Re: 1-13 now the 14th (McCanns paid £500,000 to Lord Bell and £30,000 to Hanover See BP secret vid) of MANY Discrepancies. Who Was Lying?

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 13:00

Jill Havern wrote:For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read the chapters relating to the tennis balls photo in PeterMac's e-book:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The same chapters have been posted here on the forum for anyone who wishes to comment as comments are disabled on the blog because it's a reference tool.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Jill.

Agree PeterMacs ebook is VERY important though could you check the links above? Not sure why I don't seem to be getting a link to the book.

by **Jill Havern** 19.07.18 13:12

How very odd! I'm getting waybackmachine PJ files and creche records huh

How the heck can that happen?

Same links, both work ok now.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Verdi 19.07.18 13:47

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I 100% agree with your reasoning and the direction of your research. I've said it to you before: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is but one rather loud (unempathic) voice on here, and don't forget there are thousands of others reading this from the wings who never comment but absorb and appreciate all of your work.

I don't know if you are aware, HiDeHo was quite recently seeking volunteers to assist with her 'statement discrepency' project - if you have the time to spare you might be interested. I can't find the link to HiDeHo's call for help as I don't know where it was posted but I'm sure she can fill you in with the details of what's required.

Please excuse the intrusion if you've already been in contact with HiDeHo on the subject, I'm not aware of what goes on behind the scenes as it were.

by skyrocket 19.07.18 14:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yes, I saw [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s request last week but my time is an issue. Thanks for the heads up anyway - perhaps you would like to get involved?!

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 14:27

Thanks Jill.

I urge EVERYONE to read Petermacs Chapter 22 in reference to the Tennis Balls Pic along with my posting here.

One thing that has been established throughout the years, is that many of us that have researched independently, Petermac, Kiko, Tony, Dr Martin Roberts etc and myself have ALL arrived at a similar scenario regardless of us approaching in a different manner...

We are all aware that (likely) every individual piece of information can be discredited in some way. Thats life.

Have we ever seen a researcher that has explained THOROUGHLY and in the detail that we all present, the holiday scenario that the T9 WANT us to believe? Not that I have seen!

One could say that Kate's book does just that.

As I see it her book addresses ONLY the details we have discussed and offers no more detail than that which we already 'know'. eg Kates description of Maddies clothes. Why are the ONLY (as far as I recall) comments about Maddie's clothes directed towards what she was wearing in the two main photos? As cute as Maddie was, I fail to see any reason for the lengthy description of a simple Tshirt and shorts socks and sandals... EXCEPT, maybe, to bring attention to the date of the photo...

Where are the additional comments about that week? Everything written appears to address/justify all of our discussions

She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a
peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts
from Monsoon.
A small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in
them and I’d been right. She was striding ahead of me, swinging her bare
arms to and fro. I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for
her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and
carefree.
I was following her with my eyes admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising
in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.
A couple of days before, during Gerry’s tennis lesson, Madeleine came to the
adjoining court with the Mini Club for a mini-tennis session. I stayed to
watch them. It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in
Madeleine that morning.
She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening
intently to instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and
shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our
apartment for my camera to record the occasion.
One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine
clutching armfuls of tennis balls.

Moving on... and thanks [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for your words of encouragement.

There is no question that I value the timelines and statement discrepancies, its what I base all my posts on as well as the videos (10,868,801 views) and as of today 13,000 views a DAY! :)

I was in the process of compiling, what I feel, is a very important issue, so I will post as soon as I get the time to complete in full, in the hopes that those who have any interest will let me know what their thoughts are....

by dennistounbrar 19.07.18 14:38

Duplicate post deleted. Mod

by dennistounbrar 19.07.18 14:39

dennistounbrar why no wristband? wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read the chapters relating to the tennis balls photo in PeterMac's e-book:
Why no wristband in tennis ball photo

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The same chapters have been posted here on the forum for anyone who wishes to comment as comments are disabled on the blog because it's a reference tool.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Jill.

Agree PeterMacs ebook is VERY important though could you check the links above? Not sure why I don't seem to be getting a link to the book.

by Verdi 19.07.18 15:32

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You have posted the same quotes twice but there is no comment from you. Are you having problems posting?

by **Jill Havern** 19.07.18 15:50

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Verdi 19.07.18 16:04

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has just logged-out confused

.

ETA: Oh I see - 'why no wristband' was the comment - I think $i don\'t know$ .

by **HiDeHo** 21.07.18 12:09

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Mini tennis pt 3)

IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAPHICS BELOW... The 'watermark'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For those that believe the mark is a permanent marking on the tennis courts then this post will be of no interest to you.

For those that, like myself, feel that this may be a watermark during the process of drying then there are SEVERAL questions to be asked.

In the first photo I included a photo of my own driveway in the process of drying after rain. The markings are VERY similar to those on the tennis pic.

I have inserted a portion of the tennis pic in graphic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to show the similarity.

Also in graphic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it shows how 'marks' are made during cleaning, semi circular... similar to what may be apparent on the tennis pic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Example of watermarks created during drying process

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Semi Circular marks which seem to appear on tennis photo above

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If this marking IS a watermark, then WHEN did the court get wet and apparently only got wet to the edge of the green area and was drying inwards?

