The evidence places Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at 10pm

[DCI]

This is not Batista's actual statement, though.

It is from,

REPORT OF EXTERNAL WORK [Investigation Activity]
Date: 2007/05/04 Location: Praia da Luz
Entity that determined the activity: superiorly determined
Funcionario [employee] that executed it: Miguel P*** and Duarte F****, Inspector

Seems he was very unprofessional in his reporting, of the events.

These two statements start off almost identical.

--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA  - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm

RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA (as he was on his day off, he was contacted by telephone No 91 397####) - table employee.
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at that restaurant yesterday, like they usually did, which was partly made up of the parents of the missing (he did not know them) he noticed that absent from the table, for about 15 minutes, [was] a man (tall, little more than thirty years of age, normal physical stature, white complexion and hair color light brown);
- It was usual [for] someone of that group, to leave to go to the apartments to check the children (children of the group members) who slept there;

That last remark, should have rung alarm bells, with someone, IMO. But again, more likely an error. >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

Admin, the second man was not Russell O'Brien, tue first one was as already explained.

DCI Joacquim Baptistats formal statement can be seen in its own right as well. He and others were spoken to informally on 4th May before formal statements were made. They dont cancel each other out. Another one who talks about a man being missing for half an hour.

SVETLANA
-------  STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".

None of this shows there was doubt that Gerry was there at 10pm which is the subject of this thread although a couple of them think it may have been the father who had gone for half an hour, but he had neither grey not light brown hair and was not tall or thin. But it does leave the question why, if corrext, Matthew was gone for half an hour why it contradicts the Tapas groups accounts of the comings and goings

I agree

None of the independent witness statements cited  provide definitive evidence that Gerry McCann was at the table during the Smith sighting

What they do provide, however,  is evidence which directly conflicts with the  tapas group's version of events that night

Someone was away from that table for half an hour it appears,  (  confirmed by two independent witnesses )  and it was not Russell O Brien because his 15 minute absense is already accounted for

[Admin]

This witness's statement does not have  to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ...  it is valid in it's own right

I am asking that we look at it and analysis it at face value ...  even if that means, assuming, for the moment, that the tapas group may not have been telling the truth in their account of the evening's events

So let's look at this statement then, logically

The waiter says that one man  ( the first man ) left the table for 15 minutes.  his description of the man is about as detailed and accurate a description of Russell O Brien as you could get .  He says the man returned after 15 minutes and his meal needed to be re-heated because it had gone cold

Russell O'Brien, in his own statement, says that he left the table at about 9.25pm and that he had been in the apartment  ( tending to his child )  for about 10 minutes before Jane came to relieve him. he stayed a few minutes more and then left to go back to the tapas bar to have his main course.  So he was  away from the table for about 15 minutes.  He confirms that when he got back to the table he was about to eat his meal when the waiter came over and said,  "no"  ...  that the meal had cooled and he would bring another

The first man mentioned by the witness is  clearly  Russell O'Brien ...  there can be no question about it

So, to the second man,  who left the table for half an hour

The description given by the waiter points to it having been Matthew Oldfield.

The waiter is correct when he says two men were away from the table at the same time.  Both Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield left the table at around 9.30pm.  The witness notes that one of them came back 15 minutes later  (  undoubtedly O Brien )  but that the other didn't return until just before the alarm was raised  ...  around 10pm ) 

It appears to me that if the  the witness is correct,  then the second man is Matthew Oldfield,  and  he did not return from his  check  ( the one where he went into the Mccann apartment  )  until half an hour later, just before the alarm was raised by Kate

A witness statement means very little in its own right Icabodcrane.   It is only thorough corroboration by at least one other piece of evidence that such statements become credible.  It is very obvious that the statements by certain waiters are less than helpful to anyone but one thing they do remember is when the meal ended.

