It's no secret, that for quite some time now, I have become increasingly frustrated with the force-feeding of flawed, fanciful theories regarding the Madeleine McCann case. What people don't see, is that when I've shown evidence to counter these theories, I've been plagued via messenger by a small number of defenders of those driven by a burning desire to place people into the feeding chair, clamp the clasps, insert the metaphorical tube and perpetually ply them with puffed-up propaganda. What happened to defending the truth? Floods of long-winded, repetitive, off-beam attempts at persuasion, virtually begging me not to counter these theories - and that's not nearly the worst of it. Why? Why the hell shouldn't I pursue the truth, is that not what we're all here for?
 |
| The indoctrination will see you now |
Is this their purpose? Tony Bennett certainly has no qualms when it comes to ignoring true facts and inventing evidence, but we'll get onto that fraud in good time.
For now, let's take a look at just some of the witness statements that have been shrouded with doubt, how they've been discredited, and why those who do so should take a look at themselves in the mirror, and have a serious word with themselves:
Firstly, the statements of the Millennium restaurant staff:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm
"When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.
She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millennium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area."
So, the first statement, and we have a member of staff who claims "...she knows the parents, the siblings, and Madeleine"
I'm really not sure what the doubters want here, or what they'd consider as proof? A biometric retina scanner on the door perhaps...
Next, we have Ana Marilia do Carmo Silva's statement:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANA-SILVA.htm
"She says that the child and her parents frequented the restaurant where they would have breakfast. When asked, she says that she can not remember the date when they first began to frequent the restaurant. However, she is certain that they frequented the restaurant from the beginning of the week."
Three keywords, "...she is certain"
John Young:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_YOUNG.htm
"After seeing their [the McCann's] picture, he immediately remembered that he had seen them having breakfast in the restaurant where he works, but that he does not remember any situation in particular involving this family, nor does he remember hearing or noticing any strange situation involving their presence."
He "immediately remembered" No doubt, no confusion
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htm
"For security reasons and given that the restaurant has a receptionist, the entrance of guests is registered, in order to frequent the adjacent areas cards must be shown, with the individual's name, apart number and arrival and departure dates."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htmIs this proof? I'll admit, we haven't seen the register, but you can be damn sure the PJ did.
So that's three independent witnesses who were absolutely sure, and there are many more.
BRINGING ON A SUB
This extension of the death on Sunday theory sees suggestions that one of the other Tapas friends offered up their daughter as a substitute for Madeleine. A three-year-old stand-in whom - we're expected to believe, was to unwittingly play the public role of Madeleine in order to convince a myriad of witnesses, that her friend hadn't died on the Sunday, and that all was well. In the meantime, we're also expected to believe that this act was carried out for four consecutive days, whilst the McCanns and their friends planned a fake abduction scenario; a scenario that, let's be honest, was littered with mistakes and inconsistencies.
More McCann lies. A crock of locked V unlocked
For me, the substitute child theory is a bridge too far. It was an area I looked at, even one - I'm ashamed to say, I bought into at one point. That was before I looked at what was being said from a logical point of view, and before I considered the feelings of an innocent little girl who was, at the time, of a similar age to Madeleine McCann. A little girl whom, for no good reason, has had her name planted into a totally implausible and disturbing fantasy world, that some will believe at face value.
I'd like to look - objectively, at some of the reasons that have been put forward as to why some think there's a possibility the witnesses I named above could have been mistaken about seeing Madeleine, and had, in fact, confused her with another child. The crux of this theory is put forward by using the following descriptions and accepting them as the full and complete personality of Madeleine.
