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: Robin Banks on May 19, 2018, 10:42:38 PM
-
$6(&
-
This example has always puzzled me.
----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo' [coat?], with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner.
But Gerry couldn't remember what his Wife was wearing on the evening of May 3rd 2007 whilst dining out at the Tapas bar.
In the first instance, it sounds as if he was asked to try to remember anyone potentially suspicious or who had drawn his atttention for some reason and this the morning after the disappearance.
How long was it before the PJ asked him what Kate was wearing that night? Would there have been any reason that would stick in his mind? It would only have been a combination of whatever few garments she'd stuffed in their
bags, hardly as notable as her wedding dress, presumably.
-
Gerry completely missed the drama of the sick O'Brien child;
After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened. He thinks that, on that night none of the adults nor children were ill. Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday.
He also forgot that Kate went for a run after their afternoon tennis lesson on 3rd while he played on with Julian. according to Kate. The tennis sheets have this time down as 'Tennis Clinic' each day between 4.30 and 5.30;
The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
What is meant by the term “selective memory” in this context?
-
What is meant by the term “selective memory” in this context?
An ability to remember some facts while apparently forgetting others, especially when they are inconvenient.
Some other examples include forgetting by which door he entered the apartment for the 9pm check and on which side of the public road he had the short chat with Jez.
-
An ability to remember some facts while apparently forgetting others, especially when they are inconvenient.
Some other examples include forgetting by which door he entered the apartment for the 9pm check and on which side of the public road he had the short chat with Jez.
So does anyone serioudly think that what Kate was wearing that night was an “inconvenient fact”? It seems this thread is about accusing Gerry of lying by omission, unless I am very much mistaken?
-
So does anyone serioudly think that what Kate was wearing that night was an “inconvenient fact”? It seems this thread is about accusing Gerry of lying by omission, unless I am very much mistaken?
I think that Gerry remembering so much detail about someone he saw for a few seconds several days before and not remembering what his wife was wearing who he saw for a whole evening is certainly interesting.
-
An ability to remember some facts while apparently forgetting others, especially when they are inconvenient.
Some other examples include forgetting by which door he entered the apartment for the 9pm check and on which side of the public road he had the short chat with Jez.
You could also add to that what he actually saw when he looked in on his daughter... was she lying on top of the covers as HE said he left her (when was this?) OR under the covers when Kate left her (when was this?). They both claimed to had checked the children before leaving for the pub grub and free wine. Did they both lookin together at the same time at 8.30ish.
Removing JT's bogieman, and dismissing Gerrys doting dad moment-this leaves a new time frame of over one and half hours...
-
I think that Gerry remembering so much detail about someone he saw for a few seconds several days before and not remembering what his wife was wearing who he saw for a whole evening is the certainly interesting.
Yes, amazing.
-
I think that Gerry remembering so much detail about someone he saw for a few seconds several days before and not remembering what his wife was wearing who he saw for a whole evening is certainly interesting.
Interesting in what way? Isn't husbands not taking much notice of what their wives are wearing a fairly commonplace occurence?
-
Kate tells us in her book that Gerry and David went out searching together, and that she and Gerry went out searching together. Either Gerry forgot this searching or he thought of it as something else. He certainly didn't refer to it in his defence when questioned;
When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
At least Gerry remembered enough to be able to answer the police questions unlike Kate who chose not to.
-
Interesting in what way? Isn't husbands not taking much notice of what their wives are wearing a fairly commonplace occurence?
Hahahaha that ole chestnut.
ofcourse similar episode on that day... DP could not remember what Kate was wearing when he went on THAT visit when Gerry told him to go and do- well he can't reacall but any way. He noticed the children were like little angels wearing pyjamas, but failed to recall Kate was wearing just a towel as she had been in a shower?
did Kate become invisible, did she change clothes a lot that day?
-
So does anyone serioudly think that what Kate was wearing that night was an “inconvenient fact”? It seems this thread is about accusing Gerry of lying by omission, unless I am very much mistaken?
The police had to determine whether she had changed her clothing so enquiring as to what she was wearing that night seems an obvious choice of question. *%87
-
Hahahaha that ole chestnut.
ofcourse similar episode on that day... DP could not remember what Kate was wearing when he went on THAT visit when Gerry told him to go and do- well he can't reacall but any way. He noticed the children were like little angels wearing pyjamas, but failed to recall Kate was wearing just a towel as she had been in a shower?
did Kate become invisible, did she change clothes a lot that day?
Depending on which version one chooses to believe, one has a choice between Payne didn't enter the apartment or he did and stayed for a while. One just has to wonder who's embarrassment was being spared? The entire period between Maddie being last seen in public after 6pm and Kate raising the alarm shortly after 10pm appears to be sprinkled with mistaken memories and enigmas.
-
Depending on which version one chooses to believe, one has a choice between Payne didn't enter the apartment or he did and stayed for a while. One just has to wonder who's embarrassment was being spared? The entire period between Maddie being last seen in public after 6pm and Kate raising the alarm shortly after 10pm appears to be sprinkled with mistaken memories and enigmas.
Hit that on the nail Angelo... 8((()*/
-
The police had to determine whether she had changed her clothing so enquiring as to what she was wearing that night seems an obvious choice of question. *%87
I'm not questioning the question, merely the inference that Gerry was hiding something by his "selective memory" - presumably there would have been numerous other witnesses as to what Kate was wearing that night, so I don't really see what Gerry has to gain by "forgetting" this detail.
