14 January 2010

A Little Bit of Insight

While we’re waiting for the second round of the ‘Maddie documentary war’, I thought I might as well offer a little bit of insight into what happened at the Ocean Club that night, hoping that maybe the upcoming British version of events might like to include some details that were not reported by the British media. Any self-respecting documentary likes to present one or two pieces of new information to the public – and for the vast majority of the British public, this is indeed new information.

Now you’re thinking, what’s this all about? How can anyone who wasn’t there, that night, offer an insight into the events? Well, I certainly wasn’t there – but others were, and through their witness statements, much can be learned about the chain of events, namely after the alarm to Madeleine’s disappearance was raised.

Unfortunately, we don’t have independent witnesses of whatever happened between 5.30 and 10 p.m. in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, on the 3rd of May 2007. But we do have at least one independent witness who, because of her professional position and her language skills, had the privilege to witness certain actions and behaviours and phrases, that night.

But don’t take it from me. Instead, read what Silvia Batista, then a manager at the Ocean Club, told the police on the 26th of July 2007, in her third statement to be included in the process files that were publicly released:

“Concerning the matter of the process, the witness said:

That she has given statements for several times within the process, and remembers the contents of what she stated before, therefore reproducing the contents of the previous statements into this statement.

The deponent offers another statement because with the passage of time, since Madeleine’s disappearance, she has remembered some details of the facts that she witnessed, which she considers of some interest to the investigation.

Like she said before, she was alerted to Madeleine’s disappearance between 10.30 and 11 p.m. She was at home and was informed about the event through a telephone call. She immediately went to the Ocean Club, where she arrived only minutes before the GNR officers. When she arrived at the resort, she went immediately to apartment 5A, where she met several persons both on the inside and on the outside of the apartment. She went into the apartment but left it right away without speaking to anyone, because she was informed that the GNR officers were at the main reception, so she went to meet them.

When she arrived near the GNR officers, she verified that Gerry, Madeleine’s father, was behind her, in the company of another individual whose identity she doesn’t remember. At that moment, Gerry placed both knees on the floor, hit the floor with both hands, too, placing himself like a praying arab, and shouted out twice in rage, and it was not possible to understand what he said. Then Gerry got back on his feet and accompanied the deponent and the other individual who was in the GNR car, to apartment 5A.

Already on location, the deponent entered the apartment and asked those who were present both for the passports of all family members and photographs of the missing person. The deponent walked Gerry to the GNR car, so he could deliver the requested documents. She states that she carried out these diligences, and other diligences, at the request of the GNR Commander as they used the deponent’s knowledge of the English language to translate the questions that were asked from the missing person’s family members, and the answers that were given. She remembers that Gerry gave the GNR Commander several photographs of the missing person. These were postcard-type photographs, taking their size and shape into account. They were actually photographs of the size and shape of a postcard, and they seemed to be all similar to her.

She also realised that from the very first moment on, both Gerry and the rest of the group members insisted in stating that Madeleine had been abducted, all of them using the word “abducted” instead of missing, and they all showed great interest in informing the press about the situation.

The deponent further recalls that she entered the room where Madeleine had been sleeping. She now remembers that the door was closed. The inside of the room was dark. The shutters were down, and light entered only through its holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who accompanied the deponent during this visit, with the GNR officers also present, said that it had been him who had closed the window because the babies were still sleeping inside, which the deponent could verify as true. Gerry mentioned that when he noticed that Madeleine was missing, he had found the window and shutters open, and the curtains fluttering.

The deponent recalls that the cots that were used by the babies were placed in the middle of the room and aligned, and therefore she found it strange that someone could have taken Madeleine from the bed where she was sleeping up to the window, because there was no space to get through. The deponent opened the bedroom’s wardrobe to check if eventually Madeleine was hiding inside. Then they all left the room, and someone closed its door again. The deponent remained in the living room for a while, with the GNR officers, Gerry and the other group members that were there in a frenzy, going in and out and speaking on their mobile phones. She noticed that none of the group members, including the child’s mother and father, were busy looking for her. The mother was sitting on the master bedroom’s bed, the father accompanied the deponent and the GNR officers and the other group members walked in and out and spoke on the phone, apparently concerned about informing the press about the event.

She thought that the child’s mother was downbeat with the situation, the father showed his concern and also asked both for the press to be alerted and for dogs to be brought in for the search. Concerning the others, she can only recall that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical about the situation. At a given moment, right after the PJ’s elements arrived, the child’s parents removed the twins from the cots where they still slept, and took them into the apartment on the first floor. At Kate’s request, the deponent removed the soft toys and a blanket from the cots, and also took them to the first floor. The babies’ cots were left only with the mattresses.

The deponent also wishes to mention that at around 3 a.m. Madeleine’s parents asked for the presence of a priest on location. They didn’t explain the reason why they wanted a priest, but the deponent found the fact strange as there were no indications that the little girl was dead, and that’s the circumstance under which usually the presence of a priest is requested.

