This is an update to our Dr. Gerry McCann is a Liar post on May 7 2010.
Google Maps street view, has revolutionised the way we see the planet. It now allows us to be, literally, almost everywhere.
Who hasn't used it to revisit a memorable holiday? Or relive the places where one has spent one's childhood and youth?
In our case it allows to illustrate, even better, that when Gerry McCann says on May 10 2007 in his 2nd statement to the PJ “Pertaining to the routine, 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.”, there wasn’t a beach trip at all, which means that Dr. Gerry McCann is a LIAR, or there was, and that clearly means that Dr. Gerry McCann is a LIAR.
As we showed, the route described by Gerry, by saying “road directly ahead”, is obviously the link between Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins with Rua da Boa Pesca and from there directy to the beach. As per following route:
We saw that there was no road directly ahead of Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins:
This is Google street view image for the crossing at the end of Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins:
The picture above is enough to show just how farcical the expression "a road directly ahead" was.
We also showed that Gerry may of had the perception of "a road directly ahead" from looking at Rua da Boa Pesca on his trips to and from crèche:
From the crèche it's acceptable to perceive that Rua da Boa Pesca is directly ahead Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
What is not perceived from a distance is that the Rua da Boa Pesca is clearly signalled that it's a dead-end:
This is Google street view image for the crossing at the end of Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins:
The picture above is enough to show just how farcical the expression "a road directly ahead" was.
We also showed that Gerry may of had the perception of "a road directly ahead" from looking at Rua da Boa Pesca on his trips to and from crèche:
From the crèche it's acceptable to perceive that Rua da Boa Pesca is directly ahead Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
What is not perceived from a distance is that the Rua da Boa Pesca is clearly signalled that it's a dead-end:
And the crux of the Dr. Gerry McCann is a Liar post was that Rua da Boa Pesca DOES NOT link with Rua do Poço:
The Google street view image confirms it:
The beach CANNOT be accessed by Rua da Boa Pesca.
It’s a DEAD END.
But from Rua Direita, at the start of Rua da Boa Pesca, can this important detail be seen.
From both, to a foreigner to the area, it seems that the street does lead to the beach. Only, it doesn't.
This proves, without ANY doubt if there was any, that Gerry McCann is LYING when he says “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”.
Rua da Boa Pesca is NOT a street by which one goes to the beach “along”.
And as Kate tries to imply in her book, the purple route is NOT going "to the beach along a road directly ahead".:
So the only way to go along directly to the beach, is passing by near the church:
A very visible building that Gerry McCann has, apparently, never seen before on the night his daughter vanished:
From GNR Officer Rui Sergio Lopes Silva: “He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00 when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.”
We've shown why he's lied.
Lying about the trip to the beach was to get in synch with Derek Flack's white van/Guitarman.
Lying about the church was to show a false ignorance about the East side of PdL and so give himself an alibi from being linked to the Smith Sighting.
Note: the Google street view images are from August 2009.
Post Scriptum:
The original post was centred on the trip to the beach that we believe never to have happened.
However we have to note the following: “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”.
So apparently the McCanns do not have one buggy, which they didn't have on the day they arrived but now they have at least two buggies. (UK Crimewatch Discrepancy 01 - The Buggy)
The Google street view image confirms it:
The beach CANNOT be accessed by Rua da Boa Pesca.
It’s a DEAD END.
But from Rua Direita, at the start of Rua da Boa Pesca, can this important detail be seen.
From both, to a foreigner to the area, it seems that the street does lead to the beach. Only, it doesn't.
This proves, without ANY doubt if there was any, that Gerry McCann is LYING when he says “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”.
Rua da Boa Pesca is NOT a street by which one goes to the beach “along”.
And as Kate tries to imply in her book, the purple route is NOT going "to the beach along a road directly ahead".:
So the only way to go along directly to the beach, is passing by near the church:
A very visible building that Gerry McCann has, apparently, never seen before on the night his daughter vanished:
From GNR Officer Rui Sergio Lopes Silva: “He only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00 when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.”
We've shown why he's lied.
Lying about the trip to the beach was to get in synch with Derek Flack's white van/Guitarman.
Lying about the church was to show a false ignorance about the East side of PdL and so give himself an alibi from being linked to the Smith Sighting.
Note: the Google street view images are from August 2009.
Post Scriptum:
The original post was centred on the trip to the beach that we believe never to have happened.
However we have to note the following: “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”.
