UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Albertini on April 07, 2014, 01:28:07 PM
-
Ok, can you explain the different accounts in the statements regarding the Paraiso dinner and why the men in unison changed the time they finished tennis and returned to their apartments?
How can Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield saying they left the beach for the tennis between 6 and 6.15 and finish and be in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 in earlier statements change to Payne, O'Brien and Oldfield all changing their stories together as one in the rogatory interviews and stating that the tennis didn't start until 6.50 and finished at 8.00? In the same rogatory interview process Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster, did not alter their earlier statements, still saying that David Payne was back in the apartment by 7.10.
How do you explain that?
-
Ok, can you explain the different accounts in the statements regarding the Paraiso dinner and why the men in unison changed the time they finished tennis and returned to their apartments?
How can Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield saying they left the beach for the tennis between 6 and 6.15 and finish and be in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 in earlier statements change to Payne, O'Brien and Oldfield all changing their stories together as one in the rogatory interviews and stating that the tennis didn't start until 6.50 and finished at 8.00? In the same rogatory interview process Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster, did not alter their earlier statements, still saying that David Payne was back in the apartment by 7.10.
How do you explain that?
How could the tennis finish at 8 if they were at the tapas by 8.30
-
At Paraiso beach restaurant - Time 6.13pm
Left to Right - Russ, Matt & David who is already in shorts so he could have played tennis in them but he said he had to change >@@(*&)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas03050713.jpg)
-
How could the tennis finish at 8 if they were at the tapas by 8.30
Don't ask me, ask the Tapas lot.
Russ O'Brien
I got back to the flat around 20:00hours as we were running late we had to take the rackets back with us.
Matthew Oldfield
"It was men's social. Erm, so we went back up, erm, back to, well I went back to the apartment, got the tennis gear and back onto the courts or back to the courts area, erm, and the other guys went to get their stuff. Erm, and I think Dave said that he'd been to the apartment, but I don't know that for definite, that's just something I think has come out, I didn't know anything about that. So we went, got our stuff and came back to the courts, which were already in play, because the social had already started. And Gerry was down playing on a court, I think there was only three of them, I think the, erm, the coach, whose name I can't remember, the tennis coach, the blonde haired bloke, erm, was playing to make up the numbers. And so we waited and watched for a little while, so we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven, so maybe sort of quarter to or twenty to or ten to seven we went down to the court. And we were hoping that Gerry would actually stay and make up the four, because everybody, there was one court that was full of four and then there was a three over he, but he, erm, sort of went back to, erm, to sort of help with, you know, Kate and the kids and didn't stay to sort of play with us and there was just the three of us and I think the coach stayed and played to make up the four initially, but didn't want to stay, so he didn't stay the whole time. But we played then for, I think the best part of an hour, erm, before going back to the apartment. And that would have made me slightly late for putting G**** to bed, so I was sort of, oh I better go, I better finish now because, you know, Rachael will be doing it all on her own".
David Payne
went back to our respective partners to get ready to go out, you know it was, it was, you know certainly after half past seven that we’d, you know we’d left the courts, perhaps even a bit later than that
-
At Paraiso beach restaurant - Time 6.13pm
Left to Right - Russ, Matt & David who is already in shorts so he could have played tennis in them but he said he had to change >@@(*&)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas03050713.jpg)
After 7.30 or a bit later,
got back around 8
are you seeing a discrepancy that isn't there....that doesn't look much to me
-
After 7.30 or a bit later,
got back around 8
are you seeing a discrepancy that isn't there....that doesn't look much to me
Hang on a minute you said in a previous post:
How could the tennis finish at 8 if they were at the tapas by 8.30
Can you make your mind up please before we move the discussion forward.
-
Here's the first statements back in May 2007 compare and contrast with the Rogs
Matthew Oldfield Statement 10th May 2007:
About 18h00 he, Russell and David went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00. He clarifies that when they arrived at that meeting Gerald was already there, with Kate and her children watching the match; the rest of the women and children joining them [Kate and children] later.
