Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  chirpyinsect on Sun 24 May 2015, 7:21 pm

Not sure if this has been discussed but I noted the times mentioned in this statement and thought it was odd. Surely a mistake?
Witness Statement

Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Date: 2007/05/16

Occupation: Property Manager

Place of Work: P da L


He comes to the process as a witness and of his own will.

He has lived in P da L since 1996.

He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P**** B******, a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.

He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present.

When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.

When asked he says that he has known Robert Murat for about 3 or 4 years, making clear that his relation with him is limited to 'good morning' and 'good evening'.

When questioned he says that he did not see Murat on the night of the events and he makes it clear that if Murat had been at the scene he would have remembered.

He adds that he was not on the scene for much time as he went to search the beach areas.

On that night, the last time he was at the scene was at about 01.00, he did not see Murat at that time either.

On the following morning, 4th May he also participated in some searches and, as in his professional capacity he manages apartment 5E of the OC Garden (in the same block as the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared) he suggested that the authorities should visit that apartment, in case someone had tried to enter it while it was unoccupied.

He went to the apartment with a GNR officer and after a few seconds Robert Murat also entered the apartment without anyone having requested his presence.

The witness says that he found Murat's presence in the apartment to be strange, adding that after he entered the apartment he gave the witness a 'pat on the side' and said 'thanks for your collaboration'. During this situation the witness thought that Murat worked for the police. On that morning the witness saw Murat moving around the site a lot and saw him enter and leave the apartment Madeleine disappeared from, without knowing whether he was with anyone there. He said that Murat moved a lot between the authorities and journalists.

When asked, he thinks that on that morning Murat was wearing a yellow shirt and light coloured trousers. The witness cannot be certain but he thinks those were the clothes Murat was wearing.

When asked he adds nothing, except that he found Murat's behaviour strange and that he did not see him except for this morning other than on the television news.

Reads, ratifies, signs.

Also note what he says Murat was wearing.
I have looked through several photos and can`t find one of him wearing yellow. Here are a couple taken in the immediate days after when he was helping to search and translate.




_________________
Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4624
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  Mimi on Sun 24 May 2015, 8:09 pm

Following on from the above, I found this blog with all the `alarm times`.

The blog is called Just Five Hours In May and is full if easily accessible info. Don`t know who created it.

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=alarm-witnesses

"The eight independent Alarm witnesses

For the crucial point of the time the Alarm was raised by Kate McCann on the 3rd May there are eight independent witnesses apart the Tapas-9:

Stephen Carpenter →statement

Time: 21:15↔21:30 (average 21:23)

Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine, Ocean Club guest Stephen Carpenter and his wife left the Tapas bar to go home: “We walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi-circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I. They were about six metres away from me and I calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling “Madeleine, Madeleine”, this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance”.

Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja →statement

Time: 21:20↔21:40 (average 21:30)

21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples…

Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom →statement

Time: 21:30↔21:40 (average 21:35)

Property manager B.J.J.W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21:30 – 21:40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlántico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in Praia da Luz, and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine. He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21:45 – 21:50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.

Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira →statement1 →statement2 →statement3

Time: around 21:45 (average 21:45)

Dinner finished at around 21:45 and some minutes passed where waiter R.A.E.D.L.O. looked towards the table but saw no one—his colleague told him that all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;

Fitness instructor/Waiter J.R.S. →statement

Time: 21:30 ↔ 22:00 (average 21:45)

Between 21.30 and 22:00 Fitness instructor/Waiter J.R.S. went over to the table and joked with Dianne Webster: “They've left you alone?” She responded more of less with these words: “No, they went to see if the little girl was there.” I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man, who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21:30 and 22:00 but do not remember with certainty.

Maria Manuela Martins da Silva →statement

Time: before ←21:58

M.M.M.d.S. declares that on the night 03 May 2007, she left the apartment at around 21:58 - she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge;….After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. …States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment…

Helder Jorge Samaio Luis →statement

Time: 21:30 ↔ 22:00 (average 21:45)

Receptionist Ocean Club H.J.S.L. was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 21:30 and 22:00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. He immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.

Maria Jose dos Santos Rosa →statement

Time: before ←22:00

Bar chef M.J.d.S.R. heard about it on that night at about 22:00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millennium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.

