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: G-Unit on May 17, 2018, 10:55:46 AM
-
Gerry McCann sets the scene;
That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.
During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.
At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Isn't this the same day he was playing tennis most of the afternoon and allegedly damaged a tendon?
One would have thought that was more than enough ball games for one day.
-
Isn't this the same day he was playing tennis most of the afternoon and allegedly damaged a tendon?
One would have thought that was more than enough ball games for one day.
Well. He and his wife agree that they had a lesson, but they disagree about the time after the lesson. It's that Julian again, according to Kate. I think the tendon affair was a different day (see the Carpenter statement);
After leaving Madeleine around 2:50 PM, they both had, this one time, an individual tennis lesson just for the two of them, and as the court was empty, they began hitting some b*lls until it was time for their lesson.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
The lesson ended an hour afterwards, close to 4:30PM. Gerry continued playing tennis with a guest called Jxxxxn who belonged to his tennis group, while she went for a jog along the beach, for around half an hour.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.
The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/TB/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_658.jpg)
-
I assume the booking form is filled in in advance, rather than when the people turn up.
-
Gerry only seems to have seen David, and David agrees;
I'm not sure you know what happened to Matt and Russell at that particular moment but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Russell and Matthew remember it differently. According to Russell he and Matthew went straight to the tennis courts, but according to Matthew he went to his apartment to get his kit, although he seems to have visited the courts because he thought Kate and the children were there watching.
-
Gerry only seems to have seen David, and David agrees;
I'm not sure you know what happened to Matt and Russell at that particular moment but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Russell and Matthew remember it differently. According to Russell he and Matthew went straight to the tennis courts, but according to Matthew he went to his apartment to get his kit, although he seems to have visited the courts because he thought Kate and the children were there watching.
In her first statement J Tanner think's Kate was putting her children to bed.
J Tanners second statement also has her thinking Kate was putting her children to bed.
-
In her first statement J Tanner think's Kate was putting her children to bed.
J Tanners second statement also has her thinking Kate was putting her children to bed.
What are the words used by Jane and how significant can that be?
4th May: "She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed." So that is an impression formed from what she heard and saw IMO.
10th May: "18.20 hours chatted with men on tennis court. Presumed Kate Healy was with their children in the apartment."
Does that mean at some point she had the thought at the time, "where is Kate? Oh I presume she is with their children in the apartment"?
Was the presumption an actual event?
-
What are the words used by Jane and how significant can that be?
4th May: "She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed." So that is an impression formed from what she heard and saw IMO.
10th May: "18.20 hours chatted with men on tennis court. Presumed Kate Healy was with their children in the apartment."
Does that mean at some point she had the thought at the time, "where is Kate? Oh I presume she is with their children in the apartment"?
Was the presumption an actual event?
It just shows at the time they couldn't remember who was where at any given time.
ETA,imo.
-
It just shows at the time they couldn't remember who was where at any given time.
ETA,imo.
I am convinced they all KNEW exactly who was where, but were protecting themselves against an onslaught of disgust by their families, employers, and the public at large. AND THE POLICE IMO
-
It just shows at the time they couldn't remember who was where at any given time.
ETA,imo.
Well it doesn't seem normal to me to concern yourself as to what everyone is doing at any point in time.
-
Well it doesn't seem normal to me to concern yourself as to what everyone is doing at any point in time.
Oh, well in my opinion it would seem this group are not' normal', because they managed to write out a time line before the police interviewed them as individuals, some would say that was collaboration. I say this because they climed they checked every 30 minutes...checked= listened at door.
let us see how difficult ta task this is.
arrived at tapas as 8.30 ( how was this time gained- did somone have a watch- look at a clock- or phone?)
1st check 9.00 by ??
2nd check 9.30 by??
3rd check 10pm
In my opinion you see how easy it is when you KNOW for SURE what you did?
AND is it not stated that they only checked their on children but on this one evening- others checked the McCanns kids , and there was a physical check by both MBMs parents....
-
Oh, well in my opinion it would seem this group are not' normal', because they managed to write out a time line before the police interviewed them as individuals, some would say that was collaboration. I say this because they climed they checked every 30 minutes...checked= listened at door.
let us see how difficult ta task this is.
arrived at tapas as 8.30 ( how was this time gained- did somone have a watch- look at a clock- or phone?)
1st check 9.00 by ??
2nd check 9.30 by??
3rd check 10pm
In my opinion you see how easy it is when you KNOW for SURE what you did?
AND is it not stated that they only checked their on children but on this one evening- others checked the McCanns kids , and there was a physical check by both MBMs parents....
As I have said before, it is an unfortunate part of large organisation culture that when something goes badly wrong the first, almost automatic, response is to get your version of events sorted out. I think this drove the timeline writing.
-
Oh, well in my opinion it would seem this group are not' normal', because they managed to write out a time line before the police interviewed them as individuals, some would say that was collaboration. I say this because they climed they checked every 30 minutes...checked= listened at door.
let us see how difficult ta task this is.
arrived at tapas as 8.30 ( how was this time gained- did somone have a watch- look at a clock- or phone?)
1st check 9.00 by ??
2nd check 9.30 by??
3rd check 10pm
In my opinion you see how easy it is when you KNOW for SURE what you did?
AND is it not stated that they only checked their on children but on this one evening- others checked the McCanns kids , and there was a physical check by both MBMs parents....
I may be crazy but I would imagine that the time they booked the tapas table for gave some of them a clue as to what time they arrived fir dinner, and the fact that members of the group were coming and going all evening is supported by witnesses such as the tapas staff and Jez Wilkins.
-
Well it doesn't seem normal to me to concern yourself as to what everyone is doing at any point in time.
Is that aimed at me or the post?
-
I may be crazy but I would imagine that the time they booked the tapas table for gave some of them a clue as to what time they arrived fir dinner, and the fact that members of the group were coming and going all evening is supported by witnesses such as the tapas staff and Jez Wilkins.
Thats why the timings are so hard to be precise,the comings and goings,they could be all out by + /- 5/10/ minutes.
-
What are the words used by Jane and how significant can that be?
4th May: "She thinks Kate was in the apartment (1) putting the children to bed." So that is an impression formed from what she heard and saw IMO.
10th May: "18.20 hours chatted with men on tennis court. Presumed Kate Healy was with their children in the apartment."
Does that mean at some point she had the thought at the time, "where is Kate? Oh I presume she is with their children in the apartment"?
Was the presumption an actual event?
According to the evidence the women and children were still at the Paraiso at 18.36.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
Most of the group seem to have no idea of the actual timeline. In their early statements most of them seem to think they arrived at and left the tennis earlier than they say they did in their later statements.
"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 GM, were on the court. They stayed to talk to them them for about 20/30 minutes. GM comported himself as usual"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.html
At about 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. Until going to the apartment she was with the children in the playground area, next to the "Tapas", until about 19.00.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm
Prompted to report the events that had unfolded in period between 19H00 and 22H40 of that day, the deponent states that around 19:00 she had gone together with the Payne couple and their children to the apartment in order to prepare them for bed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
About 18h00 he, ROB and DP went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
-
Thats why the timings are so hard to be precise,the comings and goings,they could be all out by + /- 5/10/ minutes.
IMO, Misstaken seems to view the whole timeline as a fabrication from start to finish, because they “collaborated” when trying to work out timings.
-
Oh, well in my opinion it would seem this group are not' normal', because they managed to write out a time line before the police interviewed them as individuals, some would say that was collaboration. I say this because they climed they checked every 30 minutes...checked= listened at door.
let us see how difficult ta task this is.
arrived at tapas as 8.30 ( how was this time gained- did somone have a watch- look at a clock- or phone?)
1st check 9.00 by ??
2nd check 9.30 by??
3rd check 10pm
In my opinion you see how easy it is when you KNOW for SURE what you did?
AND is it not stated that they only checked their on children but on this one evening- others checked the McCanns kids , and there was a physical check by both MBMs parents....
The question of course should be, who asked the tapas-9 to provide this initial timeline but I bet it was the police? In those circumstances therefore, criticism cannot be directed towards them as they were only doing what was asked of them.
-
The question of course should be, who asked the tapas-9 to provide this initial timeline but I bet it was the police? In those circumstances therefore, criticism cannot be directed towards them as they were only doing what was asked of them.