So apparently the McCanns do not have one buggy, which they didn't have on the day they arrived but now they have at least two buggies. (UK Crimewatch Discrepancy 01 - The Buggy)
So, on Saturday the 28th April, they had no baby buggies, which made it difficult to go to the Millenium for their meals, too long a distance for the children to walk or be carried...but byTuesday they managed to get buggies! I decided to do some research on this subject, to see if I could find any information on how they got the buggies, because I had never come across it, and in Jill Havern's forum there is a thread :
ReplyDelete" the family outing"
which has a passage of Kate's "bewk" which mentions how they got the buggies:
"From Kate's book regarding the family outing she claims happened on the Tuesday:"
""In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried. Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.....Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time!""
A borrowed DOUBLE buggy...(if buggies were available from Mark Warner, why didn't they borrow it before, to go to the Millenium...??
Yet, this is Gerry's version on his 19th May interview:
"Concerning the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, the deponent and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby buggies. They all left by the main door because of the buggies, went around to the right, down the street of the “BATISTA” supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead."
in baby BUGGIES,,,
plural, meaning more than one, isn't it? How would you refer to ONE double buggy? The baby buggie, or the buggies? It has two seats, but it is only ONE item...
Sorry, it should read:
Delete"Yet, this is Gerry's version on his 10th May interview"
not
yet this ...19th May...
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/crimewatch-dupers-or-duped
ReplyDeleteCrimewatch: dupers or duped?
The October edition of Crimewatch, focussing on the case of Madeleine McCann, featured new photofits of a potential suspect - only, they weren't new. According to the Sunday Times, they had been repressed by the McCanns themselves. The failure of the BBC to report this is extraordinary.....
Textusa another tip top article providing much food for thought. Very accurate and true observations you have made.
ReplyDeleteIf your child asked why youdidnt come last night when she was crying, would you repeat the same action again and leave three defenceless tots alone, For sure most if not all of us wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteWith such large terraces why did they not put all the children in one apartment, and ask to take their meals to the apartment, they could still eat and get drunk together, but at least they would be near the children.These are supposed to be intelligent people, I don't think.
And now they want play at being prosecutors working with the PJ, good god what ever next, control control control
Anonymous 5 Nov 2013 19:40:00,
DeleteWe firmly believe that the T9 children were NEVER unattended.
Negligence related with the T9 was a perception that was enforced by the BHs, starting with the T9, as it's the ONLY scenario where an abduction could have taken place.
No negligence, no abduction. We cannot be more clear about it.
Thank you for our comment.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg318?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=318&cdThread=Tx2OB365K8MH6CG
ReplyDeleteThe following is from the above link, thought it quite appropriate to this post of Gerry Mccann Liar;
'Warren Thornton
THE GREATEST CRIME
There are a few things you have to face in order to really truly get a handle on what happened to Maddie and if you find it hard to believe any of them you will struggle to get somewhere near the truth.
1. There never was any abduction.
2. The dogs are not and never were wrong
3. There was and still is high level interference.
4. It is highly likely the children were drugged.
5. Amaral was taken off the case because he was right.
When you accept those five statements the truth is quite easy to see. Maddie died in that apartment.The parents with help,covered up her death and disposed of the body.
Why will they try to keep Maddie alive? Simple they were and are the ONLY suspects in the death of poor Maddie,forget the age progression photo's,she will not be getting any older.
Forget the search fund,there is no search. Forget the efforts of trying to frame anyone or everyone who has ever visited Portugal,there is nobody else.
The ONLY reason Amaral is in court accused of libel is because he was and is right.
No matter what the verdict no one with a shred of any common sense has ONE SINGLE FACT that proves abduction,it did not happen.
To believe the parents you would have to overlook hundreds of lies and excuses put forward by the press officer Mitchell and the parents themselves.
You would have to believe that not one but two dogs got it completely wrong.
You would have to believe that an abductor stepped over the two twins took Maddie without anyone seeing them or leaving ONE SINGLE TRACE of entry or exit,that would make history.
You would have to believe Jane Tanner was right.
You would have to believe the police know the timelines were wrong,that Tanner was wrong,that all those doing timelines were right then wrong.
You see the problem,for five years you are asked to believe the Tapas group were right,now you are asked to believe they are wrong.
Not a word of denial from the parents or the Tapas lot,so there you have it,not one of them coming out of the woodwork saying we ALL AT THE SAME TIME got our recollections wrong!
