"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?"

E.  The damage done to the shutters by Gerry McCann on the Sunday or Monday morning

Repairs to the shutters of the McCanns’ apartment were needed on the Monday; Ocean Club staff came to mend them that day. We find this a curious incident. Is it possible that the McCanns and advisers were already planning to claim that the shutters had been jemmied open and smashed by the abductor on Thursday? (as indeed they did so claim). If so, they would need to demonstrate that the shutters were previously in good working order.


To me the shutter evidence ties into the evidence from the Wayback Machine in that it supports my theory of an aborted plan to raise the alarm much earlier in the week. When it was decided that there were too many stray ducks, an attempt was made to shove the genie back in the bottle before the plan went 'live'. [forgive the mixed metaphors]

However, the arrogance of the Tapas 9 didn't allow for the sardine munchers to question accounts of their movements during the week as closely as they did.  There were still too many stray ducks on Thursday but it hardly mattered considering the high up help they were receiving.

As for Murat/McKluskeyman/Smithman, it appears that Murat was much better connected than the Tapas were initially aware of. Once Murat was in the frame, help in the form of counter-accusations against GM were forthcoming. Two 'factions' were at work here and briefly at odds until a summit was convened to iron out their differences...

I hope I'm not going off on a tangent here but I'd like to toss this little gem into the pot even if it has nothing to do with haplo whatevers. It does however show the incredible level of support from the wealthy that the McCanns have and continue to receive and it is to do with DNA testing (I'm probably wired after reading Peter Mac's blog).

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-tycoon-attacks-scurrilous-allegations-as-he-comes-out-as-mccanns-secret-funder-1-703067

It's well worth a read.

Apologies if this is going off on a tangent.

Tony Bennett wrote:

I continue to assert that the likelihood is that those two hairs were from Robert Murat and Jane Tanner. I have highlighted the most relevant passages:

Well Tony, I think you are still 100% wrong and so does the PJ.

If there were 10 hairs from 10 different people in that room the chances are one would match.

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange. Therefore, in order to clarify this situation, a clarification was requested from that Institute, pages 4320 and following, which, in its reply, is peremptory in stating that there are haplotypes that are identical among each other, in a percentage that is still significant, pages 4325 to 4328. This means that the hair that was found inside that residence, while possessing the same haplotype as JANE TANNER, belongs to someone else.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Tony Bennett wrote:QUOTE

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange.

REPLY: This may not have sounded 'viable' or 'logical', and may have been thought 'very strange', back in 2007 - but now that we have uncovered the Krokowski/Lourenco deception & fabrication, hairs of Jane Tanner and Robert being found in the Krokowskis' apartment seems

...viable...

...logical...

...and not so strange  

Oh come on Tony....

I respect your work, but you know you have to keep to real world (otherwise you open yourself to attack).

The mitochondrial DNA group that Jane Tanner belongs to covers a significant portion of European population is is virtually worthless as evidence as THE PJ THOUGHT.

HiDeHo wrote:
I have so many discrepancies listed for that day that when you look at the complete picture you realise none of it was as we are led to believe but to compile is a huge task and before I do the discrepancies listed throughout the day I have to show the day as THEY want us to believe.

Amen to that!  Good luck with the work in progress - as with all of you tenacious workaholics, I admire your relentless endeavours to uncover the truth behind the Madeleine McCann's disappearance.



I will keep a lookout on your domain but if you could give us a nudge from time to time it would be appreciated.  Always seems to be something new to be read and assimilated - I can't always keep up.

aquila wrote:I hope I'm not going off on a tangent here but I'd like to toss this little gem into the pot even if it has nothing to do with haplo whatevers. It does however show the incredible level of support from the wealthy that the McCanns have and continue to receive and it is to do with DNA testing (I'm probably wired after reading Peter Mac's blog).

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-tycoon-attacks-scurrilous-allegations-as-he-comes-out-as-mccanns-secret-funder-1-703067

It's well worth a read.

Apologies if this is going off on a tangent.

Thanks aquila for the link - fascinating read. Winyard , Bronson and Kennedy behind the parents from the start. I would love to hear their stance now.

aquila wrote:I hope I'm not going off on a tangent here but I'd like to toss this little gem into the pot even if it has nothing to do with haplo whatevers. It does however show the incredible level of support from the wealthy that the McCanns have and continue to receive and it is to do with DNA testing (I'm probably wired after reading Peter Mac's blog).