I'll write the descriptions in purple and keep my words in black so you can see who the comments were attributed to:
Extroverted - Gerry McCann
Lively - Matt Oldfield, Jane Tanner, Kate McCann
Vivacious - Jane Tanner
Ringleader - Jane Tanner
Bags of character - Kate McCann
Loud - Kate McCann
Likes talking - Kate McCann
Huge presence - Kate McCann
Run around screaming...shouting - Kate McCann
Hyperactive - Kate McCann
Full of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Active - Sharon Lewin (Madeleine's nursey school teacher for 6 months)
Energetic - Janet Kennedy/Dianne Webster
Headstrong - Russell O'Brien
Bubbly - Rachael Oldfield/Russell O'Brien/David Payne
Full of life - Russell O'Brien
Full of beans - Russell O'Brien
Cheery - Rachael Oldfield
Full of fun - Rachael Oldfield/Amanda Jane Coxon (friend of Kate and Gerry, their cleaner and Madeleine's babysitter)
Lots of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Happy go lucky - David Payne
Chatty - Jill Renwick (Kate McCann's friend)
Wee devil - Joe Peoples (family friend)
Not shy - Jill Renwick
Personality all of her own - Susan Healy (Madeleine's grandmother)
Full of life - Russell O'Brien/Philomena McCann
Relishes being the centre of attention - Susan Healy
She would shine out of a crowd - Jon Corner (Madeleine's Godfather)
Outgoing personality - FindMadeleine website
Engaging chatter - FindMadeleine website
Incredible amount of energy - FindMadeleine website
A warm, life enriching little person that will never fail we're sure to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter - FindMadeleine website
Comparisons were then been made to differing ones from Ocean Club staff. An example of which is below, and again, from Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo:
"She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him."
It's because of the above descriptions, and contrasting recollections of a shy Madeleine, from people she barely knew, that some believe in the "distinct possibility" of another child being used as a substitute for Madeleine.
Take the snippet from the statement above, I can see no earthly reason why, for example, Jane Tanner's daughter, would be clinging to Gerry McCann's leg. More likely, that Madeleine, as children often are, was a little nervous in the restaurant. Perhaps tired (groggy even?) and therefore a bit clingy.
Given that the people who described Madeleine as all of the above knew her well, that she would recognise their faces and be comfortable around them, is it beyond the realms of possibility that perhaps Madeleine behaved differently around those she didn't know as well?
No, it isn't. In fact, it's perfectly normal and usual for this to be the case.
Adults can often be outgoing and confident around those they know - less so around people they don't. For children, that is more apparent. It would be absolutely natural for Madeleine to be shy in a strange environment, with other guests and staff milling about. She might have even been cranky on a morning, and not feel much like running around and being the centre of attention.
Speaking of running around, here's a snippet from Jane Tanner's statement; a snippet that shows Jane Tanner's daughter as being the least shy of all the kids on the holiday, at that particular time:
"Err and then I mean I really can’t, the kids were excited so they were, Ella was running around especially"
Another point to consider is this. After Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry McCann were under the spotlight, they had lied about the crime scene and would be desperate - as would their friends, not to give rise to any suspicions upon them by describing Madeleine as anything but a happy child. Had they described her as shy, quiet, reserved, timid, withdrawn or any other similar variant, then fingers would have been pointed a lot sooner than they were.
I'm not even going to get into the fact that Madeleine McCann is perhaps the most recognisable child on the planet since Harry Potter first sat on a Nimbus 2000! All it would have taken, would have been for just one of the witnesses to say "Hang on, that's not the child the McCanns were with every day"
What if the twins had called out the wrong name when addressing their sister?
What name would the adults call if said substitute child was to be spoken to?
What if this unaware child had introduced herself to another person, or been asked her name?
No, the theory of a substitute child simply isn't plausible.
WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
One thing that keeps cropping up from supporters of the death on Sunday theory is this, "Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't have access to the evidence we have now" This claim is actually laughable, it's not only arrogant, but it's ludicrous in the extreme.
We, the public, have seen far, far less evidence than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, and here's why.
With thanks, and with the permission of my good friend NT:
"When it comes to sources of information about the Madeleine McCann case, we have had access to far more information than would normally be available to any member of the public in most countries. It is very rare to have access to the police case file at any time, but particularly for a case which is ongoing and unsolved. We have been able to read witness statements, police communications, scenes of crime and forensic reports. In fact, if you read it sequentially, in date order, it gives a fascinating insight into how a case is approached and the multitude of tasks which have to be completed.
So one would think that someone who has followed the case closely, studied the PJ files, ignored the fawning nonsense delivered for years on a daily basis by a press which was handed stories to print, read the court transcripts and generally kept their ear to the ground would know everything there is to know about the case, wouldn't you?
And you would be wrong.
So, instead of considering what we do know, what is there out there to which we have not been granted access?
The answer is: Most of it.
