UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Albertini on July 31, 2013, 08:16:02 AM
-
So what exactly did happen between 6:00pm and 8:00 pm on the 3rd May with the Tapas 7?
In particular with events surrounding the meal at the pariso beach bar and then the social tennis tournament.
In order to make sense of it lets analyse the statements:
4TH MAY STATEMENTS
Matthew Oldfield
No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting (in fact saying the kids ate at the Tapas) and no mention of what time he got back to the apartment:
Russell O’Brien
No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting, the only thing of note is:
At around 19h15/19h30, the informant went back to his apartment.
Oh and this:
He completely corroborates his partner Jane Tanner's statements for the rest of the day.
What on earth does that mean!
David Payne
No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting and no mention of being sent to see Kate and the children.
Now the women’s statements:
Dianne Webster
Mentions the tennis and the Paraiso meeting
Rachel Oldfield
No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting
Jane Tanner
Mentions Tennis and the Paraiso meeting. Stated that they “all” went back to their own apartments. However she then contradicts herself by saying Russell had arrived later.
Fiona Payne
Mentions the tennis and the Paraiso meeting
SUMMARY OF 4TH MAY STATEMENTS.
None of the men mentioned going to the Paraiso, none mention the tennis and David Payne does not mention going to see Kate.
With the exception of Rachel Oldfield all the ladies state they left the Paraiso between 6:10- 6:15, visited the tennis courts and that they all went to their apartments at 19:00.
10th May Statements
Matthew Oldfield
Now mentions the tennis, and the Paraiso meeting and states he left the tennis and went to his apartment at 19:00
Russell O’Brien
Only states:
He made note of the activities on the 3rd of May p.p.. This note consists of all the facts presented, of his activities and those of the group. They are in accordance with the version already represented by his wife, Jane Tanner.
David Payne
Not interviewed
Dianne Webster
Maintains they all got back to their apartment at 19:00.
Rachel Oldfield
Now mentions the beach meal and that they returned at 19:00 with Matthew coming back at 19:15.
Jane Tanner
To confirm that the first time that she went to the beach with the children was 3 May in the morning. Only on 3 May (Thursday) afternoon she met the group, almost all, in Prais da Luz, except for the McCanns because they had a private tennis class together
.
Around 17h15 she saw Kate Healy "jogging" on the beach, having waved [a hand].
Her husband Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne left the beach a little earlier they having gone to the tennis courts, it was the night of the men's tennis. When she, together with the friends and children, returned from the beach, at 18h20, they went to the tennis courts having seen that all the men, including Gerald McCann, were on the court. They stayed to talk to them them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald McCann comported himself as usual.
She thinks that Kate Healy was in the apartment getting the children ready for bed.
Around 19h00 each one went to their apartment with the children. She bathed her daughters, she read them a story, she put them to bed. E**e was sick and had difficulty with sleeping stayed with her father, who had arrived in the meantime, (on the previous night the deponent stayed later in the bedroom because her daughter had difficulty in sleeping;
Fiona Payne
Not interviewed.
SUMMARY OF 10TH/11TH MAY STATEMENTS
Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield left the beach for the social tennis between 6 and 6.15.
The remainder of the group followed some ten minutes later and stayed talking or watching the tennis until 7 when the women and children left for their apartments.
The independent witness, Dan, confirmed that the social tennis was over by 7PM. Gerry, who had played with the other three, left then. The other men left ten minutes or so later.
O'Brien, Oldfield and Payne were only out of sight of the women and children for about ten minutes before and ten minutes after the tennis.
All the men were in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 and remained in them until 8.30.
ROGATORY INTERVIEWS
SUMMARY OF ROGATORY INTERVIEWS
Payne, O'Brien and Oldfield all changed their stories. Together. Now they stated that the tennis didn't start until 6.50 and finished at 8PM.
Rachel Oldfield changed her statement regarding the time they got back from the tennis to anything up to 19:40
Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster did not alter their statements, still saying that David Payne was back in the apartment by 7.10.
THE PARISO CCTV
Who knows when the group became aware of these pictures but it shot their first version of events down in flames. David Payne makes reference to camera timings in his rogatory interview but it is not clear which camera he is referring to.
At 18:13 the three men are standing, clearly about to leave, presumably for the tennis courts. Fair enough. But what about the "ten minutes" or so interval before the others left? They were in fact still in the restaurant until at least 18:36 – fifteen minutes after Jane Tanner claimed to have watched the men playing – and would have arrived at the tennis courts at the same time as the men were just commencing play.
If they weren't playing tennis then what exactly had O'Brien, Oldfield and David Payne been doing between 18:13 and 18:50, a period which just happened to include the supposed Payne visit?
And if they were playing from 18:50 to almost 20:00 how come Fiona Payne placed her husband back in the apartment at 19:10?
So why did none of the men mention this in their first statements? Why did they change the time by an hour in the rogatory interview?
If it was simple timing issues why not say that?
And this is important stuff, as Payne is the last person other than the parents to see Madeleine alive and there appears to be a discrepancy of an hour at least before the last Tapas meal.
What was going on to necessitate such a risky changing of statements?
-
Why anyone would expect identical times and identical recollections to be given by 9 different people is beyond me.
They were on holiday not military manouvres and had no reason to 'log' every move they made and what time they did everything - or even recall every single move they made when first interviewed.
I did quite a few different things yesterday, and went to quite a few places - all of them fairly mundane. No way could I give exact times of when I set out, how long I stayed, or what time it was when I returned home. Why? - because there was no need for me to remember! It is as simple as that. If I sat down long enough and thought back - then I'm sure I could be a little more precise as things would come back to me. Or for instance - I could ask my housebound neighbour what time it was when I called in on her, and how long I stayed. Her memory of that might be better than mine.
Changes in statements are nothing to do with 'changing their stories'. I'm sure they will have gone over events amongst themselves - and that exercise alone will have cleared up some previous discrepancies - as memories were jogged.
You only have to read through the statements of independent witnesses, i.e. staff etc to notice that people have different powers of recall and some of the times they give are patently wrong. No way does this mean they were lying - and the same applies to the McCanns and their friends.
Thank goodness the people who matter i.e. SY - know this is perfectly normal human behaviour - and they have obviously accepted that the discrepancies are not anything out of the ordinary, and are within acceptable boundaries - otherwise they would not have ruled all of them out of the enquiry.
-
Why anyone would expect identical times and identical recollections to be given by 9 different people is beyond me.
They were on holiday not military manouvres and had no reason to 'log' every move they made and what time they did everything - or even recall every single move they made when first interviewed.
I did quite a few different things yesterday, and went to quite a few places - all of them fairly mundane. No way could I give exact times of when I set out, how long I stayed, or what time it was when I returned home. Why? - because there was no need for me to remember! It is as simple as that. If I sat down long enough and thought back - then I'm sure I could be a little more precise as things would come back to me. Or for instance - I could ask my housebound neighbour what time it was when I called in on her, and how long I stayed. Her memory of that might be better than mine.
Changes in statements are nothing to do with 'changing their stories'. I'm sure they will have gone over events amongst themselves - and that exercise alone will have cleared up some previous discrepancies - as memories were jogged.
You only have to read through the statements of independent witnesses, i.e. staff etc to notice that people have different powers of recall and some of the times they give are patently wrong. No way does this mean they were lying - and the same applies to the McCanns and their friends.
Thank goodness the people who matter i.e. SY - know this is perfectly normal human behaviour - and they have obviously accepted that the discrepancies are not anything out of the ordinary, and are within acceptable boundaries - otherwise they would not have ruled all of them out of the enquiry.
Wow, you are very trusting aren't you?
So it does not concern you that the 3 men of the group first of all didn't mention the Paraiso nor the tennis, then they did, stating they were in their apartments at around 19:00, then in the Rogatory change it 20:00, all together and at once?
Particularly when the women of the group consisently said they were all in their apartments at around 19:00 and indeed when one of the women even in her rogatory still said her partner was in the apartment at around 19:00 when he said it was 20:00 and another then changed her story to validate the new timefrmae of 20:00 for her husband?
Particularly when it concerns the last time the child was supposedly seen by someone other than the parents and on the same night of the disappearance?
At what point would you ever get suspicious of contradicitions in such importnat witness statements?
With an attitude like that to statements and witnesses, with such glaring discrepancies, i fear, if you were ever a Police Officer, no crimes would ever get solved!
You are too trusting of, and too quick to explain away, obvious and suspicious discrepancies that actually quite clearly require further and deeper investigation.
Is it any wonder the group wouldn't return for the reconstruction, how would they start explaining this mess away?
-
What is importamt to understand about witness recall is that is should be random, as people remember things differently to others.
What you have here is:
The men in unison saying nothing about it on 4th May
Most of the women in unison mentioning it on 4th May
The men in unison mentioning it on 10/11th May and all agreeing 19:00
The women in unison mentioning it on 10/11th May and all agreeing 19:00
The men in unison CHANGING IT it on their rog's and all agreeing 20:00
The women mentioning it in their rog's and some saying 19:00 and another changing her story to say 20:00 in order to validate her husband.
When you get changes all at the same time and together across multiple witnesses that should raise suspicion.
-
Wow, you are very trusting aren't you?
So it does not concern you that the 3 men of the group first of all didn't mention the Paraiso nor the tennis, then they did, stating they were in their apartments at around 19:00, then in the Rogatory change it 20:00, all together and at once?
Particularly when the women of the group consisently said they were all in their apartments at around 19:00 and indeed when one of the women even in her rogatory still said her partner was in the apartment at around 19:00 when he said it was 20:00 and another then changed her story to validate the new timefrmae of 20:00 for her husband?
Particularly when it concerns the last time the child was supposedly seen by someone other than the parents and on the same night of the disappearance?
At what point would you ever get suspicious of contradicitions in such importnat witness statements?
With an attitude like that to statements and witnesses, with such glaring discrepancies, i fear, if you were ever a Police Officer, would never solve a crime!
You are too trusting of, and too quick to explain away, obvious and suspicious discrepancies that actually quite clearly require further and deeper investigation.
Is it any wonder the group wouldn't return for the reconstruction, how would they start explaining this mess away?
So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'? I disagree.
-
So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'? I disagree.
Argh once again, the old "Andy Says" defence.
As has been stated for the umpteenth time, let's see what happens at the end of the investigation not the beginning.
-
Argh once again, the old "Andy Says" defence.
As has been stated for the umpteenth time, let's say what happens at the end of the investigation not the beginning.
And once again the old ''Andy says' derision. So boring.
There is a whole team of professional experienced police officers examining the case - do you think they are all too trusting?
-
And once again the old ''Andy says' derision. So boring.
There is a whole team of professional experienced police officers examining the case - do you think they are all too trusting?
Nope not at all. However what i do know is the investigation has just started.
What Andy says at the start of the investigation does not automatically mean that is what he will be saying later in the investigation, does it?
-
Nope not at all. However what i do know is the investigation has just started.
What Andy says at the start of the investigation does not automatically mean that is what he will be saying later in the investigation, does it?
With regard to the McCanns and their friends - then yes I do think he will be saying the same later on in the investigation.
Common sense alone dictates that it will be as a result of extensive enquiries that SY are now completely satisfied that neither the Tapas 7 or the McCanns can be considered to be suspects or even persons of interest in this case.
IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.
We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise - then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions.
Fortunately, none of the lies, disinformation and myths which so muddy the waters on forums will be considered by SY to form any part of their investigations so IMO we can be assured that any conclusions they have come to have been based solely on authenticated evidence.
-
BENICE:
We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise - then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions.
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
BENICE:
We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise - then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions.
8@??)( 8@??)(
It seems to me that supporters rely on the very same translated files to make their points when it suits then.
If the translations are not to the supporters liking why don't they have several of the McCann's Potuguese supporters do alternative translations ?
-
IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.
What else could he say to TV news when asked that question? And they all ask it of course.
-
With regard to the McCanns and their friends - then yes I do think he will be saying the same later on in the investigation.
Common sense alone dictates that it will be as a result of extensive enquiries that SY are now completely satisfied that neither the Tapas 7 or the McCanns can be considered to be suspects or even persons of interest in this case.
Well you would think that, wouldn't you? Your unequivocal support for the McCann's and their friends shines through in every post you contribute to this forum.
Until it is confirmed AND the investigation is complete then, unlike you, i'm taking nothing for granted. A number of missing children enquiries start on the basis of abduction and then work backwards.
IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.
Why? Police investigate abductions or other serious cases from outside and work backwards all the time.
Professional you say? What like the "we will solve it claim" where they have had to contact the Guardian to tell them Redwood didn't mean they had suspects in their sights and that the correct term is "persons of interest" and then get the Guardian to print a correction and retraction? Which the Guardian has done.
Does that sound professional to you?
Or how about stating that they were working with Portuguese and then the Attorney General publically and vocally contradicting him, to the point of almost creating a diplomatic incident?
Does that also sound like the mark of a savvy detective or a media professional?
The fact is Redwood has made a rod for his own back. The moment he retracts the "not suspect line" or doesn't repeat it in any interview will be seen as the Police then suspecting the McCann's and the ensuing storm that will bring will hamper Redwood's attempts to move the case forward.
He has to keep saying it until such time his findings either comprehensively warrant saying otherwise or an abductor is found with firm evidence against him.
And we have no idea where he is up to with the investigation other than it has just started and that the review of existing material is only two thirds complete.
We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise - then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions.
Fortunately, none of the lies, disinformation and myths which so muddy the waters on forums will be considered by SY to form any part of their investigations so IMO we can be assured that any conclusions they have come to have been based solely on authenticated evidence.