At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette. This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child. The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man. She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.

When questioned about the clothes that the English group members wore that night, she mentions that she only remembers that Fiona wore a green blouse, Gerry wore a dark coloured shirt, and Fiona’s husband wore light-coloured trousers, she thinks cream-coloured.

And she stated nothing further.”


Witness statement of Silvia M C R Batista, 26.07.2007, page 1975 of process 221/07.0GALGS



19 comments:

  1. I'm happy this lady immediately thought it was a strange story.
    Abducting and taking the child through the window.
    Tapas 9 calling telling about the abduction.
    That proves again Maddie could not have died at 9.10 pm.
    The group would not have had time enough to discuss it among themselves.No time enough and no privet space, because they could not discuss it at the Tapas.
    Interesting is that nobody of Tapas 9 doubted about the abduction.No wondering about other possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. None of those highly qualified professional people(Tapas9) though of securing the "crime scene" to preserve any evidence that could have been there! Everybody in and out incessantly, and Gerry CLOSED the window himself, he touched a vital piece of evidence, the very same window he claimed was used by the abductor to escape! Yet, that window did not have Gerry's fingerprints on it, the investigators only found one set of prints, Kate's fingerprints, in a position of opening the window.
    Why didn't they remove the twins to another location immediately? Oh, but no, they did not touch the infants, in fact it seems that the twins were the only "thing" they preserved in the crime scene, that they did not touch or move!

    Those postcard sized photos were mentioned in an article by 24Horas(I think...), and it seems that the police could never get a reasonable explanation for how those were available so soon on that night. They were printed in "professional" photographic paper, that glossy thick one, not in regular printer paper and could not have been made in any facility of the Ocean Club! How weird that they could produce those, how normal is it for people to travel on holiday carrying several identical postcard pictures of their children?...just one more of the many mysteries that surround this case...

    Rosie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry closed the window, BUT there were no fingerprints other than Kate's on it! This reminded me of another thing, if the patio doors were left unlocked and some of the Tapas and the parents used it to acess the apartment on their "checks", I wonder who's fingerprints( if any) did the police find on those sliding doors?
    I cannot remember reading anything regarding fingerprints on those doors, does anyone know if there's any mention to this subject in the files?
    If indeed those sliding patio doors were left unlocked( and I have doubts on this), this could have been the "abductor's" way in, but why would he leave through that small window? Why not use the front door? Was this locked with two turns of the key or was in only on the latch? In Portugal, doors usually cannot be open from the outside even if they are only "on the latch", but can be opened from the inside. However, if the door has been closed with two turns of the key it cannot be opened from the inside, not without the key.
    I hope you can make sense of what I'm saying, why would an abductor enter via the patio doors and them escape the difficult way, by the window if there was a chance to leave though the front door? It's a pity Mr. Amaral did not comtemplate this scenario in the documentary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This whole thing makes no sense whatsoever, nothing that the McCanns say happened that night (any of the various versions of what they say) makes any sort of sense, even taking panic and stress into account, NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE.
    How many weird things can happen, no phones no watches but regular checks, diapers and rotten meat my a$$, why not even look at the dogs video, it almost sounds like he KNEW what was on that video and was more than ready to rubbish it. Are they in denial, all of them??? How can it be that nobody searched, it was only an hour maybe two after the little mite was discovered missing by her mother.
    And why check under the beds there was no space to hide. This whole story with the window and shutters makes me wanna HOWL for chrissake! Jemmied shutters, they told everyone in the UK but they weren't jemmied, they were working so well they even closed them!!!!!!
    There is nobody more blind than those who don't WANT to see.
    England, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Thanks Joanna & Astro. Thank you for not going away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amaral could not tell everything on his documentary.

    The investigations are only shelved and not closed forever.

    It would not have been wise of him
    to tell everything he and the PJ know and suspect.

    Investigations are like playing chess.

    You don't show the other person what you are intending to do much later, on the game.

    By the way: when finally are the Mccanns going to sue Amaral?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, I asked yesterday questions that could be taken as I doubt Amarals take on things, let me straighten it out, I beleive she died that night, possibly as stated, I just doubt it happened when Gerry was speaking with Jez, it must have happened earlier for the cadaver odour and for them to plan the ensuing cover up....My personal theory is Madeleine was the victim of violence and died as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Speak your mind,