So let's have a quick rewind for a minute
Most people are aware that when the PJ case file was published, certain sections and documents were withheld. Often, they are not clear about what was retained and what wasn't, and it's not easy to follow, especially when you take a document written in legal language which has been dragged through a minimum of two translation processes and try to figure out what was actually being said.
There were five categories raised with the Portuguese judiciary by UK policing authorities with respect to information which should be retained and not published. Briefly, these were:
1. Information relating to convicted sex offenders
2. Intelligence reports, often relating to suspected sex offenders
3. Information supplied via Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
4. Communication between police forces
5. Information supplied via the NPIA.
I have searched in vain for an order from the court detailing what, with the exception of the info about sex offenders, should be retained. There are a number of untranslated documents at the end of that files, the last process file, so I am hoping this may throw up a definite answer. However, we can say with certainty that some files, in fact some volumes were removed prior to publication.
This has given rise to an oft-used expression; "Missing from the files" is often used with respect to certain statements which do not appear in the published files, often giving rise to elaborate conspiracy theories about why they were ''hidden'', secret D notices and other such rubbish, when the answer is simple - they fell into one of those categories listed above and so were withheld from publication.
So, with the exception of those few files, we have seen everything, right?
Er, no.
We have not seen, nor are we likely to ever see, the vast amount of information accumulated by UK forces, both contemporaneously and in the years since.
The reasons why are enshrined in both UK and EU law, but to put it simply we do not have the right to see those files and nor are we ever likely to unless prosecutions result and we see any evidence offered in court. Anyone who thinks they will be published with the closure of the Operation Grange investigation is sadly deluded.
So what have we NOT seen?
Easy one, this. We don't know.
We know of the existence of certain documents because reference is made to them in a later document, most typically reference in rogatory interviews to previous statements a witness may have made. It's quite simple - if they made their statement to a UK force, it won't be there. If they made it to the PJ, it will. ( I should state here it is nothing to do with Textusa's nonsense explanation that a statement would only be included if there was something of interest in it, hence the absence of some initial statements. That is hogwash)
So we know about those. We also, tantalisingly, know of a few others, like the witness who testified that they had seen K&G carrying a bag on the night of the 3rd May, because the McCanns have made specific reference to them, but we can't see them as they are not in the published file
So, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, what is out there that we have not had access to?
1. Initial statements of some witnesses who gave evidence to UK forces. In some cases, there are rogatory statements which cover the same ground so we have an idea of the content eg, Stephen Carpenter
2. Witness statements made directly to UK police forces. We know there were some, we do not know how many or what their content was
3. The 500 questionnaires sent to UK residents who had been on holiday in PdL at the time.
4. Any other evidence given directly to a UK force ( for example by people who knew any of those involved)
5. Any information submitted via Crimestoppers
6. Any information given directly to other non-UK forces
7. All the information resulting from subsequent UK investigations, including the case review and Operation Grange"
http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-full-picture.html
Proof - of needed, that the PJ and Goncalo Amaral had far more evidence to hand than those who claim the opposite, including:
500 questionnaires - not seen by the public.
Statements from UK residents who were staying at the Ocean Club - not seen by the public
Photographs - not seen by the public
The PJ and Goncalo Amaral were also a damn sight better equipped to absorb it all than a handful of people on the internet and yet, these people question the findings of the PJ. They doubt them.
I refer back to my earlier words; all it would have taken, would have been for just one witness to raise doubts as to Madeleine being alive and well up until the 3rd of May, and the entire investigation would have taken an entirely different turn of events; an entirely different line of questioning would have taken place, and we would have seen that within the limited evidence available to us, the public.
Throughout the libel and damages trials - instigated by the McCanns, Goncalo Amaral himself was fighting to prevent himself from financial ruin; his assets were frozen.
If any credible evidence casting doubt upon Madeleine being alive prior to the 3rd had presented itself, would he really have kept this under his hat?
Would the former coordinator of the case gone through years of hell, systematic and relentless abuse from the McCanns' allies in the British media, before finally having to rely upon a fund to help him appeal - and win the case brought against him?