Given that the T9 would have been persons of interest to the police at that stage why would the police ask persons of interest to them to sit down and agree a time line for what they[T9] allegedly did?.
I am of the opinion it was more likely the timeline was "pushed" rather than "pulled".
What ever the PJ analysed it as defined in the files.
-
The question of course should be, who asked the tapas-9 to provide this initial timeline but I bet it was the police? In those circumstances therefore, criticism cannot be directed towards them as they were only doing what was asked of them.
Interesting idea or question even,wonder if its in the interviews or rogs.
-
Interesting idea or question even,wonder if its in the interviews or rogs.
I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere that it met with the approval of the police on the scene when they started getting their thoughts together and they began working on it.
It took some time as I believe it was typed up at a later date and everything, including the colouring book pages were given to the police.
-
I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere that it met with the approval of the police on the scene when they started getting their thoughts together and they began working on it.
It took some time as I believe it was typed up at a later date and everything, including the colouring book pages were given to the police.
It'll be off topic to carry on.
-
Is that aimed at me or the post?
It certainly wasn't aimed at you. No I was saying in general that would be abnormal behaviour.
-
It'll be off topic to carry on.
Why? Where did the tennis timetable emanate from?
-
I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere that it met with the approval of the police on the scene when they started getting their thoughts together and they began working on it.
It took some time as I believe it was typed up at a later date and everything, including the colouring book pages were given to the police.
I believe Control Risk group helped the friends draw up the collaborative timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. This was a clear violation of judicial privacy.
-
I believe Control Risk group helped the friends draw up the collaborative timeline handed into the PJ on the 10th of May. This was a clear violation of judicial privacy.
Cite please outlining what constitutes a violation of judicial privacy?
-
I started this thread to examine the accounts of the men's Social tennis on 3rd May. Officially it ran from 18.00 to 19.30, although some of the group think they continued to play later than 19.30 that evening. The thread is not intended to include dinner or checking timelines.
-
Why? Where did the tennis timetable emanate from?
Oops' got me threads crossed,my bad.
-
There are significant discrepancies in the group's accounts of when Matthew, David and Russell returned to their apartments after the social tennis.
The earliest time is;
On 10th May Matthew said the men went 'home' at 19.00
Fiona and Dianne agree that David returned at 19.10
According to Rachael in her rog interview she only went to her apartment at 19.30 with the other women and children.
David, in his rog interview says they returned at 19.30 or later.
Matthew and Russell go for 20.00 in their rog interviews.
-
There are significant discrepancies in the group's accounts of when Matthew, David and Russell returned to their apartments after the social tennis.
The earliest time is;
On 10th May Matthew said the men went 'home' at 19.00
Fiona and Dianne agree that David returned at 19.10
According to Rachael in her rog interview she only went to her apartment at 19.30 with the other women and children.
David, in his rog interview says they returned at 19.30 or later.
Matthew and Russell go for 20.00 in their rog interviews.
Do you have any reason to doubt the statements? Each person could have gone off at different times. If someone leaves at 19.00 or 20.00 what can you make from that?
-
Do you have any reason to doubt the statements? Each person could have gone off at different times. If someone leaves at 19.00 or 20.00 what can you make from that?
A reconstitution would sort it all out of course - because this is of vital importance to finding out what happened to Madeleine, isn't it?!
-
Do you have any reason to doubt the statements? Each person could have gone off at different times. If someone leaves at 19.00 or 20.00 what can you make from that?
I think anyone with a brain would doubt statements which disagree to the extent that the accounts of the men's social tennis on 3rd May disagree.
If you read the statements you will find that the three men agree that they played together and returned to their apartments together.
Why would two women say one of the men arrived back at 7.10 when the man himself says it was after 7.30 and his friends, who were with him, say it was 8 pm?
-
I think anyone with a brain would doubt statements which disagree to the extent that the accounts of the men's social tennis on 3rd May disagree.
If you read the statements you will find that the three men agree that they played together and returned to their apartments together.
Why would two women say one of the men arrived back at 7.10 when the man himself says it was after 7.30 and his friends, who were with him, say it was 8 pm?
There could be several explanations for it, dishonesty is just one, and the least likely IMO.
-
There could be several explanations for it, dishonesty is just one, and the least likely IMO.
More likely that they didn’t really pay attention to the time. Don’t know what effect that has on subsequent timings.
-
There could be several explanations for it, dishonesty is just one, and the least likely IMO.
Why the least likely?
-
Why the least likely?
Because unless you think Matthew, David, Russell, Fiona and Dianne or some permutation of the afore-mentioned are involved in some plot to cover up the death of a child which for some obscure reason necessitates them lying about what time they left the tennis court but then failing to get their stories straight then I can really see no reason for deceit about this matter.
-
Because unless you think Matthew, David, Russell, Fiona and Dianne or some permutation of the afore-mentioned are involved in some plot to cover up the death of a child which for some obscure reason necessitates them lying about what time they left the tennis court but then failing to get their stories straight then I can really see no reason for deceit about this matter.
Well since G-unit seems to be implying we don't have enough brains maybe she can propose a theory that could account to the time discrepancies.
-
Well since G-unit seems to be implying we don't have enough brains maybe she can propose a theory that could account to the time discrepancies.
G-Unit doesn’t do theories, she just highlights trivial discrepancies in an attempt to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Tapas group -IMO.
-
Oh, well in my opinion it would seem this group are not' normal', because they managed to write out a time line before the police interviewed them as individuals, some would say that was collaboration. I say this because they climed they checked every 30 minutes...checked= listened at door.
let us see how difficult ta task this is.
arrived at tapas as 8.30 ( how was this time gained- did somone have a watch- look at a clock- or phone?)
1st check 9.00 by ??
2nd check 9.30 by??
3rd check 10pm
In my opinion you see how easy it is when you KNOW for SURE what you did?
AND is it not stated that they only checked their on children but on this one evening- others checked the McCanns kids , and there was a physical check by both MBMs parents....
The emphasis of the collaboration is during 8:30 and 10:00 not during the time the men were playing tennis.
If what G-unit seems to imply (without any hints of what she is saying) the troubles started earlier, but there was no collaboration around what happened during that period. OK was the timeline itself an attempt to put the focus on the wrong time period?
-
Do you have any reason to doubt the statements? Each person could have gone off at different times. If someone leaves at 19.00 or 20.00 what can you make from that?
In my opinion Fiona and Dianne got it wrong. I think the correct times are given in Rachael O'Brien's rog interview.
18.45 the women leave the Paraiso
19.00 they arrive at tennis
19.30 the women go to their apartments with their children.
That fits in with Fiona's normal routine, too;
around sort of half seven we would, erm, go back and get them bathed........ The, erm, you know, our, our bath time and bedtime routine would usually take sort of forty-five minutes and the kids would, would be in bed sort of by quarter past eight, half eight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
I think anyone with a brain would doubt statements which disagree to the extent that the accounts of the men's social tennis on 3rd May disagree.
If you read the statements you will find that the three men agree that they played together and returned to their apartments together.
Why would two women say one of the men arrived back at 7.10 when the man himself says it was after 7.30 and his friends, who were with him, say it was 8 pm?
Looks like you’ve solved the mystery all by yourself in your post above this one - the women got it wrong. People do get things wrong, it’s part of being human.
-
Looks like you’ve solved the mystery all by yourself in your post above this one - the women got it wrong. People do get things wrong, it’s part of being human.
That;s why I research things; to see if I can work out who is right and who is wrong. Assumptions aren't my thing, so I remain open as to the reason why the women got the times so wrong.
-
That;s why I research things; to see if I can work out who is right and who is wrong. Assumptions aren't my thing, so I remain open as to the reason why the women got the times so wrong.
Would you like to list the plausible reasons why you think the women got this particular detail wrong?
-
Would you like to list the plausible reasons why you think the women got this particular detail wrong?
No thank you, I prefer to look at the evidence. Fiona speaks of times, but gets them all wrong. She suggests that she watched her husband play tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm, but we, like the police officer, know that wasn't correct.
The women didn't arrive at tennis at 6.30, and even if they had, the men weren't playing. Matthew says it was getting on for 7 pm when they began to play, and Kate tells us David visited her at 6.40 pm. Gerry says David got back to the courts at 7 pm. Eventually Fiona admits that she can't say for sure that David was on the courts between 6 pm and 7 pm, even though she has said she saw him there between 6.30 and 7pm.
