What Happened Between 18:00 & 20:00 On the 3rd With The Tapas 7

[Albertini]

So what exactly did happen between 6:00pm and 8:00 pm on the 3rd May with the Tapas 7?

In particular with events surrounding the meal at the pariso beach bar and then the social tennis tournament.
In order to make sense of it lets analyse the statements:

4TH MAY STATEMENTS

Matthew Oldfield

No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting (in fact saying the kids ate at the Tapas) and no mention of what time he got back to the apartment:

Russell O’Brien

No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting, the only thing of note is:
At around 19h15/19h30, the informant went back to his apartment.

Oh and this:

He completely corroborates his partner Jane Tanner's statements for the rest of the day.

What on earth does that mean!

David Payne

No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting and no mention of being sent to see Kate and the children.

Now the women’s statements:

Dianne Webster

Mentions the tennis and the Paraiso meeting

Rachel Oldfield

No mention of tennis, no mention of the Paraiso meeting

Jane Tanner

Mentions Tennis and the Paraiso meeting. Stated that they “all” went back to their own apartments. However she then contradicts herself by saying Russell had arrived later.

Fiona Payne

Mentions the tennis and the Paraiso meeting

SUMMARY OF 4TH MAY STATEMENTS.

None of the men mentioned going to the Paraiso, none mention the tennis and David Payne does not mention going to see Kate.

With the exception of Rachel Oldfield all the ladies state they left the Paraiso between 6:10- 6:15, visited the tennis courts and that they all went to their apartments at 19:00.

10th May Statements

Matthew Oldfield

Now mentions the tennis, and the Paraiso meeting and states he left the tennis and went to his apartment at 19:00

Russell O’Brien

Only states:
He made note of the activities on the 3rd of May p.p.. This note consists of all the facts presented, of his activities and those of the group. They are in accordance with the version already represented by his wife, Jane Tanner.

David Payne

Not interviewed

Dianne Webster

Maintains they all got back to their apartment at 19:00.

Rachel Oldfield

Now mentions the beach meal and that they returned at 19:00 with Matthew coming back at 19:15.

Jane Tanner

To confirm that the first time that she went to the beach with the children was 3 May in the morning. Only on 3 May (Thursday) afternoon she met the group, almost all, in Prais da Luz, except for the McCanns because they had a private tennis class together
.
Around 17h15 she saw Kate Healy "jogging" on the beach, having waved [a hand].
Her husband Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne left the beach a little earlier they having gone to the tennis courts, it was the night of the men's tennis. When she, together with the friends and children, returned from the beach, at 18h20, they went to the tennis courts having seen that all the men, including Gerald McCann, were on the court. They stayed to talk to them them for about 20/30 minutes. Gerald McCann comported himself as usual.

She thinks that Kate Healy was in the apartment getting the children ready for bed.

Around 19h00 each one went to their apartment with the children. She bathed her daughters, she read them a story, she put them to bed. E**e was sick and had difficulty with sleeping stayed with her father, who had arrived in the meantime, (on the previous night the deponent stayed later in the bedroom because her daughter had difficulty in sleeping;

Fiona Payne

Not interviewed.

SUMMARY OF 10TH/11TH MAY STATEMENTS

Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield left the beach for the social tennis between 6 and 6.15.
The remainder of the group followed some ten minutes later and stayed talking or watching the tennis until 7 when the women and children left for their apartments.

The independent witness, Dan, confirmed that the social tennis was over by 7PM. Gerry, who had played with the other three, left then. The other men left ten minutes or so later.

O'Brien, Oldfield and Payne were only out of sight of the women and children for about ten minutes before and ten minutes after the tennis.

All the men were in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 and remained in them until 8.30.

ROGATORY INTERVIEWS

SUMMARY OF ROGATORY INTERVIEWS

Payne, O'Brien and Oldfield all changed their stories. Together. Now they stated that the tennis didn't start until 6.50 and finished at 8PM.