-
I'm not questioning the question, merely the inference that Gerry was hiding something by his "selective memory" - presumably there would have been numerous other witnesses as to what Kate was wearing that night, so I don't really see what Gerry has to gain by "forgetting" this detail.
The point is he probably genuinely didn't remember what his wife was wearing but is it therefore believable that he then remembered in such clear detail a man he had only seen for a few seconds days before ? Was he sewing the seeds of suspicion and playin* on people’s prejudices ?
-
The point is he probably genuinely didn't remember what his wife was wearing but is it therefore believable that he then remembered in such clear detail a man he had only seen for a few seconds days before ? Was he sewing the seeds of suspicion and playin* on people’s prejudices ?
Do you mean the guy who he described as " he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner" - sowing the seeds of suspicion by saying he wasn't acting suspiciously? A novel approach I grant you!
-
Do you mean the guy who he described as " he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner" - sowing the seeds of suspicion by saying he wasn't acting suspiciously? A novel approach I grant you!
Do you really think Gerry would be ‘that’ obvious ?
-
Do you really think Gerry would be ‘that’ obvious ?
You seem to think you know him better than most, so I will bow to your greater knowledge of how the man's mind works.
-
You seem to think you know him better than most, so I will bow to your greater knowledge of how the man's mind works.
A silly question IMO - asking a man what his wife was wearing. Should have been asked about the aerobics instructor instead. No problems.
-
You seem to think you know him better than most, so I will bow to your greater knowledge of how the man's mind works.
Not that man but men very similar.
-
Not that man but men very similar.
Oh dear.
-
Oh dear.
I'm all dizzy.
-
The point is he probably genuinely didn't remember what his wife was wearing but is it therefore believable that he then remembered in such clear detail a man he had only seen for a few seconds days before ? Was he sewing the seeds of suspicion and playin* on people’s prejudices ?
But then we have to think if Kate had to change her clothes that day, and this was significant in some way,by saying he can't remember will absolve him of any further questioning in this matter.
-
$6(&
-
Gerry McCann spent an hour and a half with his Wife before he went for dinner on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007 drinking wine and beer and chatting, He spent a further hour and a half with his Wife over dinner, minus minutes during checking the Children's welfare, but he couldn't recall what his Wife was wearing on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007. But Gerry McCann describes an individual he see's on the beach trip for a couple of minutes in great depth, oh, hold a minute folks, Gerry can't remember what footwear he's wearing, but everything else. &%%6
Maybe it’s because the guy was performing and Gerry was watching him do so for several minutes, whereas how much scrutiny does a husband generally give his wife of several years (or vice versa?) I can’t recall what my partner was wearing yesterday with any clarity, though almost certainly jeans were involved. I can remember what Amal Clooney wore on Saturday quite clearly though - lol.
-
Depending on which version one chooses to believe, one has a choice between Payne didn't enter the apartment or he did and stayed for a while. One just has to wonder who's embarrassment was being spared? The entire period between Maddie being last seen in public after 6pm and Kate raising the alarm shortly after 10pm appears to be sprinkled with mistaken memories and enigmas.
Seems really OTT...why did he go into so much detail...too much info imo
Why did he have to stress on so much in so little time he was there. bit like the proud father moment
What was he expecting chaos ...because gmccann wasn't there. [g wasn't there but they were so at peace]
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Seems really OTT...why did he go into so much detail...too much info imo
Why did he have to stress on so much in so little time he was there. bit like the proud father moment
What was he expecting chaos ...because gmccann wasn't there. [g wasn't there but they were so at peace]
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Could it be that he waxed so lyrical because he was recalling events in the knowledge that just a few short hours later Madeleine had disappeared and this was the last time all children and mother were together?
-
Seems really OTT...why did he go into so much detail...too much info imo
Why did he have to stress on so much in so little time he was there. bit like the proud father moment
What was he expecting chaos ...because gmccann wasn't there. [g wasn't there but they were so at peace]
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So did he go to 5A at 6.30 or 6.40 as Kate remembered it? Did he pop back to report to Gerry then go to his apartment until 7.00, or did he just stay away until 7.00?
Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where 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
-
Could it be that he waxed so lyrical because he was recalling events in the knowledge that just a few short hours later Madeleine had disappeared and this was the last time all children and mother were together?
But he would not have known that at the time so would have had no real reason to remember it.
-
But he would not have known that at the time so would have had no real reason to remember it.
As I said he was waxing lyrical with the benefit of hindsight - IMO. In the same way that so many people can recall in great detail the last mundane moments spent with a missing person many years after the event, even though at the time they didn't know it was the last time they would see them. No doubt if Madeleine had not gone missing this last encounter with the family of three kids would barely have registered in the memory a year later. IMO..
-
Imagine your kid coming down for breakfast, having a chat about the forthcoming school day, cracking a joke about something said on the radio and then walking out the door at 8.30am. If he comes home that evening then a week later pretty much everything said and done on that morning is likely to have faded from your memory. If he doesn't come home that night or any subsequent day then you are naturally going to play over in your mind the last moments you spent with him and will undoubtedly remember them years later. Which part of this is so difficult for people to understand?
-
So did he go to 5A at 6.30 or 6.40 as Kate remembered it? Did he pop back to report to Gerry then go to his apartment until 7.00, or did he just stay away until 7.00?
Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where 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
Do you uynderstand the movements that Gerry is saying David made? " He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where 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." is all from Gerry's arguido statement.
