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

by sammyc 01.09.16 18:57

HiDeHo - Towards the end of your post at 1.55pm you mentioned Tuesday morning creche twice, do you mean Thursday or both days? I've got a bit mixed up airkiss

by Doug D 01.09.16 19:24

MayMuse,

"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?" - Page 2 ProcessoVolumeIpage105x

"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?" - Page 2 ProcessoVolumeIpage117x

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

by MayMuse 01.09.16 20:13

@Doug D
Thank you goodpost

Will check those links out.

by **HiDeHo** 01.09.16 20:18

If Thursday morning creche sheets were in the investigation, they would show on this diagram of Events...

It shows that the twins only attended the creche in the afternoon...

"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?" - Page 2 Annexo12

"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?" - Page 2 Annexo12

by roy rovers 01.09.16 20:25

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.

by **HiDeHo** 01.09.16 21:16

sammyc wrote:HiDeHo - Towards the end of your post at 1.55pm you mentioned Tuesday morning creche twice, do you mean Thursday or both days? I've got a bit mixed up

Thanks so much sammy that was an important mistake to correct and have done so. yes

by **Tony Bennett** 01.09.16 21:50

NickE wrote:Brilliant, thank you GeG.

Been thinking about this with Krokowskis apartment and Murat/Tanner.

Snipped from PJ files:
"They asked the owner of the bar where they could buy music of this genre. The owner directed them to the FNAC shop at the Algarve shopping centre or to the Chiado commercial centre.
They said they would probably go to Lisbon the same day. "

Did the Beach bar owner, Murat´s uncle, Ralph Everleigh told RM?/or?/JT? that Krokowski was away from the apartment at May 2?

Could they have went to the Solimar apartment (RM had access to a key to the complex?) to plant evidence against Krokowski but changed their/her mind or was disturbed in some way?

@ NickE    Once again you have homed in on an absolutely crucial issue in the entire case - the conduct of Wojcheich Krokowski and the framing of him by Nuno Lourenco as a paedophile who may have abducted Madeleine McCann.

Indeed, I venture to suggest that it is impossible for anyone to really understand this case, unless they fully understand all the implications of what I will call the 'Lourenco Deception'.

This may come over as arrogant, but it is my convicition that it is absolutely essential in this case to...

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lourenco's statement was a tissue of lies from start to finish,

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lourenco's call to the PJ was taken as genuine by them and significantly diverted the investigation early on in only its second full day,

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lournco's lies were deliberately framed so as to match Jane Tanner's description of an abductor, given to the PJ only hours earlier - classic shoes, cloth clothes, dark hair and of course 'didn't look like a tourist', and

fully grasp that all of this had to have been planned in advance.

Furthermore, in all of this he could not have acted alone.

++++++++++++

You wrote: "Did the Beach bar owner, Murat´s uncle, Ralph Eveleigh told RM?/or?/JT? that Krokowski was away from the apartment at May 2? Could they have went to the Solimar apartment (RM had access to a key to the complex?) to plant evidence against Krokowski but changed their/her mind or was disturbed in some way?"

REPLY: This is an interesting speculation on the circumstances under which Krokowski came to be photographed coming out of a particular shopping area, an image that helped to convince Amaral and his colleagues that they should follow up the Krokowski lead.

I have asked myself, was that just 'luck' that he happened to go to that very shopping centre, as he said he was going to?

Or was the whole thing planned with Krokowski's active co-operation? - a hypothesis which, given the facts, must be considered.

You have also referred to the possible presence of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner at the Krokowskis' apartment, which as we know stems from the remarkable fact that hairs of the same haplotype as both Murat and Tanner were found in the Krokowskis' Solimar apartment.

Now the idea that Murat's and Tanner's hairs were found there has met with fierce resistance in certain quarters. It is claimed that the hairs found 'could have been practically anyone's', because 'so many people have hair of the same haplotype'. However, based on my understanding of what I have read about haplotypes, it seems clear to me that it is very probable that both Murat and Tanner were there.

Some people suggested they had a 'tryst' there.

I suggest as a working hypothesis that Murat, Tanner, the Krokowskis themselves and perhaps one or two others, maybe even Nuno Lourenco himself, all met at the Solimar apartment, the most likely date being Tuesday 1 May, and planned the details of how Jane Tanner would reveal 'Tannerman' to the world and then Lourenco would reveal 'Sagresman' to the world. No doubt other plans would have been made at the same time.

The longer I spend considering this hypothesis, the more I consider it highly plausible.

It may well be relevant that within weeks of Richard D. Hall publishing 'The Phantoms', in which he spent nearly an hour giving chapter and verse on 'Sagresman', the mainstream media (The Sunday People) published the one and only article there has ever been about him. The article claimed he was a serial photographer of young children and suggested that Scotland Yard were now taking a close look at him. After 8 years?  I am sure that article was a direct response to Hall's film.

Murat was made the patsy by Jane Tanner and others.

Did Murat and others make Krokowski a patsy?