I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six........so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time..........we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis..... I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
The problem is that she would have arrived at the tennis at around 6.30 pm if the women left the Paraiso at 6.10 pm. The men weren't playing at that time.
it was past six before the girls said, well they've moved th, so is forward for us and we're not turning up to the social tennis so you guys should go. So we finished and set off, probably about twenty past six....... so we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
1485
'Just tell me a little bit about that, who was playing who and was there any kids around''
Reply
'Erm, yeah, I mean, Gerry, phew, I don't know who was playing who, but there was certainly Gerry, Matt, erm, you know, Russ and Dave........
1485
'No. So, and again, you have answered this question, but between six and seven as well, could you tell me where David was''
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........
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
No thank you, I prefer to look at the evidence. Fiona speaks of times, but gets them all wrong. She suggests that she watched her husband play tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm, but we, like the police officer, know that wasn't correct.
The women didn't arrive at tennis at 6.30, and even if they had, the men weren't playing. Matthew says it was getting on for 7 pm when they began to play, and Kate tells us David visited her at 6.40 pm. Gerry says David got back to the courts at 7 pm. Eventually Fiona admits that she can't say for sure that David was on the courts between 6 pm and 7 pm, even though she has said she saw him there between 6.30 and 7pm.
I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six........so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time..........we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis..... I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
The problem is that she would have arrived at the tennis at around 6.30 pm if the women left the Paraiso at 6.10 pm. The men weren't playing at that time.
it was past six before the girls said, well they've moved th, so is forward for us and we're not turning up to the social tennis so you guys should go. So we finished and set off, probably about twenty past six....... so we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
1485
'Just tell me a little bit about that, who was playing who and was there any kids around''
Reply
'Erm, yeah, I mean, Gerry, phew, I don't know who was playing who, but there was certainly Gerry, Matt, erm, you know, Russ and Dave........
1485
'No. So, and again, you have answered this question, but between six and seven as well, could you tell me where David was''
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........
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So what? Police use evidence to build a case. Just amassing evidence without drawing any inference from it or drawing any conclusions is a pointless exercise IMO.
-
research
rɪˈsəːtʃ,ˈriːsəːtʃ/Submit
noun
1.
the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
-
So what? Police use evidence to build a case. Just amassing evidence without drawing any inference from it or drawing any conclusions is a pointless exercise IMO.
I would have thought that was obvious. In my opinion listing sentences from statements isn't even useful as a record without structure or a cross referencing system with a clear index.
I find it monumentally boring unless one is expected to play "guess the inference".
-
I would have thought that was obvious. In my opinion listing sentences from statements isn't even useful as a record without structure or a cross referencing system with a clear index.
I find it monumentally boring unless one is expected to play "guess the inference".
IMO that is clearly the game being played here.
-
IMO that is clearly the game being played here.
The evidence shows a woman giving her husband a firm alibi for the period from 6.30 to 7pm on 3rd May 2007. When questioned more closely she withdraws it.
I don't know why she did that and neither does anyone else in my opinion.
-
The evidence shows a woman giving her husband a firm alibi for the period from 6.30 to 7pm on 3rd May 2007. When questioned more closely she withdraws it.
I don't know why she did that and neither does anyone else in my opinion.
I think we as a forum have continued to sustain quite an extraordinary amount of discourse on this board despite there not being much, if anything, being made public about Madeleine's case at the moment to give us something worth arguing about.
Probably because it isn't all that earth shattering, there certainly hasn't been much internet chatter or any in depth analysis about the tennis timeline.
With the notable exception of one scurrilous and libellous contention. Which it appears you have taken a very roundabout route to arrive at here.
-
The evidence shows a woman giving her husband a firm alibi for the period from 6.30 to 7pm on 3rd May 2007. When questioned more closely she withdraws it.
I don't know why she did that and neither does anyone else in my opinion.
Does anyone else supply an alibi for this man for that period? What does the man himself have to say about where he was at that time? What possible logical explanation can there be for his wife “giving him an alibi” that contradicts others (including his own statement) and then withdrawing it, apart from a simple mistake?
-
Does anyone else supply an alibi for this man for that period? What does the man himself have to say about where he was at that time? What possible logical explanation can there be for his wife “giving him an alibi” that contradicts others (including his own statement) and then withdrawing it, apart from a simple mistake?
David says he went straight to the courts, alone. Russell disagrees and has missed the David/Gerry conversation it seems.
I think me and Matt went straight to the, the courts, Dave went off to his apartment and I believe, erm, to Gerry and Kate’s apartment as well. Erm, we then went down to the tennis, erm, it had already started because we were a little late, erm, and, erm, there was Gerry, Dan and a number of other male guests, maybe just sort of another three, two or three people, whose name I may have known at the time but no longer do, I certainly didn’t know them terribly well. And we started off playing doubles on both, both of the two courts, erm, sometimes changing, changing players”.
1578 “So there is Gerry, Dan, yourself and Matt'”
Reply “And Dave and a couple of other guests”.
1578 “You said Dave went to the apartment'”
Reply “Well he did, but only briefly and then, well he went, he went back there and then, and then joined us, so fairly rapidly there was the full kind of compliment of, erm, of, the male adults within the group were playing tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
-
David says he went straight to the courts, alone. Russell disagrees and has missed the David/Gerry conversation it seems.
I think me and Matt went straight to the, the courts, Dave went off to his apartment and I believe, erm, to Gerry and Kate’s apartment as well. Erm, we then went down to the tennis, erm, it had already started because we were a little late, erm, and, erm, there was Gerry, Dan and a number of other male guests, maybe just sort of another three, two or three people, whose name I may have known at the time but no longer do, I certainly didn’t know them terribly well. And we started off playing doubles on both, both of the two courts, erm, sometimes changing, changing players”.
1578 “So there is Gerry, Dan, yourself and Matt'”
Reply “And Dave and a couple of other guests”.
1578 “You said Dave went to the apartment'”
Reply “Well he did, but only briefly and then, well he went, he went back there and then, and then joined us, so fairly rapidly there was the full kind of compliment of, erm, of, the male adults within the group were playing tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
So does Payne have an alibi for 6.30 - 7pm or not?
-
So does Payne have an alibi for 6.30 - 7pm or not?
Do you mean was he anywhere else other than walking to or from or at his apartment, walking to or from or visiting the McCann's apartment or walking to or from or at the tennis courts?
-
So does Payne have an alibi for 6.30 - 7pm or not?
As per usual, it's all rather vague. Two people made firm statements; Gerry McCann said David was not at the tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm, and Fiona Payne said he was and she saw him but her statement wasn't correct.
-
As per usual, it's all rather vague. Two people made firm statements; Gerry McCann said David was not at the tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm, and Fiona Payne said he was and she saw him but her statement wasn't correct.
Well this is what FP says in her rogatory interview:
"'Erm, and then I remember it getting to tennis time, because it was men's tennis that night and the men had all rearranged the time to suit us and it was getting towards six o'clock and, you know, they were going to be late, so I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six. And we were toying with the idea of getting the kids ice creams for pudding and then thought oh we probably don't have time, but then we decided well, you know, why don't you go off and go to your tennis and we'll just give them their ice cream and follow on. And so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time. And the, you know, the wives stayed behind with the kids, they had ice cream and then we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis and give the kids, you know, a little playtime. Erm, and I don't think we stayed there that long that night because the kids were pretty, pretty tired. Erm, I'm trying to think, I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer. Erm, I think we'd bathed the kids by the time he got back, probably ten minutes later. Erm, and then I went for a run that night, after the kids were bathed'."
Well that does sound like he was playing tennis at the time FP and DW left around 7:00 PM. That mention in that passage is the only time she mentions DP being there.
-
As per usual, it's all rather vague. Two people made firm statements; Gerry McCann said David was not at the tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm, and Fiona Payne said he was and she saw him but her statement wasn't correct.
And where does David Payne say he was?
-
And where does David Payne say he was?
Have fun finding that one!
-
And where does David Payne say he was?
This is the section of David Payne's rogatory covering the men's tennis:
"Err after we had the meal we got some ice cream and then err we decided that we were gonna go up and play tennis so I left err with err Russell, we left the, err the girls at the restaurant and we went up to the, err back up to the Ocean Club. Err I, as I say I'm not sure you know what happened to Matt and Russell at that particular moment but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts, just to see you know what was happening, and err decided that we'd, you know I'd come, come back to play tennis and err Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in.
