Re: MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit)

by Guest 22.04.12 15:18

tigger wrote:
Stella wrote:I think they are both lying.

There is no way that Kate would have taken a shower with 3 children running around an unfamiliar apartment on their own. No protection on power sockets. Hard tiled floors. sliding doors that Madeleine could have opened. What a receipe for disaster.

Why not? They're not particularly careful of their children in any case. The visit was definitely a lie, the complete rogatory with DP is hilarious, 'all three, ermm children, were there, how nice ALL three looked etc.' See Dr. Roberts

And then this (rogatory interview):

So
I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate
and Gerry’s apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we’ve
looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that
we’ve got that I was you know going to Kate’s about six thirty, err and I
went into their apartment through the patio doors.

The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate,

you
know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well
looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it’s a bit early
for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed,

she
said ah they’ve had such a great time, they’re really tired and you
know err so I say, you know I can’t remember exactly what, what you know
the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the
predominant err colour,

but
you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you
know obviously Gerry wasn’t there but they were just all, just so at
peace and you know they looked like a family who’d had such a fantastic
time

snip

Nowhere does DP say he saw them moving an inch, breathing or even being alive. That is strange, isn't it?

by Guest 22.04.12 17:15

Not that I believe anything that David Payne says but I don't attach any significance to the fact that he didn't mention seeing the children moving, breathing or even alive! Sorry Portia, I think this one will have the pros cackling over their cauldrons.

Fair's fair though, they do give us a lot of amusement too.

by **tigger** 22.04.12 17:30

Jean wrote:Not that I believe anything that David Payne says but I don't attach any significance to the fact that he didn't mention seeing the children moving, breathing or even alive! Sorry Portia, I think this one will have the pros cackling over their cauldrons.

Fair's fair though, they do give us a lot of amusement too.

Perhaps, like Gerry in the Swedish interview, was thinking of a photograph..

by russiandoll 22.04.12 18:08

what is DP referring to here, do you think ?
o
I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate
and Gerry’s apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we’ve
looked obviously at photographs since then

by Guest 22.04.12 18:25

russiandoll wrote: what is DP referring to here, do you think ?
o
I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate
and Gerry’s apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we’ve
looked obviously at photographs since then

This is what he is saying, I think:

So
I walked back err from the tennis courts, ~~err~~ back to ~~err you know~~ Kate
and Gerry’s apartment

and the time ~~you know~~ looking at, ~~you know~~ we’ve
looked obviously at photographs since then

and ~~you know~~ the time that
we’ve got that I was y~~ou know~~ going to Kate’s about six thirty, ~~err~~

and I
went into their apartment through the patio doors.

1. So DP went back to Kates appartment. Had he been there before then? How else could he go back there?
2. He, and others, calculated the distance from photographs, agreeing on a joint conclusion as to the time he got back there: 6.30 (= 18.30 continental);
3. He went inside, into the appartment, through the patio doors.

So he says.

by Guest 22.04.12 18:28

Jean wrote:Not that I believe anything that David Payne says but I don't attach any significance to the fact that he didn't mention seeing the children moving, breathing or even alive! Sorry Portia, I think this one will have the pros cackling over their cauldrons.

Fair's fair though, they do give us a lot of amusement too.

The thesis that Maddie was last seen alive by DP could benefit from the fact of his having seen her alive. But this, he fails to corroborate.
So there is indeed some significance to my observation

by **tigger** 22.04.12 19:28

Portia wrote:
Jean wrote:Not that I believe anything that David Payne says but I don't attach any significance to the fact that he didn't mention seeing the children moving, breathing or even alive! Sorry Portia, I think this one will have the pros cackling over their cauldrons.

Fair's fair though, they do give us a lot of amusement too.

The thesis that Maddie was last seen alive by DP could benefit from the fact of his having seen her alive. But this, he fails to corroborate.
So there is indeed some significance to my observation

So once again, not the child/children themselves, saying or doing things, a picture. Plus the great importance of mentioning the 'three'. Several times. So now we got it? A picture with three, remember Dave, three little angels.

by Guest 22.04.12 21:02

tigger wrote:
Portia wrote:
Jean wrote:Not that I believe anything that David Payne says but I don't attach any significance to the fact that he didn't mention seeing the children moving, breathing or even alive! Sorry Portia, I think this one will have the pros cackling over their cauldrons.

Fair's fair though, they do give us a lot of amusement too.

The thesis that Maddie was last seen alive by DP could benefit from the fact of his having seen her alive. But this, he fails to corroborate.
So there is indeed some significance to my observation

So once again, not the child/children themselves, saying or doing things, a picture. Plus the great importance of mentioning the 'three'. Several times. So now we got it? A picture with three, remember Dave, three little angels.