Why did no one else see Kate and the kids watching Gerry?
Russ O'Brien 10th May 2007
Regarding the night period, affirms that, on this day, around 19h15/19h30 he went to his apartment.
Fiona Payne 4th May 2007
On the day before yesterday, they slightly altered their routine - they went to the beach with the children and her mother Dianne. They arrived there around 15h45 and left at 18h15, and headed towards the tennis court until about 19h00. Immediately afterwards, the witness headed towards the apartment with her children, and her mother. Ten minutes later her husband David appeared.
Fiona Payne Rogatory Statement
Erm, I’m trying to think, I’d say probably by seven o’clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer. Erm, I think we’d bathed the kids by the time he got back, probably ten minutes later. Erm, and then I went for a run that night, after the kids were bathed”.
David Payne Rogatory
Matt and Russell and I think Gerry played a little, for a little while but he decided that he’d, he’d played enough tennis for that day and err was going back and so it left with me, Russell and err Matt and err Dan who was the, the you know the tennis coach from Mark Warner. Err so we played some tennis and you know we were having a good knock and then it was getting a bit late so err we, you know we left the tennis courts, went back to our respective partners to get ready to go out, you know it was, it was, you know certainly after half past seven that we’d, you know we’d left the courts, perhaps even a bit later than that.
Even in the Rogs Fiona said Dave was home 10 mins after her at 7:00 yet in the same rogs he said it was after 7:30.
How do you explain this DaveL? Translation issues??
-
Here's the first statements back in May 2007 compare and contrast with the Rogs
Matthew Oldfield Statement 10th May 2007:
Why did no one else see Kate and the kids watching Gerry?
Russ O'Brien 10th May 2007
Fiona Payne 4th May 2007
Fiona Payne Rogatory Statement
David Payne Rogatory
Even in the Rogs Fiona said Dave was home 10 mins after her at 7:00 yet in the same rogs he said it was after 7:30.
How do you explain this DaveL? Translation issues??
I think you are making too much of these timings. the rog interviews were given how many months later...I'm sure SY will have looked at all this
-
I think you are making too much of these timings. the rog interviews were given how many months later...I'm sure SY will have looked at all this
Really? A missing/changed hour on the night the child disappeared? But you said they all told the truth, so why do you think there is this issue in the timings?
Why did the three men change their timings all by one hour from their earlier statements and not provide an explanation?
Does that not strike you as odd and worthy of explanation?
-
Really? A missing/changed hour on the night the child disappeared? But you said they all told the truth, so why do you think there is this issue in the timings?
Why did the three men change their timings all by one hour from their earlier statements and not provide an explanation?
Does that not strike you as odd and worthy of explanation?
I haven't seen the earlier postings but these all seem fairly close ...the original statements were all translated of course so its best to rely on the rogs...do you have a link to the statements given to the pj
-
I haven't seen the earlier postings but these all seem fairly close ...the original statements were all translated of course so its best to rely on the rogs...do you have a link to the statements given to the pj
it's all been copied from McCann files, have a look there. You think an hour difference all remembered in the rog's in unison, isn't suspicious, on the very night the child disappeared?? Really? If that's what you really think then i'm sorry but you'd make a pretty lousy copper.
The questions as to why there are differences so close to the disappearance need to be asked and need to be answered by them. You can't just say "ah well it's near enough" and leave it at that. What kind of police work would that be? It's shoddy to the point of negligent.
If you think there's an issue in the translations why have they never been corrected since by the way of a group statement condemning the quality of them? And why would professional medical people sign off a sworn statement without ensuring the accuracy of what they were signing, when that is what they do day in and day out in their professional lives?
You know it's funny because in the "are victim recovery dogs reliable" thread you berate Stephen for repeating the mantra that the parents were negligent in leaving three children alone. You even talk of reporting him for going off topic by repeating that.