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-tycoon-attacks-scurrilous-allegations-as-he-comes-out-as-mccanns-secret-funder-1-703067

It's well worth a read.

Apologies if this is going off on a tangent.

I recall reading that comparatively recently.  It's incredible, at least to me, how so many wealthy high profile immediately jumped on the McCann bandwagon so convinced of their innocence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.  He of Stobo castle, Sir Richard Branson (what a pickle he's in), Sir Philip Green (pilferer), Brian Kennedy (double glazing genius) - to name but a few.  Then we have the lesser beings like Clarence Mitchell.

The DNA issue is the reason I recently mentioned the forensic physician Dr. Jason Payne-James, who amongst other things happens to be a forensic scientist for the Home Office, who (the Home Office not Dr. Payne-James) apparently sanctioned the forensic examination of the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns.

Tony Bennett wrote:

roy rovers wrote:So if Murat's return to PdL was part of this, then under what pretext was he persuaded to return? He couldn't just have been called up and asked to come to PdL or even to come to PdL because a child had died - as his obvious response would have been 'Call the police and report it'. No he must have been called up and reminded that he 'owed' them on account of past goings on which might help point to the cause of death IMO.

@ roy rovers

There are other possibilities.

One is that Murat had long ago been recruited by MI5.

How was it, for example, that he was able to translate for both Norfolk Police and for the PJ, apparently without being a qualified, registered, interpreter?

How was it, for example, that the British Ambassador recommended that Murat be taken on as a translator from Day One?      

Let us remember that MI5 are capable of the most despicable of dirty tricks to achieve their aims - like blackmailing people by setting up cameras at Kincora Boys Home, Northern Ireland, to film men abusing boys there, and then recruiting them by showing them the films. They will descend to unspeakable depths, like willingly watching boy after boy being sodomised, in order to pursue their sick interests.

They could have got Kincora Boys Home closed instantly, and prosecuted the perpetrators of the abuse.

But, hey, no: Instead they actively promoted this depraved abuse of innocent children.   

Let us also recall that Robert Murat must have had a very good - or, rather, a very bad - reason for comprehensively lying to the PJ, when first questioned) about what he was really up to on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May 2007.

Why bring MI5 into it?

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:
I have so many discrepancies listed for that day that when you look at the complete picture you realise none of it was as we are led to believe but to compile is a huge task and before I do the discrepancies listed throughout the day I have to show the day as THEY want us to believe.

Amen to that!  Good luck with the work in progress - as with all of you tenacious workaholics, I admire your relentless endeavours to uncover the truth behind the Madeleine McCann's disappearance.



I will keep a lookout on your domain but if you could give us a nudge from time to time it would be appreciated.  Always seems to be something new to be read and assimilated - I can't always keep up.

Thanks Verdi...This is something I have wanted to do for more than 6 years

I have only had the list of discrepancies to pass around, but its a lot of information to take in at one time and one needs to have an overview of the week for it to start to have meaning...

I am trying to make it as user friendly as possible with all the photos associated with the 'story' to help those that havent got everything mapped out in their head and that will also help to be a reference for anyone needing photos,

Once I get to the discrepancies I KNOW that even I will be shocked at the small portion of the day that MAY be truthful...

I doubt there will be much of the day that didn't need hiding and covering up...after all it was countdown to the 'abduction.

Try and count how many discrepancies before 9am in this video!  (I will be moving this topic when I have finished the 'Thursday  that they want us to believe' and subsequently...how each of their activities leaves us questioning once the statements are compared and the discrepancies show)'

Verdi... I am hoping to work on a good portion over the weekend, even though I was planning an an essential video highlighting how forensics and Gaspar statements were not available...I'm having trouble finding just the right song...no song....no video as the song tells the story 

roy rovers wrote:

Why bring MI5 into it?

I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

Tony Bennett wrote:

roy rovers wrote:

Why bring MI5 into it?

I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

Fair enough but I think it more likely that Murat 'owed' the McCs or was sent over as a fixer by someone else who 'owed' them due to murky goings on (possibly MI5 but doesn't need to be them to add up).

roy rovers wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

roy rovers wrote:

Why bring MI5 into it?

I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

Fair enough but I think it more likely that Murat 'owed' the McCs or was sent over as a fixer by someone else who 'owed' them due to murky goings on (possibly MI5 but doesn't need to be them to add up).

