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** 08.07.18 14:54

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THESE DISCREPANCIES STARTED TUESDAY MORNING INDICATING THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING

DID SOMETHING HAPPEN BEFORE THEN?

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.]

This is the first of MANY examples of discrepancies found by comparing statements on the timetables that I have compiled

Title: THURSDAY Timetables for COMPARISON
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One would EXPECT that on the DAY AFTER Maddies disappearance it would be EASY to remember who picked up Maddie and the twins... NOT SO!

* GERRY claims HE picked up Maddie and Kate picked up the twins
* KATE claims SHE picked up Maddie after going back to the apartment first, and cant remember who picked up the twins
* FIONA claims She went with KATE straight from the rec area
* CATRIONA cannot remember who picked Maddie up
* STACEY claims (in an informal interview) that the MOTHER picked up the twins

The creche records for the twins are MISSING for Thursday morning.
The police Diagram of Events for Thursday morning is BLACKED OUT!

DO THE POLICE SUSPECT "SOMETHING'?

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

by **HiDeHo** 08.07.18 18:00

One NEWLY discovered discrepancy (well I have only just discovered it)

The creche records for Thursday for the twins are missing from files, but in an informal interview Stacey tells us that the PARENTS dropped the twins off at 9.30am (Kate should have been playing tennis)

Who was looking after the twins when Gerry (supposedly) dropped Maddie off at 9.10am (it was a 10 minute walk to Maddie creche. USUALLY twins were dropped off first!

Stacey says GERRY dropped them off in the afternoon at 2.30pm (same time as the last photo was taken) Records say it was KATE at 2.50pm (to allow for last photo?)

STACEY P Informal interview
3. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30 and that the mother picked them up at 12.30;
4. That it was the father who dropped them off at 14.30 and that it was the mother who came to fetch them at 17.30;

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

by **sandancer** 08.07.18 18:56

HiDeHo wrote:One NEWLY discovered discrepancy (well I have only just discovered it)

The creche records for Thursday for the twins are missing from files, but in an informal interview Stacey tells us that the PARENTS dropped the twins off at 9.30am (Kate should have been playing tennis)

Who was looking after the twins when Gerry (supposedly) dropped Maddie off at 9.10am (it was a 10 minute walk to Maddie creche. USUALLY twins were dropped off first!

Stacey says GERRY dropped them off in the afternoon at 2.30pm (same time as the last photo was taken) Records say it was KATE at 2.50pm (to allow for last photo?)

STACEY P Informal interview
3. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30 and that the mother picked them up at 12.30;
4. That it was the father who dropped them off at 14.30 and that it was the mother who came to fetch them at 17.30;

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

" and that it was the mother who came to fetch them at 5.30 "

Yet Kate tells us that they were all at high tea with Gerry when she got back from her run on the beach !

by **HiDeHo** 09.07.18 2:48

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?

One thing that has always amazed me is that the three Paynes, walking together to the tapas APPARENTLY met Matt walking up to the apartment to 'chivvy' them

However... the four of them all clam they met at different places....

Matt met them by the front entrance...

Fiona claims they met by the gate of Apartment 5A

David claims they met by the Swimming pool

Initially Dianne was VERY SURE they did not meet Matt at all!....

HOWEVER... In her rogatory interview Dianne remembers that Dave and/or Fiona REMINDED her! (Seems to be a LOT of reminding before the rogs...

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

This inspired the "Message to Matthew' which was meant as just a regular post but ended up on many websites with the message being sent to his hospital at the time.

Title: HiDeHo's Message to Matthew Oldfield
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is the timetable that I used to discover the discrepancies between their statements

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

by **HiDeHo** 10.07.18 2:52

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?

According to Kate and Gerrys May 4th statements they claimed Madeleine had asked why they didn't come because the TWINS, were crying.

May 11th Gerry CHANGED it to Sean and Madeleine

Sept 6th Kate CHANGED it to Madeleine.