Why? I would be howling from the rooftops if i were telling the truth,the reason they stay silent is because Redwood and Operation Grange could not find a person to pin it on,so they needed to extend the window(if you will pardon the phrase),the window of time to squeeze a phantom abductor in,so when you realise that,it is over,the Tapas group lied and the press directed by Mitchell and Redwood directed from on high are doing the same.
There is no need to go any further,there are so many u turns everyone is going round in circles till we all get dizzy and tired and say ok then!
Wait a minute stop the merry go round,step off,look from the outside.
There we go that was easy!
The parents are guilty and belong in jail.
THE GREATEST CRIME IS THAT THEY ARE NOT. '
Bravo
Deletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487987/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-suspects-Portuguese-detectives-didnt-abandon-case.html
ReplyDeletePolice chief blamed Kate and Gerry McCann for Madeleine's disappearance 'to ensure Portuguese detectives didn't abandon case'
Goncalo Amaral was said to have been 'against shelving of original probe'
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Mr Amaral over his claims in 2008 book
He alleged couple faked the abduction to cover up her death in Portugal
McCanns say book turned people against them when they needed help
By Gerard Couzens
PUBLISHED: 20:24 GMT, 5 November 2013 | UPDATED: 20:24 GMT, 5 November 2013
A former Portuguese police chief blamed Madeleine McCann's parents for the three-year-old girl's disappearance to ensure detectives carried on looking for her, a former colleague claimed today.
Antonio Paulo dos Santos told a Lisbon court he believed his friend Goncalo Amaral penned a book pointing the finger at the couple because he was against the shelving of the original investigation.
Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Mr Amaral over his claims in his July 2008 book The Truth of the Lie that they faked their daughter's abduction to cover up her death in their holiday apartment.
His book was released three days after the Portuguese police probe into the girl’s disappearance was archived and the McCanns were told their status as official suspects or arguidos was being lifted.
Defence witness Mr dos Santos, who worked with Mr Amaral in the early Nineties and remains in close contact with him, spoke at the hearing this afternoon.
He said: ‘Everything that's in the book appears to be in the case files. It's not fictional. They are the conclusions of a factual analysis by Goncalo Amaral as the head of the police investigation.
‘I think the main reason he wrote the book was so that the case would continue to be investigated. When he published the book I presume he didn't agree with its archiving.’
Today's libel trial hearing was the first since Portuguese authorities announced last month they were reopening their probe into Madeleine's disappearance more than five years after it was shelved.
The morning court session started with a disappointment for the defence when it emerged a key witness was on honeymoon and his evidence had to be rescheduled for a later date.
Criminologist and university professor Paulo Sargento was expected to support Mr Amaral and say he did not believe Madeleine had been abducted from her Algarve holiday apartment.
In October 2007 he created a 3D reconstruction of the night on May 3, 2007 when Madeleine disappeared - and concluded any abductor would only have had eight minutes in which to strike.
He later came up with a computer edit based on witness statements of a long-haired bearded man which the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell insisted at the time could cause confusion.
Mario Sena Lopes, editor of Guerra & Paz which published Mr Amaral's controversial book, admitted he could not guarantee all copies had been returned after the McCanns successfully injected it.
The couple secured a temporary injunction in September 2008 before a court upheld the ban in February 2010 after a challenge from Mr Amaral. The injunction was lifted again in March 2011.
Mr Lopes, who is still Mr Amaral's literary agent, told the hearing: ‘There are always booksellers who do not respect the orders of the distributors.’
He also admitted knowing the book had been circulated in Brazil but insisted Guerra & Paz had nothing to do with it.
(cont)
(cont)
ReplyDeleteLuis Vale Frois, former managing director of a firm which distributed a DVD of a documentary based on Mr Amaral's book, said it was inevitable pirate copies would find their way onto the Internet.
He told the hearing: ‘If this week you release a series on TV, next week it's already on the internet with Portuguese subtitles.’
Mr Amaral, removed as head of the Madeleine McCann probe in October 2007 after criticising the British police, attended court for the trial as he has done every day since its start in September.
He has been critical of a new British police appeal about the six-and-a-half year-old mystery, branding it a ‘PR campaign of intoxication and misinformation.’