But yet you and your fellow supporter's are perfectly happy to become "armchair detectives" in trashing the PJ's investigation and the parts of the AG's report you don't like, aren't you?
And as i keep saying IF the Yard do start looking at the group, it will be very interesting to see whether you and your fellow supporters still have such unequivocal support for the work they are doing.
-
If Redwood gives any other answer than the one he does the press will go berserk and he's probably also bang in trouble legally.
So he plays with a straight bat?
(Of course I have no idea what he and his colleagues actually think, but I don't think you or anyone else does either, Benice)
-
What else could he say to TV news when asked that question? And they all ask it of course.
I don't think he would be 'making up' major statements like that - on TV or anywhere else in public in his position as the SY's official public voice. That would be professional suicide. imo.
-
So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'? I disagree.
The investigation is not yet one month old. Prior to that it was a review, with completely different powers and intent.
-
I don't think he would be 'making up' major statements like that - on TV or anywhere else in public in his position as the SY's official public voice. That would be professional suicide. imo.
If he says anything else - even a simple "we can't comment" - the press will take that as everyone is a suspect again won't they? This is the English press, and we all know what they're like.
-
It seems to me that supporters rely on the very same translated files to make their points when it suits then.
If the translations are not to the supporters liking why don't they have several of the McCann's Potuguese supporters do alternative translations ?
We have no choice but to rely on the unprofessionally translated files. And IMO they are accurate enough to give us a good idea of what was said, but not accurate enough to claim that every single word is correct - or has been given the right meaning. One wrongly translated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
I'm not trying to criticise the translators here - as I'm absolutely sure they did their level best, and I'm grateful to them, but they are not professionals and it shows. With a professional translation - from Portuguese to English, the reader has no idea that it IS a translation - unless they have been told beforehand.
-
I don't think he would be 'making up' major statements like that - on TV or anywhere else in public in his position as the SY's official public voice. That would be professional suicide. imo.
He doesn't have to be "making it up".
It may well be that at the point of where his investigation is up to he does not consider them suspects.
But that does not automatically assume once he has investigated and reviewed more information that position of "no suspect" will remain the same.
-
If he says anything else - even a simple "we can't comment" - the press will take that as everyone is a suspect again won't they? This is the English press, and we all know what they're like.
Exactly - and not only the Press - look what happened to Gerry when he said 'no comment' (or words to that effect) when asked if he knew Robert Murat. That was actually taken as an admission that he did know him by some - when the truth of the matter was that he was not allowed by the Secrecy laws to answer the question.
-
Can I ask what is the purpose of this thread Albertini?
My own view is that the timings are so similar in the statements because they were rehearsed after the 4th of May.
-
Can I ask what is the purpose of this thread Albertini?
My own view is that the timings are so similar in the statements because they were rehearsed after the 4th of May.
Sure.
I like you think they were rehearsed, although i would use the term "collusion" instead.
That then begs the question why did they need to collude on each other's statements? Why not tell the truth of it from each of their own perspective?
To me it is pivotal because we are dealing with the 2-4 hour period before Madeleine was reported missing and which includes the last person, other than the parents, to claim to have seen Madeleine alive and well.
Why would David Payne's version of the visit (which he first didn't mention) differ so wildly from kate's on such an important encounter in the whole investigation?
Why would all the women say the men were in the apartments at 19:00 and then the men not mention it, only to then mention it in their second statements?
Why did not one of the men mention it in their first statements?
Why did the men then ALL change it to 20:00 in their Rogatory statements despite some of the women still sticking to the all in the apartments at 19:00 line and depsite their previus testimony without explaining why they had changed it?
Why did Rachel Oldfield change her testimony to back up her husband's rogatory interview?
Why were everyone's timings found to be wrong when the CCTV pictures came out? What does that tell you?
It strikes me that these changes are an indication of something being amiss at this specific time with the group, and part of the accidental death theory revolves around what time an accident could have occured.
What we have here is contradictory evidence about the truthful movements of the men from 18:15-20:00.
Why the need to do that at a pivotal timeframe in the disappearance of the child?
What does this tell you about the veracity of the group's truthfulness as to other events of that night?
What inferences can we draw?
-
We have no choice but to rely on the unprofessionally translated files. And IMO they are accurate enough to give us a good idea of what was said, but not accurate enough to claim that every single word is correct - or has been given the right meaning. One wrongly translated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
I'm not trying to criticise the translators here - as I'm absolutely sure they did their level best, and I'm grateful to them, but they are not professionals and it shows. With a professional translation - from Portuguese to English, the reader has no idea that it IS a translation - unless they have been told beforehand.
And if you or your fellow supporters don't speak Portuguese how do you know what has or hasn't been translated incorrectly ?
-
And if you or your fellow supporters don't speak Portuguese how do you know what has or hasn't been translated incorrectly ?
Doesn't this also apply to you and your supporters, Faith?
How many have said something was missing or wrong from original statements?
Not one professional translator was used to take statements, and not just the McCann's and friends, statements.
Anne has corrected quite a few mis translations, pointed out to her, from the McCannpjfiles.
Who did the DVD translations?
-
Doesn't this also apply to you and your supporters, Faith?
How many have said something was missing or wrong from original statements?
Not one professional translator was used to take statements, and not just the McCann's and friends, statements.
Anne has corrected quite a few mis translations, pointed out to her, from the McCannpjfiles.
Who did the DVD translations?
My supporters ?
As you say DCI it certainly does apply to both supporters and doubters equally but it seems that the supporters only cry foul when the translation causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
-
My supporters ?
As you say DCI it certainly does apply to both supporters and doubters equally but it seems that the supporters only cry foul when the translation causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
You or your fellow supporters, is that better?
No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
-
You or your fellow supporters, is that better?
No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
What on earth. 8-)(--)
-
You or your fellow supporters, is that better?
No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
Deliberately ? How on earth can you judge that, unless of course you have a certain mindset or agenda first ?
From what I've observed in the six years i've followed the case apart fron two, allegedly, Portuguese forum members translating the odd newspaper articles, usually from Espresso and smearing Amaral, supporters seem to have relied on google for their translations which is, I'm sure you'll agree, not the most accurate of translating tools.
-
Well you would think that, wouldn't you? Your unequivocal support for the McCann's and their friends shines through in every post you contribute to this forum.
Until it is confirmed AND the investigation is complete then, unlike you, i'm taking nothing for granted. A number of missing children enquiries start on the basis of abduction and then work backwards.
Why? Police investigate abductions or other serious cases from outside and work backwards all the time.
Professional you say? What like the "we will solve it claim" where they have had to contact the Guardian to tell them Redwood didn't mean they had suspects in their sights and that the correct term is "persons of interest" and then get the Guardian to print a correction and retraction? Which the Guardian has done.
Does that sound professional to you?
Or how about stating that they were working with Portuguese and then the Attorney General publically and vocally contradicting him, to the point of almost creating a diplomatic incident?
Does that also sound like the mark of a savvy detective or a media professional?
The fact is Redwood has made a rod for his own back. The moment he retracts the "not suspect line" or doesn't repeat it in any interview will be seen as the Police then suspecting the McCann's and the ensuing storm that will bring will hamper Redwood's attempts to move the case forward.
He has to keep saying it until such time his findings either comprehensively warrant saying otherwise or an abductor is found with firm evidence against him.
And we have no idea where he is up to with the investigation other than it has just started and that the review of existing material is only two thirds complete.
But yet you and your fellow supporter's are perfectly happy to become "armchair detectives" in trashing the PJ's investigation and the parts of the AG's report you don't like, aren't you?
And as i keep saying IF the Yard do start looking at the group, it will be very interesting to see whether you and your fellow supporters still have such unequivocal support for the work they are doing.
I support the McCanns because I do not believe they had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. I believe she was abducted.
However, that does not mean that I think every single word in their or their friends' statements is accurate because I know they are from memory and therefore open to error. What I don't believe is that any of them has deliberately lied - because IMO they had no reason to lie - and no-one has come up with a credible reason to make me think differently.
In six years no-one has been able to present an alternative theory to abduction which is even remotely believable - unless you are prepared to dispense with all common sense, logic and reasoned thought first. If I was a sceptic that would bother me.
IMO The only thing the sceptics have in common with SY - is that SY haven't been able to come up with an alternative to abduction either, because if they had then they would not have been able to rule out the McCanns and the Tapas 7. But they clearly have ruled them - and IMO to try to say they haven't is just wishful thinking.
-
I support the McCanns because I do not believe they had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. I believe she was abducted.
However, that does not mean that I think every single word in their or their friends' statements is accurate because I know they are from memory and therefore open to error. What I don't believe is that any of them has deliberately lied - because IMO they had no reason to lie - and no-one has come up with a credible reason to make me think differently.
In six years no-one has been able to present an alternative theory to abduction which is even remotely believable - unless you are prepared to dispense with all common sense, logic and reasoned thought first. If I was a sceptic that would bother me.
IMO The only thing the sceptics have in common with SY - is that SY haven't been able to come up with an alternative to abduction either, because if they had then they would not have been able to rule out the McCanns and the Tapas 7. But they clearly have ruled them - and IMO to try to say they haven't is just wishful thinking.
Here's a question I asked a few times.
What is the success rate of SY in solving reported crimes ?
We know already how the same team involved in this review failed miserably with the Jill Dando case.
-
You or your fellow supporters, is that better?
No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.
Look forward to you furnishing the forum with several examples of this accusation. As for bringing up translation errors as the cause of time discrepancies..... all the translators mistake times given as 7 pm with 8pm?
Also, please provide evidence that the interpreters/translators at the tapas 9 police interviews were NOT professionals and if they were not in some way, what were they? and also answer why, at the end of each translated interview,it says, they read, ratified and signed. Why would any of them sign anything if it was not all true and correct?
-
So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'? I disagree.
They've evidently ruled the Tapas9 out as suspects/persons of interest in reviewing the abduction of Madeleine McCann. Even the sceptics don't suspect Mr McCann to have abducted for some reason his own daughter.
Didn't the MC argue there's was no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine had suffered any harm ? Cameron believed the doxa, just like you, Benice ! The redhaired one did a bit of pressure, certainly, but Cameron reflected victims of abduction are sometimes found alive. So he ordered the review.
It didn't pass his mind that Madeleine could have never been abducted, but have died in a domestic accident.. He didn't read what the AG said about the undetermined nature of the crime.
-
In six years no-one has been able to present an alternative theory to abduction which is even remotely believable - unless you are prepared to dispense with all common sense, logic and reasoned thought first. If I was a sceptic that would bother me.
This is a myth again, Benice. There are alternative theories and please don't say they lack of evidence because your abduction from bed does lack too, no more, no less (see the AG report). So why are you propagating the myth nobody was able to build an alternative theory as valid as you abduction from bed one, as if this was the best argument to proclaim valid your speculative abduction from bed ?
Theories are many, not just Amaral's one and Benice's one. There's for instance an abduction from public space theory. But it doesn't suit you, does it ? SY might be studying it.
-
They've evidently ruled the Tapas9 out as suspects/persons of interest in reviewing the abduction of Madeleine McCann. Even the sceptics don't suspect Mr McCann to have abducted for some reason his own daughter
Very astute Anne, that neved crossed my mind!
8(>((
-
This is a myth again, Benice. There are alternative theories and please don't say they lack of evidence because your abduction from bed does lack too, no more, no less (see the AG report). So why are you propagating the myth nobody was able to build an alternative theory as valid as you abduction from bed one, as if this was the best argument to proclaim valid your speculative abduction from bed ?
Theories are many, not just Amaral's one and Benice's one. There's for instance an abduction from public space theory. But it doesn't suit you, does it ? SY might be studying it.
Well tell me one of these credible theories Anne. That's all I've ever asked.
Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
(or any other feasible theory you can think of)
I can promise you I will read it with a completely open mind.
-
Well tell me one of these credible theories Anne. That's all I've ever asked.
Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
(or any other feasible theory you can think of)
I can promise you I will read it with a completely open mind.
Why does anyone have to have a theory credible or not to prove that something could have happened
Its a stupid question
Why dont you produce a theory of something you might believe happened but which has been rejected by a court
Jill Dando murdered professionally
OJ Simpson murdering his wife
Casey Anthony killing her daughter
etc etc
Madeleine was last seen at 5.30 that dsy, the rest is hearsayand statements from non independent people, and it is suspicious when they contradict each other by miles
Off to make stuffed tomatoes and peppers, see u later
-
Well tell me one of these credible theories Anne. That's all I've ever asked.
Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
(or any other feasible theory you can think of)
I can promise you I will read it with a completely open mind.
From your post, Benice: Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
I've posed this question several times, asking how the McCanns could have "done it" in the 4.5 hour time frame. I have yet to receive a response.
-
From your post, Benice: Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
I've posed this question several times, asking how the McCanns could have "done it" in the 4.5 hour time frame. I have yet to receive a response.
There are many ways they could have done it but until you accept that their psychology would allow them to do it you will never admit recognise that.
-
Well tell me one of these credible theories Anne. That's all I've ever asked.
Starting with... Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment then....................what? why? and how?
(or any other feasible theory you can think of)
I can promise you I will read it with a completely open mind.
Benice, I don't have A theory ! I'm a sceptic, even (or rather firstly) concerning my own speculations !
Amaral had an alternative theory to abduction, it might have in part frozen by now. I don't agree with this theory.
In one of my hypotheses and because I trust Prof Harrison and the Martin/Eddie team, Madeleine fell from the balcony just after her parents left the flat.