So I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate and Gerry's apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we've looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that we've got that I was you know going to Kate's about six thirty, err and I went into their apartment through the patio doors. The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, 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.
Err so we played some tennis and you know we were having a good knock and then it was getting a bit late so err we, you know we left the tennis courts, went back to our respective partners to get ready to go out, you know it was, it was, you know certainly after half past seven that we'd, you know we'd left the courts, perhaps even a bit later than that. Err when I got back err I think because Fiona had done a lot of babysitting and left me playing tennis she said well I'm gonna go for a very quick run so she went for a run on the beach, you know, err got the kids ready, bathed, got them ready for err to go to bed but again you know as we'd got back late err from the tennis courts you know the whole time err for that evening was not, you know later. And then we just got ready to go and by the time Fi had got back from the run we'd all had showers, we were all ready to go and the girls were asleep and we were happy to leave the apartment, it was you know it was sort of gone quarter to nine. Err we walked down, the three of us, err you know to the Tapas area err we bumped into Matt ..."
-
Well this is what FP says in her rogatory interview:
"'Erm, and then I remember it getting to tennis time, because it was men's tennis that night and the men had all rearranged the time to suit us and it was getting towards six o'clock and, you know, they were going to be late, so I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six. And we were toying with the idea of getting the kids ice creams for pudding and then thought oh we probably don't have time, but then we decided well, you know, why don't you go off and go to your tennis and we'll just give them their ice cream and follow on. And so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time. And the, you know, the wives stayed behind with the kids, they had ice cream and then we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis and give the kids, you know, a little playtime. Erm, and I don't think we stayed there that long that night because the kids were pretty, pretty tired. Erm, I'm trying to think, I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer. Erm, I think we'd bathed the kids by the time he got back, probably ten minutes later. Erm, and then I went for a run that night, after the kids were bathed'."
Well that does sound like he was playing tennis at the time FP and DW left around 7:00 PM. That mention in that passage is the only time she mentions DP being there.
She also said in her rog;
"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."
That statement is wrong. The women were still at the Paraiso at 6.36 and Kate says in her book that David went to see her at 6.40.
-
This is the section of David Payne's rogatory covering the men's tennis:
"Err after we had the meal we got some ice cream and then err we decided that we were gonna go up and play tennis so I left err with err Russell, we left the, err the girls at the restaurant and we went up to the, err back up to the Ocean Club. Err I, as I say I'm not sure you know what happened to Matt and Russell at that particular moment but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts, just to see you know what was happening, and err decided that we'd, you know I'd come, come back to play tennis and err Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in.
So I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate and Gerry's apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we've looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that we've got that I was you know going to Kate's about six thirty, err and I went into their apartment through the patio doors. The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, 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.
Err so we played some tennis and you know we were having a good knock and then it was getting a bit late so err we, you know we left the tennis courts, went back to our respective partners to get ready to go out, you know it was, it was, you know certainly after half past seven that we'd, you know we'd left the courts, perhaps even a bit later than that. Err when I got back err I think because Fiona had done a lot of babysitting and left me playing tennis she said well I'm gonna go for a very quick run so she went for a run on the beach, you know, err got the kids ready, bathed, got them ready for err to go to bed but again you know as we'd got back late err from the tennis courts you know the whole time err for that evening was not, you know later. And then we just got ready to go and by the time Fi had got back from the run we'd all had showers, we were all ready to go and the girls were asleep and we were happy to leave the apartment, it was you know it was sort of gone quarter to nine. Err we walked down, the three of us, err you know to the Tapas area err we bumped into Matt ..."
So he confirms where he was between 6.30 and 7.00pm, no plausible explanation for his wife to knowingly give him a false alibi. As I thought.
-
So he confirms where he was between 6.30 and 7.00pm, no plausible explanation for his wife to knowingly give him a false alibi. As I thought.
At 6.30 he says he went to see Kate. Then he went and got his stuff and returned to the tennis courts. What time was that? He doesn't say. Gerry McCann does;
he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
At 6.30 he says he went to see Kate. Then he went and got his stuff and returned to the tennis courts. What time was that? He doesn't say. Gerry McCann does;
he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Any reason you can think of for his wife to attempt to give him a false alibi? No, I didn’t think so.
-
Any reason you can think of for his wife to attempt to give him a false alibi? No, I didn’t think so.
My aim was to examine the tennis timeline. I discovered that Fiona was wrong when she said she watched her husband playing tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm. I can't tell you why she said it, and neither can you, we would be guessing.
-
My aim was to examine the tennis timeline. I discovered that Fiona was wrong when she said she watched her husband playing tennis between 6.30 and 7 pm. I can't tell you why she said it, and neither can you, we would be guessing.
What is the point of research if no conclusions are ever drawn from it? I have concluded from your sterling efforts that there was no intent to deceive on the part of Fiona Payne, what have you concluded? Nothing at all I suppose, or nothing that you will admit to publicly.
-
What is the point of research if no conclusions are ever drawn from it? I have concluded from your sterling efforts that there was no intent to deceive on the part of Fiona Payne, what have you concluded? Nothing at all I suppose, or nothing that you will admit to publicly.
You can reach any conclusion you like, it doesn't mean you're right because you have no evidence, just a belief imo.
-
Any reason you can think of for his wife to attempt to give him a false alibi? No, I didn’t think so.
We might not be able to think of it but it is very interesting.
-
You can reach any conclusion you like, it doesn't mean you're right because you have no evidence, just a belief imo.
I think I can give a reasoned rationale to support my belief. I challenge anyone to give a reasoned rationale to support any other conclusion other than it was an honest mistake.
-
Jane's account;
6.15 the men left the Paraiso (correct)
6.30 the women left the Paraiso (she's got that wrong, it was after 6.36)
7.30 women to apartments (agrees with Rachael)
7.45 men return to apartments (agrees with David)
Reply “Erm, so I can remember saying to Russell and Matt and everything, it was about quarter past six, I said ‘Oh you’ve got to go to the men’s night tennis because they’ve changed the times for us and now you’re not bloody going’, you know, that sort of, it was that sort of thing. So I think at about quarter past six they, they all went up to, erm, to the men’s tennis”......
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”.........
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.......
I think Russell came back, I think they were supposed to finish at half seven and it was around, I think they had a bit of, but it went on a bit longer, so they were probably back about, he was probably back about quarter to eight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
I think I can give a reasoned rationale to support my belief. I challenge anyone to give a reasoned rationale to support any other conclusion other than it was an honest mistake.
Go on then.
-
Go on then.
Only if I have your word that you will reciprocate with your rationale for another explanation.
-
We might not be able to think of it but it is very interesting.
Why are we not able to think? do we have thought police on duty here?
I can think of two reasons- they will stay in my thoughts as will my thoughts on hospital closures and other contentious issues 8(0(*
"I think I can give a reasoned rationale to support my belief" by VS well it is only a belief so no harm can be done.
-
Only if I have your word that you will reciprocate with your rationale for another explanation.
In my opinion you don't have a 'reasoned rationale'.
-
In my opinion you don't have a 'reasoned rationale'.
lol me either IMO
-
Why are we not able to think? do we have thought police on duty here?
I can think of two reasons- they will stay in my thoughts as will my thoughts on hospital closures and other contentious issues 8(0(*
"I think I can give a reasoned rationale to support my belief" by VS well it is only a belief so no harm can be done.
Can we think of a comprehensive reason? I'm not convinced we have identified something real yet.
-
In my opinion you don't have a 'reasoned rationale'.
Well you’re wrong.
-
Well you’re wrong.
Unless you're prepared to prove me wrong that's just words.
-
Well you’re wrong.
Are you going for the "honest mistake" rational?
-
Unless you're prepared to prove me wrong that's just words.
Fine, I’ve told you I’m very happy to put forward my rationale if you will do me the courtesy of doing likewise, clearly you won’t so we’ll have to leave it there.
-
Atr you going for the "honest mistake" rational.
Of course, there is no other rational rationale.
-
Of course, there is no other rational rationale.
Did you understand the Prank Theory? It still fits in with a prank to have something going on before Madeleine going missing as well.
I struggle with innocent mistake. In the end there seems to be too many mistakes made by the Payne family as a group IMO.
-
Did you understand the Prank Theory? It still fits in with a prank to have something going on before Madeleine going missing as well.