Can you break each movement down to a specific time?
"He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later." When was this?
Regarding his previous statement where 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." Does that mean half an hour after some earlier event?
-
Imagine your kid coming down for breakfast, having a chat about the forthcoming school day, cracking a joke about something said on the radio and then walking out the door at 8.30am. If he comes home that evening then a week later pretty much everything said and done on that morning is likely to have faded from your memory. If he doesn't come home that night or any subsequent day then you are naturally going to play over in your mind the last moments you spent with him and will undoubtedly remember them years later. Which part of this is so difficult for people to understand?
But we’re not talking about the last moments are we, we are talking about days before.
-
But we’re not talking about the last moments are we, we are talking about days before.
Possibly the day before.
-
Could it be that he waxed so lyrical because he was recalling events in the knowledge that just a few short hours later Madeleine had disappeared and this was the last time all children and mother were together?
Well more like to look how well she was coping imo......to take in as much as what he did.
You just don't go to them lengths unless there is a reason.
He remembers every detail were at the time he did not know it was going to be the last time he saw her
-
But we’re not talking about the last moments are we, we are talking about days before.
We are talking about David Payne's recollection of his visit to Apartment 5a on the evening of 3rd May.
-
We are talking about David Payne's recollection of his visit to Apartment 5a on the evening of 3rd May.
No we’re talking about Gerry McCann’s selective memory.
-
No we’re talking about Gerry McCann’s selective memory.
I was responding to post #28.
-
Do you uynderstand the movements that Gerry is saying David made? " He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where 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." is all from Gerry's arguido statement.
Can you break each movement down to a specific time?
"He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later." When was this?
Regarding his previous statement where 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." Does that mean half an hour after some earlier event?
According to Gerry McCann;
18.30 David arrives at tennis courts, speaks to Gerry and then goes to see Kate.
A few minutes later he comes back, says Kate OK and Gerry can play on.
David then goes to his apartment, gets ready for tennis and returns at 19.00
According to Dianne and Fiona David was playing tennis when they arrived at the courts, and we know they arrived before seven. They say he returned to his own apartment at 19.10.
-
According to Gerry McCann;
18.30 David arrives at tennis courts, speaks to Gerry and then goes to see Kate.
A few minutes later he comes back, says Kate OK and Gerry can play on.
David then goes to his apartment, gets ready for tennis and returns at 19.00
According to Dianne and Fiona David was playing tennis when they arrived at the courts, and we know they arrived before seven. They say he returned to his own apartment at 19.10.
All the more reason the McCanns, their tapas friends and a few others should have been compelled to return to Luz to take part in a construction of everything where the stories didn't add up. It could still be done if the Portuguese grew a backbone and stopped pandering to international political interference.
-
All the more reason the McCanns, their tapas friends and a few others should have been compelled to return to Luz to take part in a construction of everything where the stories didn't add up.
you really think they would have been asked to reconstruct events from throughout the day?!
-
you really think they would have been asked to reconstruct events from throughout the day?!
That is how police determine who is being evasive.
-
That is how police determine who is being evasive.
So do you think the reconstitution would have to cover pretty much the whole holiday just to see if what each member was saying could actually have happened as they said?
-
So do you think the reconstitution would have to cover pretty much the whole holiday just to see if what each member was saying could actually have happened as they said?
I am sure they would have been interested in the group dynamic.
-
I am sure they would have been interested in the group dynamic.
And how would they have tested this in a reconstitution do you think?
-
you really think they would have been asked to reconstruct events from throughout the day?!
Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 17.30. That would have been a good start point imo.
-
Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 17.30. That would have been a good start point imo.
SO talk me through how they would reconstitute bathing the kids and putting them to bed. Would you have Gerry and Kate quaffing a few drinks at the apartment before setting off for the tapas at 8.30pm? It's nonsensical and a complete waste of time.
-
SO talk me through how they would reconstitute bathing the kids and putting them to bed. Would you have Gerry and Kate quaffing a few drinks at the apartment before setting off for the tapas at 8.30pm? It's nonsensical and a complete waste of time.
The archiving report detailed what the PJ wanted to reconstruct. It was quite clear what specifically Rebelo needed clarified.
-
SO talk me through how they would reconstitute bathing the kids and putting them to bed. Would you have Gerry and Kate quaffing a few drinks at the apartment before setting off for the tapas at 8.30pm? It's nonsensical and a complete waste of time.
This post is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum.
No bid.
-
The archiving report detailed what the PJ wanted to reconstruct. It was quite clear what specifically Rebelo needed clarified.
and I don’t suppose it included tennis matches and the children’s bedtimes.
-
This post is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum.
No bid.
No, what is absurd are the two suggestions here that the reconstitution should have covered the men playing tennis and everything that happened from5.30pm onwards, which in case you hadn’t noticed, covered the period of putting children to bed and getting ready to go out.
-
This post is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum.
No bid.
No it is a good point for even GA makes a mention of the wine being consumed.
-
Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 17.30. That would have been a good start point imo.
$6(&
-
and I don’t suppose it included tennis matches and the children’s bedtimes.
No it didn’t but then I didn’t suggest it did.
-
No it didn’t but then I didn’t suggest it did.
I know you didn’t, others did though.
-
I know you didn’t, others did though.
But your reply wasn’t to anyone else it was to me. Can I suggest if you want to answer a specific question you do so under that question and not under my point.