But he declined to comment today on the reopened Portuguese police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
Mr Amaral's lawyer Vitor dos Santos insisted outside court: ‘We are not going to make any comment about the criminal investigation. This is a civil case and when it's over my client will be free to speak. No lawyer should make any statements about people being absolved or not being absolved from an investigation.
'This is not the time to be saying anything about it because it makes no sense to do so.’
The McCanns claim Mr Amaral's book turned Portuguese people against them when they most needed their help in finding their daughter.
The ex-police chief is denying defamation and insists everything in the book was contained in police files. Former police colleagues have given evidence backing his argument.
The McCanns, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have applied to take the witness stand as well as Mr Amaral.
Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro is expected to rule on their application at the end of the month. The case, scheduled to finish in December, continues.
Insert:
ANGER AT MONTEIRO REPORTS
Portuguese-based Cape Verdean associations have reacted angrily to reports an immigrant thief has been blamed for Madeleine McCann's disappearance and death.
It emerged last week Euclides Monteiro, who died in a tractor accident in 2009, was a suspect.
A spokesman for a Cape Verdean association said: ‘The representatives of Cape Verdean associations in Portugal always defend the normal workings of justice and the idea that unlawful behaviour should be punished accordingly through the proper legal channels.
‘However we denounce the fact that this immigrant cannot defend himself from these accusations in the Madeleine McCann case which could, conveniently, remove blame from other people and ease some consciences.
‘We discover history repeating itself - with yet another Cape Verdian suspect and a community which feels once again smeared.’
I have thought for so long maddie was takin.but when i read the facts i am convinced now it was a cover up by the parents.i have no doubt they loved all of their kids and this was an accident,they paniced because of their jobs and kids.and now it is totally out of control.someone knows something which might finally let the beautiful little girl rest in peace some day.the guilt inside will give some day.god will judge us all eventually.i believe the truth will come out some day.
ReplyDeleteThe Mccanns have wasted the last 6 years of their lives telling lies and living with the nightmare they created and will probably spend the rest of their lives living with this deceit, both their faces have become haggered and haunted they are reviled by the public for their less than honest approach to whatever happened to their daughter. The name Mccann will always be associated with the group's reluctance to help the police in the disappearance of a child and the parents speed at setting up a fund at its peak worth millions. They tricked the public out of hard earned cash, lied to protect their reputations and careers. We may never know what happened to Madeleine but her parents know more and through their lack emotion and co-operation have become the most spoken about criminals in recent history. Everybody who has access to any form of media has an opinion of Kate and Gerry Mccammer.
ReplyDeleteKate and Gerry McCann have lost what they held most dear. Their reputations.
ReplyDeleteI have never met anyone with a good word to say for them. They will serve their sentence, not in a prison cell, but out on the streets where people know the truth. And the guilt is etched on their haggard faces.
Regarding the trip to the beach and the buggies:
ReplyDelete1- Gerry statement shows the trip never happen. He did not know most of the streets of PDL after spending there a week. Strange, if you think about a small town.
That reinforce the suspicions about the main objectif of their holidays- kids in the creche and parents on their adult momentum. The only streets they know, were the ones that take them to the bares, specially to the Chaplins where many people suspected, they spend some evenings with quiz nights. I believe, an exercise involving the bills of that bares will put them there almost every night with children supervised by the Paynes granny or by the nannies.
2- The buggies... Well, the buggies were the most amazing tool to bake their idea of being careful parents who spend time with their children. What were they trying to avoid at the time? Charges related with the negligence they so strongly delivered to the police while defending the abduction.
I use to spend my summer holidays in various places in Algarve ( not in PDL) and never saw any resort or hotel where we can rent or borrow a buggy. Not even in 5 star hotels. Hard to believe that a cheap resort has that service available, specially with the twin buggies. If the service was available, that must be announced on their website, like the creche. Nothing was announced.
On the other hand, early pictures on various papers show the Mccann's carrying the twins or the twins walking. There was no buggies. The buggies appear on later pictures.
In few weeks they earned million Euros on the Fund. The buggies are very cheap. That's why there was buggies at the end of their stay in Portugal.
They lied.
The british papers are a shame. Look at their first pages with the picture of the Cape Verdean all over. They forgot the main rule applied to the Mccann's " innocent until proved guilt".
ReplyDeleteI hope the family hire a good lawyer to sue that papers and the Mccann's, who put them on that situation. No surprise they are so careful with comments.
And the papers carry on with their lies, when they said the source was PJ. The source must be british because in Portugal the justice secrecy prevent them to speak. PJ will not take the risk.
