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 ferrotty 18.07.18 13:53

Thanks verdi, my question was asked because no fingerprints were found on the shutters other than Kates own so either they never touched tha actual shutters or they had been cleaned.7

by Guest 18.07.18 15:44

ferrotty wrote:Thanks verdi, my question was asked because no fingerprints were found on the shutters other than Kates own so either they never touched tha actual shutters or they had been cleaned.7

If the McCanns version of the truth is in any way to be trusted, the blind repaired was in the bedroom occupied by the Mccanns, not the children's bedroom.

Kate McCanns witness statement - 6th September 2007

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.

The window in Kate's room was closed and she admits they used the blinds, because Gerry broke them and they were repaired on the Monday; the incident occurred on Sunday.

ETA: Independent witness confirmation..

Luis Felipe Monteiro Ferro witness statement - 7th May 2007
Maintenance worker

Questioned, the deponent states that in the scope of his functions and the day before the disappearance of the child, he only came into contact with the mother of the same, whose name he does not know;

. This happened on Tuesday, the first of May, in the sequence of a service that he had to carry out in the apartment where this family was staying, also known as Block G5, Letter A;

. This serviced was carried out between 10H00 and 11H00, together with his colleague who is named Mario, and consisted of the repair of a blind in the room of the parents of the minor;

. In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine;

. The woman in question was alone in the apartment;

. The only places of the apartment where the deponent and his colleague entered was the kitchen and the parent's bedroom;

by NickE 18.07.18 15:46

HiDeHo wrote:[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.]

10:30 on Thursday?
I think it's very unlikley that they would arrange two different activities for the same group of children at the same time.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lizzy, do you what kind of surface it is on the court in the photo?

by Guest 18.07.18 16:10

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

by **HiDeHo** 18.07.18 19:35

NickE

10:30 on Thursday?

I think it's very unlikley that they would arrange two different activities for the same group of children at the same time.

Lizzy, do you what kind of surface it is on the court in the photo? SEE MESSAGE BELOW

NickE

There are so many discrepancies in my one post above that I understand how it can be difficult...

Maddies group MiniTennis (whether 10.30 - 11am as claimed on Tennis Booking sheet or 10 - 11 as claimed by Georgina the tennis coach was on TUESDAY (the mini sail was on THURSDAY. where, @Joyce, Cat claimed she was scared)

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

Jane claimed (a year later) that the tennis was on Wednesday. To give benefit of doubt I consider that a 'memory' issue but the DETAILS of the mini tennis should be correct.

HOWEVER, Rachael claims she saw Maddies mini tennis on THURSDAY. She claims she sat with Kate before Maddies lesson.. IMPOSSIBLE for Tuesday as Kate finished her lesson at 10.15 and then met with maintenance workers in her apartment.

Kate WAS near the tennis courts on Thursday but it was ANOTHER group from the same creche room, the SHARKS, so Rachael could NOT have seen Maddie on Thursday.

It was during the time the SHARKS were having mini tennis that Maddies group LOBSTERS were 'supposedly' going to the beach for mini sail.

by **HiDeHo** 18.07.18 22:35

Before I move on to any further Mini Tennis discrepancies, I just want to point out something I find interesting about Rachael's rogatory...the police interest...

Regardless of which day she claims Maddie played mini tennis (and because her lesson was at 11 on Court 1 (the minis played on Court 2) one would think she was aware of Maddie playing on TUESDAY and would have been at the courts ready for her lesson as Maddi'e group were leaving.

It seems the police were very interested in when she saw Maddie and specifically asked her which court Maddie was playing on when she saw her...

Rachael was INCORRECT in claiming it was the court on the left (court 1) when Maddies group AND the Sharks played on COURT 2!

One has to wonder WHY this was of interest to the police to go to the trouble of asking that question SEE GRAPHIC

She claimed to have seen her for the last time at mini tennis...WHY would they feel the need to ask WHICH court (were they aware she was not at the mini tennis?) and this brought into question when did she REALLY see Maddie for last time?

When one starts to put all the issues and questions regarding the mini tennis...

Was it only Kate and Jane watching and Kate ran back to get camera after just being at the apartment speaking to Maintenance men?

Was it Kate, Jane, Rachael and Gerry (he was playing on next court with Jez so couldn't have been there)? and JANE took the photo of the tennis balls?(according to Rachael)

Did the minis play on Court 2 as shown on booking forms or was it Court 1 (either Tuesday or Thursday) according to Rachael?

Were ANY of them present at the mini tennis and Rachael unaware of which minis group was Maddies (LOBSTERS) decided to be helpful and claim to have seen Maddie on Thursday (not realising it was the SHARKS that were playing?