Independent Average time for Alarm already raised -> 21:37



_________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
Jiddu Krishnamurti

avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3392
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  Guest on Mon 25 May 2015, 2:55 pm

Yes, some of those early times are really perplexing.

In the case of the Dutch witnesses it can't be because of Dutch local time because it would have been one hour later. (E.g. If he hadn't changed  the time on his watch) . But he says the police arrived about 5 minutes later when they were there around 10.55 so he's simoly wrong anout the time I think.

There is a case to be made that the alarm was to have been earlier and it had to be repeated  because certain people/things were not ready/in the right place.

One witness says that at 10.02 the carpark and block G were completely quiet. She had the exact time.

Re: Murat why is it so difficult to believe that people were acquainted with him?

Quote
When asked he says that he has known Robert Murat for about 3 or 4 years, making clear that his relation with him is limited to 'good morning' and 'good evening'.

When questioned he says that he did not see Murat on the night of the events and he makes it clear that if Murat had been at the scene he would have remembered. Unquote

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  Burst on Mon 25 May 2015, 3:19 pm

Tigger wrote:Yes, some of those early times are really perplexing.

In the case of the Dutch witnesses it can't be because of Dutch local time because it would have been one hour later. (E.g. If he hadn't changed  the time on his watch) .

There is a case to be made that either the alarm was to have been earlier and it had to be repeated  because certain people/things were not ready/in the right place.

One witness says that at 10.02 the carpark and block G were completely quiet. She had the exact time.

I agree. And or, maybe, the alarm had been raised earlier, and has been retrofitted to a later time, since the police were very late anyway, and someone's gambled that the first calls might not have been recorded or might not to have been picked up on by the PJ, whose ranks consist of winedrinking, sardinemunching, easy to bribe Tweedledees and Pompteedompteedoms, so the gambler might have thought.
avatar
Burst

Posts : 210
Join date : 2014-11-08

Back to top Go down

Timelines and important eye-witnesses

Post  poster on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 6:40 pm

I just wanted to bump up this thread because it demonstrates so well how the timelines definitely went completely wrong that evening. There are just too many people hearing of a commotion well before 10pm. I think this supports the idea that the abduction was supposed to have been staged at around 9.15pm (the time of the Tanner-man sighting) but something went wrong.

The 'something going wrong' is closely connected with the Gerry and Jez encounter outside apartment 5A at just after 9pm, imo. I do not believe this was just a random coincidence. The place and the time are both too crucial to allow for a random coincidence, imo.

Family at home had already been told that the drama would kick off at 9.15 with the discovery of jemmied shutters in my opinion. But because there was a last-minute panic no-one had time to tell them about the un-jemmied shutters.

A last-minute 'disaster' occurred and the old plan was in disarray. This would mean that TM (as Matt has so usefully told us in one of his police statements) were left running around like headless chicken and Kate and Gerry are beside themselves as police notice their very strange behaviour.

GM I think is seen by the Smith family at around 10pm so there is a desperate need to change the timelines and have GM innocently sitting at the table at 10pm rather than walking down towards the beach carrying a child who looks like Madeleine.

A later timeline is given for the curtain to rise on the drama - vitally one that provides an alibi for GM at 10pm - and the Matt 9.30pm 'check' is added - to convey the idea that the abductor - Jane Tanner's Tanner-man - had already struck by then as Jane saw him taking away Madeleine. Kate is adamant that Smith-man must be Tanner-man and will not allow the sightings to be two separate ones which must mean that Smith-man is very important as is 10pm.

I really do think Smith-man is crucial to understanding what happened and there was also a very long delay in the e-fits being made public as Tanner-man and other bogey-men were being heavily promoted. TB's insistence that some of the key eye-witnesses are unreliable is mystifying. I can only assume he wants everyone to go around in circles for ever. Mrs Fenn is very important because the crying incident suggests all was not well with Madeleine earlier in the week. By Tuesday night she is inconsolable, imo. I am convinced that things had gone badly wrong by then and Murat's role is to find out what really happened.

The quiz host is another important eye-witness and she has stated she held two quiz nights that week at the Tapas - one on Sunday and one on Tuesday after which she was invited by Gerry to join the TM table for a period of time which she did. This is the evening Kate storms off. A coincidence? Surely not. It provides a good motive for a row that week. The Mcs do not mention quiz nights at all. So it must be sensitive. And the Tapas are really vague about it in a very obvious, imo, attempt to make those evenings appear unimportant.