Agree the kids were not left but i cannot help but feel that diane Webster would not cover up and i believe that she would have told the police that someone was looking after the kids each night so maybe its Payne who has done something but if that is the case why would the Mccanns not spill the beans on Payne
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6 Nov 2013 14:59:00
DeleteThank you for your comment.
You'e assuming that Dianne Webster took care of the children during the evenings of fun of the remainder T8.
We don't think that was the case. Dianne Webster shows her "detachment" from the group and from the events in her peculiar reaction to the "alarm".
If this case has taught us anything, and it has taught us many, it's that it's absolutely wrong to assume as fact, what we "feel", as you say, that people, namely parents, friends, responsible adults, would or would not do as fact.
We believe that the T9 children, as well as many other present in PdL at time, were attended by professional and caring personnel from the Ocean Club both during the day and evening/night while their parents were enjoying their... "tennis".
Textusa, I would like to dedicate you the words from Steve Jobs: "The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Textusa,
ReplyDeleteif children were attended by Ocean Club professional and caring personnel what was doing Madeleine in the apartment when Kate and David were enjoying their… tennis (following the "text theory" …?)
The children had, in our opinion, 3 periods in which they spent some time with their parents.
DeleteFirst one, lunch time. It would represent an enormous logistical effort for the "organisation" to provide lunch for all the kids. Practical and easy all around if parents came, picked up their kids, fed them and deposited them back in the crèches.
Second one, dinner and bath time. Same reason, plus hygiene. Once fed and washed, back to the crèche they went. This period was obviously longer than the lunch time. From late afternoon until parents headed off for dinner, passing by the crèche on the way.
Third one, night and breakfast. Once "tennis" was done for the day (please don't resume "tennis" to a single and obvious activity...) the parents, just like Crèche Dad but with their kids with shoes and coats, would be picked up and taken to the apartments to continue sleeping, wake up, have breakfast, get morning hygiene done and be deposited in the crèche for a new cycle.
About Kate and David, apparently the urge to play "tennis" came during the "second period - dinner and bath time".
What made me suspect Payne was his involvement with Kate and Gerry after Maddie 'vanished' he was the one with them when Yvone Martin spoke to the three of them, it seemed odd under the circumstances that it was not a female that had stayed and given support to Kate, also he was the last person to see Maddie alive and his statement full of 'erms' and 'ahs' and saying they 'looked like Angels' is just creepy also the timing 30 seconds or 30 minutes was conflicting between Kate and Payne.
ReplyDeleteWhen Kate phoned Gerry and he was playing tennis and he sent Payne to visit Kate that's the beginning of all of this something happened between Kate and Payne.
Bem sei que não se deve brincar com coisas sérias.Mas não resisto, já lhe ouvi chamar muitos nomes mas "tennis"... está demais, hehe
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the route taken by G could lead to any paths that don't show on google street scene?
ReplyDeleteLooks like a dead end to me too.
Anonymous 7 Nov 2013 18:53:00
DeleteThank you for your comment.
Will reply in the next post.
Textusa
ReplyDeletePor aquilo que tenho vindo a acompanhar no seu blogue-um verdadeiro serviço público/cívico- tenho algumas dúvidas, no que respeita ao dia do "evento". Pelo que li, incluso em "Verdade da Mentira" parece assumido que às 17,30 a menina foi retirada da creche( 1ª questão,qual a testemunha independente que pode corroborar este facto? - seguramente que não são os registos fraudulentos das "amas" e muito menos alguém ligado ao grupo).
Partindo do principio que entrava no apartamento com a mãe cerca das 17,40 e que o acidente aconteceria de imediato, significa que estaria cerca de 2 horas(tempo necessário para odor a cadáver ser detectado pelo cão especialista) atrás do sofá, ou seja até às 19,40.Presumo que é geralmente aceite por quem está mais informado sobre o caso que o corpo foi retirado cerca das 21h - 21,15 h.O resto é o fandango do troller borjeço que já foi desmascarado e muito bem em pelo menos um dos seus posts.Textusa também maravilhosamente desmistificou a questão da "Limpeza" da cena.Ora aí está a minha dúvida:como foi possível mobilizar "gente" especializada numa janela temporal tão apertada?
Não tenho provas, mas parece-me que o "acidente" ocorreu antes de "early evening", até porque,repito,quem é a testemunha "independente" que ateste inequivocamente que viu M às 17,30?
