A TENSE SITUATION by Dr Martin Roberts

Does this visionary revelation from a friend of a friend of a friend tie in somewhere with the nanny Charlotte Pennington's alleged claim about a man in a boat?  Probably not the most reliable witness ever any more than a daily tabloid report can be taken too seriously, Charlotte's claim could however have been planted to validate the marina psychic vision.

* 'Former Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington said she spotted the man in a small dinghy just off the Praia da Luz seafront at 11.30pm. She claims he was kicking at an object stored in the boat's hull.

When she moved closer to investigate, the man - whose name she has given to Portuguese and British police - stooped out of sight then hurriedly rowed away.

Portuguese police are taking the sightings seriously and Miss Pennington, 20, has twice spoken to Leicestershire detectives about her evidence.*

Daily Mail 14th October 2007 


 Daily Mail 14 October http://www.mccannfiles.com/id70.html2007 

Saamagni wrote:I´m interested in linguistics and in order to learn more about how our words "leak" information I read a blog called Statement Analysis by Peter Hyatt. (I found his blog by chance one year ago  when I googled "how do you know a person is lying?" and I was not thinking about the McCanns but rather my teenage son).

Here is a link to all the posts about the McCanns. http://statement-analysis.blogspot.se/search?q=mccann

The posts are quite lengthy and very instructive to read if you are interested in how our words give us away.

In one of the interviews Kate McCann describes Madeleine as a baby in these words:
 
"We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really
the really nice, round, perfect head...and...you know...and then she, she opened her mouth...the whole world knew
she was with us..." (from the "Looking for Madeleine McCann - Sunday Night with reporter Rahni Sadler, aired 24/07/2011)

The analyzer Peter Hyatt comments that Kate´s mention of the nature of the head is in the language of a doctor. I think it´s very odd by Kate McCann to bring this up in the interview, but I do remember that my husband (being a doctor) was thrilled about the shape of our children´s heads when they were born. 

However, in reference to GA´s theory of what happened to Madeleine in the apartment 5a and Kate McCann´s prayer: "please don´t let them fall off something and bang their heads", I think it´s remarkable that this is how Kate described Madeleine as a baby. I also remember that when I read the book "Madeleine" (which I did not buy but was given btw) I thought that and the "bean can reference" stood out as a very clear description of what happened to Madeleine; she fell off something and banged her head.

OT: English is not my native language.

I was struck by Gerry Mcann's words, iirc spoken during the 2013 Crimewatch programme:

*She came out almost perfectly formed*.

Gollum wrote:

Saamagni wrote:I´m interested in linguistics and in order to learn more about how our words "leak" information I read a blog called Statement Analysis by Peter Hyatt. (I found his blog by chance one year ago  when I googled "how do you know a person is lying?" and I was not thinking about the McCanns but rather my teenage son).

Here is a link to all the posts about the McCanns. http://statement-analysis.blogspot.se/search?q=mccann

The posts are quite lengthy and very instructive to read if you are interested in how our words give us away.

In one of the interviews Kate McCann describes Madeleine as a baby in these words:
 
"We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really
the really nice, round, perfect head...and...you know...and then she, she opened her mouth...the whole world knew
she was with us..." (from the "Looking for Madeleine McCann - Sunday Night with reporter Rahni Sadler, aired 24/07/2011)

The analyzer Peter Hyatt comments that Kate´s mention of the nature of the head is in the language of a doctor. I think it´s very odd by Kate McCann to bring this up in the interview, but I do remember that my husband (being a doctor) was thrilled about the shape of our children´s heads when they were born. 

However, in reference to GA´s theory of what happened to Madeleine in the apartment 5a and Kate McCann´s prayer: "please don´t let them fall off something and bang their heads", I think it´s remarkable that this is how Kate described Madeleine as a baby. I also remember that when I read the book "Madeleine" (which I did not buy but was given btw) I thought that and the "bean can reference" stood out as a very clear description of what happened to Madeleine; she fell off something and banged her head.