Rachel Oldfield changed her statement regarding the time they got back from the tennis to anything up to 19:40
Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster did not alter their statements, still saying that David Payne was back in the apartment by 7.10.

THE PARISO CCTV

Who knows when the group became aware of these pictures but it shot their first version of events down in flames.  David Payne makes reference to camera timings in his rogatory interview but it is not clear which camera he is referring to.

At 18:13 the three men are standing, clearly about to leave, presumably for the tennis courts. Fair enough. But what about the "ten minutes" or so interval before the others left? They were in fact still in the restaurant until at least 18:36 – fifteen minutes after Jane Tanner claimed to have watched the men playing – and would have arrived at the tennis courts at the same time as the men were just commencing play.

If they weren't playing tennis then what exactly had O'Brien, Oldfield and David Payne been doing between 18:13 and 18:50, a period which just happened to include the supposed Payne visit?

And if they were playing from 18:50 to almost 20:00 how come Fiona Payne placed her husband back in the apartment at 19:10?

So why did none of the men mention this in their first statements? Why did they change the time by an hour in the rogatory interview?

If it was simple timing issues why not say that?

And this is important stuff, as Payne is the last person other than the parents to see Madeleine alive and there appears to be a discrepancy of an hour at least before the last Tapas meal.

What was going on to necessitate such a risky changing of statements?

[Benice]

Why anyone would expect identical times and identical recollections to be given by 9 different people is beyond me.

They were on holiday not military manouvres and had no reason to 'log' every move they made and what time they did everything - or even recall every single move they made when first interviewed.

I did quite a few different things yesterday, and went to quite a few places - all of them fairly mundane.  No way could I give exact times of when I set out, how long I stayed, or what time it was when I returned home.    Why? - because there was no need for me to remember!  It is as simple as that.      If I sat down long enough and thought back - then I'm sure I could be a little more precise as things would come back to me.    Or  for instance - I could ask my housebound neighbour what time it was when I called in on her, and how long I stayed.   Her memory of that might be better than mine.

Changes in statements are nothing to do with 'changing their stories'.  I'm sure they will have gone over events amongst themselves - and that exercise alone will have cleared up some previous discrepancies - as memories were jogged.

You only have to read through the statements of independent witnesses, i.e. staff etc to notice that people have different powers of recall and some of the times they give are patently wrong.  No way does this mean they were lying - and the same applies to the McCanns and their friends.

Thank goodness the people who matter i.e. SY - know this is perfectly normal human behaviour - and they have obviously accepted that the discrepancies are not anything out of the ordinary, and are within acceptable boundaries - otherwise they would not have ruled all of them out of the enquiry.

[Albertini]

Why anyone would expect identical times and identical recollections to be given by 9 different people is beyond me.

They were on holiday not military manouvres and had no reason to 'log' every move they made and what time they did everything - or even recall every single move they made when first interviewed.

I did quite a few different things yesterday, and went to quite a few places - all of them fairly mundane.  No way could I give exact times of when I set out, how long I stayed, or what time it was when I returned home.    Why? - because there was no need for me to remember!  It is as simple as that.      If I sat down long enough and thought back - then I'm sure I could be a little more precise as things would come back to me.    Or  for instance - I could ask my housebound neighbour what time it was when I called in on her, and how long I stayed.   Her memory of that might be better than mine.

Changes in statements are nothing to do with 'changing their stories'.  I'm sure they will have gone over events amongst themselves - and that exercise alone will have cleared up some previous discrepancies - as memories were jogged.

You only have to read through the statements of independent witnesses, i.e. staff etc to notice that people have different powers of recall and some of the times they give are patently wrong.  No way does this mean they were lying - and the same applies to the McCanns and their friends.

Thank goodness the people who matter i.e. SY - know this is perfectly normal human behaviour - and they have obviously accepted that the discrepancies are not anything out of the ordinary, and are within acceptable boundaries - otherwise they would not have ruled all of them out of the enquiry.

