Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday?

I wonder if this is the "nice lady by the pool" whom the McCanns desperately wanted to get in touch with?

Also, was this playdate on Wednesday or Thursday? The article says that the kids played together the day before Madeleine went missing, so I assume that they are talking about Wednesday. Wasn't the last photo supposedly taken at the pool on Thursday? More confustion over which days events actually occurred.

I have never heard of, nor seen, a water slide either.

My first thought was what waterslide? There isn't one is there and Mrs Boyd didn't give a statement to the PJ

"The day before she disappeared, Maddie spent and idyllic afternoon playing in the sun with three-year-old Louie Boyd" implies the play date was Wednesday. If it were Thursday, the article should have stated "Earlier in the day that she disappeared..."

"But the next day, Madeleine who turned four last Saturday, was abducted" implies the play date was Wednesday. If it were Thursday, the article should have stated, "But later that day..."

"Mummy, isn't that the little girl I played with yesterday?" implies that the play date was Thursday. I think that kids don't have a very good idea of time, so Louie may have actually thought he played with Maddie on Thursday, when it was in fact Wednesday. Or even more likely, the mother just made up the story.

The clothes that Madeleine is reported to have been wearing are very similar to what she was wearing in the alleged last photo, other than the shorts which are white in the photo and a blue skirt in the article.

I don't see how she could have been playing on a water slide one minute (presumably in a swimsuit) and then running around in clothing the next minute. Her hair doesn't look to have been wet in the alleged last photo either.

This is the first time that I have seen this article. Can you post the rest of the article? I think that the McCanns may have been concerned that their alleged last photo that they claim to have taken on Thursday, was more likely taken on Wednesday according to this article, and thus they desperately wanted to get in touch with the "nice lady by the pool."

I also notice that the article is still claiming that that apartment was locked two weeks after Madeleine went missing.

Also the 3rd was NOT a hot sunny day. It was cooler and cloudy as had every other day of their holiday apart from the 28th - 29th April.

I have looked at historical weather data from Faro for the week the McCanns were there.

28.4.07 - Sunny Max Temp 22 deg
29.4.07 - Sunny Max Temp 22 deg
30.4.07 - Mostly Cloudy Max Temp 19 deg
1.5.07 - Sunny till 10.30am then Scattered Clouds & after 1.30pm Cloudy Max Temp 18 deg
2.5.07 - Rain then Cloudy later Max Temp 18 deg
3.5.07 - Scattered Clouds /Cloudy Max Temp 20 deg (Temp at 2.30pm was 19 deg)

Below is the weather for the 3rd May 2007 from 1pm to 4pm in Faro (nearest weather station)



Which then puts a totally different slant on the "last photo". I think Gerry needed to come back to the UK simply to get the date changed on the photograph as from what I can see it wasn't sunny or hot enough for them to get a sweat on by the pool on the 3rd May.

The Boyd child seems to have a phenomenal command of language given that he was 3 years old. 'Isn't that the girl I played with yesterday?' - amazing mastery of the abstract relational system underlying verb tense distinctions - almost as precocious as 'Where were you last night when me and Sean cried?'

Well in the immortal words of Rosiepops - "we all know that three year olds don't always tell the truth, don't we".

Thanks HiDeHo for adding the last page of the article, or maybe I just missed it the first time. That last bit of the article is quite interesting. The Boyds claim to have left their son Louie two years prior at a resort where a baby-listening service was employed, however, they were too nervous and found themselves repeatedly running back to the room to check on him.

I find it extremely hard to believe that 9 adults could all have been comfortable with their make-shift baby-listening service, particularly when the apartments were not in a secure or monitored complex. The only time a baby listening service could be even remotely safe is if it is conducted within a secure and monitored complex. It would be much more risky for an abductor to attempt to take a child within a secure and monitored complex.

I wonder if it was ever even proven that the Payne's monitor even worked from such a distance?

Wintabells wrote:The Boyd child seems to have a phenomenal command of language given that he was 3 years old. 'Isn't that the girl I played with yesterday?' - amazing mastery of the abstract relational system underlying verb tense distinctions - almost as precocious as 'Where were you last night when me and Sean cried?'

I agree - absolute twaddle! Is this from a magazine or newspaper not available in the U K? I'd never seen the article before.

jinvta wrote:Thanks HiDeHo for adding the last page of the article, or maybe I just missed it the first time.

You're welcome, in fact I should thank you for pointing it out. It was added to picture of Madeleine and I had missed it and I added it after you mentioned.