Kate said in an interview that she would never have thought about that comment again if Madeleine hadn't been abducted... So WHY do Jane and Fiona claim she told them at the table on Thursday night?

Oddly, the didn't claim she said it was the TWINS (as per Kate and Gerry's statements the following morning...)

They repeated the CHANGED story, that it was Sean and Madeleine that cried....

Were they told the story AFTER Maddie disappeared and the story changed? If so... WHY did they claim they were told at the table on Thursday night?

Was the comment REALLY said?

Was it to justify crying in the apartment?

Was it to suggest Maddie was still alive on Thursday?

Why was it changed?

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

The timetable that highlighted the discrepancies in their statements....

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

by **HiDeHo** 10.07.18 12:27

Kate denies the crying in the first video...

Second video compares the three 'crying' episodes

RECOMMEND to turn volume down before starting vid...some people find the simulated crying distressing. (One of my very first vids)

by Phoebe 10.07.18 17:56

IMO what Kate is denying in the above video clip is the interviewer's suggestion that Madeleine and Sean were "very upset", rather than the claim there had been any crying. She would have been aware of the dim view the public had taken of them leaving little children alone at night while she and Gerry went off to wine and dine. She consistently down-played the crying episode in several other interviews as well as this one. She claimed in another that " they must have fallen asleep again (after waking and crying) very quickly and that Madeleine "moved on" immediately after making this statement. I think she was attempting damage limitation. It was bad enough that they left such young children alone, but alone and crying smacks of heartless negligence given that they continued to leave them after Madeleine allegedly claimed they had been crying and wondering where their parents were!

by Guest 10.07.18 21:51

It was Kate McCann who raised the subject in the first place, during her witness statement taken on 4th May 2007, by the PJ..

Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.

At that stage she wouldn't have known anything about Pamela Fenn's statement taken so many weeks after the event, or indeed any other possible witness. On the night of Thursday 3rd, Jane Tanner and her other half Russell O'Brien were alternately in their own apartment - allegedly, if any of the McCann children were distressed, the Tanner/O'Brien's were only three doors away. In a quiet resort at night chances are they would have heard a child crying/screaming.

I believe the event was but fabrication, another attempt to indicate that the McCann children were being watched by a stranger in preparation for abduction - remember Gerry McCann suggesting someone may have been lurking in apartment 5a when he checked on the children on the Thursday night. What did it matter that different members of the group told different versions of the same story, there is no proof, it's just their word as with every other aspect of the case - their testimony alone and they know it!

There is no proof the children were left alone; no proof the patio door was left unlocked; no proof that the child checking system ever happened; no proof no proof no proof - or in the words of Gerry McCann - no evidence no evidence no evidence.

by **HiDeHo** 10.07.18 22:56

I realise there are many issues regarding the 'crying' incidents.

I wanted to point out Discrepancy [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that shows they CHANGED their statement from Madeleine saying the TWINS were crying to it becoming Madeleine and Sean a week later (and its the CHANGED version that Fiona and Jane claim even though they were supposedly told Thursday when Kate apparently was claiming it was the twins until the following morning May 4th Statement.

WHY did they change it?

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

by Phoebe 11.07.18 1:14

The cleaner, Maria da Silva, "confirmed" (in her statement) that there was a child's cot in the parent's bedroom on Wednesday morning. I do believe in the crying episode heard by Mrs. Fenn. I think the crying report changed from "the twins" to "Sean and I" to give the impression that all three children shared a bedroom every night, which may not have been the case. I also suspect that the McCanns feared somebody was bound to have heard Tuesday night's crying and deliberately changed the day to make any other report about this, which might emerge, seem confused and unreliable. There was no reason for the police to suspect on May 4th that Madeleine hadn't been alive and well on that day. The nannies testimony and creche records stated that she was. Therefore there was no need to invent a crying episode on Wednesday to convince people that the child was still alive. I believe the crying episode is rooted in some kind of truth and that the McCanns were trying to preempt any reports of it by muddying the waters.

by **HiDeHo** 11.07.18 5:15

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

Who took the tennis photo and when?