You have to admit this whole affair has something very double O seven about it.  Dodgy units working for the McCann defence league under the pseudonym of private detectives, deploying under cover agents across the globe to arrange for cooperative members of the public (?) to have seen Madeleine - always leaning towards an Arabic connection because they thought the gullible public would readily accept the inference, us Brits are just not capable of such horrendous crimes as child abuse, prostitution and trafficking - oh no!

The mysterious absence of positive forensic analysis results from the UK laboratories.  The harbouring of the Renault Scenic (important source of evidence) by a wealthy benefactor to carry out their own forensic examination, forensic technicians recommended by the Home Office (who's ever heard the like).   The convenient dismissal of the dog alerts as though they are worthless and play no part in assisting criminal investigations despite the fact they got a whiff of cadavarine and blood connected to the McCann family only.

The biggest red flag for me being the range of hot lines set up for reasons I'm not entirely sure about, ostensibly for the public to call if they have information that may assist but I have my doubts about why, just like Jenny Murat's street stall.  Off the top of my head the McCanns campaign HQ, Oakley International, Alpha Investigations, the CEOP, Leicestershire Police - all had hot-lines.  Then there was the CEOP asking holidaymakers to send their holiday photographs to them and at some point Gerry McCann I believe, made a direct plea to the Irish to send them their holiday photographs from PdL.

All because little Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared from her bed on the night of 3rd May 2007.  Does such an occurrence normally warrant this level of activity - isn't it normally just routine policing that should be left in their hands alone?

That as they say, is but the tip of the iceberg.

For some unexplained reason, the McCanns were quick off the mark to raise the paedophile alarm.  This message was conveniently conveyed to the UK media by the McCann faction and has since been propagated by the UK press, Oakley International, Metodo3, Alpha Investigations and Operation Grange.

WHY ? ? ?

I have, quickly, been going through Matthew Oldfield's  9 April 2008 rogatory  and I have asked myself, would I like to be treated by a DOCTOR, who speaks like this:





 



[MO is being asked]: 'Did you play tennis every day''



Reply 'No, erm, no, I think, I think we tried to play tennis, because they two things, they do sort of organised lessons and we signed up for some lessons which got delayed for weather reasons later in the week, I can't remember if we signed up for those straight away, because we didn't do a group, we didn't do a group lesson which we'd done, when did we do a group lesson, I don't think we did, I think we just did, Rachael and I, erm, with, erm, with an instructor, because I think we felt we'd play sort of socially with everybody else and then we'd have, do some sort of private lessons rather than signing up all week. I'm not sure about that. I don't remember playing any organised games with anybody else, I think we just had sort of three, sort of two or three, erm, proper tennis lessons'.




 
But if one goes through the whole of the M Oldfield's rogatory, it can be seen that he is so unsure of so many things, for most of what happened through the week,  but what is obvious, he keeps wanting to tell the interviewer about the Thursday 3 May, when he remembers, without being asked,  "Thursday was a pretty decent day for weather" and how on Thursday, certain people played tennis, because lessons, that had been arranged for earlier in the week had been cancelled, and then took place on Thursday.

I will paste the link for others to scrutinise, but I will go over this interview, and cross-reference it with other information:


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Here is Matt Oldfield TELLING US, how cold the pools were, and how they were more or less empty throughout the week. Have a close look at what he says about Wednesday, and from my understanding, how Thursday was more or less the same weather as Wednesday:


4078 'What was the weather like during the week''

Reply 'Erm, it was sunny but cold, the pools were freezing, so we didn't, even though the pool was there, it was unusual for people to be in it. Erm, sunny most days, it got cloudy and it rained on the Wednesday and the Wednesday evening was pretty sort of, in the evenings it was very cold, so at the Tapas Restaurant, when we were there, we'd often, you know, you'd need a jumper if you sat outside and there was no heat particularly, erm, and I think Thursday was sort of fairly similar and quite, well certainly at night and I think the rest had been sort of maybe a little bit overcast at times but I'm not really bothered about the sunbathing and if there was a wind you could go sailing and that was'.



Again, despite his loss of memory on so many occasions, MO has a vivid memory of how cold Wednesday was (almost a year after the event)  and how they had to wear jumpers. This sudden return of memory has nothing to do with Jane's statement of how cold Thursday evening was, and how that nasty parent was carrying a child in his arms WITHOUT shoes or a blanket, does it?

