Re: 3 Prime Suspects Identified

by ultimaThule 09.01.14 21:24

Monty Heck wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
So purchasing PAYG phones by no means a simple process nontheless no problem getting 2 handsets delivered PDQ by "friends of friends" at Portimao PJ station that very first day. This would require assistance from people with not only excellent local knowledge but in all probability language skills, and also what must surely have been a high level of commitment. The "abduction" was barely announced yet there were apparently quite distantly connected people with the requisite means and intent to accomplish this. Can't help thinking help of this kind seems rather more akin to professional (Consular?) assistance than random do gooders, who by lucky chance happened to be in the vicinity that very morning.

If you think about it, getting the PAYG phones delivered to the Police station on the 4th would be a good way of drawing attention to their "newness" - even if you'd already been using them for several days....

Good point but wouldn't that mean dependence on some third party accomplice/s? Seems a bit high risk but that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility - there are so many strange things about this entire case.

I can't imagine the canny wee one would have trusted PAYG or any other mobiles which came to him/his pals through consular or other 'official' assistance.

The phones could have travelled out on either of the Tapas 9's flights and SIM cards bought in Spain if it proved too risky to buy Portuguese ones in Luz, or one of the numerous 'aides' who'd flown to the assistance of the grieving couple could have gifted them with PAYGs purchased especially for the occasion in England.

by bobbin 09.01.14 21:28

ultimaThule wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
So purchasing PAYG phones by no means a simple process nontheless no problem getting 2 handsets delivered PDQ by "friends of friends" at Portimao PJ station that very first day. This would require assistance from people with not only excellent local knowledge but in all probability language skills, and also what must surely have been a high level of commitment. The "abduction" was barely announced yet there were apparently quite distantly connected people with the requisite means and intent to accomplish this. Can't help thinking help of this kind seems rather more akin to professional (Consular?) assistance than random do gooders, who by lucky chance happened to be in the vicinity that very morning.

If you think about it, getting the PAYG phones delivered to the Police station on the 4th would be a good way of drawing attention to their "newness" - even if you'd already been using them for several days....

Good point but wouldn't that mean dependence on some third party accomplice/s? Seems a bit high risk but that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility - there are so many strange things about this entire case.
I can't imagine the canny wee one would have trusted PAYG or any other mobiles which came to him/his pals through consular or other 'official' assistance.

The phones could have travelled out on either of the Tapas 9's flights and SIM cards bought in Spain if it proved too risky to buy Portuguese ones in Luz, or one of the numerous 'aides' who'd flown to the assistance of the grieving couple could have gifted them with PAYGs purchased especially for the occasion in England.

never thought of that UT, but very good. The more I read here, the more I see it is important to develop a criminal mind. big grin

by Daisy 09.01.14 22:04

suep wrote:Wasn't this something to do with a relative of DP (?brother in law) with a name like Oldridge or Aldridge? He was in the UK at the time so must have had contacts in PdL. I seem to remember he had a connection to the construction industry.

Yes, Simon Aldridge, married to Fiona Payne's sister. He owns a Roofing company near Doncaster. It was apparently his brothers wife who had friends in the Algarve who arranged the delivery of the phones.

But take a look at this part of Dianne Webster's statement, something very fishy here. Looks like someone was trying to cover their tracks. It would be interesting to know the date of these calls.

4078    “And the last number then Dianne is o, seven, eight, nine, nine, eight, one, eight, seven, one, three.”
Reply    “One, three. Who else would I have called?”

4078    “Do you know a Dave MIDDLETON?”
Reply    “Dave MIDDLETON? (Shakes head).”

4078    “No?”
Reply    “No.”

4078    “Do you know anybody in Doncaster?”
Reply    “Err no, but Louise, my middle daughter, she’s married to err Simon ALDRIDGE who, his company err Doncaster, I’m sure it’s around Doncaster where his business is.”

4078    “What’s his line of work?”
Reply    “They’re err it’s a roof tiler.”

