Analysis of the timeline

[Gadfly1.3]

HOLMES must have blown a few chips trying to deal with that lot

I believe they now have the ability to make a computerised reconstruction on the basis of witness statements.  Would be very interesting to see the events unfold on a large screen.

[jassi]

I believe they now have the ability to make a computerised reconstruction on the basis of witness statements.  Would be very interesting to see the events unfold on a large screen.

Have you seen any of the old Benny Hill shows ? If so, you'll get the picture   

[Eleanor]

Admin will be dealing with the posting of Private Messages.  Any further comments on this matter will be deleted.

[Admin]

Members are again reminded that Personal Messages by their very nature are PERSONAL and should not be posted on the forum.

Admin

[Alice Purjorick]

HOLMES must have blown a few chips trying to deal with that lot

It definitely looks like a three pipe problem with a Barcarolle on the old violin thrown in for good measure.
Maybe a quick "Offenbach" joke for the dog fans too.

[Alice Purjorick]

Not to forget what the archiving report stated (unless the archiving report online is actually a version bootlegged by Duarte Levy!).
snip>>>>>>>>>>>
E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution

Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:

1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;

3 - 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. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;

5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
<<<<<<<<<<<< snip

[G-Unit]

Having had input from all those present this timeline is the best effort of all nine people.

20.35   Gerry & Kate at restaurant     
20.40   Jane Tanner at restaurant     
20.42   Matt and Rachael at restaurant     
20.45   Russell at restaurant     
20.55   Matt 1st check                                                Passes the Paynes and Dianne Webster
20.57   Matt listens     
21.00   Matt returns 1st check                                Starters ordered   
21.05   GM 1st check     
21.15   Jane sighting                                                GM & JEZ talking north of gate.   
21.20   Jane returns                                                Starters have arrived, Gerry has returned.
21.25   Matt and Russ go check     
21.30   Matt McCann apartment check     
21.35   Matt returns from  McCann apartment check        Mains have arrived   
21.40   Jane relieves Russ     
21.45   Russ returns     
21.55   Russ food served     
22.00   Kate check                                                        Searches all rooms and wardrobes then heads back   
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

Matt and Rachael now,

4th May

20.45 to restaurant
21.00 the Paynes arrive (Matt)
21.00 Paynes arrive (Rachael) followed by Matt who had gone to find them.
21.05 Matt says he checks
Matt says Gerry left after he returned.
Rachael says Gerry checked at 21.15 and was away till 21.25 Jane also went.
As normal, dinner began at 21,30 (Matt)
21.25 Matt went to check. He doesn't mention Russell.
21.30 Matt and Russell went to check (Rachael) Matt returned 21.35
Rachael says Matt said Russell had stayed behind and Jane relieved him so he could return. No times given.
22.00 both say Kate checked at this time.

11th May

R says 20.40 to restaurant.
M says 20,45
M says Russell arrived 20.50
R says Russell arrived 20.45 and the Paynes 20.55 Matt went to chase up the Paynes who arrived at 20.55
M says he went to chase up the Paynes then did a check at 21.05.
M says Gerry left to check almost immediately.
R says Gerry left at 21.06, then Jane. Gerry returned then Jane.
M says Gerry and Jane went to check, then returned.
21.25 Matt and Russell check. He returns 21.30 (M)
21.30 Matt and Russell go to check (R)
21.40 or 21.45 Jane goes to relieve Russell, who returns five minutes later.(R)
21.50 Kate goes to check (M)
21.55 or 22.00 Kate goes to check, returning five or ten minutes later. (R)

Rogatory's

20.40 to restaurant (R)
20.45 to restaurant (M)
Just after 20.45 Russell arrives (R)
20.55 Matt goes to get the Paynes and checks at windows (M & R)
21.02 Gerry went to check, returning at 21.05 (R)
Gerry and Jane went to check, starters eaten on their return. (M)
21.25 ot 21.30 Matt and Russell go to check (R)
21.20 to 21.25 Matt and Russell go to check (M)
21.30 or 21.35 Matt returns (R)
 Kate goes. No times given (M)
Jane leaves, Russell returns (R)
21.55 Kate goes to check, returning a couple of minutes later. Russell eating. (R)

These two largely agree with each other and the timeline. Rachael had a bit of a problem with Gerry's check which changed from being late and ten minutes long on 4th to being early and a few minutes long in her rog. Was she educated by the group discussions?

