SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: THURSDAY 3rd MAY 2007 20.30 TO 22.00 AS RECALLED BY TAPAS 9

[Robittybob1]

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: THURSDAY 3rd MAY 2007
20.30 TO 22.00 AS RECALLED BY TAPAS 9

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

In particular the child gate at the top of the stairs. 

From the time line 3 May 2007

"2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked. "

"2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.

"2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed. She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave, when she notices the bedroom door was open (approximately 60 degrees)."

What are the statements on the file that support the PJ coming up with this information?

[Carana]

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: THURSDAY 3rd MAY 2007
20.30 TO 22.00 AS RECALLED BY TAPAS 9

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

In particular the child gate at the top of the stairs. 

From the time line 3 May 2007

"2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked. "

"2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.

"2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed. She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave, when she notices the bedroom door was open (approximately 60 degrees)."

What are the statements on the file that support the PJ coming up with this information?

Not sure what you mean. That timeline was established by the T9 as per their recollections for the PJ.

[Robittybob1]

Not sure what you mean. That timeline was established by the T9 as per their recollections for the PJ.

Are you sure about that?  I was going to look into the origin but I have not done that as yet.
OK it seems you are right  "On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people.
Portimao, 10 May 2007. "

Prepared prior to the second round of interviews. 

[Robittybob1]

What I was noticing is the 3 mentions of the child gate in the time line but only 1 mention in all the files by the Tapas 7 members.

The additional mention of the child gate was from David Payne's rogatory statement
"I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted."

and
"Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off. Err you know, Madeleine's err, you know, was a very bright child and you know it would just seem so inconceivable that she would have wandered off you know, especially you know, when she was sleepy you know, we put that argument forward, but then you know sleeping child, sleepy children you know don't put, shut the doors you know behind them and child gates, you know, so, so that was my initial thoughts ..."

I am wondering why a year later Matt does not mention the child gates being "possibly open"?

[Carana]

What I was noticing is the 3 mentions of the child gate in the time line but only 1 mention in all the files by the Tapas 7 members.

The additional mention of the child gate was from David Payne's rogatory statement
"I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted."

and
"Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off. Err you know, Madeleine's err, you know, was a very bright child and you know it would just seem so inconceivable that she would have wandered off you know, especially you know, when she was sleepy you know, we put that argument forward, but then you know sleeping child, sleepy children you know don't put, shut the doors you know behind them and child gates, you know, so, so that was my initial thoughts ..."

I am wondering why a year later Matt does not mention the child gates being "possibly open"?

The gate issue seems to have been more on David's mind - possibly because he may have initially wondered if she could have wandered out via the verandah.

In Matt's rog, he appears to concentrate more on his recollection of the state of the bedroom and the officer didn't ask him about the gate.

[Robittybob1]

They could just about bring the conversation around to any topic they wanted too.  OK there were questions to cover certain aspects.  I'm not an expert on this by any means, but one thing that dawned on me just moments ago is that if the gates were open, or probably open or whatever was agreed upon, only one person would have experienced them open or closed there is no position called probably open, or possibly shut.
1. If Jane saw a person cross the top of the road and if that was the abductor then there was no way that that person left the gates open for he would have had to come out via the front door or the window.
So if they are promoting the gates open they are suggesting that there was at least two persons involved, and the second person must remained in the apartment till Jez and Gerry stopped talking on the street. and then exited via the patio door.
2. Either that or it was Gerry being careless and left the gates possibly open. 
3. Or Madeleine had gone out through there herself and left them open.

[Carana]

They could just about bring the conversation around to any topic they wanted too.  OK there were questions to cover certain aspects.  I'm not an expert on this by any means, but one thing that dawned on me just moments ago is that if the gates were open, or probably open or whatever was agreed upon, only one person would have experienced them open or closed there is no position called probably open, or possibly shut.
1. If Jane saw a person cross the top of the road and if that was the abductor then there was no way that that person left the gates open for he would have had to come out via the front door or the window.
So if they are promoting the gates open they are suggesting that there was at least two persons involved, and the second person must remained in the apartment till Jez and Gerry stopped talking on the street. and then exited via the patio door.
2. Either that or it was Gerry being careless and left the gates possibly open. 
3. Or Madeleine had gone out through there herself and left them open.

I understood probably and possibly to be degrees of (un)certainty - i.e., they weren't 100% certain.

[faithlilly]

Not sure what you mean. That timeline was established by the T9 as per their recollections for the PJ.

There should have been no collaboration.