4078    “That’s the one yeah.”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “Yeah. Sandtoft Roof Tiles.”
Reply    “Sandtoft yeah that’s it.”

4078    “The person that’s bought the phone or registered the phone must be called Dave MIDDLETON. Okay, so that’s your son in-law then?”
Reply    “Yeah. Well not the Dave MIDDLETON, he’s not.”

4078    “No.”
Reply   “No. My son in-law’s…”

4078    “Simon ALDRIDGE.”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “That’s it for the phone numbers.”
Reply    “That’s it for the phone numbers.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Daisy 09.01.14 22:20

tigger wrote:
The Camerons (Gerry's sister) were able to borrow a car from friends when they got to Portugal.

I've never believed the babes in the wood myth. The Algarve isn't called Little Britain for nothing. Also - as Praaia? told us - has very few CCTV cameras in public places.

Same with Kate's friends the Pattersons who flew out to support them on the 8th May. (Neal Patterson was the one that supposedly took her the bible). He said in his Rog statement that he got a lift from the airport to PDL with someone he knew. Hmm....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 09.01.14 22:22

Daisy wrote:
4078 “Do you know a Dave MIDDLETON?”
Reply “Dave MIDDLETON? (Shakes head).”

So is Dave Middleton the Algarve contact of Simon Aldridge?

Wasn't there a mysterious Dave who assisted in the searches of the OC apartments?

by Guest 09.01.14 22:34

ultimaThule wrote:
I can't imagine the canny wee one would have trusted PAYG or any other mobiles which came to him/his pals through consular or other 'official' assistance.

The phones could have travelled out on either of the Tapas 9's flights and SIM cards bought in Spain if it proved too risky to buy Portuguese ones in Luz, or one of the numerous 'aides' who'd flown to the assistance of the grieving couple could have gifted them with PAYGs purchased especially for the occasion in England.

I suddenly feel that these phones are extremely key to events. I'd like to understand better the technicalities of matching a (presumably) locked UK sourced PAYG handset with a PT sourced SIM back in 2007.

There are lots of candidates for "mule" - Murat or Pennington for instance just off the top of my head.

by MissDaisy 09.01.14 22:38

You are so right Daisy, there is something very odd about Diane Webster and the Doncaster bit. To quote from the website, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Sandtoft Roof Tiles is the UK's largest independent roof tile manufacturer, yet if you were to listen to Diane Webster you would think she had never heard of her son-in-law's business before or at best it was some two bit operation run by a man and his van. Definitely not something to be "erring" about. It's as if these people are trying to recall from a script sometimes and badly at that.

by Daisy 09.01.14 23:37

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Daisy wrote:
4078 “Do you know a Dave MIDDLETON?”
Reply “Dave MIDDLETON? (Shakes head).”

So is Dave Middleton the Algarve contact of Simon Aldridge?

Wasn't there a mysterious Dave who assisted in the searches of the OC apartments?

No clay, the calls were to/from Doncaster. SA's place of business. It sounds like the contact with SA was made by using someone elses phone (D Middleton). Now why would this be if not to cover tracks?

4078    “Do you know anybody in Doncaster?”
Reply    “Err no, but Louise, my middle daughter, she’s married to err Simon ALDRIDGE who, his company err Doncaster, I’m sure it’s around Doncaster where his business is.”

4078    “The person that’s bought the phone or registered the phone must be called Dave MIDDLETON. Okay, so that’s your son in-law then?”
Reply    “Yeah. Well not the Dave MIDDLETON, he’s not.”

@ MissDaisy, I agree DW seems to be caught completely off guard when questioned about the Doncaster number.

by marconi 10.01.14 6:05

Since last November, the Yard and the PJ joined together. Their decision seems to have being made since the Yard concentrated itself on the Smith man. I don't think it will take too long before the case is solved. Going backwards, they could already have arrived at 5a, the sleeping room with perfect shutters,
the washed curtins, the sprayed blood, the impossibility of an abduction...
I wonder at what moment they will analyse the Scenic and the dogs and Kate's clothes.
In October last they were already on the evening of May the 3rd. Everything is perfect ready, prepared and concluded by the PJ.