    I agree with you and I'm sure Amaral and the PJ agree with you as well.
    For some reason, Amaral did not tell it on the documentary.
    And this documentary was filmed last year, I think during the Summer.
    Not long ago I read an interview with Amaral(I forgot where, maybe Joana remembers it) where he says-for the first time- that there are 3 suspects: Kate, Gerry and David Payne. Payne left the apartment at 7.00 pm.
    She must have died before 7.00 pm, I think, and he saw it happening.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Madeleine died of an accident before 7pm, there should not be a reason to hide her body. Most fatal accidents happen at home according to statistics. At least two doctors were present at the moment, the mother and Payne.Even if she had fallen down those stair cases, it would not have been Kate's fault.A child can suddenly run away.But there was no DNA on those stairs.
    Taking Calpol before 7pm, in order to fall asleep, would have been too early, I think, because the parents would leave after 8.30pm.
    I believe the child died before 7pm and the autopsy would bring Kate in difficulties.
    It could even bring Payne in difficulties, somehow.
    He did not interfer in the accident, protecting the child.
    Or worse.
    That's why he had the monitor and did not leave the table.
    He could even be involved in the accident.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Silvia Batista"s statements are crucial.
    "That she has given statements for several times within the process, and remembers the contents of what she stated before, therefore reproducing the contents of the previous statements into this statement"
    It is when seeing the actual stake of Madeleine"s photos post card like,looking all alike that she was "alerted"....and then the rest...

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is my (fictional) theory of what happened, a group of peodophiles were on holiday, a child is last seen at about 5.30pm, sometime after this the child is molested and runs behind sofa to hide, she then dies there (dogs scent death and blood here). She is then hidden temporarily in wardrobe in parents room so siblings dont see her. The parents then dispose of body either with or without friends help. They dont want body found as it would show signs of longterm sexual abuse. The mother opens window (only her prints are found here) to make it look like an abduction. It is more likely all were involved. The body is disposed off long before alarm is raised. The whole party then continue to claim an abduction had taken place. Just because they are British and professionals, does not mean they are not involved in some sordid activity, they would also be well aware that with people going in and out of apartment, they would be disturbing any potential evidence. These people aren't stupid, just very cunning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Muitissimo bem pensado e decidido o facto de aqui colocarem a transcrição de "Witness statement of Silvia M C R Batista, 26.07.2007, page 1975 of process 221/07.0GALGS"

    As nossas memórias e os factos devem ser lembrados constantemente.

    Vá lá,já há mais quem pense na morte enquanto o paidos.d.p. lá esteve.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It troubled me for a long time, why if the parents were involved would they hide body if death was accidental, the answer is clear, longterm sexual abuse would show up differently from something that happened close to death or postmortem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is also common for peodophiles to pass photos of children around between them, when my children were young and we went away, the only photos of them we had with us were in their passports and on film in camera ready to be developed on return home.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Janf,,etc,

    what do you mean by longterm sexual abuse.

    What can you see in a child, in this case?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lets just say that as doctors they would know. Remember all these people have a lot to loose if the truth came out, not just careers. I have worked with NSPCC and peodophile rings, including women are more common than people think, especially in professional circles, although sexual abuse committed by a mother is in the lower percentages from fathers/stepfathers/uncles, it is still a lot more than anyone would imagine, these rings are very hard to break because of the level of involvement by people in high places.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Im with you , janf58 i have said it on my blog many times, this exoplains payne saying we have a pact, it explains dumping the body, it explains the accusations re payne, it explains why so amny people high up ahve assisted in aiding the McCanns to get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is a silence now around Madeleine.
    Amaral is now silent too.
    Who knows he will bring us a surprise.
    Who knows his documentary will be broadcasted from the USA to the UK, one of these days.
    Or broadcasted from Ireland.
    Let us hope.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello there,

    Oprah,Mccans & Money:
    first of all in the world of Gerry,
    Kate & Oprah there is nothing free of cost!
    If someone helped Gerry to cover Madeleines body for money then Gerry will need really this milion from Oprah to pay for the silence of this people.
    Thats why, I think he'll allways need cash and we will never know wherever the money ist going.

    have a nice weekend,

    Maria

    ReplyDelete
  19. dois anos depois do caso maddie e sempre através do blogg de Joana Morais, pudémos seguir passo a passo a evolução do processo - graças ao valor da informação que aqui tem sido dada. e o ciclo começa realmente a fechar-se e as coisas a fazerem sentido. Amaral não disse tudo no documentário, e não será por acaso. Terá as suas razões.Provavelmente a criança não terá morrido ás 9 horas mas antes, como aliás já foi sugerido muitas vezes neste blogg. E as razões são justamente as que aqui são apontadas. Evitar uma autópsia era essencial. De facto, não haveria tempo para combinar tudo entre o grupo, para «lavar» o apartamento com lexívia (como o foram pelo menos as paredes), para esconder o corpo, para que o odor a cadáver permanecesse, etc.
    Não espanta mas horroriza. O poder destas organizações de pedofilia é enorme: lembremo-nos da Bégica, de Regina Louf, de Dutroux, etc. Da forma como os políticos eram incriminados nas «festas» de forma a nunca mais falarem. Felizmente hoje temos a net, os bloggs e Joana Morais. Parabéns Joana.
    ana Castro

    ReplyDelete