Yet when you are faced with a post you can't explain or answer, in exactly the same way, you fall back on the "I'm sure SY have looked at this/ SY say they aren't suspects" line.
You can't have it both ways Davey lad.
Valid questions are raised from their statements that require answering satisfactorily. If they cannot or will not then the cloud of suspicion deserves to hover over them until such time as they do.
-
it's all been copied from McCann files, have a look there. You think an hour difference all remembered in the rog's in unison, isn't suspicious, on the very night the child disappeared?? Really? If that's what you really think then i'm sorry but you'd make a pretty lousy copper.
The questions as to why there are differences so close to the disappearance need to be asked and need to be answered by them. You can't just say "ah well it's near enough" and leave it at that. What kind of police work would that be? It's shoddy to the point of negligent.
If you think there's an issue in the translations why have they never been corrected since by the way of a group statement condemning the quality of them? And why would professional medical people sign off a sworn statement without ensuring the accuracy of what they were signing, when that is what they do day in and day out in their professional lives?
You know it's funny because in the "are victim recovery dogs reliable" thread you berate Stephen for repeating the mantra that the parents were negligent in leaving three children alone. You even talk of reporting him for going off topic by repeating that.
Yet when you are faced with a post you can't explain or answer, in exactly the same way, you fall back on the "I'm sure SY have looked at this/ SY say they aren't suspects" line.
You can't have it both ways Davey lad.
Valid questions are raised from their statements that require answering satisfactorily. If they cannot or will not then the cloud of suspicion deserves to hover over them until such time as they do.
I think if they were really lying they would have got there story 100% watertight...
Don't compare my response to stephens...it was a valid response to your claim that the timelines suggest something sinister...I think anyone who wants to come to a conclusion with so little to go on would make a very lousy copper..thats you
Fiona was really struggling in her interview...did you get that feeling...and finding it difficult to remember things...
as I said...if these differences were of any substance im sure SY would have investigated them.....and SY say the McCanns are not suspects
-
I think if they were really lying they would have got there story 100% watertight...
Don't compare my response to stephens...it was a valid response to your claim that the timelines suggest something sinister...I think anyone who wants to come to a conclusion with so little to go on would make a very lousy copper..thats you
Fiona was really struggling in her interview...did you get that feeling...and finding it difficult to remember things...
as I said...if these differences were of any substance im sure SY would have investigated them.....and SY say the McCanns are not suspects
Prize hypocrite, yet again.
-
I think if they were really lying they would have got there story 100% watertight...
So you're happy to accept that, without questioning them? Like i say, some copper you'd make. Do you not think that the downfall of many in an investigation is precisely because they can't get their stories straight?
Don't compare my response to stephens...it was a valid response to your claim that the timelines suggest something sinister...
Your response is exactly the same as Stephen's that you snottily suggested you'd report. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that despite your denial.
I think anyone who wants to come to a conclusion with so little to go on would make a very lousy copper..thats you
You see, here's where you fall down by not being able to think things through. It is actually YOU that has come to a conclusion, not me. Your conclusion is they have no case to answer, it's normal for discrepancies and they shouldn't be expected to remember everything. Yet you don't think they should be questioned on them and asked to explain themselves, you are quite prepared to jump to innocent conclusions on their behalf without them having to speak. That makes for a lousy copper.
I on the other hand have jumped to no conclusions other than to say i see discrepancies and i want THEM, not you, to explain them, which is what Rebelo wanted in the reconstitution. That makes for a good copper.
See the difference?
Fiona was really struggling in her interview...did you get that feeling...and finding it difficult to remember things...
Great and there could be wholly innocent reasons for that or there could be something more sinister. But without asking her further questions and quizzing her we do not know which is true. You have jumped to a conclusion that cannot be regarded as accurate because it does not come from what she has told us but what you think she wanted to tell us or what she meant to say. That once again is bad police work.
as I said...if these differences were of any substance im sure SY would have investigated them.....and SY say the McCanns are not suspects
And there you go again repeating a mantra which is what you berated and threatened to report Stephen for doing.
