A Child Abused

Hands up all readers that call the 2009 McCann reconstruction a Mockumentary?

Why? Because you don't believe the witness statements it was based on?


From PJ Files:

Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.

Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

“(…)

Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.

(…)

She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony (…)

(…)

After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn't need to walk down to the 'Ocean Club'. She didn't see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.

(…)”

From her statement, on Monday, 30th April, 2007, TS is at Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, at around 08.00, to catch a bus to school.

As per page 800, TS was a student in the International School of the Algarve (ISA), located between Lagoa and Porches:

Upfront, one would expect for the school bus route, within the various towns where children are picked up, to be defined by the various stops chosen by the parents.

Private school transportation services are not cheap, so I imagine that the monthly expenditure of a child being transported from Luz to ISA to be significant, to say the least.

Paid for school buses pick up the children right at their front door for obvious reasons of practicability, comfort and safety.

Practicability because it’s less to walk, comfort because you and your child can wait inside and have her leave only when the bus arrives, which on a rainy day is priceless, and safety because you accompany your child up to the moment another adult takes care of her and in the afternoon you can wait and have that process reversed.

TS does acknowledge this when she says “has a stop on the street where she lives” in the afternoons. Why would ISA have two different bus stops for this particular child? We see no reason why.

Only for public transportation is one obliged to walk to a pre-designated location called a “bus stop”, in rain or sunshine. If you pay a private school for a transportaion service you should get a differentiated and personalized one.

It’s completely illogical, just speaking in terms of being a private school student, in this case from ISA, for TS to be at 08.00 at Rua Dr. Francisco Martins to catch a bus that departs at 08.15.

But it’s not there that it stops being illogical for her to be where she says she was for the reason she says.

Let’s assume that in the morning ISA’s hired transportation service doesn’t pick up TS where she lives but in a bus stop located near the pathway behind Apartment 5A, implied in her words when she says “after crossing, she caught the bus and went to school”.

One could say that the amount of children to be picked up in PDL is such that it justifies a centralized picking up/dropping off point and that would be near the crossing between Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and Rua Direita.

But then, why the different bus stop in the afternoons?

As we demonstrated in our post “Even Geographically, the Abduction Theory is Absurd”, to go in or out of PDL by car you have to use either Rua Direita or Rua Primeiro de Maio. Both these roads connect to EN125, which is MANDATORY to use if want to go either EAST or WEST.

So if the bus doesn’t make any sort detour inside PDL, which we expect it did but apparently it doesn’t (sorry ISA for this negative publicity, but it’s not our doing), then it’s MANDATORY that it follows the route EN125 – Rua Direita – Rua Primeiro de Maio – EN125, or the same route but the opposite direction, EN125 – Rua Primeiro de Maio – Rua Direita – EN125.

Logic dictates that the first would be used in the morning and the other in the afternoon and much more so if the bus also picked children up in Burgau.

So what we’re basically analyzing is what walking route someone would take from where TS lives to Rua Primeiro de Maio or Rua Direita whichever is nearer.

We know that TS, at the time says she lives in Rua Joao Reis, in Luz

This street is located as per picture below:

So TS would have two choices, either turn left at Rua do Ramalhete and head straight to Rua Primeiro de Maio, as shown in blue or turn right and follow the purple route to Rua Direita.

The purple route even has a shortcut as shown in yellow:

Neither option goes anywhere near Apartment 5A or the Tapas. This is the completely illogical path that TS apparently uses to catch a private school (the International School of the Algarve) hired bus every morning, and for which her parents certainly handsomely paid for:

So why was TS at 08.00, on a school day, walking down Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins?

Because she said she was.

That doesn’t mean that she was. And if she wasn’t, it means she lied.

This is a very sensitive post.

I can tell you it was not pleasant to write, but like when disciplining a child, what must be done has to be done

And it’s a child that we’re talking about.

TS, the witness mentioned in the post, was an 11 yr old child when, on May 9th, 2007, made her statement to the PJ.

And we have strong reasons to believe that she lied. Not only because of what is said on this post, but also what will be said in future ones.

It's difficult to accuse a child of making something up in such a serious matter.

But do remember that you, like us, think that the "Cutting Edge" to be a Mockumentary because you, like us, don't believe the witness statements it was based on.

Including that of a "credible" and "reliable" 11 yr old girl.

This post does put us in very difficult position because we’re showing the falsity in someone who wasn’t accountable for her actions.

But whoever put her up to this was, and is. Her parents to start with, and whoever else participated directly or indirectly in having a child go to the police and lie about the events involving the death of another child.

We said in our last post that the child that played TS in the Mockumentary was TS herself. What we didn’t say is that the TS you see, who is 13 at the time the video was made, is not the same TS who lived the events portrayed, as that TS was, as we’ve said, only 11.

You go tell a 13 yr old that she’s 11, and you’ll understand the difference immediately.

This to say that today, TS is a 16 yr old teenager, who certainly surfs the net, and most likely has read us from time to time.

And that is the problem. She, unlike me and you, doesn’t read the blog out of passion or curiosity, but out of need, out of fear.

She’s at that age when she’s fully conscious of what she’s done. But unlike all other participants she was too young to be fully conscious of what she was then doing, but too old to be ignorant of what role she did indeed play in this farce.

I hope her parents realize that when they accepted for TS to lie they placed a heavy burden on this child for the rest of her life.

The same thing goes for all those that convinced TS’s parents that it was alright for her to lie.

To have her lie to obstruct justice about a death of another human being.

And all was aggravated when they again agreed to have her participate in the Mockumentary.

Nobody could foresee, on May 9th, 2007, the worldwide phenomenon this would become, although even then, there were strong indications that we were before something never witnessed before.

But there’s no excuse for allowing TS to have appeared in the Mockumentary.

Time will pass, and the various participants will pass with it. But the last of the survivors will always be TS.

I say this was clearly abusing a child. At least one child was indeed abused in the Maddie Affair: TS.

To TS, let me make myself absolutely clear that although I’ve mentioned you in this post, and will mention you again in future posts, it’s my conviction that you’re absolutely blameless.

I truly hope that things get solved soon, so that all those responsible and accountable are still around and do face the nightmare that they created and are so cowardly running from.

In their running they’re just further weighing your already too heavy burden. If they are to stop this farce and face responsibility, almost all the weight would be lifted off your shoulders.

Once again, it’s up to them. I expect and want nothing from you, because, as I said and believe, you were a victim, and all victims deserve outmost respect.