Tennis timeline

[Robittybob1]

You can't deny the words of Mark Rowley though.  That was no fantasy!  "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted".

I can only take this to mean he knows how she left the apartment (but he's not going to explain it) and then she was abducted.  So I take that as a confession they know she was abducted from outside the apartment.

How that ties in with Fiona and Dianne being silent on the visit by David Payne to the apartment during the period he was supposedly playing tennis is the current mystery.
Am I right in thinking Fiona and Dianne don't mention it?   Is it true they  only start taking notice of the tennis closer to 7:00 PM? Just prior to them leaving the men's tennis session.

[Robittybob1]

I've no idea.  Gerry asked him to pop in and see her on his way back to pick up some kit.  To check she was OK?  To let her know Gerry was still on the court?  Why do you think?

Does Gerry ever admit to asking David to check on Kate?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Does Gerry ever admit to asking David to check on Kate?

I don't know - did the police ever ask him this vitally important question?  If not, it makes you wonder why not, when it's such a pivotal point upon which the whole case undoubtedly rests.

[Robittybob1]

I don't know - did the police ever ask him this vitally important question?  If not, it makes you wonder why not, when it's such a pivotal point upon which the whole case undoubtedly rests.

Where would David's visit to the apartment fit into the statement by Mark Rowley: "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted"

Did the visit contribute to the  "however Madeleine left the apartment" part or the "she was abducted" part?

Certainly the confusion around the first part makes the second part more difficult to identify.  E.g. in the unlikely event that Madeleine opened the window and the shutters herself, then Kate sees these open and thinks she was abducted by an intruder from within.

How could that relate to David's visit?  There are some circumstantial evidences that I have noted so far:

1. Confusion as to the reason for the visit to Kate.
2. Confusion as to why DP went around to the patio door rather than the front door.
3. Confusion as to how long the visit took. 30 seconds , 5 minutes or 30 minutes.
4. Confusion as to whether Dianne and Fiona were aware of David's visit to Kate.
5.  Confusion as to when the Paynes left to go to the Tapas (was it as early as 8:45, if so how did it take them so long to get to the Tapas Restaurant?).
6. Confusion as to where and when they passed Matt doing his first check.
7.  Dianne's interference with the shutters after the alert.
8.  David's immediate examination of the front door after the alert.
9. Dianne's expectation that Madeleine would be found after the alert.

[Mr Gray]

Where would David's visit to the apartment fit into the statement by Mark Rowley: "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted"

Did the visit contribute to the  "however Madeleine left the apartment" part or the "she was abducted" part?

Certainly the confusion around the first part makes the second part more difficult to identify.  E.g. in the unlikely event that Madeleine opened the window and the shutters herself, then Kate sees these open and thinks she was abducted by an intruder from within.

How could that relate to David's visit?  There are some circumstantial evidences that I have noted so far:

1. Confusion as to the reason for the visit to Kate.
2. Confusion as to why DP went around to the patio door rather than the front door.
3. Confusion as to how long the visit took. 30 seconds , 5 minutes or 30 minutes.
4. Confusion as to whether Dianne and Fiona were aware of David's visit to Kate.
5.  Confusion as to when the Paynes left to go to the Tapas (was it as early as 8:45, if so how did it take them so long to get to the Tapas Restaurant?).
6. Confusion as to where and when they passed Matt doing his first check.
7.  Dianne's interference with the shutters after the alert.
8.  David's immediate examination of the front door after the alert.
9. Dianne's expectation that Madeleine would be found after the alert.

I would think SY already have the answers to these questions

[Robittybob1]

I would think SY already have the answers to these questions

But their emphasis is not on the Tapas 9 so they might not know as yet, and besides they don't tell us what they know.

[G-Unit]

I can only take this to mean he knows how she left the apartment (but he's not going to explain it) and then she was abducted.  So I take that as a confession they know she was abducted from outside the apartment.

How that ties in with Fiona and Dianne being silent on the visit by David Payne to the apartment during the period he was supposedly playing tennis is the current mystery.
Am I right in thinking Fiona and Dianne don't mention it?   Is it true they  only start taking notice of the tennis closer to 7:00 PM? Just prior to them leaving the men's tennis session.

The first time David's visit to Kate was mentioned was in Gerry McCann's 10th May statement. It wasn't discussed again until Kate was interviewed on 6th September. The Paynes weren't asked about it until their rog interview.

[Robittybob1]

The first time David's visit to Kate was mentioned was in Gerry McCann's 10th May statement. It wasn't discussed again until Kate was interviewed on 6th September. The Paynes weren't asked about it until their rog interview.

Quote from Gery's statement:
"------ During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play."

[G-Unit]

1485 "Okay. So then you went back and then you played, you played a game for about an hour''
 Reply "Yeah.'

