petra Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Very interesting report with a lot of details. Have these numbers been examined all? Nontheless, the number of calls and their timing and frequency made or received by the mccann’s during their holiday of only one week gives a ‘big picture’ which leads to general conclusions about the profile of Kate and Gerry, and their relationship. Also the knowing of the exact time when calls have been made or received finally delivers a deliable and trustworthy source of indices which can be compared to the information we have from the ‘Tapas 9′, the ‘Crime Scene – 5A’, the staff of the Ocean Club, the rented car and, and, and,

1. Kate McCann is a childishly jealous wife, and Gerry not capable of receiving and understanding emotions of others: The following will bring insight: The very short police statement of Chekaya the fitness instructor who is believed to have made a quiz on the night Maddie is believed to have vanished on 3. may 2007. This was a Thursday, the holidays were going to end in short time. Now read the very short statement at police of the fitness instructor Chekaya:

Najoua Chekaya’s short police statement, 14 August 2008
of Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis
Thursday August 14 2008

Najoua Chekaya arrived in Portugal on March 2007, recruited in England to work for Mark Warner, according to her statement to the PJ, in May 2007. Just a curiosity, the translator was Robert Murat. She described her daily working routine, as an aerobics instructor and said that when she arrived at Ocean Club, she was asked also to perform a “Quiz Game”, at night (09:00 pm), at the Tapas Bar, twice a week – every Sunday and Tuesday. On May 1, 2007, after the “Quiz” was finished, Najoua was invited by Gerry McCann to sit at their table, to have a drink. She was there for 15/20 minutes, between 9.30 and 9:50 pm. There was just casual talk and she doesn’t know if Madeleine’s mother was at the table or not. During that period of time, nobody left the table, but there was an empty chair. Who has been sitting at that chair, Najoua didn’t know

Every SUNDAY AND TUESDAY – which means that she made the quiz on 1st may at 21:00 and was invited to the table by GERRY at 21:30, she stayed only 15 to 20 minutes which means until 21:50. ‘Kate McCann’s mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned towards Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the “Tapas 9”.’
Miss Chekeya stated that one dinner setting was unused and that she could not remember seeing Kate McCann (Who of the Tapas 9 was still there?, she only states unused dinner setting and that Kate was not there). 22:30 – 23:40 During these 70 long long minutes the neighbour of the mccanns, Mrs Fenn heard Maddie crying and sobbing for her Dad. Fact is: Kate Mccann herself stated that she exactly at THAT night 1st of may (remember: she doesn’t refer to it as the quiznight because this was on Thursday after the Mc Canns) didn’t sleep in the same bed with Gerry, but in the children’s room because SHE FELT A LITTLE IGNORED THAT NIGHT BY GERRY. It doesn’t seem it was only a little that she felt ignored if she decided to put a clear signal or even be disgusted by the behavior of Gerry and sleep in another room. It seems that she left the table BEFORE or WHILE Miss Chekeya sat herself to Gerry’s table because she got angry and jelous. Gerry stated that at that night of 1st may (not the quiznight) he returned to the appartment and went to bed and Kate slept in the childrens room because he snores and he didn’t comment the next morning on her ignoring him in the night. Very strange statements and obviously not fitting together.
Kate must have been in or outside the appartment while making the calls getting the handy which she left in the app, (trying to reach somebody?) at 22:16, 6 times within 17 minutes. Was it her friend Amanda she tried to reach or just somebody close to her listening to her problems and anger with Gerry? Its a late time to make a call just because of nothing. Gerry must have come back while or after Maddie stopped crying, because she cried for him until 23:50. Did he stay sooo long because of the quiz-girl? The good looking girl who was perhaps alone in the end with a few or only Gerry? Did he perhaps not even sleep in the appartment? Does Kate even sleep? Or just get up very very early and trying to reach her friend at 7:36 in the morning 2 times, 1 hour later Amanda calls back. Was Amanda sleeping the night before, and Kate needed help or advice so desperately that she called Amanda when she knew Amanda was probably getting up? Again its early to call somebody for no real reason. Gerry MC Cann receives a lot of calls during the day, his phone switched off, because all the calls are received by the combox. He checks the Combox at 15:50. Did he get back to the App shortly before 15:50 because his handy was still there (he left it there before Tapas)? Or did he sleep such a long time? Why did he not check or answer the calls until afternoon?
Did Kate want to communicate with Gerry without talking to him personally? Shortly after her calls, he receives calls which are all not answered or checked until 15.50 the 2.may.