Wow, you are very trusting aren't you?

So it does not concern you that the 3 men of the group first of all didn't mention the Paraiso nor the tennis, then they did, stating they were in their apartments at around 19:00, then in the Rogatory change it 20:00, all together and at once?

Particularly when the women of the group consisently said they were all in their apartments at around 19:00 and indeed when one of the women even in her rogatory still said her partner was in the apartment at around 19:00 when he said it was 20:00 and another then changed her story to validate the new timefrmae of 20:00 for her husband?

Particularly when it concerns the last time the child was supposedly seen by someone other than the parents and on the same night of the disappearance?

At what point would you ever get suspicious of contradicitions in such importnat witness statements?

With an attitude like that to statements and witnesses, with such glaring discrepancies, i fear, if you were ever a Police Officer, no crimes would ever get solved!

You are too trusting of, and too quick to explain away, obvious and suspicious discrepancies that actually quite clearly require further and deeper investigation.

Is it any wonder the group wouldn't return for the reconstruction, how would they start explaining this mess away?

[Albertini]

What is importamt to understand about witness recall is that is should be random, as people remember things differently to others.

What you have here is:

The men in unison saying nothing about it on 4th May
Most of the women in unison mentioning it on 4th May

The men in unison mentioning it on 10/11th May and all agreeing 19:00
The women in unison mentioning it on 10/11th May and all agreeing 19:00

The men in unison CHANGING IT  it on their rog's and all agreeing 20:00
The women mentioning it in their rog's and some saying 19:00 and another changing her story to say 20:00 in order to validate her husband.

When you get changes all at the same time and together across multiple witnesses that should raise suspicion.

[Benice]

Wow, you are very trusting aren't you?

So it does not concern you that the 3 men of the group first of all didn't mention the Paraiso nor the tennis, then they did, stating they were in their apartments at around 19:00, then in the Rogatory change it 20:00, all together and at once?

Particularly when the women of the group consisently said they were all in their apartments at around 19:00 and indeed when one of the women even in her rogatory still said her partner was in the apartment at around 19:00 when he said it was 20:00 and another then changed her story to validate the new timefrmae of 20:00 for her husband?

Particularly when it concerns the last time the child was supposedly seen by someone other than the parents and on the same night of the disappearance?

At what point would you ever get suspicious of contradicitions in such importnat witness statements?

With an attitude like that to statements and witnesses, with such glaring discrepancies, i fear, if you were ever a Police Officer, would never solve a crime!

You are too trusting of, and too quick to explain away, obvious and suspicious discrepancies that actually quite clearly require further and deeper investigation.

Is it any wonder the group wouldn't return for the reconstruction, how would they start explaining this mess away?

So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'?    I disagree. 

[Albertini]

So you think that professional experienced police officers have ruled the Tapas7 out as suspects or even as persons of interest because they are too 'trusting'?    I disagree.

Argh once again, the old "Andy Says" defence.

As has been stated for the umpteenth time, let's see what happens at the end of the investigation not the beginning.

[Benice]

Argh once again, the old "Andy Says" defence.

As has been stated for the umpteenth time, let's say what happens at the end of the investigation not the beginning.

And once again the old ''Andy says' derision.  So boring. 

There is a whole team of professional experienced police officers examining the case - do you think they are all too trusting? 

[Albertini]

And once again the old ''Andy says' derision.  So boring. 

There is a whole team of professional experienced police officers examining the case - do you think they are all too trusting?

Nope not at all. However what i do know is the investigation has just started.

What Andy says at the start of the investigation does not automatically mean that is what he will be saying later in the investigation, does it?

[Benice]

Nope not at all. However what i do know is the investigation has just started.

What Andy says at the start of the investigation does not automatically mean that is what he will be saying later in the investigation, does it?

With regard to the McCanns and their friends - then yes I do think he will be saying the same later on in the investigation.