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

IS THIS THE EXIF DATA FOR THIS PHOTO?

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

by willowthewisp 11.07.18 14:22

Hi HiDeHo,You do of course realise,that whatever you uncover,there is a perfectly explainable valid reason for what has happened in regard to Madeleine McCann.

As per the bullshitter supremo Clarence Mitchell,alongside all of the Government "Illusionists",who have found nothing out after eleven years,Operation Grange, No one believes you anymore,its a farce!

Okay you've colluded to Cover Up what has happened to Madeleine McCann,that can be your "Official Version" until your blue in the face,people are Not buying the fiasco anymore,your making yourselves the laughing stock of the World?

Maybe people don't give a shit anymore,that all they can see are lies after lies espoused as the "Truth from finally starch white/Black uniforms" of fancy dress,who now sit in the House of Frauds,collecting £300.00 per day as their pay off,making sure certain proposed Laws never become Laws,that can be put into practice!

by joyce1938 11.07.18 20:46

has anyone else recalled an evening ,when the macs kept the kids and took back to tennis courts where Gerry was playing .that was the time Maddie ran around and collected the tennis balls .The photo was taken there .???joyce1938

by suzyjohnson 17.07.18 0:34

joyce1938 wrote:has anyone else recalled an evening ,when the macs kept the kids and took back to tennis courts where Gerry was playing .that was the time Maddie ran around and collected the tennis balls .The photo was taken there .???joyce1938

If I remember correctly, the photo was taken when Madeleine attended a tennis lesson, which, I think, was the Tuesday morning.

Kate said she had forgotten her camera and ran back to the apartment to get it.

Both Jane and Kate claimed to have taken this photo, and so I thought there might originally have been two very similar photos in existence.

by NickE 17.07.18 8:09

suzyjohnson wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:has anyone else recalled an evening ,when the macs kept the kids and took back to tennis courts where Gerry was playing .that was the time Maddie ran around and collected the tennis balls .The photo was taken there .???joyce1938

If I remember correctly, the photo was taken when Madeleine attended a tennis lesson, which, I think, was the Tuesday morning.

Kate said she had forgotten her camera and ran back to the apartment to get it.

Both Jane and Kate claimed to have taken this photo, and so I thought there might originally have been two very similar photos in existence.

If it was taken during mini tennis, there's two questions.
Why did she not wear a bracelet?
Why did they had adult balls?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 17.07.18 8:49

If I was an innocent parent I would be desperate to clear all this up just too get everyone off my back.

The McCanns with all their money have never tried to address people's doubts.

In fact all they appear to have done is use the money to try and shut people up in the courts.

They certainly had the means to explain everything if they wished.

by sar 17.07.18 11:28

....an explanation costs nothing, silencing someone in court, how much???

by Guest 17.07.18 12:48

NickE wrote:If it was taken during mini tennis, there's two questions.
Why did she not wear a bracelet?
Why did they had adult balls?

I was recently looking again at the subject of the tennis balls, I think a degree of caution should be exercised when opining on the type of balls Madeleine is clutching in the tennis photograph. This is a good clear image for comparison..

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

Can it be stated with authority that these ^^^ balls are any different from this ball..

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

by skyrocket 17.07.18 14:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - unless the child in the blue top you have posted is playing tennis during a MarkWarner (organised) children's tennis session, it has no relevance. Does the photo have any description? The photo posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] clearly shows a MW tennis instructor and I think anyone will be hard pushed to find a contempary photo to the MBM tennis ball photo which shows MW instructors using adult balls with young children.

