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

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?

by jd 26.05.12 11:54

Portia wrote: OK. So Payne was involved, and Murat was the Tapasniks patsy?

Do you have any theories as to why they were intent since day 1 on only setting murat up for the abduction? and only him, nobody else

by Guest 26.05.12 12:16

jd wrote:
Portia wrote: OK. So Payne was involved, and Murat was the Tapasniks patsy?

Do you have any theories as to why they were intent since day 1 on only setting murat up for the abduction? and only him, nobody else

I'll have to think about that. On the face of it:

1. Because Murat was available;
2. He acted as an interpreter, when someone must have noticed the similarity;
3. When GM and ROB drew up the stickerbook timelines they included a mention of a sighting by JT;
4. Either JT had actually seen 'someting/someone' at that stage and reported that, or she was at that moment cast in a role, yet to perform;
5. Having been cast into that role, she was fed the particulars of the sighting: now listen carefully sister, you saw someone walking away to the right, have you got that? While GM carrying God knows who/what had in fact slipped of to the left, so to meet the Smith sighting
6. To the right: some time during the interviews it becae clear the interpretor lived 'to the right';
7. He had the misfortune to look like one of the main participants, if not one of the perpetrators of the abduction hoax;
8. So he was slotted in, and obviously expected to take the fall by the likes of all those who pointed teir fingers at him later: the Tapasniks, that infamous newspaper chit, etcetera.
9. While DP walked.

by **Nina** 26.05.12 12:32

I wonder who else they would have identified if Murat hadn't been about? Pity for him that he made that last minute flight booking to dash back home to PdL. Barely time to beat the 2 hour wait before boarding if I remember correctly.

by Guest 26.05.12 13:18

Nina wrote:I wonder who else they would have identified if Murat hadn't been about? Pity for him that he made that last minute flight booking to dash back home to PdL. Barely time to beat the 2 hour wait before boarding if I remember correctly.

Maybe they DID know him beforehand and called him in, involved him at some earlier point in time, with the patsy-scenario already in mind?

Do we know why exactly he went to PdL at such short notice?

Was he perhaps supposed to arrive a little later, one of the posse of hitmen & helpers arriving within days 'after the fact'; his presence on the scene looking more 'natural' then, supposedly; and overdid he -wittingly or unwittingly- his brief, inadvisedly taking the earlier plane in order not to miss his cue?

by **Nina** 26.05.12 13:20

Portia wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder who else they would have identified if Murat hadn't been about? Pity for him that he made that last minute flight booking to dash back home to PdL. Barely time to beat the 2 hour wait before boarding if I remember correctly.

Maybe they DID know him beforehand and called him in, involved him at some earlier point in time, with the patsy-scenario already in mind?

Do we know why he DID fly to PdL at such short notice?

Was he supposed to arrive a little later, his presence on the scene looking more 'natural', and overdid he -wittinly or unwittingly- his brief taking the earlier plane?

He was supposed to return on the 9th but did a quick exit as his girlfriend had called him to say the lawyer needed to see him about the divorce.
There as a piece about him, I will find the link for you.

by jd 26.05.12 22:09

Portia wrote:

1. Because Murat was available;
2. He acted as an interpreter, when someone must have noticed the similarity;
3. When GM and ROB drew up the stickerbook timelines they included a mention of a sighting by JT;
4. Either JT had actually seen 'someting/someone' at that stage and reported that, or she was at that moment cast in a role, yet to perform;
5. Having been cast into that role, she was fed the particulars of the sighting: now listen carefully sister, you saw someone walking away to the right, have you got that? While GM carrying God knows who/what had in fact slipped of to the left, so to meet the Smith sighting
6. To the right: some time during the interviews it becae clear the interpretor lived 'to the right';
7. He had the misfortune to look like one of the main participants, if not one of the perpetrators of the abduction hoax;
8. So he was slotted in, and obviously expected to take the fall by the likes of all those who pointed teir fingers at him later: the Tapasniks, that infamous newspaper chit, etcetera.
9. While DP walked.