OT: English is not my native language.

I was struck by Gerry Mcann's words, iirc spoken during the 2013 Crimewatch programme:

*She came out almost perfectly formed*.

Parents normally describe their newborns as "perfect", even though we all know that nobody is, in actual fact

This brings me back to the wierd article by Bridget O'Donnell... She made a wierd reference about the balcony which is what I'd originally thought of with a Maddy fall.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id96.html

Bridget O'Donnell says :

Excitedly, we were shown to our apartments. Ours was on the fourth floor, overlooking a family and toddler pool, opposite a restaurant and bar called the Tapas. I worried about the height of the balcony. Should we ask for one on the ground floor? Was I a paranoid parent? Should I make a fuss, or just enjoy the view?

I suppose a person might worry but to say that just seems irrelevant but maybe not?

5a's balcony is disingenuously ref to as a patio, when it is in fact a balcony, the steps to the street being the evidence that although it was a ground floor apartment it was not at ground level. There are also the many photos of the exterior from the pool, showing the height of this so called patio area.

And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

Must have been like standing  on your own back door step - about  4" ......  

Accurate measurements happen to other people,  McCann measurements are variable.

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

The balcony is right over the sharp stone steps as can be seen here.......






Very dangerous to a child imo.

tigger wrote:Spot on RD but - there was no high shelf for In 5a and CC was imo brand new and meant to be a prop.
Cadaver scent  may have simply been transferred by Kate. I don't  go for the melodramatic placing of CC next to a recently dead Maddie.

But we have 'fallen' twice now and both in inappropriate places. Leaking into the narrative.

We also have a specific bump on the head - twice if I'm right about RM mentioning it - just before she mentioned resuscitation.

Re the location of the sofa -  there is no reason to suppose it was anywhere near the window, could have been moved to e.g. watch  TV. In that case the location Eddie and Keela alerted to could have been a logical place to lay a body, try emergency treatment. Which may well have happened as - although  imo there  was planning, it wasn't for the early demise of the starring player. All their actions during that week point to an unforeseen event imo.

Another possibility is that the fall and the bumped head are what the T 7 were told and may not be true at all.

Thank you Tigger for reviving this, what a great article. Yes, The falling is very interesting. It's one of the reason I still have "accident fallen" as nr 1 on the list.

And yes CC was a prop. Didn't Martin Grimes find at least one other one when the dogs "did" the villa?

Kate's prayer story made me nauseous again, as most of her utterings. It's so typical Kate: hey, I prayed for them, so I did my duty as wife and mother. Now it's up to God to keep them safe and I can happily go off and get plastered.

If something happened it's all God's fault.

I'm sure the Pope apologised.   

tigger wrote:

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

Must have been like standing  on your own back door step - about  4" ......  

Accurate measurements happen to other people,  McCann measurements are variable.

Disturbing habit, when one is a cardiologist or an anaestist, where, if nothing else, measurements are of the essence

candyfloss wrote:

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

The balcony is right over the sharp stone steps as can be seen here.......






Very dangerous to a child imo.

There is not a detective in the world who would accept that a 3 year old was allowed access to that BALCONY area via an unlocked door, especially by parents who were experienced medics and who would have seen during their A and E training many examples of childhood trauma, mostly accidents in the home, such as falls.
 Therefore the door was locked, or there were means used to ensure no waking and wandering.

 eta first thing on the Met home page in big letters

     New appeal following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

 no mention of the A word here

russiandoll wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

The balcony is right over the sharp stone steps as can be seen here.......






Very dangerous to a child imo.