Common sense alone dictates that it will be as a result of extensive enquiries that SY are now  completely satisfied that neither the Tapas 7 or the McCanns can be considered to be suspects or even persons of interest in this case.   

IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.

We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise  -  then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions. 

Fortunately, none of the lies, disinformation and myths which so muddy the waters on forums will be considered by SY to form any part of their investigations so IMO we can be assured that any conclusions they have come to have been based solely on authenticated evidence.

[Chinagirl]

BENICE:

We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise  -  then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions. 

 

[faithlilly]

BENICE:

We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise  -  then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions. 

 

It seems  to me that supporters rely on the very same translated files to make their points when it suits then.

If the translations are not to the supporters liking why don't they have several of the McCann's Potuguese supporters do alternative translations ?

[Lyall]

IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.

What else could he say to TV news when asked that question? And they all ask it of course.

[Albertini]

With regard to the McCanns and their friends - then yes I do think he will be saying the same later on in the investigation.

Common sense alone dictates that it will be as a result of extensive enquiries that SY are now  completely satisfied that neither the Tapas 7 or the McCanns can be considered to be suspects or even persons of interest in this case.   

Well you would think that, wouldn't you? Your unequivocal support for the McCann's and their friends shines through in every post you contribute to this forum.

Until it is confirmed AND the investigation is complete then, unlike you, i'm taking nothing for granted. A number of missing children enquiries start on the basis of abduction and then work backwards.

IMO No way would they be so unprofessional as to issue such a clear statement to the public if they thought there was even the merest chance of things changing further down the line.

Why? Police investigate abductions or other serious cases from outside and work backwards all the time.

Professional you say? What like  the "we will solve it claim" where they have had to contact the Guardian to tell them  Redwood didn't mean they had suspects in their sights and that the correct term is "persons of interest" and then get the Guardian to print a correction and retraction? Which the Guardian has done.

Does that sound professional to you?

Or how about stating that they were working with Portuguese and then the Attorney General publically and vocally contradicting him, to the point of almost creating a diplomatic incident?

Does that also sound like the mark of a savvy detective or a media professional?

The fact is Redwood has made a rod for his own back. The moment he retracts the "not suspect line" or doesn't repeat it in any interview will be seen as the Police then suspecting the McCann's and the ensuing storm that will bring will hamper Redwood's attempts to move the case forward.

He has to keep saying it until such time his findings either comprehensively warrant saying otherwise or an abductor is found with firm evidence against him.

And we have no idea where he is up to with the investigation other than it has just started and that the review of existing material is only two thirds complete.

We have not been privy to the exact reasons why they have been ruled out, but as we do not have the professionally translated files, or the means of speaking directly to witnesses, or even the necessary expertise  -  then I prefer to accept that SY know far more about the case than mere armchair detectives (relying on files translated by amateurs), many of whom still believe the libellous claims made over the years - and which still influence their present day opinions. 

Fortunately, none of the lies, disinformation and myths which so muddy the waters on forums will be considered by SY to form any part of their investigations so IMO we can be assured that any conclusions they have come to have been based solely on authenticated evidence.

But yet you and your fellow supporter's are perfectly happy to become "armchair detectives" in trashing the PJ's investigation and the parts of the AG's report you don't like, aren't you?

And as i keep saying IF the Yard do start looking at the group, it will be very interesting to see whether you and your fellow supporters still have such unequivocal support for the work they are doing.

[Lyall]

If Redwood gives any other answer than the one he does the press will go berserk and he's probably also bang in trouble legally.

So he plays with a straight bat?

(Of course I have no idea what he and his colleagues actually think, but I don't think you or anyone else does either, Benice)

[Benice]

What else could he say to TV news when asked that question? And they all ask it of course.

I don't think he would be 'making up' major statements like that  - on TV or anywhere else in public in his position as the SY's official public voice.  That would be professional suicide. imo.