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

[Benice]

I think the Portuguese police achieved everything they wanted when it turned out in the end that the tapas group were unwilling to cooperate in a child disappearance investigation.

The tapas group had watched elements of the PJ attempt to pin this crime on their innocent friends and had themselves been the victims of  character assassination in the media (swingers).

They would have to be insane to trust the motives of the PJ after that. 

Anyone who can't see that has no ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes IMO.

IMO the PJ knew they would not attend for obvious reasons.  In fact they were banking on it.  Hence their instruction not to bring the children and their admission that they could give no guarantees re media presence.  All intended to put the tapas off attending  IMO.   

IMO their decision not to attend was then used as a face-saving operation to explain the shelving of the case.   Totally unnecessary IMO as all the PJ had to say was they they had done their best with limited resources and with no officially established directives on this particular crime - but unfortunately had not been able to solve the case thus far.

That would have been an acceptable reason for most people IMO.

AIMHO

[faithlilly]

The tapas group had watched elements of the PJ attempt to pin this crime on their innocent friends and had themselves been the victims of  character assassination in the media (swingers).

They would have to be insane to trust the motives of the PJ after that. 

Anyone who can't see that has no ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes IMO.

IMO the PJ knew they would not attend for obvious reasons.  In fact they were banking on it.  Hence their instruction not to bring the children and their admission that they could give no guarantees re media presence.  All intended to put the tapas off attending  IMO.   

IMO their decision not to attend was then used as a face-saving operation to explain the shelving of the case.   Totally unnecessary IMO as all the PJ had to say was they they had done their best with limited resources and with no officially established directives on this particular crime - but unfortunately had not been able to solve the case thus far.

That would have been an acceptable reason for most people IMO.

AIMHO

And the child ? Where is the child in the tapas friend's  self- serving decision ?

[Benice]

I've yet to see in my time of this forum anyone expect the T9 to be able to remember with perfect accuracy what they did and said over the 5 days in the lead-up to Madeleine's disappearance.  Nor anyone expect perfect recall of every second.

But 3rd May, even barring Madeleine's disappearance, should have been memorable for the differences that occurred that day - the trip to the beach - the visit to the Paraíso - the men's tennis competition.

Payne's visit to 5A is critical because he is the last witness, other than the parents, to see Madeleine.  Given that the disappearance occurred the same evening, this event should be fixed in his memory.  We should know with some certainty the timing and duration of this, but it would appear that certainty is missing.

Is the Paraíso CCTV actually available?  And if so can it be used to narrow the timing?

D.P. had no way of knowing on that night whether or not anyone else had called in at 5A after his own visit.  Therefore he did not know at that time that he was the last person outside the family to see Madeleine alive and well.

That's something which IMO could only have been established much later -  as I cannot see any reason for D.P. to make any connection whatsoever in his belief that Madeleine had been abducted by a stranger and his own very brief visit to 5A hours before  - or any reason to even mention it to anyone as a matter of urgency as it had no relevance because of the time lapse.

Neither did he have any way of knowing at that time that his own visit would become relevant in the future.

Once again hindsight is being used which D.P. did not have the benefit of at the time.


AIMHO

[ShiningInLuz]

D.P. had no way of knowing on that night whether or not anyone else had called in at 5A after his own visit.  Therefore he did not know at that time that he was the last person outside the family to see Madeleine alive and well.

That's something which IMO could only have been established much later -  as I cannot see any reason for D.P. to make any connection whatsoever in his belief that Madeleine had been abducted by a stranger and his own very brief visit to 5A hours before  - or any reason to even mention it to anyone as a matter of urgency as it had no relevance because of the time lapse.

Neither did he have any way of knowing at that time that his own visit would become relevant in the future.

Once again hindsight is being used which D.P. did not have the benefit of at the time.


AIMHO

Members of the T9 had the 'hindsight' to decide on that night/morning that the relevant timeline was 8.30 to 10.00 and included checks that appear to have nothing to do with 5A.  Despite including Tannerman at 9.15 and with abduction being the key word, it still covered a time frame that proves of no value to Madeleine, but covers their checking routine. 

Now who cares about that?  If it was abduction, the key checks were GM around 9.05, JT around 5 mins later, MO around 9.30 and KM around 10.05.

It would appear the group was so intent on establishing their timeline that the simple question of - when did you last see Madeleine - a perfectly normal topic of discussion - did not arise.  The focus was still the T9, not Madeleine, IMO.

[Alfie]

Please do not put thoughts in other people's mind.

What thoughts have I put into G-Unit's mind that wasn't already there as evidenced by her own words?

[Brietta]

Members of the T9 had the 'hindsight' to decide on that night/morning that the relevant timeline was 8.30 to 10.00 and included checks that appear to have nothing to do with 5A.  Despite including Tannerman at 9.15 and with abduction being the key word, it still covered a time frame that proves of no value to Madeleine, but covers their checking routine. 

Now who cares about that?  If it was abduction, the key checks were GM around 9.05, JT around 5 mins later, MO around 9.30 and KM around 10.05.

It would appear the group was so intent on establishing their timeline that the simple question of - when did you last see Madeleine - a perfectly normal topic of discussion - did not arise.  The focus was still the T9, not Madeleine, IMO.

I don't really think the issue of when each individual last saw Madeleine would even occur to them.  They knew the children had been put to bed by their parents as they had been on every previous night of the holiday and none of them were trained investigators who might have been expected to think things through to that extent.

They had no idea that the senior investigating officer would later put his suspicion of Madeleine's parents on record as being as early as the morning of 4th May.
Nor did they think they could be considered complicit.

The people who should have been asking the question of them about when they last saw Madeleine were the PJ and if the apparently tough time Russell went through during questioning is anything to go by ... that and more is exactly what the PJ did.

They established their timeline because they were helpless to do anything else and thought it would be helpful, which was confirmed by one of the police officers present.

[sadie]

Please do not put thoughts in other people's mind.

Erm?   £5%4%

What d'yer mean?   &%+((£

[Robittybob1]

So what do you call it when the group agree on a timeline prior to making their statements?  We all know they did it, but we each have different words to describe the same event.  So what do you call it Alfie?

[G-Unit]

I think most intelligent people have a good idea where I stand by now Alfie. You seem to be the only one needing clarity.

 

[Robittybob1]

Nothing sinister, I just assumed the bad feeling from the previous evening had carried over to the next day.  What well heeled man on holiday leaves their wife to cope with three children under four on their own?

So Gerry sends his friend David to help Kate with the kids.  Is that good enough?

[Robittybob1]

If there were significant mistakes the witnesses wouldnt have said ok Ill sign

Are you sure about that?

[Robittybob1]

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

Could you extend that time period to 9:00 PM
"Comparing the group's statements covering the time between  6.00 pm and 9:00 pm shows significant discrepancies in my opinion."

[Robittybob1]

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 used the colluded word and it wasn't moderated out?  How did you do that?

[Robittybob1]

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.

Whether or not they were "colluding" would depend on whether they were trying to synchronise an untruth into the timeline.
Same action if only truth included is acceptable but if an an untruth is included it would be collusion which then would be unacceptable.  How are we going to tell which situation applied?

[Alfie]

I think most intelligent people have a good idea where I stand by now Alfie. You seem to be the only one needing clarity.

I may be the only one prepared to challenge mendacious statements such as "I've never accused anyone of lying". 

I see one is no longer allowed to mention the c word now either