This has all the hallmarks of a well-planned campaign of deliberate deception - with bogus lines of enquiry and bogus abductors all over the place

by MayMuse 01.09.16 22:45

Tony Bennett said This has all the hallmarks of a well-planned campaign of deliberate deception - with bogus lines of enquiry and bogus abductors all over the place

But not so much "bogus" dogs;)
just finished reading Peter Macs blog and the quote from the book Madeleine whereby Kate says something along the lines that the "scent of death" could not be detected 3 months later when a body had been removed so swiftly!
Amazing insight that Dr has, not only is she wrong about the length of time the odour can be detected, she actually suggests that a "body was removed swiftly"?
How did she know that a body was removed, more to the point how did she know how long it took for that body to be removed?

Flabbergasted at her "account of the truth"

I'm now leaning more to a pre-planned event, but struggle on the reasoning behind it & why Madeleine?

Did the "dogs" ever visit the Krokowski apartment?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.09.16 22:57

MayMuse wrote:Tony Bennett said This has all the hallmarks of a well-planned campaign of deliberate deception - with bogus lines of enquiry and bogus abductors all over the place

Did the "dogs" ever visit the Krokowski apartment?

No, I don't think so.

Blood was found in the Krokowskis' apartment kitchen, but was not thought by the police to be significant.

I'm just adding, for the record here, what Dr Amaral said about Krokowski in his book, 'The Truth of the Lie':

---------------------------------------------

POLISH LEAD IN SAGRES

Hundreds of statements continue to be gathered in Vila da Luz. All the people of the area are interviewed: resort employees, tourists, play leaders from the crèches, residents. Most of them will be of no use to us, but none must be neglected.

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and put up in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.

A lead is only valuable in as far as it is followed to the end, which was not the case with this one. We will realise that we shouldn't have ruled it out so quickly, and that it is still a topic of interest.

by MayMuse 01.09.16 23:05

How could they have arrived in Portugal on the 28th yet supposedly that happened on the 26th?
That's before they were there or have I read it incorrectly?

Wish that blood had been tested!

When you look at it as a whole and put into context with everything else it does sound like this was a "wild goose chase", but Who is connected to Lourenco?
spin

by Rob Royston 01.09.16 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Brilliant, thank you GeG.

Been thinking about this with Krokowskis apartment and Murat/Tanner.

Snipped from PJ files:
"They asked the owner of the bar where they could buy music of this genre. The owner directed them to the FNAC shop at the Algarve shopping centre or to the Chiado commercial centre.
They said they would probably go to Lisbon the same day. "

Did the Beach bar owner, Murat´s uncle, Ralph Everleigh told RM?/or?/JT? that Krokowski was away from the apartment at May 2?

Could they have went to the Solimar apartment (RM had access to a key to the complex?) to plant evidence against Krokowski but changed their/her mind or was disturbed in some way?
@ NickE    Once again you have homed in on an absolutely crucial issue in the entire case - the conduct of Wojcheich Krokowski and the framing of him by Nuno Lourenco as a paedophile who may have abducted Madeleine McCann.

Indeed, I venture to suggest that it is impossible for anyone to really understand this case, unless they fully understand all the implications of what I will call the 'Lourenco Deception'.

This may come over as arrogant, but it is my convicition that it is absolutely essential in this case to...

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lourenco's statement was a tissue of lies from start to finish,

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lourenco's call to the PJ was taken as genuine by them and significantly diverted the investigation early on in only its second full day,

fully grasp the fact that Nuno Lournco's lies were deliberately framed so as to match Jane Tanner's description of an abductor, given to the PJ only hours earlier - classic shoes, cloth clothes, dark hair and of course 'didn't look like a tourist', and

fully grasp that all of this had to have been planned in advance.

Furthermore, in all of this he could not have acted alone.

++++++++++++

You wrote: "Did the Beach bar owner, Murat´s uncle, Ralph Eveleigh told RM?/or?/JT? that Krokowski was away from the apartment at May 2? Could they have went to the Solimar apartment (RM had access to a key to the complex?) to plant evidence against Krokowski but changed their/her mind or was disturbed in some way?"

REPLY: This is an interesting speculation on the circumstances under which Krokowski came to be photographed coming out of a particular shopping area, an image that helped to convince Amaral and his colleagues that they should follow up the Krokowski lead.

I have asked myself, was that just 'luck' that he happened to go to that very shopping centre, as he said he was going to?

Or was the whole thing planned with Krokowski's active co-operation? - a hypothesis which, given the facts, must be considered.

You have also referred to the possible presence of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner at the Krokowskis' apartment, which as we know stems from the remarkable fact that hairs of the same haplotype as both Murat and Tanner were found in the Krokowskis' Solimar apartment.

Now the idea that Murat's and Tanner's hairs were found there has met with fierce resistance in certain quarters. It is claimed that the hairs found 'could have been practically anyone's', because 'so many people have hair of the same haplotype'. However, based on my understanding of what I have read about haplotypes, it seems clear to me that it is very probable that both Murat and Tanner were there.

