Goncalo Amaral.

[G-Unit]

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).

Fifteen minutes, not half an hour.

The person you think was the Tapas Chef wasn't. His role was not to cook steaks (or anything else) for the Tapas restaurant customers. So your disparaging comment doesn't work, I'm afraid.

[G-Unit]

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?

Try to imagine the alarm was raised at 9.45. Everybody ran to 5A (except Dianne Webster). Then what? According to
a UK analyst;

In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.

Analyst 7792 Eaton
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

[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.

Situation:  Gerry knows he's been seen by numerous people carrying the corpse of his dead child through town, the same child who, when standing before the world's camera 24 hours later, he will claim was abducted.  He knows the witnesses will put the time of the sighting at around 10pm, so on his return from dumping the body a few minutes after 10pm (which he managed to do by leaving the rest of the group frantically searching and retrieving the body without anyone seeing) he sits down at the behest of one of the group who is drawing up the timeline and insists that the alarm was raised at 10pm even though that would probably make no sense to the rest of the group as they would have had a sense that it was much earlier than that but nevertheless, eager to fall into line with the Alpha Male they all concur with him.  And then, strike me down!  A few days later when giving his statement to the police he puts the time of the alarm at around 10.15pm totally destroying the alibi he cunningly coerced the rest of the group to agree with - what the devil is this man playing at?!  Is he mad do you think?

[Venturi Swirl]

Try to imagine the alarm was raised at 9.45. Everybody ran to 5A (except Dianne Webster). Then what? According to
a UK analyst;

In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.

Analyst 7792 Eaton
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

Hang on - the only reliable witness was the chef, remember?  He put the alarm at prior to 9.25pm.  Have you changed your mind about his reliability now?

[Venturi Swirl]

Fifteen minutes, not half an hour.

The person you think was the Tapas Chef wasn't. His role was not to cook steaks (or anything else) for the Tapas restaurant customers. So your disparaging comment doesn't work, I'm afraid.

What was his role?  Did he not say that everyone had left the table by 9.25pm?  10pm minus 9.25pm is 35 minutes, unless my maths is incorrect too.

[Venturi Swirl]

Fifteen minutes, not half an hour.

The person you think was the Tapas Chef wasn't. His role was not to cook steaks (or anything else) for the Tapas restaurant customers. So your disparaging comment doesn't work, I'm afraid.

This is the person whose testimony I am referring to:
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja

Date/Time: 2007/05/08 21H10
Executive Chef
The witness who had no reason to lie claimed everyone had vacated the table by 9.40pm, in direct contradiction with the waiter (who had no reason to lie either) who claimed that he saw Dianne Webster sat at the table between 10pm and 10.30pm.  So there we have two witnesses, with no reason to lie, yet one of them is CLEARLY LYING (as in your world it would seem witnesses cannot be mistaken).  So does this mean one of these individuals is in cahoots with the Tapas Group? 

[Mr Gray]

Try to imagine the alarm was raised at 9.45. Everybody ran to 5A (except Dianne Webster). Then what? According to
a UK analyst;

In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.

Analyst 7792 Eaton
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

Try to imagine.. Whats the point of all this speculation

[G-Unit]

Try to imagine.. Whats the point of all this speculation

It makes a change from speculating about Brueckner.

[Mr Gray]

It makes a change from speculating about Brueckner.

Breukner is the current prime suspect who.. Based on their evidence.. The BKA say is 100% responsible for Maddies murder. The McCanns are not suspects.... Can you spot the difference

[Venturi Swirl]

Six unanswered questions put to G-Unit this afternoon and counting….

[G-Unit]

Six unanswered questions put to G-Unit this afternoon and counting….

Is it in the forum's terms and conditions? Thou must answer questions? If I were you I'd stop asking them.

[Venturi Swirl]

Is it in the forum's terms and conditions? Thou must answer questions? If I were you I'd stop asking them.

It would certsinly suit you if I didn’t ask you questions, that I do know.  You are obviously under no obligation to answer any question, especially ones that are obviously too difficult for you to answer, but it would be nice if  you actually asked yourself those questions and really thought about the answers,  not dismiss them simply because it was me who asked them.  In doing so you will hopefully see that you have not been thinking things through logically or consistently, for example statements from people with “no reason to lie”  are just as likely to be inconsistent as statements from people you believe have a reason to lie, therefore those inconsistencies may actually not be lies at all, but honest mistakes or poor recall.

[Ms Para glider]

Try to imagine the alarm was raised at 9.45. Everybody ran to 5A (except Dianne Webster). Then what? According to
a UK analyst;

In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.

Analyst 7792 Eaton
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

A couple of days ago (although it does feel like a LOT longer) when I dared to suggest that it was possible the PJ missed evidence that was there to be found, you aimed the following barb at me:

"There's a lot of 'what if' and 'perhaps' used because the evidence doesn't support some people's opinions imo."

And yet here you are now, asking people to consider that an entire group of people were unwittingly duped by Gerry into giving him an alibi. Conning them all into foresaking their own perception of time and convincing them that everything happened 15 minutes later than it actually did. Meanwhile (apparently) praying that anyone else in the Tapas who heard Kate screaming at 21:45 would not be able to recall what time this was either. Along with anyone else who happened to see the group searching and shouting 'Madeleine' before 10 o clock, while he sneakily slipped away unnoticed by all, in order to whisk his daughter's corpse through town.

Good one.

[Ms Para glider]

Breukner is the current prime suspect who.. Based on their evidence.. The BKA say is 100% responsible for Maddies murder. The McCanns are not suspects.... Can you spot the difference

Indeed. Here's some other differences in case anyone is forgetting:

- CB had a motive to take Madeleine, the McCanns didn't.

- CB has confessed to being involved in her disappearance, the McCanns haven't.

- CB has a track record of abusing little girls, the McCanns don't.

- CB is an expert at breaking into holiday apartments and leaving no trace, the McCanns aren't.

- CB is a convicted rapist, thief and child abuser. The McCanns have no criminal records.

- CB has yet to explicitly deny that he killed Madeleine. The McCanns have.

- CB has yet to provide an alibi for the time of the crime, the McCanns have.

- CB's closest friends and associates believe he is guilty, not one of the McCann's friends or associates believe they are guilty.

- CB has been publicly accused of murder by the BKA following an intensive 4 year investigation in which the PJ and SY are also assisting to gather evidence against him. The McCanns are not currently suspected of involvement by any police force.

I'm sure there's plenty more, but its pointless pointing it out to those who refuse to see.

[G-Unit]

A couple of days ago (although it does feel like a LOT longer) when I dared to suggest that it was possible the PJ missed evidence that was there to be found, you aimed the following barb at me:

"There's a lot of 'what if' and 'perhaps' used because the evidence doesn't support some people's opinions imo."

And yet here you are now, asking people to consider that an entire group of people were unwittingly duped by Gerry into giving him an alibi. Conning them all into foresaking their own perception of time and convincing them that everything happened 15 minutes later than it actually did. Meanwhile (apparently) praying that anyone else in the Tapas who heard Kate screaming at 21:45 would not be able to recall what time this was either. Along with anyone else who happened to see the group searching and shouting 'Madeleine' before 10 o clock, while he sneakily slipped away unnoticed by all, in order to whisk his daughter's corpse through town.

Good one.

The difference is that you are suggesting that something might have existed even though you have no evidence that it did. I'm discussing something for which there is evidence; that Kate's check happened before 10pm. Your only explanation seems to be that no-one was able to remember the times accurately. As that applies to the T9 too, why should their times be accepted as the correct ones?