Peço desculpa se estou a sair da linha orientadora deste magnifico blog. Como tal, agradeço que publique "Apenas no caso de entender que esta questão é pertinente", porque possivelmente algum artigo postado já respondeu a esta questão, mas por falha minha não consegui referenciá-lo.
Desculpe a ousadia
Sempre a considerar-vos
Anonymous 7 Nov 2013 22:47:00,
DeleteThank you for your comment.
You are not the first with such a question. As we hope you have understood, we guide ourselves by two major guidelines:
- ethically, we owe loyalty to no one besides material truth,
- in researching, we never bend fact to theory.
About the latter, we are fully aware that we are not owners of the truth and so strive to keep an open mind and adapt whatever we think happened to whatever we keep on finding. That, for us, is not a sign of weakness or hesitation, but, if we may say so, of strength and resolution.
We love to be challenged, we welcome corrections and many comments from our wonderful readers (an absolutely essential part of our collective effort) have made us change our minds on this and that detail, and as the "big whole" is but an addition of multiple details, have contributed to us updating constantly our views on the case.
One thing we have concluded is that as life is simple, so things are simple. Sometimes we all let imagination get the best of us but being aware of that does help to minimise that human error the best way we can. That's why we fight so fiercely clutter. It's implanted to help imagination develop distracting our concentration from what is really important.
We are aware that many who have accepted neglect are not all BHs but have stuck with it because they have used it as another way to say McCanns should be brought to justice and understand that it's rather unnerving for them to think they may have got a lot wrong.
To your specific question. We intend to answer it very soon, when we will address the "cleanings".
We don't deem as relevant the time Maddie was taken from the crèche on May 3rd. In fact, we believe that the crèche sheets were tampered with more to protect those that don't appear on them than an effort to provide misleading evidence, like with the Tapas reservation sheets. Names that were in the original documents that no longer appear in those sheets of the PJ Files. We're sure that proper and informative crèche records existed.
We place Maddie's death in the early evening. As you say, the body was moved out of 5A around 21.00/21.15. That means that, just by simple math (obviously things aren't that simple) the fatal accident could have happened as late as 19.00/19.15.
As I just stated, we hope to answer your question soon. But before that, there are a few things that require consolidation.
Hope you understand.
Perfectly understood.Thank you very much
DeleteFrom the McCann's abuse of power website. Lots of very interesting stuff. But especially scroll down to the bottom and look at the excerpt of a letter which apparently it appeared in the Leicestershire Mercury on 31 March: I wasn't able to cut and past it but someone else might. To me this sounds as plausible as anything and explains the Tanner involvement. What I think might be missing is some kind of link with Payne. He has most definitely been a key player in all this. Could this be where the Gasper statements need to be considered.
ReplyDeletehttp://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/kate-and-gerry-mccann-what-did-you-do.html
It is all deeply disturbing.
Sounds like a reasonably plausible explanation.
I would still be looking at Payne as some kind of key player here.
Although I recognize (who don't?) that there's a lot of contradictions in the Tapas 9 testimonies, I don't agree at all with some considerations of this post, namely bellow where you said the Rua da Boa Pesca is clearly signalled that it's a dead-end. That's true, the photo confirmes it, but it's true only for vehicles. I explain it better, as I did that same way to the beach several hundred times. Take a good look of the photo below where you said the Google street view image confirms it. Between the sign of the dead-end and the grey car there's a oppening in the wall (I don't call it a door because there's isn't one). In that photo maybe it's hard to see it, but try to look at this one: https://goo.gl/maps/MlZVp
ReplyDeleteIt's a photo of the same place, also from google maps, but from another angle: at the front of the grey car, there's more visible that oppening that I'm saying.
Googlemaps it's indeed a very useful tool, but sometimes (as in an investigation), it's better that you know the place personally.
Pay attention that I'm not saying that Gerry and his family do or do not that path, only that's a possible route to the beach (and, by the way, the nearest and the quiter).
PS: pardon for my english!
Edgar Cavaco,
DeleteWe're sorry but after looking at the images, what you say is a passage we see only a wall with vegetation.
That vegetation was in place as can be seen in the photograph #11, in the photographic reconstitution of Maddie's trip to the beach:
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_880.jpg
If there was ever there a passage, which there isn't, then Gerry would have mentioned it and not just say he went directly down to the beach.