[jassi]

Indeed. What they ended up with was a 'best fit' record of the evenings with times adjusted to fit the narrative - IMO

[Carana]

Indeed. What they ended up with was a 'best fit' record of the evenings with times adjusted to fit the narrative - IMO

So it would have been more helpful to the police if everyone came up with different times? They did anyway in the initial interviews.

[jassi]

So it would have been more helpful to the police if everyone came up with different times? They did anyway in the initial interviews.

Absolutely. Individual accounts are far better than one drawn up by committee as it allows the police to tease out the discrepancies.
Unfortunately by the time they came to individual statements, the 'composite' had been imprinted in their minds.
It could therefore be said that these might be false memories. Again, IMO

[Admin]

Yesterdays warnings as to inappropriate posting appears to have been lost on some members so I have instructed moderators to apply maximum sanctions against any member who continues to flaunt the forum rules. There will be no appeal against these sanctions.  In the worst cases the appropriate account will be deleted permanently.

No further warning will be given!

Admin

[Carana]

Absolutely. Individual accounts are far better than one drawn up by committee as it allows the police to tease out the discrepancies.
Unfortunately by the time they came to individual statements, the 'composite' had been imprinted in their minds.
It could therefore be said that these might be false memories. Again, IMO

What about the statements on 4 May? They had already come up with different times.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8979.msg441641#msg441641

Unless one believes that they were all "init", then the alternative is that they were trying to work out the sequence of events and times to help the police as to time slots as to when she could have disappeared.

If they had been all "init", would they have been as open about it as they were? Or could that be some kind of double-think?

From Russell's rog:

1578    “As a significant witness to assist the Portuguese Authorities in their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine MCCANN in Portugal on the third of May, two thousand and seven. I would now like to move on to some time lines and we have, these are copies of written documents or time lines written on the back of, looks like a kiddies book or something”.

Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “An activity book.  If we could just for a few moments go through these documents”.

Reply    “Mmm mmm”.


1578    “Which one came first”'

Reply    “Erm as we discussed the other day, I’d forgotten these over the year but I think this is an attempt, this is a draft attempt, they’re both in my handwriting, this is a draft attempt, err and then I think I’m transcribing in a slightly more a neater writing, hoping that it’s more legible for other people to read as well, so I think this one came first”.

1578    “So just to differentiate between the two documents”.

Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “One of them has the word ‘Gerald’.”

Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “Written towards the lower half of the document and the other one does not”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “You’re saying the one with ‘Gerald’ written on it, was the final document”'

Reply    “Well it was certainly second one, I said I think I was writing this down in a hurry when I”.

1578    “It came after this, this first one”'

Reply    “It came after this one yeah, yeah”.

 

1578    “So the one that doesn’t bare the name of ‘Gerald’.”

Reply    “Is the earlier one”.

 

1578    “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say.  When was this drafted up”'

Reply    “Erm this was drafted er around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A (inaudible) early in the morning of the fourth of May, two thousand and seven so erm I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat with Gerry erm Dave PAYNE and at least at some stage of it, the two Officers from the, from the PJ”.

 

1578    “What would have been the time difference between these two documents”'

Reply    “Er that I’m not too sure, I think what, what essentially I’m doing, is I’m, I’ve written something here fairly quickly for myself and then I’ve looked at it and thought it’s, it’s not actually gonna be useful to hand to anyone to read other than me, so I think they’re probably not that far, I’ve written that and then I’ve sat down, perhaps I was writing this with that being on my knee or something and never sat down, but I don’t, I don’t recall the time difference but, but we’re looking at from what I describe about my activities in the run up to this, to these being within you know, a short space of time, half an hour, maybe even less, I don’t think I wrote this, had it in my pocket for a night, the other thing that makes me think that is, is probably the front of the back cover of a book”.

 

1578    “Yes”.

Reply    “So I’ve probably, I’ve probably written it, thought that’s rubbish, even I can barely read it, let’s start again, I don’t think there’s much time difference”.

 

1578    “If we look at the ‘Gerald’ one”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

 

1578    “You have a recording at nine thirty”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

 

1578    “Russell O’BRIEN in 5D”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “What does that read”'

Reply    “It says with poorly daughter”.

1578    “Oh sorry, with poorly daughter”.

Reply    “With (inaudible) abbreviation for with”.

1578    “And then there’s nothing until nine fifty five pm”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “And I think at ten pm the, you have the next entry, alarm raised”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “Okay”.

Reply    “After (inaudible) I think all of this is incomplete, I mean that’s an incomplete sentence there, erm yeah that’s alarm raised after Kate and I presume I’m gonna write return to table but, but, but I haven’t”.

1578    “So when we compare the ‘Gerald’ version”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “To the earlier version”.

Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “You see that at nine thirty five, you have written”.

Reply    “Matt checks, Matt checks the twins, checks and sees twins”.