I'm prone to imagine those kids had some benzodiazepin in the milk they used to drink at story time (on the 3rd it was just after their high tea). It is the only explanation I can find to the miracle of 3 kids getting asleep at the same time, in the same room, in a strange place, every night.
You surely remember the Stones
"Things are different today,"
I hear ev'ry mother say
Mother needs something today to calm her down
And though she's not really ill
There's a little yellow pill
She goes running for the shelter of her mother's little helper
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day.
But a scared child will not get asleep with benzodiazepins which don't knock out but have a soothing effect. So my guess is Madeleine heard her parents leave and got out of her bed and tried to find out where they were. My guess is also she was dizzy and more vulnerable.
-
There are many ways they could have done it but until you accept that their psychology would allow them to do it you will never admit recognise that.
So. You're a qualified psychologist who has examined both Kate and Gerry McCann then? Do tell. Which University did you gain your qualifications and what dates did you examine the McCanns?
How did they do it in the 4.5 hours then?
-
So. You're a qualified psychologist who has examined both Kate and Gerry McCann then? Do tell. Which University did you gain your qualifications and what dates did you examine the McCanns?
How did they do it in the 4.5 hours then?
What is this fixation with 4.5 hours ?
Were you there ?
How do you know a body could not have been hidden and moved subsequently ?
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ?
Do you believe potential suspects always tell the truth ?
Are you an expect in psychology ?
-
Benice, I don't have A theory ! I'm a sceptic, even (or rather firstly) concerning my own speculations !
Amaral had an alternative theory to abduction, it might have in part frozen by now. I don't agree with this theory.
In one of my hypotheses and because I trust Prof Harrison and the Martin/Eddie team, Madeleine fell from the balcony just after her parents left the flat.
I'm prone to imagine those kids had some benzodiazepin in the milk they used to drink at story time (on the 3rd it was just after their high tea). It is the only explanation I can find to the miracle of 3 kids getting asleep at the same time, in the same room, in a strange place, every night.
You surely remember the Stones
"Things are different today,"
I hear ev'ry mother say
Mother needs something today to calm her down
And though she's not really ill
There's a little yellow pill
She goes running for the shelter of her mother's little helper
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day.
But a scared child will not get asleep with benzodiazepins which don't knock out but have a soothing effect. So my guess is Madeleine heard her parents leave and got out of her bed and tried to find out where they were. My guess is also she was dizzy and more vulnerable.
Anne, why are you so obsessed with Benzodiazepines, a medication used to treat anxiety, and how it was administered? in your words "put in the milk they used to drink at story time".
So you are accusing the McCann's of drugging their children! That is libel.
-
What is this fixation with 4.5 hours ?
Were you there ?
How do you know a body could not have been hidden and moved subsequently ?
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ?
Do you believe potential suspects always tell the truth ?
Are you an expect in psychology ?
What is this fixation with 4.5 hours ? 5.30 till 10 = 4.5 hours
Were you there ? Were you?
How do you know a body could not have been hidden and moved subsequently ?
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ? How do you know they did?
Do you believe potential suspects always tell the truth ? Do you?
Are you an expect in psychology ? No idea what an expect in psychology, is.
-
What is this fixation with 4.5 hours ?
Were you there ?
How do you know a body could not have been hidden and moved subsequently ?
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ?
Do you believe potential suspects always tell the truth ?
Are you an expect in psychology ?
Why do I need to be an expert in psychology to ask for a credible theory as to how they could have "done it" in the 4.5 hours that we are being expected to believe. From last being seen by an independent witness to the alarm being raised at 10pm.
A body hidden and moved subsequently... how would they have done that then? Interested to hear your take on that.
-
Why do I need to be an expert in psychology to ask for a credible theory as to how they could have "done it" in the 4.5 hours that we are being expected to believe. From last being seen by an independent witness to the alarm being raised at 10pm.
A body hidden and moved subsequently... how would they have done that then? Interested to hear your take on that.
Done what exactly ?
In those 4.5 hours where the Mccanns under scrutiny all the time ?
Were they under scrutiny afterwards 24 hours a day, i.e. under surveillance ?
Highly unlikely, as the PJ were searching for an abducted child, until they found no evidence of that, and the UK police suggested the PJ investigate the parents.
-
Anne, why are you so obsessed with Benzodiazepines, a medication used to treat anxiety, and how it was administered? in your words "put in the milk they used to drink at story time".
So you are accusing the McCann's of drugging their children! That is libel.
Immediately dramatic, accusation und so weiter ! I'm prone to imagine... it isn't forbidden to imagine.
-
Done what exactly ?
In those 4.5 hours where the Mccanns under scrutiny all the time ?
Were they under scrutiny afterwards 24 hours a day, i.e. under surveillance ?
Highly unlikely, as the PJ were searching for an abducted child, until they found no evidence of that, and the UK police suggested the PJ investigate the parents.
Madeleine was last seen at 5.30 - the alarm was raised at 10pm. So we are being asked to believe that something happened then and the McCanns covered it up and hid her remains. In a foreign country without access to a car. And went to dinner behaving normally.
I don't buy that. Whatever you believe is your prerogative.
-
Madeleine was last seen at 5.30 - the alarm was raised at 10pm. So we are being asked to believe that something happened then and the McCanns covered it up and hid her remains. In a foreign country without access to a car. And went to dinner behaving normally.
I don't buy that. Whatever you believe is your prerogative.
No you believe in the fictitious abduction for which there is no proof, no forensics, and no trace of Madeleine after 6 years of worldwide publicity.
Nuf said eh ?
-
No you believe in the fictitious abduction for which there is no proof, no forensics, and no trace of Madeleine after 6 years of worldwide publicity.
Nuf said eh ?
As I said, whatever you believe is your prerogative and what I believe is mine.
-
why would an abductor have to leave forensics ? - If Abductor A entered the flat - had gloves on - opened the window and shutter - picked up a sleeping Maddy and handed out of window to abductor B who then vanished.
This would take minutes and there would be no noticeable " Forensics " This was a holiday flat - the amount of forensics from a vast amount of people that had been in and out of the flat over the past month from staff to other holiday makers to police dogs etc etc etc
A lack of forensics doesn't really mean anything - There is no " forensics to say she died in the flat either ??
-
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ? How do you know they did?
The repeated claims by Gerry McCann in his 2007 "blog" that he and his wife were not suspected of involvement by the Portuguese police in the disappearance were demonstrated as proven lies, as the date evidence of the police interviews in Madeleine now shows.
Kate McCann herself admitted in Madeleine that they had lied (page 206) to the media about the police investigation.
Do you believe potential suspects always tell the truth ? Do you?
No.
-
The repeated claims by Gerry McCann in his 2007 "blog" that he and his wife were not suspected of involvement by the Portuguese police in the disappearance were demonstrated as proven lies, as the date evidence of the police interviews in Madeleine now shows.
Kate McCann herself admitted in Madeleine that they had lied (page 206) to the media about the police investigation.
No.
Everyone lies to one extent or another. Parents tell lies or porkies to their children regularly and pass them off as 'white lies'. Anyone who claims that they have never lied is kidding themself.
-
Everyone lies to one extent or another. Parents tell lies or porkies to their children regularly and pass them off as 'white lies'. Anyone who claims that they have never lied is kidding themself.
So you think it is right that she and her husband will be the judges as to when to lie or tell the truth in events surrounding the investigation?
What else have they lied about?
What does this do to their credibility as witnesses to being the last people to see Madeleine alive and well?
Hasn't the evidence on Gerry's blogs and Kate's admission in the book meant they as a couple of failed the veracity test?
-
So you think it is right that she and her husband will be the judges as to when to lie or tell the truth in events surrounding the investigation?
What else have they lied about?
What does this do to their credibility as witnesses to being the last people to see Madeleine alive and well?
Hasn't the evidence on Gerry's blogs and Kate's admission in the book meant they as a couple of failed the veracity test?
Page 205.
Suggest you read that first. It gives very good and clear reasons for a VERY small porkie.
You are making mountains out of a molehill, Albertini. Not even a molehill really when read in context
But that is par for the course, isn't it?
-
The repeated claims by Gerry McCann in his 2007 "blog" that he and his wife were not suspected of involvement by the Portuguese police in the disappearance were demonstrated as proven lies, as the date evidence of the police interviews in Madeleine now shows.
Kate McCann herself admitted in Madeleine that they had lied (page 206) to the media about the police investigation.
No.
Everyone lies to one extent or another. Parents tell lies or porkies to their children regularly and pass them off as 'white lies'. Anyone who claims that they have never lied is kidding themself.
Lets have it in the correct context though. Kate admits they lied, and why! >@@(*&)
We'd never lied about anything, not to the police, not to the media. not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice.
As it hapenned, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn't feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have hapenned if we'd announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work on our villa?
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a tempory holding measure. If we had, we wouldn't have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay. Page 205/206
-
Lets have it in the correct context though. Kate admits they lied, and why! >@@(*&)
We'd never lied about anything, not to the police, not to the media. not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice.
As it hapenned, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn't feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have hapenned if we'd announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work on our villa?
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a tempory holding measure. If we had, we wouldn't have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay. Page 205/206
Let's not forget the lies and exaggerations in the book
-
Let's not forget the lies and exaggerations in the book
Yep, the bottom line is they are self confessed and proven liars.
Irrespective of their reasons for lying they are saying they felt it right to lie.
What else do they or did they feel it was justifiable for them to lie?
Given the fact they are liars that should allow us to treat all their other statements with the same caveat.
-
Let's not forget the lies and exaggerations in the book
You mean like Amaral's book @)(++(*
-
Lets have it in the correct context though. Kate admits they lied, and why! >@@(*&)
We'd never lied about anything, not to the police, not to the media. not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice.
As it hapenned, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn't feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have hapenned if we'd announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work on our villa?
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a tempory holding measure. If we had, we wouldn't have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay. Page 205/206
Hang on a moment, you said "who said they did lie" in the first place, which i replied to.
Make your mind up!
-
Page 205.
Suggest you read that first. It gives very good and clear reasons for a VERY small porkie.
You are making mountains out of a molehill, Albertini. Not even a molehill really when read in context
But that is par for the course, isn't it?
Mountains out a of a molehill? When the last people (and suspects) to see the child alive and well, whose statements underpin the abduction theory admit to lying and are shown to be lying?
That's a mountain out of a molehill to you is it?
@)(++(*
ok!
-
Hang on a moment, you said "who said they did lie" in the first place, which i replied to.
Make your mind up!
Did I really? Would you care to point out where. 8((()*/
-
Lets have it in the correct context though. Kate admits they lied, and why! >@@(*&)
We'd never lied about anything, not to the police, not to the media. not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice.
As it hapenned, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn't feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have hapenned if we'd announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work on our villa?
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a tempory holding measure. If we had, we wouldn't have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay. Page 205/206
Thats a lie in itself.
See Gerry Mccann visit to Portugal in January 2009:
Said:
What we're really here to discuss is, errr... how we can work with the authorities to explore areas where other things can still be done that... that might make a difference and I think, errr... you know, this is the first visit that I'm here in, errr... Portugal but I expect it will be the first of, you know, several over the next few months."
"Q: Do you plan to cooperate with the Portuguese authorities?
GM: Of course."
"The purpose of this visit was to, errr... really look at what can still be done in the search, we want to be, you know, looking positively, not backwards - looking forwards. 'Cause, you know, we want to find our daughter. It's pretty simple really.
"In an exclusive interview to the Portuguese News agency Lusa, Gerry McCann stated that he has no intention, at least for now, to promote any process against the Portuguese state or any other entity, namely media outlets, highlighting the fact that the important thing is to forget the past and try to keep searching for his missing daughter."
"He assured journalists that it is the first of many visits to set up new operations in the search for his daughter."
He was asked what he was looking for on this visit.
"We are going to analyse if in fact everything was done to find Madeleine [this is in a 24 hour visit]. If the authorities acted correctly. And, more importantly, to find out if there is any lead that we can explore."
on page 335 of Madeleine there was one, and only one, reason for Gerry McCann's trip. She writes:
"We had already spoken to our legal team on several occasions about taking action [against Amaral] and knew that the only way of assessing our chances of success would be to seek advice from a Portuguese libel lawyer. We had first talked on the phone to Isabel Duarte on 28 November. She was really understanding and sounded nice. By this point we felt as though we had been condemned by an entire country, so to receive sympathy from someone in Portugal was like stepping into a welcoming warm bath. Six weeks later, [i.e. January 13/14] Gerry went to Lisbon to meet her."
He hadn't come to "discuss things with the Portuguese authorities. He hadn't "come to see what can still be done in the on-going search for Madeleine." He didn't "analyse if in fact everything was done to find Madeleine, If the authorities acted correctly, and, more importantly, to find out if there is any lead that we can explore."
-
Kate was referring to 2007, not Gerry's visit to Portugal in January 2009:
Thats what you were answering to, when you posted "who said they did lie" in the first place, which i replied to.
So have you found where I said it, or are you just detracting because I didn't say it?
-
Thats a lie in itself.
See Gerry Mccann visit to Portugal in January 2009:
Said:
What we're really here to discuss is, errr... how we can work with the authorities to explore areas where other things can still be done that... that might make a difference and I think, errr... you know, this is the first visit that I'm here in, errr... Portugal but I expect it will be the first of, you know, several over the next few months."
"Q: Do you plan to cooperate with the Portuguese authorities?
GM: Of course."
"The purpose of this visit was to, errr... really look at what can still be done in the search, we want to be, you know, looking positively, not backwards - looking forwards. 'Cause, you know, we want to find our daughter. It's pretty simple really.
