police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine’s disappearance. That information although later deemed very important for the progress of the investigation by the Portuguese police, was (without any explanation) only forwarded by the UK police after some six months. At that point in time, Kate and Gerry were already arguidos, the rogatory letters had already been issued and the English, including Dave, showed their reluctance in returning to Portugal".

The couple who voluntarily provided the statement in the UK were acquantices of the McCanns and the Payne families. Both are medical doctors and had previously spent vacations with them.

The Portuguese Police investigators did learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece – without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the (UK) police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject....Why did the British keep it secret for more than six months?

limnam

Because as a grown man, father medical profesional


sucking on his finger and rubbing his nipples is as normal as ice in water

bubblypop

Something Else

bubblypop wrote: »

Just you know actual proof, eg ' I knew they were talking about Madeline because I heard them say her name '
And was it dismissed? Any reason to think that it wasn't looked into?
I'd be fairly sure that any decent police force ( I am not too familiar with the Portuguese police) would look into all leads.

Just picking up on this point but Not Scotland Yard. They only ever investigated from abduction point of view. They've spent 8 years on the case almost and never looked at anything relating to the tapas 9.

Babooshka

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just picking up on this point but Not Scotland Yard. They only ever investigated from abduction point of view. They've spent 8 years on the case almost and never looked at anything relating to the tapas 9.

how do you definitely know they didn't? No one knows what's been looked into and what hasn't by detectives they don't broadcast everything. Maybe it has been investigated behind closed doors and it wasn't what it seemed.

gozunda

Something Else

Babooshka wrote: »

how do you definitely know they didn't? No one knows what's been looked into and what hasn't by detectives they don't broadcast everything. Maybe it has been investigated behind closed doors and it wasn't what it seemed.

What is known is that the statement was sat on by the UK police and not forwarded until it was too late to be of use to the Portuguese investigation.

Babooshka

Something Else

Babooshka wrote: »

how do you definitely know they didn't? No one knows what's been looked into and what hasn't by detectives they don't broadcast everything. Maybe it has been investigated behind closed doors and it wasn't what it seemed.

They said so themselves. But even look up Colin Sutton if you don't know him.

They also had a program televised on BBC about Maddie. They made up a lie that Martin Smith no longer believed that his sighting that night was Gerry McCann.

Martin Smith himself had to contact BBC himself to say that was not accurate. But they never corrected themselves.

They're on such good terms with the McCanns that they even sat down with them to discuss the latest leads.

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Madeleine McCann investigation: Home Office to give police an extra £150,000

The investigation has explored numerous theories about her disappearance,

including that Madeleine was abducted, wandered away from her room alone, or died in the apartment


https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-search-home-office-to-provide-extra-150k-for-investigation-1155345

MonkieSocks

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Madeleine McCann investigation: Home Office to give police an extra £150,000

The investigation has explored numerous theories about her disappearance,

including that Madeleine was abducted, wandered away from her room alone, or died in the apartment


https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-search-home-office-to-provide-extra-150k-for-investigation-1155345

Died due to a burglary gone wrong was a theory they looked at.

They never looked at the McCanns.

Sadb

No scenario adds up, that’s the frustrating thing about this case.

Kate and Gerry- accidental death- if Gerry returned to the apartment and discovered Madeline dead did he dispose of the body and return to the table, whisper to his wife that” Madeline had died but that he took care of it so act natural and when you next check we’ll say she was abducted”. Not possible really to not react at all to that news. The only way I believe that the parents could be involved is if she died earlier, their friend didn’t see Madeline when he called to the apartment when Kate was getting ready and Gerry wasn’t there at that time either- was he definitely at a tennis class? Was that confirmed? How did the McCanns initially act at dinner before the night unfolded so to speak.
The things for me that imply the parents had some involvement were that all calls and texts were deleted- why? Kate opened the window- why? How long was she gone before returning to the tapas bar to say “they’ve taken her”? If she really was missing upon Kate’s return surely she would have first looked in the child’s bed, looked in her own bed, search the whole apartment, check the pool from the terrace, look around outside apartment, knock on the apartment next door and check there if they had seen her, maybe run to reception, check the crèche as (Madeline was familiar with it). All of that would take time, you wouldn’t initially assume your daughter had been kidnapped- no one just assumes that. If she really did just think she had been kidnapped why would you leave the twins there and leave the door open? Wouldn’t you at least lock the patio door and use the front door which can be locked from the outside? We know she couldn’t ring her husband as they left their phones in the apartment but she could have called the tapas bar surely, instead of leaving her other children again.