-
But your reply wasn’t to anyone else it was to me. Can I suggest if you want to answer a specific question you do so under that question and not under my point.
the post you made was in reply to mine and did not pose any question. I had the right of reply and did so. If you don’t like my replies I recommend you don’t respond to any of my posts henceforth.
-
No, what is absurd are the two suggestions here that the reconstitution should have covered the men playing tennis and everything that happened from5.30pm onwards, which in case you hadn’t noticed, covered the period of putting children to bed and getting ready to go out.
So far you have done nothing to convince me your post(s) extend beyond you believe it is daft simply because you wish to say it is so.
There is hardly a cogent argument proferred by your goodself to substantiate why the investigators would not wish to test statements to the point, if you will, "does it all hang together from 17:30 til 22:00" ?
-
So far you have done nothing to convince me your post(s) extend beyond you believe it is daft simply because you wish to say it is so.
There is hardly a cogent argument proferred by your goodself to substantiate why the investigators would not wish to test statements to the point, if you will, "does it all hang together from 17:30 til 22:00" ?
Perhaps there’s a clue in the fact that not even the PJ considered it necessary to reconstitute the men playing tennis or the parents putting their kids to bed, probably because it would have been an entirely pointless exercise that would reveal nothing more than a few witnesses remembered coming and going from one to the other at slightly different times, and would also necessitate the presence of the children, hardly fair or beneficial to anyone to drag them into it. But guess what? I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything as you strike me as the sort that would argue the sky was pink if I suggested it was blue.
-
Perhaps there’s a clue in the fact that not even the PJ considered it necessary to reconstitute the men playing tennis or the parents putting their kids to bed, probably because it would have been an entirely pointless exercise that would reveal nothing more than a few witnesses remembered coming and going from one to the other at slightly different times, and would also necessitate the presence of the children, hardly fair or beneficial to anyone to drag them into it. But guess what? I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything as you strike me as the sort that would argue the sky was pink if I suggested it was blue.
Did the PJ ever define what part of the night they wanted reconstructed? Was it just whether Jane could pass by Gerry and Jez and not be seen? Or was it how Matt did his check?
I can't see how any of those could be reconstructed and for all the previous scenarios that played out for the week would not be replicated.
-
3 - The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;
5 - The re-enactment will be carried out with the attendance of the nine holidaying friends, as well as, incidentally, any figurant considered to be necessary for a visualization of the events, i.e. a man carrying a child;
14 - The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.
Paulo Rebelo
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
-
3 - The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;
5 - The re-enactment will be carried out with the attendance of the nine holidaying friends, as well as, incidentally, any figurant considered to be necessary for a visualization of the events, i.e. a man carrying a child;
14 - The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.
Paulo Rebelo
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
But you could imagine the chaos for how can people re-enact the night in a logical way. If it was like a movie it takes hours to film just a minute of the final movie. You could not expect someone to follow the exact same steps they had a year before, as I doubt if it could be remembered accurately.
-
3 - The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;
5 - The re-enactment will be carried out with the attendance of the nine holidaying friends, as well as, incidentally, any figurant considered to be necessary for a visualization of the events, i.e. a man carrying a child;
14 - The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.
Paulo Rebelo
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Interesting that Rebelo acknowledges the “total cooperation “ of the Tapas group towards finding out the truth (up until that point anyway - aren’t we always being told the complete opposite by McCann critics?)
-
Interesting that Rebelo acknowledges the “total cooperation “ of the Tapas group towards finding out the truth (up until that point anyway - aren’t we always being told the complete opposite by McCann critics?)
If he wanted them to attend he was more likely to persuade them with a carrot rather than a stick. As usual, the group had their own point of view. The Oldfields said;
We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
In my opinion that demonstrates the core problem with this case. The Tapas group are adamant that Madeleine was abducted, she is out there somewhere to be found, and the PJ should be concentrating on searching for her, not trying to verify their movements.
I find it difficult to understand why they refused, because if they were confident that their story was correct, the best way to convince the PJ would have been to show them how it all happened. Their reluctance can be interpreted as fear of being 'stitched up', but it can also be interpreted as fear of being shown to have got their timeline wrong, in my opinion.
-
If he wanted them to attend he was more likely to persuade them with a carrot rather than a stick. As usual, the group had their own point of view. The Oldfields said;
We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
In my opinion that demonstrates the core problem with this case. The Tapas group are adamant that Madeleine was abducted, she is out there somewhere to be found, and the PJ should be concentrating on searching for her, not trying to verify their movements.
I find it difficult to understand why they refused, because if they were confident that their story was correct, the best way to convince the PJ would have been to show them how it all happened. Their reluctance can be interpreted as fear of being 'stitched up', but it can also be interpreted as fear of being shown to have got their timeline wrong, in my opinion.
Why didn’t the PJ make it clear to the group how a reconstitution would help to find Madeleine or benefit the search for her?
-
Why didn’t the PJ make it clear to the group how a reconstitution would help to find Madeleine or benefit the search for her?
In my opinion both you and the group are aware that that wasn't the purpose of the reconstitution.
-
In my opinion both you and the group are aware that that wasn't the purpose of the reconstitution.
well what do you think it was?
-
What on earth happened to Gerry McCann's alleged "selective memories"? Have we run out of them already?
Please stick to the thread topic or expect off topic posts to be deleted. Thank you.
-
In my opinion both you and the group are aware that that wasn't the purpose of the reconstitution.
Then what was the purpose of it? I realise this is off topic, so maybe we could use the last few posts to start a new thread about it.