1485 "You think from seven, from about seven till about eight''
 Reply "Yeah, I mean it must, I mean it was before, I mean we got back before eight o' clock err you know so perhaps just before seven, err sorry, err yeah just before seven so it was just before eight o' clock. As I say when I got back I think I was cutting it fine and Fiona was still keen to go for a run and we started to get everyone ready for bed.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

[G-Unit]

Earlier you described Fiona Payne as “providing an alibi” for her husband for the time between 6.30pm and 7pm which she later withdrew.  As DP made no attempt to hide the fact that he paid a visit to Kate’s apartment then I can see no reason why his wife, knowing she would be contradicting her own husband’s statement would deliberately supply a false alibi on purpose.  Can you?  Because any other explanation apart from an honest mistake or a translation / police error would point to a very sinister and unsavoury but also extremely far-fetched plot involving a minimum 4 people from the group involved in the child’s disappearance.

Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.

How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.

I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.

In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.

All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.

1485
 'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
 Reply
 'No'.
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

[Vertigo Swirl]

Earlier you described Fiona Payne as “providing an alibi” for her husband for the time between 6.30pm and 7pm which she later withdrew.  As DP made no attempt to hide the fact that he paid a visit to Kate’s apartment (an event which you later attempted to link to a statement made by Katerina Gaspar for reasons best known to yourself, but I think we can take an educated guess at) then I can see no reason why his wife, knowing she would be contradicting her own husband’s statement would deliberately supply a false alibi on purpose.  Can you?  Because any other explanation apart from an honest mistake or a translation / police error would point to a very sinister and unsavoury but also extremely far-fetched plot involving a minimum 4 people from the group involved in the child’s disappearance.

Fiona initially placed her husband on the tennis courts between 6.30 and 7 pm. Whatever the reason was, the effect was to provide an alibi for him during that time.

How could he have hidden what he did? Gerry had already told the PJ about it.

I was interested in what DC Marshall had to say after reading the Payne's questionnaires. According to him, DP was in 5A at 5 pm, along with Madeleine and her parents.

In my opinion you have a very fertile imagination if you think these anomalies are suggestive of a plot. Please note that is your conclusion, not mine.

All I know, and have demonstrated, is that Fiona got it wrong and when asked a vert specific question she admitted that her evidence was wrong.

1485
 'Although you can't say one hundred percent, can you, if he was on the tennis court between six and seven, can you''
 Reply
 'No'.
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Doesn’t really sound like either her or her husband made any concerted effort to hide the truth does it now, really?

Re: DC Marshall, as you’ve already acknowledged the last independent sighting of Madeleine was at 5.30 pm it strikes me that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the time if DP said he last saw her at circa 7pm, and this was misinterpreted as 1700, plausible, no?

[G-Unit]

Doesn’t really sound like either her or her husband made any concerted effort to hide the truth does it now, really?

Re: DC Marshall, as you’ve already acknowledged the last independent sighting of Madeleine was at 5.30 pm it strikes me that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the time if DP said he last saw her at circa 7pm, and this was misinterpreted as 1700, plausible, no?

I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth, I think that suggestion was from you.

How do you misinterpret the written answer to a questionnaire? Apart from the fact that DP never said he saw MM at 7 pm.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth, I think that suggestion was from you.

How do you misinterpret the written answer to a questionnaire? Apart from the fact that DP never said he saw MM at 7 pm.

You never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth?  Well I think you did when you rejected my contention that dishonesty was the least likely reason for the different times noted in their statements, that to me strongly suggests you think there IS something suspect about their statements, and the fact that you felt it important enough to “research” them in a new thread on the subject supports my view.
As for your second point, who wrote the answer?  Let’s see the source document.

[G-Unit]

You never suggested the Paynes tried to hide the truth?  Well I think you did when you rejected my contention that dishonesty was the least likely reason for the different times noted in their statements, that to me strongly suggests you think there IS something suspect about their statements, and the fact that you felt it important enough to “research” them in a new thread on the subject supports my view.
As for your second point, who wrote the answer?  Let’s see the source document.

In my opinion you need to stop twisting what I say to fit your agenda. I didn't reject your contention, I said it was possible. It's you who think you know why Fiona's evidence was wrong, not me.

I researched the tennis timeline because the reconstitution by the PJ was planned to run from 5.30 pm, when MM was seen by an unconnected witness. I found that Fiona and Dianne's version was impossible according to the Paraiso CCTV and the evidence of the others.

The document read by DC Marshall isn't available to us, so my source document is his evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion you need to stop twisting what I say to fit your agenda. I didn't reject your contention, I said it was possible. It's you who think you know why Fiona's evidence was wrong, not me.

I researched the tennis timeline because the reconstitution by the PJ was planned to run from 5.30 pm, when MM was seen by an unconnected witness. I found that Fiona and Dianne's version was impossible according to the Paraiso CCTV and the evidence of the others.

The document read by DC Marshall isn't available to us, so my source document is his evidence.

My contention was that deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Paynes was the LEAST LIKELY explanation for the anomalie.  Either you accept that contention or you reject it, which is it?

Do you have a cite for the PJ’s proposed reconstruction commencing at 5.30pm?

Finally, plenty of scope for error as far as DP’s written answers as relayed by DC Marshall are concerned then by the time they end up as translated from English into Portuguese and back again I would say.