Re: Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday?

marxman Mon 2 Jan - 21:55

i 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?

chrissie1 Mon 2 Jan - 21:59

Vicky (who works in a bank ) sold her story to the sun, now Vicky can deposit some money into said bank

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 22:02

chrissie1 wrote:Vicky (who works in a bank ) sold her story to the sun, now Vicky can deposit some money into said bank

Chrissie

Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 23324

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 22:03

marxman wrote:i 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?

Much more succinctly put than I Marxman Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 678246

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 22:04

AnnaEsse wrote:
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?

Hi Anna! Do we know if the Boyd's actually stayed in the Ocean Club - if so when & in what apartment??

**AnnaEsse** Mon 2 Jan - 22:07

NoStone wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
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?

Hi Anna! Do we know if the Boyd's actually stayed in the Ocean Club - if so when & in what apartment??

I don't know. I thought it would be an Ocean Club pool because why would the McCanns go elsewhere? Unless there is a pool adjacent to the beach, where they took the children one day.

**kitti** Mon 2 Jan - 22:12

.....'they said it was their first holiday abroad with the three children'.......

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 22:13

AnnaEsse wrote:
NoStone wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
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?

Hi Anna! Do we know if the Boyd's actually stayed in the Ocean Club - if so when & in what apartment??

I don't know. I thought it would be an Ocean Club pool because why would the McCanns go elsewhere? Unless there is a pool adjacent to the beach, where they took the children one day.

If the Boyd's did not stay at the Ocean Club - perhaps they stayed elsewhere - somewhere with a waterslide in which case - when Vicky (who works in a bank) was visualising the story - perhaps that's what she saw.

gillyspot Mon 2 Jan - 22:24

I've checked through the booking forms and the Boyds didn't stay at Ocean Club according to the PJ records.

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 22:26

gillyspot wrote:I've checked through the booking forms and the Boyds didn't stay at Ocean Club according to the PJ records.

Thanks Gillyspot Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 25346

Autumn Mon 2 Jan - 22:32

AnnaEsse wrote:
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?

Slide and Splash at Lagoa is the nearest water park for somewhere to cool off on those hot summer days and Zoomarine at Guia (near Albufeira) although a little further away, (about a forty minute drive) is another great family day out - take your swimsuits as there are pools as well. Going west towards Sagres, there is a Blo karting track just beside the N125 past Vila do Bispo and of course there are always the more exposed beaches of the western atlantic coast around Sagres for surfing.

http://www.praiadaluzuncovered.com/

Wintabells Mon 2 Jan - 23:33

gillyspot wrote:I've checked through the booking forms and the Boyds didn't stay at Ocean Club according to the PJ records.

lol

**HiDeHo** Tue 3 Jan - 3:45

Just to add...

My point in scrutinising the witness statements that say they saw Madeleine was not to prove them wrong...for all we know some of the statements may be correct (though many are obviously mistaken about the child they saw being Madeleine)

What I was trying to establish was whether there was a sighting of Madeleine that had such credibility that it was reasonable proof that Madeleine was seen, in which case, something happening to her earlier in the week would be less probable.

Under the circumstances, one would think that there would be several reliable sightings of Madeleine.....not finding one is not only odd but it only helps CONFIRM the possibility that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

jinvta Tue 3 Jan - 4:31

HiDeHo,

That is a good point. I would think that anyone who was at the resort with the McCanns and saw Kate or Gerry McCann or both parents with the twins and an older blond child in tow, would have just assumed that it was Madeleine who was with the group. I know that I would have, particularly after the fact. I am sure that all of these witnesses meant well and that they truly thought that they saw Madeleine, but as you say, none of the sightings were very reliable. All of the sightings could have easily been cases of mistaken identity, as was the case with so many sightings after Madeleine disappeared.

**HiDeHo** Tue 3 Jan - 4:50

The important point to me is, because I believe there is a possibility that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, that it is possible.

I find no need to prove that Madeleine was seen alive during the week of the holiday. That may or not be possible.