"In an exclusive interview to the Portuguese News agency Lusa, Gerry McCann stated that he has no intention, at least for now, to promote any process against the Portuguese state or any other entity, namely media outlets, highlighting the fact that the important thing is to forget the past and try to keep searching for his missing daughter."
"He assured journalists that it is the first of many visits to set up new operations in the search for his daughter."
He was asked what he was looking for on this visit.
"We are going to analyse if in fact everything was done to find Madeleine [this is in a 24 hour visit]. If the authorities acted correctly. And, more importantly, to find out if there is any lead that we can explore."
on page 335 of Madeleine there was one, and only one, reason for Gerry McCann's trip. She writes:
"We had already spoken to our legal team on several occasions about taking action [against Amaral] and knew that the only way of assessing our chances of success would be to seek advice from a Portuguese libel lawyer. We had first talked on the phone to Isabel Duarte on 28 November. She was really understanding and sounded nice. By this point we felt as though we had been condemned by an entire country, so to receive sympathy from someone in Portugal was like stepping into a welcoming warm bath. Six weeks later, [i.e. January 13/14] Gerry went to Lisbon to meet her."
He hadn't come to "discuss things with the Portuguese authorities. He hadn't "come to see what can still be done in the on-going search for Madeleine." He didn't "analyse if in fact everything was done to find Madeleine, If the authorities acted correctly, and, more importantly, to find out if there is any lead that we can explore."
Interesting ! The media they complained of for telling lies...
-
Kate was referring to 2007, not Gerry's visit to Portugal in January 2009:
Thats what you were answering to, when you posted "who said they did lie" in the first place, which i replied to.
So have you found where I said it, or are you just detracting because I didn't say it?
You responded to someone with how do you know they did? Ie lie, its exactlywhat Albertini was referring to, even if the exact same words were not used, you asked how do you onow they lied, Albertini answered you. Substance and not nitpicking pls
As for Kate Mccann speaking about when they lied in 2007, how on earth can you use that as an excuse for Gerrys 2009 lies!!
@)(++(*
-
Kate was referring to 2007, not Gerry's visit to Portugal in January 2009:
Thats what you were answering to, when you posted "who said they did lie" in the first place, which i replied to.
So have you found where I said it, or are you just detracting because I didn't say it?
So you agree Gerry lied in 2009 ?
-
ok, so lies in 2007 is what you want?
How about this from Gerry on his blog,
Gerry McCann, 8/8/07 and his version of the interrogation and the experience undergone by his wife that day: "At our meeting with the Portuguese police today we reaffirmed that we have to believe Madeleine is alive until there is concrete evidence to the contrary."
Madeleine p213 "...I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I'd killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her" and p219, the dog evidence supposedly backing this claim given to her by the police 11/8/07;
GM blogs 11/8/07 for his version for the UK public, "There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance".
-
You responded to someone with how do you know they did? Ie lie, its exactlywhat Albertini was referring to, even if the exact same words were not used, you asked how do you onow they lied, Albertini answered you. Substance and not nitpicking pls
As for Kate Mccann speaking about when they lied in 2007, how on earth can you use that as an excuse for Gerrys 2009 lies!!
@)(++(*
See Red, you have no idea what you are talking about, just trying to stir it, as usaul. Albertini said I had posted "who said they did lie" Re Kate McCann, I didn't. It was nothing to do with the reply to Steven. As Albertini hasn't come up with that post, I presume she/he can't answer, but won't admit it.
-
See Red, you have no idea what you are talking about, just trying to stir it, as usaul. Albertini said I had posted "who said they did lie" Re Kate McCann, I didn't. It was nothing to do with the reply to Steven. As Albertini hasn't come up with that post, I presume she/he can't answer, but won't admit it.
nit nit nit picking DCI
Youasked in reaponse to a question
***
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ? How do you know they did?
***
IE YOU asked how anyone knew they lied, and you were answered, with examples, simple and end of
nothing to do with me stirring of albertini twisting or anything like that
Just your refusal to accept you DID ask and YOU WERE answered
NOW, do you agree Gery LIED in 2009? Through his back teeth?
@)(++(*
why did he?
-
nit nit nit picking DCI
Youasked in reaponse to a question
***
How do you know the Mccanns didn't lie ? How do you know they did?
***
IE YOU asked how anyone knew they lied, and you were answered, with examples, simple and end of
nothing to do with me stirring of albertini twisting or anything like that
Just your refusal to accept you DID ask and YOU WERE answered
NOW, do you agree Gery LIED in 2009? Through his back teeth?
@)(++(*
why did he?
Albertini, wasn't replying to that post by Steven. What she said wasn't even in a post, so how was she replying, to it? 8-)(--) Go through the posts and learn to read them before shouting your mouth off. It was nothing to do with you what Albertine and I exchanged in posts. So why the need for you to put your four penneth in?
-
Cos you are WRONG as you OFTEN are
It has to be noted
8((()*/
Any joy yet why gerry mccann lied through his teeth in 2009?
>@@(*&)
@)(++(*
Wouldnt be because he LIED would it?
8)--))
You can goad all you like Red, it won't work on me ?>)()<
-
Redblossom, I note that you are already being watched on here. I will stick to my word and remove any goading posts you make while iam moderating the board this evening. Thankyou.
-
You can goad all you like Red, it won't work on me ?>)()<
So you wont answer a question or other issues put to you, but instead accuse LOL thats ok means u have no answer to the pertinent questions, no worries I know
8((()*/
-
Redblossom, I note that you are already being watched on here. I will stick to my word and remove any goading posts you make while iam moderating the board this evening. Thankyou.
thank you Andrea but I am not goading just answering and asking questions, if you read back on the thread u will see
Thanks
-
Just keep things friendly, Red.
We are adults on here I take it? I don't want to remove or edit posts, but by the same token I don't want the users of this board to feel intimidated or such like. We want all posters here to enjoy their time posting here. So if a post is goading it will be removed. Thanks.
-
See Red, you have no idea what you are talking about, just trying to stir it, as usaul. Albertini said I had posted "who said they did lie" Re Kate McCann, I didn't. It was nothing to do with the reply to Steven. As Albertini hasn't come up with that post, I presume she/he can't answer, but won't admit it.
Apologies if i mis-quoted you and you said
How do you know they did?
I didn't misquote enough to change the answer i gave though. It still applies and the following can be added:
We know they did because Kate told us they did and evidence demonstrates they did.
Now we have that sorted can you reply regarding the lies in 2007?
-
So. You're a qualified psychologist who has examined both Kate and Gerry McCann then? Do tell. Which University did you gain your qualifications and what dates did you examine the McCanns?
How did they do it in the 4.5 hours then?
Not 4.5 hours Rachel
For the Mccanns to have done something to Madeleine lets examine the timeline again.
No there IS NOT a 4.5 hour time gap for the children/ Madeleine to have been unseen by others rather than the Mccanns. EDIT: The maximum is about 2 hours
We are looking at how long kate and Gerry singularily, or together, were alone with the children?
Was there enough time for them to have done something nasty to Madeleine, including disposing of her body?
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at just before 5.40pm (Kates May 6th statement)
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at 5.30pm (Gerrys May 10th statement).
For some reason that night she was tired out (drugged?) and had to be carried to the flat
Kate was bathing the three children and getting them ready for bed when David called at about 6.30- 6.35pm He saw Madeleine and the twins dressed ready for bed. (Davids Rog statement part 2)
So Madeleine was safe at about 6.35pm
Kate was with the children until Gerry arrived back from tennis, before 8 pm (Davids Rog statement and IIRC also Gerrys statement. Probably in other Rog staements too, but I haven't checked them all) Shall we say Gerry arrived back at 7.55pm?[/color]
EDIT: My apologies. Gerry arrived back a few minutes after 7pm. The others arrived back before 8 pm
So here Kate had been alone with the little ones from 6.35 - 7.05pm (about 30 minutes). But strange, as had anything happened, a wife would almost certainly rush straight out to her hubby and pour it all out. That did not happen .... So extremely unlikely anything happened at this time
Kate and Gerry, together, were with the children until they left for the tapas restaurant at 8.30/8.35pm
So 7.05pm - 8.30/8.35pm(1hour 30 minutes)
But both Kate and Gerry had to share a bathroom, shower, wash hair, change etc etc and get ready for their evening meal with the Tapas group. Also spend valuable bedtime time with the children, clear up in the bathroom and after the children. THen have a quiet glass of wine. Not much time here was there?
Matt made a listening check at about 9.00pm
Gerry returned from the Tapas restaurant and saw the children between 9.05 and 910pm. He noticed the bedroom door was wider open than they left it (left at approx 10cms ajar)
Not much could be done in 5 minutes, could it? [/i]
Jane Tanner, at 9.15 ish, saw bundleman and almost certainly Madeleine. Even noticing the detail at the bottom of her pyjama trousers.
Looks like Madeleine went at this stage
Matt made a visual check at about 9.25 pm, but unfortunately didn't go into the room - so only actually visually checked the twins. The door was wider open than expected ... so seems the abduction had already taken place
Kate checked at 10.00pm and found Madeleine gone
The longest gap I can find, when no other people were around, is about 2 hours ... NOT 4.5 hours .... nor as some on here proclaimed 5 hours
-
Not 4.5 hours Rachel
For the Mccanns to have done something to Madeleine lets examine the timeline again.
No there IS NOT a 4.5 hour time gap for the children/ Madeleine to have been unseen by others rather than the Mccanns. The maximum is 1 hour 15 minutes, whilst Gerry was playing Tennis
We are looking at how long kate and Gerry singularily, or together, were alone with the children?
Was there enough time for them to have done something nasty to Madeleine, including disposing of her body?
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at just before 5.40pm (Kates May 6th statement)
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at 5.30pm (Gerrys May 10th statement).
For some reason that night she was tired out (drugged?) and had to be carried to the flat
Kate was bathing the three children and getting them ready for bed when David arrived at 6.35/ 6.40. He saw Madeleine and the twins dressed ready for bed. (Davids Rog statement part 2)
So Madeleine was safe at about 6.40pm
Kate was with the children until Gerry arrived back from tennis, before 8 pm (Davids Rog statement and IIRC also Gerrys statement. Probably in other Rog staements too, but I haven't checked them all) Shall we say Gerry arrived back at 7.55pm?
So here Kate had been alone with the little ones from 6.40 - 7.55 pm (an hour and a quarter). But strange, as had anything happened, a wife would almost certainly rush straight out to her hubby and pour it all out. That did not happen .... So extremely unlikely anything happened at this time
Kate and Gerry were with the children until they left for the tapas restaurant at 8.30pm
So 7.55 - 8.30pm (35 minutes)
But Gerry had to shower and get ready for his evening meal with the Tapas group. Not much time here was there?
Matt made a listening check at about 9.00pm
Gerry returned from the Tapas restaurant and saw the children between 9.05 and 910pm
Not much could be done in 5 minutes, could it? [/i]
Jane Tanner, at 9.15 ish, saw bundleman and almost certainly Madeleine. Even noticing the detail at the bottom of her pyjama trousers.
Looks like Madeleine went at this stage
Matt made a visual check at about 9.25 pm, but unfortunately didn't go into the room - so only actually visually checked the twins. The door was wider open than expected ... so seems the abduction had already taken place
Kate checked at 10.00pm and found Madeleine gone
The longest gap I can find, when no other people were around, is 1 hour 15 minutes ... NOT 4.5 hours. Kate was on her own and after putting the little ones to bed and reading to them, was showering and getting ready for dinner. That was whilst Gerry was playing tennis. Odd, if something had happened, that Kate didn't rush out and tell Gerry
With both Kate and Gerry present, the longest period is only about 35 minutes, but Gerry got showered and changed in this period. Not much time there was there?
No independent witnesses saw Madeleine after 5.30 that day. BTW your timings are out and contradict Gerry and Kates statements for starters.
-
No independent witnesses saw Madeleine after 5.30 that day. BTW your timings are out and contradict Gerry and Kates statements for starters.
I have them all from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the statements as they came.
NOTE: Have edited below in line with my realisation that I had Gerrys return time wrong. He returned soon after 7pm, NOT at just before 8pm.
You are wrong Red, cos like it or not, David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.30/6.35pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30/8.35 to 10 pm.
That leaves a period of 2 hours total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine NOT 4 1/2 or 5 hours as you keep asserting. This deliberate disinformation is appalling
No other opportunities apart from the 2 hour period, all in full daylight with people around in adjoining flats. And a period when so much had to be fitted in in. See later posts
==========================
Think about it. Get your own times with official sources and post it. Let's have a look at your time line with opportunities.
Let's all look at it then, comparing yours to mine.
Is that fair?
-
I have them all from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the satements as they came.
You are wrong Red, cos like it or not, David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.35/6.40pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30 to 10 pm.
That leaves a period of 1 hour 50 minutes total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.
During that time, for 35 minutes both Mum and Dad were together with the children. However, during that period Gerry showered and changed ready for the tapas restaurant. Do you think a dirty deed was done then?
Alternatively kate was alone with the children from Davids visit at 6.35 / 6.40pm until Gerry arrived at about 7.55. That is a period of only 1hour 15minutes, during which period Kate reeda to them and put thgem to bed. She also showered, made up, did her hair and changed to clear the bathroom, ready for Gerry coming back. Not much time left, was there?
Additionally had anything happened to Madeleine, she would have screamed Gerry or fetched him immediately. Gerry has been her rock thru all this.
Nah nothing happened then either.
No other opportunities apart from in this 1 hour 50 minute period which I have just analysed for you, showing the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening as Zilch, tbh.
Think about it. Get your own times with official sources and post it. Let's have a look at your time line with opportunities.