There is not a detective in the world who would accept that a 3 year old was allowed access to that BALCONY area via an unlocked door, especially by parents who were experienced medics and who would have seen during their A and E training many examples of childhood trauma, mostly accidents in the home, such as falls.
 Therefore the door was locked, or there were means used to ensure no waking and wandering.

 eta first thing on the Met home page in big letters

     New appeal following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

 no mention of the A word here

I know for a fact that I would have rejected that accommodation on arrival. Even with a stairgate it's not child friendly. What made Mark Warner think this accommodation was the best accommodation to offer to a family with three children under the age of 4? Wasn't there an empty apartment along the block?

Maybe MW didn`t offer it but the McCanns insisted on it. Is there something special about it that met their requirements?

aquila wrote:
I know for a fact that I would have rejected that accommodation on arrival. Even with a stairgate it's not child friendly. What made Mark Warner think this accommodation was the best accommodation to offer to a family with three children under the age of 4? Wasn't there an empty apartment along the block?

That reminds me of this review of the Ocean Club:

"Our only problem with the Ocean Club was that although it was meant to be child friendly, the resort was extremely spread out. We ended up a 10 minute walk to the pool via cobbled streets which is hard work with a pushchair. The appartment had a huge marbled staircase which was potentially lethal for a toddler. we did manage to hire a stairgate and cot, cost 48 euros for 1 week so budget for these extra costs."

http://www.realholidayreports.com/reports/reports.asp?page=1&id=326&hotel_id=23222#book_deals

Seems odd that the reviewer had to rent a stairgate. You'd think one would be installed by default.

Did the McCanns have to rent it as well? If so, did they? Or didn't the budget stretch to that, since they did not want to pay for babysitters (though they must have spent plenty on tennis lessons).

russiandoll wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

The balcony is right over the sharp stone steps as can be seen here.......






Very dangerous to a child imo.

There is not a detective in the world who would accept that a 3 year old was allowed access to that BALCONY area via an unlocked door, especially by parents who were experienced medics and who would have seen during their A and E training many examples of childhood trauma, mostly accidents in the home, such as falls.
 Therefore the door was locked, or there were means used to ensure no waking and wandering.

 eta first thing on the Met home page in big letters

     New appeal following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
 no mention of the A word here

(Bold mine)
No question that this is a balcony and at least as dangerous as the Paynes' (if not more so due to the steps below), therefore KMcC's statement that they had no need to worry about it because they had a "ground floor" apartment is nonsense.  Leaving such young children alone in that accommodation would not and could not have "felt so safe" to anyone of even average intellect unless, as you say RD, means to ensure no waking and wandering were used. 

This IMO is the crux of the entire case.  The accuracy and reliability of the earliest and most vital testimony on which the entire case hinged were notably absent.  Yet the T9 received the benefit of doubt to a more than generous extent, due in no small part to the campaign in evidence from the earliest moments, that any difficulty comprehending the actions of the group were due to alleged cultural differences.  There is no question the tale as told would NOT have been swallowed quite as whole had the investigation been on home turf. 

Despite evidence such as the scene itself proving the lie regarding wholly unjustifiable feelings of safety arising from the accommodation and resort, the group's resolute, unanimous insistence that their behaviour was both safe and normal was not subject to sufficient challenge, for understandable reasons.  This should have been picked up on by Leicestershire Constabulary but it seems that it was not.  Despite all the evidence pointing to faked abduction and no evidence in 7 years of actual abduction, in summing up the AG had to concede the following insurmountable difficulties:
 
1)  the group's behaviour on the evening of 3 May appeared normal (presumably this is up to 10.00pm, as some very odd behaviour was notable thereafter)
2)  they were all (apparently) new to the area and had no local knowledge or vehicle, therefore concealment of a body without discovery would have been problematic
3)  the forensic evidence thus far was of insufficient weight to allow charges of simulated abduction and cadaver concealment to be brought

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Great bumped up post! Yes, which of the two pleas did KM's god fail to heed? Car accident or falling off something? Hmmm. Knowing the twists of this story I'd be looking closely at BOTH :-)

I did not study the case in great detail in the early days and merely followed events in the press taking them at face value. However, I do remember reports referencing to a suspected car accident being a cause of injury or death to the child. Does anyone know how far this line was taken, I'm guessing it will have been discussed on here at some point?