Some people suggested they had a 'tryst' there.

I suggest as a working hypothesis that Murat, Tanner, the Krokowskis themselves and perhaps one or two others, maybe even Nuno Lourenco himself, all met at the Solimar apartment, the most likely date being Tuesday 1 May, and planned the details of how Jane Tanner would reveal 'Tannerman' to the world and then Lourenco would reveal 'Sagresman' to the world. No doubt other plans would have been made at the same time.

The longer I spend considering this hypothesis, the more I consider it highly plausible.

It may well be relevant that within weeks of Richard D. Hall publishing 'The Phantoms', in which he spent nearly an hour giving chapter and verse on 'Sagresman', the mainstream media (The Sunday People) published the one and only article there has ever been about him. The article claimed he was a serial photographer of young children and suggested that Scotland Yard were now taking a close look at him. After 8 years?  I am sure that article was a direct response to Hall's film.

Murat was made the patsy by Jane Tanner and others.

Did Murat and others make Krokowski a patsy?

This has all the hallmarks of a well-planned campaign of deliberate deception - with bogus lines of enquiry and bogus abductors all over the place

Yes, I think what you say here could be correct. They probably all met and discussed their parts with whoever was directing what they had to do. It's been obvious for some time now that there were a lot of people engaged in the setting up of, probably, a bogus abduction of Madeleine.
None of them may have been aware that Madeleine had died at that stage, some of them may still believe that the bogus abduction took place on the night of the 3rd May, or at least did until the dogs were brought in. and scented death.
For all we know the abduction might have taken place and the dogs were a set up, or were set up. I know that sounds impossible but remember that the spooks were involved.
Madeleine has disappeared, something happened to her that was not in the script. Was it before or after the bogus abduction?

by Verdi 01.09.16 23:44

HiDeHo wrote:If Thursday morning creche sheets were in the investigation, they would show on this diagram of Events...

It shows that the twins only attended the creche in the afternoon...

I totally understand your point about who was looking after the twins if they weren't in attendance at the toddlers group on the morning of Thursday 3rd May but I can't see where this is leading. Trying to make some sense out of the Tapas group witness statements is indeed a mammoth task and I applaud anyone with the patience to attempt to fathom some common ground that might just explain many of the contradictions. An impossible task in my opinion - how can you even begin to determine some resemblance of truth when confronted with so many discrepancies and so little evidence.

The PJ were investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not her siblings. Why should their movements during the week be of any particular interest to the investigation?

Also missing from the PJ files is the register for attendance at the toddler's group (attended by Sean and Amelie) for the morning of Sunday 29th April 2007, although the afternoon session is shown and includes the names of the twins signed in and out by Kate McCann. The significance here is the very fact that the childcare supervisor Amy Tierney and childcare worker Shinead Maria Vine who looked after the McCann twins everyday of the week [sic] both say in their witness statements that the creche was not operational on a Sunday. As I say, how can you even begin to build a factual picture of events with so many contradictions to consider?

Besides, attendance at the childcare facilities was not compulsory so there is no requirement for any parent or guardian to explain absence of any child. The creche register is shambolic so as stand alone evidence has no significant value.

Probably the most straightforward words ever reported to have come from Gerry McCann - how can you prove a negative!

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.16 7:28

MayMuse wrote:How could they have arrived in Portugal on the 28th yet supposedly that happened on the 26th? That's before they were there or have I read it incorrectly?

Wish that blood had been tested!

When you look at it as a whole and put into context with everything else it does sound like this was a "wild goose chase", but Who is connected to Lourenco?

@ MayMuse You read it correctly, it does say 'April 26th' in Anna Esse's translation of 'Truth of the Lie' which as you say is impossible.

When I researched all that I could find about Krokowski and Lourenco, I found three different dates given for the 'Sagres incident': 26th, 28th and 29th April!

One of the strongest indicators that Lourenco was lying is that he claims Krokowski was taking photos of his young children and a friend's young children on the beach, then two hours later that he attempted to kidnap his 3-year-old daughter, yet did nothing about reporting this dramatic set of events until a few hours after Jane Tanner had also described a man who 'didn't look like a tourist.

Which brings me to your final question: Who is Lourenco, and who is he connected to?

Lourenco claims to have been on a 3-week trip from Germany, where he was living, to see his dear old Mum in Sagres, arriving a few days before 28th April.

I suggest that nothing Lourenco says can be relied on as the truth.

I further suggest that he was at the time one of Robert Murat's extensive network of contacts. It appears that his uncle Robert Eveleigh owned/managed the beach bar and was able to supply Amaral's men with the all-important details about Krokowski's strange trip all the way to Lisbon and back to buy two CD's of Brazilian folk music. An unusual interest for someone from Warsaw.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.16 7:41

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.

by Guest 02.09.16 7:42

Tony Bennett wrote:

You have also referred to the possible presence of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner at the Krokowskis' apartment, which as we know stems from the remarkable fact that hairs of the same haplotype as both Murat and Tanner were found in the Krokowskis' Solimar apartment.