I really hope the McCanns will still not be made arguidos. They will again make a mess of it.

by Monty Heck 10.01.14 10:55

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
I can't imagine the canny wee one would have trusted PAYG or any other mobiles which came to him/his pals through consular or other 'official' assistance.

The phones could have travelled out on either of the Tapas 9's flights and SIM cards bought in Spain if it proved too risky to buy Portuguese ones in Luz, or one of the numerous 'aides' who'd flown to the assistance of the grieving couple could have gifted them with PAYGs purchased especially for the occasion in England.

I suddenly feel that these phones are extremely key to events. I'd like to understand better the technicalities of matching a (presumably) locked UK sourced PAYG handset with a PT sourced SIM back in 2007.

There are lots of candidates for "mule" - Murat or Pennington for instance just off the top of my head.

Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

by Guest 10.01.14 11:35

Monty Heck wrote:
Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

There is some ambiguity about whether it was even about cost, or the charge in their own phones. On the cost front, I'm sure their network would be happy to wave any bills, under the circumstances - but, like you say, only if it came to that. She could have turned up that day! As for the charger, I can't believe they didn't take one with them. But wouldn't their phones need to be charged anyway in case a kidnapper wanted to contact them? So obtaining a charger should have been a high priority also....

So in reality, neither justification makes any sense. The one that would have made sense - you're involved in a high profile media event and don't want anybody you've ever given your number to ringing you up for the latest - seems not to have occurred to them.

by Monty Heck 10.01.14 12:12

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

There is some ambiguity about whether it was even about cost, or the charge in their own phones. On the cost front, I'm sure their network would be happy to wave any bills, under the circumstances - but, like you say, only if it came to that. She could have turned up that day! As for the charger, I can't believe they didn't take one with them. But wouldn't their phones need to be charged anyway in case a kidnapper wanted to contact them? So obtaining a charger should have been a high priority also....

So in reality, neither justification makes any sense. The one that would have made sense - you're involved in a high profile media event and don't want anybody you've ever given your number to ringing you up for the latest - seems not to have occurred to them.

Spot on CR, a charger should have been the priority at that point, not new phones on that day of all days.

And yes, strange protecting privacy wasn't put forward to explain the need for phones when it might make more sense than the supposed concerns with mobile charges. However the T9 had only just been using their phones to contact every Tom, Dick and Harry in their address books about "the abduction". It would be strange if, only a few hours after priming all their contacts they were already so tired of people asking for updates that new phones were needed. Also at that point it wasn't yet the high profile media event it was to become; there was early coverage but the media scrum was then still in the (near) future.

by Woofer 10.01.14 12:29

Maybe I`ve been watching too many `kidnap` films, but if a kidnap is suspected, wouldn`t the police want to rig up some sort of phone tap - or does this only take place with landlines? Anyway how would a kidnapper know what the McCanns mobile phone numbers were?

by bobbin 10.01.14 12:42

Monty Heck wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

There is some ambiguity about whether it was even about cost, or the charge in their own phones. On the cost front, I'm sure their network would be happy to wave any bills, under the circumstances - but, like you say, only if it came to that. She could have turned up that day! As for the charger, I can't believe they didn't take one with them. But wouldn't their phones need to be charged anyway in case a kidnapper wanted to contact them? So obtaining a charger should have been a high priority also....

So in reality, neither justification makes any sense. The one that would have made sense - you're involved in a high profile media event and don't want anybody you've ever given your number to ringing you up for the latest - seems not to have occurred to them.
Spot on CR, a charger should have been the priority at that point, not new phones on that day of all days.

And yes, strange protecting privacy wasn't put forward to explain the need for phones when it might make more sense than the supposed concerns with mobile charges. However the T9 had only just been using their phones to contact every Tom, Dick and Harry in their address books about "the abduction". It would be strange if, only a few hours after priming all their contacts they were already so tired of people asking for updates that new phones were needed. Also at that point it wasn't yet the high profile media event it was to become; there was early coverage but the media scrum was then still in the (near) future.

