Goncalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

I notice neither of them support the group's statements about their arrival times.

Do you know what ~ you are basing your prejudice on events which happened fifteen years ago and an awful lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

Amaral has admitted that mistakes were made by the PJ (heaven forfend he should note his role in that as co-ordinator ONLY the PJ) who did not look assiduously enough for Brueckner.  While saying he had been eliminated at the time.  T'would be interesting to see exactly how and why they did that.
Maybe the theme for another book therein.

There was NO evidence against Madeleine's parents ~ unless you can indicate some ~ I suggest you give the slurs against them a rest.
Any one who matters is concentrating on the suspect against whom there is evidence and whose innocence Amaral is supporting up to the hilt and beyond.

[Venturi Swirl]

The McCanns presented a theory and he presented a different one. Obviously they all thought they had enough information to do so.

But you think they were both wrong to have any opinion on what happened?

[Venturi Swirl]

I notice neither of them support the group's statements about their arrival times.

It supports the view that Gerry and Kate were at the table by 8.30pm, do you find this in any way suspicious?  Is it your expectation that a dozen different statements from a dozen different people should all give precise and corroborative timings on all events?  If so - that's an unreasonable expectation in my view, if not, then it's hardly worth remarking on in my view.

[Ms Para glider]

It supports the view that Gerry and Kate were at the table by 8.30pm, do you find this in any way suspicious?  Is it your expectation that a dozen different statements from a dozen different people should all give precise and corroborative timings on all events?  If so - that's an unreasonable expectation in my view, if not, then it's hardly worth remarking on in my view.

Well said. It annoys me when people nitpick over exact times, they fail to grasp the reality of how hard this is to do or how common timing discrepancies are when police take witness accounts. People aren't staring at their watches making a mental note of the exact time every event of their day happens. If you try wrting down your timings for what you did yesterday you'll see how hard this is to do, how much guesswork and estimation is involved. Try recalling every time you went to the toilet yesterday and the exact times. It's nonsense, and yet some people seem to think that not only should everyone in this case be able to accurately recount the times of everything they did, but also the times of what other people were doing things. Yes, you may recall some times fairly accurately if there is a specific reason for you to recall knowing the time when that event took place, but otherwise it is mainly estimation.

[Venturi Swirl]

Well said. It annoys me when people nitpick over exact times, they fail to grasp the reality of how hard this is to do or how common timing discrepancies are when police take witness accounts. People aren't staring at their watches making a mental note of the exact time every event of their day happens. If you try wrting down your timings for what you did yesterday you'll see how hard this is to do, how much guesswork and estimation is involved. Try recalling every time you went to the toilet yesterday and the exact times. It's nonsense, and yet some people seem to think that not only should everyone in this case be able to accurately recount the times of everything they did, but also the times of what other people were doing things. Yes, you may recall some times fairly accurately if there is a specific reason for you to recall knowing the time when that event took place, but otherwise it is mainly estimation.

The longer you stick around this forum the more aghast you will be at some of the logic employed by seemingly intelligent people.  One, for example, cites the statement of the Tapas Chef that the group had all left the table by 9.20pm that night as the most believable of all the witness statements about the timing of this incident  because "he had no reason to lie".   Bonkers logic. 

[G-Unit]

Well said. It annoys me when people nitpick over exact times, they fail to grasp the reality of how hard this is to do or how common timing discrepancies are when police take witness accounts. People aren't staring at their watches making a mental note of the exact time every event of their day happens. If you try wrting down your timings for what you did yesterday you'll see how hard this is to do, how much guesswork and estimation is involved. Try recalling every time you went to the toilet yesterday and the exact times. It's nonsense, and yet some people seem to think that not only should everyone in this case be able to accurately recount the times of everything they did, but also the times of what other people were doing things. Yes, you may recall some times fairly accurately if there is a specific reason for you to recall knowing the time when that event took place, but otherwise it is mainly estimation.

The people who decided to 'nitpick' over times were the Tapas group. Almost immediately they concentrated on producing a group timeline, followed by another a few days later. Neither of them are definitive because individual statements don't match them.

Why do you think the waiter and Steve Carpenter didn't notice how late the Paynes and Dianne Webster were that night? According to the group they were not all seated by 8.45 (the waiter) or 8.30 (Carpenter), they weren't all seated until 9pm. Despite the Carpenter's table being adjacent to the group's table he never noticed those three empty chairs. It seems they and the waiter would have given the Paynes an alibi if they had needed one, even though they weren't there.

So who didn't recall the true scenario? The witnesses or the group or both? If we can't be sure about their time of arrival, we can't be sure about the times of the checks or of the alarm being raised.

[G-Unit]

The longer you stick around this forum the more aghast you will be at some of the logic employed by seemingly intelligent people.  One, for example, cites the statement of the Tapas Chef that the group had all left the table by 9.20pm that night as the most believable of all the witness statements about the timing of this incident  because "he had no reason to lie".   Bonkers logic.

That's definitely something the PJ overlooked. There were various statements that cast doubt upon the alarm being raised at 10pm. More work should have been done around that possibility imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

That's definitely something the PJ overlooked. There were various statements that cast doubt upon the alarm being raised at 10pm. More work should have been done around that possibility imo.

Thanks for identifying yourself as the poster who thinks the Tapas Chef witness statement is the most reliable because "he had no reason to lie".  LOL.

[Venturi Swirl]

The people who decided to 'nitpick' over times were the Tapas group. Almost immediately they concentrated on producing a group timeline, followed by another a few days later. Neither of them are definitive because individual statements don't match them.

