Question about a detail (timelines)

Regarding the tapas-timelines we can see through the three interveiws of Gerry by the PJ:

Interview 4th May:  he refers to the second altered timeline signed with "Gerald" (Alarm: 22:00)
Interview 10th May: he refers to the second altered timeline plus now setting up a further altered timeline to alarm alleged at about 22:13 (!).
Interview 7th Sept.: refers in very vague to second altered timeline plus his alteration of 10th of May.

This is expecially disturbing to the facts:
- four independent witnesses (personal of OC) state the alarm was already raised around 21:40
- the Smith-Seeing came to knowledge of the PJ on the 26th May ( http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm )

So for the raising of alleged Tapas-Alarm-Times to more and more into the future there is the question left,
how handled Gerry the acussed two timelines of 3rd/4th?

- did he first intend to give the second altered timeline as an official statement (signed by Gerald) to the PJ?
- did he eventually disregard this as being to obvious and risky?
- or what ever did happen to the timelines?
- e.g. did happen there a "mistake", such that the PJ unfortunately took away both timelines on evening 3rd?
- and thus Gerry didn't posses it at 4th and 10th?
- did PJ mentioned them even much later, when looking at the confiscated things from the apartment by occasion?

The correct answers should give some additional insights into the evolution of Tapas-timelines.

Sources:

Now, in his first interview 4th Sept. 2007 he states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

...After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar...
As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. 

In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, 
entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom ....
....and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, 
he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." 

...At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment,
....as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. 
"After that Matt returned to the restaurant." 

...At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. 

...After checking the apartment thoroughly, his wife, quite shocked and upset, went to the restaurant, alerting the witness and the others...

..Immediately the group rapidly went to the club, "searched all the accommodations/lodgings,  swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. and the apartment, 

...one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, 
she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual....


So here he refers to the second altered timeline signed with "Gerald".

And in his second interview 10th May 2007 he states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

----- They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, 
....At 21H00, MATHEW stood up from the table saying that he would go to see the children. 
....At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
....After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, 
he saw JEZ coming up the street ....both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. 
While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, 
nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that 
he had seen any person given that he was in front.

...he returned to the TAPAS between 21h10 and 21h15 the dinner having gone as normal. 

...At 21h30 he drew KATE'S attention to the fact that it was time for her to go to see the children, 
MATHEW having immediately volunteered to substitute given that she was talking. 
...Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned saying only "it is all calm", 

...After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, 

...Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03, 
he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. 

... About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, 
...at the moment KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared 

...he is [?] convinced that the abduction occurred in the period understood to be 
between his visit at 21h05 and MATHEW'S visit at 21H30. Only about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 did he learn through RUSSELL that his companion, 
JANE, at 21h10, could have seen an individual crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, 
that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE. 



Well, in the interviews of Gerry I can only find the tapas-timelines mentioned in his 
last interview as an arguido in 7th September 2007:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm#p10p2567

2567 to 2568 Statement of identity and residence for Gerald McCann
2569 to 2578 Interrogation of Gerald McCann 2007.09.07 with written timeline on Sainsbury's sticker book. 
2579 Support page with written (Gerry?) timeline and cover of sticker book
2580 Opening of appendix I
...The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned,
but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, 
as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up.

think it reads 9,55 "kate realised madeleine... or kate realises madeleine etc.

Châtelaine wrote:

Portia wrote:Reaned as in reanimated (= abbreviated doctors lingo?)

***
Yes. Maybe ... I just cannot make anything else of it

I just can't see these timelines intended for the police. Two different ones doesn't look good and the way 'Gerald' is written doesn't look like a signature but more as an example how the name is spelled. 

Possibly when the police took it with them. 

ROB's brain is leakier than most, I can't see anything else could fit 'reaned'  or 'ran etc' ?
Surely he can't be that absent minded? 

There  was no time for re-animation of any kind unless Kate herself had to be re-animated?

Eta: yes, realised is much more likely.

Portia wrote:Reaned as in reanimated (= abbreviated doctors lingo?)

Never heard that one.

tigger wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

Portia wrote:Reaned as in reanimated (= abbreviated doctors lingo?)

***
Yes. Maybe ... I just cannot make anything else of it

I just can't see these timelines intended for the police. Two different ones doesn't look good and the way 'Gerald' is written doesn't look like a signature but more as an example how the name is spelled. 

Possibly when the police took it with them. 