I don't think any of these reasons are why they did everything they could to pin the abduction on murat, this is a very serious accusation. jane tanner described her abductor man as having long hair and she didn't see his face yet a few days later she is in a smoked police car naming him as the one she saw, very deliberate setup but why? Maybe it is to protect david payne (you only have to read his statements to see how nervous he was at lying & covering up something about 'his angels') and maybe it goes a lot deeper than this

by jd 27.05.12 0:28

jd wrote: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

or maybe Angus Symington?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-robert-murat-has-a-double-289449

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 2 0%2BMurat%2B%2526%2BSymington

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 2 0%2BMurat%2B%2526%2BSymington

by **tigger** 27.05.12 7:01

I believe there are several entries in Kate's diary re Murat - all very hostile to say the least. I wonder if he is also the person who has brought 'additional' problems to her and her family. This entry in her diary is very intriguing. Why 'additional'?

However :
24/12/2007
Kate McCann is reported to be suspicious about Robert Murat's alibi for the night her daughter Madeleine vanished. It is said that she has confided to friends that she believes there are questions about the British expat that need to be answered.

A month later the signals have changed to:
27/1/2008
Kate and Gerry McCann are certain original suspect Robert Murat is not the man who snatched their daughter Madeleine. But private detectives searching for the missing four-year-old still believe he may have acted as a “spotter” for a kidnap gang targeting the McCann family. The couple have now revealed how they never thought the expatriate was responsible. Despite doubts over his alibi, they have ruled out the 34-year-old after a major probe in Praia de Luz.
source mcCannfiles.com.

Helpful couple aren't they? Telling the police how it is - but still diverting the attention of the public towards Murat. The insistence on Murat may well have been misdirection whilst they were tidying up their combined stories.

by bobbin 27.05.12 13:18

Nina wrote:
Portia wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder who else they would have identified if Murat hadn't been about? Pity for him that he made that last minute flight booking to dash back home to PdL. Barely time to beat the 2 hour wait before boarding if I remember correctly.

Maybe they DID know him beforehand and called him in, involved him at some earlier point in time, with the patsy-scenario already in mind?

Do we know why he DID fly to PdL at such short notice?

Was he supposed to arrive a little later, his presence on the scene looking more 'natural', and overdid he -wittinly or unwittingly- his brief taking the earlier plane?

He was supposed to return on the 9th but did a quick exit as his girlfriend had called him to say the lawyer needed to see him about the divorce.
There as a piece about him, I will find the link for you.

His return has always bothered me. Are there any statements, phone call analysis, etc. which indicate that Murat did in fact visit his solicitor immediately to deal with divorce questions. It all seemed very confusing the change of stories about meeting Malinka, his computer/business deals, his girl friend and her current husband etc.

by **Nina** 27.05.12 15:16

Nina wrote:
Portia wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder who else they would have identified if Murat hadn't been about? Pity for him that he made that last minute flight booking to dash back home to PdL. Barely time to beat the 2 hour wait before boarding if I remember correctly.

Maybe they DID know him beforehand and called him in, involved him at some earlier point in time, with the patsy-scenario already in mind?

Do we know why he DID fly to PdL at such short notice?

Was he supposed to arrive a little later, his presence on the scene looking more 'natural', and overdid he -wittinly or unwittingly- his brief taking the earlier plane?

He was supposed to return on the 9th but did a quick exit as his girlfriend had called him to say the lawyer needed to see him about the divorce.
There as a piece about him, I will find the link for you.

Here you are, all taken from the files.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Muratpt1.html

by Hummingbird 27.05.12 15:31

Can anyone tell me the correct time lines between:

The first 'talk' that perhaps no one could actually say 100% that Madeleine had been seen on Thursday 3rd

The first time DP making the supposed visit to his 'angels' and friends wife wrapped in bath towel became public knowledge or reported in statements

The first time the Gasper statements became public knowledge, I know the statement was actually given in May 2007, very early on, but I am wondering when it became public knowledge.

I have always wondered about where Murat and Malinka fit into all of this but as always I just cannot believe that so many people could be involved in something so big and no one has cracked by now. Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time doing something 'shady' that had nothing at all to do with McCanns, it is very odd how he looks like the 'closest' friend of the McCanns, the one who was distraught when Madeleine went missing while her parents weren't, the one who was instructing them not to talk to social workers, and the one who seems to get very little mention in all the statements when everyone else gets mentioned over and over again.