Madeleine stopped crying for her Dad at 23:50, she started shortly after her mothers phone calls at about 22:30 . Did she wake up? Did she cry for her Dad and not for Kate because they have a disturbed Mother-Daughter relationsip, or because her Mother tortured her when she was fustrated and alone and Gerry flirting with another girl? Did she while doing this kill her ‘by accident’? In the living room near the sofa perhaps? The sniffer dogs marked both blood and cadaver odour on the tiles in the living room behind the sofa. Or in the parents room at the wardrobe at the foot of the parents bed? Did she try to reach Gerry by a friend over telephone? Trying to tell that she found her dead with vomit in her mouth or she just didn’t wake up in the morning dead because of sleeping pills Gerry gave her daughter? Perhaps she tried to make Gerry feel guilty of something which makes them complices.

There were no odours of blood or cadaver in the bed of Maddie. This means she either died in Living room or in the parents bedroom where the blood odour was found. Did Kate after cleaning the blood hide the Body in the wardrobe of the parents room and sleep in the children’s room or wait there until Gerry came back thinking of a story she could tell? Did she tell it perhaps to her mother and some close people by phone? That she found Maddie dead and Gerry not here? What should she do? Call the Police? No wait for Gerry to come back and tell him first, we stand behing you whatever your decision. Nobody would believe a mother killing her child or hitting it, not Kate? And Kate she is such a loving Mother and Maddie blablabla was a difficult child and bla bla bla. HAve the Mc Canns been advised to hide and get rid of the body? Or did they decide all by themselves. Were they afraid that the sleeping pill they or Gerry perhaps gave her would be found or in Kates case perhaps a knockarea at the head? Fact is: After that night on 1.may there were no social get togethers with the others of the Tapas 9 including the children, or Photos of Maddie shown with other people of the events these days. Also the only witness who should have seen Maddie is her nanny at the Creche 20 year old Catriona Baker. Her Statement has not bn made officially I think, she does ot say what she exactly did with Maddie that time.

If Gerry went back to the room exactly at 23:50 shortly before the time when Madeleines crying stopped, the time he comforted her perhaps?

Profile conclusions:
1)

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic1931.html

Look Past the 'Agenda's' to See the Big Picture!

I came across these comments I had posted in 3A a year ago and my thoughts still hold true today...Possibly, some of you may agree....

This case became enormous from the start.

The parents created the abduction theory while suspicions about their involvement began materialising as 'leaks' indicating discrepancies began to emerge.

For more than a year there has been a clear division between those that believed in abduction and those that suspected their guilt in her disappearance.

Middle ground was covered by those that considered neglect.

On the one hand, neglect could have caused Maddie's demise the theory of which the Mc's were willing to tolerate as it created a smokescreen for the truth and could be used as a means of confirming abduction. On the other hand it served the purpose of deflecting accusations about their 'guilt' of involvement in her disappearance..

Neglect was an acceptable trade-off, although it indicated some guilt, it paved the way for the 'abduction' theory.

It also maintained the focus of the night of May 3 to be about the timeline and whether they checked the children often enough therefore highlighting neglect.

According to the dogs, Maddie was not in the apartment that night...

They hadn't left 3 children alone in the apartment that night.

One can see how they must have been happy to have everyone discuss the 'neglect' issue as it successfully deflected from the truth about them staging the abduction.

Apart from an almost impossible window of opportunity, considering the two hours it takes for a body to emit the scent detectable by the cadaver dogs to have happened in the short time period of a little more than an hour after they left the apartment, then logic tells us that Maddie was already dead and that evening was never about neglect.

The middle ground, of neglect, (for May 3rd) only exists in the minds of those that don't believe in the dogs, or who believe that the scent could have been emited within that short hour they were at the tapas.

The abduction theory has no facts to sustain it's credibility.

This only leaves the probability of the Mc's involvement in the disappearance and hiding Maddie's body.

It seems so clear and yet there seems to be a 'force' at work disrupting logical thinking.

I have viewed the case visually, likening it to a 'puzzle'.

As each 'fact' emerged a new piece of the puzzle could be added to the big picture...

Occasionally some of the pieces fitted together, sometimes pieces that did not belong were thrown in and some pieces looked like they may fit but needed time to confirm if they were correct.

With the release of the files along with Amaral's book, it appears that the majority of the pieces were, in fact, correct and with all those pieces on the table...whether they have been fitted together or not, it is possible to have an idea as to what the resulting picture will look like.

If all the pieces appear to be parts of trees, then it is predictable that the final picture will be of a forest.

If someone throws in a few pieces that show sky or grass, it is still possible they could be part of the picture.

