Word stats for the Tapas 7 Rogatory Interviews

I'm not sure if this is the best section of the forum to put this information, if not, could the mods please move to the right area. Thanks

I've read the rogatory interviews a few times, quite long reading but rather interesting, and very revealing.

Now there is a lot of rambling by most of the tapas 7, sometimes the replies are quite jumbled in places. Sentences will start, then they will change what they are saying half-way through a sentence, and it gets confusing at times what they are trying to say. This happens a lot in these interviews, and it is as if they are thinking of something better to say.

There is also a lot of hesitation, plenty of "erm's" "err's" "I mean's" "sort of's" "you know's" and inaudible comments.

I'm no expert on lying but the overuse of the terms "sort of" and "you know" ring alarm bells with me, as do all the hesitant erm's etc.

So I decided out of curiosity to do a count within the rogatories interviews for these terms. The interviewing officier is responsible for a few of these terms, because 'you know' for example can be used in a different context. However, very little of these terms are actually used by the interviewing officer, and 99% of all these terms were used by each of the tapas 7 being interviewed.

HERE'S THE WORD COUNTS OF THESE TERMS FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE TAPAS 7.

Matthew Oldfield - 277 you know's
Matthew Oldfield - 94 I mean's
Matthew Oldfield - 429 erm's
Matthew Oldfield - 138 err's
Matthew Oldfield - 509 sort of's
Matthew Oldfield - 37 (inaudible's)

Rachael Oldfield - 921 You know's
Rachael Oldfield - 214 I mean's
Rachael Oldfield - 853 erm's
Rachael Oldfield - 481 err's
Rachael Oldfield - 254 sort of's
Rachael Oldfield - 37 (inaudible's)

David Payne - 1753 You know's
David Payne - 93 I mean's
David Payne - 21 erm's
David Payne - 1379 Err's
David Payne - 22 sort of's
David Payne - 12 (inaudible's)

Fiona Payne - 519 You know's
Fiona Payne - 147 I mean's
Fiona Payne - 904 erm's
Fiona Payne - 190 Err's
Fiona Payne - 292 sort of's
Fiona Payne - 29 (inaudible's)

Russell o'brien - 762 You know's
Russell o'brien - 118 I mean's
Russell o'brien - 942 erm's
Russell o'brien - 460 err's
Russell o'brien - 177 sort of's
Russell o'brien - 62 (inaudible's)

Jane Tanner - 486 You know's
Jane Tanner - 137 I mean's
Jane Tanner - 273 erm's
Jane Tanner - 334 Err's
Jane Tanner - 363 sort of's
Jane Tanner - 83 (inaudible's)

Diane Webster - 112 You know's
Diane Webster - 51 I mean's
Diane Webster - 3 erm's
Diane Webster - 589 Err's
Diane Webster - 36 sort of's
Diane Webster - 14 (inaudible's)

I'm not going to present a conclusion for this data, I'll just present it for now, and see what people make of it, but it's good to see who said more of what in their interviews. It may not mean anything, but it's extra data that some people might be able to analyse and give some meaning to. Cheers.

Fascinating analysis. Many thanks. From people who would otherwise present themselves as educated and fluent and lucid and articulate -
it is certainly very interesting.
Operation Grange needs a copy of this analysis.
Urgently.

PeterMac wrote:Fascinating analysis. Many thanks. From people who would otherwise present themselves as educated and fluent and lucid and articulate -
it is certainly very interesting.
Operation Grange needs a copy of this analysis.
Urgently.

Andy Redwood, after seeing the video of the dogs, came to the conclusion that Madeleine is either alive or dead. Hogan-Howe said he and the government need to make a decision about what the likely outcome of the review is to be so do you really think they will be interested in this analysis? Do you really think there is still a chance that this review is being done properly?

And just because I'm bored...in the rogatory statements, the word "tennis" is used 480 times, with Matthew, Jane and Dianne using it more than the word "Madeleine".

PeterMac wrote:Fascinating analysis. Many thanks. From people who would otherwise present themselves as educated and fluent and lucid and articulate -
it is certainly very interesting.
Operation Grange needs a copy of this analysis.
Urgently.