To say that Russell was only away from the table for 15 minutes is nonsense.  By his own admission he left the table around 9.25pm and according to other witnesses including the waiters he returned just as dinner was ending at about 9.45pm.   By my reckoning that is at least 20+ minutes.

All the witnesses are consistent that nobody else was away from the table for any more than anything from about a few minutes to 10 minutes maximum so clearly the reference to someone being away for as long as 30 minutes was a reference to Russell.

In addition, waiter Ricardo who attended Russell state very clearly in his statement that Russell had his meal held back, it was not taken away and reheated as Joaquim claimed in his statement.  If anyone had to have their meal reheated it would have been Gerry or Matthew who were both away for a matter of 5 to 10 minutes.

Joaquim also states that, "The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table..."  which was clearly a reference to Russell.

[AnneGuedes]

Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.

did he leave his veg too - tut tut

[icabodcrane]

This witness's statement does not have  to correspond with the statements given by the tapas group ...  it is valid in it's own right

I am asking that we look at it and analysis it at face value ...  even if that means, assuming, for the moment, that the tapas group may not have been telling the truth in their account of the evening's events

So let's look at this statement then, logically

The waiter says that one man  ( the first man ) left the table for 15 minutes.  his description of the man is about as detailed and accurate a description of Russell O Brien as you could get .  He says the man returned after 15 minutes and his meal needed to be re-heated because it had gone cold

Russell O'Brien, in his own statement, says that he left the table at about 9.25pm and that he had been in the apartment  ( tending to his child )  for about 10 minutes before Jane came to relieve him. he stayed a few minutes more and then left to go back to the tapas bar to have his main course.  So he was  away from the table for about 15 minutes.  He confirms that when he got back to the table he was about to eat his meal when the waiter came over and said,  "no"  ...  that the meal had cooled and he would bring another

The first man mentioned by the witness is  clearly  Russell O'Brien ...  there can be no question about it

So, to the second man,  who left the table for half an hour

The description given by the waiter points to it having been Matthew Oldfield.

The waiter is correct when he says two men were away from the table at the same time.  Both Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield left the table at around 9.30pm.  The witness notes that one of them came back 15 minutes later  (  undoubtedly O Brien )  but that the other didn't return until just before the alarm was raised  ...  around 10pm ) 

It appears to me that if the  the witness is correct,  then the second man is Matthew Oldfield,  and  he did not return from his  check  ( the one where he went into the Mccann apartment  )  until half an hour later, just before the alarm was raised by Kate

A witness statement means very little in its own right Icabodcrane.   It is only thorough corroboration by at least one other piece of evidence that such statements become credible.  It is very obvious that the statements by certain waiters are less than helpful to anyone but one thing they do remember is when the meal ended.

To say that Russell was only away from the table for 15 minutes is nonsense.  By his own admission he left the table around 9.25pm and according to other witnesses including the waiters he returned just as dinner was ending at about 9.45pm.   By my reckoning that is at least 20+ minutes.

All the witnesses are consistent that nobody else was away from the table for any more than anything from about a few minutes to 10 minutes maximum so clearly the reference to someone being away for as long as 30 minutes was a reference to Russell.

In addition, waiter Ricardo who attended Russell state very clearly in his statement that Russell had his meal held back, it was not taken away and reheated as Joaquim claimed in his statement.  If anyone had to have their meal reheated it would have been Gerry or Matthew who were both away for a matter of 5 to 10 minutes.

Joaquim also states that, "The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table..."  which was clearly a reference to Russell.

How long you  'reckon'  Russell O'Brien was away from the table is of no value ...  O'Brien himself says it was for 15 minutes  ( he says he was in the apartment for 10 minutes before Jane relieved him, and he stayed a few minutes more before going back for his meal ) ... and that 15 minute absence  is confirmed by the waiter's statement

The waiter says that there were  two  absences from the table that he noticed  ...  a 15 minute absence by a man perfectly fitting O'Brien's description ...  and a half hour absence by  someone else 

The half hour absence he noted  was confirmed by the other staff member who's statement has been cited here

[Admin]

Mr OB's hair is bulkier than Mr O's one, but the waiter might have made a confusion. Both have some physical similarities, but have none with GMC.
The meals were served around 21:30. ROB and MO left then likely : within a few minutes they would be back and could eat the main dish quietly.
A new beefsteak was grilled for ROB when he came back. He only ate half of it.