During this 'quiet time' I took the opportunity of adding a couple of threads about issues that I feel are important but very complicated and have been reading with interest some of the comments that I hadn't previously thought about.

However, each of the threads can be tied in together to form an overall picture of what may have happened.

This thread shows that there is no PROOF that anyone saw Madeleine from Sunday onwards. Not one of the 'sightings' has been challenged to reflect a credible example of Madeleine having been seen during the holiday.

This allows for the POSSIBILITY that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

Combined with the 'neglect' thread where it seems possible that the children WERE watched but the McCanns suddenly seemed to pull away from the rest of the group after Sunday and the T7 seemed to go over the top in explaining a week full of discrepancies and contradictions and abnormal behaviour in their responsibilities as parents, with Monday being a day that was avoided.

So....Sunday was the last time that there is a credible sighting of Madeleine....

....Sunday was the last day that the McCanns shared in the activities with the rest of the T7

...Sunday was the last day anyone seems to have described normal daytime activity....as would be expected by a group of people on holiday together...

Anyone else seeing a pattern emerging?

Unless we get some updated news about the McCanns I think/hope this is a great opportunity to look at the weeks discrepancies and how they started on Tuesday (Monday being avoided) and whether Sunday was the last day of their 'normal' holiday, so if it is OK I will post the info I have regarding the discrepancies that happened all week...Keeping this thread and the 'Neglect' thread in mind to see whether there is a POSSIBILITY that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

Will add another thread shortly (if of interest.)

kitti wrote:Velvet .....can you say that Madeleine played with another child for certain if you don't know the child....


You don't scrutinise a child you can only ASSUME it is that child because...you have been told if was that child


After the fact you believe what you saw because you have been told to believe it...

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleine who was playing with their son?

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:Velvet .....can you say that Madeleine played with another child for certain if you don't know the child....


You don't scrutinise a child you can only ASSUME it is that child because...you have been told if was that child


After the fact you believe what you saw because you have been told to believe it...

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleine who was playing with their son?

Mrs. Boyd claimed that they were playing on the waterslide before going to the playground to play football...

There is no waterslide in the childrens pool, which renders her account of the meeting questionable and therefore not credible proof that Madeleine was seen.

And lets not forget Philip Edmond's letter in which he states that he has photos of Madeleine with his sons which, according to him, were taken on the 3rd May. Note Edmonds does not say its a child who looks like Madeleine. He states with certainty it is Madeleine and that he gave the photos to the McCanns and the police.

Very curious that, if his claim is true, then one of his photos may be the last taken of Madeleine. Unless it has been withheld, I can find no statement by Philip Edmonds - strange given that he says his sons were with Madeleine the day she disappeared.

perhaps its in the material being withheld by the PJ.

HiDeHo wrote:

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:Velvet .....can you say that Madeleine played with another child for certain if you don't know the child....


You don't scrutinise a child you can only ASSUME it is that child because...you have been told if was that child


After the fact you believe what you saw because you have been told to believe it...

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleinex who was playing with their son?

Mrs. Boyd claimed that they were playing on the waterslide before going to the playground to play football...

There is no waterslide in the childrens pool, which renders her account of the meeting questionable and therefore not credible proof that Madeleine was seen.

I don't read anywhere that Mrs Boyd said they were in the childrens pool, maybe I missed it?

Going back to your further post, that made me giggle with your ex next to you!! I'm awful with names, could be told 10 times and I'd forget!!

Autumn wrote:And lets not forget Philip Edmond's letter in which he states that he has photos of Madeleine with his sons which, according to him, were taken on the 3rd May. Note Edmonds does not say its a child who looks like Madeleine. He states with certainty it is Madeleine and that he gave the photos to the McCanns and the police.

Very curious that, if his claim is true, then one of his photos may be the last taken of Madeleine. Unless it has been withheld, I can find no statement by Philip Edmonds - strange given that he says his sons were with Madeleine the day she disappeared.

That is strange, if only we could see them photos!!!

Although i bought into this theory & still do...did amaral not state in a tv interview that in his mind Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm 3rd may...who is the witness to this? With similarities in the Paynes daughter i could see a scenario to confuse other guests & staff at the resort...or is this too far fetched??

matthew wrote:Although i bought into this theory & still do...did amaral not state in a tv interview that in his mind Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm 3rd may...who is the witness to this? With similarities in the Paynes daughter i could see a scenario to confuse other guests & staff at the resort...or is this too far fetched??

From an Interview...