The answer to those questions has to be "an emphatic no"
CAMERA LIES
At the top of the blog I mentioned Tony Bennett, a man with a history - dating back to 2012, of planting fake evidence relating to the McCann case, and those who try to draw attention to the real facts. As far as myself and the vast majority of people who follow the case closely are concerned, Bennett is finished, his agenda has been exposed, and so I don't wish to dwell on him too much. That being said, he is responsible for some fake claims regarding this topic, and as such it would be remiss of me not to tackle these, before drawing this blog to an end.
The following photograph is from the PJ Files, and has a description attached (in blue), by Albym, one of the translators of the files who whose job it was to examine all the photographs:
Would you describe any of the photos above as being taken on a "sunny day"? Of course not, and to back that up, I've included (above) the satellite imagery for the 28th. Not a cloud in the sky, and why would there be, the photo was taken on the 2nd on a day when, as can be seen from the imagery below, Praia da Luz was surrounded by cloud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw
Compare the photo on the left, to the one in the play area. Madeleine is wearing 3/4 length bottoms, whereas, in the play area photo, her jogger bottoms are long enough to fall past her ankles.
To highlight the differences even further, I've zoomed in on the trousers Madeleine was wearing in the play area (right) from another photograph, again reported in the files as being taken on the 2nd. It couldn't be any clearer that the shorts Madeleine wore on arrival - the 28th April, are entirely different from the jogger bottoms she was wearing on the 2nd of May. No question, no debate; they're different.
If we then look at Gerry's clothing, we can see he's wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt, but in the play area photograph, he's wearing khaki shorts and a long sleeved top. In other words, they're both wearing different clothes.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, and that's because I am. Despite Bennett's claims to the contrary, neither Gerry or Madeleine are wearing the same clothes as they were on arrival. Add this to the established, and undeniable facts that the weather in the play area photo is an absolute match to the independent photos of the windsurfing competition that took place on the 2nd, then there simply is no coherent claim that the photograph of the play area, showing an alive and well Madeleine, was taken on any other day than that reported in the files - May the 2nd 2007. Thus ruling out any possibility of Madeleine having met her fate 3 days earlier.
It's madness to suggest otherwise, and it's for those reasons, and many more, that I simply will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007.
It's because of the above descriptions, and contrasting recollections of a shy Madeleine, from people she barely knew, that some believe in the "distinct possibility" of another child being used as a substitute for Madeleine.
Take the snippet from the statement above, I can see no earthly reason why, for example, Jane Tanner's daughter, would be clinging to Gerry McCann's leg. More likely, that Madeleine, as children often are, was a little nervous in the restaurant. Perhaps tired (groggy even?) and therefore a bit clingy.
Given that the people who described Madeleine as all of the above knew her well, that she would recognise their faces and be comfortable around them, is it beyond the realms of possibility that perhaps Madeleine behaved differently around those she didn't know as well?
No, it isn't. In fact, it's perfectly normal and usual for this to be the case.
Adults can often be outgoing and confident around those they know - less so around people they don't. For children, that is more apparent. It would be absolutely natural for Madeleine to be shy in a strange environment, with other guests and staff milling about. She might have even been cranky on a morning, and not feel much like running around and being the centre of attention.
Speaking of running around, here's a snippet from Jane Tanner's statement; a snippet that shows Jane Tanner's daughter as being the least shy of all the kids on the holiday, at that particular time:
Another point to consider is this. After Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry McCann were under the spotlight, they had lied about the crime scene and would be desperate - as would their friends, not to give rise to any suspicions upon them by describing Madeleine as anything but a happy child. Had they described her as shy, quiet, reserved, timid, withdrawn or any other similar variant, then fingers would have been pointed a lot sooner than they were.
I'm not even going to get into the fact that Madeleine McCann is perhaps the most recognisable child on the planet since Harry Potter first sat on a Nimbus 2000! All it would have taken, would have been for just one of the witnesses to say "Hang on, that's not the child the McCanns were with every day"
What if the twins had called out the wrong name when addressing their sister?
What name would the adults call if said substitute child was to be spoken to?
What if this unaware child had introduced herself to another person, or been asked her name?
No, the theory of a substitute child simply isn't plausible.
WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
One thing that keeps cropping up from supporters of the death on Sunday theory is this, "Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't have access to the evidence we have now" This claim is actually laughable, it's not only arrogant, but it's ludicrous in the extreme.
We, the public, have seen far, far less evidence than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, and here's why.
