McCann DISCREPANCIES : Their statements tell a 'story' that wasn't known...UNTIL NOW!

WHY would Kate say 'I TOOK' (the 'tennis balls photo) when she DIDN'T??????

JT............... DID!

WHY did KM , ('desperately'?) 'need' everybody to 'know' SHE 'took the tennis balls photo'?

Even to the 'point' of 'dissing' JT's and RO's 'proven' claim, to have 'taken' the tennis balls 'photo'

WHY?

Here is a closer pic of what I have always felt was a 'wet' court...

Cleaning was done on Tuesday lunchtime 12-12.30 so IF the court is wet and IF it was due to being hosed down in the cleaning process, then that pic was taken during lunchtime as the guests had access to the courts during lunchtime.

Does anyone have a phot with better resolution? I have one somewhere just cant find it right now...


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

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY would Kate say 'I TOOK' (the 'tennis balls photo) when she DIDN'T??????

JT............... DID!

WHY did KM , ('desperately'?)  'need' everybody to 'know' SHE 'took the tennis balls photo'?

Even to the 'point' of 'dissing' JT's and RO's 'proven' claim, to have 'taken' the tennis balls 'photo'

WHY?

Don't look there: look here:

Could it be that KH in reality was somewhere else, where she shouldn't have been?
That she wanted to hide that fact and her whereabouts?

That she therefore linked up herself to an event which could be timed exactly? 

"Look you dingbats: I was at the tennis so and so late! See, this is my picture of Maddie to prove I was!"

Another thing I had in mind too was this.  Was there a time, possibly Tuesday, that Maddie was supposed to be at tennis, and someone else remarked, I think one of nannies, that Maddie was on boat trip with nannie taking kids one by one on small dingy to a larger small boat and maddie said she was frightened? Does anyone else link this? joyce1938

Portia wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY would Kate say 'I TOOK' (the 'tennis balls photo) when she DIDN'T??????

JT............... DID!

WHY did KM , ('desperately'?)  'need' everybody to 'know' SHE 'took the tennis balls photo'?

Even to the 'point' of 'dissing' JT's and RO's 'proven' claim, to have 'taken' the tennis balls 'photo'

WHY?

Don't look there: look here:

Could it be that KH in reality was somewhere else, where she shouldn't have been?
That she wanted to hide that fact and her whereabouts?

That she therefore linked up herself to an event which could be timed exactly? 

"Look you dingbats: I was at the tennis so and so late! See, this is my picture of Maddie to prove I was!"

When you put all the statements together about the mini tennis there are so many discrepancies that in my opinin it never happened and thats why the tennis pic is important....it was probably taken earlier... shortly after a court cleaning...

I uploaded this vid 4 1/2 years ago... It was one of the first that I did. I created it using all the research I had put together in the years before and TO THIS DAY I have not seen any serious discussion on such major issues that should NOT have existed...

It is not just 'memory' We have Jane, Rachael and Kate describing an event, contradicting each other and the facts.

I urge everyone who is interested,  to watch it all the way through... Don't view it as a video... View it as a lot of the files info compiled together to save sifting through pages to find them..

Once you have viewed and understood the comparison statements, there is no doubt in my mind that you will also wonder WHY they contradict each other but also WHETHER the mini tennis really could have happened at all!

Here's all i 'need' to 'know'

So Rachael Oldfield is claiming in her rogatory interveiw the Tennis photo was taken by Jane on Thursday 3rd at 10.30 am.

RO: "I think it must have been at about ten thirty, Madeleine and E**a and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their crèche activities, erm and Kate didn’t have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and E**a, that’s one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis b*lls, that sort of pictures”.

00.51.21HRS 1578 “That was taken on the”?

RO: Reply “Yeah that was that morning”.

1578 “Thursday”?

RO: Reply “Yeah

But Catriona Baker claims in her rogatory interview that on Thursday 3rd at 10.30 am Maddie is sailing.

"I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing."    