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Goncalo-Amaral/Interview-Comments-1-801692.html

JP: So your opinion is that an accidental death took place in that apartment.

GA: It is not my opinion. It’s the opinion of the investigation. This has to be made very clear. I have repeated this several times but it’s important.

JP: You are absolutely right, so according to the investigation…

GA: According to the investigation that was composed of English, Portuguese investigators…

JP: Exactly. The little girl died in that apartment?

GA: The little girl died in that apartment.

JP: On the evening of the 3rd of May.

GA: And we reached that conclusion with the data that we have.

Velvet wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:Velvet .....can you say that Madeleine played with another child for certain if you don't know the child....


You don't scrutinise a child you can only ASSUME it is that child because...you have been told if was that child


After the fact you believe what you saw because you have been told to believe it...

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleinex who was playing with their son?

Mrs. Boyd claimed that they were playing on the waterslide before going to the playground to play football...

There is no waterslide in the childrens pool, which renders her account of the meeting questionable and therefore not credible proof that Madeleine was seen.

I don't read anywhere that Mrs Boyd said they were in the childrens pool, maybe I missed it?

Going back to your further post, that made me giggle with your ex next to you!! I'm awful with names, could be told 10 times and I'd forget!!

I did'nt read anywhere where it says the two 3 year olds were accomplished swimmers in deep cold water - unless I missed it!

NoStone wrote:

Velvet wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Velvet wrote:

kitti wrote:Velvet .....can you say that Madeleine played with another child for certain if you don't know the child....


You don't scrutinise a child you can only ASSUME it is that child because...you have been told if was that child


After the fact you believe what you saw because you have been told to believe it...

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleinex who was playing with their son?

Mrs. Boyd claimed that they were playing on the waterslide before going to the playground to play football...

There is no waterslide in the childrens pool, which renders her account of the meeting questionable and therefore not credible proof that Madeleine was seen.

I don't read anywhere that Mrs Boyd said they were in the childrens pool, maybe I missed it?

Going back to your further post, that made me giggle with your ex next to you!! I'm awful with names, could be told 10 times and I'd forget!!

I did'nt read anywhere where it says the two 3 year olds were accomplished swimmers in deep cold water - unless I missed it!

I didn't claim that. We cannot however assume they was in the childrens pool just because they are children. If the Boyd family said their son was playing with Madeleine down a slide, which wasn't in the children's pool apparently then they are automatically discredited because they are children who should remain in the childrens pool? As a child I was always running around the adults pool.

Velvet wrote:

NoStone wrote:

Velvet wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Velvet wrote:

You don't have to know a child to be able to recognise them. I see nothing questionable if Madeleine had been playing with another child and there parents were keeping an eye out, that they wouldn't be able to pick her out if a photo was shown to them.

I don't get your 'You can only ASSUME it is because... you have been told to believe it.' Are you saying they were told it was Madeleinex who was playing with their son?

Mrs. Boyd claimed that they were playing on the waterslide before going to the playground to play football...

There is no waterslide in the childrens pool, which renders her account of the meeting questionable and therefore not credible proof that Madeleine was seen.

I don't read anywhere that Mrs Boyd said they were in the childrens pool, maybe I missed it?

Going back to your further post, that made me giggle with your ex next to you!! I'm awful with names, could be told 10 times and I'd forget!!

I did'nt read anywhere where it says the two 3 year olds were accomplished swimmers in deep cold water - unless I missed it!

I didn't claim that. We cannot however assume they was in the childrens pool just because they are children. If the Boyd family said their son was playing with Madeleine down a slide, which wasn't in the children's pool apparently then they are automatically discredited because they are children who should remain in the childrens pool? As a child I was always running around the adults pool.

So what are you claiming Velvet?? If they were not sliding into the children's pool then they must have been sliding into the adults pool because it was Vicky - (who works in a bank) -that said 'mum kate, 38 relaxed on a sun lounger and watched her daughter whizzing down the waterslide' - so therefore you are implying that they were sliding into the adult pool - very deep cold water and therefore they must have been very accomplished swimmers for 3 year olds must they not? Kate was not iin the pool to keep them safe, nor was Vicky (who works in a bank) if fact I doubt if anyone was in the pool at that time of year as the sun would not have been hot enough or out long enough to get it to a comfortable temperature for all but those that swim the Serpentine each New Year I would suggest.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm merely saying that a witness to seeing Madeleine shouldn't be discredited because they say they saw her in an adult pool. What reason do the Boyds have to lie about where they seen her? There are two conclusions a) They saw their son playing with Madeleine in the big pool b) They saw their son with someone they believe to be Madeleine playing in the big pool. IF the Boyds are certain it was Madeleine, what reason would they have change the place from a child's pool to an adult pool? I do have to point out that the boyds seemed happy with their little boy (who was also three) playing around the big pool.