It is interesting that Kate makes references only to a fall and a car accident. Could this be because these fates are significant to her? Could the fall have been the cause of death and the car "accident" the euphanism describing the method used for disposal of the body - a car journey followed by the 'event' by which the body was irretrievably lost?

Interesting reading BO's account of the mini tennis session on Thursday 3 May:

"Earlier that day there had been tennis lessons for the children, with some of the parents watching proudly as their girls ran across the court chasing tennis balls. They took photos. Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the same - all blonde, all pink and pretty.

Jes and Gerry were playing on the next court. Afterwards, we sat by the pool and Gerry and Kate talked enthusiastically to the tennis coach about the following day's tournament. "

This was presumably the mini-tennis session when Kate and Russell (and/or other member of their party perhaps) were caught video-recording another holiday-maker's (Nigel) child. In his first police statement Russell recalls this incident. And the inference is that Nigel approached them to tell them that their filming of his daughter is making him feel uncomfortable. When questioned about this in the earlier police interview, Russell claims he does not remember seeing a video-camera at all.


This is deeply suspicious as is the fact that this account is then changed in Russell's later statements (when he has had time to get his sanitize his story) to corroborate with the account as written by Kate in her book.  Russell goes on at great length about this episode in later statements - and the police, too, seem to find this episode of interest.


All in all, it appears to be one huge 'hot potato'.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm

I've written at length about this before, but I think the episode is so suspicious that I will write about it again. 

 If Russell's first police statement is true and if Nigel did approach the group as he was concerned over their behaviour with regard to filming his daughter which 'made him feel uncomfortable', then both Kate and Russell have been hugely deceptive and have spun very hard indeed to turn the incident on its head. 


Nigel is clearly a key witness and, as he appears not to know the McCanns, has no reason to lie. And what's more he is unlikely to forget the encounter as the behaviour of either Russell or Kate (or whoever else was part of the group at the time) made him feel uncomfortable enough for him to approach them and tell them so. As is logged in Russell's first police statement. Rather than denying this happened, Russell simply appears to deny the existence of the video-recorder.


Kate's account of this episode in her book has always struck me as extraordinary.  Until now, I couldn't understand why Russell's account was completely different to what Kate had written in her book. But then I read Russell's later witness statements in which the account is changed to be in line with Kate's.


Kate's version of events places the video-recorder in Nigel's hands (page 64) but, presumably to place a smoke-screen around Nigel's suspicions of the behaviour of the McCann group, she attributes the thoughts and feelings that one imagines Nigel had about the group ('why the heck are those strangers filming my daughter') firmly onto Nigel himself. She even plants words in his mouth! 


(We should not be surprised by this, as it is a favourite McCann tactic, imo).

So, it is Nigel himself who, according to Kate,  is looking 'a little embarrassed' as filming his daughter 'makes him feel like a dirty old man'. This conversation then, according to Kate, leads on to the subject of paedophilia. 


All this is beyond suspicious. There is no earthly reason why a normal, caring, responsible father would be 'embarrassed' about video-recording his three-year-old daughter playing mini-tennis. It is an entirely normal thing for a parent to do on holiday. And for this perfectly normal father to then start chatting about paedophilia to other parents - it is ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

The reality, imo,  which Kate is trying so hard to deny is that it was Nigel who thought there was something suspicious in their behaviour as why would you video-record a child who you do not know on holiday? Especially when you can't be bothered to video-record your own children, or even take a single photograph during the entire holiday. (The alleged final two are fakes, imo, and in any case did not appear until WEEKS after the holiday,, which is highly suspicious in itself). Not even your friends can produce any photographs of Madeleine (or the twins) with buddies. This is so suspicious. 