I struggle with innocent mistake. In the end there seems to be too many mistakes made by the Payne family as a group IMO.
After her husband arrived at the apartment Fiona went for a run.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
I wonder what this was about?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
-
Did you understand the Prank Theory? It still fits in with a prank to have something going on before Madeleine going missing as well.
I struggle with innocent mistake. In the end there seems to be too many mistakes made by the Payne family as a group IMO.
In my opinion it is preposterous that a 'prank' was played involving someone else's precious daughter.
-
In my opinion it is preposterous that a 'prank' was played involving someone else's precious daughter.
But then in a moment of bad decision making, drinking and what not, isn't it all the more reason not to let it out?
-
After her husband arrived at the apartment Fiona went for a run.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
I wonder what this was about?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
So that put David Payne back in his apartment at 10 past 7. Fiona is out for the best part of an hour.
-
But then in a moment of bad decision making, drinking and what not, isn't it all the more reason not to let it out?
Sorry Robitty ... I'm not getting what you're saying there.
-
Sorry Robitty ... I'm not getting what you're saying there.
A person can make a bad decision, and that is more likely to happen if they have been drinking, and if the decision backfires will the person own up?
Prince William played a prank on Harry on the day of his wedding. It backfired but enough people knew who was behind the prank.
https://youtu.be/2NPe2DY9Kqw
I think in many cases if a prank backfired no one would take the responsibility for it. I keep thinking that the Tapas members involved in the theoretical prank could well have owned up, on the condition it is kept confidential. We would then end up with SY saying, like Rowley did, words to the effect that no matter how Madeleine left the apartment, she was [then] abducted"
-
Dianne Webster's testimony appears absolutely useless as far a defining the time she watched the man play tennis on the Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
"4078 ”If, I’m just, it seemed to be clearer in your mind than some other things, you said you can remember standing there and the courts were lower and you can remember standing watching.”
Reply ”Well yeah I can remember err I can remember watching the men playing tennis but I can’t put a day on it, I can’t, I can’t remember err I don’t know if it was that, I don’t think it was that night I think it might be another night.”"
-
Dianne Webster's testimony appears absolutely useless as far a defining the time she watched the man play tennis on the Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
"4078 ”If, I’m just, it seemed to be clearer in your mind than some other things, you said you can remember standing there and the courts were lower and you can remember standing watching.”
Reply ”Well yeah I can remember err I can remember watching the men playing tennis but I can’t put a day on it, I can’t, I can’t remember err I don’t know if it was that, I don’t think it was that night I think it might be another night.”"
She was quite clear (although incorrect) in her 4th May statement;
Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
-
A person can make a bad decision, and that is more likely to happen if they have been drinking, and if the decision backfires will the person own up?
Prince William played a prank on Harry on the day of his wedding. It backfired but enough people knew who was behind the prank.
https://youtu.be/2NPe2DY9Kqw
I think in many cases if a prank backfired no one would take the responsibility for it. I keep thinking that the Tapas members involved in the theoretical prank could well have owned up, on the condition it is kept confidential. We would then end up with SY saying, like Rowley did, words to the effect that no matter how Madeleine left the apartment, she was [then] abducted"
I think the key word there is "theoretical". In my opinion such a fantasy is the stuff of nonsense and in a theatre where so much nonsense becomes factoid - cremation and old British ex pat spring immediately to mind - is best left unsaid.
-
gmccan told fiona at tennis km was getting the children bathed and ready for bed
So why did payne have to go check in the first place - disturbing her
-
gmccan told fiona at tennis km was getting the children bathed and ready for bed
So why did payne have to go check in the first place - disturbing her
Wasn't he asked to do so?
-
She was quite clear (although incorrect) in her 4th May statement;
Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
That sounds very much like what Fiona said in her rogatory.
Fiona on the 4th says:
"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."
This is what Dianne says on the 4th May:
"Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. 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.
They left the apartment at around 8.45 and accompanied by her son-in-law and her daughter, they went to join the rest of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant."
That is rather too much similarity really.
-
Wasn't he asked to do so?
Well if you think he was .....why
-
Well if you think he was .....why
I've no idea. Gerry asked him to pop in and see her on his way back to pick up some kit. To check she was OK? To let her know Gerry was still on the court? Why do you think?
-
I've no idea. Gerry asked him to pop in and see her on his way back to pick up some kit. To check she was OK? To let her know Gerry was still on the court? Why do you think?
Surly she would have known were he was.
He could have been worried about something.
-
Surly she would have known were he was.
He could have been worried about something.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we will never know and therefore IMO it's pointless spending any energy worrying about it, or trying to "research" the answer.
-
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we will never know and therefore IMO it's pointless spending any energy worrying about it, or trying to "research" the answer.
That may well be the whole kit and caboodle of the case,doesn't stop the discussion though.
-
That may well be the whole kit and caboodle of the case,doesn't stop the discussion though.
clearly not.
-
In my opinion you don't have a 'reasoned rationale'.
If you read through my replies to this thread again you will see that I have already given my rationale quite explicitly for my conclusion. It is only my opinion and I can’t prove I’m right, but similarly neither can anyone else prove Fiona deliberately lied, nor IMO can they give any plausible rationale whatsoever for why she would lie about this matter.
-
I think the key word there is "theoretical". In my opinion such a fantasy is the stuff of nonsense and in a theatre where so much nonsense becomes factoid - cremation and old British ex pat spring immediately to mind - is best left unsaid.
your references are lost on me at the moment. Cremation could be about the coffin in the church.
-
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we will never know and therefore IMO it's pointless spending any energy worrying about it, or trying to "research" the answer.
In all the interviews made over the 11 years has the visit to the apartment by David Payne ever been raised?
-
I think the key word there is "theoretical". In my opinion such a fantasy is the stuff of nonsense and in a theatre where so much nonsense becomes factoid - cremation and old British ex pat spring immediately to mind - is best left unsaid.
You can't deny the words of Mark Rowley though. That was no fantasy! "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted".
-
your references are lost on me at the moment. Cremation could be about the coffin in the church.
LOL ... We'v ... you are going to be a quiz show star doing all this deduction. Just as you 'got' the 'whatever' abbreviation you worked out mine.
Indeed, it was in reference to the coffin in the church suggestion. Now how to work that into an on topic post on this thread probably isn't possible making two mods setting a bad example (again) sorry for leading you astray.
My bad!
-
LOL ... We'v ... you are going to be a quiz show star doing all this deduction. Just as you 'got' the 'whatever' abbreviation you worked out mine.
Indeed, it was in reference to the coffin in the church suggestion. Now how to work that into an on topic post on this thread probably isn't possible making two mods setting a bad example (again) sorry for leading you astray.
My bad!
Part of it has been my attempt to be the "Mastermind" on the McCann case. But we all have our main strengths on the case. Misty's would be Robert Murat - I don't study him. G-unit's seems to be the tennis timeline - I haven't studied that.
-
You can't deny the words of Mark Rowley though. That was no fantasy! "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted".
I can only take this to mean he knows how she left the apartment (but he's not going to explain it) and then she was abducted. So I take that as a confession they know she was abducted from outside the apartment.
How that ties in with Fiona and Dianne being silent on the visit by David Payne to the apartment during the period he was supposedly playing tennis is the current mystery.
Am I right in thinking Fiona and Dianne don't mention it? Is it true they only start taking notice of the tennis closer to 7:00 PM? Just prior to them leaving the men's tennis session.
-
I've no idea. Gerry asked him to pop in and see her on his way back to pick up some kit. To check she was OK? To let her know Gerry was still on the court? Why do you think?
Does Gerry ever admit to asking David to check on Kate?
-
Does Gerry ever admit to asking David to check on Kate?
I don't know - did the police ever ask him this vitally important question? If not, it makes you wonder why not, when it's such a pivotal point upon which the whole case undoubtedly rests.
-
I don't know - did the police ever ask him this vitally important question? If not, it makes you wonder why not, when it's such a pivotal point upon which the whole case undoubtedly rests.
Where would David's visit to the apartment fit into the statement by Mark Rowley: "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted"
Did the visit contribute to the "however Madeleine left the apartment" part or the "she was abducted" part?
Certainly the confusion around the first part makes the second part more difficult to identify. E.g. in the unlikely event that Madeleine opened the window and the shutters herself, then Kate sees these open and thinks she was abducted by an intruder from within.