Now the idea that Murat's and Tanner's hairs were found there has met with fierce resistance in certain quarters. It is claimed that the hairs found 'could have been practically anyone's', because 'so many people have hair of the same haplotype'. However, based on my understanding of what I have read about haplotypes, it seems clear to me that it is very probable that both Murat and Tanner were there.

Tony, the hair thing has been discussed many times and has been explained a few times that it is worthless evidence.
Something like 10% of the population of Europe fits that hair profile.

Your understanding of haplotypes is wrong.

Or maybe you forgot previous dicussions.

by Guest 02.09.16 7:55

It was all in the Murat thread.

Aparthotel Sol e Mar, 2', apartment C - Burgau

As I understand it, the EMPOP database is the global repository of regional profiles of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
The person doing the query entered the specific mt DNA characteristics of JT's [Jane Tanner] hair into the query form and found 8 exact matches in the database, i.e. at least eight maternal lines having the identical Haplotype to JT exist in Europe.
There were no exact matches in the other three regional groups.

Because of this result the inquiry could not say with absolute certainty that the hair found in Burgau actually came from JT because it could have come from any person born of a mother belonging to any of the eight profiles in the database - one profile, of course, had to be of JT's maternal line, so it could have been some distant (or close) relative.

The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

mccannpjfiles.co.uk

And then we (I) did some digging on these eight profiles and it was found that a huge swathe of Europe belongs to any one one of the eight profiles.

Like the PJ concluded, it means very little as evidence.

by skyrocket 02.09.16 9:38

@MayMuse - yes, the whole thing stinks of a cover up.

Take any record relating directly to the Mc's from their week in Luz and you will find anomalies which (I believe) shouldn't be there.

Here's a few:

- flight information sheet;
- 'property, arrivals and guest' lists;
- Ocean Club check-in list;
- creche records;
- tennis court daily booking sheets;
- tapas restaurant booking sheets;
- the 2 strange timeline sheets supposedly written by O'Brien.

The odd typo is to be expected, but the above all show signs of falsification, or in the case of the tapas sheets, irregular practise (bookings for 5 consecutive nights by the Tapas 9).

I am also 100% convinced that at least 2 lots of statements and associated attachments taken UK side, have been completely re-written or altered. These being the Wilkin's 7 May statement and the Richard and Susan McCluskey set of statements from 9 May and 12 Sept. The latter statements and attached map are worth a read and are very odd. In the 9 May statement's Richard Mc describes a swarthy 1.7m male and a Portuguese speaking blonde woman (although they are later described as Ukranians); Susan Mc's statement from the 9 May describes the incident differently to her husband; the map attached HAS been tampered with; and in his 12 Sept statement the two main characters have morphed into Gerry and Kate McCann. Look what Richard McCluskey says on the 12 September:

'I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.

Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.'

Look familiar?!

Another odd point is that the 9 May statements were taken by the Northumbria Police (joker by the name of Colin 'Don' Mclean), yet when Stephen Robinson also from Northumbria Police takes Richard Mc's second (hand written) statement on the 12 Sept he states the following at the start of the statement:

'Mr McCluskey did go into detail regarding the incident but then stated that all details were covered in his first statement, provided in May 2007. Not having had sight of the original statement it is obviously difficult to comment on the context and accuracy of the account given.'

Now, my question is, how much of what is in their statements did Richard/Susan McCluskey (and Wilkins) ACTUALLY say? As I said above, the map HAS been altered.

I've always wondered whether, if whoever orchestrated all of the deception was aware of the Portuguese practise of releasing case files. If not, the only ones they had to worry about at the time was the PJ, and if their strings were being pulled from above then why worry at all? Falsifying so many records needs an awful lot of confidence in the fact that whatever happens (discovery; suspicion) they're safe i.e. top level knowledge and support. And, I don't think as many people need be in the loop as I first considered. All the creche records would be handed to a central point/person - possibly Donna Hill (creche manager); the OC booking records would again probably be in the hands of one person; etc. Before the release of the files all those Brits with any connection to the case would have been politely spoken to and advised of the advantage of saying nothing; questioning nothing. Many would quite possibly have false memory or convince themselves of such.

I suppose my point being that we can't trust any of the so called records - but the mere fact that so many anomalies exist (and are glaringly obvious) is damning enough. Op Grange should have had this point at the forefront of their review/investigation.

by HelenMeg 02.09.16 10:12

Good post Skyrocket.
I agree that a substantial amount of the records from that week's holiday are likely to have been falsified - and that thew decision to do that did not take into account
the subsequent publication of files. Some Ocean club staff must have been party to this. Those that were told to 'keep quiet and not question' must 've had a vested interest
in the cover up to have maintained their silence

by Doug D 02.09.16 10:43

Thank you for that Skyrocket.

That is something I had not picked up on previously.

Richard McCluskey statement to Northumbria police was dated 12^th September 2007.