-
Then what was the purpose of it? I realise this is off topic, so maybe we could use the last few posts to start a new thread about it.
8((()*/ Good thinking! Sorry to be pedantic about it ... being very prone to doing a bit of wandering myself ... but I think if we go to the bother of starting threads on a particular issue we should at least make the attempt to confine discussion to that.
-
What on earth happened to Gerry McCann's alleged "selective memories"? Have we run out of them already?
Please stick to the thread topic or expect off topic posts to be deleted. Thank you.
When Gerry and the other T9 were to do their re-enactment would be using their selective memory. That is why I thought the re-enactment was still on topic.
-
When Gerry and the other T9 were to do their re-enactment would be using their selective memory. That is why I thought the re-enactment was still on topic.
Yes, whose selective memory would the PJ have selected as being the right one, and based on what, one wonders....
-
When Gerry and the other T9 were to do their re-enactment would be using their selective memory. That is why I thought the re-enactment was still on topic.
LOL, Robitty, I'm not actually sure how one would describe "selective memory" anyway. It is all a matter of opinion and rank amateur opinion at that ... in my opinion.
Some events stand out in memory and some are completely forgotten. Whenever reminiscing with old friends about certain shared events in our past I am always amazed at the different perspectives in which we viewed things at the time and what memories we carried forward from that as a result.
Good for a laugh if nothing else.
In my opinion it is horribly presumptive and intrusive to presume to know what another person should and should not remember. I doubt there is a member on this board who would appreciate in the slightest a similar pseudo psychiatric assessment being carried out on them. Memories and the working of the mind are very personal and subjective and are not in my opinion for scoring a few debating points directed against a named individual using what is highly likely to be suspect data anyway.
-
LOL, Robitty, I'm not actually sure how one would describe "selective memory" anyway. It is all a matter of opinion and rank amateur opinion at that ... in my opinion.
Some events stand out in memory and some are completely forgotten. Whenever reminiscing with old friends about certain shared events in our past I am always amazed at the different perspectives in which we viewed things at the time and what memories we carried forward from that as a result.
Good for a laugh if nothing else.
In my opinion it is horribly presumptive and intrusive to presume to know what another person should and should not remember. I doubt there is a member on this board who would appreciate in the slightest a similar pseudo psychiatric assessment being carried out on them. Memories and the working of the mind are very personal and subjective and are not in my opinion for scoring a few debating points directed against a named individual using what is highly likely to be suspect data anyway.
IMO many people have been convicted due to juries considering their inability to remember pertinent facts suspicious.
-
IMO many people have been convicted due to juries considering their inability to remember pertinent facts suspicious.
Can you give us some examples?
-
Well more like to look how well she was coping imo......to take in as much as what he did.
You just don't go to them lengths unless there is a reason.
He remembers every detail were at the time he did not know it was going to be the last time he saw her
Why did gmccann as D P to chech all was ok...didnt he say DP only stayed a couple of minutes ...or was something going on he says he went in and obviously stayed long enough to know that kate wasn't in a mood imo
00:39:55 Reply "But err certainly enough time just to see, you know, certainly the apartment, there was nothing that was untoward, that was you know err the children all looked extremely happy,
there was no, you know signs of any problems with err you know Kate, you know or indeed the relationship that Kate had got with any of the three children. None of the children had been told off, none of the children looked like they were you know in trouble for anything, you know they were err still all talking and playing around. Err so you know it was just a very err transient you know that I'd gone in there, but as I say it just struck me how well they all looked.'
-
Can you give us some examples?
I doubt Slarti could for the deliberations of the jury are fairly well guarded. To know how a particular juror operated would be even more difficult to ascertain, so maybe Slarti is actually describing some personal event.
-
I doubt Slarti could for the deliberations of the jury are fairly well guarded. To know how a particular juror operated would be even more difficult to ascertain, so maybe Slarti is actually describing some personal event.
Lol, maybe.
-
Lol, maybe.
Each member of the jury has their own method and reason for determining whether a person is guilty or not. I've never been on a jury panel so I have no idea of how it operates within a person's head. Do they have to explain themselves to the others?
-
Each member of the jury has their own method and reason for determining whether a person is guilty or not. I've never been on a jury panel so I have no idea of how it operates withing a person's head. Do they have to explain themselves to the others?
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service
https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/5222-eng.pdf
-
Each member of the jury has their own method and reason for determining whether a person is guilty or not. I've never been on a jury panel so I have no idea of how it operates withing a person's head. Do they have to explain themselves to the others?
I think as a juror I would take a dim view of another juror citing a defenant’s imperfect memory as a reason for declaring them guilty, but then everyone’s different I guess.
-
I think as a juror I would take a dim view of another juror citing a defendant’s imperfect memory as a reason for declaring them guilty, but then everyone’s different I guess.
If they agreed with you over all would you still take a dim view? Like if you thought they were guilty and and so did they and one of the reasons they thought was the "defendant’s imperfect memory as a reason for declaring them guilty" would you care?
-
If they agreed with you over all would you still take a dim view? Like if you thought they were guilty and and so did they and one of the reasons they thought was the "defendant’s imperfect memory as a reason for declaring them guilty" would you you care?
I’d have to base my decision on solid, hard evidence, not my suspicions or vague notions based on a defendant’s inability to remember certain ‘pertinent’ details (like what time they left the tennis court - lol).