As mentioned before, at this time in particular, their friends and relatives would need to be able to contact the personal numbers that they already knew for the McCs etc. before the 'disaster'.
Interesting that the PAYG phones were initiated by 'Payne', of all the Tapas friends, via sibling of wife's husband's/friend(s) who 'knew' people in PdL and that Dianna Webster clearly showed obfuscation regarding this in her statements.
Most clearly, an interesting side-effect of PAYG would necessarily result in 'discreet/untraceable connections.
Except that the research is NOW looking at PAYG traffic.

by Guest 10.01.14 12:48

bobbin wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

There is some ambiguity about whether it was even about cost, or the charge in their own phones. On the cost front, I'm sure their network would be happy to wave any bills, under the circumstances - but, like you say, only if it came to that. She could have turned up that day! As for the charger, I can't believe they didn't take one with them. But wouldn't their phones need to be charged anyway in case a kidnapper wanted to contact them? So obtaining a charger should have been a high priority also....

So in reality, neither justification makes any sense. The one that would have made sense - you're involved in a high profile media event and don't want anybody you've ever given your number to ringing you up for the latest - seems not to have occurred to them.
Spot on CR, a charger should have been the priority at that point, not new phones on that day of all days.

And yes, strange protecting privacy wasn't put forward to explain the need for phones when it might make more sense than the supposed concerns with mobile charges. However the T9 had only just been using their phones to contact every Tom, Dick and Harry in their address books about "the abduction". It would be strange if, only a few hours after priming all their contacts they were already so tired of people asking for updates that new phones were needed. Also at that point it wasn't yet the high profile media event it was to become; there was early coverage but the media scrum was then still in the (near) future.
As mentioned before, at this time in particular, their friends and relatives would need to be able to contact the personal numbers that they already knew for the McCs etc. before the 'disaster'.
Interesting that the PAYG phones were initiated by 'Payne', of all the Tapas friends, via sibling of wife's husband's/friend(s) who 'knew' people in PdL and that Dianna Webster clearly showed obfuscation regarding this in her statements.
Most clearly, an interesting side-effect of PAYG would necessarily result in 'discreet/untraceable connections.
Except that the research is NOW looking at PAYG traffic.

Had you noticed this sibling of wife etc etc ALSO provided rooms on request? So DP informs us, helpfully

Why would a room outside the complex be called for by ANY of the Mecs & friends, as they all had a roof over their heads at MWs'?

by bobbin 10.01.14 13:08

Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Agree. The explanation offered for needing these phones so urgently that time was spent on that very first (and crucial to the search) morning getting this organised fails to add up. At a time when the child could feasibly have been discovered at any moment, thinking about ways of minimising phone costs in the longer term would not be formost in most people's minds. This explanation would fit only where sufficient time had elapsed for awareness of mobile phone cost issues to become apparent, and that this was supposedly an issue in the very first hours warrants close examination. The PJ were extremely interested in mobile phone traffic back in 2007 so perhaps the current and much publicised mobile phone trawl can be examined alongside such witness statements as those of DP and DW.

There is some ambiguity about whether it was even about cost, or the charge in their own phones. On the cost front, I'm sure their network would be happy to wave any bills, under the circumstances - but, like you say, only if it came to that. She could have turned up that day! As for the charger, I can't believe they didn't take one with them. But wouldn't their phones need to be charged anyway in case a kidnapper wanted to contact them? So obtaining a charger should have been a high priority also....

So in reality, neither justification makes any sense. The one that would have made sense - you're involved in a high profile media event and don't want anybody you've ever given your number to ringing you up for the latest - seems not to have occurred to them.
Spot on CR, a charger should have been the priority at that point, not new phones on that day of all days.