In his rogatory, Russell is proof reading a statement he made a couple of days earlier. At one point he says the following:

Reply    “Yeah, she was certainly, yeah, she was, she was English, you know, clearly not a, not a local. Erm, next it says ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’, I mean, it wasn’t so much struggling to get the picture, it was struggling to find the means of printing it. We had the cam, we had Kate’s camera, erm, the, what we were trying to do is find a picture that actually gave a good likeness, rather than just being any old shot it actually had, you know, a close-up of her, of her face. There were a lot of pictures on the camera but they were, you know, just at home and on, you know, in profile and things like that”.

1578    “Yes”.
Reply    “So we had, we”.

1578    “So to the words ‘we were struggling’, ‘but we were struggling’ need to be removed'”
Reply    “Erm, yeah, ‘we tried to find’, I think, it’s fairly irrelevant, I think, you know”.

1578    “So'”
Reply    “’We were trying to find a picture but we’, you know, delete ‘but we were struggling’. ‘Kate checked the camera’. Erm, I don’t actually remember saying that Jane had taken the picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson, in any case, it wasn’t that day it was the day before that Madeleine and Ella were in the group, erm, on a different day doing the tennis. I think, you know, it’s fairly, I think it’s fairly irrelevant anyway, I don’t think Jane did have a picture from the tennis lesson. So I think that that could all go, I think that ‘Jane had taken a picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson that day’ could all go and then put, the main thing here was, erm, ‘We were searching for a printer and Kat, one of the Nannies, said she had a printer’. I’m pretty sure it was Kat. So this paragraph’s quite”.

So, either Russell had said 2 days earlier that Jane had taken the tennis photo or the police had added the line (which seems improbable). If Russell had said it, why did he retract it? Jane either took it or she didn't - the proof would or wouldn't be on the O'Brien/Tanner camera and surely over the previous 12 months this would have been a fact which would have been discussed and checked in the O'Brien household - I don't believe for an instant that the T7 came back to the UK and stuck their heads in the sand. Involved or innocent bystanders in a child's disappearance, either way, the topic of discussion in each of the households would have been dominated by what had happened in Luz, IMO.

Looking at it again, it is interesting that Russell doesn't actually deny that Jane took the tennis ball photo - what he says could be read as Jane did take the photo but not at the tennis lesson. Whatever the truth, it is clearly a sensitive point for Russell.

by Guest 17.07.18 15:13

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - unless the child in the blue top you have posted is playing tennis during a MarkWarner (organised) children's tennis session, it has no relevance. Does the photo have any description? The photo posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] clearly shows a MW tennis instructor and I think anyone will be hard pushed to find a contempary photo to the MBM tennis ball photo which shows MW instructors using adult balls with young children.

Balls - I speak of balls!

As I seem to have confused you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I'll put it another way .... can it be said beyond a shadow of doubt that the tennis balls Madeleine McCann is clutching in the photograph are adult tennis balls and not children's tennis balls? A rhetoric question by the way.

Without having access to the data from the original photograph it's impossible to determine when, why, where and by whom it might have been taken. Trying to make sense of the Tapas group statements is akin to sticking your feet in a lake of treacle in the hope of wading across to the other side.

Impotant thing to remember is the fact that the McCann team released three photographs which, if taken at face value, account for a living healthy Madeleine on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May 2007. No other photographic evidence of Madeleine and her family together during the week 28th April-3rd May 2007. That's where the clue lies - lies in more than one sense of the word.

by NickE 17.07.18 15:54

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:If it was taken during mini tennis, there's two questions.
Why did she not wear a bracelet?
Why did they had adult balls?
I was recently looking again at the subject of the tennis balls, I think a degree of caution should be exercised when opining on the type of balls Madeleine is clutching in the tennis photograph. This is a good clear image for comparison..

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

Can it be stated with authority that these ^^^ balls are any different from this ball..

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

Is that picture taken during mini tennis in an MW resort?

by **Jill Havern** 17.07.18 15:56

Another child wearing sandals to play tennis...

by Guest 17.07.18 15:58

NickE wrote:Is that picture taken in a MW resort?

Not relevant - balls is balls is balls.

