AG said he couldn't explain how the McCanns could be responsible - Can you?

[Mrs. B]

 8-)(--) Is it only me, but I still can't see where he states that he heard someone scream BEFORE the discovery that Madeleine was missing? 

[DCI]

8-)(--) Is it only me, but I still can't see where he states that he heard someone scream BEFORE the discovery that Madeleine was missing? 

Might be because, he didn't Mrs B.  8-)(--)

[Mrs. B]

Thanks (I was just DYING to use that "embarrassed" smiley LOL)

[AnneGuedes]

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

I wasn't speaking of the scream in particular, but Mr Salcedas' time localisation of the events.

[DCI]

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

I wasn't speaking of the scream in particular, but Mr Salcedas' time localisation of the events.

With respect to the terrible screaming - which was heard AFTER the alarm was raised, I find it utterly natural.

Just before the alarm was raised, or rather when discovering, would make more sense to me.
Of course Mr Salcedas' varying testimonies  turn difficult to know when the scream occurred.

Thats not what you said though. You were speaking of the screaming, being before the alarm was raised.

And as for the timing, it obvious that is a typing error. There's a few of those in different statements.

[AnneGuedes]

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?
Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.

[DCI]

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?
Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.

22.00 and 20.30. Perhaps?

[AnneGuedes]

The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !

[Benice]

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?

Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.

He does say he doesn't remember the time with any certainty Ann - IOW another way of saying he could be mistaken?

Would Mrs Webster still be at the table at 10.30? 

[ferryman]

The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !

True, although whoever interviewed him at Leicester HQ should have had a copy of his original statement.

[AnneGuedes]

The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !

True, although whoever interviewed him at Leicester HQ should have had a copy of his original statement.

Yes and he might very well have read it before answering... I reckon that the way interviews are led whether in Portugal or in the UK is sometimes unexpected, at least for the layman..

[Carana]

Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?

Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".

Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?

[AnneGuedes]

Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?

Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".

Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?

Hi Carana. Do you wonder how I do interpret the reaction of Eddie to the car key?

[Carana]

Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?

Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".

Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?

Hi Carana. Do you wonder how I do interpret the reaction of Eddie to the car key?

Well, yes.

But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.

[AnneGuedes]

But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.

I'm not impressed at all by Keela in the boot where the presence of minute drops of blood doesn't seem unlikely. Deducing it was Madeleine's doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The car key might have been contaminated.