Tuesday Tennis Booking sheet (above) shows that Court 1 was to be cleaned Tuesday lunchtime

Court 2 seems to have 'cleaning' cut out. Is this from PJ or is it because both courts were not cleaned at same time so one was always available for use? (Used at lunchtime by guests) Court 1 was cleaned on Tuesday.

We only have records for Tues, Wed and Thursday and no sign of cleaning on Wed/Thursday ... so could Court 2 have been cleaned on Monday?

QUESTION: How long after a court is wet, before guests are allowed on the court to play? (in early May temps)

As far as we know there was no serious rain until Wednesday morning and the lessons were resheduled for the afternoon.

IF we are to believe that this photo was taken during mini tennis (10-11am Tuesday) and IF it is a watermark (certainly comparable to ashalt drying markings) then WHEN and HOW did the court get wet?

Lessons were scheduled for 9.15am

Any cleaning would have had to have been well before 9am

With no rain until Wednesday and IF this shows a watermark as well as the circular markings similar to a cleaning, this photo could NOT have been taken at mini tennis.

Why did Kate claim it WAS taken Tuesday morning?

What are the repercussions if she was discovered to have LIED about when the photo was taken?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **HiDeHo** 22.07.18 11:28

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - DELETED TEXT MESSAGES

Why did Gerry deny them and WHY were they so important that the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR applied to SUPREME COURT about a month before the shelving

They started to arrive WEDNESDAY morning at 8am. Were the PJ aware of something having happened by then? IS THAT WHY THEY WERE IMPORTANT?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

McQuestions [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - Why did you DENY 14 text messages?
(Note how Gerry denies SIXTEEN messages)

PJ Forbidden To Read McCanns' Mobile Phone Messages
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

McCanns in Expresso - Interview
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Times Online May 28, 2008 -Edited judgment from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora in the investigation of Madeleine McCann: 29/04/2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Daily Mail May 28th 2006
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

SKY - Thursday May 29, 2008
Gerry Denies Receiving Mystery Texts
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CLICK ON SPOILER to view individual graphics

CLICK HERE TO VIEW GRAPHICS:

by **HiDeHo** 22.07.18 12:54

A REMINDER OF DISCREPANCIES TO DATE (Added to OP on first page)

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Who picked Madeleine up from creche on day she disappeared?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why do all of the Paynes and Matthew pass each other at different locations?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why did McCanns change Maddies 'CRYING' comment from TWINS to Maddie and Sean?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (1 of 3)

Who took the tennis photo and when?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Mini Tennis Pt 2)
Was TUESDAY the last time Rachael saw Maddie?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Mini tennis pt 3)
IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAPHICS BELOW... The 'watermark'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - DELETED TEXT MESSAGES

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by NickE 22.07.18 13:56

HiDeHo wrote:DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Mini tennis pt 3)

IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAPHICS BELOW... The 'watermark'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For those that believe the mark is a permanent marking on the tennis courts then this post will be of no interest to you.

For those that, like myself, feel that this may be a watermark during the process of drying then there are SEVERAL questions to be asked.

In the first photo I included a photo of my own driveway in the process of drying after rain. The markings are VERY similar to those on the tennis pic.

I have inserted a portion of the tennis pic in graphic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to show the similarity.

Also in graphic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it shows how 'marks' are made during cleaning, semi circular... similar to what may be apparent on the tennis pic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Example of watermarks created during drying process

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Semi Circular marks which seem to appear on tennis photo above

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If this marking IS a watermark, then WHEN did the court get wet and apparently only got wet to the edge of the green area and was drying inwards?

Tuesday Tennis Booking sheet (above) shows that Court 1 was to be cleaned Tuesday lunchtime

Court 2 seems to have 'cleaning' cut out. Is this from PJ or is it because both courts were not cleaned at same time so one was always available for use? (Used at lunchtime by guests) Court 1 was cleaned on Tuesday.

We only have records for Tues, Wed and Thursday and no sign of cleaning on Wed/Thursday ... so could Court 2 have been cleaned on Monday?

QUESTION: How long after a court is wet, before guests are allowed on the court to play? (in early May temps)

As far as we know there was no serious rain until Wednesday morning and the lessons were resheduled for the afternoon.

IF we are to believe that this photo was taken during mini tennis (10-11am Tuesday) and IF it is a watermark (certainly comparable to ashalt drying markings) then WHEN and HOW did the court get wet?

Lessons were scheduled for 9.15am

Any cleaning would have had to have been well before 9am

With no rain until Wednesday and IF this shows a watermark as well as the circular markings similar to a cleaning, this photo could NOT have been taken at mini tennis.

Why did Kate claim it WAS taken Tuesday morning?