Once again once Sy have secured a verdict against an abductor then i will bow down to your superior intellect. Until then i prefer not to jump to conclusions.
-
So you're happy to accept that, without questioning them? Like i say, some copper you'd make. Do you not think that the downfall of many in an investigation is precisely because they can't get their stories straight?
Your response is exactly the same as Stephen's that you snottily suggested you'd report. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that despite your denial.
You see, here's where you fall down by not being able to think things through. It is actually YOU that has come to a conclusion, not me. Your conclusion is they have no case to answer, it's normal for discrepancies and they shouldn't be expected to remember everything. Yet you don't think they should be questioned on them and asked to explain themselves, you are quite prepared to jump to innocent conclusions on their behalf without them having to speak. That makes for a lousy copper.
I on the other hand have jumped to no conclusions other than to say i see discrepancies and i want THEM, not you, to explain them, which is what Rebelo wanted in the reconstitution. That makes for a good copper.
See the difference?
Great and there could be wholly innocent reasons for that or there could be something more sinister. But without asking her further questions and quizzing her we do not know which is true. You have jumped to a conclusion that cannot be regarded as accurate because it does not come from what she has told us but what you think she wanted to tell us or what she meant to say. That once again is bad police work.
And there you go again repeating a mantra which is what you berated and threatened to report Stephen for doing.
Once again once Sy have secured a verdict against an abductor then i will bow down to your superior intellect. Until then i prefer not to jump to conclusions.
I will make it easier for you...I will bow to your superior knowledge if the McCanns are even arrested...something even the pj didn't have the evidence to do
-
I will make it easier for you...I will bow to your superior knowledge if the McCanns are even arrested...something even the pj didn't have the evidence to do
Well before we get to that can you at least try and answer the points in my post first?
-
Well before we get to that can you at least try and answer the points in my post first?
I don't really see the point. To me it's not significant. I look at the bigger picture and for the tapas to be lying they have to be involved ...the whole idea is totally ridiculous
-
I don't really see the point. To me it's not significant. I look at the bigger picture and for the tapas to be lying they have to be involved ...the whole idea is totally ridiculous
The fact you do not regard a change of timings by three key witnesses all together in the same round of interviews and in direct contradiction to their earlier statements (and in the case of Payne in direct contradiction to his wife's statement) which were much nearer to the event and all without explanation as to why their timings changed relating to the period of the key few hours before the reported disappearance as significant or worthy of explanation
And the fact you have arrived at a conclusion as to why this might be without asking them why they changed
All together add up to make you a lousy copper.
I hope if i ever commit a crime you would do the investigating. Your ability to take everything at face value and not ask difficult questions would certainly be a big help.
-
The fact you do not regard a change of timings by three key witnesses all together in the same round of interviews and in direct contradiction to their earlier statements (and in the case of Payne in direct contradiction to his wife's statement) which were much nearer to the event and all without explanation as to why their timings changed relating to the period of the key few hours before the reported disappearance as significant or worthy of explanation
And the fact you have arrived at a conclusion as to why this might be without asking them why they changed
All together add up to make you a lousy copper.
I hope if i ever commit a crime you would do the investigating. Your ability to take everything at face value and not ask difficult questions would certainly be a big help.
So redwood must be a lousy copper
-
So redwood must be a lousy copper
Nope, but on the evidence of your logic in the last few posts you are a lousy investigator.
-
Am I right in thinking that the changing witness statements relate mainly to the 3rd May 2007 being the day that Madeleine disappeared?
If I recall from the statements of D Payne, K McCann and G McCann, the events that evening were reported differently too. Given that the children's routine also changed that evening, one could be forgiven for being suspicious.
-
Am I right in thinking that the changing witness statements relate mainly to the 3rd May 2007 being the day that Madeleine disappeared?