Hi Peter, I'd not actually given that a thought. I'm not sure what they would make of it, but if might be of any use to them then I'll happily pass it on. Is there an email address for them?

@genbug

The word 'Tennis' may have been used 480 times, but that word does not arouse any suspicions. Words like the ones I have presented, show a lot of hesitation by the tapas 7, perhaps they were nervous being questioned, but if they have nothing to hide them they don't have much reason to be nervous.

some info :

I mean :

depending on its position in a sentence or cluster thereof, a clarifying statement, a conversational stall, or a slightly apologetic amplifier. Rarely used in formal written communication, but common as a conversational particle in early 21st-century American English.

you know :
as well as being a meaningless "filler " It is also used to fill space to give the speaker time to decide how to compose the next portion of what they're saying. It basically says, "Don't interrupt me, I'm going to finish this thought. I just need a bit longer." When used that way, it is similar to "umm" or "uhh".

err /erm :
a term used in awkward situations, when in a confused state, or when trying to make a tough decision.

Here's the same data but presented differently. This time I have presented it by word term.

Again, it may not mean anything in the grand scale of things, but interesting all the same. I'm sure the psychologists amongst us might find this info useful.

You know's - 1753 David Payne
You know's - 921 Rachael Oldfield
You know's - 762 Russel o'brien
You know's - 519 Fiona Payne
You know's - 486 Jane Tanner
You know's - 277 Matthew Oldfield
You know's - 112 Dianne Webster

I mean's - 214 Rachael Oldfield
I mean's - 147 Fiona Payne
I mean's - 137 Jane Tanner
I mean's - 118 Russell o'brien
I mean's - 94 Matthew Oldfield
I mean's - 93 David Payne
I mean's - 51 Diane Webster

Erm's - 942 Russell o'brien
Erm's - 904 Fiona Payne
Erm's - 853 Rachael Oldfield
Erm's - 429 Matthew Oldfield
Erm's - 273 Jane Tanner
Erm's - 21 David Payne
Erm's - 3 Dianne Webster

Err's - 1379 David Payne
Err's - 589 Dianne Webster
Err's - 481 Rachael Oldfield
Err's - 460 Russell o'brien
Err's - 334 Jane Tanner
Err's - 190 Fiona Payne
Err's - 138 Matthew Oldfield

Sort of's - 509 Matthew Oldfield
Sort of's - 363 Jane Tanner
Sort of's - 292 Fiona Payne
Sort of's - 254 Rachael Oldfield
Sort of's - 177 Russell o'brien
Sort of's - 36 Diane Webster
Sort of's - 22 David Payne

Inaudible - 83 Jane Tanner
Inaudible - 62 Russel o'brien
Inaudible - 37 Matthew Oldfield
Inaudible - 37 Rachael Oldfield
Inaudible - 29 Fiona Payne
Inaudible - 14 Diane Webster
Inaudible - 12 David Payne

Russiandoll, thanks for your input. Obviously this data does not prove anyone's guilt, but it's interesting to see the frequency of the usage by each individual.

For example:

David Payne's 1753 "you know's" is almost double that of 2nd place Rachael Oldfield (921), and 15 times more than Dianne Webster (112).

This is a lot of "you know's" by David Payne compared to Dianne Webster, does he normally use that word so much in conversation?

Here's a few factoids on how to tell if someone is lying:

"Listen for a subtle delay in responses to questions. An honest answer comes quickly from memory. Lies require a quick mental review of what they have told others to avoid inconsistency and to make up new details as needed.

Be conscious of the person's usage of words. Verbal expression can give many clues as to whether a person is lying, such as:

Using/repeating your own exact words when answering a question

Stalling tactics, such as asking for a question to be repeated. Other stalling tactics include stating that the question asked is excellent, that the answer isn't so simple as yes or no, or confrontational style responses such as "It depends on what you mean by X" or "Where did you get this information?"

Avoiding direct statements or answers (deflections)

Speaking excessively in an effort to convince

Leaving out pronouns (he, she, it, etc.)