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

The ‘Martin Smith’ phone call report was dated 20^th September and reads as follows:

‘Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children.’

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

………………………………

So we have two, allegedly independent, people coming out with exactly the same nonsense about the way a child was being carried, yet 99.9%, if not 100% of people would carry a sleeping child in exactly that manner.

They are so similar and both nonsensical, so whose agenda did it fit to try to make GM both 'Smithman' and 'McCluskeyman'?

by MayMuse 02.09.16 10:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
MayMuse wrote:How could they have arrived in Portugal on the 28th yet supposedly that happened on the 26th? That's before they were there or have I read it incorrectly?

Wish that blood had been tested!

When you look at it as a whole and put into context with everything else it does sound like this was a "wild goose chase", but Who is connected to Lourenco?
@ MayMuse You read it correctly, it does say 'April 26th' in Anna Esse's translation of 'Truth of the Lie' which as you say is impossible.

When I researched all that I could find about Krokowski and Lourenco, I found three different dates given for the 'Sagres incident': 26th, 28th and 29th April!

One of the strongest indicators that Lourenco was lying is that he claims Krokowski was taking photos of his young children and a friend's young children on the beach, then two hours later that he attempted to kidnap his 3-year-old daughter, yet did nothing about reporting this dramatic set of events until a few hours after Jane Tanner had also described a man who 'didn't look like a tourist.

Which brings me to your final question: Who is Lourenco, and who is he connected to?

Lourenco claims to have been on a 3-week trip from Germany, where he was living, to see his dear old Mum in Sagres, arriving a few days before 28th April.

I suggest that nothing Lourenco says can be relied on as the truth.

I further suggest that he was at the time one of Robert Murat's extensive network of contacts. It appears that his uncle Robert Eveleigh owned/managed the beach bar and was able to supply Amaral's men with the all-important details about Krokowski's strange trip all the way to Lisbon and back to buy two CD's of Brazilian folk music. An unusual interest for someone from Warsaw.

Thank you, the dates are odd, the 29th was that from the "The Truth of the Lie" also? Or somewhere else?
Mind running overtime now... Wasn't Murats girlfriend Michaela German and if recall correctly implicated early on, according to the papers?
Like you say extensive contacts, possibly, which if true would mean there are far more people who know exactly what happened to Madeleine than we realise.
The more I learn about this case the more I believe that OG is just shoddy!

by MayMuse 02.09.16 10:58

@skyrocket & @ Doug D
Blown away by those two separate statements and the implied "likeness" to GM... What if this is done purposefully? A message to GM? Like some form of "protection" as in we know what went down and if anything goes wrong you're the "man"?
Mmm maybe reading too may crime stories big grin

by **HiDeHo** 02.09.16 16:14

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:If Thursday morning creche sheets were in the investigation, they would show on this diagram of Events...

It shows that the twins only attended the creche in the afternoon...

I totally understand your point about who was looking after the twins if they weren't in attendance at the toddlers group on the morning of Thursday 3rd May but I can't see where this is leading. Trying to make some sense out of the Tapas group witness statements is indeed a mammoth task and I applaud anyone with the patience to attempt to fathom some common ground that might just explain many of the contradictions. An impossible task in my opinion - how can you even begin to determine some resemblance of truth when confronted with so many discrepancies and so little evidence.

The PJ were investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not her siblings. Why should their movements during the week be of any particular interest to the investigation?

Also missing from the PJ files is the register for attendance at the toddler's group (attended by Sean and Amelie) for the morning of Sunday 29th April 2007, although the afternoon session is shown and includes the names of the twins signed in and out by Kate McCann. The significance here is the very fact that the childcare supervisor Amy Tierney and childcare worker Shinead Maria Vine who looked after the McCann twins everyday of the week [sic] both say in their witness statements that the creche was not operational on a Sunday. As I say, how can you even begin to build a factual picture of events with so many contradictions to consider?

Besides, attendance at the childcare facilities was not compulsory so there is no requirement for any parent or guardian to explain absence of any child. The creche register is shambolic so as stand alone evidence has no significant value.

Probably the most straightforward words ever reported to have come from Gerry McCann - how can you prove a negative!

The wherabouts of the twins is probably of no importance other than to show that the claims to have dropped them off in the morning and pick them up at lunchtime (with contradictions) would PROVE they were LYING about their activities that day.

There is always the small chance that they omitted to pick up that creche sheet, but on other days where it was questionable they placed the information without attaching it to the connecting line in the Diagram of events. It appears they were not missing any information when they produced the diagram according to the creche records, showing the twins only attended in the afternoon.

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.

I have started a page on HDH Ref Forum but it will be a work in progress as it will take some time for showing Thursday 'as they claim it happened' and then I will show on another page how the day was riddled with contradictions etc. which will highlight their lies and it can all be seen in context.

When I finish the second page, I think many people will be shocked about how many discrepancies there actually are...just for that one day!

It will not only show that their morning was different to what they lead us to believe, as the twins were not in the creche, but it also shows how the Last Picture likely did not happen according to Jane and Rachael.