Funny thing is, once you cross out the ' you knows' DPs utterings remain odd, but at least they appear to express something.

As in:

but
~~you know just~~ to reinforce they were ~~just~~ so happy, ~~you know~~ seeing ~~you~~
~~know~~ obviously Gerry wasn’t there but they were ~~just~~ all, ~~just~~ so at
peace and ~~you know~~ they looked like a family who’d had such a fantastic
time

begging the question where Gerry really was at or around 18.30, or why his absence would cause everybodies happiness 'obviously', or why this fact would have to be so pointedly reinforced. (as in: OK, you knucklehead, do you finally get the hang of it or don't you? We're all in this together, remember?)

If you so persistently stress the presence of three angels, would that be, perhaps, because in reality there were only two little angels left and someone wanted to create the impression that this were otherwise?

by **PeterMac** 22.04.12 22:41

Portia wrote:
The thesis that Maddie was last seen alive by DP could benefit from the fact of his having seen her alive. But this, he fails to corroborate.
So there is indeed some significance to my observation

Being the "last person to see her alive" is a very difficult position to be in during a murder enquiry. You will be questioned for a very long time and in very great detail.
And you will be a principal suspect.
Better therefore, for DP to deny that he actually saw her, even though he can continue to pretend that he did some visit or other, and to leave the honoured position to none other than GM.

Incidentally , if his visit involved going in through the patio doors, he would then have had to back-track, go out onto the Gerry/Jez/JT road, then round the top past the front door of the apartment, and then visit his own.
Why not just do the two front doors at the same time. They are not far away from each other.
But that would have involved a ceremony of the keys, which does not appear in any of the statements. (so far as I recall [SFAIR] (New abbreviation ?)
Or did he also leave his patio doors open and bimble along the little lane ?
We shall never know !

by Guest 22.04.12 23:07

David Payne: "I said to Kate 'is not it a bit early for the err err errr three of them'" sounds so very much like he did not finish his sentence after the and he took time to think and came up with 'the three of them'
If I had to complete that half sentence it would be thus: " Isn't it a bit early for the twins" ..
IMO if there had been three children the simplest sentence would have been, ...for them..
I even posted that before here or most probably on MCF.
parapono

by Liz Eagles 23.04.12 0:00

parapono wrote:David Payne: "I said to Kate 'is not it a bit early for the err err errr three of them'" sounds so very much like he did not finish his sentence after the and he took time to think and came up with 'the three of them'
If I had to complete that half sentence it would be thus: " Isn't it a bit early for the twins" ..
IMO if there had been three children the simplest sentence would have been, ...for them..
I even posted that before here or most probably on MCF.
parapono

I can't see why someone would point out the time of children being bathed and 'pyjama'd'. There's an awful lot of emphasis in the statements on bathtime and bedtime. From the statements we are lead to believe it was at GM's request DP looked in on Kate. What was he supposed to be looking in on? a mother who couldn't bath her own three children on her own? If I remember rightly GM was staying to play more tennis. I don't see why GP needed to go there other than to say GM would be late. As they had mobile phones that could have been taken care of with a text message or a phone call.

by Ribisl 23.04.12 6:07

According to the official version GM had asked DP to give Kate a hand to take the chidren down to the play area. But Kate said no because the children were tired and ready for bed.

by Guest 23.04.12 7:57

PeterMac wrote:
Portia wrote:
The thesis that Maddie was last seen alive by DP could benefit from the fact of his having seen her alive. But this, he fails to corroborate.
So there is indeed some significance to my observation
Being the "last person to see her alive" is a very difficult position to be in during a murder enquiry. You will be questioned for a very long time and in very great detail.
And you will be a principal suspect.
Better therefore, for DP to deny that he actually saw her, even though he can continue to pretend that he did some visit or other, and to leave the honoured position to none other than GM.

Incidentally , if his visit involved going in through the patio doors, he would then have had to back-track, go out onto the Gerry/Jez/JT road, then round the top past the front door of the apartment, and then visit his own.
Why not just do the two front doors at the same time. They are not far away from each other.
But that would have involved a ceremony of the keys, which does not appear in any of the statements. (so far as I recall [SFAIR] (New abbreviation ?)
Or did he also leave his patio doors open and bimble along the little lane ?
We shall never know !

Opening and/or closing the two childprotection gates at the bottom and the top of the stairs (2x; coming up and going down) to boot.

by finch 23.04.12 8:42

There is something else that seems odd. Wasn't Payne supposed to play tennis at 6pm? He left Praraiso for the tennis courts, but since he didn't have the right outfit, he went from the courts to his apartment, at the same time visiting Kate. Did the others have their tennis gear already? Why didn't Payne? If you have to get your outfit and you come from Paraiso, it's not logical to go to the tennis courts first. You would go to your apartment first, which is a bit further from the entrance of the Ocean Club and the tennis courts. Maybe I missed something in Paynes statement about this, but it still seems odd.

by **PeterMac** 23.04.12 9:06

Portia wrote:
Opening and/or closing the two childprotection gates at the bottom and the top of the stairs (2x; coming up and going down) to boot.