-
I’d have to base my decision on solid, hard evidence, not my suspicions or vague notions based on a defendant’s inability to remember certain ‘pertinent’ details (like what time they left the tennis court - lol).
Have you had to do jury service?
-
Have you had to do jury service?
No.
-
No.
I've done it twice and my husband once.
-
I've done it twice and my husband once.
I’ve done it...
-
I’ve done it...
Me too; in the days of Quarter Sessions [pre 1972 & 1974 acts]. IIRC back in those days jurors had to be property owners. It was an eye opener not to mention very informative.
"After the trial you mustn’t talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom"
-
So far you have done nothing to convince me your post(s) extend beyond you believe it is daft simply because you wish to say it is so.
There is hardly a cogent argument proferred by your goodself to substantiate why the investigators would not wish to test statements to the point, if you will, "does it all hang together from 17:30 til 22:00" ?
Yes why test the statements from 17:30-22:00 these are very articulate, intelligent doctors for goodness sake.
Well maybe not as articulate as is first presented- So being a police service they probably thought it best to just check anyway. you know leaving no stones chucked at them for trying...
Ofcourse, all one has to say is. 'I can't remember'. So why were they trying to make a time line fit. why object to having this verified?
-
Yes why test the statements from 17:30-22:00 these are very articulate, intelligent doctors for goodness sake.
Well maybe not as articulate as is first presented- So being a police service they probably thought it best to just check anyway. you know leaving no stones chucked at them for trying...
Ofcourse, all one has to say is. 'I can't remember'. So why were they trying to make a time line fit. why object to having this verified?
Exactly - and the answer to why is?
-
Exactly - and the answer to why is?
Because they are well educated articulate(?) doctors and that is what articulate(?) well educated doctors do [apparently].
Us mere peons cannot aspire to understand the machinations of the well educated and articulate(?) mind.[apparently ...again]
-
Because they are well educated articulate(?) doctors and that is what articulate(?) well educated doctors do [apparently].
Us mere peons cannot aspire to understand the machinations of the well educated and articulate(?) mind.[apparently ...again]
Well obviously I failed to articulate the question I was asking: "why were they trying to make a time line fit".
-
Because they are well educated articulate(?) doctors and that is what articulate(?) well educated doctors do [apparently].
Us mere peons cannot aspire to understand the machinations of the well educated and articulate(?) mind.[apparently ...again]
@)(++(* I never mentioned well educated.. stop it Alice hahahaha!
You know... I err.. um I might .. it may have.. well actually the thing is ,you know errr I could have got that quote err because you know, it may have been wrong.
Very intelligent and highly articulate.. yes, I am sure, but I maybe, you know, sort of...err... yes... um well . you know.
And being so afflicted with such a burden, they must make the time line fit. Otherwise, It won't fit, and then what do we do? oh yes we become suspicious...
-
I’d have to base my decision on solid, hard evidence, not my suspicions or vague notions based on a defendant’s inability to remember certain ‘pertinent’ details (like what time they left the tennis court - lol).
No reasoned rationale would enter your discussions then?
-
No reasoned rationale would enter your discussions then?
Oh, I’m sitting on a jury in a court of law now am I?
-
Oh, I’m sitting on a jury in a court of law now am I?
The Court of Social Media.
-
Oh, I’m sitting on a jury in a court of law now am I?
According to you, yes. Relying on hard evidence and not speculating, apparently.
-
Oh, I’m sitting on a jury in a court of law now am I?
It is up to each juror to decide how much weight to give to each witness evidence.
-
According to you, yes. Relying on hard evidence and not speculating, apparently.
As a member of a jury in a court of law yes of course, on an internet chat room where no one’s liberty is at stake I’m a little more relaxed and permit myself to speculate.
-
As a member of a jury in a court of law yes of course, on an internet chat room where no one’s liberty is at stake I’m a little more relaxed and permit myself to speculate.
Theories or conjectures which have no supporting evidence are unlikely to convince whatever the setting.
-
Theories or conjectures which have no supporting evidence are unlikely to convince whatever the setting.
“IMO many people have been convicted due to juries considering their inability to remember pertinent facts suspicious”
Do you think that this is true? Because that is the statement which elicted my response that I would not base my decision to convict on vague notions such as a defendant’s inability to remember (for example) precisely what time their husband left a tennis court.
Incidentally I am under no illusions that anything I write will convince you of anything - despite your self-proclaimed open mindedness, I believe you made your mind up about the McCanns years ago.
-
“IMO many people have been convicted due to juries considering their inability to remember pertinent facts suspicious”
Do you think that this is true? Because that is the statement which elicted my response that I would not base my decision to convict on vague notions such as a defendant’s inability to remember (for example) precisely what time their husband left a tennis court.
Incidentally I am under no illusions that anything I write will convince you of anything - despite your self-proclaimed open mindedness, I believe you made your mind up about the McCanns years ago.
I have no idea how juries reach their conclusions but I would hope that they do it by looking at the evidence rather than relying on their personal opinions of a witness or accused person.
That's why I try not to give my opinions about why a witness gives evidence which doesn't fit with the known facts.That doesn't mean I have no opinions, just that they are, like anyone else's opinions, subjective and not provable.
-
Incidentally I am under no illusions that anything I write will convince you of anything - despite your self-proclaimed open mindedness, I believe you made your mind up about the McCanns years ago.
Why do you think you need to convince any one of anything? genuine question.
-
Why do you think you need to convince any one of anything? genuine question.