If I recall from the statements of D Payne, K McCann and G McCann, the events that evening were reported differently too. Given that the children's routine also changed that evening, one could be forgiven for being suspicious.
Well, ex MI5 operative Henri Exton, in his ( suppressed ) report on the case, expressed concern at the 'anomalies' in the statements given by the McCanns and their chums ... and Britain's foremost criminal profiler, Lee Rainbow ( who, too, presented a report on the case ) also expressed concerns at the 'contradictions' in Gerry McCann's statements ( going as far as to say they might lead us to suspect a homicide ! )
So I think it's fair to assume the changing witness statements have not gone unnoticed by those investigating the case
-
Well, ex MI5 operative Henri Exton, in his ( suppressed ) report on the case, expressed concern at the 'anomalies' in the statements given by the McCanns and their chums ... and Britain's foremost criminal profiler, Lee Rainbow ( who, too, presented a report on the case ) also expressed concerns at the 'contradictions' in Gerry McCann's statements ( going as far as to say they might lead us to suspect a homicide ! )
So I think it's fair to assume the changing witness statements have not gone unnoticed by those investigating the case
Lee Rainbow ( who, too, presented a report on the case ) also expressed concerns at the 'contradictions' in Gerry McCann's statements ( going as far as to say they might lead us to suspect a homicide ! )
Nope.
One of the papers got hold of Rainbow's report. He never said any such thing.
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”
Lee Rainbow.
-
IMO all of the witness statements up to and including gnr arrival are likely to be truthful.
-
IMO all of the witness statements up to and including gnr arrival are likely to be truthful.
What leads you to that conclusion?
Do you mean all the witness statements, or just those of the Tapas group?
-
What leads you to that conclusion?
Do you mean all the witness statements, or just those of the Tapas group?
IMO everyone who was interviewed told the truth to the best of their recollections. However it is plain from the 'discrepancies' in many of them - (not just the group's) - that they cannot all be correct.
All this proves IMO is that everything the experts say about memories not being tape recorders and how vastly different the recollections of different people all honestly recalling the same incident can be - is true.
'Lying' doesn't come into it.
-
IMO everyone who was interviewed told the truth to the best of their recollections. However it is plain from the 'discrepancies' in many of them - (not just the group's) - that they cannot all be correct.
All this proves IMO is that everything the experts say about memories not being tape recorders and how vastly different the recollections of different people all honestly recalling the same incident can be - is true.
'Lying' doesn't come into it.
You do not know that.
That is your opinion.
You do not know whether the mccanns and associates told the truth or lied.
-
You do not know that.
That is your opinion.
You do not know whether the mccanns and associates told the truth or lied.
Absolutely.
The only people who know anything are those who were personally involved - and the investigating police, though the latter may have difficulty proving the truth.
-
Absolutely.
The only people who know anything are those who were personally involved - and the investigating police, though the latter may have difficulty proving the truth.
It would appear that the investigating police forces concerned believe the McCanns and their friends were telling the truth - as none of them are considered to be suspects in this case. As the experts in this case - they will not have come to that decision lightly IMO.
(duty calls - must dash)
-
It would appear that the investigating police forces concerned believe the McCanns and their friends were telling the truth - as none of them are considered to be suspects in this case. As the experts in this case - they will not have come to that decision lightly IMO.
(duty calls - must dash)
They will never solve this case then? That would please many strangely I think. Not good for the yards rep!
-
They will never solve this case then? That would please many strangely I think. Not good for the yards rep!
I fear not. All that will happen is that even more money will be wasted in what will turn out to be a futile investigation, though no doubt we can look forward to a host of unsavory suspects, or 'persons of interest' before we get to that stage.
-
IMO everyone who was interviewed told the truth to the best of their recollections. However it is plain from the 'discrepancies' in many of them - (not just the group's) - that they cannot all be correct.
All this proves IMO is that everything the experts say about memories not being tape recorders and how vastly different the recollections of different people all honestly recalling the same incident can be - is true.