Kate says in her book that she took the photo on Tuesday 1st in the morning.

"On Tuesday 1 May, after my tennis lesson, two maintenance workers came to have a look at our washing machine, which I couldn’t get to operate. Gerry had also managed to break the window shutter mechanism in our bedroom shortly after we’d arrived, in spite of the sign asking guests to be gentle with it. What can I say? It’s the Gerry touch...The two men looked at the washing machine first. Once they’d established that the problem was something simple – not quite as simple as me not having pressed the ‘on’ button, but not much more complicated than that – I went to meet Gerry, whose lesson had started at ten-fifteen, leaving them to fix the shutter."

"During Gerry’s tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session. Jane and 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 Cat’s 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."

However,

The creche schedule puts mini tennis as the activity for Monday morning not Tuesday as Kate suggests. Do we know if the activities differed from those on the planned schedule?

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

"SOMEBODY".........IS...............'LYING'!

WHY?

Verdi wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:yes Verdi, I too for some reason thought that this activity was most likely of kids going back in evening for a short time to play before bed ? I just don't know why this is in my head ,in that way ? I am no good at trying to get back somewhere to find it either.joyce1938

I'll see if I can find something later.  In the interim this is quite an interesting observation I found on YouTube..

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

Hi Verdi,the person on the youtube video states, that when analysing the actual date of the Tennis photograph,states it was taken on the 5th of May 2007?

Thanks Jean, and that is what this thread is all about...

Once everyone (like yourself) starts to see that not only is it a matter of WHO may be telling the truth, but more obviously whether ANY of them are telling the truth!

You have highlighted a small portion of how none of their statements matched... Watching the video you can see how it was so obviously concocted...

Once you realise that, then you start to ask WHY?

Tuesday? Why would there be so may contradictions/lies on TUESDAY?

That was MY question in researching and maybe now you can understand why I believe something happened BEFORE Tuesday and all their statements about the days following would only be acceptable if they were telling the truth and nothing happened to Madeleine...

No question in my mind their statements 'tell us' that they were hiding something.... Something that happened BEFORE Tuesday... 


Tennis according to Georgina and the booking sheets was Tuesday as can be seen in the vide above... The activity sheet was changed

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you sent your research/discrepancies to the PJ?

Tennison wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you sent your research/discrepancies to the PJ?

Not to the PJ, no.

I was in contact with a few detectives at OG and I showed them my Remembering Madeleine Forum and some of its contents and the videos.

I was assured that "Everything, EVERYTHING would be looked at". (In general as well as my input)

You will notice that the top selection Category was put together specifically for them to view

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] & @ HiDeHo - also interesting that the activity sheet shows mini tennis as a 'grass time' activity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - photograph 'exif' data (dates; times; etc) which can be accessed with special software can be easily manipulated and is completely meaningless UNLESS the hardware (in this case a digital camera) is grabbed as soon as the photo has been taken and before any downloading has been done. It's very hard to see the data in the video clip but the date shown may be correct but may just be the date the photo was first downloaded from the camera's memory card. Several different dates are given in the data.

HiDeHo wrote:

Tennison wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you sent your research/discrepancies to the PJ?

Not to the PJ, no.

I was in contact with a few detectives at OG and I showed them my Remembering Madeleine Forum and some of its contents and the videos.

I was assured that "Everything, EVERYTHING would be looked at". (In general as well as my input)

You will notice that the top selection Category was put together specifically for them to view

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

Why not the PJ? It's their investigation is it not?

Isn't it considered that the OP is conducting a whitewash?

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] & @ HiDeHo - also interesting that the activity sheet shows mini tennis as a 'grass time' activity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - photograph 'exif' data (dates; times; etc) which can be accessed with special software can be easily manipulated and is completely meaningless UNLESS the hardware (in this case a digital camera) is grabbed as soon as the photo has been taken and before any downloading has been done. It's very hard to see the data in the video clip but the date shown may be correct but may just be the date the photo was first downloaded from the camera's memory card. Several different dates are given in the data.

