Goncalo Amaral interviewed after the Appeal Court decision.

[G-Unit]

Isn't it true the Paynes also agree Matt was there up around the apartments at 9:00 PM

And Russell makes it clear he had only just arrived before the Paynes did.

I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.

Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.

[Robittybob1]

I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.

Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.

No wonder GA pulled his hair out!

If GA used only the statements from the 4th he would have to have Gerry using the front door rather than the patio door.  Which is clearly not the case in the transcript of the interview.

[Benice]

I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.

Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.

You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate.   The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.

IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given  - because some or all of them could be wrong.   Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of  mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.

Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance. 

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate.   The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.

IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given  - because some or all of them could be wrong.   Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of  mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.

Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance. 

AIMHO

The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.

[Alfie]

The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.

How many additional witnesses do you require before you accept something probably happened?

[Robittybob1]

The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.

If the McCanns recovered memory like that they would have some serious accusation made against them.

[G-Unit]

How many additional witnesses do you require before you accept something probably happened?

Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.

[Robittybob1]

Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.

I would not trust Dianne, so ignore her.   Considering the general consensus Matthew did the check at 9:00 not Russell.  That proves beyond a doubt GA did not understand the case at all.

[Alfie]

Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.

Did I say you said it didn't happen?  Or did I ask you how many witnesses you require before you will accept that something probably happened?

[Robittybob1]

If we were to accept Goncalo's version of the timeline Russell has be up in his room for the entire hour from 9:00 till nearly 10:00.  Now there would not be one statement of the T9 that backs that.  I cannot believe how little GA knows about the case.

Did I say you said it didn't happen?  Or did I ask you how many witnesses you require before you will accept that something probably happened?

It must be a total shock to the GA supporters to realise how little he knew of the case.  It will take a while for them to be able to admit this.  They will be in denial for a long time.  It is shocking.

[G-Unit]

I would not trust Dianne, so ignore her.   Considering the general consensus Matthew did the check at 9:00 not Russell.  That proves beyond a doubt GA did not understand the case at all.

The consensus was only arrived at after discussions took place and an agreed group timeline was constructed. Before that it was merely 2:1 in favour of Matthew doing the check.

[Robittybob1]

The consensus was only arrived at after discussions took place and an agreed group timeline was constructed. Before that it was merely 2:1 in favour of Matthew doing the check.

Even the 2:1 goes against Amaral.

[G-Unit]

Even the 2:1 goes against Amaral.

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

[Robittybob1]

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

That would be about the most inaccurate way of working it out.  So who is who in that jumble?  It could be that they (Matt and Russell) left the table but didn't go and check their kids but were doing something else.  I had raised that possibility once before since Matt and Russell are not aware when Gerry and Jane return to the table between 9:15 and 9:30.

The employees are aware who is away from the table but would be unaware of what the  reason for that absence was.
(Thanking you for that reference, for I had asked about Matt and Russell leaving the table months ago now and no one helped.)

[Miss Taken Identity]

You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate.   The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.

IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given  - because some or all of them could be wrong.   Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of  mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.

Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance. 

AIMHO

However, these Doctors would have us believe they checked their children every 15/30 minutes, so, based on that they would be able to distinguish between 15 and 30 minutes or as has been suggested they just checked whenever... and had no set time to check their children at all. In fact it could also be suggested that they ate and drink then checked... I say checked I mean listened at doors as was their preferred secure fail safe system ...