Kate even has the audacity to suggest in her book that Nigel (remember - he found their behaviour suspicious) agrees (page 64) with Russell and Kate's sentiments that everyone is paranoid and 'it has all got a bit out of hand.' She then adds a further layer of duplicity and spin with the sentence: "It would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation."

You just couldn't make this stuff up, could you? Unbelievable how twisted and warped some people's minds are, imo. Psychopathic, pure and simple. 


Depraved even.


The McCann group have no photos of Madeleine on that holiday at all apart from two dodgy ones that appear weeks after they came home, yet they find the time to video-record another holiday-maker's child who appears to be a complete stranger. Astonishing.


Notice how Russell and Kate give an account of the mini-tennis session which their daughers allegedly participated in on different days. Kate writes Tuesday while Russell claims it is Wednesday. 


Russell: "I recall that Madeleine and Ella had had a similar lesson the day before" As the Nigel encouter was allegedly on Thursday, the day before would be Wednesday.



Whereas Kate apparently remembers this day so vividly that watching Madeleine playing mini-tennis "my heart soared with pride" to the extent that she ran back to the apartment to get her camera. 


Given the great lengths that Gerry, Kate and their friends have gone to to place Madeleine as happy, alive and well running around the resort - with supposed 'last photos' taken on Tuesday and Thursday, one can only conclude that *something* happened before this. 








Russell's later witness statements:



http://www.mccannfiles.com/id221.html




http://www.mccannfiles.com/id96.html

I believe there is something rather similar in JT's rogatory. i think she goes into 'Friends' speak,b- and then blah, blah, blah, you know, iirc.

BO certainly doesn't want to commit herself - Madeleine may or must have been there but etc. is very interesting.

Switching  the paedo/suspicious society conversation round is revealing.

Not relevant here but some of KH's seemingly pointless stories in the book, such as the man who climbed over the fence of Rothley Towers and threw a flowerpot through the car windscreen, seem to be the same thing. Could have been Kate who threw the flowerpot and an incident is reversed in the book.

tigger wrote:I believe there is  something rather similar in JT's rogatory. i think she goes into 'Friends' speak,b-  and then blah, blah, blah, you know, iirc.

BO certainly doesn't want to commit herself - Madeleine may or must have been there but etc. is very interesting.

Switching  the paedo/suspicious society conversation round is revealing.

Not relevant here but some of KH's seemingly pointless stories in the book, such as the man who climbed over the fence of Rothley Towers and threw a flowerpot through the car windscreen, seem to be the same thing. Could have been Kate who threw the flowerpot and an incident is reversed in the book.

Indeed. It seems to be quite incriminating. BO says that Madeleine 'must have been there' - at the mini tennis session - on Thursday, but she couldn't distinguish her from all the other children who, according to BO were all  blond, pink and pretty (I mean - WTF?? No brown haired children at all?? And what about the boys, did they look just like the girls?)

And Fiona, according to Kate (page 65 in her book) tells Kate that "she'd spotted Ella there but not Madeleine. 

All of this double-speak and 'might have' stuff is so weird. Is it that the friends are prepared to go so way to provide cover, but will not say outright say they saw Madeleine when they didn't? And Kate feels obliged to record. 

Or perhaps, as Gerry would say, confusion is good because no-one knows what's true and what isn't. 

Pertinently, perhaps, David Payne can be relied on in this respect. He, alone among the acolytes, is most sure that Madeleine was very much alive and content on Thursday when he 'popped his head around the patio door' as Kate writes. If one of his police witness statements is to be believed, he did a lot more than 'popping his head' around the door. He gives an embellished account of how he saw all THREE children after their bath-time looking happy and contented, like little angels, all very peaceful - and wearing predominantly white, apparently. And all very well taken care of.