Tragedies tend not to happen in a flash - events unfold over a period of time and things can go from bad to worse. Things were bad quite early on that week and there is some good evidence for this. An hour and a quarter is an incredibly long period of time for a child of nearly four to be distressed. We KNOW Mrs Fenn is a thorn in the TM side because both Kate and Fiona are rude to her and Kate writes in disparaging terms about her. This is proof as far as I am concerned that she is an important eyewitness . Why would Kate and Fiona not be hammering on her door wanting to know whether she had seen anything suspicious? (Answers on a stamp...)

Mrs Fenn's niece is also a very important eye-witness as she gives an incredibly detailed description of a blond man she sees acting suspiciously by the gate outside the apartment on Thursday afternoon. The Jensen sisters also describe how they saw two blond men on Thursday afternoon acting suspiciously on a balcony near the apartment (5C?) Yet Kate, in her book, morphs these sightings together and produces a sketch of a man with very dark hair of North African appearance! So we know that at least one blond man is important to the narrative. Jez Wilkins is also an important witness and he describes seeing a blond man with 'rasta' hair acting suspiciously in the Tapas between 6.30pm and 7pm. This is in his first police statement. He later retracts this account and gives a different account of what he did that evening. But the point is that is four important eye-witnesses who have reported seeing blond men acting suspiciously yet none of these sightings have been promoted by TM who preferred their abductors to be dark, very ugly and preferably pimply. The Jensen sisters' sighting was ignored to the extent that the pair went back to Luz to speak to TM directly but by then the McCanns were arguidos.

The Smith family are also important and the fact that Kate morphs the Smith sighting into the Tanner-man sighting and will not allow him to be a separate sighting is all the proof I need that the Smith-man sighting was most unwelcome. This was surely one of the main reasons for all the Tapas running around like headless chickens when police arrive? For all they knew the Smiths would go straight to the police and report that they had seen Gerry McCann carrying a child towards the beach at 10pm! No wonder Smith-man didn't answer Mrs Smith's question - if it really was Gerry then how many other men were there that week with heavy Glaswegan accents?

The other really important witness that week is Nigel from Southampton who I have written about extensively. I think he caught TM red-handed filming his daughter in a way that made Nigel uncomfortable. TM 'spin' the episode presumably because they know Nigel will report the event and they want to sanitize it. It would be very interesting indeed to see Nigel's police statement and the photographs he took some of which contain members of TM.

One thing I do agree with is that there is no evidence of Madeleine being at Ocean Club after the cleaner saw the whole family heading off to the Payne's apartment on Sunday. I find this sighting very credible and the timings support the fact, imo, that on this day they followed the routine of their friends with breakfast at Millennium and lunch at the Paynes. Their routine deviates on Monday which is a red flag. Did the first quiz night on Sunday evening lead to a row over GM's interest in the curvy quiz host? I suspect GM first spotted her at the Saturday welcome meeting and he miraculously transformed from the boorish oaf on the airport bus to Prince Charming. A change that Kate would not have failed to notice, imo.

I find the airport bus and boarding the plane sequences believable and I think it is pretty good evidence to support that Madeleine did indeed go on that holiday. The way the family are sitting with Madeleine next to Lily Payne I find quite believable. What is interesting is why did TM release it and when? There must be a reason.

I still can't wrap my head around how difficult it must have been to keep Madeleine away from the other children if indeed something untoward happened early on? Lily Payne travelled with her and she would have met up with all the other children on Saturday at Millennium and then spent a lot of Sunday with them - all meal times. How could that Tapas adults stop the other children from becoming curious about where Madeleine was? The lack of photos and Kate's book do support, imo, the idea that by Monday Madeleine is being kept away from the wider group. That was the reason I feel sure that after Sunday the McCanns deviated from the routine of their friends and had both breakfast and lunch at the apartment. Wouldn't the police have been interested in this? Surely this is a huge red flag in the context of a child going missing in suspicious circumstances? To my mind it places a clear time-boundary for the start of things going wrong. There was a need to keep her separated from the other children by Monday, imo.