I believe that something happened earlier in the week. I am looking for SOMETHING to prove that was impossible...something to tell me that I am absolutely wrong because there is no doubt she was seen....

To date...I have not found anything...

Velvet Tue 3 Jan - 8:47

marxman 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.

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?

Hi marxman, I wholly agree with you. My point is, IS the boyds view nonsensible? If someone has a fact which discredits them then I can happily say yes I won't take her opinion into consideration. But I won't because someone else says, 'Well she should be discredited because Madeleines a child and a child won't be in the adult pool.' To be that's nonsensible. Do you see what I mean?

**margaret** Tue 3 Jan - 10:33

HiDeHo wrote:As I mentioned before..

The statements do not prove that she WASN'T seen during the holiday, but NOT ONE after Sunday proves that she WAS seen!

(Please correct me if it is not apparent, but it may be necessary to check the link to see the original statement to understand how they are not totally credible)

Another confirmation, to me, of the possibility that something happened to her earlier in the week.

(If Fatima da Silva's statement claimed she saw them on Wednesday, and her work schedule allowed for that sighting, it would be enough for me to reconsider the earlier in the week possibility.)

However, by coincidence.....it shows as Sunday, the last time we can be relatively certain that she was seen.

It is open to scrutiny and keep in mind I have only summarised the discrepancies, but I really do challenge anyone to show me a credible sighting of her in that week.

What's interesting about this HiDeHo is that there is someone on Twitter who claims Maddie died on Sunday 29th and was subsituted in the creche everyday afterwards by another child of a couple who never get mentioned. He apparently analyses communications (i.e mobile phone data) 'who's contacting who and why'.

It is a fact that the only people who could say for sure they saw Maddie were the McCanns and the tapas crew, probably not including Dianne Webster, the others had holidayed together before.... holidaymakers could only assume they had seen THE 'Madeleine' because that was the elder girl child with the Mcs, could have been anyone!

marxman Tue 3 Jan - 10:40

Velvet wrote:
marxman 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.

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?

Hi marxman, I wholly agree with you. My point is, IS the boyds view nonsensible? If someone has a fact which discredits them then I can happily say yes I won't take her opinion into consideration. But I won't because someone else says, 'Well she should be discredited because Madeleines a child and a child won't be in the adult pool.' To be that's nonsensible. Do you see what I mean?

Hi Velvet, I understand your point but any investigator worth their salt would
view such a 'sighting' with caution and seek a more reliable situation for a
confirmation.
The adult swimming pool as a possible factual sighting must be deemed unreliable
for the following reasons;
Too many distractions,ie, noice,water activities, environmental situation
Parental transference ie, child assumed to belong to adults present.
Negative interest up and until after an event.
preconceptions,ie, child safety issues,

I have taken my grandchildren to the swimmers and I can't realistically
distinguish them apart from when they are home and dry. Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 25346

matthew Tue 3 Jan - 10:51

margaret wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:As I mentioned before..

The statements do not prove that she WASN'T seen during the holiday, but NOT ONE after Sunday proves that she WAS seen!

(Please correct me if it is not apparent, but it may be necessary to check the link to see the original statement to understand how they are not totally credible)

Another confirmation, to me, of the possibility that something happened to her earlier in the week.

(If Fatima da Silva's statement claimed she saw them on Wednesday, and her work schedule allowed for that sighting, it would be enough for me to reconsider the earlier in the week possibility.)

However, by coincidence.....it shows as Sunday, the last time we can be relatively certain that she was seen.

It is open to scrutiny and keep in mind I have only summarised the discrepancies, but I really do challenge anyone to show me a credible sighting of her in that week.

What's interesting about this HiDeHo is that there is someone on Twitter who claims Maddie died on Sunday 29th and was subsituted in the creche everyday afterwards by another child of a couple who never get mentioned. He apparently analyses communications (i.e mobile phone data) 'who's contacting who and why'.

It is a fact that the only people who could say for sure they saw Maddie were the McCanns and the tapas crew, probably not including Dianne Webster, the others had holidayed together before.... holidaymakers could only assume they had seen THE 'Madeleine' because that was the elder girl child with the Mcs, could have been anyone!