Perhaps they left those open as well, in case of fire.
Otherwise Madeleine would have lifted the twins from their cots, opened the patio door, which she either could do in case of fire, or couldn't do in case of wandering off,
and then found the three of them trapped on the patio, unable to open the child gates.

by russiandoll 23.04.12 14:23

maybe the oldest child could try to clamber over the safety gate, and positioned where it was, could have caused the child to lose her balance and tumble to the bottom of those stone steps.
Yes it really is credible that the parents left a 3 year old with the ability to exit via the patio and maybe climb over the gate and probably fracture her skull falling down some steep stone steps.
another reason I dont buy neglect.
the Payne visit is either a total fiction to promote the idea of a live Maddie at that time
or is a fact and a significant fact with regard to her disappearance
one way or another, it is important, forgotten then recalled and quite differently by K and D.
but K gets around the did he did he not enter by telling us D just popped his head in.

by worriedmum 23.04.12 15:27

''
you
know they were just like angels,... I can’t remember exactly what, what you knowthe night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour...
they were just all, just so at peace ''

by **PeterMac** 23.04.12 15:32

worriedmum wrote:''
you, know they were just like angels,...I can’t remember exactly what, what you knowthe night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour...
they were just all, just so at peace ''

It was a cold night, JT said so, and commented specifically on the lack of socks or shoes.
The children would have been tucked up under the covers.
Madeleine would have been under the blanket.
Why is he going on about their night attire ?

Angels ! At Peace ! It sounds like a Chapel of Rest rather than a children's holiday bedroom.

by Liz Eagles 23.04.12 15:34

PeterMac wrote:
worriedmum wrote:''
you, know they were just like angels,...I can’t remember exactly what, what you knowthe night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour...
they were just all, just so at peace ''
It was a cold night, JT said so, and commented specifically on the lack of socks or shoes.
The children would have been tucked up under the covers.
Madeleine would have been under the blanket.
Why is he going on about their night attire ?

Angels ! At Peace ! It sounds like a Chapel of Rest rather than a children's holiday bedroom.

where were the bedclothes from the twins cots?

by worriedmum 23.04.12 15:44

That's an interesting point, Aquila.

by worriedmum 23.04.12 15:50

.....but they can't have been in bed, can they, if he only 'popped his head through the doors' (not sure but isn't that what Kate said?)? How could he see them if they were in bed?
But if they weren't in bed, why would you say they were 'at peace'? Funny way to say something isn't it? And funny you wouldn't remember that the adult who came to talk to you had to put a towel on because they had just showered......but you would remember your impressions of the childrens' feelings/appearances.

by jd 26.05.12 2:52

The total contradictions of david paynes "visit' with kate mccanns version is alarming as well as very important, surely SY should be re-questioning them about this. Could the reason jane tanner and the Tapas 9 were pinning robert murat since day 1 be to deflect away from david payne? so all eyes would be focused on murat as he and payne look alike

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 2 By-DixonCox-paynemuratgif

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 2 By-DixonCox-paynemuratgif

by **tigger** 26.05.12 7:18

PeterMac wrote:
worriedmum wrote:''
you, know they were just like angels,...I can’t remember exactly what, what you knowthe night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour...
they were just all, just so at peace ''
It was a cold night, JT said so, and commented specifically on the lack of socks or shoes.
The children would have been tucked up under the covers.
Madeleine would have been under the blanket.
Why is he going on about their night attire ?

Angels ! At Peace ! It sounds like a Chapel of Rest rather than a children's holiday bedroom.

Was this a case of memory leaking into the constructed narrative? Did David Payne actually see Madeleine dead looking like an angel? Which was extended to the twins who'd actually look more like cherubs than angels?
The lack of movement Portia pointed out - would be explained as well, the main thing is that he had to have seen Madeleine and his visual memory fished out what?
A peaceful non moving angel.
It could almost sound like a somewhat guilty person soothing his conscience - an angel at peace, so whatever had happened - the result was a peaceful angel. Nothing to reproach yourself with. All that got moved was the actual date and time this was observed.

by Guest 26.05.12 11:18

jd wrote:The total contradictions of david paynes "visit' with kate mccanns version is alarming as well as very important, surely SY should be re-questioning them about this. Could the reason jane tanner and the Tapas 9 were pinning robert murat since day 1 be to deflect away from david payne? so all eyes would be focused on murat as he and payne look alike

OK.

So Payne was involved, and Murat was the Tapasniks patsy?