1578    “Matt checks and sees twins”.

Reply    “It looks like that, yeah that what it looks like, as I say it’s, it’s, it’s not even that great for me to read there, but it does say Matt, Matt checks and sees twins, so this is as I said after Matt left me in 5D, he’s gone back and I think there was a, certainly there was a concern that Matt was, whether he actually definitely saw Madeleine at the time or not, he can certainly (inaudible) certainly in the, in the days and hours afterwards I mean Matt was unsure about whether he definitely clocked Madeleine in the room, although he was quite convinced that he, he, both the twins were there, so I think that’s why I’ve written that there”.

1578    “The nine thirty entry on the non Gerald version if you like”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “Is”'

Reply    “It says Russ and Matt check all three, so this is just an abbreviated time, an approximate time that me and Matt came back from the table to check on the, on the flat and I’ve crossed out Ella there and so it was written in, in haste”.

1578    “And then the, on the ‘Gerald’ version, you have a vertical line between nine thirty and nine fifty five”.

Reply    “Yeah, yeah”.

1578    “What did that signify”'
 Reply    “I’m not sure, I don’t know whether this was, this was me trying to get the sort of start and the end together and err and then, and then asked, asked for more, you know more detail of what people were doing.  From a personal point of view I suppose once, once I was in the, in the erm room at nine thirty, I wasn’t, I wasn’t privy to any of the other direct information, so whether this is just sort of me thinking that I’ll need to fill this in later, but you know it’s just a, this is incomplete, this sentence is incomplete and I think at some stage whilst I was writing this, the PJ were very keen to talk to Gerry then I left and I think then Jane came in, so I think this is something that was actually being written at about a point where I left it with the Police and then Jane was, Jane and Gerry were talking to the PJ”.


1578    “Okay.  We have another version here, time line”.
 Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “And this is a typed version”.
 Reply    “Mmm mmm”.

1578    “And it’s headed sequence of events, Thursday the third of May, two thousand and seven, twenty thirty hours to twenty two hundred hours as recalled by, then we have the, the group of adults there.  Are you happy with the content of this document Russell'”
 Reply    “Yeah either, (inaudible), this is, this is the document that the group together created erm as we were saying before, after the first weekend, err I think we all felt when we came back from our initial interviews that with the amount of information, the need to, to translate erm, that we came back feeling that, that there was, there was probably a lot of detail that hadn’t been got across about the evening, we were quite keen to try and get a time line together before some of the facts started to become dim for us as well, so I think it was Dave who, who suggested err as I’m not entirely sure of the exact date but certainly on sort of the Monday and the Tuesday perhaps of the, of the, the week after, the week after the abduction”.

1578    “Yes”.
 Reply    “Erm you know that we should probably sit down and do this, I think he was quite keen to write it about the whole holiday before the weekend and after erm, I mean in retrospect I think I wish we, I wish we had, erm but we, we settled to do the, you know the immediate period that evening, erm it was typed, I typed it and it was typed on a borrowed laptop from err the tennis coach of Mark WARNER who’s called Georgina, the surname of, of who, I don’t think we have ever, ever known, erm we compiled it over the course of probably a, a couple of sittings during one day.  Kate and Gerry by this point after the weekend were, well they were having meetings with the likes of Alan PIKE the Psychologist that came out to, to see them and they were, they were often erm organising things and speaking to people, the Consulate etc., etc., etc., so we actually saw err you know probably less and less of them as the days wore on, so they weren’t here with the initial draft of it, but we just left their comments to be added later and then we told them that we’d done this and they came, err read it through, added in the bits that were relevant to when you know, when, what they saw and err and when they left the table, as well as the time line erm Jane gave a, a full, as full as possible description of the person she thought she saw carrying a child that may have been Madeleine away and I think erm there’s also a fair amount of detail about some suspicions from, from Gerry that the room might have been in a slightly different way, err than what it was based on his and Matt’s observations of going into the room.

So we got, we, we wrote this, we wrote this down very much to try and get a, a permanent record of what we thought as accurate as general as a thought had been in the group, erm having (inaudible), it’s important to say cos we’ve, I get the impression from again you know, from the Police perhaps but, but certainly from what comes out in the Press, that this has been perceived by the PJ as an attempt to, to sort of standardise our answers and you know and make sure that we’re all saying the same thing, it certainly wasn’t created with that intention, it was very much that the original statements were, were brief, were obviously prone to translational difficulties and you know, at no point have we concealed this, I turned up on my second interview and presented them with the, with the stick and said, ‘look we’ve sat down, it’s all typed, we think this is quite accurate, there you go’, so you know, it’s been, it was, it was, it was really quite hard for, you know to hear that, or at least hear the fact be implied that the Police felt that this was some, some conspiracy to try and err and cover things up, this was, this was done to go over the events, down on paper before they become, inevitably they got less and less clear in our mind and we were transparent in that we gave this to the Police at the very next meeting, there was no attempt to conceal this and have this as a hidden document that we were all reading from”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm




From Jane's rog:

4078    “And Jane this is our seventh interview today and the purpose of this interview is just to clarify some points in relation to a sequence of events that was drawn up, it is a timeline, in effect, of the events that happened on Thursday May the third two thousand and seven.  Firstly, I mean, I don’t know what format you may have seen this in before”.