And yes, strange protecting privacy wasn't put forward to explain the need for phones when it might make more sense than the supposed concerns with mobile charges. However the T9 had only just been using their phones to contact every Tom, Dick and Harry in their address books about "the abduction". It would be strange if, only a few hours after priming all their contacts they were already so tired of people asking for updates that new phones were needed. Also at that point it wasn't yet the high profile media event it was to become; there was early coverage but the media scrum was then still in the (near) future.
As mentioned before, at this time in particular, their friends and relatives would need to be able to contact the personal numbers that they already knew for the McCs etc. before the 'disaster'.
Interesting that the PAYG phones were initiated by 'Payne', of all the Tapas friends, via sibling of wife's husband's/friend(s) who 'knew' people in PdL and that Dianna Webster clearly showed obfuscation regarding this in her statements.
Most clearly, an interesting side-effect of PAYG would necessarily result in 'discreet/untraceable connections.
Except that the research is NOW looking at PAYG traffic.

Had you noticed this sibling of wife etc etc ALSO provided rooms on request? So DP informs us, helpfully

Why would a room outside the complex be called for by ANY of the Mecs & friends, as they all had a roof over their heads at MWs'?

Might have been a naive thought on their part that as the Paynes' holiday was ended maybe the rooms would be needed for the next tourists.
Paynes didn't take the offer up though.
It was probably more important that they were on the spot to keep a very tight eye on (police) progress and to have the McCs upstairs, or very close by, to discuss procedures.
Had the Paynes been in a separate accommodation off campus, confabulation with the McCs would have been difficult.

by Rufus T 10.01.14 13:46

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Daisy wrote:
4078 “Do you know a Dave MIDDLETON?”
Reply “Dave MIDDLETON? (Shakes head).”

So is Dave Middleton the Algarve contact of Simon Aldridge?

Wasn't there a mysterious Dave who assisted in the searches of the OC apartments?

There is a Dave Middleton who actually works for Sandtoft and just to add Simon Aldridge is actually Simon Oldridge who is or was MD of that company. The way Diane hums and haws about it in her rog. she makes it sound as though he is just a jobbing tiler.

Funny I have been wondering about the mystery Dave and the name Symington just keeps coming back to me.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.01.14 14:02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No mention of burglars here, seems to be an official statement from Scotland Yard. Makes me wonder whether the '3 burglars' story was spun out to the press by Team McCann in anticipation of this announcement.

by suep 10.01.14 15:12

I read somewhere that David Payne kept very close to Kate on the day after the disappearance and also wanted to sit in while she was being interviewed by police. Is that right? I also recall that Sylvia Baptista or some MW employee commented that DP and FP were 'hysterical' on the night Madeleine went missing. What was all that about?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.01.14 15:15

suep wrote:I read somewhere that David Payne kept very close to Kate on the day after the disappearance and also wanted to sit in while she was being interviewed by police. Is that right? I also recall that Sylvia Baptista or some MW employee commented that DP and FP were 'hysterical' on the night Madeleine went missing. What was all that about?

I have a hunch that it may have something to do with the legendary 7pm-ish visit.

by marconi 10.01.14 15:56

There is a new article ( Telegraph) on McCannfiles, talking about official letters from the Yard, most to Europe.

Not all of them? Who knows also to Canada, about the Hubbards?

by Bishop Brennan 10.01.14 16:03

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No mention of burglars here, seems to be an official statement from Scotland Yard. Makes me wonder whether the '3 burglars' story was spun out to the press by Team McCann in anticipation of this announcement.

I dunno. I think SY are going along the only track they are allowed - chasing random people who were in the area on the day. This time it's the 3 Burglermen - and I suspect this request is simply to bring them in for questioning, to see if there is anything of interest to be learned... As if...!

Just going through the motions - and the money. What else can they do. Their instructions were clear. Investigate everything but do not look at the McCanns or the Tapas 7. And they are not wavering from that. And presumably will continue to follow that path until either they give up, or (our) money runs out.

by Guest 11.01.14 9:23

Paulo Cristovão's book: A Estrela de Madeleine

Chapter 13 – The winding road to Truth

Even if some criminal had entered the apartment and taken the little girl, what residues would have been left behind? Unless the person had sneezed or grabbed the door handle without gloves, there would have been nothing.