Just for you j.rob from A Payne in the glass 2011 Dr Martin Roberts
Courtesy of McCannfiles.com

Quite a few words have spilled from David Payne's lips in-between Kate's first being quoted as saying 'they've had such a good time' (referring to the children) yet later on being reported to have said 'I've had such a good afternoon.' It is Kate also who goes on to mention how 'Gerry's just obviously finishing off playing tennis' in the context of her preferring to prepare the children for bed rather than joining him at Payne's invitation, whilst barely minutes later David Payne re-attributes this observation, slightly modified, to himself: 'I said oh Gerry's, you know just finished over there, we're going over to play a bit of tennis.' Far from Gerry just finishing with tennis, he and Payne were apparently about to start playing.

Again the interviewer is treated to a testimonial on 'threeness' and health, with a conspicuous linguistic frailty at the opening of Payne's reply here:

"Err, I mean the, the time that I was there err you know all, all of them err all the children and Kate were in the… immediate area you know in front of you..."

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that there was never any doubt as to who was in the apartment at the time David Payne claims to have seen them, there should have been no doubt expressed in Payne's own description of the encounter either. 'They were all (in the lounge)' should have sufficed. But Payne finds it hard to be precise. First he hesitates over what the word 'all' should signify then, having decided to use it, he does so within a phrase adequate for everyone except Payne himself. He simply cannot resist clarifying for the listener that 'all' meant 'all the children,' an entailment which, if it were true, and there were doubts as to the number of infants to be accounted for, should have been made clear at the outset, not tacked on as an afterthought.

But there is one thing above all else which points to the truth of David Payne's Rogatory Interview responses being highly questionable, and it is not that they differ conspicuously from Kate McCann's supposedly truthful version of the same events. The definitive exchange is surely this:

1485 "Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing."
Reply (DP): "I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err..."

(He has previously identified 'night attire' aka 'pyjamas' don‘t forget, having commented that it was early for the children to be preparing for bed).

1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?"
Reply (DP): "I can't, no."

Now, it makes not the slightest bit of difference whether one considers Kate McCann to have represented Venus incarnate or the whore of Babylon, at the time of David Payne's impromptu visit to 5A she had just emerged from the shower and, according to her own (6 September) statement, answered his knock at the Patio door draped in a bath towel. She did not dress until 'After David left.'

If David Payne could not remember that then his recollections are not worth a candle.

Monty Heck wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Doug D wrote:And then thoughtful parent KM says in KH1 (p.45):

'Though I envied David & Fiona their sea view, being on the ground floor meant we didn't have to worry about the childrens safety on a balcony'

so a fall from their balcony/patio of maybe 10/12 feet wouldn't matter then.

The balcony is right over the sharp stone steps as can be seen here.......






Very dangerous to a child imo.

There is not a detective in the world who would accept that a 3 year old was allowed access to that BALCONY area via an unlocked door, especially by parents who were experienced medics and who would have seen during their A and E training many examples of childhood trauma, mostly accidents in the home, such as falls.
 Therefore the door was locked, or there were means used to ensure no waking and wandering.

 eta first thing on the Met home page in big letters

     New appeal following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
 no mention of the A word here

(Bold mine)
No question that this is a balcony and at least as dangerous as the Paynes' (if not more so due to the steps below), therefore KMcC's statement that they had no need to worry about it because they had a "ground floor" apartment is nonsense.  Leaving such young children alone in that accommodation would not and could not have "felt so safe" to anyone of even average intellect unless, as you say RD, means to ensure no waking and wandering were used. 

This IMO is the crux of the entire case.  The accuracy and reliability of the earliest and most vital testimony on which the entire case hinged were notably absent.  Yet the T9 received the benefit of doubt to a more than generous extent, due in no small part to the campaign in evidence from the earliest moments, that any difficulty comprehending the actions of the group were due to alleged cultural differences.  There is no question the tale as told would NOT have been swallowed quite as whole had the investigation been on home turf. 