ROB's brain is leakier than most, I can't see anything else could fit 'reaned'  or 'ran etc' ?
Surely he can't be that absent minded? 

There  was no time for re-animation of any kind unless Kate herself had to be re-animated?

Eta: yes, realised is much more likely.

It does not look like a signature, I agree. Maybe they meant that that copy was for Gerry. I still think that the handwriting on the first timeline is alcohol distorted, and so is the use of English, although we know from the rogatories that even sober their command of the English language is at best poor.

Ive noticed a definite emphasis on some of the times, as in the use of : and at other times just a .
For example 9:15 9:20 and 10:00, they seem to be deeming these as important times for themselves
Notice the first timeline 8:45 underlined....In the second 8.45 all assembled at poolside for food
The use of the : could be subconcious use of we need to stick with these.....possibly

Then again.....when am I ever right 

Don't put yourself down, Chilly - you're right more often than all of the Tapas 9 put together who are unable to get it right despite having collaborated on the script   What was that phrase KM used?  As I recall, it had to do with cabers

ultimaThule wrote:Don't put yourself down, Chilly - you're right more often than all of the Tapas 9 put together who are unable to get it right despite having collaborated on the script   What was that phrase KM used?  As I recall, it had to do with cabers

Im starting to get a bit down because Im trying to help, but once I post anything I find it seems the info is already known anyway. I do try and search first, but I personally find the search on here quite difficult.
I dont want to step back, I do want to help but Im starting to feel like maybe Im being looked upon as wearing heavy boots at times.
I panicked last night when I put the wrong info out for the wrong Kennedy.....I ran off thinking most would think Im derailing, but after I thought.....Why do so many have similar names....What really is going on.

Don't worry, you aren't the first to mix up the two Brian Kennedys and I'm sure you won't be the last!

Nobody will think badly of you for what was a genuine misunderstanding.

ROB seems to be in rather a hurry to mention E* in the first list. 

9.20/5 JT goes to check on kids and sees Tannerman
9.30 ROB & MO go to check on kids (and use toilet)?

JT must have only just arrived back when ROB took off, surely JT must have felt a little peeved, why didn't he volunteer to go sooner or simply use the OC facilities that JW used the previous night? And how fortunate for young E*, just wondering how she managed to become so unwell between her mom leaving and her dad arriving? And strange that it didn't ring any alarm bells whatsoever to the others (why weren't you there when..) as they joked about relieving Russell....

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Don't worry, you aren't the first to mix up the two Brian Kennedys and I'm sure you won't be the last!

Nobody will think badly of you for what was a genuine misunderstanding.

Ty 

ChillyHeat wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Don't put yourself down, Chilly - you're right more often than all of the Tapas 9 put together who are unable to get it right despite having collaborated on the script   What was that phrase KM used?  As I recall, it had to do with cabers

Im starting to get a bit down because Im trying to help, but once I post anything I find it seems the info is already known anyway. I do try and search first, but I personally find the search on here quite difficult.
I dont want to step back, I do want to help but Im starting to feel like maybe Im being looked upon as wearing heavy boots at times.
I panicked last night when I put the wrong info out for the wrong Kennedy.....I ran off thinking most would think Im derailing, but after I thought.....Why do so many have similar names....What really is going on.

Chillyheat, I too am very impressed by the quality of that kind of research that you did. In any case, if it is the other Brian Kennedy, it's equally relevant

Hi, I think I've found the information:
source:http://mccannfiles.com/id28.html
"...Estimated time 11.15 pm - The first officer to arrive at Ocean Club was handed two lists by Russell O'Brien, written by him on the ripped-off cover of a child's "sticker activity book"...."
From this Russel gave the both (!!) lists to the police around 23:15. As we would say in german "Russel hat richtige Scheiße gebaut...". Which means Russel gave both contradicting lists to the police and I guess Gerald will have got nearly a heart attack on this fu... a... . You know.

I have a memory of reading or even seing that one copy of said pages was also signed off be g macs signature also ? joyce1938

Châtelaine wrote:

Portia wrote:Reaned as in reanimated (= abbreviated doctors lingo?)

***
Yes. Maybe ... I just cannot make anything else of it

I always thought the word was 'realised'

Kate realised Madeleine (was absent)

Were the two sticker book timelines both written out by the same person then? Russell O'Brien? I hadn't realised that before.