 I recall seeing a few days ago that the tennis pic was released on Saturday 5th May and may have been among the contents downloaded by Alex Woolfall.

I don't believe this photo was in the files and was therefore.maybe, taken on Kate's Canon Powershot which is the same as the Last Picture...

Not handed to the police (as far as we know from the files.

The only camera (Olympus) had no time data on it.


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

Tennison wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Tennison wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you sent your research/discrepancies to the PJ?

Not to the PJ, no.

I was in contact with a few detectives at OG and I showed them my Remembering Madeleine Forum and some of its contents and the videos.

I was assured that "Everything, EVERYTHING would be looked at". (In general as well as my input)

You will notice that the top selection Category was put together specifically for them to view

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

Why not the PJ? It's their investigation is it not?

Isn't it considered that the OP is conducting a whitewash?

I have spoken to the detectives seval times and for approximately 20 mins at a time.

Knowing they would not give out any information I was tuned in to reading between the lines of what they said..

I explained about how many members thought it was a whitewash.... about how Gerry and the statements showed many lies and he not only assured me that it went through the same format as other investigations...he did say at one point... 'Thats why its a murder squad'...

What reason would he have had to say that, if he didnt believe himself that this was more than just a missing child.

However... what the higher echelons decide is another matter but I'm convinced that the ground detectives were fully aware of all the issues we discuss (and apparently the computer 'geeks' as he referred to them as, keep an eye on social media sites..

Why haven't I sent t to the PJ?

Can't really answer that... Its just something I do, day to day...continually coming up with new issues..

Its not a start and finish project... its a HUGE research issue and sadly, I dont think anyone else has the time or patience to understand everything that I have discovered... 

Even more important, then, to send it to the people who can decipher it all - the PJ.

I would not, under any circumstances, give valuable research to Operation Grange who, as we know, do not consider the McCann couple to be suspects.

Tennison wrote:Even more important, then, to send it to the people who can decipher it all - the PJ.

I would not, under any circumstances, give valuable research to Operation Grange who, as we know, do not consider the McCann couple to be suspects.

We don't know that for sure about them not considering them suspects...

I was told that they keep the investigation 'under the radar' to avoid any issues created.  I was told that any 'media' interviews/comments can be understood in different ways by different people...

ie 'Parents are not suspects'

Does it mean they are telling us that because its true? (before releasing their final investigation results?)

Does it mean they are not suspects AT THAT TIME?

Does it mean they are not suspects IN THAT PARTICULAR INQUIRY? (There are several lines of Inquiry...and one of them may include the parents...

Until I hear differently, I am fully supportive that even though they dont have the ability to override a Portuguese investigation, they know exactly what happened...

I f the time comes and I am proven wrong... So be it, but I am not going to live under the shadow of negativity and waste my energy or lack motivation for something we don't know.

If the time comes I will deal with it then...

Tennison wrote:Even more important, then, to send it to the people who can decipher it all - the PJ.

I would not, under any circumstances, give valuable research to Operation Grange who, as we know, do not consider the McCann couple to be suspects.

@ Hi de Ho your work is ingenious.........please send it to the PJ as @ Tennison suggests....would do no harm, in fact would be very reassuring
they get to see your invaluable work also, just in case!!!!!!!! I honestly thought it was for them you put all your hard work together as well as 
us the general public we know a lot has been witheld from PJ, I have been reading that very fact in another place (reputable) today.

@ HiDeHo Of course they know what happened. It was the British police that sent over the dogs etc.

It's the PJ who have all the files, even the ones that have not been released.

With respect, you say you have been doing your research for many years yet seem disillusioned that no one here is excited about it. Maybe they are overwhelmed with the amount of information to digest. Have they got the time to digest it? You have posted many links which would take members a long time to sift through and make sense of it all, whereas the PJ have been on the case since 2007 and will know a lot more about this case than anyone.