As I see it.....Some pieces that have been added are (for example) pink and have no relation whatsoever to the final picture of a forest and yet some people seem to have been urged to believe that these pink pieces will fit into the final picture, which, to me, defies logic..

What seems to be happening is, that by the power of suggestion, those that haven't seen the majority of puzzle pieces, but are being shown a few pink pieces, are being told the final picture is that of (for example) the Pink Panther and they, understandably, believe it.

What defies logic is the ones that have seen all the green 'tree' pieces still believe the picture to be of the Pink Panther!

Are they blind or do they have a reason for marketing the puzzle as that of the Pink Panther?

The King's new clothes?....

The only way to market a puzzle picture of the Pink Panther, when all the pieces are green is by not allowing people to open the box to see what's inside.

It seems to me that has, until now at least, been achieved.....

Leaving the box intact maintains the illusion of the contents and ultimately the success of the 'product'.

Whats the best way to stop people opening the box?

Stop marketing entirely, hoping they will forget about it? (The silent technique?)

Encourage them to 'blindly trust' that they will benefit by not opening the box. (reliant upon those that cannot admit to bad judgement and creating a denial opportunity for them to hide behind?)

Discourage them from opening it with suggestions it could lose value and their investment would be at risk? (threats to 'sue' if exposed to others?)

I believe the day will come when enough people open the box and start to tackle the puzzle, realising its not what they were led to believe...

This could be instigated by exposure to Amaral's book and, hopefully, new evidence in the case that is irrefutable and exposed by the press....

Once the box is opened the title of the puzzle will confirm it is a forest.

Although those that marketed the puzzle incorrectly may have done so initially, with a true belief that the contents would create a pink picture, their credibility would now be questioned so they have no choice but to continue to market the product falsely, at whatever the expense.

The product is secondary to their cause....Their ego takes over and the single most important thing to them personally is to hold on to their credibility no matter how much it costs!

Maybe that is why Brian Kennedy is so 'generous' with his offer of funding the Mc's.

It's no longer about them....He cannot afford to face the consequences of being wrong....

His fortune may have been amassed, reliant upon his credibility.

Forget what he would GAIN from supporting the Mc's...Maybe its all about what he would LOSE if he didn't!

The puzzle is being marketed falsely to not only protect everyone from seeing the true picture but also to protect the people that risk losing their reputation, requiring them to continue to justify their bad judgement at whatever the cost in order to also protect their egos.

Each person involved have their own agenda to protect themselves, which is possibly why it is so difficult to establish only one motivation.

The Mc's need to hide the truth....

The lawyers are not interested in the truth...their job is to defend.

The 'backers' cannot afford to admit bad judgement, which would ruin their reputation.

The family has a responsibility to protect their 'own'.

The government, maybe brought into it by default, are not afforded the privilege of an 'Ooops....We were wrong!' without suffering major consequences and repercussions.

The Tapas 7 have managed to maintain relatively minimal exposure and maybe prefer to not 'rock the boat'.

Mark Warner cannot afford more negative publicity.

British Media outlets choose to have patience to wait for the day they will not have to fear negative publicity created with threats to sue, until all the 'facts' are in place and articles can be widely accepted by the British public.

Is it in their best interest to try to change public opinion ? For now, maybe they benefit more from articles depicting what everyone wants to hear.

PR agenda has always appeared to be ego based in my opinion.

Each one of the above has 'skeletons in their closet' and to be responsible for challenging the current perception of the British public could be interpreted as an insult to people's intelligence initiating retalliation in the form of scrutiny which could ultimately lead to their 'skeletons' being exposed!

Maybe each of the 'motive' theories have an element of truth to them and by protecting the Mc's they are indirectly protecting themselves.

The Mc's, their advisors and research team probably have knowledge of those skeletons and are comfortable in their position of holding the 'ace' card....until someone with courage disrupts their 'world' at whatever the cost to their reputation.

Someone, maybe, whos reputation has already been 'damaged'?

They couldn't have predicted that their effort to discredit the PJ would come back to bite them.... in the form of Goncalo Amaral.

They maybe never predicted that their attack on Portugal and its laws would help create a need to expose their lies in the Portuguese press with people like Paulo Reis gaining momentum, to be a thorn in their sides.

Some people can't be bought and, thankfully, those people are on the 'side' of truth!

Those people with courage will expose the puzzle pieces one by one until the final picture cannot be disputed and the British public will realise that the 'pink' pieces were a figment of imagination created for personal agenda.

No-one likes to be made a fool of and I sense the Mc's will be facing a very angry public when they finally see the 'forest' (truth) picture in its entirety!

To deny her the truth of her demise to protect one's ego is a disrespect to her memory.