What are the repercussions if she was discovered to have LIED about when the photo was taken?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'am working on this Lizzy.
I have an onging conversation with a Tennis Court expertise about this right now and I'am coming back to you, I have alot of questions for him;)

by **HiDeHo** 22.07.18 14:23

NickE wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Mini tennis pt 3)

IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAPHICS BELOW... The 'watermark'.
I'am working on this Lizzy.
I have an onging conversation with a Tennis Court expertise about this right now and I'am coming back to you, I have alot of questions for him;)

That is really smashing NickE Thanks so much

Although I tried, I haven't yet found any definitive answer to whether it was a WATERMARK or whether it was a permanent stain. (which I doubt very much)

As mentioned.... as there seems to be no way that the court could have become wet prior to mini tennis then this would be a HUGE discrepancy meaning the photo was NOT taken on Tuesday morning and therefore Kate would be LYING about when the photo was taken!

Any other suggestions?

by joyce1938 22.07.18 15:39

Does it seem strange that if Jane took picture of maddie ,did she take on of her daughter also? was her daughter there at that time ? can we find out if it was tennis for kids ,or maddie on her own helping pick up balls t a time we cant be certain of ? If the court was stained and not dry yet ,could it have been taken after about 12 30 pm.Just wondering .joyce1938

by **HiDeHo** 22.07.18 16:30

joyce1938 wrote:Does it seem strange that if Jane took picture of maddie ,did she take on of her daughter also? was her daughter there at that time ? can we find out if it was tennis for kids ,or maddie on her own helping pick up balls t a time we cant be certain of ? If the court was stained and not dry yet ,could it have been taken after about 12 30 pm.Just wondering .joyce1938

Only Rachael claims that Jane took the photo but Russell doesnt believe she did. Kate claims SHE took the photo.

Kate claims it was at mini tennis, but there seem to be issues as to whether it WAS taken at mini tennis

Court 1 was cleaned Tuesday we don't know if Court 2 (mini tennis court) was cleaned at the same time or if it was cleaned Sunday or Monday (we don't have those booking sheets)

According to the McCanns they all went to the beach on Tuesday so Maddie would not have been on the courts after the cleaning that day.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **HiDeHo** 25.07.18 15:51

DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Why did the McCanns DENY a cot was in their room on Wednesday morning?

Context...

* This was the morning after Mrs Fenn's claim of crying for an hour and half the night before (Tuesday night)

* Kate received (Tuesday night) a 'flurry' of calls between 10.15pm and 10.30pm (approx)

* Quiz mistress cannot claim that she saw Kate at Tapas restaurant Tuesday evening.

* Wednesday morning, Kate made early morning calls to her friend Amanda

* Gerry started receiving the 14 (denied) text messages (that the prosecutor applied to Supreme court to get info in May 2008)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

McCanns Cleaner describes going into the apartment on Wednesday May 2 2007

by ferrotty 25.07.18 16:03

Could it be that they had to move it to their room so they could clean up the blood etc.

by **HiDeHo** 25.07.18 16:35

This bed doesn't appear to show that Kate spent a few minutes in this bed as she claimed....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 26.07.18 7:54

I'm not sure what you mean HiDeHo.

That was taken on Friday. The few minutes claim was Wednesday night.

by Verdi 26.07.18 11:49

Reference to cleaner claiming she saw a cot in the parent's bedroom.

She could have been mistaken. Cleaning is a menial job with a minimal wage, a daily drudge. You go in, mechanically do the job and out again, the only incentive is a tip at the end of the week.

I can't see why the emphasis on where the children or parents slept at any one time. If there was a cot placed in the parent's bedroom it would be easy enough to explain why.

You word against theirs, without evidence it's worthless.

by Guest 26.07.18 12:49

I can't see why the emphasis on where the children or parents slept at any one time.

I think Kate said sleeping in a separate bed was a first time.

"First time" anything in an investigation is a red flag.

My opinion is that she may have been keeping an eye on Madeleine for some reason.

by Guest 26.07.18 13:00

In fact I think Kate said it in a TV interview but I can't find it.

Something about they never/rarely argue or fight and that her sleeping in the other bed was a first.

by **HiDeHo** 26.07.18 13:40

Verdi wrote:Reference to cleaner claiming she saw a cot in the parent's bedroom.

She could have been mistaken. Cleaning is a menial job with a minimal wage, a daily drudge. You go in, mechanically do the job and out again, the only incentive is a tip at the end of the week.

I can't see why the emphasis on where the children or parents slept at any one time. If there was a cot placed in the parent's bedroom it would be easy enough to explain why.

You word against theirs, without evidence it's worthless.

As I have mentioned before...

Every issue in this case can, and has been, 'explained' individually by those that support an abduction. We are all aware of that.

Here is ONE example of how it was accomplished to try to discredit this issue.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am not only pointing out each individual discrepancy, but I am attempting to show the sequence and how the volume. (as I can see) start by Tuesday morning.

In a similar way each cadaver alert may not be any great indication on its own but the VOLUME tells a story.

I 'discovered' this issue many years ago, and of course it's up to us all individually to decide if the 'DISCREPANCIE' are of any value...

HOWEVER... it appears the PJ (who had unofficial discussions with the cleaner) decided it was important enough to bring to the attention of UK

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1-13 now the 14th (McCanns paid £500,000 to Lord Bell and £30,000 to Hanover See BP secret vid) of MANY Discrepancies. Who Was Lying?