I have to stress I am not saying she was without doubt in the adult pool, but making the point that we don't know what pool she was in. We therefore cant discredit a witness who claimed to have seen her, because it doesn't fit in with our own perceptions of where she should/shouldn't have been.

Did this couple make a statment to the PJ, this is a newspaper article, and as Kate herself has said a lot of things have been printed that simply are not true

Velvet wrote:I'm not claiming anything, I'm merely saying that a witness to seeing Madeleine shouldn't be discredited because they say they saw her in an adult pool. What reason do the Boyds have to lie about where they seen her? There are two conclusions a) They saw their son playing with Madeleine in the big pool b) They saw their son with someone they believe to be Madeleine playing in the big pool. IF the Boyds are certain it was Madeleine, what reason would they have change the place from a child's pool to an adult pool? I do have to point out that the boyds seemed happy with their little boy (who was also three) playing around the big pool.

I have to stress I am not saying she was without doubt in the adult pool, but making the point that we don't know what pool she was in. We therefore cant discredit a witness who claimed to have seen her, because it doesn't fit in with our own perceptions of where she should/shouldn't have been.

Hi Velvet, Context is paramount when extracting witness evidence.
If person is viewed within a nonsensible situation then it degrades
that particular testimony, does it not?

Velvet wrote:I'm not claiming anything, I'm merely saying that a witness to seeing Madeleine shouldn't be discredited because they say they saw her in an adult pool. What reason do the Boyds have to lie about where they seen her? There are two conclusions a) They saw their son playing with Madeleine in the big pool b) They saw their son with someone they believe to be Madeleine playing in the big pool. IF the Boyds are certain it was Madeleine, what reason would they have change the place from a child's pool to an adult pool? I do have to point out that the boyds seemed happy with their little boy (who was also three) playing around the big pool.

I have to stress I am not saying she was without doubt in the adult pool, but making the point that we don't know what pool she was in. We therefore cant discredit a witness who claimed to have seen her, because it doesn't fit in with our own perceptions of where she should/shouldn't have been.

Your claiming the siting was correct but the description of the location was wrong! Fair enough - so at least half the story is a lie. If it were totally true then Vicky (who works in a bank) would have said they played happily around the pool. Why would she lie and fabricate a waterslide?? - that's the point that discredits the story.....if half of it is a lie then how can we trust the rest?? Just like the many many other discrepancies in this case. The windows were jemmied - the windows were not jemmied - we did not search - we searched - the man was carrying a bundle - the man was carrying a child in pink PJ's - I only listened at the door- I went inside but did not see Madeleine - etc etc......everything that does not ring true will be questioned and these stones turned over and over until the truth outs!

NoStone wrote:

Velvet wrote:I'm not claiming anything, I'm merely saying that a witness to seeing Madeleine shouldn't be discredited because they say they saw her in an adult pool. What reason do the Boyds have to lie about where they seen her? There are two conclusions a) They saw their son playing with Madeleine in the big pool b) They saw their son with someone they believe to be Madeleine playing in the big pool. IF the Boyds are certain it was Madeleine, what reason would they have change the place from a child's pool to an adult pool? I do have to point out that the boyds seemed happy with their little boy (who was also three) playing around the big pool.

I have to stress I am not saying she was without doubt in the adult pool, but making the point that we don't know what pool she was in. We therefore cant discredit a witness who claimed to have seen her, because it doesn't fit in with our own perceptions of where she should/shouldn't have been.

Your claiming the siting was correct but the description of the location was wrong! Fair enough - so at least half the story is a lie. If it were totally true then Vicky (who works in a bank) would have said they played happily around the pool. Why would she lie and fabricate a waterslide?? - that's the point that discredits the story.....if half of it is a lie then how can we trust the rest?? Just like the many many other discrepancies in this case. The windows were jemmied - the windows were not jemmied - we did not search - we searched - the man was carrying a bundle - the man was carrying a child in pink PJ's - I only listened at the door- I went inside but did not see Madeleine - etc etc......everything that does not ring true will be questioned and these stones turned over and over until the truth outs!

I've been looking for images of the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, to find the swimming pools. So far, I haven't found a pool with a waterslide. Perhaps someone else can find one?