It’s an exercise the police have had 13 years to undertake and don’t appear to have done so, which suggests they don’t feel the answer lies in the activities of the Tapas Group. As you believe it does, it is not goading IMO to suggest that you and other sceptics undertake this work yourselves, pivoting the entire night’s comings and goings around the now firmly established (by you and G-Unit) alarm being raised just before 9.20pm. If I get more points for writing this, I will want a detailed explanation as to why this suggestion is not permitted.
It's reported on this forum that SY are on record stating that understanding the timeline is crucial.
I haven't firmly establishes that the alarm was raised just before 21:20. There is one independent witness who states:A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location.
IMO opinion "around 21:20" could be some time later (rather than "just before"). It's impossible to "firmly establish" it was "before 21:20" as you keep insisting.
I don't understand the debate on the SIL site about whether MO carried out one of his checks. With regards to his two checks MO's statements seem consistent to me. A listening check around 21:00 and the check which involved entering 5A at around 21:25. I believe any "clamour" must be after this.
One part of MO's rogatory statement also needs further clarity, imo. It reads to me like ROB and MO went to do the second check AFTER the main course:
"then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
4078: 'So you think it was about half an hour between your check''
Reply: 'It would have been around that sort of time and the reason I think thirty minutes is because I, I don't know whether this is memory now or whether it's since we've been talking about it, Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes, erm, because I think that main course would have taken a bit longer because, you know, Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'. He also describes two visits to Reception to ask them to call the Police. The first on his own at "22:05 - 22:10" the second with GM "about thirty minutes or so later" to check the Police had been called.Of course the actual time the Police were called is verifiable. The Reception staff also offer a time frame for this event.
One other point to note is a glaring error in the Crimewatch reconstruction, imo. I'm as certain as I can be that they had GM leaving for his check before MO got back to the table from his first check. None of the testimony seems to support this scenario.
If you believe an abduction took place then the timeline is crucial as it will indicate the times that an abduction was possible. IMO there can only have been a tiny window of opportunity - unless the checks were further apart than stated.
Is anyone here aware of any independent testimony that verifies KM's check and the time it took place?