If she WAS there, she should have remembered which court (or claimed 'I dont remember')

HOW did Rachael sit with Kate from 9.30 (whether Tuesday or Thursday) when Kates lesson did not finish until 10.15

Was Kate really there? Was Jane really there? Was Rachael really there...

More importantly was this a 'story' that no-one got straight because 'Maddie wasn't there?'

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

by joyce1938 18.07.18 23:03

Just to put another fly ,in the ointment .Does anyone recall a photo at tennis area maybe the one cluting the balls ? and at some point here we were discussing how the court had sort of stains and we spoke about it ,could it have been cleaned ? sorry cant be completlyrecall all of it . joyce1938.

by **HiDeHo** 18.07.18 23:11

To add the context of the day....

Kate lesson 9.15 - 10.15

Gerry lesson 10.15 - 11.15

Mini Tennis 10 (or 10.30) - 11am

Maintenance men arrived 11 - 11.30

Jez played with Gerry and Russell and two of Gerry's friends (Matt and Rachael?)

Jeremy Wilkins wrote:Jez - After the lessons, this time we had a game of doubles together with two friends of his! At this point I established that Jerry and his family had come along with a group of other families, four (4) in totals. The game longed about one hour and a quarter.

At 12.30 (12.20 on creche records) Jez clams to have walked to creche with Russell (or Matt) and Gerry to pick up their children.

Russell did NOT sign his daughter out)

Kate picked up twins according to records at 12.30

At 1.30 they claim to have visited the beach taking the twins in a stroller where they bought 5 ice creams and two drinks and saw a man playing latin music. They stayed 20 mins

On returning they stopped to buy Gerry sunglasses (was this to suggest the last pic was taken after Tuesday because he was wearing sunglasses in the photo?)

Gerry Statement wrote:GERRY on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he and KATE decided to take the three children to Paris da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.
----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a café next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn\'t. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured “kispo” [coat?], with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. On returning they left the children at their crèches, as usual, the parents having gone to play tennis or went jogging.

They returned to drop children off Maddie creche closest at 2.30 (CAT signed Russell's daughter in at same time 2.30) and Kate dropped the twins off (ten minutes away) at 2.30!

I have made a note that there were no other statements from T9 to indicate their activities from 3 -7.30 (This was back in 2010 and I have not checked it thoroughly)

That evening there were many curiosities about the evening time period but before I focus on that I will be posting MORE mini tennis discrepancies before I move on...

by **HiDeHo** 18.07.18 23:22

joyce1938 wrote:Just to put another fly ,in the ointment .Does anyone recall a photo at tennis area maybe the one cluting the balls ? and at some point here we were discussing how the court had sort of stains and we spoke about it ,could it have been cleaned ? sorry cant be completlyrecall all of it . joyce1938.

Thanks joyce (and NicE ) for asking about the court...

YES! This is going to be DISCREPANCY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (mini Tennis Part 3)

I have two graphics which I will add here... but I dont have time right this minute to add details, but feel they are self explanatory until I can get back.

IN MY OPINION... IF this could be proven as a watermark (its highly likely it is, but UNLIKELY to be proven) this picture could be proven to be NOT TAKEN AT MINI TENNIS as Kate claims and therefore the repercussions could be ENORMOUS...

I will be back shortly...

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

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

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

by Guest 19.07.18 0:33

What is the ultimate goal here?

Oldfield says ... O'Brien says ... Tanner says ... Mampilly says ... Payne says ... Webster says ... McCann says ...

The various witness statements and rogatory interview recordings are riddled with contradictions and discrepancies, there is no way anything conclusive or even positive can be deduced.

It's an admirable project but I would like to understand the purpose.

by Phoebe 19.07.18 0:37

Snipped from HiDeHo's post above -

"Kate WAS near the tennis courts on Thursday but it was ANOTHER group from the same creche room, the SHARKS, so Rachael could NOT have seen Maddie on Thursday.

It was during the time the SHARKS were having mini tennis that Maddies group LOBSTERS were 'supposedly' going to the beach for mini sail."

IMO this puts another fly in the ointment. If the Sharks group was playing tennis on Thursday morning it means that only the six children in the Lobsters group went for the mini-sail we have been told about. Among only four girls in that group was, according to Cat, Madeleine, who drew attention to herself by being the only child reportedly so afraid of sailing that she cried and had to be taken onto Cat's lap to be comforted. It is hard to accept that Cat could have mistaken this child for another if there were only 3 other girls there. Also, if the Sharks and Lobsters had mini-tennis on different days (Tuesday and Thursday respectively) then Georgina's tennis group would have comprised only six children, four girls and two boys. IMO it would be highly unlikely that BOTH these adults, Cat and Georgina, could not recall whether they had seen Madeleine at either the the tennis or the sail. If the sail and tennis lesson involved only the Lobsters group then the chances of Madeleine not being noted as either absent or present due to large numbers of children involved does not make sense.