'Lying' doesn't come into it.
Mathew Oldfield's first statement
The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.
That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms.
Turns into this from his second statement
The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.
Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a "listening check" at the bedroom window of Madeleine McCann and the twins at 21h05.
Both of the above are ......... the second being a cack-handed attempt to put right the wrongs of the first (which to be fair wasn't possible).
They're all ....... bar Dianne Webster, but even she had to revert to .......... The three timelines that were produced (without Webster's input) are .............. bar the meeting of Gerry and Jes and the reason that they don't work is due to an early raising of the alarm brought on by the Smith family sighting of Gerry!
[... edited in terms of forum rules ...]
-
Well, ex MI5 operative Henri Exton, in his ( suppressed ) report on the case, expressed concern at the 'anomalies' in the statements given by the McCanns and their chums ... and Britain's foremost criminal profiler, Lee Rainbow ( who, too, presented a report on the case ) also expressed concerns at the 'contradictions' in Gerry McCann's statements ( going as far as to say they might lead us to suspect a homicide ! )
So I think it's fair to assume the changing witness statements have not gone unnoticed by those investigating the case
I'm sure your information is totally incorrect...do you have any evidence that Harrison ever said that
-
I fear not. All that will happen is that even more money will be wasted in what will turn out to be a futile investigation, though no doubt we can look forward to a host of unsavory suspects, or 'persons of interest' before we get to that stage.
Do you think it is a waste of money to investigate serious crime...the criminals will be very pleased
-
Do you think it is a waste of money to investigate serious crime...the criminals will be very pleased
There certainly comes a point where it represents poor value for money.
Happens all the time, judging by the number of cases that the CPS decline to take to trial.
Why should this case be any different?
-
There certainly comes a point where it represents poor value for money.
Happens all the time, judging by the number of cases that the CPS decline to take to trial.
Why should this case be any different?
it shouldn't...and it apppears that the powers that be have decided it should be investigated
-
it shouldn't...and it apppears that the powers that be have decided it should be investigated
For the moment.
-
For the moment.
bit like the mccanns not being suspects
-
Reminder: Please do not post off topic as such will only be removed.
-
Lee Rainbow ( who, too, presented a report on the case ) also expressed concerns at the 'contradictions' in Gerry McCann's statements ( going as far as to say they might lead us to suspect a homicide ! )
Nope.
One of the papers got hold of Rainbow's report. He never said any such thing.
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”
Lee Rainbow.
Well, Yep accoridng to the Mail:
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
Gonzolo Amaral
The McCanns want Gonzolo Amaral (pictured yesterday) to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
A direct and attributable quote from the lawyer quoting from the report.
-
Well, Yep accoridng to the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
A direct and attributable quote from the lawyer quoting from the report.
no it isn't
-
no it isn't
According to that DM report, it would appear to be so. WhTmakes you disagree?
-
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
I think this has been misunderstood for along time
my opinion is rainbow said what is in red...which is normal and perfectly acceptable...but amarals lawyer added his own comment in blue...the two staements run into each other and posters have assumed both statements are rainbows
-
I see what you mean, but you are choosing to make a different interpretation.
According the the DM, the lawyer did actually make that statement, however you might choose to attribute it.
-
I see what you mean, but you are choosing to make a different interpretation.
According the the DM, the lawyer did actually make that statement, however you might choose to attribute it.
the lawyer did make the statement but it is not clear where rainbows quote ends
-
the lawyer did make the statement but it is not clear where rainbows quote ends
True, but if Rainbow didn't bother to challenge what was said, then he must have not been unhappy with it.
-
the lawyer did make the statement but it is not clear where rainbows quote ends
Read the top of the Daily Mail article, it explains it for you:
Gerry McCann was made a suspect in his daughter Madeleine's disappearance after a British expert said he should be investigated for 'homicide', a Portuguese court heard yesterday.
