Madeleine McCann

limnam wrote: »

Someone being dead and alive at the same time is difficult for me.

I'm weird like that

Sure lookit, there's dated reports you can google yourself if you're blurry about the sequence of the statements. I understand sequential reports can be difficult to decipher for some.

Is there anything concrete that backs up this report by Paulo Reiz - considering that he was seriously anti-McCann parents. Have his details about the phone records/deleting etc. been substantiated by official sources. Or could they be random warblings by some trying to make a noise for himself. I don't know.
I'm just wondering about those here who are getting hot under the collar as to the motivations that one has for deleting messages from their phone. i.e. that it somehows falla into suspicious going-ons.
In summary; are there official reports on the phone messages that are available for all to see. Or are these phone comments just going on the back of someone who publishes something on the world wide web.
I had a quick google there, and saw that police were trying to trace all phones in the area that night. There was mention of 3000. A very extensive overhaul. Do you really think they would just not bother going into every avenue possible for Gerry and Kate Mccann.

Old Paulus seems a bit of a bottom feeder as journalists go. Who'd bother suing him. Always going for the sleazy angle, yuk.

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is no reason to selectively delete calls unless your covering something up. Only someone who already knows they are guilty would do this.

Sorry to go backwards but can we put to bed the idea she could have died days earlier. The usuals point to multiple witness accounts of seeing her alive. Could you link the PJ files for these sightings would like to review. Anyone have links for the forged signatures at the Crech line of enquiry of any evidence for or against?

You keep stating things as absolute facts, when they aren’t.
You’ve been offered multiple explanations as to why items were deleted, you see no worth in any of them, that’s fine.
That doesn’t automatically equate to ‘they were covering up something they were guilty of’ being a fact, when there is no proof of this.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Unless it didn't make the papers I can't find any reference to them suing him.

Strange if he was openly telling lies potentially hindering the case with the financial backing they had and the fact they'd tried to go after others you would imagine they would have on their track record.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Susie your spam posting nonsense isn't obfustigating anyone. Join in the antagonising of the evidence or retire from the thread.

The selective deleting of phonecalls is one of many red flags. The theory of Madeline being accidentally killed days earlier per the deleted calls is supported by the very suspect creche log signatures.

http://truthformadeleine.com/2011/05/kate%E2%80%99s-handwriting-at-ocean-club-creche-looks-like-a-forgery/

Suzie you countered that there was multiple eye witness reports that she was alive in the days after the Tuesday screaming incident. Can you link to the PJ files for these witness statements?

I suggest if you have an issue with my posts, report them to a moderator instead of trying to dictate what I can and cannot post. I’m just as entitled to be here as you are.

Red flag? Perhaps, yes, I can see why it might possibly raise suspicion in some people. That’s not what you said though. You said it meant Gerry was guilty and involved in a cover up, and it doesn’t mean that at all. That isn’t a fact.

The last photograph of Madeleine was taken at 2:30pm on the day she went missing by the pool. If you are trying to suggest that the crèche staff lied about Madeleine being present in the kids club on the day she went missing, you’re going to have to back that up a bit more than with allegations that the signature looked forged.
Why would the crèche staff lie? What’s in it for them?

Your above link is from a website with a banner saying ‘Gerry is a liar’ so forgive me for not holding any worth in a website so clearly biased in one direction. Anti McCann websites don’t count as proof of anything.

In the below link is the verified timeline of events on the day she went missing, including the aforementioned photo. It’s widely accepted that she was alive and well up until 6pm that day, and you’d want to have some concrete evidence to the contrary if you are going to try to imply otherwise.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

Thanks @SusieBlue

6.30pm: Gerry asks David Payne, one of the so-called "tapas seven", to check on Kate and the children at the apartment.

What a strange thing to ask someone to do and the Camera being an “hour out” so they say. Why would an adult have to check on another adult and their kids that aren’t their family? Could be Gerry be controlling.
Strange, so many strange things in this case and they keep coming. Plus Madeleine was last seen on camera at 1:29pm (arguably 2:30pm)

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Thanks @SusieBlue

6.30pm: Gerry asks David Payne, one of the so-called "tapas seven", to check on Kate and the children at the apartment.

What a strange thing to ask someone to do and the Camera being an “hour out” so they say. Why would an adult have to check on another adult and their kids that aren’t their family? Could be Gerry be controlling.
Strange, so many strange things in this case and they keep coming. Plus Madeleine was last seen on camera at 1:29pm (arguably 2:30pm)

Yes, but witnesses attest to her being collected from Kids club that evening (3rd) at 5.30pm:

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KIDS-CLUB-STAFF.htm

3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her;
4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;

Was there some conflicting witness statements?


Stacey

. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30 and that the mother picked them up at 12.30;
4. That it was the father who dropped them off at 14.30 and that it was the mother who came to fetch them at 17.30;


Cat

4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;

Was Cat and Stacey talking about the same incident here as they dont seem to give the same story

limnam wrote: »

Was there some conflicting witness statements?


Stacey

. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30 and that the mother picked them up at 12.30;
4. That it was the father who dropped them off at 14.30 and that it was the mother who came to fetch them at 17.30;


Cat

4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;

Was Cat and Stacey talking about the same incident here as they dont seem to give the same story

It appears one staff member minded the twins and one staff member minded Madeleine.