Let's all look at it then, comparing yours to mine.
Is that fair?
- Did I ever say they had done a *dirty deed*? No I didnt, why do you continuously put words into peoples mouths? And no, I dont have to put a timeline on anything whichI think happened, as I have saidbefore, I have no idea!
- Tanner and Oldfield, even if considered independent witnesses, did not *see* Madeleine after 5.30 and neither have either of them ever said they did
- Pls quote from Paynes rogatory interview where he says Gerry returned to his flat at 8pm
- As I said, your timings are wrong, have you even *read* Gerry and Kate Mccanns statements? Your posts suggest you have not
-
I have them all from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the satements as they came.
You are wrong Red, cos like it or not, David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.35/6.40pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30 to 10 pm.
That leaves a period of 1 hour 50 minutes total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.
During that time, for 35 minutes both Mum and Dad were together with the children. However, during that period Gerry showered and changed ready for the tapas restaurant. Do you think a dirty deed was done then?
Alternatively kate was alone with the children from Davids visit at 6.35 / 6.40pm until Gerry arrived at about 7.55. That is a period of only 1hour 15minutes, during which period Kate reeda to them and put thgem to bed. She also showered, made up, did her hair and changed to clear the bathroom, ready for Gerry coming back. Not much time left, was there?
Additionally had anything happened to Madeleine, she would have screamed Gerry or fetched him immediately. Gerry has been her rock thru all this.
Nah nothing happened then either.
No other opportunities apart from in this 1 hour 50 minute period which I have just analysed for you, showing the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening as Zilch, tbh.
Think about it. Get your own times with official sources and post it. Let's have a look at your time line with opportunities.
Let's all look at it then, comparing yours to mine.
Is that fair?
You are relying on David Payne's interview about seeing Kate as indepedent proof???
Where he didnt think to mention it in his first interview, then didn't notice she was naked apart from a towel, then didn't know whether he had gone in or stayed at the door of the apartment, then didn't know if it was 30 seconds or 3-5 minutes.
Not highly reliable, when taken in contraxt with other statements where he says he returned to his apartment at 20:00 and his wife and mother in law said he wa sback after 19:00.
-
You are relying on David Payne's interview about seeing Kate as indepedent proof???
Where he didnt think to mention it in his first interview, then didn't notice she was naked apart from a towel, then didn't know whether he had gone in or stayed at the door of the apartment, then didn't know if it was 30 seconds or 3-5 minutes.
Not highly reliable, when taken in contraxt with other statements where he says he returned to his apartment at 20:00 and his wife and mother in law said he wa sback after 19:00.
Yes, he must have been back about that time. He had to get ready for his tennis didn't he, after leaving Kate at about 6.40pm?
where did you find out about Kate being only in a towel? I have recently reread all his statements and I didn't see it. Maybe he didn't mention it?
My life is full of interuptions, but I am surprised if I missed that. Also, I have only seen mention that he went into the apartment, but not far and that he stayed for just a few minutes ... I think about three.
I acknowledge that his statements are a bit woolley, but there is no reason to disbelieve them .... unless you are determined to disbelieve all the tapas statements ... Seems both the PJ and SY are happy enough with them, why aren't you?
-
You are relying on David Payne's interview about seeing Kate as indepedent proof???
Where he didnt think to mention it in his first interview, then didn't notice she was naked apart from a towel, then didn't know whether he had gone in or stayed at the door of the apartment, then didn't know if it was 30 seconds or 3-5 minutes.
Not highly reliable, when taken in contraxt with other statements where he says he returned to his apartment at 20:00 and his wife and mother in law said he wa sback after 19:00.
LOL - How could she be naked if she was wearing a towel? Especially if it was bath towel. By the same token you could say the same about David Payne - i.e. that he was naked apart from his clothes. (sorry but that made me giggle).
Why would you expect the second interview to be an exact replica of the first one? We have memories not tape recorders. There would be no point in ever having second interviews if you knew they were going to be word for word identical to the first one.
People have vastly differing powers of recall and different perceptions of time and distances. There is nothing strange about it. They had no reason to be clocking how long they spoke for - except that they both remembered that it was only for a very short time.
It's incredible the way some people actually expect that the McCanns and their friends should have been able to recall every word they spoke and every move they made and how long it took - right down to the last second -not only on the 3rd but for the whole week! And also every word and every move everyone else made too! People who think that - should try doing it themselves. It's asking for the impossible. imo.
-
LOL - How could she be naked if she was wearing a towel? Especially if it was bath towel. By the same token you could say the same about David Payne - i.e. that he was naked apart from his clothes. (sorry but that made me giggle).
Why would you expect the second interview to be an exact replica of the first one? We have memories not tape recorders. There would be no point in ever having second interviews if you knew they were going to be word for word identical to the first one.
People have vastly differing powers of recall and different perceptions of time and distances. There is nothing strange about it. They had no reason to be clocking how long they spoke for - except that they both remembered that it was only for a very short time.
It's incredible the way some people actually expect that the McCanns and their friends should have been able to recall every word they spoke and every move they made and how long it took - right down to the last second -not only on the 3rd but for the whole week! And also every word and every move everyone else made too! People who think that - should try doing it themselves. It's asking for the impossible. imo.
8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
You are relying on David Payne's interview about seeing Kate as indepedent proof???
Where he didnt think to mention it in his first interview, then didn't notice she was naked apart from a towel, then didn't know whether he had gone in or stayed at the door of the apartment, then didn't know if it was 30 seconds or 3-5 minutes.
Not highly reliable, when taken in contraxt with other statements where he says he returned to his apartment at 20:00 and his wife and mother in law said he wa sback after 19:00.
Mr Payne didn't remember what Mrs McCann had on !
Could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?
-- I can’t, no.
-
It's incredible the way some people actually expect that the McCanns and their friends should have been able to recall every word they spoke and every move they made and how long it took
Expect ? Some people have read Dr Freud and the more recent works of neurologists about the "black box".
When you don't remember, you can safely say so.
-
Mr Payne didn't remember what Mrs McCann had on !
Could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?
-- I can’t, no.
This made me laugh, cos my hubby never notices what I am wearing either. I could go out with a black shoe and a brown shoe and he would never notice. He doesn't notice anything like what people are wearing, yet is exceeding clever in so many ways.
As I said, his statements were very woolley. He strikes me as the scatty professer type. I like people like that, rather than smart ars^s
-
This made me laugh, cos my hubby never notices what I am wearing either. I could go out with a black shoe and a brown shoe and he would never notice. He doesn't notice anything like what people are wearing, yet is exceeding clever in so many ways.
As I said, his statements were very woolley. He strikes me as the scatty professer type. I like people like that, rather than smart ars^s
The Paynes were also notoriously late for everything - so if that was down to him, he probably wasn't too good at calculating time periods either.
-
LOL - How could she be naked if she was wearing a towel? Especially if it was bath towel. By the same token you could say the same about David Payne - i.e. that he was naked apart from his clothes. (sorry but that made me giggle).
Why would you expect the second interview to be an exact replica of the first one? We have memories not tape recorders. There would be no point in ever having second interviews if you knew they were going to be word for word identical to the first one.
People have vastly differing powers of recall and different perceptions of time and distances. There is nothing strange about it. They had no reason to be clocking how long they spoke for - except that they both remembered that it was only for a very short time.
It's incredible the way some people actually expect that the McCanns and their friends should have been able to recall every word they spoke and every move they made and how long it took - right down to the last second -not only on the 3rd but for the whole week! And also every word and every move everyone else made too! People who think that - should try doing it themselves. It's asking for the impossible. imo.
No there is a huge difference between wearing clothes and wearing simply a towel!
David was specifically asked what she was wearing and he couldn't recall. I would argue it is noticeable and memorable if you meet someone who is wearing a towel.
Because if you can remember how happy the children looked and all the other guff David remembered then when asked specifically what Kate was wearing i find it impossible to believe you can't recall she greeted you in nothing but a towel. It is unusual and vivid.
You could perhaps argue that if he wasn't asked the question about what she was wearing he may not have mentioned it, but that argument does not hold water when he was very spceficially asked what she was wearing and couldn't recall it.
The question was specifically asked to test his veracity against Kate's version.
Once again he failed that veracity test.
In relation to David's power of recall between interviews we are talking about David being interviewed regarding Madeleine disappearing and we are exepected to believe, and you are indeed excusing, David's inability to recall within a few hours of Madeleine's disppearance and the giving of his statement, the last time he saw her, again when there was only a few hours between seeing her and giving the statement?
Is that really credible?
There are two options to explain this. One is that David simply didn't recall it. Given the power of recall and prompt mobilisation of organisation with timelines etc i find that hard to believe and not credible.
The other is that this supposed visit was actually created after the first statements in order to add a supposed (but not really in the context of the case) independent sighting of Madeleine at this time.
When you consider all the contradictions and anomalies between David's and Kate's account it is not unreasonable to the impartial eye to suspect it is the latter version which holds true here.
-
Sadie Said:
Kate was with the children until Gerry arrived back from tennis, before 8 pm (Davids Rog statement and IIRC also Gerrys statement. Probably in other Rog staements too, but I haven't checked them all) Shall we say Gerry arrived back at 7.55pm?
No see the first page of this thread for the breakdown of times.
They all began by saying they left for their apartments shortly after 19:00 then the men only in their rogatory statements chaged it to 20:00.
All say Gerry left before them and Dan the tennis coach said the men's tennnis finished at 19:00.
So we cannot say Gerry was there until 20:00.
It is more likely, given all the evidence to have been 19:00 or just after when Gerry left.
-
Too much work has gone into this to leave it hidden away over page, so BUMPED
The time table for times that an opportunity arose between different independant witnesses seeing Madeleine, was unfortunately on another thread
EDIT: Please note: Because of a basic error I have deleted this timeline. New one posted further down the thread
==========================================================
i am more than happy to join with everyone on this forum to consider every statement and adjust this time line if it is necessary. But facts must come from the actual statements not from third parties ... and there must be NO twisting of facts
-
Dianne Webster statements 4th May 2007:
Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 15h45 and left at around 18h15 to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 19h00. The informant then went to the apartment with the small children and ten minutes later, her son-in-law, David, joined them. With her son-in-law's help, they bathed the children.
Fiona Payne Statement 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. In the apartment her mother, helped by her husband David, bathed the children whilst the witness went jogging on the beach until around 20h00.
Jane Tanner Statement 4th MAy 2007:
After finishing playing tennis at about 14h45, the witness went to her apartment (1) where she stayed with her daughter E**e. Her partner had gone sailing with Matthew.
At about 15h45 she went to the beach with Rachael, Dianne, Fiona, L*** and S****** Payne, taking her daughter E**e along.
Meanwhile Russell arrived from the boat trip and went straight to pick up E**a from the Kids Club. They joined the witness at the beach (7) where they stayed until 18h10-18h15.
When she went to the beach she saw Gerald McCann and Kate Healy having a personal tennis lesson. No children were with them.
Around 17h15 she saw Kate Healy pass the beach (7) "jogging", she having waved.
Russell, Matthew and David left the beach a little earlier to go to the tennis court (8), as it was men's tennis evening. When the witness, together with her friends and children returned from the beach at about 18h20, they passed by the tennis courts and saw all the men, including Gerry on court. They stayed there talking to them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald behaved normally.
She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed.
At about 19h00 they all went back to their own apartments with the children. The witness bathed her children, read them a story and put them to bed. E**e who was unwell and having trouble sleeping, stayed with her father, who had arrived in the meantime. The witness went for dinner at the Tapas restaurant at about 20h30.
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.
At 19h00 he, Russell and David had finished the match, having then gone to their respective apartments in which they found other members of the group.
The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.
Jane Tanner statement 10th May 2007
As usual at 17:00, they were at the children's tea with Kate, the time at which they would go to find [pick up] the children. With Kate and Gerry she went to the tennis courts where the adults and children of the group played [seriously] and played [for fun], respectively, with each other. They were at the courts until 19h00. At that time the men of the group (though she was not sure if Gerry was there) stayed a while longer to play tennis, the women went to their respective apartments to get [the children] ready for bed. 20-30 minutes later the men arrived.
Rachael Oldfied statement 11th May 2007
By 18h30, the women and children returned from the beach in the direction of the "Ocean Club" with a view to seeing their husbands play tennis, who had returned from the beach about five minutes before. Prior to going to her apartment she was with the children in the playground area, next to the "Tapas", until about 19h00.
Then she went to her apartment where she gave her daughter a bath, Matthew returning at 19h15.
It was the men's later statement (Rogatory) where 20:00 came about.
Also interesting to note is Matthew's assertion that Kate was at the tennis court with the kids and was joined by the other females and children.
Others specifically mention Kate not being there.
-
No there is a huge difference between wearing clothes and wearing simply a towel!
David was specifically asked what she was wearing and he couldn't recall. I would argue it is noticeable and memorable if you meet someone who is wearing a towel.
Because if you can remember how happy the children looked and all the other guff David remembered then when asked specifically what Kate was wearing i find it impossible to believe you can't recall she greeted you in nothing but a towel. It is unusual and vivid.
You could perhaps argue that if he wasn't asked the question about what she was wearing he may not have mentioned it, but that argument does not hold water when he was very spceficially asked what she was wearing and couldn't recall it.
The question was specifically asked to test his veracity against Kate's version.
Once again he failed that veracity test.
In relation to David's power of recall between interviews we are talking about David being interviewed regarding Madeleine disappearing and we are exepected to believe, and you are indeed excusing, David's inability to recall within a few hours of Madeleine's disppearance and the giving of his statement, the last time he saw her, again when there was only a few hours between seeing her and giving the statement?