I would say you haven't said a truer word Anne.  Confusion is something which any investigator has to take into account in any situation.  Ask two people standing by the side of the road what colour the last vehicle was which passed them and for sure someone will ask "does that include lorries".  Another test which is interesting and one which is routinely used in police training colleges is to take a group of students, probably about 30 sat round in a circle.  The instructor gives a short sentence to the first and asks him to pass it on.  Thirty students later the final student is asked to write the comment on a blackboard.  The instructor then writes up the original comment and as sure as the sky is blue they will never be the same and more than often completely different. 

The moral of this story is.  Even though the witness may be credible, not everything they repeat may necessarily be the truth.

[Mrs. B]

Yes, Chinese whispers - reminds me of a story I was told once. During the Falklands conflict a message was given to soldiers at one end of a line to be passed on. The message was "enemy over head" After a while, the soldiers at the beginning of the line noticed to their amazement & horror that their comrades at the other end were jumping up & down with joy taking no precautions whatsoever. It turned out that the original message "enemy over head" had been transformed into "Galtieri is dead". (As in General Galtieri, the former Argentine Dictator)

[John]

I am drawing up a graphical time-line of the absences from the tapas bar so can we agree the timings please guys?

First of all what were the times of Janes two absences...

I have the first one at about 9.12pm, seeing Gerry/Jez and then mystery man at 9.15pm, return by 9.22pm.

The second one leaving to relieve Russell at about 9.37pm and non return to tapas bar.

[AnneGuedes]

Ask two people standing by the side of the road what colour the last vehicle was which passed them and for sure someone will ask "does that include lorries".  Another test which is interesting and one which is routinely used in police training colleges is to take a group of students, probably about 30 sat round in a circle.  The instructor gives a short sentence to the first and asks him to pass it on.  Thirty students later the final student is asked to write the comment on a blackboard.  The instructor then writes up the original comment and as sure as the sky is blue they will never be the same and more than often completely different. 

The moral of this story is.  Even though the witness may be credible, not everything they repeat may necessarily be the truth.

Oh yes, sure, this is why a reconstruction was useful. Not to jog the memory of persons in the public, but to jog the protagonists' memories.

[John]

Here is a first draft guys.  Observations most welcome...

Is there anything which sticks out??

[John]

Observation:

Surely if Gerry, Matthew and Russell had all been away after 9.25pm it would have been very noticeable to the waiters?

I await your views?

[Redblossom]

In both statements Jane Tanner says her partner went to check 15-20 minutes later after her return to the tapas bar, but that chart makes it seem he went five minutes or less later, which would be odd.

If Russell went at 9.25/9.30 that puts Jane Tanners check time alot earlier than 9.10/9.15 factoring in a minimum of five minutes to walk around, do a check, and walk back.
 
pls delete if irrelevant, but it did stick out for me

[John]

Out of interest Redblossom, I may have missed this point but did Matthew and Russell head off to do the checks together because according to the timings it certainly looks like it?

[icabodcrane]

Observation:

Surely if Gerry, Matthew and Russell had all been away after 9.25pm it would have been very noticeable to the waiters?

I await your views?

This thread asks whether  'independent' witnesses placed Gerry at the tapas bar at 10pm

Your graph exclusively depicts the evidence given by  non  'independent'  witnesses  ( it is the tapas group version )

There is no allowance there, for instance,  of the half hour absence from the table by someone  other than O Brien between 9.30pm and 10pm  ( as described by the waiter who served them that night )

If it is independent witnesses we are interested in here, then their evidence must be paramount