Title: THURSDAY - What T9 want us to believe (in progress)
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/THURSDAY-What-T9-want-us-to-believe-1-2404663.html

by skyrocket 02.09.16 17:15

@HelenMeg - thanks

@DougD - completely implausible isn't it. So, was the Smithman/McCluskeyman id as being Gerry McCann planted with both Smith's and McCluskey's willing participation i.e. are those the statements they actually gave; or, were their statements tampered with after they had been taken and before they were sent to Portugal; and, could the McCluskey statement actually be based on something he saw in the early hours of 5 May in Alvor (not necessarily what is in his statement but something incriminating in some way)?

If McCluskey was a willing stooge, or his statements were genuine, why would he state on 9 May that the distressed woman was speaking Portuguese, only to state 4 months later that he thought the woman he saw was actually Kate McCann? It's ridiculous. Tampering is the only scenario which fits (IMO) but I would be interested to know the consensus. Tampering means that those involved would have to have been included in the cover up at some stage (before the files were released); convenient that all questioning from the PJ had to be channelled through the British.

But why tamper with statements and diagrams in such an amateurish way? Wilkins' 7 May statement is inane in places and in it he sounds nothing like the articulate man that is apparent in his Rogatory statement. I have been looking closely at his handwritten 7 May statement and there are hundred's (no exaggeration there) of irregularities. I know what you said (DougD) before about the statement having been passed through recognition software but most of the oddities can not possibly be explained away by that.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

Once you get your eye in at 400% mag, the whole 8 pages are bizarre. It takes some time, but for anyone interested, ignore what is being said and focus on the inexplicable spelling of some words; the apparent mashing together of other words to produce a new word; the completely inconsistent shapes of some letters, particularly 't', 'f', 'g', 'b', 'e'; and the inclusion of some very odd symbols.

Here's a few for starters:

Page 1/8

- 'On Saturday..', there appears to be a symbol (9?) at the top of the 'O' and a cross attached to the top of the 'S' (the normal 'o' consistently starts and finishes at the top with a slight cross over);
- 'ORLY' and 'ORLI', why so different appearances?
- 'There are about ...', look at the 'e' in 'are' - it's a trident;

Page 3/8

- compare the 3 versions of the misspelt 'Madeline'. Look at the 'e's' in particular;
- look at the way 'er' is written in the 2 versions of the word 'LOBSTERS' (the 'R' is actually his standard floating capital 'R', but what about the 'e's' again?

Page 5/8

- compare the 3 versions of 'KATE'. One 'E' looks like an eye symbol (there are several others similar); and, the 'E' in the final version is very strange (I have found a possible symbol match but I am reluctant to post it);
-look at the word 'general' on line 15;
- look at the last 3 lines. The 'cr' in 'creche'; and the post of the 'p' in the word 'pool' (possibly also the 'oo' in the same word. The post of the 'p' is made up of a clearly visible series of joined circles (similarly the 'p' of 'pram' a third of the way down page 6/8);

Look at the actual official pages used to write the statement on - misspelling of words; changing typefaces within the same sentence; even page 2 showing as 'pago 2' (which doesn't mean page in Portuguese - it means 'paid'). Also, look at Paul Ridley's signatures at the bottom of each page.

I suspect there will be scepticism from some quarters. What is needed (IMO) is a professional forensic analysis of this statement. Apologies @HiDeHo for veering off topic with this post.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.16 17:41

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
You have also referred to the possible presence of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner at the Krokowskis' apartment, which as we know stems from the remarkable fact that hairs of the same haplotype as both Murat and Tanner were found in the Krokowskis' Solimar apartment.

Now the idea that Murat's and Tanner's hairs were found there has met with fierce resistance in certain quarters. It is claimed that the hairs found 'could have been practically anyone's', because 'so many people have hair of the same haplotype'. However, based on my understanding of what I have read about haplotypes, it seems clear to me that it is very probable that both Murat and Tanner were there.
Tony, the hair thing has been discussed many times and has been explained a few times that it is worthless evidence.
Something like 10% of the population of Europe fits that hair profile.

Your understanding of haplotypes is wrong. Or maybe you forgot previous dicussions.

I am sorry to divert away from the very useful discussion about the alleged fabrications of Smithman and McCluskeyman, but I wish to explore the matter of haplogroups and haplotypes, and respond to the above post by @ BlueBag:

No, I didn't forget what you said about haplotypes, but I have since read up more on the subject and realised that there is a very important distinction between haplogroups and haplotypes.

Admittedly the subject is a technical one about which I have no previous knowledge, but I wonder if it is possible that you and I have been talking at cross purposes by mixing up haplogroups and haploytypes?