Is that really credible?
There are two options to explain this. One is that David simply didn't recall it. Given the power of recall and prompt mobilisation of organisation with timelines etc i find that hard to believe and not credible.
The other is that this supposed visit was actually created after the first statements in order to add a supposed (but not really in the context of the case) independent sighting of Madeleine at this time.
When you consider all the contradictions and anomalies between David's and Kate's account it is not unreasonable to the impartial eye to suspect it is the latter version which holds true here.
Hi Albertini, Firstly you are commenting with hindsight. David Payne did not know at the time that his visit to 5A was of any importance at all - and that in the future it would be regarded as a vital piece of evidence. He called in to see if Kate was taking the children to the play area and whether she needed any help with them. She said no and explained why. It was such an unimportant couple of minutes of the day compared with the momentous events of later - that maybe it had slipped his mind at his first interview Do you really expect them to account for every word they spoke, and ever move they made - leaving out absolutely nothing in their interviews? By your reasoning I'm surprised you haven't found the fact that DP never mentions going to bathroom that day in his statement to be suspicious.
If find this whole business of putting every word they said under a microscope without any acknowledgement whatsoever that people's memories are not identical to one another's and some have better powers of recall than others, and that they were ALL emotionally affected by what had happened, to be grossly unfair.
The use of hindsight is also unfair. IMO you are almost expecting that DP should have gone to 5A thinking - ''Oh I'd better take careful note of what Kate and the children are wearing, and time exactly how long I stay there, and whether I actually stood at the door or put one foot in the room - because this is all going to be very important later on.'' It's a preposterous expectation.
Thank goodness SY have the experience and expertise to know that witnesses giving differing accounts of the same event purely from memory is perfectly normal. They haven't found anything to be suspicious about in the professionally translated statements - otherwise they would not have ruled them out as suspects or persons of interest. IMO
-
Hi Albertini, Firstly you are commenting with hindsight. David Payne did not know at the time that his visit to 5A was of any importance at all - and that in the future it would be regarded as a vital piece of evidence. He called in to see if Kate was taking the children to the play area and whether she needed any help with them. She said no and explained why. It was such an unimportant couple of minutes of the day compared with the momentous events of later - that maybe it had slipped his mind at his first interview Do you really expect them to account for every word they spoke, and ever move they made - leaving out absolutely nothing in their interviews? By your reasoning I'm surprised you haven't found the fact that DP never mentions going to bathroom that day in his statement to be suspicious.
If find this whole business of putting every word they said under a microscope without any acknowledgement whatsoever that people's memories are not identical to one another's and some have better powers of recall than others, and that they were ALL emotionally affected by what had happened, to be grossly unfair.
The use of hindsight is also unfair. IMO you are almost expecting that DP should have gone to 5A thinking - ''Oh I'd better take careful note of what Kate and the children are wearing, and time exactly how long I stay there, and whether I actually stood at the door or put one foot in the room - because this is all going to be very important later on.'' It's a preposterous expectation.
Thank goodness SY have the experience and expertise to know that witnesses giving differing accounts of the same event purely from memory is perfectly normal. They haven't found anything to be suspicious about in the professionally translated statements - otherwise they would not have ruled them out as suspects or persons of interest. IMO
Your assertion may hold some weight Benice if any one of the people involved in the visit had actually mentioned it but they didn't. Now what do you think are the chances of it slipping all their minds at the same time ?
-
Your assertion may hold some weight Benice if any one of the people involved in the visit had actually mentioned it but they didn't. Now what do you think are the chances of it slipping all their minds at the same time ?
For the same reason Faith. It was such a tiny, insignificant - and seemingly irrelevant - couple of minutes at the time that there was no reason to put any importance on it - especially when you consider all the other massive stuff that was filling everyone's thoughts. I don't say you would forget it forever, but in the greater scheme of things - I can well understand why that tiny episode would not be in the forefront of anyone's mind. It was only later that it actually became relevant.
-
For the same reason Faith. It was such a tiny, insignificant - and seemingly irrelevant - couple of minutes at the time that there was no reason to put any importance on it - especially when you consider all the other massive stuff that was filling everyone's thoughts. I don't say you would forget it forever, but in the greater scheme of things - I can well understand why that tiny episode would not be in the forefront of anyone's mind. It was only later that it actually became relevant.
What, so you are saying we should believe that the day after Madeline had gone missing at 10:00pm it was not relevant that DP should mention seeing the children around 18:30, some 3.5 hours before she disappeared in his very first statement about Madeleine's disappearance?
How can that be deemed unimportant?
Given the organisation of timelines then there was a concerted effort by the group to bring everything together a few hours after the abduction.
It just doesn't strike me as credible that it should be missed out.
-
What, so you are saying we should believe that the day after Madeline had gone missing at 10:00pm it was not relevant that DP should mention seeing the children around 18:30, some 3.5 hours before she disappeared in his very first statement about Madeleine's disappearance?
How can that be deemed unimportant?
Given the organisation of timelines then there was a concerted effort by the group to bring everything together a few hours after the abduction.
It just doesn't strike me as credible that it should be missed out.
IMO Albertini it only became relevant after Amaral decided the parents were guilty. Until then - again just my opinion - but the most important relevant timelines started from when they all left their apartments to go to dinner - especially from the McCanns and their friends perspective because they knew Madeleine was there when they all sat down at the restaurant - and that she was gone an hour later -and they knew what JT had seen in the meantime. The fact that DP had popped into 5a earlier in the evening for a couple of minutes was not part of that timeline.
-
Sadie,
Also Rogatory interviews:
MATTHEW OLDFIELD ROGATORY
Reply "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 ROGATORY
but you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you know obviously Gerry wasn’t there but they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who’d had such a fantastic time and err yeah then I left there, went and got my stuff, went back to the tennis courts and then err there was me, 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.
FIONA PAYNE ROGATORY
1485 “Right. So what time did he come back then from his tennis?”
Reply “I’d say, if we came back about seven, he was about ten minutes after that, so about ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that”.
1485 “And then you went for your run. So he told you that before you went for your run?”
JANE TANNER ROGATORY
Reply “Yeah, it’s not fair that they’ve changed the time for us and then they don’t go. So they went back up at that point and then we followed up probably about quarter of an hour later with all the kids and we went to the play area by the tennis courts and had a, you know, we probably stayed there for about half an hour or so. At that point, I’m not, I can’t say how long that was, about half an hour”.
4078 “Were Madeleine and the”.
Reply “No, they weren’t there. No, they weren’t there. Yeah, they’d most, but Gerry was there, he was playing, he was playing tennis”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “Yeah. Erm, so, yeah, we stayed there for a bit and then took the children back and got them, you know, bathed and blah blah and got them ready for bed, but that was probably, by that stage that was probably, erm, half seven’ish probably I’d say, by the time we, we went back, if not maybe even a bit later, I’m not sure, but around then, around the seven o’clock mark”.
DIANNE WEBSTER
4078 “You arrived there about quarter to four and left at about quarter past six when you went to the tennis court and you stayed there until about seven.”
Reply “Oh right, so I did go.”
4078 “Straight after that you went to the apartment with your granddaughters where you son in-law David arrived after ten minutes, and in the apartment you gave the children a bath with the help of your son in-law. You left the apartment about quarter to nine in the company of your son in-law and daughter, and met up with the rest of the group in the Tapas. So yeah it must have been that day…”
Reply “Yeah sorry I…”
4078 “Can you recall…”
Reply “You see that has brought back to mind the fact yes we did bath the children together but I just, I’d forgotten that.”
RACHAEL OLDFIELD ROGATORY
1578 “To where”?
Reply “Er up to, where the tennis courts were, which were next to the Tapas Bar, erm cos that recreation area’s just in front of the tennis courts, so we headed up there and the kids just played on the swings and slides while the boys played tennis”.
1578 “So who was there at that point”?
Reply “Erm in terms of us coming up from the beach, there was Jane, Ella and Evie, Fiona, Diane , Lilly and Scarlet, Grace and I and then when we got up to the tennis courts, erm Matt, Dave, Russell, Gerry were there, Matt, Dave, Russell and Gerry were playing tennis and I think there were a couple of other holiday makers”.
1578 “So Matt, Dave, Russell and Gerry were already playing tennis”?
Reply “Yes”.
1578 “And you joined them”?
Reply “Yeah, we went up there to play, we just stopped watching and supervising the children, erm and then I think shortly after we got there, or as we were getting there, Gerry said that he was gonna go back and help Kate get the kids ready for bed and help Kate get the kids into bed, so he went then, erm and Matt, Dave and Russell carried on playing, I think with Dan who was the coach, erm and we, the children played on the slide and stuff for a bit and then we headed back into the apartments to get them ready and left the boys playing tennis”.
1578 “So what, what time would you have arrived at the tennis courts to watch them playing”?
Reply “I think it would probably have been about seven, maybe about ten past seven”.
1578 “And the only people not present would have been”?
Reply “Erm Kate and the twins and Madeleine weren’t there, I think they’d, I don’t think they were there anyway and I know that they’d left shortly, shortly, I think it was shortly before we arrived, cos I know they’d been there, I think when the boys had arrived to play tennis and Kate had taken the kids off to get them ready for bed, so I don’t think they were there when we got there, erm no”.
1578 “And then a short time later, Gerry departed”?
Reply “Yes”.
1578 “To the apartment to give assistance”?
So i have no idea where you get Gerry going back at 20:00 from?
-
Thankyou for correcting me. You are quite correct that I was mistaken about Gerrys time back from Tennis. I have accidentally included him with the others when they returned.
My apologies for the time this has taken. There are a number of reasons for this which I am not going into atm.
Amended timeline when Kate and Gerry were alone with the children
I have all the times from one statement or another ... and I have NOT handpicked the statements. Have just used the statements as they came, where possible using the statements of the people who are involved.
David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6..30pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30/8.35pm to 10 pmso it is only the period between David seeing the children and Kate and Gerry going to the Tapas restaurant that any "dirty deeds" could have possibly taken place.
That is NO more than 2.00/2.05 hours total.,
That leaves a period of approx. 2 hours total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.[/b]
During that time, for about ! hour 30minutes both Mum and Dad were together with the children. Their time was taken up with doing caring Mummy and Daddy things for their three little ones, and sharing a bathroom getting ready to go out for dinner.
Alternatively considering kate on her own with the children
Davids visit finished at about 6.35pm. He saw all three children alive and well, and showered in their pyjamas. That is a period when Kate was alone with them for about half an hour.
The rest of the period both Kate and Gerry were together with the children. During this period Kate and Gerry read to them and put them to bed. Kate also showered, made up, probably washed, dried and blow dried her hair. Also changed and made up. Gerry helped with the children and also showered and changed ready for the tapas restaurant. No doubt they tidied up after the little ones, and the bathroom. They enjoyed a glass of wine before leaving for the restaurant. Not much time left, was there?
Now, I might have mixed Gerry up with one of the others as leaving the tennis at nearly eight, but I certainly did NOT MAINTAIN that they had 5 hours to do their supposed "dirty deed" as [ censored word ]s on here did.
Let's make it clear that 5 hours is a total and dispicable lie. Hang your head in shame.
The truth is only about 2 hours ... and they were very busy bunnies during that period [/color]
Summary of results
After David witnessed all three children alive and well. the longest periods that Kate or Kate and Gerry together were alone with the three little ones
Kate on her own = 30 minutes.
Gerry was never on his own except for the fleeting visit at about 9.05- 9.10
After tennis, Gerry came back and joined Kate so,
Kate and Gerry together = 1 hour 30 minutes,
Total period = 2 hours, but both busy all that time. - see above
-
thank you for admitting you made a mistake, we all do it, but please, why the bold and huge fonts? We will listen without them and wontbe convinced of an argument because of them[/b][/size]
LOL
Bless
8**8:/:
-
thank you for admitting you made a mistake, we all do it, but please, why the bold and huge fonts? We will listen without them and wontbe convinced of an argument because of them[/b][/size]
LOL
Bless
8**8:/:
Your fonts are very vulgar Red
Mine are highlighting, to hopefully help people pick out salient facts.
Sorry you didn't understand that .
-
Quote from: Albertini on August 02, 2013, 06:12:34 PM
Where he didnt think to mention it in his first interview, then didn't notice she was naked apart from a towel,
Where did you get this from Albertini? I have found no mention of it in the statements. They are awfully long, so can you be precise please
There are an awful lot of myths around. Is this one, do you think?
-
Quote from: Albertini on August 02, 2013, 06:12:34 PM
Where did you get this from Albertini? I have found no mention of it in the statements. They are awfully long, so can you be precise please
There are an awful lot of myths around. Is this one, do you think?
From the pen of Mrs McCann :
'At around six-forty, as I was drying myself off, there was a knock on the patio doors and I heard David’s voice calling me. Swiftly wrapping my towel around me, I stepped into the sitting room.'
-
Thank you faith.
So from this it appears that David went to the apartment later tha I said. Seems her was there about 6.40 - 6.45pm, rather than 6.30- 6.35
Knock another 10 minutes off the time that either, or both, the Mccanns were alone with the children? Now down to 1 hour 50 minutes, ratbher than 2 hours. Take your pick.
-
Your fonts are very vulgar Red
Mine are highlighting, to hopefully help people pick out salient facts.
Sorry you didn't understand that .
Yes of course your bold and big letters are kindly and helpful to other posters LOL and NOT a growl from you LOL
PS My Fonts being vulgar are only font used to respond to you, in general I NEVER do them, youseem to not be able to function without them, oh well, have fun
Q
have fun
-
Sadie, i do not know why you keep propagating the myth that Payne was somehow an independent witness.