Reply    “Umm”.

 

4078    “How did this come about?”

Reply    “Erm, I can’t remember when we decided, but I think it was a couple of days afterwards, we were just, we were all coming up with different bits of what had happened when and, et cetera, and we were just worried that over time that would, you know, we would lose, we wouldn’t be able to remember what was, what happened when, so we just thought we’d put it down on paper.  I think different people had put like little bits down on bits of paper for their own memory, so we just thought we’d get together, put it all down and just, I suppose in a way, do a bit of our  own, not investigative work, but, you know, put it together and see if anything stood out to us really”.

 

4078    “And who did that?”

Reply    “I think it was Dave’s initial idea or I think, I don’t know whether, well I think Dave sort of said and then we borrowed a computer from the tennis coach, just so that we had something to, to write it down on.  But we all did it together, we sort of all sat, we sat together and did, did it”.

 

4078    “So you all agreed on things at this time?”

Reply    “Yeah, we sort of, banded stuff around as well if we thought wasn’t, until we were all agreed on”.

 

4078    “Were there any sticking points?”

Reply    “Phew, oh, I can’t remember now, erm, nothing major, nothing major that I can think at all, I think there was probably, you know, times, timings, there was probably ‘Oh I thought it was a bit later’ or ‘I thought it was a bit earlier’, but nothing, in terms of the actual sort of sequence of events, there was nothing that (inaudible) many times”.

 

4078    “What I am trying to cover is, if anybody would look at this cynically”.

Reply    “Within the group?  Oh no”.

 

4078    “Externally”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

 

4078    “If people were to view this cynically and they may argue that”.

Reply    “Yeah”.

 

4078    “That everyone has been pressured into conforming to stating these times and sticking to these times.  Do you know what I am driving at?”

Reply    “No, no, I mean, that wasn’t, and I think with everything that has happened since, we do think whether doing this was a bad idea, because it does like we were all getting our story straight, but it was done in completely good faith, just purely because we knew we’d forget or we were forgetting, you know, between us we were forgetting things that had happened, so we just thought it would be a help to, to put it down on paper.  And we did it and gave it to the Police, so it wasn’t something we did without, you know, to keep to ourselves, we sort of did it and then gave it to the Police straight away when we’d done it, so, no, there was no”.

 

4078    “So the notes, for doing it, was purely with good intention and they weren’t, as I say, you know, if you were to view it cynically, they are not a kind of aide memoir of people trying to remember?”

Reply    “No, it was purely because we thought we’d forget ourselves and we thought it would help the Police to have our collective thoughts, thoughts on it”.

 
4078    “The times on it, I will go through them, but they are fairly consistent with what you have said on your interviews anyway”.

Reply    “Right”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

[faithlilly]

So it would have been more helpful to the police if everyone came up with different times? They did anyway in the initial interviews.

IMO as things progressed, Jane seemingly remembered details of her sighting which fitted the narrative being woven but which were somewhat at variance with the scant details in her initial statement.

[Carana]

IMO as things progressed, Jane seemingly remembered details of her sighting which fitted the narrative being woven but which were somewhat at variance with the scant details in her initial statement.

Such as?

When I was reading up on witness fallibility / suggestibility / false recall, etc., years ago, I wondered whether or not I'd have been a "reliable" witness or not in similar circumstances. I'm not always terribly observant unless there is a reason for me to notice something, and sometimes I don't have a clue what time it may have been unless I can relate it to something else. More importantly, I thought that I or anyone can end up being a witness to some crime or whatever and in that event, what could I do, in terms of some kind of reflex, that could possibly be useful.

I came across an article (quite possibly from one of the BBC/OU/GMP studies), and the advice was to write down everything you could remember as soon as possible. If I come across it again, I'll give a link.

Now, of course, if I witnessed a car crash or a robbery or something, I now have a smartphone, which I often forget. Back then I didn't, and I rarely had both paper and pencil at hand.


ETA: It might have been in here somewhere. Not sure for the moment.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/ou-on-the-bbc-eyewitness