In my opinion the OG would like to draw an 'unsolved' conclusion to this case whereas the PJ would most likely prefer to solve it and put it to bed so that the Portuguese people can move on from a case that has caused so much damage, not least to Dr Amaral.

Dare I ask if you have sent your work to Dr Amaral then? If anyone has reason to get the McCann's into court to defend themselves, under oath, it would be him.

If British Detectives know about this forum I imagine the PJ would and also Rocky Amaral.    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Is it not a bit ambiguous to 'Imagine' Pj and Snr Amaral are up to date with all Hi de Ho's ingenious work, given the language barrier to boot?
not unlesss someone knows they are getting all this footage.....I certainly hope both are in the loop.

I imagine Pt followers of this case would have been only too happy to keep them in the loop and transcribe free of charge.

Of course you could always forward the links to them yourself Sophiebubbles.

willowthewisp wrote:

Verdi wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:yes Verdi, I too for some reason thought that this activity was most likely of kids going back in evening for a short time to play before bed ? I just don't know why this is in my head ,in that way ? I am no good at trying to get back somewhere to find it either.joyce1938

I'll see if I can find something later.  In the interim this is quite an interesting observation I found on YouTube..

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

Hi Verdi,the person on the youtube video states, that when analysing the actual date of the Tennis photograph,states it was taken on the 5th of May 2007?

Yes, that's how I understand it.  Is this a déjà vu moment as in the other 'last photograph' - the one at the poolside?

Tennyson.. I don't think it is a much 'disillusioned' as much as sad...

I have it all retained in my brain.  There is no 'one or two or  hundred' discrepancies that are earth shattering but I will say, when viewed with the knowledge of all of them they are huge. 

I can't expect anyone to 'see' what I see....

I guess the best analagy I can describe is that I see a 'movie' of the week they were on holiday, based on all their statements...which is impossible to release with any more than one character at a time because each of their storylines are not compatible with anyone else...

I 'see' what Kate tells us, Gerry, Jane etc

They are all creating different  movies..Once put together it would be a mish mash of sequences that would mean nothing, although the storyline is holiday based, the individual sequences are different...

Imagine a TV sequence where three characters are supposed to be picking up a child... How can you put together a scene where one says they picked up the child alone... another went together with a friend following such and suc activity, and the third character went with the friend to pick up the child but was under different circumstances...

How could ANY producer put that scene together accurately...?  They can't!

This is what I see in my head over the course of the holiday from Tuesday onward...  Let's say 50 different scenes where noone tells the same story.

No amount of pointing out any one scene to onlookers that dont see ALL the issues would convince them the movie cant be made...

HOWEVER...When one looks from a different angle, the story CAN be told...

Instead of looking WHAT happened and looking at the WHY none of them could corroborate each others story (ie IT DIDN'T HAPPEN) only THEN can the movie be produced to show the REASON that none of them seemed to be telling the truth...

They had something to hide...

THEN the movie explains why its CLEARLY a blockbuster movie because the discrepancies become the EXPLANATION of a  tragedy that has happened and how they tried to hide it  and NOT a detailed description of what led up to the tragedy.

Thats the story I have in my head and once the discrepancies are recognised as trying to cover up something that has happened everything starts to 'fit' and is explained like puzzle pieces having a meaning after all..

It's been a journey for me to get to this point and as I said before, I feel sad that it is too long and complicated to explain to anyone...

BUT its ALL based on facts...

@ Plebgate I notice the word 'imagine' again being used, we are in scary times IMO so I would reiterate It would be good to know for certain
the PJ and Snr Amaral were aware of all @ Hi de Ho's work (which I cannot praise enough) as so much work has been researched and I do not
take that for granted.

As for me sending links, If I could I would if it gave us certainty PJ and Snr Amaral had all that vital info, unfortunately, you may have noticed
I have only started posting, although I am not new to the case in hand I am new to posting on this Forum  so technically I can't, as I wouldn't
have the foggiest where to start, but there is no shame in expressing my hope that they do know everything there is to know for a just outcome
all round, just sharing my opinion.