Let's look at the situation regarding his supposed 6:40 check.
Here's the best analysis i have seen of that supposed meeting and it is posted here to save me several hours going through all the statements:
The questions about the visit arise at the very beginning since it was not mentioned by David Payne, Gerry or Kate McCann in their initial police statements, despite Kate McCann's repeated assertions in the book that she had told the police "everything". The first reference to it comes, oddly, not from either of the individuals involved but from Gerry McCann, in his May 10 statement:
"David went to visit Kate and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, which he refused."
Note the initial locution, "David went to visit Kate and the children": there is no mention of any reason for the visit. Unfortunately the PJ did not hear what the principals had to say: neither Payne nor Kate McCann were present for that second round of interviews. Kate had cried off with stress; quite how Payne avoided questioning is unclear. Whatever, the result was that the Portuguese police received no information about the claimed visit from one of the participants until Kate McCann was questioned over four months later, on September 6 2007. And they still had no statement from Payne; in fact they were unable to compare his account with that of Kate McCann until they listened in to his rogatory interview in April 2008.
Kate McCann's September 6 statement runs thus:
"While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40 p.m. and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the balcony door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who was at the balcony door. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left through this door. She saw that it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly."
She now departs from direct knowledge deriving from her own experience, as she often does on important matters, adding helpfully:
"David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place."
Then, reverting from hearsay to evidence, she concluded:
"David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds, he didn't even actually enter the flat, he remained at the balcony door. According to her he then left for the tennis courts where Gerry was. The time was around 6:30-6:40PM."
This was the first appearance of the "Gerry asked Payne..." story — after four months! — and it was followed some twenty four hours later by the same story from Gerry himself in his arguido interview.
Two weeks later, with the couple safely back in England and during that muffled and murky period when they and the lawyers were using the media to explore their vulnerabilities, a lengthy and carefully contrived leak was given to the London Times by Clarence Mitchell. The story purported to be about disagreements between the McCanns as to how far to co-operate with the PJ but buried half way into the story we find this:
"Last week, however, a senior police source told a Portuguese newspaper that officers were still suspicious about the McCanns' movements during the "missing six hours" before Madeleine's disappearance.
Sources close to the family [Clarence Mitchell] say that David Payne, one of the holiday party, saw Madeleine being put to bed when he visited the McCann apartment at 7PM. Previously the last confirmed sighting of Madeleine was at 2.29PM when a photograph of her and Gerry was taken at the swimming pool.
Kate and Gerry McCann believe Payne's testimony will be crucial in proving their innocence. They arrived at the tapas bar at 8.30PM, which would leave just an hour and a half in which they are supposed to have killed their daughter and disposed of the body.
A source close to the legal team [this was also Mitchell] said: 'If they were responsible for killing their daughter, how would they have done so and hidden the body in that time? There is a very limited window of opportunity.'"
So the story had developed even further. Note that Payne himself, after almost six months, has still told the Portuguese police absolutely nothing about the visit. The only reference to it that he ever seems to have made comes in a curiously unsatisfactory email from the Leicester police to their Portuguese counterparts accompanying some forwarded statements. Detective Constable Marshall wrote that Payne had stated informally:
"...that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 [probably an error for 7PM] on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed."
Well!
The situation, therefore, was that Payne's version of this visit was still open and, as it were, up for grabs. But not yet and certainly not for grabbing via the newspapers by the McCanns and their spokesman. As we have seen from his ingenious defence of the "checking" Payne has an instinct for keeping his options open. The claims were left standing, without rebuttal, for several weeks and perhaps there was a hope somewhere that it reflected Payne's acquiescence in the story and the altered timescale. Not likely.
In late October, strangely enough on the same date that Detective Constable Marshall sent his email along with the Gaspar statements to Portugal, he made the extremely rare move of communicating via journalists himself, speaking effusively to the Daily Mail about Kate McCann and her lack of problems with her children [media code: no, she wasn't nutty or stressed-out enough to have whacked the child and accidentally killed her]. But 7PM was now firmly out: in that same article Mitchell and the McCanns had to reverse themselves, now stating "David Payne saw Madeleine at around 6.30pm." Point made.
In April 2008, just under a year after the child's disappearance, David Payne was finally compelled to talk about the visit, making a statement to Leicester police as part of the rogatory interviews. The Portuguese police representatives watched the televised proceedings from behind a screen. Whether Lusitanian guffaws of disbelief resounded from their vantage point is not disclosed but Payne and Kate McCann seemed to be not just on different visits but different planets.
Q: Okay, and it was at what point that Gerry said to you go and, would you mind checking at Kate?
DP: I had to go back to my room to you know change into stuff appropriate for playing tennis in, and err so he knew that I'd walk up that by and past so he said oh why don't you err, you know can you just pop in on the way, the way up...[fails to describe reason for visit]
KM again: David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area,
Q: Did you open the door? Or was it already open?
DP: I think it was already open.
KM: This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left through this door. She saw that it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly.
Q: Did you actually go into the apartment?
DP: I did.
Q: Or did you do the conversation from the door?
DP: No, definitely was inside the apartment, you know whether it be two or three steps into the apartment or you know however many, but I was definitely in the apartment.
KM: He didn't even actually enter the flat; he remained at the balcony door.
Q: Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing.
DP: I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err…
Q: But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?
DP: I can't, no.
KM: She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who was at the balcony door.
Q: I'm gonna pin you down and ask you how long you think you were in there for.
DP: In their apartment, it, it, I'd say three minutes, five maximum.
KM: David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds.
Q: When you finished ...did you say anything to Gerry about, about the fact that his family were fine?
DP: Yeah, err yeah, I haven't mentioned this before, but yes, yeah I'd certainly, when we met up I said oh yeah, you know everything's fine there, you know probably along the lines of you know you've got a bit more of a free pass you know you can carry on for a bit longer...[fails to give reason for visit]
KM: ...asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area.
What can one say? It doesn't corroborate and it doesn't tally: there might have been visits to apartment 5A by David Payne or other members of the group that day but the written evidence shows that the one described by Payne and the McCanns did not take place.
Dangerous waters! What does Kate have to say now? Very little. In the book she falls back on copying out her September 6 statement:
"At around six forty, as I was drying myself off, there was a knock on the patio doors and I heard David's voice calling me. Swiftly wrapping my towel around me I stepped into the sitting room."
But then she uses words that aren't in the statement: "David had popped his head round the patio doors looking for me," which quite cleverly attempts to resolve the open/closed doors discrepancy as well as shading another question — inside the doors or outside the doors? Neither! He is in the doorway, head popping.
Having dipped her toes she moves rapidly back to the much safer territory of what others had said:
"The others had met up with Gerry at the tennis courts and he'd mentioned we were thinking of bringing the kids to the play area. David had nipped up to see if he could give me a hand taking them down. As they were all ready for bed and seemed content with their books I decided they were probably past the stage of needing any more activity. So he went back to the tennis while I quickly dressed and sat down on the couch with the children."
One wonders which lawyers were involved in the "popping" paragraph because, by altering her statement, Kate McCann has provided internal evidence that she is covertly attempting to smooth away inconsistencies that are hazardous for her rather than trying to throw light on the truth as she vowed to do. Oh, and the bit about Payne only staying for thirty seconds has somehow gone missing.
What i hadn't known or didn't realise was this statement from Payne given on 24th October 2007
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
So even in October he was saying that Gerry was there as well!
This is not a truthful statement.
The clear implication of this supposed visit is that it was generated specifically to reduce the time the PJ (and the media) perceived the parents were alone with the children to answer the question which you yourself are asking "how could they do something in only 2 hours".
But they have all made such a mess of it, it's value as corroborating evidence is nil.
-
Sadie, i do not know why you keep propagating the myth that Payne was somehow an independent witness.
Let's look at the situation regarding his supposed 6:40 check.
Here's the best analysis i have seen of that supposed meeting and it is posted here to save me several hours going through all the statements:
What i hadn't known or didn't realise was this statement from Payne given on 24th October 2007
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
So even in October he was saying that Gerry was there as well!
This is not a truthful statement.
The clear implication of this supposed visit is that it was generated specifically to reduce the time the PJ (and the media) perceived the parents were alone with the children to answer the question which you yourself are asking "how could they do something in only 2 hours".
But they have all made such a mess of it, it's value as corroborating evidence is nil.
This was a third party statement and not David Paynes. It is not signed by David Payne at all. Therfore it is of little interst to me. Mistakes can be, and are, made
If you are going to use this third party statement, then it is OK with me because it shows that Fiona was at the mccanns apartment until Gerry arrived back at 19H10
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to
Ok independant witness fiona payne was with Kate and Gerry until 19H10 (at least).
That alters the timeline considerably.
Kate and Gerry weer with the kids on their own, only from 19H10 until about 20H30 /20H35
Now down to ONLY 1Hour 20 minutes on their own with the children. Not much time with showering hair washing, make up etc etc to do any dirty deeds, is there?
Red, the total time that the Mccanns were on their own, with the little ones ... and in daylight.
YOUR TIME OF 5 HOURS is down to 1 HOUR 20 MINUTES
Thank you Albertini for alerting me to that. 8((()*/ Very kind of you 8(>(( 8**8:/:
-
But then you put in context against other statements of Fiona Payne's:
4th May:
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. In the apartment her mother, helped by her husband David, bathed the children whilst the witness went jogging on the beach until around 20h00. Afterwards, she returned to the apartment and got ready. She left around 20h45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
Rogatory Statement:
Reply “Erm, I can up to a point, yeah. He was, as I say, he left, as I see it, around six, erm, and then I wouldn’t have seen him again until I got to the tennis courts to see him play tennis, so that would have been about half six and then he was playing tennis for that whole half an hour and, as I say, we left him playing tennis, when me and my mum went up to bath the kids and he, he didn’t sort of return until after seven, ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that, so, yeah, that’s where he was. And then the rest is what he’s told me, erm, again, I couldn’t tell you times, but I know before he went, went to tennis, he popped in on Kate and the kids, erm, and saw them all in their pyjamas, ready for bed, having a story, before going to join for the tennis, so I can only assume that that was between, erm, you know, six and half past”.
No mention in either official statement about Fiona going to the apartments or seeing Gerry & Kate there.
Excellent, thanks for bringing this up.
Yet more evidence of lying that i hadn't seen before!!
Not just lying about the times of the tennis tournament and what time they all came and went but lying to give Gerry & Kate an alibi!
The whole issue of what happened from 6:00pm onwards is now even murkier!
Thanks for that Sadie, that's another example of the lies which i will now add to my memory banks!
8((()*/ 8((()*/
-
And the bottom line is that depsite how big and colourful the fonts that Sadie uses in her posts, her entire theory about the time the McCann's had alone is based purely on the evidence and statements of the Tapas 7 group.
Now, as my evidence has shown these statements contain such glaring discrepancies, contradictions, collusion and lies and certainly do not corroborate or tally.
As such any reasonable person would quickly see given the mess of a picture that these statements paint, their value as independent or reliable witnesses to this particular time frame, is worthless.
It also suggests that as this particular area of their statements is such a toxic mix of lies and deceit that the overall veracity of their complete statements and them as witnesses should be brought into question and requires independent verification to be confirmed as true.
So Sadie you can think your timeline is accurate but in reality it is as worthless as the statements of the people you are relying on to prove your point.
-
And the bottom line is that depsite how big and colourful the fonts that Sadie uses in her posts, her entire theory about the time the McCann's had alone is based purely on the evidence and statements of the Tapas 7 group.
Now, as my evidence has shown these statements contain such glaring discrepancies, contradictions, collusion and lies and certainly do not corroborate or tally.
As such any reasonable person would quickly see given the mess of a picture that these statements paint, their value as independent or reliable witnesses to this particular time frame, is worthless.
It also suggests that as this particular area of their statements is such a toxic mix of lies and deceit that the overall veracity of their complete statements and them as witnesses should be brought into question and requires independent verification to be confirmed as true.
So Sadie you can think your timeline is accurate but in reality it is as worthless as the statements of the people you are relying on to prove your point.
Well it was definitely in here that she visited Kate, her special friend, I believe:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm [but covering Fiona Paynes Statements]
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
Just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was simply so ordinary that it didn't get mentioned, just as Fiona failed to mention that she walked back from the beach with Jane and Rachel anf their kids
Rachels statement mentions it, but fionas doesn't. She just doesn't mention it ! Simples
Rachels statement 11/09/2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm
----- After the game of tennis, the witness returned home to rest, her husband and RUSSEL having gone to the beach of Luz to sail. At about 15:45, her daughter having woken up, she took her to the beach of Luz in the company of DIANE, Jane, Fiona and their respective children, where they found MATHEW, RUSSEL and DAVTD. At 17H30 the children dined in one of restaurants by the beach, [she] not having detected any abnormal or strange situation.
----- By 18:30, the women and children returned from the beach in the direction of the "OCEAN CLUB" with a view to seeing their husbands play tennis, who had returned from the beach about five minutes before. Prior to going to the apartment she was with the children in the playground area, next to the "tapas", until about 19.00.
Fionas statement, 4th May, omits that detail. It just doesn't mention the others that walked back with her. Omitted and nothing sinister about that. Simply not mentioned:
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.
Rachels statement (and Janes) mentions the group walking back, but Fionas doesn't. Just cos it isn't mentioned by fiona doesn't mean it didn't happen
Fiona must have said she called in to see Kate, because it is mentioned in the one statement, which i will repeat
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm [but covering Fiona Paynes Statements]
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
-
So why did Kate and Gerry never mention it?