Speaking in muddled sentences; liars often stop mid-sentence, restart and fail to finish sentences

Using euphemisms to avoid giving voice to reality is commonplace

Pausing at an unusual time, such as in the middle of a sentence."


Some of those lying traits are visible in their responses, again, it does not mean they are actually lying, but it's definitely worth noting. Aside the Mccann's. maybe one person raises more flags than others, and that person needs closer inspection?

Something else I found about people lying:

"Filler Sounds or Words Alert!
One of the best ways to spot a liar is to listen to their speech. A liar will normally exhibit some hesitation in speech. The "um" filler sound, as well as the expression "you know," can be an indicator of a lie. This is so especially if the liar does it repeatedly.

Another common example is repeating narrative sentences like "I went to" too much. While non-liars may do all of these speech "features," it is recommended that you pay more attention to the speaker in question if you notice any of these features in their speech."

Also...

"Speech Patterns
You might notice a higher pitch in tone, stuttering, clearing the throat and frequent pauses. The person might use filler words such as "uh, er, oh" and "um" during moments of hesitation as lies are put together. Liars also will cut out contractions, using "was not" instead of "wasn't" or "did not" rather than "didn't". It's also typical for a person to get tongue-tied and lose his thoughts in mid-sentence."

And....

"Use silence.
It's very hard for a liar to avoid filling a void created by you. He or she wants you to believe the lies being woven; silence gives no feedback on whether or not you've bought the story. By being patient and remaining silent, many deceitful people will keep talking to fill that silence, embellishing and possibly slipping up in the process, without even being asked anything more."


Again, no definitive proof of lying, but interesting that many of the Tapas 7 demonstrated known traits that liars display.

As there were no RIs for K and G here are some interview snippets, bearing in mind nerves and using such terms as meaningless fillers might well be in play:

Kate McCann Yeah, Sean and Amelie are incredible really. And, erm, it doesn’t bear thinking about really how we’d be if it wasn’t for Sean and Amelie. Erm, they give us a focus, they give us hope, they bring us joy, you know. And they are doing brilliantly, I mean, they’ve taken it all on board, they seem to handle it perfectly well, they’re incredibly well adjusted. Erm, and they talk about Madeleine even now, every day they’ll talk about Madeleine. You know she’s in their role play. You know, they’ll spot Madeleine stickers and say “That’s my sister”, you know, and… They haven’t forgotten her, you know.

Gerry McCann :

Gerry: I think the hardest thing with this is, you know with hindsight we made a mistake erm it was a collective mistake but unfortunately we can’t change that, and erm whatever anyone may think about our decision making that night Madeleine’s completely innocent and you know she’s been taken and erm it’s hard for us because you know no one could feel more guilty than we did to... to... to, think that your behaviour gave someone an opportunity, a risky opportunity , but one that they took, and you know we persecuted ourselves for that, but you’ve got to look forward you can’t go back we can’t change that unfortunately, and erm what we’ve tried to do is, is always to look forward.

sonic72 wrote:
Avoiding direct statements or answers (deflections)

Reading the OP I was thinking it would be interesting to see how often they each said 'yes' and 'no'. They were being questioned after all.

Sonic72, this is a brilliant piece of work

I just totally agree with you and was ones of the first things that struck me when I first read the statements. Especially the 'you knows' and the context they were said 1,753 times in one statement!...people generally use these when they are stalling for time to think while they are lying

Between them they said 'you know' 4,830 times.....wow! absolute wow!! Even more mind boggling when its from so called doctors who sell themselves as intelligent and articulate. I agree with PM that you should send this to Operation Grange. They are open to listen and believe in crack pot physics and their 'dreams', so to receive actual analyse of facts relating to known words indicating strongly of lies being told should be very important for them. Its is for me as it shows clearly they are just lying