Madeleine deserves more...

It may take time but once assembled the puzzle becomes a picture...

The picture is the TRUTH and, whatever the consequenses for those that attempted to mislead everyone, the TRUTH will be be known

The TRUTH is what Madeleine deserves.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1929-what-do-you-think-happened-to-madeleine#53474


I don't want to change peoples opinions just because the prevalent theory possibly supports something happening to Madeleine prior to Thursday evening.

I attempt to compile as much of the information available in a format to make comparisons as easy as possible.

Only with knowledge can one form an opinion that is worthy of the respect of others, regardless of whether it conforms to the majority opinion or whether it stands alone.

To form an opinion based on what others have decided or spoken about is the type of mentality that blindly believes the first thing they are told and subsequently defends their opinion regardless of future information that contradicts their opinion.

These people are unable to ever admit to being wrong.

The McCanns played their 'cards' well.

I don't believe the crys of 'abduction' were used as a defence against the police that night so much as to 'brainwash' the public into believing it was an abduction before any other theory registered in people's minds.

'Tell a lie often enough and people will believe you.'

The vast majority of people, once believing in the 'abduction' would have a hard time admitting they made a mistake, especially if they were prevented from seeing details that could prove otherwise.

The McCanns had it all wrapped up.

The police were forced to keep the details secret so for the first year, apart from a few leaks, the McCanns could keep a reasonable control over the media reports, then along came Goncalo Amaral and Tony and the release of the files and it's not so easy for them now, and, we are all very patient, so it will not get any easier....

However, I have always believed that the sudden conscious effort to inform everyone, including the media, of the abduction, regardless of the validity, was a contrived effort and therefore one of the first reasons I believed that something happened to Madeleine prior to Thursday night.

It was all carefully thought out, in my opinion.

I am one of the few 'non believers' in the Smith sighting, regardless of it having the importance it seems to deserve.

There seems to be an overwhelming belief, mainly because Goncalo Amaral gives it importance as well as other issues but, although I may be wrong, I continue to disbelieve a probability of Gerry walking through the streets holding his dead daughter.

I just cannot come to terms with that and until I can see a link with an earlier death I do not enter into discussions about the sighting. I cannot claim an opinion based on knowledge, but in this case I base it on my belief that this case may be a lot more simple (relatively) than most seem to think.

I am willing to admit to being incorrect should we ever find out the truth.

Being right is not as important as keeping the case alive for a little girl that needs us.

My thoughts follow a very basic scenario interrupted and confused by Government (and other) intervention that would elicit too much scrutiny of the individual should they admit to being wrong. No-one is willing to go on the chopping block and have personal details exposed and scrutinised, which would surely happen if anyone admitted to making the wrong choices initially.

The easiest thing to do has been to quietly remove themselves from the situation, or keep the McCanns at arms length, or, just continue blindly believing as they dont have the time or courage or motivation to dispute it.

The T9 went on holiday, they started with a normal holiday of responsible adults.

The BBC Whistleblower program had, only a couple of weeks earlier, investigated Mark Warner in Greece and came up with some issues that needed addressing.

Madeleine's disappearance coincided with the changes and probably appeared to be responsible for them but from what I understand, the baby listening service had only just been discontinued.

Travelers complained that it was advertised for Portugal in the brochures but was not available when they arrived in May 2007.

The listening service was something the McCanns expected. They also did not realise the resort was spread out so when they arrived they realised that babysitting was an issue to them and I believe they handled it 'relatively' responsibly in some form.

Someone was away from the table almost (if not) every day.

Once something happened to Madeleine (because of the discrepancies I believe earlier in the week) the T7 were, at some point, informed. Whether she died immediately or became sick and died later, we don't know but I do believe the possibility of Gerry's power of persuasion and whether they helped assist in rescusitation or were persuaded to not alert anyone until a plan was decided we don't know.

They had no knowledge about what was about to happen and how their lives would be affected.

Hindsight was not something afforded to them.

Once 'in' on the secret, there was no turning back.

Madeleine died and the plan needed to be put into place.

What would have been a holiday of shared activities between them all may have become a holiday of hiding the truth and compensating for the grief that Kate would no doubt have had difficulty hiding.

What has been judged as keeping themselves separate to the others was probably a front to enable them to grieve and prepare for the plan.

One of the major issues that prevents people from believing an earlier demise is the difficulty in denying Madeleine being seen during the week, especially by the nannies, and ultimately Catriona as well as her being registered every day.

Because Catriona made a visit to Rothley in November (apart from a variety of contradictions) I see no proof that Madeleine was at the creche every day.