Abducted- if she was abducted it was no way by chance. The McCanns would have had to have been watched not only the night of the incident but also the nights leading up to may 3rd. They would also have had to know that the patio doors couldn’t be locked from the outside, so would have had to have been very familiar with this resort. Either that or they had a key to get in which means involvement by workers at the resort. That’s serious surveillance/planning to undertake, were they seriously that invested in Madeline and Madeline alone? Given that also the checks seemed to be sporadic and made by different people there was a high chance of being caught, would they take that risk?

Madeline wandering off- I always believed that this was the most likely scenario but what about the door? A 3 year old wouldn’t close a door behind her at the best of times, why would she do it now and when looking for her parents. Unless the patio door wasn’t closed, that Kate lied about it being closed. This could be very possible, if she returned to the apartment and saw the door open, checked the children and saw Madeline gone she wouldn’t check anywhere else as she would have already known that Madeline was outside the apartment- that someone must have taken her. Why lie though about the door being open and open the window? Did she think that by opening the window that her story of an abduction would be more credible? Was she trying to hide that fact that they left their children alone each night with the door unlocked?- this for me is the most likely scenario.

limnam

P.S. Reporter to Dr Gerald McCann: "Did you know Robert Murat before 3 May 2007?"

Dr Gerald McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that".


There's so much cagey stuff.


Why not answer it, it's such a harmless straight forward question.


Your daughter is missing, every chance you get, every interview, every minute on tv or radio you want to do everything you can to assit in that.


Yet you refuse to answer basic questions


Why oh why would you do this.

Steve F

Has the subject of deleted texts from Kate and Gerry's phones ever been satisfactorily explained?

Something Else

The timeline is just so strange and makes zero sense to me. Look at the below for example. Jane goes back to her apartment at 09:10. One can only assume she was gone for at least 10 minutes or so. Probably closer to 15 to walk to the apartment, check in for a few mins and walk down again. So let's say she is back at the table just around 09:25. According to the below, for some reason she is back in her apartment again at 10pm when Maddie is noticed missing. She certainly has spent a considerable amount of the critical hour away from the table. She would have known the patio door was open. She made the sighting that linked in with abduction.

9.10pm: Jane Tanner walks up the road, unnoticed by Gerry and Wilkins, although she sees them. She spots a man walking quickly across the top of the road in front of her, going away from the apartment block and heading to the outer road of the resort complex. He is carrying a sleeping girl in pink pyjamas who is hanging limply in his arms. The sighting is odd, but hardly exceptional in a holiday resort. Her daughter is fine; Tanner returns to the table.

Shortly after 10pm: Rachael Oldfield goes to Tanner's apartment to tell her Madeleine has been taken. Tanner says: "Oh my God. I saw a man carrying a girl."

It's also revealed that Matthew Oldfield had to go to the Payne's at 08:55 to tell them the group was waiting on them. So Kate and Gerry left at 08:30 and David Payne is still in his room at 08:55... The guy suspected of being a pedo.
And Gerry then notices the door ajar at 09:05.

I'm no detective but I can see a few lines of inquiry there.

limnam

Steve F wrote: »

Has the subject of deleted texts from Kate and Gerry's phones ever been satisfactorily explained?

And the 11 voicemails from early morning on the 2nd that was a bit of an odd one. Did anything ever come of what they were / who it was?

Something Else

http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2009/10/lies-of-kate-and-gerry-mccann-deleted.html?m=1

You can read about the phones here.
Like everything else in this case, suspicious behaviour indeed but nothing concrete has been established.

[Deleted User]

Something Else

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The timeline is just so strange and makes zero sense to me. Look at the below for example. Jane goes back to her apartment at 09:10. One can only assume she was gone for at least 10 minutes or so. Probably closer to 15 to walk to the apartment, check in for a few mins and walk down again. So let's say she is back at the table just around 09:25. According to the below, for some reason she is back in her apartment again at 10pm when Maddie is noticed missing. She certainly has spent a considerable amount of the critical hour away from the table. She would have known the patio door was open. She made the sighting that linked in with abduction.

9.10pm: Jane Tanner walks up the road, unnoticed by Gerry and Wilkins, although she sees them. She spots a man walking quickly across the top of the road in front of her, going away from the apartment block and heading to the outer road of the resort complex. He is carrying a sleeping girl in pink pyjamas who is hanging limply in his arms. The sighting is odd, but hardly exceptional in a holiday resort. Her daughter is fine; Tanner returns to the table.

Shortly after 10pm: Rachael Oldfield goes to Tanner's apartment to tell her Madeleine has been taken. Tanner says: "Oh my God. I saw a man carrying a girl."

It's also revealed that Matthew Oldfield had to go to the Payne's at 08:55 to tell them the group was waiting on them. So Kate and Gerry left at 08:30 and David Payne is still in his room at 08:55... The guy suspected of being a pedo.
And Gerry then notices the door ajar at 09:05.

I'm no detective but I can see a few lines of inquiry there.