Here's a genuine question - where did I write that I need to convince anyone of anything? Once you have found the relevant cite, then I will reply to your question, genuinely.
-
Here's a genuine question - where did I write that I need to convince anyone of anything? Once you have found the relevant cite, then I will reply to your question, genuinely.
You have been using the ‘I’m not answering you until you answer me strategy’ frequently lately and usually when you are in a corner. It is becoming rather obvious.
-
Incidentally I am under no illusions that anything I write will convince you of anything - despite your self-proclaimed open mindedness, I believe you made your mind up about the McCanns years ago.
Here's a genuine question - where did I write that I need to convince anyone of anything? Once you have found the relevant cite, then I will reply to your question, genuinely.
-
You have been using the ‘I’m not answering you until you answer me strategy’ frequently lately and usually when you are in a corner. It is becoming rather obvious.
Then why does no one call me out on it and actually answer my question first? Then we would get somewhere and see if I really am in a corner or not. What I don't do is cave into others demands that I answer their questions when they don't do me the courtesy of answering mine. Tell me why should I do that?
-
That's a fail, did I say I needed to convince G-Unit? No. Next!
-
Back to the topic please.
-
Then why does no one call me out on it and actually answer my question first? Then we would get somewhere and see if I really am in a corner or not. What I don't do is cave into others demands that I answer their questions when they don't do me the courtesy of answering mine. Tell me why should I do that?
Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they haven't claimed to have reached any isn't a valid question. Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they have posted those conclusions and claimed they have reached them by 'reasoned rationale' is a valid question.
-
Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they haven't claimed to have reached any isn't a valid question. Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they have posted those conclusions and claimed they have reached them by 'reasoned rationale' is a valid question.
I didn't ask you to 'explain your conclusions, I wanted to know what conclusions you had drawn from all this hugely detailed research (your term), and following on from your refusal to answer, what is the point of it all if you refuse to draw any conclusions, or be drawn on them? Seriously, what is the point of this exercise? Research only has a point IMO if it is used to draw conclusions from the facts being researched. That's what research is for isn't it? Otherwise it's just posting excerpts from statements and leaving us all hanging as to what point you are trying to make.
-
Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they haven't claimed to have reached any isn't a valid question. Asking someone to explain their conclusions when they have posted those conclusions and claimed they have reached them by 'reasoned rationale' is a valid question.
You might not think you have reached any conclusions but you have IMO
-
I didn't ask you to 'explain your conclusions, I wanted to know what conclusions you had drawn from all this hugely detailed research (your term), and following on from your refusal to answer, what is the point of it all if you refuse to draw any conclusions, or be drawn on them? Seriously, what is the point of this exercise? Research only has a point IMO if it is used to draw conclusions from the facts being researched. That's what research is for isn't it? Otherwise it's just posting excerpts from statements and leaving us all hanging as to what point you are trying to make.
I did reach a conclusion; someone's evidence was incorrect. You chose to give us your opinion as to why the evidence was incorrect. I chose not to speculate as to why because I don't know the answer. I asked you to explain why you thought you did and you refused.
-
I did reach a conclusion; someone's evidence was incorrect. You chose to give us your opinion as to why the evidence was incorrect. I chose not to speculate as to why because I don't know the answer. I asked you to explain why you thought you did and you refused.
Perhaps this will help with your research. It’s a long read but I’d be interested in your thoughts on it and whether or not you have considered the possibility that human error (non-deliberate by both witnesses and witness evidence takers) is responsible for most if not all the anomalies you find so very puzzling in the witness statements of the Tapas group.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/theses/ALBRIGHTON-nature-of-witness-statement-2013.pdf
-
Perhaps this will help with your research. It’s a long read but I’d be interested in your thoughts on it and whether or not you have considered the possibility that human error (non-deliberate by both witnesses and witness evidence takers) is responsible for most if not all the anomalies you find so very puzzling in the witness statements of the Tapas group.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/theses/ALBRIGHTON-nature-of-witness-statement-2013.pdf
It's one possible explanation, but I see no reason to believe that it's the explanation.
-
It's one possible explanation, but I see no reason to believe that it's the explanation.
That is a good start to some reconciliation.
-
It's one possible explanation, but I see no reason to believe that it's the explanation.
No reason at all?! I posted a link to an article which gives plenty of reasons why witness statements are often inaccurate and unreliable, and not because the witness is dishonest, but you can see NO reason to believe it’s the explanation, seriously? Why not?
-
OMG!
Now he's just an old man that nobody believes
Says he's a gunfighter the last of this breed
And there's ghosts in the street seekin' revenge
Callin' him out to the lunatic fringe
He's out in the traffic now checking the sun
And he's killed by a car as he goes for his gun
So much for the smell of the black powder smoke
And the stand in the street at the turn of a joke
(&^&
Johnny Cash The Last Gunfighter Ballad?
-
No reason at all?! I posted a link to an article which gives plenty of reasons why witness statements are often inaccurate and unreliable, and not because the witness is dishonest, but you can see NO reason to believe it’s the explanation, seriously? Why not?
I don't know why Fiona's evidence was incorrect, and neither do you. You have found an explanation that you're happy with but I prefer to remain open to all possibilities, and why should I not?
-
I don't know why Fiona's evidence was incorrect, and neither do you. You have found an explanation that you're happy with but I prefer to remain open to all possibilities, and why should I not?
Because IMO when you consider all the known facts, such as DP making no attempt to hide the fact that he called on Kate for example, then not all possibilities are equally as plausible or likely.