My favourite answer from the statements goes to david payne...This just has me in stitches every time I read it. This is relating to the last time he saw Maddie in apartment 5a with kate mccann. Its started off at 5.30pm and has ended up around 7.30pm now. He says 'it makes sense' if he went to his apartment to get changed first before coming to apartment 5A....'he thinks'.....What is this guy on!!! This is his best friends daughter and 'it makes sense' if he went to his apartment first. If I have ever seen a statement of someone lying and so so desperately petrified of trying not to say the wrong thing incase it doesn't fit with others lies, then this is it! Just say the truth fgs, its that easy and you would have to stumble and stagger your way through the interview then!! The answer to this very very simple question "How long did you spend in your apartment" is like a Ronnie Corbet story on the 2 Ronnies. He goes all around the houses, goes off at an absolute different tangent talking about nothing to do with the simple question to answer (stalling for time to think of what he should be saying), before finally arriving at the answer. Its mind blowing. Plenty of 'you knows' and the use of 'your' I'd expect from someone less educated than a 50 years old professional doctor

1485 "How long did you spend in your apartment''

00:36:24 Reply "I mean again, we've you know, we've chatted about the timings and everything and you know looked at the photographs and you know, you know we were leaving about quarter past six from the err restaurant, we'd gotta walk up there, ten, fifteen minutes, conversation with Gerry, conversation with Kate, you know that's another five, ten minutes on to your ten, fifteen minutes walk so you're talking twenty five minutes, so that's taken you to twenty five to, twenty to seven, well you know we were certainly playing tennis for a, you know the best part of an hour err so you know it couldn't have been long that I was in the apartment, you know a matter of minutes.'

Ross wrote:

sonic72 wrote:
Avoiding direct statements or answers (deflections)

Reading the OP I was thinking it would be interesting to see how often they each said 'yes' and 'no'. They were being questioned after all.

If you mean a straight yes or no, then this will be 0!

JD, I totally agree, David Payne wasn't very direct with his answers!

I know to some in this thread all these 'you know's' etc might seem trivial, but when read in the context of the interviews themselves it's just odd that they would use these terms so much. Especially in one sentence. There are quite a few sentences where these hesitant remarks are used way too much imo.

Especially at the point in the interviews when it gets to talking about the night of the 3rd of May 2007. David Payne for example goes into 'you know' overdrive when it gets to the point that Maddie was 'discovered missing'.

So many stalls mid sentence, some of it incoherent at points, it's just rather odd, and certainly sets alarm bells ringing with me!

I'll gladly pass this onto Operation Grange, not sure if it will help any, but every little helps.

sonic72 wrote:JD, I totally agree, David Payne wasn't very direct with his answers!

I know to some in this thread all these 'you know's' etc might seem trivial, but when read in the context of the interviews themselves it's just odd that they would use these terms so much. Especially in one sentence. There are quite a few sentences where these hesitant remarks are used way too much imo.

Especially at the point in the interviews when it gets to talking about the night of the 3rd of May 2007. David Payne for example goes into 'you know' overdrive when it gets to the point that Maddie was 'discovered missing'.

So many stalls mid sentence, some of it incoherent at points, it's just rather odd, and certainly sets alarm bells ringing with me!

I'll gladly pass this onto Operation Grange, not sure if it will help any, but every little helps.

Do you also have the full number of words spoken by each of the Tapas 7? Because Payne's interviews were much longer than the others and I think Jane Tanner's interview took place in three long stages. The questions of the officer could be included as that wouldn't skew the data too much I think.
Because the longer the interview, the more stalling?

Really a brilliant idea.

tigger wrote:

sonic72 wrote:JD, I totally agree, David Payne wasn't very direct with his answers!

I know to some in this thread all these 'you know's' etc might seem trivial, but when read in the context of the interviews themselves it's just odd that they would use these terms so much. Especially in one sentence. There are quite a few sentences where these hesitant remarks are used way too much imo.

Especially at the point in the interviews when it gets to talking about the night of the 3rd of May 2007. David Payne for example goes into 'you know' overdrive when it gets to the point that Maddie was 'discovered missing'.

So many stalls mid sentence, some of it incoherent at points, it's just rather odd, and certainly sets alarm bells ringing with me!

I'll gladly pass this onto Operation Grange, not sure if it will help any, but every little helps.