Further to the above, Jane Tanner's partner Russell is away during the only time Jane is around. So 1 of that couple are away for almost every minute of the critical hour.

It says that Russell O’Brien, a hospital consultant from Exeter, left the restaurant at 9.35pm and returned at 10pm, just minutes before Mrs McCann discovered that Madeleine was missing. Mr O’Brien has strenuously denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and has never been a formal suspect in the investigation.

jimwallace197

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Something has never sat right with me about the friends, how one of them was the last before Kate McCann to check on Madeleine but didn’t even open the door to the bedroom to see if they were ok & still there.

How Jane tanner wasn’t able to give a better description of the man she saw or a consistent timeline of events.

The fact that they were all leaving their kids alone & going along with this policy of checking their kids on average every half an hour in a place which had was foreign to them.

They seem to contradict each other in there statements also, I would have thought events that night would be etched in your memory before & after 10 pm because we it was such a traumatic event. Im be surprised if any of them were plastered by 10pm.

I’m not saying they were involved in her dissapearance but there is something about the way they acted that night and since that has really rubbed me up the wrong way.

Steve F

Deleted User wrote: »

http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2009/10/lies-of-kate-and-gerry-mccann-deleted.html?m=1

You can read about the phones here.
Like everything else in this case, suspicious behaviour indeed but nothing concrete has been established.

I know others will probably disagree but this is very interesting and suspicious no matter what you believe happened to Maddie

Kidchameleon

Steve F wrote: »

I know others will probably disagree but this is very interesting and suspicious no matter what you believe happened to Maddie

Id like to see a link with actual proof of deleted texts/voicemail instead of a blog. There is nothing about it in the PJ files...

Steve F

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Id like to see a link with actual proof of deleted texts/voicemail instead of a blog. There is nothing about it in the PJ files...

So would I.......

Deleted User

The parents did it

Deleted User wrote: »

9.10pm: She spots a man walking quickly across the top of the road in front of her, going away from the apartment block and heading to the outer road of the resort complex. He is carrying a sleeping girl in pink pyjamas who is hanging limply in his arms. The sighting is odd, but hardly exceptional in a holiday resort. e.

Did she see from the front or behind? From the front she might ID, from the behind what she saw was not Madeliene; she was not wearing pink pyjamas, it seems.

Sadb

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Id like to see a link with actual proof of deleted texts/voicemail instead of a blog. There is nothing about it in the PJ files...

They are detailed here

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

Steve F

Sadb wrote: »

They are detailed here

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

Ahh haa! :eek:

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Steve F wrote: »

Ahh haa! :eek:

Ahh no. You do realise that all call data is logged by the network provider and that the PJ have those logs? The only info they might not have is the contents of the text messages that were deleted but they would have the number/s that the messages were too or from. I believe a request to a Judge by the PJ was made to get the contents of the text messages from the Telco but it was refused. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK police have the contents of the text messages as well as the call logs, though. Without checking, I seem to recall the deleted text messages might have been from Vodafone's voicemail service.

Spanish Eyes

I do realise I said in an earlier post that it is over for the moment. But the thread is chatting and giving theories. Some posters do not like this for some reason, but we can and we will keep on regardless as long as it is not libellous or whatever.

Now what I will say is this. MCcs appear to have been protected throughout this awful episode, and for years afterwards, up to this day. There is no doubt in my mind about that. They were able to contact media outlets within minutes and then it all broke out. First thing.... The Portuguese Police were inept and stupid. That really stood out for me. Fight back first by blaming someone else.

The Met never seemed to question MCcs much, but carried on regardless on the abduction theory with no proof of that either.

I could go on, but the bottom line for me is, there is something strange about this case. Everyone knows it. Whether that is the MCcs or their friends, or dubious invitations to dinner, or loadsa money in the fund, or the child in the crypt in the church (I know, but the priest has said he was duped). And so on.

Anyway, hear this folks. Leave your three under 4 precious kids in an unlocked apartment, and not only are you opening them up to abduction, they could also be injured, fall, look for mum or dad, find the knife drawer, get strangled in the blind cord, and so on. I shudder to think what could have happened to three unattended babies really.

But there we are. If the children/babies had been attended and babysat, none of this would have happened. That is only FACT I'm getting from this.

Steve F

cnocbui wrote: »

Ahh no. You do realise that all call data is logged by the network provider and that the PJ have those logs? The only info they might not have is the contents of the text messages that were deleted but they would have the number/s that the messages were too or from. I believe a request to a Judge by the PJ was made to get the contents of the text messages from the Telco but it was refused. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK police have the contents of the text messages as well as the call logs, though. Without checking, I seem to recall the deleted text messages might have been from Vodafone's voicemail service.

That was my next question.Even if it's deleted off the handset,it still exists on a database somewhere...