With thanks, and with the permission of my good friend NT:
"When it comes to sources of information about the Madeleine McCann case, we have had access to far more information than would normally be available to any member of the public in most countries. It is very rare to have access to the police case file at any time, but particularly for a case which is ongoing and unsolved. We have been able to read witness statements, police communications, scenes of crime and forensic reports. In fact, if you read it sequentially, in date order, it gives a fascinating insight into how a case is approached and the multitude of tasks which have to be completed.
So one would think that someone who has followed the case closely, studied the PJ files, ignored the fawning nonsense delivered for years on a daily basis by a press which was handed stories to print, read the court transcripts and generally kept their ear to the ground would know everything there is to know about the case, wouldn't you?
And you would be wrong.
So, instead of considering what we do know, what is there out there to which we have not been granted access?
The answer is: Most of it.
So let's have a quick rewind for a minute
Most people are aware that when the PJ case file was published, certain sections and documents were withheld. Often, they are not clear about what was retained and what wasn't, and it's not easy to follow, especially when you take a document written in legal language which has been dragged through a minimum of two translation processes and try to figure out what was actually being said.
There were five categories raised with the Portuguese judiciary by UK policing authorities with respect to information which should be retained and not published. Briefly, these were:
1. Information relating to convicted sex offenders
2. Intelligence reports, often relating to suspected sex offenders
3. Information supplied via Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
4. Communication between police forces
5. Information supplied via the NPIA.
I have searched in vain for an order from the court detailing what, with the exception of the info about sex offenders, should be retained. There are a number of untranslated documents at the end of that files, the last process file, so I am hoping this may throw up a definite answer. However, we can say with certainty that some files, in fact some volumes were removed prior to publication.
This has given rise to an oft-used expression; "Missing from the files" is often used with respect to certain statements which do not appear in the published files, often giving rise to elaborate conspiracy theories about why they were ''hidden'', secret D notices and other such rubbish, when the answer is simple - they fell into one of those categories listed above and so were withheld from publication.
So, with the exception of those few files, we have seen everything, right?
Er, no.
We have not seen, nor are we likely to ever see, the vast amount of information accumulated by UK forces, both contemporaneously and in the years since.
The reasons why are enshrined in both UK and EU law, but to put it simply we do not have the right to see those files and nor are we ever likely to unless prosecutions result and we see any evidence offered in court. Anyone who thinks they will be published with the closure of the Operation Grange investigation is sadly deluded.
So what have we NOT seen?
Easy one, this. We don't know.
We know of the existence of certain documents because reference is made to them in a later document, most typically reference in rogatory interviews to previous statements a witness may have made. It's quite simple - if they made their statement to a UK force, it won't be there. If they made it to the PJ, it will. ( I should state here it is nothing to do with Textusa's nonsense explanation that a statement would only be included if there was something of interest in it, hence the absence of some initial statements. That is hogwash)
So we know about those. We also, tantalisingly, know of a few others, like the witness who testified that they had seen K&G carrying a bag on the night of the 3rd May, because the McCanns have made specific reference to them, but we can't see them as they are not in the published file
So, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, what is out there that we have not had access to?
1. Initial statements of some witnesses who gave evidence to UK forces. In some cases, there are rogatory statements which cover the same ground so we have an idea of the content eg, Stephen Carpenter
2. Witness statements made directly to UK police forces. We know there were some, we do not know how many or what their content was
3. The 500 questionnaires sent to UK residents who had been on holiday in PdL at the time.
4. Any other evidence given directly to a UK force ( for example by people who knew any of those involved)
5. Any information submitted via Crimestoppers
6. Any information given directly to other non-UK forces
7. All the information resulting from subsequent UK investigations, including the case review and Operation Grange"
http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-full-picture.html
Proof - of needed, that the PJ and Goncalo Amaral had far more evidence to hand than those who claim the opposite, including:
500 questionnaires - not seen by the public.
Statements from UK residents who were staying at the Ocean Club - not seen by the public
Photographs - not seen by the public
The PJ and Goncalo Amaral were also a damn sight better equipped to absorb it all than a handful of people on the internet and yet, these people question the findings of the PJ. They doubt them.