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

thumbsup

by Guest 17.07.18 16:07

By popular demand, an image taken at Mark Warner's Levante Beach resort in Greece..

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

2thumbs

by NickE 17.07.18 16:46

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:Is that picture taken in a MW resort?

Not relevant - balls is balls is balls.

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

I do believe it's relevant because I've seen about 10 photos from a MW minitennis lesson for kids in that age with an MW coach and in all of them they've used red/yellow tennisballs and that's it 100%
So, the probability that this photo was taken during mini tennis is low.
British media claimed she was picking up balls when her parents played tennis but if I remember correctly from the files, statements...was Madeleine signed in at creche at the times when G & K played at the same time.

by Guest 17.07.18 18:13

So, the probability that this photo was taken during mini tennis is low.

But not impossible.

Balls are balls.

This is balls.

by **HiDeHo** 18.07.18 1:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] DISCREPANCY Mini Tennis Pt 2)

Was TUESDAY the last time Rachael saw Maddie?

Maybe its important to understand the timeline of Maddie's group mini tennis day.

At least...what we are told.

PLEASE NOTE: I don't usually consider incorrect days as a discrepancy in themselves (especially for rogatories...though it MAY be they were specifically changed) but their descriptions SHOULD synchronise with the activities. In Rachaels statement she claims it was Thursday and that it was last time she saw Maddie....and talks about siting with Kate by the pool when (according to statements) Kate had 15 mins to get back to the apartment after her lesson and return to see Maddie arrive and during that time meet the maintenance men.

ALSO NOTE:

Rachael claims it was Thursday (was she mistaken by the other groups mini tennis?)

Jane claims it was Wednesday (the day tennis was postponed because of rain)

CLICK SPOILERS TO VIEW STATEMENT PORTIONS

Apparently Kate plays between 9.15am and 10.15am

Gerry takes twins to creche for 9.20 and Madeleine to creche at 9.30 (10 mins away)

10.00am - 10.30am - Maintenance men arrive at Apartment 5A to fix shutters and show Kate how to operate the washing machine

Maintenance Luis Felipe Monteiro Ferro :

Kate finishes tennis at 10.15am and returns to apartment (before or after the maintenance men had arrived?)

Gerry starts playing at 10.15 - 11.15am

Madeleine's group arrive at 10.30am according to booking sheet but 10.00-11.00 according to Georgina.

Rachael claims she was sat with Kate when Maddie arrived

Rachael describing May 3rd! wrote:Reply “That would have been from sort of, you know half nine, ten o’clock onwards, we were chatting when Madeleine arrived for the tennis lesson with the rest of the children from her group, erm I think that was probably about ten thirty, erm and Gerry was there then as well, I think he’d been having a lesson on the tennis courts I think, he was having group lessons, so I think he might have been having his lesson sort of up until then,

Rachael claims Gerry was there as well BUT whichever day she claims (Tuesday or Thursday,) Gerry was having lessons until AFTER the mini tennis group left.

Rachel describing Maddies tennis lesson on THURDAY (instead of Tuesday) wrote:Rachael describing Maddie's group mini tennis on THURSDAY and not Tuesday according to tennis records.

Rachael:

Georgina Jackson Tennis Coach:

Jane Tanner claims mini tennis was Wednesday

Jane Tanner:

Russell OBrien:

When one studies the many statements and regardless of which day is referred to, they SHOULD all add up to a timeline that is relatively credible... It does NOT seem to fit....SOMETHING was happening by that morning....

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

by joyce1938 18.07.18 6:55

WAs it Tennis OR the boat trip ,that it was said ,she went on itand was scared of the water boat to begin with . bet settled down after .joyce1938

by ferrotty 18.07.18 9:06

Re the Maint men fixing the shutters what was the issue with them?

by Guest 18.07.18 11:45

Witness Statement Mario Domingos Moreira - 8th May 2007

Occupation: Handyman

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Discrepencies

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Latest topics