Sorry if this is a bit repetitive - I know most of this has been said before but I am trying to build up a picture of exactly when things started to go wrong and why? What were the triggers?
avatar
poster

Posts : 1501
Join date : 2015-06-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  Nuala on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 11:11 pm

"The lack of photos and Kate's book do support, imo, the idea that by Monday Madeleine is being kept away from the wider group"

What about the twins? There are no photos of them either.

What about the Tapas diners? There are no photos of them as well.

"after Sunday the McCanns deviated from the routine of their friends and had both breakfast and lunch at the apartment"

Why do you believe what the McCanns say?
avatar
Nuala

Posts : 82
Join date : 2015-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  chirpyinsect on Mon 19 Jun 2017, 6:55 am

Nuala wrote:"The lack of photos and Kate's book do support, imo, the idea that by Monday Madeleine is being kept away from the wider group"

What about the twins? There are no photos of them either.

What about the Tapas diners? There are no photos of them as well.

"after Sunday the McCanns deviated from the routine of their friends and had both breakfast and lunch at the apartment"

Why do you believe what the McCanns say?

Good point about believing what the Macs say Nuala. Everything must be taken with a pinch of salt and we shouldn't assume X happened because it was in their statements, Kate's book or Gerry's blog. It may well be that the Tapas lot didn't want the Macs to involve them any more than absolutely necessary so they created an artificial distance during most of the week. That way there were less chances for mistakes. In other words, whether they were together or not, the official line was to say the Macs did their own thing.
As for the no photos thing; All we know is there are no photos in the files of the twins or the Tapas diners. That doesn't mean there were none taken.

_________________
Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4624
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  poster on Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:48 pm

Nuala wrote:"The lack of photos and Kate's book do support, imo, the idea that by Monday Madeleine is being kept away from the wider group"

What about the twins? There are no photos of them either.

What about the Tapas diners? There are no photos of them as well.

"after Sunday the McCanns deviated from the routine of their friends and had both breakfast and lunch at the apartment"

Why do you believe what the McCanns say?

I think that lack of photographs and filming of the group is a deliberate attempt to avoid photographic 'evidence' of who was where, when, with who and why that week. There is a need to 'muddy the waters.'

The lack of photographs of the twins I suspect is designed so that photos will not 'trigger memories'. Remember, 'confusion is good'.

I don't believe with the Mcanns say. On the contrary. But in among the lies are occasional nuggets of truth and sometimes the lies reveal the truth, imo. However there is evidence from the cleaner that the whole McCann family followed the routine of the group on Sunday. After that, I suspect that Madeleine was hidden away and the twins were kept separate from her.

A good 'excuse' for this would be that the family choose to dine alone at breakfast and lunch every day after Sunday. In reality I suspect that the twins were 'farmed out', quite possibly separately, among the other families after Sunday. This would create a blurring of where people were. I have no idea whether the McCanns had breakfast and lunch at their apartment each day. But in saying this it gives them an excuse to keep their children - especially Madeleine - away from the rest of the group. Why the need to separate from the group? I thought they were all 'so into each other?' Why didn't Madeleine join her friends for breakfast and lunch?

Several of the Tapas rogatories refer I do believe to the fact that the McCanns had breakfast in their own apartment rather than going to the Millennium and I think also say that they do not always join them for lunch at the Paynes.

If it can be 'proved' that the whole family were seen happily out and about right up to Thursday evening, then that would give the McCann abduction story some credence.

But the fact is there is no 'proof' that Madeleine was seen at OC after the cleaner's sighting on Sunday lunchtime. No reliable photos or footage. The creche signatures don't prove that Madeleine McCann was there as they could be forged and I find kiko's analysis compelling. The nannies could be mistaken about the true identity of Madeleine and could also have been 'lent on'.

Why were so many crucial details retracted or changed? Madeleine McCann had a colomboma, then she didn't. Madeleine wouldn't answer to 'Maddie' according to Kate yet there is abundant evidence that the family and friends did refer to her as Maddie. And in the early press reports the name 'Maddie' was used. Whey did the family not retract this?

I think the indications are that this was supposed to be a giant media hoax, quite possibly with TV dramas, films and even plays as a spin-off. There was a 'disaster' and it all went wrong. But the McCanns still milked it for a very long time. Kate wrote her book and it was serialized in the press. The pair jetted around the world and became involved in missing people organizations. They had more than their moment of glory and at their peak were being feted by the Pope, if you please.