Do you also have the full number of words spoken by each of the Tapas 7? Because Payne's interviews were much longer than the others and I think Jane Tanner's interview took place in three long stages. The questions of the officer could be included as that wouldn't skew the data too much I think.
Because the longer the interview, the more stalling?

Really a brilliant idea. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Great work sonic72. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Catching up over my Sunday breakfast, 'as you do', of cheese, olives and nectarine, I 'erm' used the 'er' old fashioned method of 'you know' pencil and 'erm' back of an envelope, 'you know', to present the figures as 'totals of stalling tactics'.

David Payne .......3,280
Rachel Oldfield ... 2,760 (the number of yards in a mile)
Russell O,Brian ...2,521
Fiona Payne .......2,081
Jane Tanner .......1,676
Matt Oldfield ......1,484
Dianne Webster .....805

Now we DO KNOW Jane Tanner is lying, so anything above that is interesting. But so are those below her. Maybe Matt Oldfield and Dianne Webster are just good at 'stone-walling' it.
It is true that the length of the 'statements' is a factor to be considered, but I would ask these questions: if the interview/statement is longer, WHY is it longer, WHY did it need to be longer than the others?
What about the 'tuts'. Are these little sounds a 'frustration' at having to deal with an awkward interviewer putting such a question as to require the 'tutter' to suffer, once more, the discomfort of having to work hard to worm their way out of yet another sensitive situation without digging the hole even deeper.

I would like to think all the statements by T7 have been thoroughly and professionally analysed by SY as a matter of priority for their GBP2mio worth of investigation.

Word count is an interesting idea but even when it's done more scientifically (for example, contextually analysing the words like 'you know' and distinguishing fillers from stallers, establishing the frequency rather than the total number of use, comparing that with the interviewee's normal speech pattern, etc.) it will probably do no more than to confirm that the person is struggling to come up with a straight answer.

I also hope by now SY would have charted all the discrepancies and contradictions in their own statements as well as against each other's. We know and they know the T7 have lied throughout this investigation, and such inconsistencies can prove that much. But I fear they are still a long way from finding the truth or enough evidence that can be used to build a case against the MCs, unless they can persuade the PJ to reopen the case and start reinterviewing all the key witnesses with assistance from SY.

1,760 yards in a mile.
A mile is so called because it was a 'mille" = one thousand paces = a pace defined as left and right, of a Roman soldier.
The army still does it, "Left ... left... left- right- left"
The standard infantry parade marching pace in the British Army is 30 inches, 2 feet 6, so a double pace is 5 feet and a thousand gives us 5000 feet or 1,666 yards
From which we deduce that the Roman army were not marching to attention, but were slightly more relaxed and striding out by 1.7 inches further per stride.

I must get out more !

PeterMac wrote:1,760 yards in a mile.
A mile is so called because it was a 'mille" = one thousand paces = a pace defined as left and right, of a Roman soldier.
The army still does it, "Left ... left... left- right- left"
The standard infantry parade marching pace in the British Army is 30 inches, 2 feet 6, so a double pace is 5 feet and a thousand gives us 5000 feet or 1,666 yards
From which we deduce that the Roman army were not marching to attention, but were slightly more relaxed and striding out by 1.7 inches further per stride.

I must get out more !

You're quite right PeterMac, I've been away from the UK far too long. This metric stuff is clouding my memory of yards, feet and inches. But I do resist it. I still buy my wood for D.I.Y. as 2.5 meters of 4" by 4". I also still make my jam, using fruit purchased in kilos, to the recipe of 16 (dry weight) ounces of sugar to 20 fluid ounces of strained juice.
Perhaps I could have cheated and said I meant to put a 'smily' in the brackets and say, "Nah, I'm only Lying" but no, the truth is, I got it wrong.
Now that wasn't so hard was it "Kate", admitting to the truth...try it sometime, it's very cleansing...in fact, try it sooner rather than later, would you.
Regarding the longer Roman strides, perhaps these gorgeous, muscular men had longer legs than our celtic ancestors. Think of the height of some of those little entrance doors in UK houses in the past. Today's regular Dutchman would have to bend double to get in.
I blame it all on the long Roman days of blue skies and sunshine, the olives and that bracing Mediterranean air....aaaaah !
Regarding the Dutch, only tall people need apply. They have to be able to stretch up high to keep an eye on the raging north sea the other side of their dykes. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here in metric Spain, all the plumbing connections are in inches - 'pulgadas'.
Plywood is in sheets of 2.44m x 1.22m which is exactly 8 by 4 !