How could that relate to David's visit? There are some circumstantial evidences that I have noted so far:
1. Confusion as to the reason for the visit to Kate.
2. Confusion as to why DP went around to the patio door rather than the front door.
3. Confusion as to how long the visit took. 30 seconds , 5 minutes or 30 minutes.
4. Confusion as to whether Dianne and Fiona were aware of David's visit to Kate.
5. Confusion as to when the Paynes left to go to the Tapas (was it as early as 8:45, if so how did it take them so long to get to the Tapas Restaurant?).
6. Confusion as to where and when they passed Matt doing his first check.
7. Dianne's interference with the shutters after the alert.
8. David's immediate examination of the front door after the alert.
9. Dianne's expectation that Madeleine would be found after the alert.
-
Where would David's visit to the apartment fit into the statement by Mark Rowley: "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted"
Did the visit contribute to the "however Madeleine left the apartment" part or the "she was abducted" part?
Certainly the confusion around the first part makes the second part more difficult to identify. E.g. in the unlikely event that Madeleine opened the window and the shutters herself, then Kate sees these open and thinks she was abducted by an intruder from within.
How could that relate to David's visit? There are some circumstantial evidences that I have noted so far:
1. Confusion as to the reason for the visit to Kate.
2. Confusion as to why DP went around to the patio door rather than the front door.
3. Confusion as to how long the visit took. 30 seconds , 5 minutes or 30 minutes.
4. Confusion as to whether Dianne and Fiona were aware of David's visit to Kate.
5. Confusion as to when the Paynes left to go to the Tapas (was it as early as 8:45, if so how did it take them so long to get to the Tapas Restaurant?).
6. Confusion as to where and when they passed Matt doing his first check.
7. Dianne's interference with the shutters after the alert.
8. David's immediate examination of the front door after the alert.
9. Dianne's expectation that Madeleine would be found after the alert.
I would think SY already have the answers to these questions
-
I would think SY already have the answers to these questions
But their emphasis is not on the Tapas 9 so they might not know as yet, and besides they don't tell us what they know.
-
I can only take this to mean he knows how she left the apartment (but he's not going to explain it) and then she was abducted. So I take that as a confession they know she was abducted from outside the apartment.
How that ties in with Fiona and Dianne being silent on the visit by David Payne to the apartment during the period he was supposedly playing tennis is the current mystery.
Am I right in thinking Fiona and Dianne don't mention it? Is it true they only start taking notice of the tennis closer to 7:00 PM? Just prior to them leaving the men's tennis session.
The first time David's visit to Kate was mentioned was in Gerry McCann's 10th May statement. It wasn't discussed again until Kate was interviewed on 6th September. The Paynes weren't asked about it until their rog interview.
-
The first time David's visit to Kate was mentioned was in Gerry McCann's 10th May statement. It wasn't discussed again until Kate was interviewed on 6th September. The Paynes weren't asked about it until their rog interview.
Quote from Gery's statement:
"------ During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play."
-
1485 "Okay. So then you went back and then you played, you played a game for about an hour''
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "You think from seven, from about seven till about eight''
Reply "Yeah, I mean it must, I mean it was before, I mean we got back before eight o' clock err you know so perhaps just before seven, err sorry, err yeah just before seven so it was just before eight o' clock. As I say when I got back I think I was cutting it fine and Fiona was still keen to go for a run and we started to get everyone ready for bed.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Earlier you described Fiona Payne as “providing an alibi” for her husband for the time between 6.30pm and 7pm which she later withdrew. As DP made no attempt to hide the fact that he paid a visit to Kate’s apartment then I can see no reason why his wife, knowing she would be contradicting her own husband’s statement would deliberately supply a false alibi on purpose. Can you? Because any other explanation apart from an honest mistake or a translation / police error would point to a very sinister and unsavoury but also extremely far-fetched plot involving a minimum 4 people from the group involved in the child’s disappearance.
Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.
How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.
I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.
In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.
All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Earlier you described Fiona Payne as “providing an alibi” for her husband for the time between 6.30pm and 7pm which she later withdrew. As DP made no attempt to hide the fact that he paid a visit to Kate’s apartment (an event which you later attempted to link to a statement made by Katerina Gaspar for reasons best known to yourself, but I think we can take an educated guess at) then I can see no reason why his wife, knowing she would be contradicting her own husband’s statement would deliberately supply a false alibi on purpose. Can you? Because any other explanation apart from an honest mistake or a translation / police error would point to a very sinister and unsavoury but also extremely far-fetched plot involving a minimum 4 people from the group involved in the child’s disappearance.
Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.
How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.
I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.
In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.
All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Doesn’t really sound like either her or her husband made any concerted effort to hide the truth does it now, really?
Re: DC Marshall, as you’ve already acknowledged the last independent sighting of Madeleine was at 5.30 pm it strikes me that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the time if DP said he last saw her at circa 7pm, and this was misinterpreted as 1700, plausible, no?
-
Doesn’t really sound like either her or her husband made any concerted effort to hide the truth does it now, really?
Re: DC Marshall, as you’ve already acknowledged the last independent sighting of Madeleine was at 5.30 pm it strikes me that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the time if DP said he last saw her at circa 7pm, and this was misinterpreted as 1700, plausible, no?
I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth, I think that suggestion was from you.
How do you misinterpret the written answer to a questionnaire? Apart from the fact that DP never said he saw MM at 7 pm.
-
I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth, I think that suggestion was from you.
How do you misinterpret the written answer to a questionnaire? Apart from the fact that DP never said he saw MM at 7 pm.
You never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth? Well I think you did when you rejected my contention that dishonesty was the least likely reason for the different times noted in their statements, that to me strongly suggests you think there IS something suspect about their statements, and the fact that you felt it important enough to “research” them in a new thread on the subject supports my view.
As for your second point, who wrote the answer? Let’s see the source document.
-
You never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth? Well I think you did when you rejected my contention that dishonesty was the least likely reason for the different times noted in their statements, that to me strongly suggests you think there IS something suspect about their statements, and the fact that you felt it important enough to “research” them in a new thread on the subject supports my view.
As for your second point, who wrote the answer? Let’s see the source document.
In my opinion you need to stop twisting what I say to fit your agenda. I didn't reject your contention, I said it was possible. It's you who think you know why Fiona's evidence was wrong, not me.
I researched the tennis timeline because the reconstitution by the PJ was planned to run from 5.30 pm, when MM was seen by an unconnected witness. I found that Fiona and Dianne's version was impossible according to the Paraiso CCTV and the evidence of the others.
The document read by DC Marshall isn't available to us, so my source document is his evidence.
-
In my opinion you need to stop twisting what I say to fit your agenda. I didn't reject your contention, I said it was possible. It's you who think you know why Fiona's evidence was wrong, not me.
I researched the tennis timeline because the reconstitution by the PJ was planned to run from 5.30 pm, when MM was seen by an unconnected witness. I found that Fiona and Dianne's version was impossible according to the Paraiso CCTV and the evidence of the others.
The document read by DC Marshall isn't available to us, so my source document is his evidence.
My contention was that deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Paynes was the LEAST LIKELY explanation for the anomalie. Either you accept that contention or you reject it, which is it?
Do you have a cite for the PJ’s proposed reconstruction commencing at 5.30pm?
Finally, plenty of scope for error as far as DP’s written answers as relayed by DC Marshall are concerned then by the time they end up as translated from English into Portuguese and back again I would say.
-
My contention was that deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Paynes was the LEAST LIKELY explanation for the anomalie. Either you accept that contention or you reject it, which is it?
Do you have a cite for the PJ’s proposed reconstruction commencing at 5.30pm?
Finally, plenty of scope for error as far as DP’s written answers as relayed by DC Marshall are concerned then by the time they end up as translated from English into Portuguese and back again I would say.
I need to say it again? OK here it is, louder; I'M NOT INTERESTED IN SPECULATING AS TO WHY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE WAS WRONG.
The reconstruction in which the persons referred to previously would participate, as well as incidentally any other protagonist whose presence may be necessary in order to visualise the events, would take place between 17.30 and 23.00 on the 15th
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
If you wish to reject Marshall's evidence feel free. I haven't.
-
Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.
How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.
I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.
In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.
All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Did you really mean to write "According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents"? I thought Madeleine was still in creche at that time? If not cite please.
-
I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth, I think that suggestion was from you.