Despite evidence such as the scene itself proving the lie regarding wholly unjustifiable feelings of safety arising from the accommodation and resort, the group's resolute, unanimous insistence that their behaviour was both safe and normal was not subject to sufficient challenge, for understandable reasons.  This should have been picked up on by Leicestershire Constabulary but it seems that it was not.  Despite all the evidence pointing to faked abduction and no evidence in 7 years of actual abduction, in summing up the AG had to concede the following insurmountable difficulties:
 
1)  the group's behaviour on the evening of 3 May appeared normal (presumably this is up to 10.00pm, as some very odd behaviour was notable thereafter)
2)  they were all (apparently) new to the area and had no local knowledge or vehicle, therefore concealment of a body without discovery would have been problematic
3)  the forensic evidence thus far was of insufficient weight to allow charges of simulated abduction and cadaver concealment to be brought

According to this article from 30/09/2007 - allegedly there was a child safety gate at the top of the stairs - I think these are the same steps as referred to above.

http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/09/madeleine-mccann-died-after-fall-down-steps/

There are also some interesting comments in this article re alleged cadaver odour found on the steps and the PJ allegedly being certain that MBM died in the apartment.

I don't think this is what happened but it is certainly a possibility.

tigger wrote:Just for you j.rob from A Payne in the glass 2011 Dr Martin Roberts
Courtesy of McCannfiles.com

Quite a few words have spilled from David Payne's lips in-between Kate's first being quoted as saying 'they've had such a good time' (referring to the children) yet later on being reported to have said 'I've had such a good afternoon.' It is Kate also who goes on to mention how 'Gerry's just obviously finishing off playing tennis' in the context of her preferring to prepare the children for bed rather than joining him at Payne's invitation, whilst barely minutes later David Payne re-attributes this observation, slightly modified, to himself: 'I said oh Gerry's, you know just finished over there, we're going over to play a bit of tennis.' Far from Gerry just finishing with tennis, he and Payne were apparently about to start playing.

Again the interviewer is treated to a testimonial on 'threeness' and health, with a conspicuous linguistic frailty at the opening of Payne's reply here:

"Err, I mean the, the time that I was there err you know all, all of them err all the children and Kate were in the… immediate area you know in front of you..."

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that there was never any doubt as to who was in the apartment at the time David Payne claims to have seen them, there should have been no doubt expressed in Payne's own description of the encounter either. 'They were all (in the lounge)' should have sufficed. But Payne finds it hard to be precise. First he hesitates over what the word 'all' should signify then, having decided to use it, he does so within a phrase adequate for everyone except Payne himself. He simply cannot resist clarifying for the listener that 'all' meant 'all the children,' an entailment which, if it were true, and there were doubts as to the number of infants to be accounted for, should have been made clear at the outset, not tacked on as an afterthought.

But there is one thing above all else which points to the truth of David Payne's Rogatory Interview responses being highly questionable, and it is not that they differ conspicuously from Kate McCann's supposedly truthful version of the same events. The definitive exchange is surely this:

1485 "Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing."
Reply (DP): "I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err..."

(He has previously identified 'night attire' aka 'pyjamas' don‘t forget, having commented that it was early for the children to be preparing for bed).

1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?"
Reply (DP): "I can't, no."

Now, it makes not the slightest bit of difference whether one considers Kate McCann to have represented Venus incarnate or the whore of Babylon, at the time of David Payne's impromptu visit to 5A she had just emerged from the shower and, according to her own (6 September) statement, answered his knock at the Patio door draped in a bath towel. She did not dress until 'After David left.'

If David Payne could not remember that then his recollections are not worth a candle.

Quite so. The McCann version of events is a work of fiction. Astonishing how they managed to get other people to support them when you consider that a lovely nearly four year old child is at the heart of all this.

I should have written WAS at the heart of all this. But she was never at the heart of her parents, imo.

the McCANN bimp is lying through her teethees in this article. There was no whoosh clunk jemmied shutters event.