[Admin]

One usually finds in most cases that the initial interviews and/or statements tend to reflect the events which took place whereas later statements tend to be embelished for a multitude of reasons.

[Carana]

So a reconstruction wouldn't have helped in finding out what happened to Madeleine? If the reconstruction showed no opportunity for an abduction that would have helped enormously.

A timed reconstruction of a hypothetical abduction would also have been very useful.

It would be very interesting to see how long it would take to quietly open the shutters from the outside and to see if a closed but not locked window could then be easily slid open from outside.

It would be very interesting to see if someone entering through the patio doors could be seen from the restaurant, and how long it would take them to negotiate the two cots, open the window and shutters, pick up a child and exit.

Various scenarios should have been tested and timed imo, with or without the T9 being present.

Do you really think that the PJ couldn't have reconstructed the timelines on their own?

What exactly were some people expecting... the T9 to be dragged in ankle shackles?

[Carana]

One usually finds in most cases that the initial interviews and/or statements tend to reflect the events which took place whereas later statements tend to be embelished for a multitude of reasons.

Perhaps in countries in which there is no language barrier and in which official police interviews are intensive and recorded via audiovisual means or at least recorded verbatim.

This doesn't appear to have been the case.

[Admin]

Perhaps in countries in which there is no language barrier and in which official police interviews are intensive and recorded via audiovisual means or at least recorded verbatim.

This doesn't appear to have been the case.

The classis example being the motorist who just ran into your car and who is so apologetic.  Fast forward a few weeks and you find they are denying responsibility.  So predictable.

[Carana]

The classis example being the motorist who just ran into your car and who is so apologetic.  Fast forward a few weeks and you find they are denying responsibility.  So predictable.

Sorry, I don't follow.

You appear to be responding to this:

Quote from: Admin on Today at 09:31:46 PM

    One usually finds in most cases that the initial interviews and/or statements tend to reflect the events which took place whereas later statements tend to be embelished for a multitude of reasons.

To which my response was:


Perhaps in countries in which there is no language barrier and in which official police interviews are intensive and recorded via audiovisual means or at least recorded verbatim.

This doesn't appear to have been the case.

[Admin]

Sorry, I don't follow.

You appear to be responding to this:

Quote from: Admin on Today at 09:31:46 PM

    One usually finds in most cases that the initial interviews and/or statements tend to reflect the events which took place whereas later statements tend to be embelished for a multitude of reasons.

To which my response was:


Perhaps in countries in which there is no language barrier and in which official police interviews are intensive and recorded via audiovisual means or at least recorded verbatim.

This doesn't appear to have been the case.

It was just a simple example of how things can change once outside influences take hold.

[G-Unit]

One usually finds in most cases that the initial interviews and/or statements tend to reflect the events which took place whereas later statements tend to be embelished for a multitude of reasons.

The biggest problem with these statements is the amount of discussion which took place. It's difficult to know why people's statements change. Because of the efforts put into producing a group timeline there's no way of knowing if people remembered things later because they were reminded or whether there was influence exerted for all to agree.

Dianne Webster is the best example. She was sure they arrived at 20.45 and absolutely sure she didn't cross paths with Matt until her rog interview when she says she now remembers. She didn't convince me, I'm afraid. I think the earlier statements are likely to be the most reliable, before any real group discussions took place.

We saw, for example, how determined Gerry McCann can be when he's sure he's right. He completely ignored Jane Tanner's opinion about where he and Jez Wilkins conversed. I'm sure he displayed the same determination when it came to other disagreements. This is what Russell said;

Reply    “So, I don’t know whether this, at this point here was where Gerry was on the phone, I, I had spoken to him at some point about what he was like on, on the patio, and he feels that this may have been a little bit later on, but, you know, it was around, it was around, erm, it was around here, erm, we certainly went back, erm, and whether this was immediately after I returned or perhaps a little bit later on, I’m not sure.
Russell's rog.

Russell didn't give a time for this phone call unfortunately, it could have been interesting.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps in countries in which there is no language barrier and in which official police interviews are intensive and recorded via audiovisual means or at least recorded verbatim.

This doesn't appear to have been the case.

I think this is at the heart of the so called discrepancies in this case....