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 0:40

Verdi wrote:What is the ultimate goal here?

Oldfield says ... O'Brien says ... Tanner says ... Mampilly says ... Payne says ... Webster says ... McCann says ...

The various witness statements and rogatory interview recordings are riddled with contradictions and discrepancies, there is no way anything conclusive or even positive can be deduced.

It's an admirable project but I would like to understand the purpose.

Please feel free to ignore any of these discrepancies if the timelines are of no interest to you.

The purpose may not be apparent to some, but for many of us those that are familiar with the timelines, it is VERY important.

I would like to add that after 10 years of studying statements and having hundreds of reference threads dedicated to all the information gleaned, I find it a little disconcerting to find a comment such as above, attempting to minimise the effort.

This forum is to ENCOURAGE people to post their thoughts and not to feel they may be 'intimidated' if they dont onform to some theories or thoughts or methods..

We MUST give the freedom and encouragement to EVERYONE to post opinions freely with no reservations of being questioned as to their reasons or purpose.

Personally, I feel my 'credibility' and knowledge on this topic should be either welcomed OR ignored, everyone has a choice, but to question its purpose is something I find offensive.

I hope others are not too intimidated to post, wondering if they will get a similar response.

by Guest 19.07.18 1:18

Ooops, I was about to respond to your initial reply but you've expanded considerably.

I'll stick with your initial response if you don't mind ..

Please feel free to ignore any of these discrepancies if the timelines are of no interest to you.

The purpose may not be apparent to some, but for many of us those that are familiar with the timelines, it is VERY important.

Yes of course I can ignore but I'd prefer to understand the purpose of the comparisons. In my view the Tapas group's statements stand for nothing as regards unraveling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, for the simple reason it's all contradictory nonsense. Before a court of law, an accomplished lawyer would tear them to shreds but CMoMM is not a court of law.

I don't understand what you mean by 'the many of us those that are familiar with the timelines, it is very important'. Who are the many of us? The timelines as I understand you to mean are part and parcel of the contradictory statements - unfathomable to say the least.

The Ocean Club records are shambolic but in fairness to them, climatic conditions would dictate what activity was held on what day and what time This would apply to the children's activities as well as the adults, I don't therefore feel they can be relied upon as fact.

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 1:41

Verdi wrote:Ooops, I was about to respond to your initial reply but you've expanded considerably.

I'll stick with your initial response if you don't mind ..

Please feel free to ignore any of these discrepancies if the timelines are of no interest to you.

The purpose may not be apparent to some, but for many of us those that are familiar with the timelines, it is VERY important.

Yes of course I can ignore but I'd prefer to understand the purpose of the comparisons. In my view the Tapas group's statements stand for nothing as regards unraveling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, for the simple reason it's all contradictory nonsense. Before a court of law, an accomplished lawyer would tear them to shreds but CMoMM is not a court of law.

I don't understand what you mean by 'the many of us those that are familiar with the timelines, it is very important'. Who are the many of us? The timelines as I understand you to mean are part and parcel of the contradictory statements - unfathomable to say the least.

The Ocean Club records are shambolic but in fairness to them, climatic conditions would dictate what activity was held on what day and what time This would apply to the children's activities as well as the adults, I don't therefore feel they can be relied upon as fact.

Sorry about adding after :)

One of the MAIN reasons I believe something happened earlier is that the discrepancies (ie trying to hide something) started happening about Tuesday morning.

Why would it not be a normal timeline of activities with a few memory issues if nothing happened until Thursday....

Regarding other reasons, then I couldn't even START to explain...

I certainly would be interested to hear from others if they feel the discrepancies and timelines DON'T really serve a purpose or if THEY DO as I was halfway through completing a detailed post and just lost all motivation....

I can take my posts where they will be received with appreciation....

I was under the impression my posts which are BASED on timelines and discrepancies and files info ARE of interest to others... Now I feel like Im flogging a dead horse..

Sorry...

by Guest 19.07.18 2:06

If your work is of interest to others then of course you're not wasting your time.

I will just say, apart from spouting my view on this case, my primary objective is to encourage members and guest readers to profit from the extensive knowledge of the case by using CMoMM as their primary source for factual information and extensive research into the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Not only from a personal perspective but as part of the job as an admin.

It's important to me to to maintain the position of CMoMM as the place to be - the be all and end all. So I ask that you excuse me if I balk when anyone persistently uses the forum to poach support for their own domain - for whatever reason. I like to think we are all in this together with one objective - justice for Madeleine McCann!

grouphug

Keep up the good work!

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 2:42

Verdi wrote:If your work is of interest to others then of course you're not wasting your time.

I will just say, apart from spouting my view on this case, my primary objective is to encourage members and guest readers to profit from the extensive knowledge of the case by using CMoMM as their primary source for factual information and extensive research into the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Not only from a personal perspective but as part of the job as an admin.

It's important to me to to maintain the position of CMoMM as the place to be - the be all and end all. So I ask that you excuse me if I balk when anyone persistently uses the forum to poach support for their own domain - for whatever reason. I like to think we are all in this together with one objective - justice for Madeleine McCann!

Keep up the good work!

Thanks Verdi... I absolutely appreciate the effort and knowledge you add to this forum... I could never take that away from you.

I just hope you understand that I have been basing ALL my posts on files and timelines and discrepancies and aslo ALL of the 300 videos (which I have been able to compile because of the the timelines etc.)

As mentioned, if you are not familiar with the timeline of the week, then I totally understand that you may question my effort...

From my point of view, I have gained more insight into the comings and goings of that week than most.

You may notice I do not get involved with threads of a different topic... I can only post on something I understand and have knowledge of and feel I can have a meaningful input.

As mentioned above.... I am aware how it feels when someone questions the motivation behind a post.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting I have any other motivation than what is real... the reason I post here....

I have NO intention to gain any accolades for myself or my FB group, in fact I post here most often because I like and appreciate the input. FB groups tend to regurgitate a lot of the same info for the newbies... but THAT is worthwhile as each newbie is one more person that is learning about the case.

My ONLY objective here in CMoMM is ONE THING.... and that is to HOPEFULLY add to the information and research that CMoMM is known for.

Not every thought or theory is something that everyone agrees with but EVERY opinion is worthwhile and all I was saying above is that if I feel my motivation depleted because of a comment (whether justified or not)... enough to make me give up half way, and go do something else, then OTHERS may also feel the same.

I do not need or look for accolades.... but if I feel my effort is not appreciated, at least by some, then I need to use my time wisely.

MADDIE is why I'm here... Always have been...Always will be...

by **HiDeHo** 19.07.18 2:53

Verdi wrote:....
It's important to me to to maintain the position of CMoMM as the place to be - the be all and end all. So I ask that you excuse me if I balk when anyone persistently uses the forum to poach support for their own domain - for whatever reason. I like to think we are all in this together with one objective - justice for Madeleine McCann!

Keep up the good work!

I have just reread this portion of your post and would be horrified to think that you suggest I 'use this forum to poach support for my own domain!'

Can you explain WHO that comment is aimed at, because it was used in address to me!

You could claim its generic, but from the context of the post it appears to be referring to why you 'balk' at my posting.

by skyrocket 19.07.18 8:19

[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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], you constantly throw the 'contradictory nonsense' phrase, or similar, at anyone who looks seriously at the rogatory statements, saying that they are 'meaningless nonsense'. I'm sure you are not missing the point that I and others have made in the past and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is making above i.e. that it is the fact that the statements are largely 'contradictory nonsense' which makes them so important, so I wonder why you keep pushing the 'meaningless' angle?

I believe that the rogatory statements are contradictory as a result of a group of people with something to conceal trying their best to recall their lines (contrived between the group or with some third party involvement). The alternative is that they are entirely fictional from start to finish, but that would be an unbelievably risky and complicated strategy. Uncovering large-scale contradictions (which is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s goal) would support complicity on the T9's parts, IMO. Pin-pointing time zero, if at all possible, for the start of the contradictions, would be far from meaningless. At the moment my belief is that the contradictions started on the journey to the airports in the UK, which I realise may not jibe with everyone elses opinions.

Beyond the contradictions I also believe that the rogatory statements contain almost as much leakage as is going on from United Utilities water pipes as I type this, so they are far from meaningless, IMO.

by **Jill Havern** 19.07.18 8:27

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.]

by JRP 19.07.18 11:42

In my opinion, the timelines are important as they show discrepancies in various statements of where people where.

However, once we know that these people are either grossly mistaken or deliberately lying, how can we make sense of where any of these people where?

Just because Kate says one thing and Fiona contradicts her, and Gerry contradicts both of them, we presume that two are mistaken/lying and one is being truthful? What if all three are telling lies?

My conclusion is.
Yes there are many discrepancies throughout the timelines.
Without the timelines we would not know about the said discrepancies, so thank you Hi-de-Ho for putting them into a simple context.
Can we ever make sense of where anyone was at a specific time on a specific day?
No, because we cannot fathom the levels of deceit.

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 Guest 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 Guest 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 link.]

by Guest 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 $i don\'t know$ .

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?