This (long) article explains the subject better than any other I've come across, and on the basis of (a) what is said here and elsewhere about haplotypes and (b) the assumption that the translation of the word 'haplotype' in the PJ files is correct, 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:

---------------------------------------------------------

HAPLOGROUPS AND HAPLOTYPES

I received some criticism the other day over my own criticism of the use of haplogroups in genealogy — the finding and tracing of relatives. My language was imprecise so I want to make a correction and explore the issue in a bit more detail.
One of the most basic facts of inheritance is that while most of your DNA is a mishmash of your parents (and all their ancestors before them) two pieces of DNA are passed down almost unchanged. One is the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down from the mother to all her children. The other is the Y chromosome, which is passed down directly from father to son. Girls don’t get one. Most of the mother’s X chromosome is passed down unchanged to her sons (but not her daughters) but of course they can’t pass it unchanged to anybody.
This allow us to track the ancestry of two lines. The maternal line tracks your mother, her mother, her mother, her mother and so on. The paternal line tracks your father, his father and so on. The paternal line should, in theory, match the surname, but for various reasons it sometimes doesn’t. Females don’t have a Y, but they can often find out what Y their father had if they can sequence a sample from him, his sons, his brothers and other male relatives who share his surname.
The ability to do this got people very excited. DNA that can be tracked back arbitrarily far in time has become very useful for the study of human migrations and population genetics. The DNA is normally passed down completely but every so often there is a mutation. These mutations, if they don’t kill you, are passed down.

The various collections of mutations are formed into a tree, and the branches of the tree are known as haplogroups. For both kinds of DNA, there are around a couple of hundred haplogroups commonly identified. Many DNA testing companies will look at your DNA and tell you your MTDNA haplogroup, and if male, your Y haplogroup.

There is another way to type Y DNA, however, known as the short tandem repeat. This test relies on changes in the so-called “junk DNA” of repeated sequences. SNP mutations (which drive haplogroups) are rare, but STR changes are more common. Your list of STRs is called a haplotype and is much more specific.
Services like 23andMe give you your haplogroups. You will share a haplogroups with your siblings, one of your parents, one of your grandparents, one of your great-grandparents and so on. You will also share it, by descent, with some fraction of all those people’s descendants. (With two haplogroups you share with 2 of each generation.)
Your family tree is very bushy. Go back 10 generations, and you have 2^10 or 1024 ancestors at that level. Most people actually have slightly fewer because we all start duplicating ancestors before that point. Go back 100 generations (2,000 years) and you would have a million trillion trillion ancestors, if not for the fact that each one re-appears billions of trillions of times in your family tree. Yes, more than a Sagan. However, the maternal and paternal lines identify just 2 different ancestors out of that huge tree, the one on the far left and the one on the far right.
Rules of the patriarchy aside, these ancestors are not any more special or important than any others. What is different is that we can see them in the DNA. Sometimes, because they are the only thing about the past we can see, we get overly excited, as in the old joke:

A scientist is seen crawling around a lamp-post looking for something. When asked what he is doing, he says, “looking for my car keys.”
“Did you lose them here?” asks the other scientist.
“No, I lost them over there by my car. But the light is here.”

