The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

I see you didn’t answer my question...no matter.

Even if you found Kate repulsive it would still be odd that Payne didn’t notice the towel someone close to him was wearing but did notice the children’s pyjamas, who were further away.

Perhaps he’s long sighted and couldn’t see what she as wearing cos she was all out of focus.  Or maybe his glasses steamed up momentarily. .  And yes, the thought of Kate in a towel gives me the total horn, even though I am a middle aged married woman. 

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Perhaps he’s long sighted and couldn’t see what she as wearing cos she was all out of focus.  Or maybe his glasses steamed up momentarily. . 

Clutching at straws there. Let's be realistic - IMO he probably would remember that she answered the door dressed only in a towel.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Then why the constant banging on about the towel?  What is it about the towel that means DP HAD to have noticed it?

It means she was in the shower (or bath... she's not sure!!). This means there's a time when the kids are unsupervised. I'm not saying that's not normal. Single parents, for example, take showers. But it does mean there is a potential for an accident to happen.

So this should be a time period of potential importance. The Police need to dig a little deeper which is what the LP do. Though they miss the opportunity to ask DP why he originally said KM and GM were both there and that it was "17:00" (this is thought to be a UK Police transcription error - they mean "7pm"). Either way this period of time is of vital importance. What time to and from was GM playing tennis? Why did KM originally say she had a bath when GM was there - but later it's a shower when he's not there? Did DP see just KM or both parents? If KM was alone with the kids - what were they doing just before she got in the shower? etc etc

The episode unintentionally, IMO, also blows a hole in Mitchell's attempt to give KM an alibi for the "missing six hours":

The friend insisted: "Kate was never alone with Madeleine that afternoon. There were always other witnesses present. These details were all given to detectives during police interviews, so they know what Kate and Gerry said happened that day."

[Vertigo Swirl]

Clutching at straws there. Let's be realistic - IMO he probably would remember that she answered the door dressed only in a towel.

It was a joke. 

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

It was a joke.

So you can’t really explain the flaws in their timeline. That’s significant because it was Mitchell who claimed that the information they gave to the PJ would demonstrate that the missing six hours are accounted for. Yet when the PJ investigate this they find contradictory timelines.

[Erngath]

So you can’t really explain the flaws in their timeline. That’s significant because it was Mitchell who claimed that the information they gave to the PJ would demonstrate that the missing six hours are accounted for. Yet when the PJ investigate this they find contradictory timelines.

Do you believe the two current investigations have
a) noted these contradictory timelines and have investigated them?
b) noted these contradictory timelines and have ignored them?
c haven't noted these contradictory timelines at all?

Which would be the most likely?

[jassi]

Do you believe the two current investigations have
a) noted these contradictory timelines and have investigated them?
b) noted these contradictory timelines and have ignored them?
c haven't noted these contradictory timelines at all?

Which would be the most likely?

As far as OG is concerned, it could be C, as they openly admitted that they accepted   early PJ work without further investigation

[Erngath]

As far as OG is concerned, it could be C, as they openly admitted that they accepted   early PJ work without further investigation

Surely the early PJ work had noted these discrepancies?

[jassi]

Surely the early PJ work had noted these discrepancies?

Indeed, but OG may have decided to take it no further.
We really have no idea what OG have & have not done - its all guess work and supposition

[Erngath]

Indeed, but OG may have decided to take it no further.
We really have no idea what OG have & have not done - its all guess work and supposition

Why would they "take it no further"?
You seem to suggest that OG would ignore any evidence which would indicate that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I appreciate that we have no idea of what has or has not been done but surely any such evidence would not be ignored.

[jassi]

Why would they "take it no further"?
You seem to suggest that OG would ignore any evidence which would indicate that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I appreciate that we have no idea of what has or has not been done but surely any such evidence would not be ignored.

I have given my opinion.
I cannot second guess OG and don't intend to try

[Erngath]

I have given my opinion.
I cannot second guess OG and don't intend to try

Fair enough!
I just do wonder why some posters find these " inaccuracies" in the statements to be of great importance but seem unwilling to speculate as to why these glaring inaccuracies may or may not have been investigated.

I did give three options and you thought option c.
I don't find it likely that OG haven't noted the inaccuracies.

[Brietta]

Fair enough!
I just do wonder why some posters find these " inaccuracies" in the statements to be of great importance but seem unwilling to speculate as to why these glaring inaccuracies may or may not have been investigated.

I did give three options and you thought option c.
I don't find it likely that OG haven't noted the inaccuracies.

Somewhere I have seen it said by the Judicial police that there were no more 'discrepancies' than were to be expected ... I cannot find it again unfortunately ... but I think it is certain the statements were weighed against the evidence and passed muster.

Snip
The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

[Robittybob1]

Why would they "take it no further"?
You seem to suggest that OG would ignore any evidence which would indicate that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I appreciate that we have no idea of what has or has not been done but surely any such evidence would not be ignored.

Could you accept that it has been explained, and they agreed to keep it confidential?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you can’t really explain the flaws in their timeline. That’s significant because it was Mitchell who claimed that the information they gave to the PJ would demonstrate that the missing six hours are accounted for. Yet when the PJ investigate this they find contradictory timelines.

Yes I can easily explain the flaws in their timeline, you won’t accept it, so no point repeating it.  You think discrepancies between witness statements is indicative of a cover up and dishonesty, I think discrepancies between witness statements is to be expected and would be more notable if everyone’s recollection was identical.