Thats a theory i could go along with & it could account for the discrepencies in madeleines character from the creche staff...shy/outgoing

Still... to rely on a child, to pretend to be someone else...& more people added to cover up...

NoStone Tue 3 Jan - 11:02

matthew wrote:
margaret wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:As I mentioned before..

The statements do not prove that she WASN'T seen during the holiday, but NOT ONE after Sunday proves that she WAS seen!

(Please correct me if it is not apparent, but it may be necessary to check the link to see the original statement to understand how they are not totally credible)

Another confirmation, to me, of the possibility that something happened to her earlier in the week.

(If Fatima da Silva's statement claimed she saw them on Wednesday, and her work schedule allowed for that sighting, it would be enough for me to reconsider the earlier in the week possibility.)

However, by coincidence.....it shows as Sunday, the last time we can be relatively certain that she was seen.

It is open to scrutiny and keep in mind I have only summarised the discrepancies, but I really do challenge anyone to show me a credible sighting of her in that week.

What's interesting about this HiDeHo is that there is someone on Twitter who claims Maddie died on Sunday 29th and was subsituted in the creche everyday afterwards by another child of a couple who never get mentioned. He apparently analyses communications (i.e mobile phone data) 'who's contacting who and why'.

It is a fact that the only people who could say for sure they saw Maddie were the McCanns and the tapas crew, probably not including Dianne Webster, the others had holidayed together before.... holidaymakers could only assume they had seen THE 'Madeleine' because that was the elder girl child with the Mcs, could have been anyone!

Thats a theory i could go along with & it could account for the discrepencies in madeleines character from the creche staff...shy/outgoing

Still... to rely on a child, to pretend to be someone else...& more people added to cover up...

This is the difficult thing for me Matthew - normal practice would be for the children to wear name badges - a child badged with someone else's name would keep telling staff - I'm not Maddy I'm.....'

of course unless any of the other children had a middle name Maddy!!??

**margaret** Tue 3 Jan - 11:19

No, apparently this child was also called Madeleine - although with a different spelling.... A child of a couple called Naylor, if you check the creche records Gerry does sign the Naylors child into the creche, same handwriting and signature for both a child of Naylor AND The Mcs Madeleine.....

It would also account for the 'last photo' having to be 3rd May when the weather ties it to much earlier in the holiday...

**margaret** Tue 3 Jan - 11:27

Just been over to Twitter and found the photo, it's the same handwriting is it not?

Did Gerry sign in a child of Naylors and where do they fit in?

Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 AgdiyyPCEAERIKU

Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 AgdiyyPCEAERIKU

(It looks like you have to make the image fullsize to see Gerrys signature. IMO you can't say someone else wrote all the info and Gerry just signed it, it really does look like the same handwriting.)

NoStone Tue 3 Jan - 11:30

margaret wrote:Just been over to Twitter and found the photo, it's the same handwriting is it not?

Did Gerry sign in a child of Naylors and where do they fit in?

(It looks like you have to make the image fullsize to see Gerrys signature. IMO you can't say someone else wrote all the info and Gerry just signed it, it really does look like the same handwriting.)

Hmmnn - so who were the Nayloy's - its the first time I have come across this Margaret!!!????

**margaret** Tue 3 Jan - 11:30

Seen this aswell, what's it all about it links to this forum?

Was Madeleine Seen During the Holiday? - Page 3 357465215

**margaret** Tue 3 Jan - 11:33

NoStone wrote:
margaret wrote:Just been over to Twitter and found the photo, it's the same handwriting is it not?

Did Gerry sign in a child of Naylors and where do they fit in?

(It looks like you have to make the image fullsize to see Gerrys signature. IMO you can't say someone else wrote all the info and Gerry just signed it, it really does look like the same handwriting.)

Hmmnn - so who were the Nayloy's - its the first time I have come across this Margaret!!!????

I know, me too. Could be something and nothing but it's odd, why have we never heard this couple mentioned? Where are their statements if they were known to the tapas lot.

Sponsored content