The PJ confirm the evening's sequence of events in their Final Report...

[Alfred R Jones]

...so why do so many "sceptics" refuse to accept their conclusions and how is it that they claim to know better than the police who spent months investigating the case, and who had access to all the witnesses?

According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 of the day 3 of May of 2007, in one of the apartments of the tourist resort 'Ocean Club', located at Vila da Luz, Lagos, where a family composed by a couple and 3 children under aged were staying.

[stephen25000]

...so why do so many "sceptics" refuse to accept their conclusions and how is it that they claim to know better than the police who spent months investigating the case, and who had access to all the witnesses?

According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 of the day 3 of May of 2007, in one of the apartments of the tourist resort 'Ocean Club', located at Vila da Luz, Lagos, where a family composed by a couple and 3 children under aged were staying.

Yet the police have not 'found' the guilty parties.

The disappearance occurred at 22.40 ?

Really ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Yet the police have not 'found' the guilty parties.

The disappearance occurred at 22.40 ?

Really ?

Pardon?

[G-Unit]

It seems the PJ are to be believed when it comes to the timeline, despite their (alleged) complete lack of efficiency in respect of anything else.

They are stating something as a fact despite the existence of statements in the files differing significantly from those of the group. Taking the earliest statements on 4th May two of the T9 gave no time and the remainder said 'Around 10pm'.

So there are seven for 10pm (who agreed this before being interviewed), and five for an earlier time. Not so cut and dried then in my opinion.

[Alfred R Jones]

It seems the PJ are to be believed when it comes to the timeline, despite their (alleged) complete lack of efficiency in respect of anything else.

They are stating something as a fact despite the existence of statements in the files differing significantly from those of the group. Taking the earliest statements on 4th May two of the T9 gave no time and the remainder said 'Around 10pm'.

So there are seven for 10pm (who agreed this before being interviewed), and five for an earlier time. Not so cut and dried then in my opinion.

Cut and dried as far as the investigation is concerned though.  Do you think the PJ are stupid, incompetent, have been leant on or what?

[pathfinder73]

...so why do so many "sceptics" refuse to accept their conclusions and how is it that they claim to know better than the police who spent months investigating the case, and who had access to all the witnesses?

According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 of the day 3 of May of 2007, in one of the apartments of the tourist resort 'Ocean Club', located at Vila da Luz, Lagos, where a family composed by a couple and 3 children under aged were staying.

That report is incorrect. Their timeline is wrong so it's no wonder they are chasing shadows.

[G-Unit]

Cut and dried as far as the investigation is concerned though.  Do you think the PJ are stupid, incompetent, have been leant on or what?

The word I would used is overwhelmed. Unless they went back and checked the five witness statements and kept the later statements secret, the timeline as quoted cannot be relied upon to be correct.

[Alfred R Jones]

That report is incorrect. Their timeline is wrong so it's no wonder they are chasing shadows.

And you know better than the police because...?

[Alfred R Jones]

The word I would used is overwhelmed. Unless they went back and checked the five witness statements and kept the later statements secret, the timeline as quoted cannot be relied upon to be correct.

The police were not overwhelmed at the time they wrote their final report.  They had had plenty of time to reflect on events, to re-read witness statements, even to re-interview even informally the 5 individuals you refer to.  And after months and months of investigation they concluded in their report, for posterity and all to see and read that Kate's check and alarm occurred between 10pm and 10.10pm.  Why you so adamantly refuse to accept this is beyond me, unless it is because you believe the police are incompetent or lying.  Is it not possible in your view that the police are actually right, and if they are what does this do to your beliefs about the case?

[pathfinder73]

And you know better than the police because...?

I've investigated the timeline not shadows.

"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key." DCI Redwood

[Brietta]

That report is incorrect. Their timeline is wrong so it's no wonder they are chasing shadows.

If the timeline is wrong it is one example of why a reconstruction of the events should have been carried out as soon as it was possible to do so. 

A lot of people who were in the resort and in the area at the time were available for example Mr and Mrs Moyes, Mrs Fenn, Jez Wilkins, staff and Luz residents.  It is possible that any who might have seen something would have been prepared to return ... for example, whoever had been in residence in 5J and in particular the Murat lookalike might have turned up and been identified.

I cannot conceive the mentality which accepts an interim report on anything as holy writ while disregarding the final report.  It is illogical.

[Alfred R Jones]

I've investigated the timeline not shadows.

"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key." DCI Redwood

So the PJ spent 12 months investigating shadows and then wrote their report - I see.

[G-Unit]

So the PJ spent 12 months investigating shadows and then wrote their report - I see.

Perhaps it was badly translated. 

They may have investigated it in depth later, but if they did the evidence of that work is missing. On the evidence available to us the timeline cannot be verified.

[Alfred R Jones]

Perhaps it was badly translated. 

They may have investigated it in depth later, but if they did the evidence of that work is missing. On the evidence available to us the timeline cannot be verified.

What do you mean "they may have investigated it later?"  The report was written at the end of a year long investigation in which conclusions were drawn up and committed to a document for posterity.  In that official report written by the Portuguese police they confirm their findings.  One of those findings was that despite the GNR claiming the alarm was raised at 2240, they verified that detection of the missing child and subsequent alarm occurred between 2200 and 2210.  Why can you not accept this?  What puts you in a position to know better?  What does it do to your beliefs about this case if you were to accept the findings of the police report?

[G-Unit]

What do you mean "they may have investigated it later?"  The report was written at the end of a year long investigation in which conclusions were drawn up and committed to a document for posterity.  In that official report written by the Portuguese police they confirm their findings.  One of those findings was that despite the GNR claiming the alarm was raised at 2240, they verified that detection of the missing child and subsequent alarm occurred between 2200 and 2210.  Why can you not accept this?  What puts you in a position to know better?  What does it do to your beliefs about this case if you were to accept the findings of the police report?

I was answering your comment Alfred;

They had had plenty of time to reflect on events, to re-read witness statements, even to re-interview even informally the 5 individuals you refer to. (snip)

As i said, there is no evidence they did any of that.

A more interesting question is why you accept what the Final Report says. It's a little strange for you to support the PJ, you have to admit. Later on in the Report they are not so definite about the timeline;

The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm