David Payne and his visit to the McCann's apartment hours before Madeleine disappeared.

[Alfie]

No important details corroborate so why should I believe anything is the truth?

1st Witness - Outside

2nd Witness - Definitely Inside

1st Witness - 30 seconds

2nd Witness - 3-5 minutes

1st Witness - Wearing a towel

2nd Witness - Can't remember what she was wearing.

1st Witness - Arrived to take kids out

2nd Witness - To do a check on Kate & the kids

1485 "Okay, and it was at what point that Gerry said to you go and, would you mind checking at Kate''
 Reply "Well I mean coming back from the beach I'd got no equipment to play tennis you know, etcetera, so I had to go back to my room to you know change into stuff appropriate for playing tennis in, and err so he knew that I'd walk up that by and past so he said oh why don't you err, you know can you just pop in on the way, the way up, so it was on the way back from me picking the stuff up.'
1485 "Right, so you've walked past, you've walked past Gerry's apartment to get to yours.'
 Reply "Mm.'
1485 "Got changed''
 Reply "No, you know it was, again whether it was, in my mind it was on the way up that I'd popped in to Kate but it could have been on the way back, again, I'm sorry.'
1485 "No, it's okay.'
 Reply "For my vagueness.'

What a muddle 

p.s. David Payne was wearing shorts on CCTV. So what did he wear to play tennis?

None of those details are the important details.  The important details are the ones I have already mentioned.  Don't believe a word of it, your prerogative, I know "not believing" has kept you entertained for years, and will no doubt do so for many more years to come.

[pathfinder73]

3 kids are supposed to be there. That means nothing. Nothing important corroborates.

[Benice]

According to Kate McCann she was naked and wrapped in a towel when David Payne arrived at the apartment yet when asked to describe how Kate was dressed he was unable to recall.  Really?

This is nonsense.  How could Kate be naked if she was wearing a towel? 

I'm reminded of a comedian who announced to his audience that  ...' Underneath these clothes I'm wearing  -  I stand here before you   -  stark naked!''.    Can't remember his name - but I think he was the same comedian who said..... 'I came down this morning to find that a burglar had stolen all my furniture  - and replaced it with identical furniture to cover his tracks'

Kate was not answering the door to a stranger   Not only were the Paynes close friends - but they had stayed at one-another's homes and holidayed together over the years - so the families had probably seen eachother in various stages of undress at various times ?  So what?  The Victorian era ended a long time ago.

Also D.p. is a doctor and so the human body would not be something that would be even slightly unfamilar to him - or that the sight of a person covered by a towel would be so startling -  that it would be seared into his memory for all eternity

I didn't have you down as one of those who take the  'sniggering schoolboy' approach John.   I'm surprised.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

David Payne didn't interrupt her shower, she had already finished by the time he knocked.  When you're staying at a resort, with pool, spa, sports facilities etc you tend to take more showers than you would at home.  I have had 2 today already, maybe a 3rd by bedtime.  Too much information I know, but funnily enough I am currently wrapped in a towel.  It's not an uncommon sight when you're on holiday.  Should one of my acquaintances or room service knock on the door to ask me a question, I doubt they'd remember my attire many months later, but perhaps this would only prove their lack of Britishness.... &%+((£

David Payne didn't know what stage Kate had reached in her shower though, how could he unless he asked? She could have been about to enter the shower when he appeared.

[Alfie]

David Payne didn't know what stage Kate had reached in her shower though, how could he unless he asked? She could have been about to enter the shower when he appeared.

On a scale 1 to 10 - 1 being entirely irrelevant to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and 10 being absolutely critical to solving the case - where would you put this issue?

[Robittybob1]

On a scale 1 to 10 - 1 being entirely irrelevant to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and 10 being absolutely critical to solving the case - where would you put this issue?

It is like a chain, where every link in the chain is important so in a way it is just one link that is 10 out of 10.

[faithlilly]

It does seem very strange that David Payne  could remember the colour of the children's pjs, which he only saw from the patio doors ( according to Kate ) but could not remember Kate in a towel directly in front of him. Most odd.

[John]

This is nonsense.  How could Kate be naked if she was wearing a towel? 

I'm reminded of a comedian who announced to his audience that  ...' Underneath these clothes I'm wearing  -  I stand here before you   -  stark naked!''.    Can't remember his name - but I think he was the same comedian who said..... 'I came down this morning to find that a burglar had stolen all my furniture  - and replaced it with identical furniture to cover his tracks'

Kate was not answering the door to a stranger   Not only were the Paynes close friends - but they had stayed at one-another's homes and holidayed together over the years - so the families had probably seen eachother in various stages of undress at various times ?  So what?  The Victorian era ended a long time ago.

Also D.p. is a doctor and so the human body would not be something that would be even slightly unfamilar to him - or that the sight of a person covered by a towel would be so startling -  that it would be seared into his memory for all eternity

I didn't have you down as one of those who take the  'sniggering schoolboy' approach John.   I'm surprised.

AIMHO

I'm afraid you misunderstand the very serious point of this thread. It is crystal clear from the transcripts of the in-depth interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police that they were pursuing a particular line of enquiry.  The indisputable fact is that there are unexplained inconsistencies where there shouldn't be any. Make of that what you may.

[Angelo222]

The bit I find worrying is that he refused to say whether he called on his way to his apartment to get changed or on the way back.  Nobody would forget such a detail imo.

[G-Unit]

Comparing the group's statements covering the time between  6.00 pm and 8.30 pm shows significant discrepancies in my opinion.

[Alfie]

Comparing the group's statements covering the time between  6.00 pm and 8.30 pm shows significant discrepancies in my opinion.

And yet this is the same group that have been said to have got together to get their story straight.  How do you account for this?  Are they all a bit stupid in your opinion?  Colluded, but too dumb to stick to the agreed narrative?

[G-Unit]

And yet this is the same group that have been said to have got together to get their story straight.  How do you account for this?  Are they all a bit stupid in your opinion?  Colluded, but too dumb to stick to the agreed narrative?

You make it sound as if people have accused them of agreeing on their story Alfie, but we know they did because they said so.

I have only looked at the Oldfield's statements at the moment. Their rogatory statements give times 30 minutes later than their 10th-11th May statements.

In Matthews early statement he played tennis until 7pm, but his later statement says that's when he began to play.

In both of their early statements Matthew returned to their apartment between 7pm and 7.15pm, A year later it was 7.45pm - 8pm. I wonder which ones are correct?

[jassi]

It could be argued that any collusion was not to agree on a particular narrative, but to deliberately cause uncertainty in times and actions.

[Alfie]

You make it sound as if people have accused them of agreeing on their story Alfie, but we know they did because they said so.

I have only looked at the Oldfield's statements at the moment. Their rogatory statements give times 30 minutes later than their 10th-11th May statements.

In Matthews early statement he played tennis until 7pm, but his later statement says that's when he began to play.

In both of their early statements Matthew returned to their apartment between 7pm and 7.15pm, A year later it was 7.45pm - 8pm. I wonder which ones are correct?

People have accused them of collusion, you were one of them thlugh you claimed at the time you didn't understand the meaning of the word.  I don't recall the group admitting to colluding, that would be tantamount to admitting to cover up. 

[Alfie]

It could be argued that any collusion was not to agree on a particular narrative, but to deliberately cause uncertainty in times and actions.

So you mean to deliberately arouse suspicion by giving statements that didn't support each others?  What a great plan!