I notice on the first, the writer has put 'Jerry', and on the second, 'Gerry', writing underneath, 'Gerald'

In the midst of all this (a child having been abducted) who do you suppose said, by the way, it's 'Gerry' with a G, not with a J, short for Gerald,

suzyjohnson wrote:Were the two sticker book timelines both written out by the same person then? Russell O'Brien? I hadn't realised that before.

I notice on the first, the writer has put 'Jerry', and on the second, 'Gerry', writing underneath, 'Gerald'

In the midst of all this (a child having been abducted) who do you suppose said, by the way, it's 'Gerry' with a G, not with a J, short for Gerald,

Now there's posh! You can see where the priorities lie.  Jerry wasn't going to look so good in the press..... 
Blair's children, fake familiarity from people who despise 'the people' .

Interesting what is said in the film, recently posted by HiDeHo, about the 2 time lines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc#t=1681

Read from 27.50 mins - note what is said about the two hand written Tapas 7 time lines (produced ostensibly) by Russell O'Brien. The commentator states that one was given to the PJ on the night of 3 May/4 May and that the second was found a few days later among KM's possessions. 

I'm assuming that the reconstruction of the written time lines for the film is not accurate.

The two time lines are full of discrepancies. I am undecided as to whether this is another of the Mc's intentional misdirects or whether these time lines were being used as prompts; or otherwise. 

I find it hard to accept the apparent mis-spelling of 'Jerry' by ROB. I've wondered whether the name actually written was 'Jeremy' or even 'Jes' (this is how some people write the shortened version of Jeremy). Note the 9.10/9.15pm time frame. (Not suggesting anything here other than what the written word may or may not be). Whoever has written the time lines does write some 's's' as a vague straight line, but the break in the writing seems to come after the first 'Je'. Note how the 'rry's' are written in 'Gerry' and 'carrying' - quite different. I would not be at all surprised if there is more than one hand involved in producing these time lines.

Also, look at how 'Kate' is written on the two different sheets. Quite different 'K's' for starters and on the line 'Kate realised Madeli..s', on the non-Gerald version, an extra cross line has been added onto the 't' of Kate. In the 'Gerald' version, the 'e' of 'Kate' in the last line, has been changed from something else. 

Add to that the number of different capital 'D's'; lowercase 'd's'; number '3's'; the number of full stops in certain lines, as more has been added; AND, the strange appearance of 'Ella' (not once but twice - is it possible she was going to be used as a look-a-like?); AND, the strange complete absence of Matt Oldfield's 9.35pm check in 5A on the supposedly revised/second 'Gerald' version. Did he object to being the last person in 5A before MBM was reported missing?

Below is what ROB had to say about it all in his rogatory. Note that, as per usual, he is supremely vague and confusing (or confused?):

