Analysis of the timeline

[G-Unit]

The answer to that lies with the Amaral investigation initially and as we know no stone was left unturned when it came to investigating the McCanns and their friends.
Do you think they would have failed to carry out all investigative measures? ... starting with ... the timeline.

It seems you have taken us off topic Brietta, by moving the debate from an examination of the timeline to a discussion about innocence and investigations, As far as I know not one investigation has made any meaningful attempt to verify the timeline. Some of the questions which should have been asked;

The chef left the central kitchen near the Millenium at around 21,10 and returned around 21.40. His colleagues were not questioned to check these times.
He parked his car at the Tapas and noticed another car there. Stephen Carpenter saw these cars, Russell O'Brien, when asked, saw no parked cars at 9.30pm.
The waiters and cooks were never questioned about the average serving times for the meals. Fiona said the food came quickly that night. She and her mother also said initially that they were all there at 9.45. Even if she arrived at 9pm was it really fast for the starters to arrive at 9.20?
The receptionist was never questioned about Matt's visit to reception with regard to calling the police.

[Brietta]

Thank you, but I already knew your opinion. Your mind may be made up, but mine isn't.

Excellent ... but even you must concede that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has progressed far beyond any analysis of the McCann party timeline and has ventured much further into the realms of what may have happened to her and who may be responsible.

DCI Redwood mentioned that the timeline had been given particular scrutiny in the process of reviewing Madeleine's case ... that the McCanns are being kept in the loop as that review became a new investigation obviously holds different connotations for you than it does for me.

[G-Unit]

Until you realise that the twice translated mom verbatim statements are not an accurate account of what the McCanns actually said you will not be able to reach a conclusion

Times are the same no matter which language you speak. They saw the times and they signed the statements. Do you think they were foolish enough to sign something they weren't sure about? The communal timeline I'm using as the baseline was typed in English with the agreement of all nine of them.

[Mr Gray]

Times are the same no matter which language you speak. They saw the times and they signed the statements. Do you think they were foolish enough to sign something they weren't sure about? The communal timeline I'm using as the baseline was typed in English with the agreement of all nine of them.

Yes I think they signed something they weren't sure about but not foolish as the signed statements have little legal validity

[G-Unit]

Excellent ... but even you must concede that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has progressed far beyond any analysis of the McCann party timeline and has ventured much further into the realms of what may have happened to her and who may be responsible.

DCI Redwood mentioned that the timeline had been given particular scrutiny in the process of reviewing Madeleine's case ... that the McCanns are being kept in the loop as that review became a new investigation obviously holds different connotations for you than it does for me.

Unfortunately too much time had passed by the time Operation Grange arrived to question again those who were there that night and who disagreed with the group's timeline. Their memories couldn't be relied on so long after the event.

Redwood's forensic analysis of the timeline seemed to  be concentrating on identifying gaps, not on verifying the times. As your sig suggests, his starting point may have been the 'abduction', rather than an investigation into all possibilities.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the investigation has progressed or whether it has spent all it's efforts checking on sex offenders, burglars, charity collectors and loiterers and finding nothing of significance.

.

[G-Unit]

Yes I think they signed something they weren't sure about but not foolish as the signed statements have little legal validity

You seem to be suggesting that they signed inaccurate statements because they knew that they had little legal validity.

[Mr Gray]

You seem to be suggesting that they signed inaccurate statements because they knew that they had little legal validity.

No I think that was the last thing on their minds
They were in a terrible position

[Brietta]

It seems you have taken us off topic Brietta, by moving the debate from an examination of the timeline to a discussion about innocence and investigations, As far as I know not one investigation has made any meaningful attempt to verify the timeline. Some of the questions which should have been asked;

The chef left the central kitchen near the Millenium at around 21,10 and returned around 21.40. His colleagues were not questioned to check these times.
He parked his car at the Tapas and noticed another car there. Stephen Carpenter saw these cars, Russell O'Brien, when asked, saw no parked cars at 9.30pm.
The waiters and cooks were never questioned about the average serving times for the meals. Fiona said the food came quickly that night. She and her mother also said initially that they were all there at 9.45. Even if she arrived at 9pm was it really fast for the starters to arrive at 9.20?
The receptionist was never questioned about Matt's visit to reception with regard to calling the police.

I think you are showing scant regard for the investigative skills of the law enforcement agencies of two countries if you imagine that the Amaral investigation, the Rebelo investigation, the SY review and the PJ review took no account of the statements of those employees and others whose statements are on record and from which a timeline was constructed.

You certainly have highlighted some of the deficiencies of the all important first investigation ... particularly in relation to the McCann party who seemed to share with Robert Murat, the undivided attention of the investigation. 

[Brietta]

Unfortunately too much time had passed by the time Operation Grange arrived to question again those who were there that night and who disagreed with the group's timeline. Their memories couldn't be relied on so long after the event.

Redwood's forensic analysis of the timeline seemed to  be concentrating on identifying gaps, not on verifying the times. As your sig suggests, his starting point may have been the 'abduction', rather than an investigation into all possibilities.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the investigation has progressed or whether it has spent all it's efforts checking on sex offenders, burglars, charity collectors and loiterers and finding nothing of significance.

.

You have said that there are those who were there on the night and who disagreed with the timeline of the McCann party ... is an allegation that will require a cite.

[G-Unit]

No I think that was the last thing on their minds
They were in a terrible position

They were in the position of giving statements to the police with the aim of helping to discover what happened to a small girl. It was their job to make those statements as accurate as they possibly could because the child's position was likely to be far more terrible than theirs. My sympathy lies with that innocent child, not with a group of selfish adults who showed minimum concern for the safety of their children imo.

[G-Unit]

You have said that there are those who were there on the night and who disagreed with the timeline of the McCann party ... is an allegation that will require a cite.

See my opening post.

[G-Unit]

4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''

Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids. But, you know, you don't, you know, we're all sort of responsible for our own children and you wouldn't sort of say, you know, you don't need to do that, I just sort of felt, oh I've listened, you don't need to do that because I've kind of just done it, but I hadn't gone into the apartment, so, erm'.
 
4078 'Did you actually say that or you just thought that to yourself''

Reply 'Yeah, I thought that, you know, I'd said that everything was sort of quiet, I listened outside the shutters, but, you know, they went back up, erm, and said he was going to check.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

I wonder why he said 'they' went back up? Was it 'they' who said he was going to check? If so, who was his companion and where was he or she going?

[Brietta]

See my opening post.

Apart from the fact you do not know who Operation Grange may have interviewed, you have been very specific in your statement ... please be as specific with your cite.

quote: Unfortunately too much time had passed by the time Operation Grange arrived to question again those who were there that night and who disagreed with the group's timeline. Their memories couldn't be relied on so long after the event.end quote.

[stephen25000]

No I think that was the last thing on their minds
They were in a terrible position

You neglected to add, it was self-induced.

[G-Unit]

Apart from the fact you do not know who Operation Grange may have interviewed, you have been very specific in your statement ... please be as specific with your cite.

quote: Unfortunately too much time had passed by the time Operation Grange arrived to question again those who were there that night and who disagreed with the group's timeline. Their memories couldn't be relied on so long after the event.end quote.

It has been documented in the press who the PJ have interviewed on behalf of OG. None of those in my opening post were among them. They could have interviewed Carpenter and Emma Wilding without it being in the public domain, but even so, none of their memories can be expected to have improved/changed over time.

I have cited in my opening post, why should I repeat them?