How do you misinterpret the written answer to a questionnaire? Apart from the fact that DP never said he saw MM at 7 pm.
It might have been from me re "I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth".
-
In my opinion you need to stop twisting what I say to fit your agenda. I didn't reject your contention, I said it was possible. It's you who think you know why Fiona's evidence was wrong, not me.
I researched the tennis timeline because the reconstitution by the PJ was planned to run from 5.30 pm, when MM was seen by an unconnected witness. I found that Fiona and Dianne's version was impossible according to the Paraiso CCTV and the evidence of the others.
The document read by DC Marshall isn't available to us, so my source document is his evidence.
So what exactly did "DC Marshall" say?
-
My contention was that deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Paynes was the LEAST LIKELY explanation for the anomalie. Either you accept that contention or you reject it, which is it?
Do you have a cite for the PJ’s proposed reconstruction commencing at 5.30pm?
Finally, plenty of scope for error as far as DP’s written answers as relayed by DC Marshall are concerned then by the time they end up as translated from English into Portuguese and back again I would say.
I need to say it again? OK here it is, louder; I'M NOT INTERESTED IN SPECULATING AS TO WHY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE WAS WRONG.
The reconstruction in which the persons referred to previously would participate, as well as incidentally any other protagonist whose presence may be necessary in order to visualise the events, would take place between 17.30 and 23.00 on the 15th
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
If you wish to reject Marshall's evidence feel free. I haven't.
First you say you are not rejecting my contention and that I have twisted your words and now you are refusing to reject or accept my contention. In future please do not falsely accuse me of twisting your words to fit an agenda, it’s rude. We all know some, even alot of the eyewitness evidence was wrong - SO WHAT???
-
So what exactly did "DC Marshall" say?
Whatever he said was translated into Portuguese and then back into English. He claims DP claims he went to Kate’s apartment and saw the kids at 5pm, ie before the kids were last seen by an independent witness at 5.30pm. Anyone with a brain can see that this is a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to deceive but apparently it needs to be highlighted in the name of research, why god only knows.
-
Whatever he said was translated into Portuguese and then back into English. He claims DP claims he went to Kate’s apartment and saw the kids at 5pm, ie before the kids were last seen by an independent witness at 5.30pm. Anyone with a brain can see that this is a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to deceive but apparently it needs to be highlighted in the name of research, why god only knows.
I would like to see the actual text if possible. I see there is some discussion about the letter at this site:
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t18646-foi-answer-from-leicestershire-police
"On October 24, 2007, DC Mike Marshall emailed Ricardo Paiva in Portugal with details of a witness statement he took from David and Fiona Payne. This 2-page letter was the frontispiece to 2 witness statements made by the Gaspars on May 16, 2007. In the 2-page letter, DC Marshall mentions a time (17H00) as it being the time that David Payne went to apartment 5A.
Was this time of 17H00 correct or was it a mistake and should it be 19H00? "
It appears to be an error for Kate was running and Gerry playing tennis and Madeleine at the creche at around that time.
-
Found the file reference to the email to Paiva
"Vol. XIII, Pages 3909-3915
To: Ricard Paiva - Polícia Judiciária
From: DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL - Leicester Police Constabulary
Ref: David Payne
Date: October 24, 2007
Ricardo,
As requested, appended are the statements of Arul and Katherina Gaspar.
I read carefully the written statements given by David Payne but was not able to extract 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’s apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. Similarly he does not indicate for how long he stayed.
When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and he cannot remember if anyone else was there.
He does not remember what he was wearing that afternoon.
He took part in the searches, having carried out most of them alone. He was at times accompanied by Matthew Oldfield.
He did not partake in the searches realized on the 4th of May, because, on this day, he spent to majority of time in the police headquarters.
For many of the questions, he does not give a complete answer, affirming simply that he has already given this information/declaration to the Portuguese police.
I examined 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 that 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to, if to Gerry or her own husband.
Her responses to the written questionnaire are vague, given that, she continues to answer to the questions with “they conform to my earlier deposition” or some similar statement. ...."
from https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/david-payne-may-hold-key-to-maddies.html
Same document can be found in the file.
-
Well this is what FP says in her rogatory interview:
"'Erm, and then I remember it getting to tennis time, because it was men's tennis that night and the men had all rearranged the time to suit us and it was getting towards six o'clock and, you know, they were going to be late, so I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six. And we were toying with the idea of getting the kids ice creams for pudding and then thought oh we probably don't have time, but then we decided well, you know, why don't you go off and go to your tennis and we'll just give them their ice cream and follow on. And so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time. And the, you know, the wives stayed behind with the kids, they had ice cream and then we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis and give the kids, you know, a little playtime. Erm, and I don't think we stayed there that long that night because the kids were pretty, pretty tired. Erm, I'm trying to think, I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer. Erm, I think we'd bathed the kids by the time he got back, probably ten minutes later. Erm, and then I went for a run that night, after the kids were bathed'."
Well that does sound like he was playing tennis at the time FP and DW left around 7:00 PM. That mention in that passage is the only time she mentions DP being there.
Fiona's recollection of when the boys actually left the Paraiso seems a bit out, as - assuming that is indeed Dave in this CCTV still, they were still there at 18:13:53.
Depending on how long they stood around still chatting before actually walking out, that could have been another few minutes before they actually set off.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/13_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3273.jpg)
-
She also said in her rog;
"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."
That statement is wrong. The women were still at the Paraiso at 6.36 and Kate says in her book that David went to see her at 6.40.
Who do you mean by the "women"? I can only see what looks like FP and DW in the CCTV still at 18:36.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/14_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3273.jpg)
-
Who do you mean by the "women"? I can only see what looks like FP and DW in the CCTV still at 18:36.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/14_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3273.jpg)
I see Jane bending down and they all said they returned together anyway.
-
After her husband arrived at the apartment Fiona went for a run.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
I wonder what this was about?
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
Re the first cited statement: "They arrived there around 15H45 and left at 18H15" Who's "they", as in who left when? The men do appear to have left at that time. ETA: Or rather were still there at 18:53.
Re the second, concerning the email from DC Mike Marshall. Consider it an "IMO" as I can't lay my hands on the document for the moment, but I'm 95% sure what he was referring to.
There was a statement floating around from Fiona. What I'm not sure of now is whether that ever made it into the files, or was a leak floating around the Internet at the time. If it's in the files, I can't find it again.
When I went through it, I noticed that part of it appeared to be in good English, and then the English seemed to suddenly change. My conclusion was that what DC Marshall read is probably the document that I'd read and that it was a draft of a partially language-edited version of her PT statement (bits of it were more Googlish).
-
I see Jane bending down and they all said they returned together anyway.
I can't see who's bending down, that could indeed be Jane. I don't see Rachel and not many kids. Some may have popped off to pay / go the loo or whatever and weren't in the CCTV snap. Or didn't all walk out at precisely the same minute.
-
Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.
How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.
I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.
In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.
All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.
1485
'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
Reply
'No'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
I don't find the DC's question that clear. "Between 6 and 7" - does that mean from 6 to 7, or within that time frame?
-
I don't find the DC's question that clear. "Between 6 and 7" - does that mean from 6 to 7, or within that time frame?
At any time between 6 and 7 imo.
-
I would like to see the actual text if possible. I see there is some discussion about the letter at this site:
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t18646-foi-answer-from-leicestershire-police
"On October 24, 2007, DC Mike Marshall emailed Ricardo Paiva in Portugal with details of a witness statement he took from David and Fiona Payne. This 2-page letter was the frontispiece to 2 witness statements made by the Gaspars on May 16, 2007. In the 2-page letter, DC Marshall mentions a time (17H00) as it being the time that David Payne went to apartment 5A.
Was this time of 17H00 correct or was it a mistake and should it be 19H00? "
It appears to be an error for Kate was running and Gerry playing tennis and Madeleine at the creche at around that time.
There are several mistakes in the files in noting time. The most outstanding one, IMO, is being an entire hour out.
I find it plausible that 7pm could be wrongly noted as 17:00, instead of 19:00. Easy enough to do in a rush.
I don't recall reading what Marshall was reading re David's document, but I do remember the one re Fiona. I'll post it if I come across it again.
-
There are several mistakes in the files in noting time. The most outstanding one, IMO, is being an entire hour out.
I find it plausible that 7pm could be wrongly noted as 17:00, instead of 19:00. Easy enough to do in a rush.
I don't recall reading what Marshall was reading re David's document, but I do remember the one re Fiona. I'll post it if I come across it again.
Why would David be using either 7, 17.00 or 19.00 in his questionnaire? He went to 5A at 6.30/40, not at those times. He also says both parents were present, and they weren't.
-
Why would David be using either 7, 17.00 or 19.00 in his questionnaire? He went to 5A at 6.30/40, not at those times. He also says both parents were present, and they weren't.
AS you don't do speculation yourself, why are you asking others to speculate?
-
Why would David be using either 7, 17.00 or 19.00 in his questionnaire? He went to 5A at 6.30/40, not at those times. He also says both parents were present, and they weren't.
I notice there are different ways of writing 17 hundred hours or 5 PM. 17:00 or 17H00 or 17.00 or 5:00.
What is the proper way?
-
AS you don't do speculation yourself, why are you asking others to speculate?
Not really, I was pointing out that the actual time was one of these; 18.30, 18.40, 6.30 or 6.40. Therefore 17.00 wasn't a reading or writing mistake related to the time the event happened.
-
Not really, I was pointing out that the actual time was one of these; 18.30, 18.40, 6.30 or 6.40. Therefore 17.00 wasn't a reading or writing mistake related to the time the event happened.
In Your Opinion. I can't see how you know what DP wrote on the questionnaire unless you can show it to us.
-
Why would David be using either 7, 17.00 or 19.00 in his questionnaire? He went to 5A at 6.30/40, not at those times. He also says both parents were present, and they weren't.
What "questionnaire"?
-
What "questionnaire"?
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne.".......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.
DC Maeshall
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
-
In Your Opinion. I can't see how you know what DP wrote on the questionnaire unless you can show it to us.
In my opinion DC Marshall has no reason to lie.
-
In my opinion DC Marshall has no reason to lie.
Was his memo translated from English into Portuguese and back into English, out of interest?
-
Was his memo translated from English into Portuguese and back into English, out of interest?
If the watermark signifies the original, I would think that it was retranslated.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3910.jpg
But I don't think that that's the issue.
-
If the watermark signifies the original, I would think that it was retranslated.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3910.jpg
But I don't think that that's the issue.
without his original document it's impossible to know what he actually wrote and may have been changed in translation.
-
There was a half-edited translation of JT's statement floating around at some point. I remember it because it stated somethig to the effect that she noticed that the child was covered with a blanket, which was the opposite of her actual statement and later her rog that stated that she noticed the child precisely because she wasn't covered.
It was clear to me at the time that part of the statement had been language-edited, but that the rest wasn't in normal English. No idea where I saw that - either it's in one of the apensos files, or it was a leak prior to the files being uploaded.
-
without his original document it's impossible to know what he actually wrote and may have been changed in translation.
Agreed.
One possibility, which I find plausible, is that DCI Marshall was asked to look over whatever he had in his files, which may have been a half-finished translation or a draft of some kind.
It's not clear what he means by "questionnaire". Was this something separate from the PJ interviews, or was it a term to cover the nature of the PJ statement that might not have corresponded to a typical UK-style interview?
-
If the watermark signifies the original, I would think that it was retranslated.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3909.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3910.jpg
But I don't think that that's the issue.
Strange how some words are in a bolder font than others in the second photo. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3910.jpg
-
Strange how some words are in a bolder font than others in the second photo. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3910.jpg
Perhaps this note, added by the translator, at the top of one of the other pages explains the problem.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LIZELLE_MARAIS.htm
NOTE: There are several OCR errors in this statement, all created when it was burned to the DVD. I have either made a "best guess" or ignored them, so the translation is not always word-for-word
-
Agreed.
One possibility, which I find plausible, is that DCI Marshall was asked to look over whatever he had in his files, which may have been a half-finished translation or a draft of some kind.
It's not clear what he means by "questionnaire". Was this something separate from the PJ interviews, or was it a term to cover the nature of the PJ statement that might not have corresponded to a typical UK-style interview?
I took it to be the questionnaires sent out by LP to all those who had been in PdL on 3rd May.
-
I took it to be the questionnaires sent out by LP to all those who had been in PdL on 3rd May.
I don't find it clear at all. There are indeed references to "questionnaires" regarding various odd-bods... but the T7?
What access did the UK police have to contact information for "all those who had been in PdL on 3rd May" ? Locals? Holiday-makers? UK holiday-makers? An invitation to those who sent in photos to CEOP?
-
I don't find it clear at all. There are indeed references to "questionnaires" regarding various odd-bods... but the T7?
What access did the UK police have to contact information for "all those who had been in PdL on 3rd May" ? Locals? Holiday-makers? UK holiday-makers? An invitation to those who sent in photos to CEOP?
I think the holiday makers would have supplied home addresses to the travel companies, so on the whole they would have been easy to contact.
-
Perhaps this note, added by the translator, at the top of one of the other pages explains the problem.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LIZELLE_MARAIS.htm
NOTE: There are several OCR errors in this statement, all created when it was burned to the DVD. I have either made a "best guess" or ignored them, so the translation is not always word-for-word
Not sure that it's an OCR problem, but possibly due to a quick scanning process, or else some statements were done on a typewriter, with typos or mistakes whitened out and retyped in the space.
-
I think the holiday makers would have supplied home addresses to the travel companies, so on the whole they would have been easy to contact.
Not everyone present in PDL that day / night would have been on a holiday package, nor even on holiday. That said, even if they managed to send out some questionnaires, I find it to be a good step to take.
My question is whether the T7 would have also received one, when they'd already been interviewed by the PJ.
An alternative is that the UK police described the T7 statements as responses to questionnaires, as the interviews may not have been described as such in a UK context. If that's the case, then my recollection of a couple of statements, half in correct English and half in "raw" form, is possibly all they had to go one.
I could be quite wrong, no idea. Howevder, another reason for thinking that the latter might be the case is that if you look at the translator fee documents in the files, I don't see how they could have covered the supposed volume.
-
I don't find it clear at all. There are indeed references to "questionnaires" regarding various odd-bods... but the T7?
What access did the UK police have to contact information for "all those who had been in PdL on 3rd May" ? Locals? Holiday-makers? UK holiday-makers? An invitation to those who sent in photos to CEOP?
Questionnaires were developed for all UK citizens who were resident in PdL around the time Madeleine went missing. 559 were completed.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf
DC Marshall mentioned 'questionnaires' in connection to the Paynes, and DC Gierc confirms that the T7 completed questionnaires;
Jane TANNER's Questionnaire states that she returned to the UK from Praia Da Luz on 17th May 2007. The Additional Family Member Questionnaire, for Russell O'BRIEN, gives his height as 6'6".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ASSORTED_SIGHTINGS_6.htm
-
Questionnaires were developed for all UK citizens who were resident in PdL around the time Madeleine went missing. 559 were completed.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf
DC Marshall mentioned 'questionnaires' in connection to the Paynes, and DC Gierc confirms that the T7 completed questionnaires;
Jane TANNER's Questionnaire states that she returned to the UK from Praia Da Luz on 17th May 2007. The Additional Family Member Questionnaire, for Russell O'BRIEN, gives his height as 6'6".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ASSORTED_SIGHTINGS_6.htm
Thanks. Just found the mention of your paraphrased cite on p. 8. It states UK citizens who were resident. Would that include 1-2 week holiday-makers? Or UK resident ex-pats and those with holiday homes?
The wording doesn't correspond to questionnaires sent to everyone in PDL that day / night, which was my initial query re your comment.
-
Thanks. Just found the mention of your paraphrased cite on p. 8. It states UK citizens who were resident. Would that include 1-2 week holiday-makers? Or UK resident ex-pats and those with holiday homes?
The wording doesn't correspond to questionnaires sent to everyone in PDL that day / night, which was my initial query re your comment.
Not really surprising if it was issued by UK police and related only to UK citizens
-
Thanks. Just found the mention of your paraphrased cite on p. 8. It states UK citizens who were resident. Would that include 1-2 week holiday-makers? Or UK resident ex-pats and those with holiday homes?
The wording doesn't correspond to questionnaires sent to everyone in PDL that day / night, which was my initial query re your comment.
The word 'resident' was used by the UK police, so I can't say who they were referring to. However, if the Paynes and O'Briens had questionnaires we can assume that all Mark Warner guests received them. Only the police could tell you who else got them.