We do note that you question Google Maps reliability and then use it to prove your point.
Who says we don't know the place personally? We may or we may not.
We honestly don't see any reason for you to apologise for your English. Even if it was incorrect (and it isn't) what matters is what one is trying to say and your comment was very clear about what you had to say.
Thanks for your reply. I'll try to answer to each sentence appropriately, quoting it in italics:
ReplyDeleteWe're sorry but after looking at the images, what you say is a passage we see only a wall with vegetation. I'll say to look again closely to the photo in link that I gave you: after the grey car, you'll see that the wall have less vegetation, and there's exactly where the passage is. As I assume that in the photo maybe you can't see it, I've upload the same with the passage marked in red: http://imgur.com/IXJbMEN
I've just see that from the parallel street it's more visible:
1. http://imgur.com/zAiXxPZ
2. http://imgur.com/gnNiZIW [this is certainly the best photo for seeing the passage; here's the googlemaps link: https://goo.gl/maps/UNT7Z]
That vegetation was in place as can be seen in the photograph #11, in the photographic reconstitution of Maddie's trip to the beach:
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_880.jpg. That photo is from a few meters above the passage that I'm talking about, and from an angle which make impossible to see it, so obviously it doesn't prove anything.
If there was ever there a passage, which there isn't, then Gerry would have mentioned it and not just say he went directly down to the beach. Please don't insinuate that I'm lying. Yes there is a passage where I'm saying. Beside the photos that I've just linked, I know what I'm talking about, I've passed through it hundred times (at least). It was not my point to appologize Gerry or what he should have mentioned, and I never said that he do that path. My intention was only to correct some information not accurate, by telling you that this path yes it's possible.
We do note that you question Google Maps reliability and then use it to prove your point. I didn't question googlemaps reliability before, I only said that when you want to make an investigation (and I assume that a rigorous and exhaustive one is your goal) it's better to know the places personally. Anyway, I do now question google maps reliability, as between the photo that you posted and the photo of my link (in my first comment), there is a leap of a few meters, enough to impede a frontal visualition of the passage in question. Anyway, I hope that with the photos from the parallel street (which I linked above) you'll see it better.
Who says we don't know the place personally? We may or we may not.Maybe I've done one insinuation which was not my point. Anyway sorry but I have to say now that if you know this place (as I know) you will notice that there's a passage (and you'll not show me a picture [#11] which is from a few meters above and from a angle that make impossible to see this passage). Sorry for being repetitive, but I must tell again that I've passed through this passage at least hundred times. I'm not lying. I've only write you because I know the place and I read an information not accurate. (By the way, my correction don't invalidate your theory, as I've never said that Gerry and his family really did that way to the beach. Also, I really thinks that's very unlikely that a couple of foreigners [which supposedly didn't know Praia da Luz before] with 3 childrens see a dead-end sign and try to walk through this path).
We honestly don't see any reason for you to apologise for your English. Even if it was incorrect (and it isn't) what matters is what one is trying to say and your comment was very clear about what you had to say. It´s a good thing you've understand what I've said, even if you didn't agreed with it. I apologize for my english because it's not my mother language and as you may know sometimes a foreigner can't express himself in the better way.
Edgar Cavaco,
DeleteFirst of all our apologies. The location we said we saw only a wall is not the one you have now CLEARLY marked.
The location we thought you had referred is on the exact opposite extreme of that wall, where on 2009 Google Maps is a space between some rubble and a parked car.
The reason for thinking this was because in the 2009 Google Maps, the place you now mark, we repeat CLEARLY, there seems to be no passage whatsoever.
Could you please confirm that you used this passage on or before 2009 as it might have been opened after this.
This is an issue too important to be dealt with in comments so we will write up a Post Scriptum so we can show clearly the pictures we are noth using.
If you wish for us to contact you, please leave a mail in a DO NOT PUBLISH comment.
Thank you for your participation and once again our apologies.
[the following comment doesn't fit in my previous answer, so I put it here]
ReplyDeleteFinnaly, only as a curiosity, rather than in the school, my apprenticeship of the english language was made in my youth in the streets and in the beach of Praia da Luz, precisely with english tourists, to whom I must thanks.
I can assure you that in 2007 that passage was indeed opened. I think I began to walk through it since 1990-91, more and less, and until at least 2012 it was opened. I say at least 2012 because since that year I don't go to Praia da Luz, so I can't assure if it is still open now...
ReplyDelete