Also how did she walk back to the apartment with Kate when Jane says in her statement of the 4th May:
Russell, Matthew and David left the beach a little earlier to go to the tennis court (8), as it was men's tennis evening. When the witness, together with her friends and children returned from the beach at about 18h20, they passed by the tennis courts and saw all the men, including Gerry on court. They stayed there talking to them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald behaved normally.
She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed.
And in her statement of 10th May
Her husband Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne left the beach a little earlier they having gone to the tennis courts, it was the night of the men's tennis. When she, together with the friends and children, returned from the beach, at 18h20, they went to the tennis courts having seen that all the men, including Gerald McCann, were on the court. They stayed to talk to them them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald McCann comported himself as usual.
She thinks that Kate Healy was in the apartment getting the children ready for bed.
Now can you see why Rebelo wanted a reconstruction?
It's a complete mess, the lot of it.
-
So why did Kate and Gerry never mention it?
Also how did she walk back to the apartment with Kate when Jane says in her statement of the 4th May:
Russell, Matthew and David left the beach a little earlier to go to the tennis court (8), as it was men's tennis evening. When the witness, together with her friends and children returned from the beach at about 18h20, they passed by the tennis courts and saw all the men, including Gerry on court. They stayed there talking to them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald behaved normally.
She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed.
And in her statement of 10th May
Her husband Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne left the beach a little earlier they having gone to the tennis courts, it was the night of the men's tennis. When she, together with the friends and children, returned from the beach, at 18h20, they went to the tennis courts having seen that all the men, including Gerald McCann, were on the court. They stayed to talk to them them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald McCann comported himself as usual.
She thinks that Kate Healy was in the apartment getting the children ready for bed.
Now can you see why Rebelo wanted a reconstruction?
It's a complete mess, the lot of it.
No mess there at all. You are reading it the way you WANT to believe it ... not understanding it in full.
1.
Also how did she walk back to the apartment with Kate when Jane says in her statement of the 4th May:
Where did I say that Albertini? Nowhere did I say that Kate walked back to the apartment with the others, cos she didn't.. Read what I said again please Albertini
She did not walk back to the apartment with the others as is clearly stated in the statements and as we all know.
Kate was jogging and waved to the others on the beach. She arrived arrived back at OC well before the other women. She joined the children and Gerry at the outside tapas where the little ones were having their teas.
[I am doing the next bit from memory, but am pretty confident it is correct.]Madeleine was so tired that somewhere in the period 5.30 - 5.40pm [kate and Gerrys statement differ by ten minutes here] they carried Madeleine back to their apartment.
2.
Nothing wrong with either of the statements you quote. Don't know what you are going on about.
Kate and the children had left the Tapas area at about 5.35, well before the other women had returned.
When the other women and children arrived back quite considerably afterwards. Kate and kiddies were not there. Kate was Fionas special friend; they worked together for a period. It is obvious that she asked and someone told her that Kate had gone to the apartment to get her kids really for bed.
She didn't know for sure that was absolutely correct, cos maybe they had gone somewhere else for a while, so she was saying that she THOUGHT that Kate was in the apartment getting the kids really for bed. The absolute truth.
3. As for Kate and Gerry never mentioning it. Is that so? I haven't the energy to keep rereading these enormous statements, so I will believe you without proof.
Not important anyway, cos in everyones statement, things are omitted. Just cos they didn't say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
See my post of August 10, 2013, 05:56:13 PM, just up the page for an example of this
Remember, 5A was on Fionas way back to her apartment. Kate and Fiona were special friends. It was Fiona who comforted Kate afterwards and stayed with her whilst Gerry searched and did other things.
She may only have popped to the patio door but she definitely states that she visited Kate
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm [but covering Fiona Paynes Statements]
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
The whole lot ...... if you fully read the files and make an effort to understand them = Simples.
You are making a meal out of nothing Albertini
Now, if you will excuse me. I am very busy atm ... must get on
-
No mess there at all. You are reading it the way you WANT to believe it ... not understanding it in full.
1.
Also how did she walk back to the apartment with Kate when Jane says in her statement of the 4th May:
Where did I say that Albertini? Nowhere did I say that Kate walked back to the apartment with the others, cos she didn't.. Read what I said again please Albertini
She did not walk back to the apartment with the others as is clearly stated in the statements and as we all know.
Kate was jogging and waved to the others on the beach. She arrived arrived back at OC well before the other women. She joined the children and Gerry at the outside tapas where the little ones were having their teas.
[I am doing the next bit from memory, but am pretty confident it is correct.]Madeleine was so tired that somewhere in the period 5.30 - 5.40pm [kate and Gerrys statement differ by ten minutes here] they carried Madeleine back to their apartment.
2.
Nothing wrong with either of the statements you quote. Don't know what you are going on about.
Kate and the children had left the Tapas area at about 5.35, well before the other women had returned.
When the other women and children arrived back quite considerably afterwards. Kate and kiddies were not there. Kate was Fionas special friend; they worked together for a period. It is obvious that she asked and someone told her that Kate had gone to the apartment to get her kids really for bed.
She didn't know for sure that was absolutely correct, cos maybe they had gone somewhere else for a while, so she was saying that she THOUGHT that Kate was in the apartment getting the kids really for bed. The absolute truth.
3. As for Kate and Gerry never mentioning it. Is that so? I haven't the energy to keep rereading these enormous statements, so I will believe you without proof.
Not important anyway, cos in everyones statement, things are omitted. Just cos they didn't say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
See my post of August 10, 2013, 05:56:13 PM, just up the page for an example of this
Remember, 5A was on Fionas way back to her apartment. Kate and Fiona were special friends. It was Fiona who comforted Kate afterwards and stayed with her whilst Gerry searched and did other things.
She may only have popped to the patio door but she definitely states that she visited Kate
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm [but covering Fiona Paynes Statements]
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
The whole lot ...... if you fully read the files and make an effort to understand them = Simples.
You are making a meal out of nothing Albertini
Now, if you will excuse me. I am very busy atm ... must get on
No i think you will find you are not understanding it.
You are quoting Fiona saying:
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
We know that Fiona was with the group at the Paraiso, who left to go to the tennis courts at almost 19:00.
We know from Jane's statement that Kate wasn't there at the tennis courts when the group arrived from the Paraiso and Jane presumed she was in her apartment.
So how could Fiona go to the McCann apartment at 19:00 TOGETHER WITH KATE, when Kate was already there?
And how could she go with Kate when she says in her own 4th May statement:
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. In the apartment her mother, helped by her husband David, bathed the children whilst the witness went jogging on the beach until around 20h00.
Also and as an aside how could Kate have left the Tapas with the chiildren at 17:35 when Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach at 17:15?
If you are going to try and be patronising to me at least get your facts straight.
-
No i think you will find you are not understanding it.
You are quoting Fiona saying:
We know that Fiona was with the group at the Paraiso, who left to go to the tennis courts at almost 19:00.
We know from Jane's statement that Kate wasn't there at the tennis courts when the group arrived from the Paraiso and Jane presumed she was in her apartment.
So how could Fiona go to the McCann apartment at 19:00 TOGETHER WITH KATE, when Kate was already there?
And how could she go with Kate when she says in her own 4th May statement:
Also and as an aside how could Kate have left the Tapas with the chiildren at 17:35 when Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach at 17:15?
If you are going to try and be patronising to me at least get your facts straight.
Facts.
They arrived at the Paraiso at 5.31, left at 6.36.
As they left the Paraiso at 6.36, not 7pm I'd say thats pleanty of time to meet up with Kate and go to the McCann apartment at 19:00 TOGETHER WITH KATE
Jane only presumed Kate was in her apartment.
So Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach, at 5.15, and where is the Paraiso situated (on the beach). Kate I imagine would have picked up the children on her way back 8((()*/
Arriving at the Paraiso
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas0305071.jpg)
Leaving the Paraiso
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas03050714.jpg)
-
No i think you will find you are not understanding it.
1. You are quoting Fiona saying:
TOGETHER WITH KATE, when Kate was already there?
And how could she go with Kate when she says in her own 4th May statement:
Also and as an aside how could Kate have left the Tapas with the chiildren at 17:35 when Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach at 17:15?
If you are going to try and be patronising to me at least get your facts straight.
I am not being patronising Albertini. I am just discussing and presenting facts.
And how could she go with Kate when she says in her own 4th May statement:
Also and as an aside how could Kate have left the Tapas with the chiildren at 17:35 when Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach at 17:15?
You obviously haven't read and absorbed the statements of Kate and Gerry.
Gerry was with the little ones when they were having their tea, Kate arrived back part way thru their tea. It is only about 515 metres Paradiso to the Tapas, so Kate, being fit and a keen runner, would have done that in under 3 minutes. [world womens record for 1500 metres is less than 4 minutes] She could have been back by about 17.18pm without any trouble.
So Albym please get YOUR facts straight and cut the accusations.
The 3 children, especially Madeleine were very tired so they left the (outside) restaurant at about 5.35pm To go back to 5A. Madeleine was so tired that she had to be carried.
2. You say, how could she be with Kate when Kate was already there?
TOGETHER WITH KATE, when Kate was already there?
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that "she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate"
That is a third party statement, just the same as you used a third party statement several posts ago, I am using one. altho i find third party statements unsatisfactory, there is no reason to believe it is untrue. For it to be there it had to have been said, even if not recorded in a statement.
Having spent hours reading, (and skimming in places), I cannot find the words in any Fiona Payne statement. Fionas statement seems as long as a book and i am not re-reading it, or the other shorter one again ... cos i am diabetic and my eyes are sore and watering from all the small print reading and I am not going thru it again.
For it to have been mentioned, it must have been said, unless it got mixed up in translations or a typo
The wording is not how I would say it, but it is a colloqial expression, the type of which I have heard before in the Midlands. And it could mean that (i) she and Kate walked up together, or it could mean that (ii) she walked up and was together with Kate (in the flat). Maybe only fleetingly, but 5A was en route for her, Kate was her close friend and she hadn't seen much of her that day
-
Facts.
They arrived at the Paraiso at 5.31, left at 6.36.
As they left the Paraiso at 6.36, not 7pm I'd say thats pleanty of time to meet up with Kate and go to the McCann apartment at 19:00 TOGETHER WITH KATE
Jane only presumed Kate was in her apartment.
So Jane saw Kate jogging on the beach, at 5.15, and where is the Paraiso situated (on the beach). Kate I imagine would have picked up the children on her way back 8((()*/
Arriving at the Paraiso
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas0305071.jpg)
Leaving the Paraiso
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Tapas03050714.jpg)
All well and good apart from Kate McCann in her September statement:
When she finished jogging, at around 5:20/5:30 p.m., she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were having dinner at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the area by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over, at around 5.30 p.m.. During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her; she replied that she wasn’t, but was rather tired. She asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment. Kate agreed, and Gerry led the twins back to the apartment, as well. Tiredness was due to the intense daily activities, not to any sickness.
They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m., earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00 p.m. At the apartment they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00 p.m. Gerry went to the tennis courts, right after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered through the same door.
After the children’s bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, and gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits. Before bathing the children and because it was early, they had thought of taking them to the recreation area, but then decided against this because of tiredness.
While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40 p.m. and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the balcony door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who was at the balcony door. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left through this door. She saw that it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly. David’s visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds, he didn’t even actually enter the flat, he remained at the balcony door. According to her he then left for the tennis courts where Gerry was. The time was around 6:30-6:40 p.m.
After David left, Kate dressed and sat with the children, Madeleine on her lap. She was wearing a top, she doesn’t remember what colour it was, a green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim trousers. Sports shoes and white socks.
She read a story to the children in the living room, on the sofa in front of the balcony door, identified on the diagram with the letter D. At 7:00 p.m. Gerry arrived and entered through the balcony door. He sat on the sofa identified with letter E. She doesn’t know if the story was finished, but thinks she was still sitting on the sofa.
She doesn’t remember having changed the layout of the furniture in the living room, the sofas, the table or others. She says that the sofa (letter E) supposedly was against the side window, because she doesn’t remember anyone having gone behind it. She does not know if this window was open or closed, she does not remember it ever being open, or looking through the window.
After Gerry arrived the children went to brush their teeth and she then read them another story, this time all four of them sitting on Madeleine’s bed. She thinks that Gerry entered the room, but does not recall him sitting on the bed. During the story Madeleine was lying on the pillow, but alert and paying attention to the story. Afterwards both twins kissed Madeleine, she thinks that Gerry was in the room, and each one of them, the deponent and Gerry, placed a twin in its cot at the same time, between Madeleine’s bed and the bed under the window. They also kissed Madeleine, who was already lying down. She was under the covers, she thinks, because it was a bit cold. She normally clutched the soft toy and if she wasn’t holding it then it was next to her, on the left. She remained lying down on her left side, with the soft toy and a pink blanket, which she thinks was covering her. The twins were laid down on their backs, covered with open weave blankets. She says that she doesn’t know if the children were in the same positions when they left the apartment.
It was around 7:15 p.m. when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she is sure of this.
She says she never left the apartment after 5:40pm, so how could she have walked back with Fiona when she never left?
-
I wonder why these bizarre Payne statements aren't in the files. Was there some part concerning the Gaspar that was thought better to keep off the record (DC 1756 Mike Marshall's letter accompanies the Gaspar statement) ? But the Gaspar statement should have been kept off the record imo and wasn't.
There's no doubt the Paynes replied, writing, to questions, they made no second statement as the others did.
If Mike Marshall transcribed wrongly 7 pm in 17, there's no reason to suspect what he says.
His letter is very interesting as it shows how UK and PT officers worked together.