1578    “Okay.  The time is two eleven pm and that’s on Thursday the tenth of April, two thousand and eight. We’re in an interview room at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters. I’m Detective Constable 1578 Andrew GIERC from the Leicestershire Major Crime Unit. Would you give me your full name and date of birth please”'
Reply    “Yeah it’s Russell James O’BRIEN, twenty sixth of November, nineteen seventy”.
1578    “Thank you Russell. This is the third interview of today, as I’ve stated previously you’re here voluntarily”.
Reply    “Mmm”.
1578    “As a significant witness to assist the Portuguese Authorities in their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine MCCANN in Portugal on the third of May, two thousand and seven. I would now like to move on to some time lines and we have, these are copies of written documents or time lines written on the back of, looks like a kiddies book or something”.
Reply    “Mmm mmm”.
1578    “An activity book.  If we could just for a few moments go through these documents”.
Reply    “Mmm mmm”.
1578    “Which one came first”'
Reply    “Erm as we discussed the other day, I’d forgotten these over the year but I think this is an attempt, this is a draft attempt, they’re both in my handwriting, this is a draft attempt, err and then I think I’m transcribing in a slightly more a neater writing, hoping that it’s more legible for other people to read as well, so I think this one came first”.
1578    “So just to differentiate between the two documents”.
Reply    “Mmm mmm”. 
1578    “One of them has the word ‘Gerald’.” 
Reply    “Mmm mmm”.
1578    “Written towards the lower half of the document and the other one does not”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “You’re saying the one with ‘Gerald’ written on it, was the final document”'
Reply    “Well it was certainly second one, I said I think I was writing this down in a hurry when I”.
1578    “It came after this, this first one”'
Reply    “It came after this one yeah, yeah”.
1578    “So the one that doesn’t bare the name of ‘Gerald’.”
Reply    “Is the earlier one”.
1578    “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say.  When was this drafted up”'
Reply    “Erm this was drafted er around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A (inaudible) early in the morning of the fourth of May, two thousand and seven so erm I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat with Gerry erm Dave PAYNE and at least at some stage of it, the two Officers from the, from the PJ”.
1578    “What would have been the time difference between these two documents”'
Reply    “Er that I’m not too sure, I think what, what essentially I’m doing, is I’m, I’ve written something here fairly quickly for myself and then I’ve looked at it and thought it’s, it’s not actually gonna be useful to hand to anyone to read other than me, so I think they’re probably not that far, I’ve written that and then I’ve sat down, perhaps I was writing this with that being on my knee or something and never sat down, but I don’t, I don’t recall the time difference but, but we’re looking at from what I describe about my activities in the run up to this, to these being within you know, a short space of time, half an hour, maybe even less, I don’t think I wrote this, had it in my pocket for a night, the other thing that makes me think that is, is probably the front of the back cover of a book”.
1578    “Yes”.
Reply    “So I’ve probably, I’ve probably written it, thought that’s rubbish, even I can barely read it, let’s start again, I don’t think there’s much time difference”.
1578    “If we look at the ‘Gerald’ one”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “You have a recording at nine thirty”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “Russell O’BRIEN in 5D”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “What does that read”'
Reply    “It says with poorly daughter”.
1578    “Oh sorry, with poorly daughter”.
Reply    “With (inaudible) abbreviation for with”.
1578    “And then there’s nothing until nine fifty five pm”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “And I think at ten pm the, you have the next entry, alarm raised”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “Okay”.
Reply    “After (inaudible) I think all of this is incomplete, I mean that’s an incomplete sentence there, erm yeah that’s alarm raised after Kate and I presume I’m gonna write return to table but, but, but I haven’t”.
1578    “So when we compare the ‘Gerald’ version”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “To the earlier version”.
Reply    “Mmm mmm”.
1578    “You see that at nine thirty five, you have written”.
Reply    “Matt checks, Matt checks the twins, checks and sees twins”.
1578    “Matt checks and sees twins”.
Reply    “It looks like that, yeah that what it looks like, as I say it’s, it’s, it’s not even that great for me to read there, but it does say Matt, Matt checks and sees twins, so this is as I said after Matt left me in 5D, he’s gone back and I think there was a, certainly there was a concern that Matt was, whether he actually definitely saw Madeleine at the time or not, he can certainly (inaudible) certainly in the, in the days and hours afterwards I mean Matt was unsure about whether he definitely clocked Madeleine in the room, although he was quite convinced that he, he, both the twins were there, so I think that’s why I’ve written that there”.
1578    “The nine thirty entry on the non Gerald version if you like”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “Is”'
Reply    “It says Russ and Matt check all three, so this is just an abbreviated time, an approximate time that me and Matt came back from the table to check on the, on the flat and I’ve crossed out Ella there and so it was written in, in haste”.
1578    “And then the, on the ‘Gerald’ version, you have a vertical line between nine thirty and nine fifty five”.
Reply    “Yeah, yeah”.
1578    “What did that signify”'
 Reply    “I’m not sure, I don’t know whether this was, this was me trying to get the sort of start and the end together and err and then, and then asked, asked for more, you know more detail of what people were doing.  From a personal point of view I suppose once, once I was in the, in the erm room at nine thirty, I wasn’t, I wasn’t privy to any of the other direct information, so whether this is just sort of me thinking that I’ll need to fill this in later, but you know it’s just a, this is incomplete, this sentence is incomplete and I think at some stage whilst I was writing this, the PJ were very keen to talk to Gerry then I left and I think then Jane came in, so I think this is something that was actually being written at about a point where I left it with the Police and then Jane was, Jane and Gerry were talking to the PJ”.

I'm at peace with their stumbling, bumbling incoherent stories, and botched timelines, because it was all back fitted (imho)

I reckon that one copy was a pre written script for them all to memorise and the second was written for the PJ. Is it possible that the differences are extra revealing then? It seems strange to me that a note  of, 'Jane sees Jes talking to Gerry' isn't anywhere to be seen. In my opinion Jane was never there but was only introduced on paper to supposedly see ' stranger with child.' Does anybody else think that the choice of the word 'stranger' is odd and purposely used to add a sinister undertone to reinforce the abduction theory? Wouldn't ' man carrying a child' be more apt?