I’ve watched people looking for relatives get very excited to discover somebody with the same haplogroup. They feel a connection. They start to feel that they must be related to the person, or if they are a suspected relative, that they will be related along the paternal or maternal lines. In fact, all the haplogroup shows is a common ancestor thousands or even 10s of thousands of years ago. One common ancestor out of millions of common ancestors. For if you go back that far, all people from our rough geographic region are common ancestors, not just the mothers and fathers of the haplogroups. People get really excited about the idea of a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Adam, even though we are also commonly descended from everybody who was alive and offspring-productive in those eras. Everybody was the ancestor of everybody if you go back that far. In fact, the “everybody then was the ancestor of everybody now” period known as the “universal ancestor” point would be fairly recent if it were not for the geographic isolations of populations on Australia, the Americas and many Islands. Everybody today who has successful children will be the ancestor of everybody in perhaps just 1,000 years if current trends follow as they are. That’s because now we have airplanes, and even 50 generations at a zero-population growth rate of 2.3 children per couple, you get a million trillion theoretical descendants.
Some haplogroups are more rare than others, and some are much more common within certain ethnic groups and locations, due to the slowness of pre-20th century human migration. As such they help population geneticists track patterns of migration.
Because there are so few haplogroups, a match is not particularly unlikely, and if you have one of the haplogroups that is particularly common in your ethnic or geographic grouping, a random match is actually fairly likely. A non-match on haplogroups does confirm that the other person is not your relative on that very specific family line, but not that they aren’t your relative. A non-match with a sibling or other close relative for whom the known family tree demands a match does indicate a mismatch of genetic and known parentage. And a match on a very close relative (1st cousin and perhaps 2nd cousin) does indicate it is probable (but not certain) the common ancestor will be on the appropriate line.
But on the other hand, consider a haplogroup match with somebody more distant, like a possible 5th cousin. There have been 6 generations from the common ancestor to you. The common ancestors will be one of your 32 pairs of g-g-g-g-grandparents. Of those 32 pairs, one has your maternal line g-g-g-g-grandmother. (Let’s look at the maternal haplogroup for now.)
But those 32 pairs all started their own family trees, and the children, 6 generations on, are you and your cousins, all the way up to 5th cousins.
How many such children do they have? That varies a lot, but one thing that doesn’t vary two much is that only half will pass down their haplogroup. For Y-haplogroup, only the sons will get it at all. For MT-haplogroup, all will get it but only the girls will pass it on.
So for that 6-generation mother who gave you your haplogroup, only 1/32nd of her descendants will get her haplogroup, including your immediate family. In fact, many of them won’t be 5th cousins because they are closer relatives. For example, if the matriarch had just one daughter and 2 sons, then none of your 5th cousins from her got the haplogroup, as everybody is closer. If she had two daughters, the other daughter (gggg-aunt) passes it on but with no multiplier that generation. It varies a lot but there’s an argument that a typically only 1/64th of her descendants will get her haplogroup and be 5th (but not 4th or closer) cousins. If we also assume that all the other ancestors had children at a similar rate, we now see that the odds of a 5th cousin or closer having also gotten her haplogroup are about 1 in 2000, and if we remove the closer cousins about 1 in 1700.
With the Y-group, as only half the people in the current generation have it, it’s twice as unlikely.
Thus the problem. A 5th cousin sharing your haplogroup has only 1 in 1700 odds of doing it through the common ancestor. But there are only around 200 haplogroups. So it’s much more likely they share it just by chance at this level. Worse, if your haplogroup is a common one in your population, it is a great deal more likely to have happened by chance. Of course this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen by descent, and in fact there will be just a few for whom it did. But it is a bad assumption to make.
Another way to see this is to imagine that surnames are passed down as reliably as Y chromosomes. They aren’t, because there are lots of non-sired children due to adoption, infidelity and even sperm donation. In additions, surnames change over time and many cultures did not even have surnames in the fairly recent past. As you probably realize, only a tiny fraction of your 5th cousins share your surname — again just one in 2,000. (One in 4,000 if the women of your generation have all changed surname, which of course does not always happen any more.) The haplogroup is something akin to the first two letters of your surname. So if I meet a cousin, and all I learn is that his or her birth surname starts with “Te” the odds are again much more likely that it’s something else, and not Templeton. No surname, not even Smith or Chang, is as frequent as some haplogroups are in their main populations, though.

When it comes to the haplotypes, things are much more specific. Some companies, like Family Tree DNA, will scan 37 or 67 of the STR markers. They claim that a match on 37 markers indicates a recent ancestor “within the period of human record keeping” which is known as the era of genealogy. And a match on the 67 markers indicates a common ancestor “within recent times” though they don’t specify a time, it is implied that it’s less than 2 centuries. Such matches are more useful for genealogy. Now it still remains the case that only a small fraction of your distant cousins will share your Y and its haplotype, so the odds of finding the sort of matches hoped for are still rare. But unlike the haplogroup, if you find a match in the haplotype it is quite probably real, particularly if the surname matches.

Over time all of this is going to get better, and in particular it’s going to get better through the non-haploid DNA, which involves all your ancestors, not just these 2 at the edges of your bushy tree.

In particular, the more people map their DNA, the more individual segments will start getting tracked and even attributed to particular individuals. We should be able to get partial reconstructions of the genomes of people who lived several generations ago by sequencing enough of their descendants. From these reconstructions, combined with more traditional family tree maps, DNA sequencing should, before too long, be able to plunk you down pretty precisely into a fairly complete family tree. Because while most people don’t know their great-great grandparents (or even the great-grandparents) all it takes is some descendants who did know them to key in and sequence the appropriate data. Just one link will tie people into a vast web.

How much does this mean? Probably not a lot. I see no special bond among 3rd and later cousins, not even among 2nd cousins. I’m told I had a 3rd cousin who lived on the next street over when I was a kid. I don’t even remember anything about that. It may have an effect on people who perhaps hold prejudices against some ethnic groups who discover they are part of that group, who knows?
Our connection to the more distant “haplomothers” who were the first members of a haplogroup is even more remote. Most haplogroups formed 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. This is past the “universal ancestor point” which means that you are descended from almost everybody alive in that era, not just from the haplomother. She’s just one of millions from whomyou are descended. And because you only have under 30,000 protein encoding genes, chances are you got none of your genome (except the mitochondria) from her. And your mitochondria are already almost identical to everybody else’s on the planet. She is a truly meaningless ancestor, and the only thing that makes us pay attention is that we can identify approximately when she lived, and track broad populations of people using that.

by whodunit 02.09.16 18:29

Thank you Tony, that was very helpful.

In any case, 10% of Europe's population were not directly involved in the Madeleine McCann case.

What are the odds that these hairs, with matching haplotypes to Tanner and Murat, found in a McCann case related forensic examination, do NOT belong to Tanner and Murat? This is a question any good police investigator would ask himself. The answer may have huge implications but we're not talking about a missing kitten here, we're talking about a child and any decent person/policeman would let the chips fall where they may.