I refer back to my earlier words; all it would have taken, would have been for just one witness to raise doubts as to Madeleine being alive and well up until the 3rd of May, and the entire investigation would have taken an entirely different turn of events; an entirely different line of questioning would have taken place, and we would have seen that within the limited evidence available to us, the public.
Throughout the libel and damages trials - instigated by the McCanns, Goncalo Amaral himself was fighting to prevent himself from financial ruin; his assets were frozen.
If any credible evidence casting doubt upon Madeleine being alive prior to the 3rd had presented itself, would he really have kept this under his hat?
Would the former coordinator of the case gone through years of hell, systematic and relentless abuse from the McCanns' allies in the British media, before finally having to rely upon a fund to help him appeal - and win the case brought against him?
The answer to those questions has to be "an emphatic no"
CAMERA LIES
At the top of the blog I mentioned Tony Bennett, a man with a history - dating back to 2012, of planting fake evidence relating to the McCann case, and those who try to draw attention to the real facts. As far as myself and the vast majority of people who follow the case closely are concerned, Bennett is finished, his agenda has been exposed, and so I don't wish to dwell on him too much. That being said, he is responsible for some fake claims regarding this topic, and as such it would be remiss of me not to tackle these, before drawing this blog to an end.
The following photograph is from the PJ Files, and has a description attached (in blue), by Albym, one of the translators of the files who whose job it was to examine all the photographs:
"Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCannplaying with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean(laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
Now, it's unclear as to where Albym got the date from, whether it was given to PJ by the McCanns, if it was added by the PJ after being examined, or if it was from a timestamp on Kate's camera that had also been checked, but...what is of interest when it comes to backing this date up, and proving beyond any doubt that Madeleine was alive on the 2nd, is the weather. I will zoom in on the sky:
When I was searching for some independent photos to try and make a comparison between the sky and weather on the photo above, I came across some of a windsurf competition. It wasn't until I spoke to one of the Portuguese translators, that I was made aware of the fact that Tony Bennet was also in possession of these photos. Here they are, pay particular attention to the sky:
Now you tell me, is that sky, in nearby Portimão (a mere 12 miles from PdL as the crow flies), not exactly the same as that in the photo of the play area?
 |
| Satellite imagery of Saturday the 28th April |
Yet, and despite having seen these photographs, Tony Bennett demands that people ignore the facts and claims the weather matches that of Saturday, a day that by his own admission was sunny.
Would you describe any of the photos above as being taken on a "sunny day"? Of course not, and to back that up, I've included (above) the satellite imagery for the 28th. Not a cloud in the sky, and why would there be, the photo was taken on the 2nd on a day when, as can be seen from the imagery below, Praia da Luz was surrounded by cloud.
 |
| IT'S A MATCH! Satellite imagery of Wednesday the 2nd May |
To further these false claims, Bennett also tries to tell people the clothes that Gerry and Madeleine were wearing on arrival (Saturday 28th May) match those in the play area photo. So let's look at those:
Here we have two stills taken from a video of the McCanns arriving in Portugal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw
Compare the photo on the left, to the one in the play area. Madeleine is wearing 3/4 length bottoms, whereas, in the play area photo, her jogger bottoms are long enough to fall past her ankles. To highlight the differences even further, I've zoomed in on the trousers Madeleine was wearing in the play area (right) from another photograph, again reported in the files as being taken on the 2nd. It couldn't be any clearer that the shorts Madeleine wore on arrival - the 28th April, are entirely different from the jogger bottoms she was wearing on the 2nd of May. No question, no debate; they're different.
If we then look at Gerry's clothing, we can see he's wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt, but in the play area photograph, he's wearing khaki shorts and a long sleeved top. In other words, they're both wearing different clothes.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, and that's because I am. Despite Bennett's claims to the contrary, neither Gerry or Madeleine are wearing the same clothes as they were on arrival. Add this to the established, and undeniable facts that the weather in the play area photo is an absolute match to the independent photos of the windsurfing competition that took place on the 2nd, then there simply is no coherent claim that the photograph of the play area, showing an alive and well Madeleine, was taken on any other day than that reported in the files - May the 2nd 2007. Thus ruling out any possibility of Madeleine having met her fate 3 days earlier.
It's madness to suggest otherwise, and it's for those reasons, and many more, that I simply will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007.
