Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by whodunit 25.05.16 1:38

Maria wrote:
Realist wrote:
Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many
If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

I wouldn't say they sat up all night doing the timelines. But anyway, it was a good plan but they obviously failed miserabely, like i said, if the had have acted the part out and went with those memories more people would have believed them. As it stood it wasnt perfect, they didn't think of details, timelines of the famous night was possibly one of them. The plan was well thought out, just not good enough.

Maybe payne was to prove she was still alive at that time, maybe they wanted more than one witness that she was alive that evening. Its best to have at least two witnesses. The only way the payne story complicated matters is because they didnt act it out, they forgot wether it was 30 seconds or 30 minutes. For eg, payne you say u went up to help kate and stayed for 30 minutes, but the kids were too tired and wanted to go to bed, and u saw all three kids alive and well. Then when they were questioned neither of them knew the details of that visit, like what the kids and kate was wearing, how long he stayed for, if he went in or stayed at the door. Because it likely didnt happen at all.

I dont think there was much conflict between them all, little bits here and there, but the rest of the T7 happily statd they left their kids alone, even going as far as admitting one child was ill and puking and what not. Who in their right minds would admit to that in the interest of two other aquaintances, some who say they hardly knew the mccanns.
As you said, no matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they just wont fit.

It was sheer arrogance that led the Tapas to believe they could come up with a story that the 'sardine munchers' would believe without having to put too much effort into it. They thought themselves so brilliant there was no way they couldn't outsmart the greasy furriners. Pre-rehearsals? Pshaw.
Unhappily for them, they aren't as brilliant as they thought. Happily for them, higher ups had their backs regardless of their glaring stupidity. All of them were literally carried out of that mess on the wings of power.

by Maria 25.05.16 2:14

Yes I agree, pure arrogance, especially as they likely knew half of the uk would be out in Portugal the next day helping them.
The T7 were in it up to their eyeballs as much as the McCanns and whoever else was involved.

by mysticmeg 25.05.16 6:16

I believe it was Rebelo's claim that the children were in one apartment with the possible exception of MBM and that there was "significant evidence" for this - was anything ever written stating what this was?

by BarryTheHatchet 25.05.16 7:32

Verdi wrote:
melisande wrote:
worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?
I'm liking it

You mean it wasn't a big fat smelly bin man in an Arsenal top, after all?
The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 2 B0fq2j10

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 2 B0fq2j10

by Guest 25.05.16 10:02

article from MCF reference section

From Times Online October 9, 2007
David Brown

McCann children 'were not alone in apartment'

Kate and Gerry McCann say there are innocent explanations for all the evidence

3D model 'casts doubt on Madeleine abduction'

Significant new evidence about the night Madeleine McCann disappeared has been uncovered, it was claimed, as one of Portugal’s most senior detectives took charge of the investigation.

Paulo Rebelo, an assistant national director of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), took over responsibility for the case last night. He made his name in the investigation into Portugal’s most notorious paedophile ring.

His appointment was made amid reports in Portugal that detectives have evidence contradicting Kate and Gerry McCann's version of the events of the night that they reported their daughter missing.

Police believe that Madeleine and her twin brother and sister may not have been alone in the McCann holiday apartment, but that the children of seven British friends who were on holiday with the McCanns were also present when Madeleine disappeared on May 3, the 24 Horas newspaper claimed.

The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, have insisted that Madeleine was with only her two-year-old twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, while they dined with their friends at a tapas restaurant at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz. The group has claimed that their children were in their own apartments and that they made checks on their own children and those of their friends during the evening.

However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

“Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”

The children had visited each other’s apartments regularly in the six days that they had been at the Ocean Club. The newspaper does not explain how any forensic evidence could be pinpointed to the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance.

The newspaper also casts doubt on claims by one of the McCanns’ friends that he was looking after his unwell daughter when he was away from the restaurant on the evening Madeleine disappeared.

It says that Russell O’Brien, a hospital consultant from Exeter, left the restaurant at 9.35pm and returned at 10pm, just minutes before Mrs McCann discovered that Madeleine was missing. Mr O’Brien has strenuously denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and has never been a formal suspect in the investigation.

24 Horas reported: “The British man guaranteed he took that long because he visited his sick daughter, and she vomited. He says he asked for the sheets to be changed, but the staff at the Ocean Club assured the investigators that nobody asked for any bedsheets to be changed that evening.”