Doug D wrote:MayMuse,
 


 
All of the available creche sheets can be found here:
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html
 
As for a timeline, it depends who you want to believe, if anyone.
 
Only ‘definite’s’ are from the Paraiso CCTV footage which can be found here:
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id213.html

Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
For the twins, her signature on the jellyfish page is almost printed, especially the way the letter N is signed.
It is the same signature for signing the twins in and then out.

In the lobsters registration page, the signature  signing Maddie in and out for the morning session is kate's and matches the signatures used for signing in and collecting the twins.
The signature for signing Maddie in for the afternoon session matches the previous signatures.
The signing out for Maddie is markedly different.
It is almost cursive in style and the letter N isn't remotely close to how kate signed her name earlier at sign in for Maddie or sign in and collection of the twins.
Her normal signature shows the letter N as two separate letters, almost printed, yet the signature for Maddie leaving shows the letter N as cursive and almost looking like the letter M, the letter A s also different.

The then begs the question as to who signed Maddie out that afternoon if the signee was not kate as indicated by the different signature?
If the signee was not kate yet signed out as kate why the need to fake a signature?
Where was kate then if she wasn't collecting Maddie?

If it were kate, why the change in signature?
If the signature was forged, why was it done so badly given they had a signature they could have copied?
If the signee was gerry, why not sign his own name?
If it were one of the tapas 7 why not use their own name/signature?

Did the adults collecting the children have to prove they were the parent or approved to collect said child from the creche?
If so, what proof was required, especially since the creche workers would not have been that familiar with the parents of the children, particularly at the beginning of the week?

If the signee was not kate  but one of the tapas group would the staff have noticed the sex of the collecting adult and, if spotting the signature was supposedly that of the mother and yet it was a male that had collected Maddie, was anything said?

Did anyone watch the registration being signed whilst dropping off or collecting a child?
If so, did they not ask why the signature did not match the gender of the name, ie a male signing as kate?
If it was a female would they have been recognized as not being kate and asked why they were signing as kate?
Were arrangements in place to allow members of the tapas to collect any of the children from the group?
If so, was this a usual practice?
If not, why was it allowed?
Who allowed it?

If the signature was added later as the collecting parent had forgotten to sign out, who signed as kate?
Why was it added?
When was it added?

The page was supposedly registration for 3rd May, the day Maddie was allegedly abducted, was Maddie even there?
Since i believe Maddie died earlier in the week allowing time for the almost forensic clean up of the apartment and removal of her body, did any of the creche workers actually remember with certainty seeing Maddie and interacting with her on 3rd may?
If the registration page was signed with a creche worker as a witness are they 100% certain it was Maddie being signed in?

If Maddie died earlier in the week as indicated by the sensitivity in language regarding the beginning of the week, the change in breakfast and lunchtime routines with the mccanns eating  away from the group, who was being presented as Maddie?

Would the child have not told the creche workers they were not called Maddie/Madeleine at some point during the session?
If the child was already named Maddie/Madeleine, and since we know none of the other children in the tapas 7 group was called Maddie/Madeleine, why would they join the conspiracy to conceal Maddie's death?

Were the creche workers involved in the subsequent cover up?
If so why?
How would they benefit?
What could they have lost?

So many questions, so few answers.
When a question does get an answer, it only leads to more questions.

Hobs wrote:

Doug D wrote:MayMuse,
 


 
All of the available creche sheets can be found here:
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html
 
As for a timeline, it depends who you want to believe, if anyone.
 
Only ‘definite’s’ are from the Paraiso CCTV footage which can be found here:
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id213.html

Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
For the twins, her signature on the jellyfish page is almost printed, especially the way the letter N is signed.
It is the same signature for signing the twins in and then out.

In the lobsters registration page, the signature  signing Maddie in and out for the morning session is kate's and matches the signatures used for signing in and collecting the twins.
The signature for signing Maddie in for the afternoon session matches the previous signatures.
The signing out for Maddie is markedly different.
It is almost cursive in style and the letter N isn't remotely close to how kate signed her name earlier at sign in for Maddie or sign in and collection of the twins.
Her normal signature shows the letter N as two separate letters, almost printed, yet the signature for Maddie leaving shows the letter N as cursive and almost looking like the letter M, the letter A s also different.