Criminal profiler Lee Rainbow recommended that police on the Algarve investigate the doctor and his wife Kate because of 'contradictions' in his statement.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz2yUeZlJXA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Can you now confirm you accept Mr Rainbow's report contained this.
-
Read the top of the Daily Mail article, it explains it for you:
Can you now confirm you accept Mr Rainbow's report contained this.
every parent in a missing child case is a suspect...this is what I believe Rainbow was referring to...I don't accept rainbow talked of Gerry's statement.
-
True, but if Rainbow didn't bother to challenge what was said, then he must have not been unhappy with it.
there have been a multitude of false claims in the papers that have not been corrected...didn't the mail have a headline...maddies dna found in car
-
there have been a multitude of false claims in the papers that have not been corrected...didn't the mail have a headline...maddies dna found in car
I don't know. did it? Sounds rather more like the Express or the Mirror.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506725/Blood-McCanns-hire-car-DID-come-Madeleine.html
there you are....paper never sued......never printed an apology
-
every parent in a missing child case is a suspect...this is what I believe Rainbow was referring to...I don't accept rainbow talked of Gerry's statement.
No the report referred to contradictions according to Amaral's lawyer which he presented in court.
If that wasn't true why didn't the McCann's lawyer object to this statement being made in the court?
-
No the report referred to contradictions according to Amaral's lawyer which he presented in court.
If that wasn't true why didn't the McCann's lawyer object to this statement being made in the court?
because the statement wasn't made in court as you believe...it was misreported
-
No the report referred to contradictions according to Amaral's lawyer which he presented in court.
If that wasn't true why didn't the McCann's lawyer object to this statement being made in the court?
I think davel is trying to argue that black is white over this point.
-
because the statement wasn't made in court as you believe...it was misreported
Now you have no way of knowing that - unless you were present when it was said
-
Now you have no way of knowing that - unless you were present when it was said
im stating opinion...you also were not in court...was the mail reporter in court...we don't know...
its all opinion
-
im stating opinion...you also were not in court...was the mail reporter in court...we don't know...
its all opinion
Your post looked like a definitive statement, not opinion
-
Your post looked like a definitive statement, not opinion
pretty well everything we all post is opinion...though some wont accept that..posting from work so im having to be brief
-
Your post looked like a definitive statement, not opinion
You are correct jassi it was a definitive statement; all the ensuing wriggling notwithstanding.
-
You are correct jassi it was a definitive statement; all the ensuing wriggling notwithstanding.
no it wasn't a definitive statement that's your opinion..im posting from work and if you understood what im doing you might understand
-
no it wasn't a definitive statement that's your opinion..im posting from work and if you understood what im doing you might understand
I understand what you are doing. Making a definitive statement , being challenged by jassi then making excuses as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Par for the course.
-
Read the top of the Daily Mail article, it explains it for you:
Can you now confirm you accept Mr Rainbow's report contained this.
Bloody hell!
We've done this.
Lee Rainbow's report has been produced. It said nothing about "contradictions in statements".
Lee Rainbow:
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”
-
Bloody hell!
We've done this.
Lee Rainbow's report has been produced. It said nothing about "contradictions in statements".
Lee Rainbow:
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”
Would you like to give a link, rather than just print a selected highlight?
Incidentally, the discussion centres on the DM report that very clearly mentions contradictions
-
Would you like to give a link, rather than just print a selected highlight?
Incidentally, the discussion centres on the DM report that very clearly mentions contradictions
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/158018/McCann-twins-may-hold-clues-says-criminal-profiler
-
Bloody hell!
We've done this.
Lee Rainbow's report has been produced. It said nothing about "contradictions in statements".
Why you little fibber you !
tsk tsk
-
Why you little fibber you !
tsk tsk
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/158018/McCann-twins-may-hold-clues-says-criminal-profiler
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/158018/McCann-twins-may-hold-clues-says-criminal-profiler
So you can't link to the report and it's contents, merely another newspaper report
-
So you can't link to the report and it's contents, merely another newspaper report
The only evidence to the contrary is a claim by a lawyer Amaral parted company with in a court round Amaral lost.
