Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Carana]

Fairly sure Google Translate would routinely spit out Klingon insults in 2007 as it was in it's infancy.
You wouldn't be able to translate conversation French at that point, never mind a Portuguese witness statement.

I agree that google translate itself was in its infancy, but automatic translation software has existed since sometimes back in the latter half of the 90s.

[Carana]

Marshall was reading a questionnaire written and answered in what I assume was his native language; English.

That's not my impression. Who on earth would write "the husband arrived" in English?

[G-Unit]

I repeat: you suspect him of lying about this minor detail?

What minor detail?

[G-Unit]

And you're right David Payne hasn't got a statement from later in May as the other members of his family did.
"DAVID PAYNE 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DAVID PAYNE 11 APRIL 2008 ROGATORY
DIANNE WEBSTER 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DIANNE WEBSTER 11 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DIANNE WEBSTER 11 APRIL 08 ROGATORY
FIONA PAYNE 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
FIONA ELAINE PAYNE 16 05 07 STATEMENT
FIONA PAYNE 10 APRIL 08 ROGATORY"

You'd wonder why that was.  Both David and Kate seem to be the ones who miss out on giving second statements in May.

Fiona also.

[Venturi Swirl]

What minor detail?

referring to photos to work out where he was at what time.

[The General]

I agree that google translate itself was in its infancy, but automatic translation software has existed since sometimes back in the latter half of the 90s.

I don't doubt it, but you did specifically state 'Google translation'.

[The General]

And you're right David Payne hasn't got a statement from later in May as the other members of his family did.
"DAVID PAYNE 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DAVID PAYNE 11 APRIL 2008 ROGATORY
DIANNE WEBSTER 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DIANNE WEBSTER 11 MAY 07 STATEMENT
DIANNE WEBSTER 11 APRIL 08 ROGATORY
FIONA PAYNE 04 MAY 07 STATEMENT
FIONA ELAINE PAYNE 16 05 07 STATEMENT
FIONA PAYNE 10 APRIL 08 ROGATORY"

You'd wonder why that was.  Both David and Kate seem to be the ones who miss out on giving second statements in May.

Maybe they refused. They weren't exactly under caution. They could just tell them to foxtrot oscar.

[The General]

Not quite:
We don't have to wonder about why there is no second statement for Kate. According to her, Alan Pike was concerned about her wellbeing. Madeleine's wellbeing, as usual taking second place to that of the McCann's, wellbeing. That's my opinion of it.

Kate McCann: "Alan Pike was concerned about my wellbeing and asked for my rescheduled interview to be postponed for a few days. The PJ couldn’t have considered it all that important: it was 6 September before I was interviewed again. 36".

She has also said in her book that "By the Sunday evening we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police , especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not particularly thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly".

As you can see for yourself, Kate couldn't have considered it that important either. So concerned was she, that she let Alan Pike effectively draw her up a sicknote in order NOT to get every detail she could remember registered properly. Clever, eh?

They think we're all mugs IMO. In my opinion you'd need to be.

That just leaves David Payne. Whether the PJ have withheld a second David Payne statement is not known. It's unlikely Alan Pike would have drawn him up a sicknote, IMO.

So the last 'external' witness to apparently see Madeleine alive was either not re-interviewed, refused to be re-interviewed or the statement has been withheld? Is there a possibility that he was re-interviewed under caution?

[The General]

You tell me?

Probably not.
Why were the second round of interviews released to the public in the first place?

[G-Unit]

referring to photos to work out where he was at what time.

He didn't do it alone, he says 'we'. None of the others relied on photos, they remembered the discussion at the Paraiso about the time.

[Brietta]

          Where does the current discussion feature in Mark Saunokonoko's podcast ?

[Venturi Swirl]

He didn't do it alone, he says 'we'. None of the others relied on photos, they remembered the discussion at the Paraiso about the time.

Hw do you know none of the others relied on photos?  Just because they may have omitted to mention this minor detail doesn’t make DP a liar does it?  Once again I ask you: do you suspect Payne of lying about this minor detail?  I take it from all your replies so far that you do, however I know you don’t like me to make assumptions about your beliefs so now is your opportunity to put me straight.

[Brietta]

Which one?

Hard to tell the difference ... but I think the current variant has been rumbling around for at least a couple of days.

[G-Unit]

Hw do you know none of the others relied on photos?  Just because they may have omitted to mention this minor detail doesn’t make DP a liar does it?  Once again I ask you: do you suspect Payne of lying about this minor detail?  I take it from all your replies so far that you do, however I know you don’t like me to make assumptions about your beliefs so now is your opportunity to put me straight.

It doesn't make sense in my opinion, but it's not important. What is important is his apparent change of story. How did he go from seeing Madeleine in 5A with both parents to seeing her with one parent and her siblings?

[The General]

It doesn't make sense in my opinion, but it's not important. What is important is his apparent change of story. How did he go from seeing Madeleine in 5A with both parents to seeing her with one parent and her siblings?

As discussed in Mark's podcast, right?
Playing Devil's Advocate, one could argue that DP would be fully aware of such a significant change in statement and the perception of that change - but did it anyway. All of these revisions are now just examples of poor investigation. Why didn't they refer back to previous statements when forming the questions for the 2nd one?