Why do you think the waiter and Steve Carpenter didn't notice how late the Paynes and Dianne Webster were that night? According to the group they were not all seated by 8.45 (the waiter) or 8.30 (Carpenter), they weren't all seated until 9pm. Despite the Carpenter's table being adjacent to the group's table he never noticed those three empty chairs. It seems they and the waiter would have given the Paynes an alibi if they had needed one, even though they weren't there.

So who didn't recall the true scenario? The witnesses or the group or both? If we can't be sure about their time of arrival, we can't be sure about the times of the checks or of the alarm being raised.

You think the Paynes and Mrs Webster were in need of an alibi for the period 8.30pm to 8.45pm?! 

[Ms Para glider]

The people who decided to 'nitpick' over times were the Tapas group. Almost immediately they concentrated on producing a group timeline, followed by another a few days later. Neither of them are definitive because individual statements don't match them.

Why do you think the waiter and Steve Carpenter didn't notice how late the Paynes and Dianne Webster were that night? According to the group they were not all seated by 8.45 (the waiter) or 8.30 (Carpenter), they weren't all seated until 9pm. Despite the Carpenter's table being adjacent to the group's table he never noticed those three empty chairs. It seems they and the waiter would have given the Paynes an alibi if they had needed one, even though they weren't there.

So who didn't recall the true scenario? The witnesses or the group or both? If we can't be sure about their time of arrival, we can't be sure about the times of the checks or of the alarm being raised.

Nope. That's not what nitpicking is. You really need to start looking words up in the dictionary before you post as you don't seem to know what they mean.

Nitpicking - fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

The Tapas group were just trying to get the timings as accurate as possible because they knew how significant it might be to the case. By collaborative effort, you can increase the accuracy of the timeline better than as individuals. I'm sure you find this activity of collaborating highly suspicious, but really it was actually a very sensible thing to do. If person X cannot recall the exact time they did something, but they do recall it was about 5 minutes after person Y did something, then it is possible to put a more accurate time on person X's event if person Y does know what time they did their thing. See how that works?

Yes it can work the other way too, so if person Y is incorrect about their time, it can knock on the accuracy of X's time. But when you have so many people helping to verify the various comings and goings, because they were all there and interacting, the accuracy of the timings DOES increase moreso than if recounted individually.

Do I think the times given by the Tapas group are 100% spot on? No. But just because a bar worker thinks everyone was sat by 8.45, it does not make his timing more reliable just because he has "no reason to lie".  I very much doubt he was there with a stopwatch, watching and counting the group members like a hawk.

[G-Unit]

Nope. That's not what nitpicking is. You really need to start looking words up in the dictionary before you post as you don't seem to know what they mean.

Nitpicking - fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

The Tapas group were just trying to get the timings as accurate as possible because they knew how significant it might be to the case. By collaborative effort, you can increase the accuracy of the timeline better than as individuals. I'm sure you find this activity of collaborating highly suspicious, but really it was actually a very sensible thing to do. If person X cannot recall the exact time they did something, but they do recall it was about 5 minutes after person Y did something, then it is possible to put a more accurate time on person X's event if person Y does know what time they did their thing. See how that works?

Yes it can work the other way too, so if person Y is incorrect about their time, it can knock on the accuracy of X's time. But when you have so many people helping to verify the various comings and goings, because they were all there and interacting, the accuracy of the timings DOES increase moreso than if recounted individually.

Do I think the times given by the Tapas group are 100% spot on? No. But just because a bar worker thinks everyone was sat by 8.45, it does not make his timing more reliable just because he has "no reason to lie".  I very much doubt he was there with a stopwatch, watching and counting the group members like a hawk.

In truth the timeline was never something that could be relied on, but so many did. It was used to give Gerry McCann an alibi, for example.

[Venturi Swirl]

In truth the timeline was never something that could be relied on, but so many did. It was used to give Gerry McCann an alibi, for example.

So you DO believe the entire group conspired to give Gerry an alibi? And yet you claim you don't know what happened that night.  Slight contradiction there!

[G-Unit]

So you DO believe the entire group conspired to give Gerry an alibi? And yet you claim you don't know what happened that night.  Slight contradiction there!

It was used by others to claim that Gerry had an alibi. I'm not assuming they conspired to create the time the alarm was raised, but they clearly collaborated on the timeline. Collaboration can result in those who are unsure agreeing with those who are sure.

[Venturi Swirl]

It was used by others to claim that Gerry had an alibi. I'm not assuming they conspired to create the time the alarm was raised, but they clearly collaborated on the timeline. Collaboration can result in those who are unsure agreeing with those who are sure.

In order for Gerry to have needed an alibi it would have been necessary for the recollections of everyone involved to have been out by about a minimum of half an hour (except the Tapas Chef, who "had no reason to lie" but who really should have been concentrating on cooking the steaks rather than logging the comings and goings of the Tapas group IMO). 

[Ms Para glider]

It was used by others to claim that Gerry had an alibi. I'm not assuming they conspired to create the time the alarm was raised, but they clearly collaborated on the timeline. Collaboration can result in those who are unsure agreeing with those who are sure.

Oh come on. If you want to claim the timeline provided an alibi for Gerry, then the insinuation is that Gerry left the rest of the group for a length of time in order to get rid of a body. How can you then claim this does not necesarily constitute a conspiracy by the group? What is your logic here, that nobody among the rest of the group noticed that he went AWOL for a length of time, and they were just all duped into agreeing a timeline that just happened to give Gerry an alibi?