There is absolutely no reason to suppose The Express made up its quote.
-
I understand what you are doing. Making a definitive statement , being challenged by jassi then making excuses as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Par for the course.
wrong again..if I am stating opinion as I have said I am I am not saying I'm right I'm saying it's my opinion
-
I understand what you are doing. Making a definitive statement , being challenged by jassi then making excuses as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Par for the course.
having read the express article I would say that what I worked out re the statement is almost certainly true...rainbow never mentioned gerrys staement
-
Well, Yep accoridng to the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
A direct and attributable quote from the lawyer quoting from the report.
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
Why is that, do you suppose?
And why did the McCanns win that particular court round?
-
Bloody hell!
We've done this.
Lee Rainbow's report has been produced. It said nothing about "contradictions in statements".
Lee Rainbow:
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”
Bloody hell!! Do you have a copy of the report or are you saying 'bloody hell' on the basis only of your express article trumping the daily mail article.
Either produce tbe report directly or lose the faux exasperation.
-
Rainbow, like Harrison, was working for the NPIA, which is a Home Office agency and part of the UK police service. The NPIA provided expert assistance to the early PJ investigation.
-
having read the express article I would say that what I worked out re the statement is almost certainly true...rainbow never mentioned gerrys staement
Ah, you mean you have found a tabloid report that you can interpret into supporting your viewpoint 8(0(*
-
Ah, you mean you have found a tabloid report that you can interpret into supporting your viewpoint 8(0(*
But your viewpoint was based on such a report. The express is no better than the mail
-
But your viewpoint was based on such a report. The express is no better than the mail
Wrong. I didn't hold a viewpoint. I was challenging the dogmatic statements that you and others made about what the lawyer said & didn't say, and its attribution.
As Rainbow's report does not appear to have been published, none of us know precisely what it contains.
-
Wrong. I didn't hold a viewpoint. I was challenging the dogmatic statements that you and others made about what the lawyer said & didn't say, and its attribution.
As Rainbow's report does not appear to have been published, none of us know precisely what it contains.
no thats exactly true...so its false to claim that rainbow mentioned Gerrys satements....as posters were claiming yesterday
-
True, but if Rainbow didn't bother to challenge what was said, then he must have not been unhappy with it.
You posted this yesterday...you cannot know whether rainbow is happy or not with the statement
-
According to that DM report, it would appear to be so. WhTmakes you disagree?
So you did express a view after all
-
So you did express a view after all
What view? I was asking you for your reasons, not expressing my own.
You do seem to have strange powers of reasoning, sometimes.
-
What view? I was asking you for your reasons, not expressing my own.
You do seem to have strange powers of reasoning, sometimes.
in post 76 you said you didn't hold a viewpoint...yesterday you expressed a viewpoint based on the mail article
-
in post 76 you said you didn't hold a viewpoint...yesterday you expressed a viewpoint based on the mail article
No I didn't. I expressed no view on the Mail article.
-
According to that DM report, it would appear to be so. WhTmakes you disagree?
This is your post where you say according to the DM report it appears to be so.....in response to me saying that dm article wasn't true
Not sure how you can now claim you did not express a view
-
This is your post where you say according to the DM report it appears to be so.....in response to me saying that dm article wasn't true
Not sure how you can now claim you did not express a view
I was saying that it 'appeared' to be true, NOT that is was true - in stark contrast to your dogmatic statement that it was untrue.
What I said made was a simple statement, not an opinion. How could I know if it were true or not?
-
I was saying that it 'appeared' to be true, NOT that is was true - in stark contrast to your dogmatic statement that it was untrue.
What I said made was a simple statement, not an opinion. How could I know if it were true or not?
You did sate an opinion...you stated it appeared to be true. That's an opinion and that's a view