bobbin wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1,760 yards in a mile.
A mile is so called because it was a 'mille" = one thousand paces = a pace defined as left and right, of a Roman soldier.
The army still does it, "Left ... left... left- right- left"
The standard infantry parade marching pace in the British Army is 30 inches, 2 feet 6, so a double pace is 5 feet and a thousand gives us 5000 feet or 1,666 yards
From which we deduce that the Roman army were not marching to attention, but were slightly more relaxed and striding out by 1.7 inches further per stride.

I must get out more !

You're quite right PeterMac, I've been away from the UK far too long. This metric stuff is clouding my memory of yards, feet and inches. But I do resist it. I still buy my wood for D.I.Y. as 2.5 meters of 4" by 4". I also still make my jam, using fruit purchased in kilos, to the recipe of 16 (dry weight) ounces of sugar to 20 fluid ounces of strained juice.
Perhaps I could have cheated and said I meant to put a 'smily' in the brackets and say, "Nah, I'm only Lying" but no, the truth is, I got it wrong.
Now that wasn't so hard was it "Kate", admitting to the truth...try it sometime, it's very cleansing...in fact, try it sooner rather than later, would you.
Regarding the longer Roman strides, perhaps these gorgeous, muscular men had longer legs than our celtic ancestors. Think of the height of some of those little entrance doors in UK houses in the past. Today's regular Dutchman would have to bend double to get in.
I blame it all on the long Roman days of blue skies and sunshine, the olives and that bracing Mediterranean air....aaaaah !
Regarding the Dutch, only tall people need apply. They have to be able to stretch up high to keep an eye on the raging north sea the other side of their dykes. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Romans were definitely shorter, 5'5" to 5'9' - that last one would be tall! They could also march 25 miles in full gear and still set up a marching camp at dusk.
I was often introduced to his UK friends by my boyfriend as 'a Dutch dwarf' (5'6"!) - in the UK I'm tallish, in NL I'm below average. As for the dykes, my ancestors were born not far from Rotterdam in a village 7 meters -22.96 feet - below mean sea level.
We've gone disastrously off topic

tigger wrote:

bobbin wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1,760 yards in a mile.
A mile is so called because it was a 'mille" = one thousand paces = a pace defined as left and right, of a Roman soldier.
The army still does it, "Left ... left... left- right- left"
The standard infantry parade marching pace in the British Army is 30 inches, 2 feet 6, so a double pace is 5 feet and a thousand gives us 5000 feet or 1,666 yards
From which we deduce that the Roman army were not marching to attention, but were slightly more relaxed and striding out by 1.7 inches further per stride.

I must get out more !