The room was used by many of the nannies with the Sharks as well as the Lobsters all in the same room and with an earlier picture of Madeleine used in the search, (also conntrived and planned IMO) many of the nannies were mistaken about seeing Madeleine.

I have scrutinised ALL the statements that claim to have seen her and the ONLY statement I can find that places Madeleine (IMO) in the Ocean Club that week was when seen by the cleaner's daughter on Sunday lunchtime, outside their apartment, on their way to Payne's for lunch.

As for the creche records, do we know if the nannies ever checked the signatures or were they just filled out as a record to contact the parents if needed?

Any discrepanacy or missed times, filled in later by Cat may have been more to do with the tightening up because of the Whistleblowers investigation.

The records were removed by the police on Friday and at that point, there was no issue that the creche was involved in Madeleine's disappearance but they would have known their reputation was on the line and maybe Catriona was trying to ensure her job.

Maybe the records were filled out every day and Gerry and Kate claimed Madleine was there and Catriona, maybe, second guessed herself as to which child was which. We don't know but it could be possible if Gerry was very intimidating.

The nannies were removed the following week to go to Greece, but this may not have had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance but more to fill in the spots of the nannies in Greece that were found to not have the credentials and checks they were advertised as having.

I believe the meeting at the tapas on Wednesday night was to discuss last minute plans for the following night.

I was important enough that the waiters were supposed to finish their shift at midnight and the T9 (or some of them) kept them waiting for nearly and hour later!

Thursday was not, (IMO) about checking on the children it was, maybe about setting up the scenario for the abduction, maybe sedating the twins so they would not hear as the shutters were undergoing an attempt at 'jemmying'.

Their claims of checking throughout the week was not the truth, they needed to claim the children were left alone to enable the possibility of abduction.

I believe it was only Dianne Webster that didn't know most of the story.

Madeleine's death had to be kept secret for one BIG reason.

Whether the Gaspars' statement is a clue, whether it was imperative to not submit her body for an autopsy, or both, or some other major reason, we dont know....

One day we will...

(All my opinion of course!)

http://thepjfiles.prophpbb.com/topic6040-30.html

IRONSIDE

When did Madeleine die? We will never know unless the Mccanns tell us, and that will never be.

I think that an accident happened around 6 / 6.30 pm....3rd May in the apartment. I remember Rachael Oldfield on a radio program saying'if there had been an accident they would have tried to resucitate her'...I always wondered why she would even suggest such a thing when the line was Madeleine had been abducted. But she said it none the less. I believe they did try and resucitate her, I think they did everything in their power to help her. The one thing they did not do is call an Ambulance .Madeleine needed help that they could not give her and she died..The first thing on entering emergency, they draw blood. Blood would have shown drugs in Madeleines body. They waited too long and it was too late.

When she died the same reason they could not call the police, a post mortem would have also shown traces of drugs and in her hair shaft proving Madeleine had been drugged for possibly months...her Star Chart shows this problem was on going..

John Stalker,....said the McCanns and friends are hiding a big secret...I now believe the secret is 'No Neglect' took place...

I said the FUND is evil and it is but maybe in the Mccanns mind it is a way of remembering Madeleine. 'Dont you forget about me'...In this way they are keeping her alive..which is something they could not do on may 3rd...

I am happy with the fact Madeleine was alive on the 3rd...Nanny Baker remembered Madeleine on the boat trip, she remembered her because she cried...

The Paynes witness statements are all over the place which makes me think it happened around this time...in a way they tell us so.


To add: I think the drugging of Madeleine was so the Mccanns could get some sleep. Kate would have been exhausted looking after three small children let alone going without sleep...It made the house a better place to be ...everyone was happy with the situation and Madeleine began to settle. Then there was a dreadful accident...nothing to do with her being sedated...but sedation would have been revealed...the Mccanns would have lost everything but most of all the one thing they love most...the Twins.


 I do not believe the children were neglected and I am going through the statements piece by piece to show why I believe this IMHO

No I do NOT believe the Mccanns killed Madeleine or had any such thoughts of harming their child. They loved her, but she was difficult to handle..I think there was an accident I also believe that when this accident took place one or both parents were present.
Thats what I think...

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic11357-240.html

Could something have happened to Madeleine whilst in the care of one of the T9 in one room?

Could the children have all been sedated so the 'carer' could cope?

Could someone have given a normal dose to Madeleine but she had already received one?

Could they have tried to protect that person, as they were all 'guilty'?

They had no idea of the repercussions of the media at that tiime, but once the plan was in place they NEEDED the media to ensure it was known as an abduction before anyone started to question?

Just a thought