With luck, some footprints might have been preserved, but by the time that the police arrived on location, tens of people had walked through the apartment, covering the footprints of a possible stranger with their own.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Exactly, so how is SY/AR going to place three burglar's or even one in 5A where's the evidence? are they hoping for a conffession? IMO they seem to be living in the world of Walter Mitty!!

by currio 11.01.14 10:36

Bishop Brennan wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No mention of burglars here, seems to be an official statement from Scotland Yard. Makes me wonder whether the '3 burglars' story was spun out to the press by Team McCann in anticipation of this announcement.

I dunno. I think SY are going along the only track they are allowed - chasing random people who were in the area on the day. This time it's the 3 Burglermen - and I suspect this request is simply to bring them in for questioning, to see if there is anything of interest to be learned... As if...!

Just going through the motions - and the money. What else can they do. Their instructions were clear. Investigate everything but do not look at the McCanns or the Tapas 7. And they are not wavering from that. And presumably will continue to follow that path until either they give up, or (our) money runs out.

This is precisely how I see it too, Bishop Brennan. Redwood appears to be angry about it, as though he doesn't want to be involced. His hands are tied and he just has to toe the line!

by Guest 11.01.14 11:02

suep wrote:I read somewhere that David Payne kept very close to Kate on the day after the disappearance and also wanted to sit in while she was being interviewed by police. Is that right? I also recall that Sylvia Baptista or some MW employee commented that DP and FP were 'hysterical' on the night Madeleine went missing. What was all that about?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wondered where I'd seen that, and found it again in the official PD timeline, above, compiled mainly from independent witnesses, workers and guests at the OC. Definitely worth a 'back to basics' re-read. I didn't know, for example, that Gerry had prayed to Allah twice, once in the OC reception and then again with Kate in the bedroom.

Yvonne Martin's recollections re DP are also there, and both Paynes were like glue to GandK for the first 13 hours at least. The 'gap' in the phone activity at the crucial period is also illustrated.

Most interesting for me is the account of the witness who left her apartment at 9.58 (time definitely checked - a concrete mark in the timeline) and noted that all was normal and quiet at 5A at 10 o'clock, no disturbance, panic or searching going on. This backs up Mrs Fenn's statement that she heard the commotion later, at 10.30ish.

Definitely worth at re-read for me now I know so much more about the case since CW, when I first started mugging up. Given me a lot more clarity. How many of the earlier times given are wild guestimates?

by debs 11.01.14 11:27

what exactly do burglars talk about on the phone? eg "see you outside 5A at 9 tonight Jose, but watch out in case anyone comes back, we nearly got caught the other day but I can't be bothered driving to another town", or (after the event) "cor that was close, maybe we should have left the kid behind after all, have you still got her Alberto"
and isnt 3 burglars for one holiday apartment rather a lot of burglars?

by jeanmonroe 11.01.14 11:58

Cherry Blossom:
"are they hoping for a confession"?
===================================

Nah, they can't get in! The McCanns have got all the keys to all the Churches!

by NickE 11.01.14 12:04

debs wrote:what exactly do burglars talk about on the phone? eg "see you outside 5A at 9 tonight Jose, but watch out in case anyone comes back, we nearly got caught the other day but I can't be bothered driving to another town", or (after the event) "cor that was close, maybe we should have left the kid behind after all, have you still got her Alberto"
and isnt 3 burglars for one holiday apartment rather a lot of burglars?

They called each other because one of them saw a british man carry a child from the apartment.

by Guest 11.01.14 12:10

NickE wrote:
They called each other because one of them saw a british man carry a child from the apartment.

***
Or found a dead child behind the sofa ... and legged it.

by **PeterMac** 11.01.14 13:56

Châtelaine wrote:
NickE wrote:
They called each other because one of them saw a british man carry a child from the apartment.
***
Or found a dead child behind the sofa ... and legged it.

. . . pausing only to wipe up some cadaverine for the floor, for planting later . . .