The changing witness statements for the day that Madeleine disappeared.

[Albertini]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[pathfinder73]

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  >@@(*&)

[Albertini]

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

[Mr Gray]

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  >@@(*&)

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

[Albertini]

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.

[Albertini]

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??

[Mr Gray]

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

[Albertini]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[Albertini]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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.

[Albertini]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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