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

[Lyall]

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

The investigation is not yet one month old. Prior to that it was a review, with completely different powers and intent.

[Lyall]

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

If he says anything else - even a simple "we can't comment" - the press will take that as everyone is a suspect again won't they? This is the English press, and we all know what they're like.

[Benice]

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

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

We have no choice but to rely on the unprofessionally translated files.   And IMO they are accurate enough to give us a good idea of what was said, but not accurate enough to claim that every single word is correct - or has been given the right meaning.   One wrongly translated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

I'm not trying to criticise the translators here - as I'm absolutely sure they did their level best, and I'm grateful to them,  but they are not professionals and it shows.    With a professional translation - from Portuguese to English, the reader has no idea that it IS a translation - unless they have been told beforehand.


     

[Albertini]

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

He doesn't have to be "making it up".

It may well be that at the point of where his investigation is up to he does not consider them suspects.

But that does not automatically assume once he has investigated and reviewed more information that position of "no suspect" will remain the same.

[Benice]

If he says anything else - even a simple "we can't comment" - the press will take that as everyone is a suspect again won't they? This is the English press, and we all know what they're like.

Exactly - and not only the Press  -  look what happened to Gerry when he said 'no comment' (or words to that effect) when asked if he knew Robert Murat.  That was actually taken as an admission that he did know him by some - when the truth of the matter was that he was not allowed by the Secrecy laws to answer the question.

[John]

Can I ask what is the purpose of this thread Albertini?

My own view is that the timings are so similar in the statements because they were rehearsed after the 4th of May.

[Albertini]

Can I ask what is the purpose of this thread Albertini?

My own view is that the timings are so similar in the statements because they were rehearsed after the 4th of May.

Sure.

I like you think they were rehearsed, although i would use the term "collusion" instead.

That then begs the question why did they need to collude on each other's statements? Why not tell the truth of it from each of their own perspective?

To me it is pivotal because we are dealing with the 2-4 hour period before Madeleine was reported missing and which includes the last person, other than the parents, to claim to have seen Madeleine alive and well.

Why would David Payne's version of the visit (which he first didn't mention) differ so wildly from kate's on such an important encounter in the whole investigation?

Why would all the women say the men were in the apartments at 19:00 and then the men not mention it, only to then mention it in their second statements?

Why did not one of the men mention it in their first statements?

Why did the men then ALL change it to 20:00 in their Rogatory statements despite some of the women still sticking to the all in the apartments at 19:00 line and depsite their previus testimony without explaining why they had changed it?

Why did Rachel Oldfield change her testimony to back up her husband's rogatory interview?

Why were everyone's timings found to be wrong when the CCTV pictures came out? What does that tell you?

It strikes me that these changes are an indication of something being amiss at this specific time with the group, and part of the accidental death theory revolves around what time an accident could have occured.

What we have here is contradictory evidence about the truthful movements of the men from 18:15-20:00.

Why the need to do that at a pivotal timeframe in the disappearance of the child?

What does this tell you about the veracity of the group's truthfulness as to other events of that night?

What inferences can we draw?

[faithlilly]

We have no choice but to rely on the unprofessionally translated files.   And IMO they are accurate enough to give us a good idea of what was said, but not accurate enough to claim that every single word is correct - or has been given the right meaning.   One wrongly translated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

I'm not trying to criticise the translators here - as I'm absolutely sure they did their level best, and I'm grateful to them,  but they are not professionals and it shows.    With a professional translation - from Portuguese to English, the reader has no idea that it IS a translation - unless they have been told beforehand.


   

And if you or your fellow supporters don't speak Portuguese how do you know what has or hasn't been translated incorrectly ?

[DCI]

And if you or your fellow supporters don't speak Portuguese how do you know what has or hasn't been translated incorrectly ?

Doesn't this also apply to you and your supporters, Faith?

How many have said something was missing or wrong from original statements?
Not one professional translator was used to take statements, and not just the McCann's and friends, statements.

Anne has corrected quite a few mis translations, pointed out to her, from the McCannpjfiles.

Who did the DVD translations?

[faithlilly]

Doesn't this also apply to you and your supporters, Faith?

How many have said something was missing or wrong from original statements?
Not one professional translator was used to take statements, and not just the McCann's and friends, statements.

Anne has corrected quite a few mis translations, pointed out to her, from the McCannpjfiles.

Who did the DVD translations?

My supporters ?

As you say DCI it certainly does apply to both supporters and doubters equally but it seems that the supporters only cry foul when the translation causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.

[DCI]

My supporters ?

As you say DCI it certainly does apply to both supporters and doubters equally but it seems that the supporters only cry foul when the translation causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.

You or your fellow supporters, is that better?

No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.

[stephen25000]

You or your fellow supporters, is that better?

No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.

What on earth. 8-)(--)

[faithlilly]

You or your fellow supporters, is that better?

No, supporters only cry foul, when it is obvious translations have been deliberately altered, to causes difficulties for the McCanns and their friends.

Deliberately ? How on earth can you judge that, unless of course you have a certain mindset or agenda first ?

From what I've observed in the six years i've followed the case apart fron two, allegedly, Portuguese forum members translating the odd newspaper articles, usually from Espresso and smearing Amaral, supporters seem to have relied on google for their translations which is, I'm sure you'll agree, not the most accurate of translating tools.

[Benice]

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

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

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

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

Does that sound professional to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support the McCanns because I do not believe they had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter.  I believe she was abducted.   

However, that does not mean that I think every single word in their or their friends' statements is accurate because I know they are from memory and therefore open to error.    What I don't believe is that any of them has deliberately lied - because IMO  they had no reason to lie -  and no-one has come up with a credible reason to make me think differently.   

In six years no-one has been able to present an alternative theory to abduction which is even remotely believable  - unless you are prepared to dispense with all common sense, logic and reasoned thought first.  If I was a sceptic that would bother me.

IMO The only thing the sceptics have in common with SY -  is that SY  haven't been able to come up with an alternative to abduction either, because if they had then they would not have been able to rule out the McCanns and the Tapas 7.   But they clearly have ruled them - and IMO to try to say they haven't is just wishful thinking.




   

[stephen25000]

I support the McCanns because I do not believe they had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter.  I believe she was abducted.   

However, that does not mean that I think every single word in their or their friends' statements is accurate because I know they are from memory and therefore open to error.    What I don't believe is that any of them has deliberately lied - because IMO  they had no reason to lie -  and no-one has come up with a credible reason to make me think differently.   

In six years no-one has been able to present an alternative theory to abduction which is even remotely believable  - unless you are prepared to dispense with all common sense, logic and reasoned thought first.  If I was a sceptic that would bother me.

IMO The only thing the sceptics have in common with SY -  is that SY  haven't been able to come up with an alternative to abduction either, because if they had then they would not have been able to rule out the McCanns and the Tapas 7.   But they clearly have ruled them - and IMO to try to say they haven't is just wishful thinking.




 

Here's a question I asked a few times.

What is the success rate of SY in solving reported crimes ?

We know already how the same team involved in this review failed miserably with the Jill Dando case.