You're quite right PeterMac, I've been away from the UK far too long. This metric stuff is clouding my memory of yards, feet and inches. But I do resist it. I still buy my wood for D.I.Y. as 2.5 meters of 4" by 4". I also still make my jam, using fruit purchased in kilos, to the recipe of 16 (dry weight) ounces of sugar to 20 fluid ounces of strained juice.
Perhaps I could have cheated and said I meant to put a 'smily' in the brackets and say, "Nah, I'm only Lying" but no, the truth is, I got it wrong.
Now that wasn't so hard was it "Kate", admitting to the truth...try it sometime, it's very cleansing...in fact, try it sooner rather than later, would you.
Regarding the longer Roman strides, perhaps these gorgeous, muscular men had longer legs than our celtic ancestors. Think of the height of some of those little entrance doors in UK houses in the past. Today's regular Dutchman would have to bend double to get in.
I blame it all on the long Roman days of blue skies and sunshine, the olives and that bracing Mediterranean air....aaaaah !
Regarding the Dutch, only tall people need apply. They have to be able to stretch up high to keep an eye on the raging north sea the other side of their dykes. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Romans were definitely shorter, 5'5" to 5'9' - that last one would be tall! They could also march 25 miles in full gear and still set up a marching camp at dusk.
I was often introduced to his UK friends by my boyfriend as 'a Dutch dwarf' (5'6"!) - in the UK I'm tallish, in NL I'm below average. As for the dykes, my ancestors were born not far from Rotterdam in a village 7 meters -22.96 feet - below mean sea level.
We've gone disastrously off topic [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're right tigger, definitely off topic, but to close, I can boast having a 'direct metric measure' to my UK one.
I'm 1.50m, equals 5 feet, same distance as from the outstretched finger tips of one arm to the finger tips of the other, very useful when I'm trying to measure wood or walls for my UKetric measurements, but I do have to scurry twice as fast as everyone else to keep up when out walking....even the WRENS wouldn't accept me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Now back to topic [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The standard parade march pace is deliberately shorter than one would normally use to walk. recruits have to be taught how to "step shorter".
It is also quite tiring, for that reason, and marching 'at ease' can, as you say, move people quite quickly over longer distances.
The difference of only 1.7 inches per pace though does also accord with Roman soldiers being shorter than modern Army recruits.
One supposes that their "Dress parade" pace would have been even shorter than that. Assuming that they had one.
Modern British infantry drill movements, the stamping, clenched fist and arm swinging to shoulder height we are now so familiar with, is all post First War.
Before that they simply walked smartly, with open hands and stopped when asked nicely !

jd wrote: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Sonic72, this is a brilliant piece of work

I just totally agree with you and was ones of the first things that struck me when I first read the statements. Especially the 'you knows' and the context they were said 1,753 times in one statement!...people generally use these when they are stalling for time to think while they are lying

Between them they said 'you know' 4,830 times.....wow! absolute wow!! Even more mind boggling when its from so called doctors who sell themselves as intelligent and articulate. I agree with PM that you should send this to Operation Grange. They are open to listen and believe in crack pot physics and their 'dreams', so to receive actual analyse of facts relating to known words indicating strongly of lies being told should be very important for them. Its is for me as it shows clearly they are just lying

My favourite answer from the statements goes to david payne...This just has me in stitches every time I read it. This is relating to the last time he saw Maddie in apartment 5a with kate mccann. Its started off at 5.30pm and has ended up around 7.30pm now. He says 'it makes sense' if he went to his apartment to get changed first before coming to apartment 5A....'he thinks'.....What is this guy on!!! This is his best friends daughter and 'it makes sense' if he went to his apartment first. If I have ever seen a statement of someone lying and so so desperately petrified of trying not to say the wrong thing incase it doesn't fit with others lies, then this is it! Just say the truth fgs, its that easy and you would have to stumble and stagger your way through the interview then!! The answer to this very very simple question "How long did you spend in your apartment" is like a Ronnie Corbet story on the 2 Ronnies. He goes all around the houses, goes off at an absolute different tangent talking about nothing to do with the simple question to answer (stalling for time to think of what he should be saying), before finally arriving at the answer. Its mind blowing. Plenty of 'you knows' and the use of 'your' I'd expect from someone less educated than a 50 years old professional doctor

1485 "How long did you spend in your apartment''

00:36:24 Reply "I mean again, we've you know, we've chatted about the timings and everything and you know looked at the photographs and you know, you know we were leaving about quarter past six from the err restaurant, we'd gotta walk up there, ten, fifteen minutes, conversation with Gerry, conversation with Kate, you know that's another five, ten minutes on to your ten, fifteen minutes walk so you're talking twenty five minutes, so that's taken you to twenty five to, twenty to seven, well you know we were certainly playing tennis for a, you know the best part of an hour err so you know it couldn't have been long that I was in the apartment, you know a matter of minutes.' [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also, relevant in any Court of Law, he admits to being in cahoots with one or more others, cooking the evidence: " WE've chatted about the timings" "WE've looked at the (which?!) photographs"

I've heard far less 'You Know's' in an episode of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] The gall of these so-called 'educated' eloquent people is quite stunning![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]