The then begs the question as to who signed Maddie out that afternoon if the signee was not kate as indicated by the different signature?
If the signee was not kate yet signed out as kate why the need to fake a signature?
Where was kate then if she wasn't collecting Maddie?

If it were kate, why the change in signature?
If the signature was forged, why was it done so badly given they had a signature they could have copied?
If the signee was gerry, why not sign his own name?
If it were one of the tapas 7 why not use their own name/signature?

Did the adults collecting the children have to prove they were the parent or approved to collect said child from the creche?
If so, what proof was required, especially since the creche workers would not have been that familiar with the parents of the children, particularly at the beginning of the week?

If the signee was not kate  but one of the tapas group would the staff have noticed the sex of the collecting adult and, if spotting the signature was supposedly that of the mother and yet it was a male that had collected Maddie, was anything said?

Did anyone watch the registration being signed whilst dropping off or collecting a child?
If so, did they not ask why the signature did not match the gender of the name, ie a male signing as kate?
If it was a female would they have been recognized as not being kate and asked why they were signing as kate?
Were arrangements in place to allow members of the tapas to collect any of the children from the group?
If so, was this a usual practice?
If not, why was it allowed?
Who allowed it?

If the signature was added later as the collecting parent had forgotten to sign out, who signed as kate?
Why was it added?
When was it added?

The page was supposedly registration for 3rd May, the day Maddie was allegedly abducted, was Maddie even there?
Since i believe Maddie died earlier in the week allowing time for the almost forensic clean up of the apartment and removal of her body, did any of the creche workers actually remember with certainty seeing Maddie and interacting with her on 3rd may?
If the registration page was signed with a creche worker as a witness are they 100% certain it was Maddie being signed in?

If Maddie died earlier in the week as indicated by the sensitivity in language regarding the beginning of the week, the change in breakfast and lunchtime routines with the mccanns eating  away from the group, who was being presented as Maddie?

Would the child have not told the creche workers they were not called Maddie/Madeleine at some point during the session?
If the child was already named Maddie/Madeleine, and since we know none of the other children in the tapas 7 group was called Maddie/Madeleine, why would they join the conspiracy to conceal Maddie's death?

Were the creche workers involved in the subsequent cover up?
If so why?
How would they benefit?
What could they have lost?

So many questions, so few answers.
When a question does get an answer, it only leads to more questions.

Also, how many mums forget how to spell their own child's name? Madelene????

This is a great effort well done to all involved  

I don't think the makeup photo is from the same week though !

As Maddie looks a bit younger IMO

Hobs wrote:

Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?

I don't put much emphasis on differing signatures - you should see mine!  It used to be reasonably consistant but not so these days now I don't need to sign anything very often.  With the advent of email and plastic cards signed documents are becoming a thing of the past.

Besides, doctors have a well earned reputation for not being able to write legibly .

I am however curious to learn why on Wednsday 3rd May, Madeleine was was signed in at 14:45H by Kate McCann but signed out at 17:30H by Kate Healy.   Only at a later date to come out with some garbled nonsense about always using the name Healy until Madeleine disappeared when things changed forever - eh ???  No evidence of that either.

Verdi wrote:

Hobs wrote:

Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?

I don't put much emphasis on differing signatures - you should see mine!  It used to be reasonably consistant but not so these days now I don't need to sign anything very often.  With the advent of email and plastic cards signed documents are becoming a thing of the past.

Besides, doctors have a well earned reputation for not being able to write legibly .

I am however curious to learn why on Wednsday 3rd May, Madeleine was was signed in at 14:45H by Kate McCann but signed out at 17:30H by Kate Healy.   Only at a later date to come out with some garbled nonsense about always using the name Healy until Madeleine disappeared when things changed forever - eh ???  No evidence of that either.

Lets presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened

HiDeHo wrote:

Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...

...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

Tony Bennett wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...

...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

So whether one believes something happened Monday or Thursday...she was not Kate Healy on Sunday so that proves her lie

HiDeHo wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...

...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

So whether one believes something happened Monday or Thursday...she was not Kate Healy on Sunday so that proves her lie

Kate said it was the media who called her Kate McCann after Madeleine disappeared, just as she said it was the media who called Madeleine 'Maddie' - that was also a proven lie when Gerry called her Maddie on Friends Reunited, when he deleted the reference to 'babysitting'.