Mr O’Brien’s partner, Jane Tanner, told police that she had seen a man carrying a girl away from the McCanns’ apartment at 9.15pm. However, another witness has insisted that she was not in the area at that time.

A source within the PJ is quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “In face of so many contradictions and in face of the forensics results that we already hold, we have very few doubts that the girl died inside that apartment, and we only have doubts about who concealed the corpse.”

The report follows claims in the British media that although tests on samples discovered in the McCanns’ apartment and hire car do not prove that Madeleine is dead, they have strengthened the theory that her parents were involved in her disappearance.

A source at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which carried out the tests on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, is reported to have said that the results showed police were right to make the couple arguidos, or official suspects.

However, the McCanns’ British law firm, Kingsley Napley, has brought in its own forensic team to explain why the samples may be totally unconnected to Madeleine’s disappearance.

The couple insist that any DNA found in the Renault Scenic hired 25 days after Madeleine’s disappearance could have been transferred innocently from their daughter’s clothing when they moved to a new apartment.

Clarence Mitchell, the couple’s spokesman, said today: “Kate and Gerry have nothing to hide at all. They are perfectly happy to answer any of this, if it comes to it. There are wholly innocent explanations for anything the police may or may not have found."

Mr Mitchell said the couple were unable to grieve for Madeleine because they did not know yet what had happened to their daughter. “They need that knowledge whether Madeleine is alive or dead - let’s face it, she might be,” he said. “They need to know, before they can move on, before they can deal with that.

“In the absence of that hard information, they are doing what they can to, one, clear their names of these dreadful smears and, two, to actually get on with the job of finding her. That is the message we want to go to police in Portugal - ‘find Madeleine’.”

The couple hope that the appointment of a new head of the investigation will refocus the inquiry on finding their daughter. Mr Rebelo was appointed last night after the demotion of the previous lead investigator, Gonçalo Amaral, who had claimed that British police were being manipulated by Madeleine’s parents.

Mr Rebelo made his career at the Central Directory for the Investigation of Drug Trafficking before being appointed one of four associate directors of the PJ. He was head of the Criminal Investigation department in Lisbon when it uncovered a notorious paedophile ring. The “Casa Pia” ring had been abusing boys at state-run children’s homes for decades before being uncovered in 2002. Those alleged to have been involved included senior politicians, a former ambassador, celebrities and wealthy businessmen.

Mr Rebelo was described by colleagues as “highly regarded internally, he has done some excellent work for the PJ, he is nice and a good communicator”. He is close to the PJ’s national director, Alípio Ribeiro.

Top

by Equity 25.05.16 10:28

Cherry wrote:by Equity on Tue 24 May 2016 - 15:47
'Just joined the forum (been lurking for years) was a member of the maddiecasefiles for a long time, the 3As (veritas) and the mirror forum before that. I recently asked to be removed from the maddiecasefiles forum after I stuck up for 'cherry' who was being unjustly attacked by the usual suspects.'

I hope nobody minds if I can just say a quick thank you to Equity (Veritas from MCF) -

I was trying to locate you to say a massive thank you for standing up for me on MCF and your support so pleased to see you on here to say a big thank you.

It was very much appreciated as I know not easy to do that on there. Thank you so much x

Hi Cherry!

It was a particularly easy decision :-) Your posts were so dignified and reasonable - the responses the polar opposite. x

Thanks for posting that article. Obviously the idea that all the children were in one apartment is far from original! Now I've seen it again I do recall reading it before.

I'm sure the answers to most of what happened lie in the sleeping arrangements they organised for the children.

Maybe the other adults feel responsible for what happened to Madeleine as they were all party to the decision to isolate her from the other children as she was keeping them all awake. Maybe her death was due to a bad reaction to a sedative that only TWO of the adults new had been administered? The other adults genuinely believed at the time that she had been abducted from wherever they ALL decided to put her - maybe they're not so sure now.

by Roidininki 25.05.16 10:36

Realist wrote:
Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many
If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

Completely agree ! The voice of reason . Folks trying too hard to make pieces fit.

by skyrocket 25.05.16 11:26

With reference to the cleaner seeing the cots in separate rooms in 5A and DP's early evening visit to 5A on 3 May; I have mulling over an idea, based on some odd comments made in the rogatory statements; and other sources. I'll work through each point.

When guests booked with MW, all children over the age of 2 years were automatically issued a bed rather than a cot. On the 'Guest List' there is an automatically generated entry for any additional cots/beds required against each named booking. Hence against the Payne's it says '1 cot' as an extra (for Scarlet); Dianne Webster being catered for in the second twin bedroom, with Lily, in a T2 apartment. On the McCann booking it says '1 bed' rather than cot, as each of the 3 children are automatically issued beds, as stated above. In a T2 apartment this is catered for by means of a double sofa bed in the sitting room area. On the Payne/McCann booking it can be seen that the party asked for 3 further cots for Amelie, Sean, and Lily (on top of the one issued for Scarlet), so they had 4 cots in all.

I'm not sure whether the T2 apartments have different floor areas but they certainly all only have 2 dedicated bedrooms. Martin Grime's video with Eddie clearly shows 5H and 5A, and although the layouts differ, the floor area looks similar. Note at this point, that when you enter 5H you turn left to the 2 bedroom, which are set at right angles to each other, starting at the left and moving clockwise round to the second bedroom; conversly, when you enter 5A, you turn right to the bedrooms and starting at the first bedroom you move anti-clockwise to the second bedroom door which is opposite the first (keep that point in mind).

Released in the files are a series of photos of the Paynes and Jane Tanner/Ella in 5H. The question arises why there are no photos of Tanner and the children in 5D (which incidently, is also a T2 apartment); no photos of the Oldfields in their apartment; no photos of the Mc's in their apartment? We have no idea when these photos were taken - it could be any time between 28 April and 17 May when the tapas 7 flew back to the UK. Why are we supplied with a whole series of photos showing the Paynes in 5H - photos on the balcony showing the view; photos inside of Lily; etc? In one shot of Lily, behind her is the faint outline of a set of wooden drawers with a bookcase above. Although difficult to see, there is clearly a row of books. This is situated just to the right of the patio door which leads on to the balcony (so on your left when entering).

Now on to the statements, and Dianne Webster's is a gold mine. Keep in mind that only the Oldfields had a T1 apartment.

"...err so we went, went to our apartments, I was obviously staying in the same apartment as Fiona and Dave err they’d got a larger apartment err which meant they were on the first floor as opposed to ground floor.”

4078    ”Do you remember what the number of the apartment was?”
Reply    ”Err no, I can’t remember was it G, H, O, five, I don’t know.”

4078    ”Right.”
Reply    ”I really don’t know, it’s not something that I was concerned with, I knew how to get there so.”

4078    ”Yeah, and what everyone else has said then, you are the only ones on the first floor.”
Reply    ”We were the only ones on the first floor, we had the, we had a bigger apartment than the others, err which is what Dave, Dave had originally err asked for anyway because he wanted to have err a separate bedroom I think for the girls, although they were in cots, and err I, I just slept on the err there was a folding bed in the liv, the sort of living room area, and that’s where I slept, although there were two beds in one of the bedrooms, that’s also where Lily was sleeping in her cot so I didn’t err didn’t want to sleep in the same room as her.”

4078    ”Okay.”
Reply    ”Err, you want me to go through the whole week do you?”

4078    ”Well yeah, I know it’s a tall order.”
Reply    ”Yeah I mean it is difficult because err…”

4078    ”If you could just begin by just describe, telling me where your apartment was in relation to the other apartments, just so that I can get a picture of it.”
Reply    ”Right, well ours err Kate and Gerry’s was the end apartment on the ground floor and then err I think err ......”

4078    ”How did you get to your apartment? What was the route that you had to take?”
Reply    ”Err well we went err we generally went err right up to the end of the, we went through the front entrance if you like, not the, not the entrance that overlooked the, err pool or anything, I don’t think there was an entrance. We didn’t have a, we only had one exit really apart from the, err because veranda you couldn’t go anywhere.”

4078    ”No.”
Reply    ”You just went out onto the balcony, err so the only exit was through, through the front door either down the lift or down the stairs which took you down into err a covered area which err there was the doors to the other apartments and then you went out from there into the car park area and then out there onto the road.”

4078    ”When you say there was doors for the other apartments, was that to anybody in the groups apartments?”
Reply    ”Err well yes I mean I remember us seeing a, a, there was Jane, Jane and Russell’s apartment and err Matt and Rachael’s.”

4078    ”Okay.”
Reply    ”But I never ever actually went along that err subsequently talking to Dave and Fiona as they said you could go along that way and get into Kate and Gerry’s as well but I, I’d never explored that area if you like.”

4078    ”Right okay, I’m a bit clearer in my mind now.”
Reply    ”Yeah.”

Oops Dianne! Was your apartment upstairs or 'right at the end of the ....'; did she in reality, normally enter through the car park side rather than the poolside? Note the final statement when she tries to cover her mistakes. And, why the constant harping on about the Payne's apartment being the biggest?

I don't know of any grandmother who would, out of choice, sleep on a sofa bed in a communal room (making/packing away the bed clothes every morning and night, and with no privacy) rather than sleeping in a separate bed in the same room as their young granddaughter i.e. Lily, who we are told was in a cot in one of the bedrooms, with neither single bed being used, Scarlet being in the second requested cot, in the Payne's bedroom.

Where was the sofa bed? Was there one in 5H and 5A, because we know that the McCann's were allotted an apartment with '1 extra bed' i.e. a sofa bed in the sitting room area. Was there sofa beds in all T2's? If that were the case there would be no need to expressly request an 'extra bed' on the booking. Is there a link between Dianne's insistence that she slept on a sofa bed and the allocation of apartments? At this stage, I should point out that the OC records show the Payne's in 5H and the McCann's in 5A, but I have posted before (unrelated to this topic) that I believed the OC lists have been doctored as the McCann's is the only name out of alphabetical order.

The Payne's quite clearly describe that Scarlet slept in a cot in their room and Lily slept in a cot in the second bedroom - hence one cot in each bedroom. The Mc's were adamant that the cleaners statement that when she cleaned 5A on Wednesday, there was one cot in each bedroom, was completely incorrect.

So who was staying in 5A? Or more significantly, where were the Mc's staying? There was no DNA of MBM's to be found; numerous hairs were examined from unknown sources - could any of these have been from Dianne, Fiona, Lily or Scarlet? The files suggest that this was not checked. Was MBM's toothbrush left up in 5H by mistake when the stage was set? Was Charlotte actually correct when she said the twins were brought to 5A from elsewhere immediately after Maddie's 'disappearance'?

There are reports that Mrs Fenn saw David Payne in the balcony area of G5A at around 7pm on the 3 May. Did DP realise this? DP states he was there; he gives garbled unconvincing reasons. KM and GM state he was there; they give garbled unconvincing reasons. Note that, Mrs Fenn also said she heard very little of the family as they were always out and that she only saw them walking in the street. She was immediately above 5A and immediately next to 5H.

Kate gets the repair men in to mend the shutter to her bedroom and to show her how to use the washing machine. KM and GM are present, without the children, when the cleaner arrives on Wednesday but leave almost immediately. Were these to give witness to them occupying 5A?

In his rogatory David Payne is asked to describe his apartment:

Reply "We, yeah we were, we were slightly different to the other three apartments err we were, we were upstairs err we, you know the other parties were all err in the apartments downstairs, err you went in through the, you know, the door into the apartment which took you into the living area. Err in the living area slightly to the right was the dining room, all open plan, and there was a patio doors you know which led out to the balcony. Err if you turned right immediately into the apartment there was the, err the kitchen, err if you went into the main living area and turned left that took you to the, err bedrooms and the bathroom. The first on the left was one of the bedrooms as you're walking along and then you had, going in an anticlockwise direction, there was the, err the bathroom and then the next room you know anticlockwise was the other bedroom. Err and then there was the, obviously the lounge part, there was the television, there was err, err a sofa in there which was a sofa bed which is where Dianne err slept and I say then there was a balcony with a sliding doors which led out to the balcony. Err so that's pretty much the, the apartment.'

00:30:33 1485 "How good are you at sketching''
Reply "Err, not very good.'

1485 "Otherwise it's just a brief like birds-eye view floor plan of when you come in.'
Reply "Okay. So if you were walking through the door err here, which you opened, as you walk in here the kitchen would have been just here, and there was a doorway just leading in, into the kitchen. This was part of the dining room, you know you've got the sliding doors which were, you know just situated here, this was the, err where the dining room table was. You had the err lounge part here, there was a television just over, you know, in the corner here and there's another chair about there and then I think there's the sofa was over here. Err there was a err piece of furniture like a dresser or a side cabinet there, as you came along here, I've drawn this bit wrong.'

1485 "It's alright.'
Reply "The, the, yeah the first bedroom would have been you know kind of here. Then you had the bathroom which was here and then you had the next bedroom was here, so the doorways were in there, no sorry there and there into the bedrooms, yeah.'

1485 "Yeah''
Reply "Yeah.'

1485 "I've got the gist of that.'
Reply "But that's, yeah so.'

00:32:07 1485 "Just mark on what rooms they are, you say that's the kitchen.'
Reply "So that's the kitchen there, that's the dining room, that's kind of the lounge there, that's the balcony, err so that's bedroom one, that's the bathroom, that's bedroom two.'

1485 "Okay so we have bedroom one and we have bedroom two.'
Reply "Yes.'
1485 "Which bedroom did your children sleep in''
Reply "Err in''

1485 "Or which did you designate for them to sleep in''
Reply "Yeah we had err Lily err was in bedroom one and''
1485 "That's the one nearest to that door there.'
Reply "That's correct.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "And Scarlet was staying in with us in bedroom two. Err and as I say Dianne was in the lounge err on a, on a, you know the sofa bed.'

Clockwise or anti-clockwise Dave? Turn right from the front door in 5A and the bedrooms/bathroom go around anti-clockwise; turn left from the front door in 5H and the bedrooms/bathroom go around clockwise. Too much to remember, me thinks. The brain takes over involuntarily sometimes.

In Matthew Oldfield's rogatory he states that on his 9.30pm check he was in 5A for 1 to 2 minutes. He says that he spent some time browsing along the books on the bookshelf, presumably on his way back out (through the patio doors). He says that all the apartments had such a supply of books for guests to read. Except that when you look at the photos of 5A taken on the night of 3/4 May, there doesn't seem to be any type of bookshelf. There is a wooden sideboard type cupboard, on top of which there are a couple of books placed flat on top of each other - borrowed from other apartments or brought with? So, where is the bookcase and the row of books? Remember, when you come in from 5H's balcony there is a bookshelf with about 7/8 books.

00.32.25 4078 'How long were you actually in the apartment for then''
Reply 'One or two minutes maybe. I remember looking, they've got, all the rooms had sort of a book supply and so, because we were spending all this down time at lunchtime looking, you know, doing a bit of reading or maybe sunbathing, but some reading, so I sort of remember sort of looking along their bookshelf as I walked through to see if there was anything that I could sort of take to read for the next couple of days, erm, so it might have been, you know, a minute or two'.

4078 'And you said when you went in you went in through the patio door''
Reply 'Yeah'

4078 'Or the poolside door''
Reply 'Yeah'.

Is his brain associating the bookshelf in 5H with the Mc's apartment?

Another gem from MO which I have just noted:

'Erm, somebody had workmen in maybe during, the shutter we broke, the shutter, erm, broke for, the outside shutter by the patio door broke for us on the first day, I think it went back up into its, so you couldn't actually drop it on the outside, the shutter by the patio, but we didn't drop that anyway, erm, until we got in at night, but I think it broke and it had to be, and I think they did come, yes, they did come and repair it. But apart from that there wasn't really anybody else (inaudible)'.

Who broke which shutter, where? Mumbling again.

So who was in 5A?

I fully appreciate that even considering the scenario that the Mc's weren't staying in 5A is enough to blow minds - mine included, and I am sitting on the fence with this one. Hence my reticence in posting any of these points but I have been pondering the possibility for a while, since I read the section from Dianne Webster's rogatory.

It might explain the cleaner/cots issue; it might explain what DP was doing at 5A on the 3 May (possibly minus KM and the children altogether), if in fact he was there (as I say, Thursday evening is the only significant time frame in terms of the abduction story); it might explain why the Payne's keep pressing their bigger apartment, upstairs, etc; it might explain why none of MBM's DNA was found in 5A; it might explain DW's/DP's/MO's 'mistakes above.

I haven't contemplated how this might fit in with everything else that is known/reported - Eddie/Keela; the crying incident; etc; but it is abundantly clear why, if the Mc's were actually in 5H (or rather, that the Payne's were actually in 5A), that they (the Mc's) would have to be 'relocated' to 5A at some point in the proceedings.

Bare in mind that everything posted above is in the files, except Mrs Fenn's reported siting of DP. I am posting it to see if anyone has any thoughts.

Apologies that the above is long winded.

by mysticmeg 25.05.16 12:11

Roidininki wrote:
Realist wrote:
Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many
If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.
Completely agree ! The voice of reason . Folks trying too hard to make pieces fit.

With regard to why they "needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't", I seem to remember that there was a lot in the press at the time about the hours unaccounted for between the last photo and their going to dinner - then suddenly up popped Payne's visit. I don't think the high tea had been mentioned at that time as it was right at the beginning of the reporting..............and was so obviously back-fitting that it added weight to their guilt..............even before he started speaking about it!

by Verdi 25.05.16 12:17

!

Tis one thing to agree on a plan of action, in this case Payne's visit to apartment 5a - it's a different matter entirely to get your story straight when being interviewed by the police under pressure.

NB: Excuse the italics, can't get rid of it.

by jeanmonroe 25.05.16 12:21

So the 'bungling burglators' did a 'dry run'.

the 'night' before.

The 'bungling burglators' were IN the 'apartment' the night BEFORE but.......................'stole' NOTHING!

They 'thought' they would come back the next night, and 'risk' getting 'caught'!

And when they 'returned' the next night they STILL didn't steal.........anything!

And WHO 'told' us about the 'crying incident'?

Ah, that's right.................the McCant's!

The very last people, self admitted, to have 'seen' a 'live' Madeleine.

It's as if there were NO 'bungling burglators' at all!

NEXT!

by Verdi 25.05.16 12:33

BarryTheHatchet wrote:
Verdi wrote:
melisande wrote:
worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?
I'm liking it
You mean it wasn't a big fat smelly bin man in an Arsenal top, after all?

Better and better hysterical

!

Rumour has it, the latest revelation to be washed-up is the notorious elusive Kat Man..

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 2 7ed38d8f-6fc7-495b-bc91-dfdad946b4fc

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 2 7ed38d8f-6fc7-495b-bc91-dfdad946b4fc

by Verdi 25.05.16 12:37

jeanmonroe wrote:So the 'bungling burglators' did a 'dry run'.

the 'night' before.

The 'bungling burglators' were IN the 'apartment' the night BEFORE but.......................'stole' NOTHING!

They 'thought' they would come back the next night, and 'risk' getting 'caught'!

And when they 'returned' the next night they STILL didn't steal.........anything!

And WHO 'told' us about the 'crying incident'?

Ah, that's right.................the McCant's!

The very last people, self admitted, to have 'seen' a 'live' Madeleine.

It's as if there were NO 'bungling burglators' at all!

NEXT!

Ludicrous springs to mind - yawn

!

by Realist 25.05.16 13:01

jeanmonroe wrote:So the 'bungling burglators' did a 'dry run'.

the 'night' before.

The 'bungling burglators' were IN the 'apartment' the night BEFORE but.......................'stole' NOTHING!

They 'thought' they would come back the next night, and 'risk' getting 'caught'!

And when they 'returned' the next night they STILL didn't steal.........anything!

And WHO 'told' us about the 'crying incident'?

Ah, that's right.................the McCant's!

The very last people, self admitted, to have 'seen' a 'live' Madeleine.

It's as if there were NO 'bungling burglators' at all!

NEXT!

Precisely, Jean. Since when do petty, opportunist, holiday camp thieves do dry runs. I think some might be confusing the 'Mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann' with the 'Hatton Garden Safety Deposit Company burglary'

by plebgate 25.05.16 13:27

Abductors doing dry runs, abductors leaving windows open to create red herrings, abductors hiding behind doors and yet as far as we know SY have not interviewed any of the tapas 7 before starting the re-investigation with well over £10 million of tax payers money.

If we all think it all sounds a bit incredible I cannot understand why the cops don't seem to - EH?

by jeanmonroe 25.05.16 13:32

'Orders, dear boy, ORDERS!'

EVERYONE 'related' to OG, and 'backers' from PM's 'down', keeping 'schtum' and 'hoping and praying' the 'floodgate of insider information' doesn't 'open', ala Hillsborough.

Ex DCI AR 'knows', BHH 'knows', Nic 'knows' Duthie 'knows' DC, TM, GB, TB, JS, 'know'............the 'list' is almost endless.

At least I, can 'sleep' at night!

by Realist 25.05.16 13:36

mysticmeg wrote:

With regard to why they "needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't", I seem to remember that there was a lot in the press at the time about the hours unaccounted for between the last photo and their going to dinner - then suddenly up popped Payne's visit. I don't think the high tea had been mentioned at that time as it was right at the beginning of the reporting..............and was so obviously back-fitting that it added weight to their guilt..............even before he started speaking about it!

But surely, a group of mastermind conspirators with such a well constructed plan would have realised that the introduction of a fictitious Payne visit would only complicate matters The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

So, again I ask the rather pertinent question, why would the McCanns during the course of their night's plotting, have felt the need to concoct a blatant lie in the form of Payne's alleged visit to verify Madeleine's being alive at 7 pm, when they already had a totally independent witness prepared to state she was alive an hour earlier. The only logical reason for justifying such an action would have been if they had killed her between 6 pm-7 pm. Is this what you are intimating?

by MayMuse 25.05.16 13:38

Confusion is good ?

by plebgate 25.05.16 13:41

Realist wrote:
mysticmeg wrote:

With regard to why they "needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't", I seem to remember that there was a lot in the press at the time about the hours unaccounted for between the last photo and their going to dinner - then suddenly up popped Payne's visit. I don't think the high tea had been mentioned at that time as it was right at the beginning of the reporting..............and was so obviously back-fitting that it added weight to their guilt..............even before he started speaking about it!
But surely, a group of mastermind conspirators with such a well constructed plan would have realised that the introduction of a fictitious Payne visit would only complicate matters The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

So, again I ask the rather pertinent question, why would the McCanns during the course of their night's plotting, have felt the need to concoct a blatant lie in the form of Payne's alleged visit to verify Madeleine's being alive at 7 pm, when they already had a totally independent witness prepared to state she was alive an hour earlier. The only logical reason for justifying such an action would have been if they had killed her between 6 pm-7 pm. Is this what you are intimating?

As far as I know Realist questions as in your last sentence to a poster is not allowed.

by Liz Eagles 25.05.16 13:47

@plebgate

Realist is here to disrupt. If I said the sun comes up in the morning Realist would ask me why I think that.

by plebgate 25.05.16 13:49

I wouldn't disagree with you aquila.

by MayMuse 25.05.16 13:54

Realist wrote:
mysticmeg wrote:

With regard to why they "needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't", I seem to remember that there was a lot in the press at the time about the hours unaccounted for between the last photo and their going to dinner - then suddenly up popped Payne's visit. I don't think the high tea had been mentioned at that time as it was right at the beginning of the reporting..............and was so obviously back-fitting that it added weight to their guilt..............even before he started speaking about it!
But surely, a group of mastermind conspirators with such a well constructed plan would have realised that the introduction of a fictitious Payne visit would only complicate matters The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

So, again I ask the rather pertinent question, why would the McCanns during the course of their night's plotting, have felt the need to concoct a blatant lie in the form of Payne's alleged visit to verify Madeleine's being alive at 7 pm, when they already had a totally independent witness prepared to state she was alive an hour earlier. The only logical reason for justifying such an action would have been if they had killed her between 6 pm-7 pm. Is this what you are intimating?

Perhaps in case DP was seen at some point & if it was not mentioned that would appear odd and open up more questions? Covering tracks springs to mind? IMO
Although I do struggle with this 'visit' being actual!?

by Realist 25.05.16 14:06

aquila wrote:

As far as I know Realist questions as in your last sentence to a poster is not allowed.
@plebgate

Realist is here to disrupt. If I said the sun comes up in the morning Realist would ask me why I think that.

The truth of the matter is, Aquila, you don't like others pointing out the glaring discrepancies in various theories. As previously stated, I thought the raison d'etre of this forum was to look at all perspectives of this case, as opposed to forming a mutual admiration society whereby everyone agrees, no matter how ludicrous their synopsis' may be.

According to the gospel of Aquila, anyone who disagrees with his/her opinion, is a disrupter who warrants at best to be discredited and at worst to be banned.

by Liz Eagles 25.05.16 14:08

Not at all, I fully accept your presence on this forum and the reason for your presence.

by plebgate 25.05.16 14:10

Glaring discrepancies in your opinion Realist and if anyone posts an answer to you that sounds an acceptable response you just keep posting the same point over and over.

Edited to add - that's me out of this as fed up going round in circles.

Log in for more topics