-
I don't know why Fiona's evidence was incorrect, and neither do you. You have found an explanation that you're happy with but I prefer to remain open to all possibilities, and why should I not?
so you are open to the possibility that inconsistencies in the statements may be due to mistranslation
-
Because IMO when you consider all the known facts, such as DP making no attempt to hide the fact that he called on Kate for example, then not all possibilities are equally as plausible or likely.
The fact that DP didn't attempt to hide his visit is only relevant if there's reason to believe he might have wanted to. Gerry gave the information to the PJ on 10th May and DP wasn't interviewed again until his rog interview. He certainly contradicted the evidence of his womenfolk.
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
-
The fact that DP didn't attempt to hide his visit is only relevant if there's reason to believe he might have wanted to. Gerry gave the information to the PJ on 10th May and DP wasn't interviewed again until his rog interview. He certainly contradicted the evidence of his womenfolk.
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.
-
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.
I have copied this and answered it on the relevant thread; the tennis timeline one.
-
I have copied this and answered it on the relevant thread; the tennis timeline one.
I can’t see it.
-
Gerry, meanwhile, forgot he carried on playing tennis and that Kate went jogging.
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 accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Posters are advised to stay on topic otherwise they run the risk that posts will be expunged. TY
-
Gerry, meanwhile, forgot he carried on playing tennis and that Kate went jogging.
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 accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Who says Kate went jogging?
-
Who says Kate went jogging?
She does.
-
She does.
from memory didnt she get chased by dogs while running and she was scared??
-
from memory didnt she get chased by dogs while running and she was scared??
I think that was a different day.
-
Depending on which version one chooses to believe, one has a choice between Payne didn't enter the apartment or he did and stayed for a while. One just has to wonder who's embarrassment was being spared? The entire period between Maddie being last seen in public after 6pm and Kate raising the alarm shortly after 10pm appears to be sprinkled with mistaken memories and enigmas.
Or mistaken translations
-
Do you uynderstand the movements that Gerry is saying David made? " He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where 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." is all from Gerry's arguido statement.
Can you break each movement down to a specific time?
"He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later." When was this?
Regarding his previous statement where 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." Does that mean half an hour after some earlier event?
$6(&
-
If you really think about it, none of this is relevant.
We can't tell the significance of any particular event. The mere fact it is not recounted in a clear and concise manner does make us justified in having suspicions as to what was going on.
-
Memo:
A reminder to all posters to keep comments constructive and amicable. Attack opinion by all means but please do not make personal comments towards fellow members. This forum prides itself in allowing all shades of opinion so please bear this in mind when responding. TY and have a pleasant weekend.
-
Gerry seems to disagree with his friends, all of whom attested that the Paynes never checked their own children, let alone anyone else's.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Gerry seems to disagree with his friends, all of whom attested that the Paynes never checked their own children, let alone anyone else's.
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Who's selective memory would that be?
-
Who's selective memory would that be?
He is remembering something that no-one else confirmed.
-
He is remembering something that no-one else confirmed.
Does that mean the others chose not to remember that? Or that it didn't happen?
-
Does that mean the others chose not to remember that? Or that it didn't happen?
Who knows? Collective amnesia or fantasy ?
-
Who knows? Collective amnesia or fantasy ?
Who's at fault? Why blame Gerry?
-
Depending on which version one chooses to believe, one has a choice between Payne didn't enter the apartment or he did and stayed for a while. One just has to wonder who's embarrassment was being spared? The entire period between Maddie being last seen in public after 6pm and Kate raising the alarm shortly after 10pm appears to be sprinkled with mistaken memories and enigmas.
In my view that's because we dint have an accurate record of the, statements made... As the tapas do not speak Portuguese their statements should have been recorded imo
-
Who's at fault? Why blame Gerry?
I'm not blaming anyone.
-
I'm not blaming anyone.
The thread is pointing the finger at Gerry "Examples of Gerry McCanns Selective Memories"
-
The thread is pointing the finger at Gerry "Examples of Gerry McCanns Selective Memories"
$6(&
-
Pointing a finger at what exactly?
It is your thread ... so I would expect you to know.
-
Pointing a finger at what exactly?
Gerry and his “selective”memory. Bit of an implication there isn’t it?
-
Gerry and his “selective”memory. Bit of an implication there isn’t it?
there are no selective memories imo
-
It is your thread ... so I would expect you to know.
$6(&
-
Can you even remember how this thread started?
Gerry McCann saw a guy for just a few seconds and describes him down to a tee, apart from what footwear he was wearing, but couldn't remember what his Wife was wearing in a four hour period that they had spent together.
Typical male.
-
Typical male.
Husband: OK then I give up what is different?
Wife: I am wearing a gas mask.
-
Husband: OK then I give up what is different?
Wife: I am wearing a gas mask.
Husband: "Well it doesn't work. You are still gassing at me!"
Wife: "Hsssss" [Sound of gas escaping]
In another case I studied it was quite common for the men not to remember what the women were wearing. But the females were vastly more descriptive about clothing being worn in general.
-
there are no selective memories imo
Just lots lots of- sort of kind of erm not too sure and maybe you know forgetfulness?
Interesting their memory did pick up a bit to make their agenda fit some of their stories...
Jane saw pinky pyjamas when fresh in her memory, then it was whitey with turnups at the bottom much later and Dr T's daughter was wearing different bottom pyjamas.