Still, in general what goes up also goes down and as time went on their story began to look more and more tawdry and just plain nonsense. With police ruling out Tanner-man the entire foundation of the abduction falls apart. There is quite literally not one shred of evidence for the abduction and also for their claim that Madeleine had been well and happy and enjoying the holiday right up to Thursday evening. Remember, we have Kate's long-winded account of bedtime on Thursday when Madeleine allegedly says it has been the best day of her life or something equally unlikely. We have Gerry stating he went into the bedroom on Thursday and admired Madeleine sleeping thinking how lucky he was. We have David Payne allegedly seeing all three children looking so well-cared for and happy and content like little angels on Thursday late afternoon/early evening.

I'm sorry but these are just words. There is no EVIDENCE for this. Plus there is over-embellishment. Why the need to point out how happy and well-cared for Madeleine was. This is just over-egging the pudding, imo. I think that other Tapas adults are slightly more guarded about when they last saw Madeleine. Which would indicate to me that it is Kate, Gerry and David Payne who are in the midst of the 'pact of silence' and are at the thick of this. The other Tapas adults, while still involved at some level, imo, are more on the periphery. Matt gives indications of being disgusted with GM in that reconstruction of his 9.30pm check on the Thursday evening for the Madeleine was Here reconstruction. GM, in that reconstruction, looks like a rabbit in the headlights and guilty as hell, imo.

And I think that the lack of photographic and other evidence of Madeleine being at OC after Sunday lunchtimes points towards her having been hidden away after Sunday for reasons which are not clear and may never be clear.
.
Some have pointed a finger towards some kind of photo-shoot taking place earlier in the week (possibly at Burgau - there is a thread on this over the way which is fascinating if at times macabre?) I would not rule this out. TM seem to have strange ideas about photographs of children. Some of the photos of Madeleine that were produced at various anniversaries are inappropriate, imo, showing her in awkward adult poses and one looking sad wearing make-up. Some of the 'Madeleine was Here' filming of the McCann family 'chez nous' is decidedly weird, imo.  We know that the Gaspar statements were withheld from the press. Nigel Foster might also be another very interesting witness here.

Theorizing, as always.
avatar
poster

Posts : 1501
Join date : 2015-06-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Barend Jan Jacob Weijdom

Post  poster on Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:55 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Nuala wrote:"The lack of photos and Kate's book do support, imo, the idea that by Monday Madeleine is being kept away from the wider group"

What about the twins? There are no photos of them either.

What about the Tapas diners? There are no photos of them as well.

"after Sunday the McCanns deviated from the routine of their friends and had both breakfast and lunch at the apartment"

Why do you believe what the McCanns say?

Good point about believing what the Macs say Nuala. Everything must be taken with a pinch of salt and we shouldn't assume X happened because it was in their statements, Kate's book or Gerry's blog. It may well be that the Tapas lot didn't want the Macs to involve them any more than absolutely necessary so they created an artificial distance during most of the week. That way there were less chances for mistakes. In other words, whether they were together or not, the official line was to say the Macs did their own thing.
As for the no photos thing; All we know is there are no photos in the files of the twins or the Tapas diners. That doesn't mean there were none taken.

That is indeed a good point. Maybe it was the Tapas who distanced themselves from the Mcs rather than the other way around.

Also, I presume that if sometimes untoward had happened earlier in the week the other Tapas parents would also feel a 'duty of care' around their own children to protect them and to not upset them unnecessarily. Maybe it is only Kate, Gerry and David Payne who really know what happened and while the other Tapas had an inkling, they may not have completely been in the picture.

I can quite understand why they might want to distance themselves, and especially their children, from the Mcs. Perhaps they all got unwittingly drawn into something that was most unwelcome and they went into damage limitation mode early on. Still, it cannot be denied that, by all dining together on the Thursday evening and witnessing Kate and Gerry's dramatic behaviour, they have allowed themselves to become quite heavily implicated in the plot. Plus Jane Tanner's Tanner-man. Infuriating not to be able to pull all the pieces together.
avatar
poster

Posts : 1501
Join date : 2015-06-23

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum