New video 24/1:McCann's Open Trunk & SUSPICIOUS Trips to the TRIANGLE!

Might be an idea to

 check when files were released against date of rogatories : when did certain people learn what others knew of certain events during the holiday?
 
 Anything said in rogatories for the first time,[ which related to significant events during that holiday week ?  and which were suspicious as mentioned for first time when it is known that memory gets worse, not better, the longer the passage of time since an event.]

 Back-fitting. altering dates to pre-empt any problems?

 When did Mrs F make her statement?
 When did the Mcs learn about this?
 When was the  Maddie crying incident mentioned for the first time?
 When did Tanner first mention her daughter's meltdown/tantrum?

 Was the last on the list a cover for Maddie crying for a second time, thinking that Mrs Fenn might have heard this on Wednesday 2nd as well as Tuesday 1st?

  Was Mrs Fenn at home evening of 2nd, if not, did Tanner and pals, not realising the crying of 2nd was NOT overheard, create a cover for this incident which went unremarked by the woman upstairs?

 Tanner is the key to unlocking this whole thing and Redwood, just as GA knew ]  knows it.

russiandoll:
Tanner is the key to unlocking this whole thing and Redwood, [just as GA knew] knows it.
---------------------------------
AND J Wilkins.(with GM) in 'street' at EXACT time of 'abduction'

Wilkins still has not challenged the McCanns saying, for years, in print, TV and interviews, that Gerry 'crossed the street', when it was him, in FACT, (JW) that crossed the street to chat with Gerry, on pathway right besides the of gate entrance to 5A,  or still hasn't told us why would he even 'lie' about that.

Crack that little 'triangle' and Andy would have 'solved' the case for Madeleine.

pennylane wrote:

dantezebu wrote:I cannot think about the crying episode on 1st May without thinking there may be some connection to this:

"Kate McCann's mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the "Tapas 9"."

And this:
"However, both Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the "Quiz Night" (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter. Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O'Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!"

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

ROB is in it up to his neck, which is precisely why JT threw herself under the bus for Gerry when they feared he might be rumbled by the Smiths (jmho).

This is suddenly very interesting.
Russel O'Brien has been very much the quiet one, in the background, so what was his speciality, which hospital etc. did (does) he work at.
He didn't go to the Newspaper pay out, and pose on the steps with the other 6 Tapas members, who got a settlement for 'libel' out of court.
He wasn't at dinner on 1st May.
In his statement he gave this 'absolutely amazing' description of what a good father he was.
Looking after his sick child, foregoing his dinner, cleaning her up after sickness, changing her sheets, washing them, and all in a time that most other parents would think that, without roller skates on and 17 pairs of hands, that would be a timing nigh on impossible.
Jane, a fantasist, or perhaps someone in great fear, made an alibi for Gerry..... or was that all she did ?
She was quick and insistent that the abductor which she had seen had been Murat...... and therefore pointed the finger away from anyone else.

She was spotted outside 5A on 3rd May, watching 5A at the time that Jez Wilkins was leaving with his child in the buggy, 8.30 ish p.m. when she should have been going to dinner. Did Russel go to dinner the evening of 3rd. If Jane made her check at 9.15, did the good father Russell not make a check, but leave it to his partner to get up from her meal...  

Back to the evening of May 1st, the buxom sports coach lady was giving a 'quiz evening'.

She noted that there was one space at table and that she did not see Kate there.... problem with numbers at table here...Was Russel back at table by quiz time, 9.30 ish ? with Jane now baby sitting hence it was Kate's chair vacant, or was Jane also at table and the sick child and the baby now unguarded.

Can anyone confirm when was the night that someone came down to dinner and had to have his steak re-cooked ?
I had thought that it was Russel, but I seem to recall also that Jane took him his dinner to the apartment, or was this another night and on 1st May did he come down for it. If so, when did he come down, after the quiz evening or before, since I recall the 're-cooking' to have been at 9.50.

Some questions re Russel.
1. Why would Russel not muscle in on the libel case to get his share of a settlement.
2. After dinner at 10.30, on 1st May, why did Russel not hear, and subsequently report, any crying that must have been loud next door to him.
Why did Jane not hear the crying if she was also next door having now left after her dinner too.

10.16 p.m.  to 10.27 p.m. is eleven minutes, when Kate was phoning/making 6 calls (or Kate's phone was) contacting people outside of the Tapas 7 from 5A.
Where was Gerry, still at the bar, still ogling, or had the buxom lady left by now, and had some / all of them gone to Chaplins where there is confusion as to whether there was also a quiz time there ? 'Confuscation' at its best around all of this....

All the time, Mrs. Fenn doesn't hear the crying starting until 10.30 till 11.15, which precedes the Kate phone calling, by some 3 minutes.
Why the phone calls, to outside, and why the crying getting louder till the patio doors slide one way or the other.

Where was Russell in this time, post dinner, till the crying stopped ?

With all the 'noise' bustling around all the 'noisy characters' we've seriously overlooked the 'quiet' ones.

Time to refocus perhaps and look at the water sports on whichever day someone went overboard etc.
Just to add, Jane and Russel's child/ren were in creche with the twins' group, rather than Maddie's group.
Does anyone know who signed the child(ren) in and out, and does anyone have a log of Russel's playing tennis times, boating, etc.
In short, what did Russel and Jane do, during their days, and who was looking after the baby if the baby was not in creche also.
Interesting too, that Russel's statement was the 'most coherent' in terms of fewer 'ers, ehms, yeahs, you knows' etc.

WHY did Russell NOT tell the McCanns at 10:05pm on 3rd May 2007 that his 'partner' JT had 'seen' a child, dressed in the exact same pyjamas, as Madeleine was wearing, being carried off in X 'direction'?

And 'search' that route! (instead of running around like a headless chicken)

Oh silly me, JT didn't want to 'upset' Russell, as well as the McCanns, with that 'snippet' of information!

Yet he 'included' her 'sighting' on both of his handwritten 'timelines'

Forgetting to mention, on either, Gerrys 'key' meeting/chat with JW, completely.

Jane - the standing staring at 5A in purple sweater - Tanner
Jane - I was holding her like this plus eye-roll - Tanner. 
Jane - upset in the street mockumentary -Tanner.
Jane - but I saw you here Gerry, not over there - Tanner.
Jane - you'd been so long Gerry that KM thought you were watching the footie -Tanner.
Jane - the time-improved descriptions, pinkish aspect pyjama - Tanner
Jane - I won't upset KM by telling her I saw MM taken away by a man - Tanner
Jane - I'll let everyone rush off in the wrong search direction - Tanner 
Jane - related to Murat -Tanner
Jane - from Exeter - Tanner
Jane - pointing the finger at Murat -Tanner
Jane - I wish I was somewhere else and not standing on these court steps for a publicity shoot and a fat payout - Tanner
Jane - I'm not lying about this, I'm not a fantasist - Tanner

Story to be continued .....................................

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY did Russell NOT tell the McCanns at 10:05pm on 3rd May 2007 that his 'partner' JT had 'seen' a child, dressed in the exact same pyjamas, as Madeleine was wearing, being carried off in X 'direction'?

And 'search' that route! (instead of running around like a headless chicken)

Oh silly me, JT didn't want to 'upset' Russell, as well as the McCanns, with that 'snippet' of information!

Yet he 'included' her 'sighting' on both of his handwritten 'timelines'

Forgetting to mention, on either, Gerrys 'key' meeting/chat with JW, completely.

Hang on a mo'.
If it was Russell wrote the times on Maddie's book covers, he also must have written that Jane had seen abductorman, in which case he knew about the abductor. But then so did all of them, barring Kate apparently, at least certainly the men, who were all part of the 'time-line' configuration.
Do we know for sure 'who' wrote the words down. We know they were all mingling about when it was being done (except for Kate apparently) and apparently Gerry signed it, is that correct.
How prominent a part has Russell played in key roles, and how unobtrusive has he been when others have been in the full glare of lights, camera's, interviews, reconstructions, etc.

"Notable by his absence" comes to mind here.

Ref. Mrs. Fenn's call to her friend about the crying.

Why would the friend not be surprised to hear Mrs. Fenn tell her that there was so much crying going on?

I have thought this before, the friend was not surprised to hear of the crying, so imo it must have been a regular occurence in the apartment, but for a more prolonged period one night when Mrs. Fenn felt the need to talk to someone about it?    I ony wish she had rung management or the police about it.

I wonder if SY intend for the friend to be interviewed about it?

ETA - just seen the post by Mirage previous page.

As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.

Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.

However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  

As far as I can ascertain, RO'B was a fellow student of the Paynes and MO at Leicester before he moved to Exeter, a town frequented by a certain Robert Murat, to become a GP.

jeanmonroe wrote:russiandoll:
Tanner is the key to unlocking this whole thing and Redwood, [just as GA knew] knows it.
---------------------------------
AND J Wilkins.(with GM) in 'street' at EXACT time of 'abduction'

Wilkins still has not challenged the McCanns saying, for years, in print, TV and interviews, that Gerry 'crossed the street', when it was him, in FACT, (JW) that crossed the street to chat with Gerry, on pathway right besides the of gate entrance to 5A,  or still hasn't told us why would he even 'lie' about that.

Crack that little 'triangle' and Andy would have 'solved' the case for Madeleine.

I also agree that focus could go back onto this area, along with re-looking at quiet old Russell.
Many of us remember the now 'whooshed' comments by Jez Wilkins that he saw Gerry by the shutters of 5A, fiddling with them, at the same time that he left his apartment, 8.15 to 8.30 ish on 3rd May evening.
He also noted the lady in purple watching 5A, who he later found out was Jane Tanner.
Jez of course makes films and his wife, the subsequent author, was involved with CrimeWatch.
Gerry and Kate were most insistent that they wanted a CrimeWatch-like re-construction, with actors, etc. under their direction and control.
Gerry changes Jez Wilkins' timing more and more to suit his own requirements, making Jez agree to a meeting time of around 9.15, and at the 'back of the property, by 5A over the road' when Jez was already moving from his initial whooshed comments re front of building/car park, to concede to a rear of 5A meeting, but by the gate and has been 'forced' by Gerry's P.I.s, along with poor old Jane, to go across the other side of the road to where both Jane and Jez spoke of the meeting.
Such confusion follows with Jez now befuddled and saying he did not see Jane, who claimed she did pass by Jez and Gerry who says, for some unknown reason which destroys his one alibil, that he did not see Jane either.
Perhaps because Jane was not there at gate 5A, Gerry did not dare to push Jez's already tweaked statement of meeting, any further, to include a non-existent Jane.
Perhaps even, and this is only surmising:-
....Jez saw Gerry by shutters, and Jane on guard. Jane hisses, someone's coming.
Gerry darts back into the house via front door, out the back, down the steps, so by the time Jez arrives round the corner, by 5A gate and steps, Gerry appears and acting all cool, engrosses him in conversation about kids, buggies, blah, blah, blah.
This encounter/ time gets conveniently 'shifted' when it comes to timelines and later statements.
Someone calls at Jez's at 1 am 4th May, to 'try to suss out' what Jez had noticed.
Now, where was Russell during this time whilst Jane was outside, keeping guard looking at 5A.
Why did Jez's first comments re 'fiddling with shutters' go by the board and why did he then accede to Gerry's terms in terms of time of meeting, place of meeting, and who was or was not seen during that meeting."
It's not all clear by any means.

plebgate wrote:Ref. Mrs. Fenn's call to her friend about the crying.

Why would the friend not be surprised to hear Mrs. Fenn tell her that there was so much crying going on?

I have thought this before, the friend was not surprised to hear of the crying, so imo it must have been a regular occurence in the apartment, but for a more prolonged period one night when Mrs. Fenn felt the need to talk to someone about it?    I ony wish she had rung management or the police about it.

I wonder if SY intend for the friend to be interviewed about it?

ETA - just seen the post by Mirage previous page.

I suspect Mrs Fenn went to her grave wishing she'd called the police on 1st May but, whatever way I look at it, it seems to me her final years were blighted by the McCanns in much the same way that they blighted the entire town of Luz by their shameful behaviour both prior to, and after, their daughter's disappearance. 

With reference to Mirage's post, I don't find anything particularly odd about Mrs Fenn's friend (Edna Glynn) in PdL who she contacted after 23.00 being "not surprised about the child's crying" as it may be that Mrs Fenn intimated to her friend that the child's parents appeared to be out, in which case no-one would be surprised if a young child who'd been left alone continued to cry for the comforting presence that was exceedingly slow in coming.

Russell O'Brien's Rogatory Interviews bear some scrutiny IMO. I think he comes across as more assertive than all the rest. Pro-active I should say. First this information from Duarte Levy on McCannfiles:

Russell James O'Brien and the lost DVD Interview

Russell James O'Brien was questioned on the 8th of April from 9.55 a.m. until 8.18 p.m., divided into 5 distinct time periods (9.55 – 11.30 a.m., 12.01 – 12.50 a.m., 2.06 – 3.55 p.m., 5.15 – 6.56 p.m., and 7.37 – 8.18 p.m.). Officially, all the video images of this day were rendered useless because the video camera didn't work… which means that Enderby police wants us to believe that, even during pauses, they never verified if the interrogation was being recorded correctly. This was the official version, the one that was offered to the Portuguese authorities. Nevertheless, the truth of facts is different, and Russell O'Brien was questioned again on the 10th of April; this time the camera worked.

After a preamble about being in PdL with wife (sic), two daughters and the named friends etc etc, this:

On the 8th April 2008 officers from Leicestershire Constabulary interviewed me in order to clarify certain points and in order for me to provide further information where possible. The interviews were visually recorded, however I understand that due to technical difficulties the equipment failed to record. I have been informed that these questions arise from an official request from the Portuguese authorities. I am aware that my statement will be subject to the Portuguese Criminal Code in addition to English Law.
 
I have been informed that this statement has been made from the monitoring notes which were taken at the time of the interviews being conducted.
 
I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC. I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me
-------------------------
Here's a flavour of the opening rogatory. Unbelievable that a DC is allowing to change details to tie in with his wife and others' statements. Quite slick too, in strong contrast to the rest of the Tapas group's shambolic performance. Assertive with the investigating officer. Too assertive to be wholesome.

1578    “Right.  The time is eight fifty-nine am and that is on Thursday the tenth of April two thousand and eight.  We are in an interview room at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters.  I am Detective Constable, one, five, seven, eight, Andrew GIERC from the Leicestershire Major Crime Unit.  Would you kindly give me your full name and date of birth please?”
Reply    “Yeah, it’s Russell James O’BRIEN, twenty-six, eleven, seventy”.
1578    “Thank you very much.  As you know Russell this is your second visit to Force Headquarters this week.  You are here voluntarily as a significant witness to assist with the Portuguese Authorities in the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCANN, which occurred on the evening of Thursday the third of May two thousand and seven in Portugal.  You have given previous interviews with us on, it was Tuesday the eighth, wasn’t it, two days ago?”
Reply    “Umm”.
1578    “And from those interviews we have compiled a statement in respect of the content of those interviews.  And what I would like you to do now is, I will present you with the statement and I will invite you to read through it and we can alter, amend, add, take out anything you need”.
Reply    “Okay, okay”.
1578    “So it is really to your satisfaction”.
Reply    “Alright”.
1578    “It will be your statement”.
Reply    “Uh hu”.
1578    “So if, it is quite lengthy, there are about nine or ten pages”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “And we can, as we go through we can take note of any modifications or alterations required”.
Reply    “Right, okay.  Do you want me to read this out loud or just to?”
1578    “You can do if you wish it is entirely up to you”.
Reply    “(O’BRIEN read through the statement).  Erm, yeah, the first page, is, erm, is fine.  I suppose the only addition was that, was an explanation of why I, why I would look Jane’s statement.  And that was because there was a reference in my original statement for a period of time that was not covered in my interview.  That would be the only thing that I would have”.
1578    “So that is an addition?”
Reply    “It says, erm, ‘I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made from Jane TANNER’, she is not actually legally my wife we are just, we are just partners, erm, ‘and I’ve been allowed to see the documents’.  I asked to see her document because my original statement to the PJ, erm, made reference, I think for the Monday to the Wednesday especially, to Jane’s and it was not written in any detail in mine.  Does that make sense?”
1578    “I think so”.
Reply    “Yeah, so I just, I just, the clarification for why I’m seeing Jane’s statement was that the three days of, of the holiday were really a reference to her statement in my statement.  But, apart from that, the rest of page one is fine.  I can confirm we moved down to Exeter on the third of January, I can’t be more specific at the bottom, but.  In the second paragraph, at the start, ‘I am aware that Matt’, erm, I suppose I’d just have it clarified that, erm, it says that, erm, ‘Dave is quite certain of what he expects of things and quite aware of his consumer rights, et cetera’.  Erm, I think it would just be worthwhile, that the reason I brought that up was I’d imagine that the people at MARK WARNER may have, erm, probably in London or their Head Office, would have thought that, erm, you know, that, that, that this was a, erm, a rather annoying email, in the fact that they had been copied back in on Matt’s reply, erm, it may have just irritated a few people at, at, erm, at their office.  Erm, there’s a, an error in the paragraph that says ‘This was the first holiday that we have been on with the McCANN family’, that’s true.  Erm, it said ‘We had been due to go away as couples to Greece in two thousand and six’, erm, Matt and Rachael, Dave and Fiona and myself and Jane did go to Greece in two thousand and six, it was actually, erm, tut, we were due to go away with the McCANNs in the Autumn of two thousand and five to Majorca but pulled out because Jane as heavily pregnant with, erm, was heavily pregnant with Evie”.
1578    “’This was the first holiday we’d been on with the McCANN family’?”
Reply    “Yeah, that, that’s true, but it’s the next statement that’s wrong”.
1578    “’We were due to go away was couples’?”
Reply    “We did go away as couples to Greece but the McCANNs weren’t with us, it was with the rest of the group, the other three couples”.
1578    “Okay”.
Reply    “Erm, and Jane was heavily pregnant for a holiday in September two thousand and five to Majorca, where Dave and Fi did go away with the McCANNs and also with Tara and, actually, I think it’s Stuart GOLD rather than Andrew GOLD”.
1578    “Tara and Stuart GOLD?”
Reply    “It’s Stuart GOLD, I think actually I said Andrew, it’s actually Stuart”.
Reply    “And the rest, like I said, is fine.  And the rest of the second page is, is, is fine”.
1578    “Okay, it is down to?”
Reply    “Yeah, the paragraph ending ‘In relation to (inaudible).  And the rest of that page seems, seems fine.  Erm, page three”.
1578    “This is where we go out of synch a little, I’m afraid, there was an error in printing”.
Reply    “Alright, so it starts, at my page three it says ‘Dianne WEBSTER’?”
1578    “Yes, I’ve got that”.
Reply    “Have you got that?”
1578    “Yeah”.
Reply    “Erm, the first three paragraphs are fine.  I think, I suppose, the only comment is, when I’m talking about Charlotte PENNINGTON in the fifth paragraph, erm, I said that she, ‘I believe she looked after Dave and Fiona’s kids’, then, then there’s a separate, a sort of a separate sentence there.  Erm, and it might be worth clarifying that, at least in popular Press, she erm, she, there was a report that she said she saw Kate and Gerry at the Airport, but I think she’s, and I don’t think that would have been possible, because we had left the Airport on the coach with her, so I think she’s probably confusing that with, with one of us.  So that’s, that’s only a report from the popular Press rather than anything that she said”.
1578    “So how do you wish us to word that?”
Reply    “I suppose, erm, ‘I believe she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids’, full stop, erm, ‘In the media at least she has reported seeing Kate and Gerry at FARO Airport on our arrival, but I don’t think, I think she’s mistaken because they had not arrived by then’”.  I mean, it, it is potentially, theoretically possible that she was nipping in and out of the bus, but I don’t think she would have, erm, they were, they were a good hour landing after us and we weren’t extensively delayed at the Airport, from my recollection, it seem, probably less like”.
1578    “So they arrived some time after you?”
Reply    “Yeah, I think they, they were, they were landing about a full hour after us, but I think by the time we’d got luggage out and we were on the coach, they were actually coming by taxi anyway, so I don’t think they would have been expecting to meet anyone from MARK WARNER, erm, because they’d made their own, because they’d changed the flight, they’d made their own independent means of getting from the airport to PRAIA DA LUZ.  Erm, so, I mean, that’s, erm, she’s probably wrong there.  Yeah, erm, yeah, ‘I think the apartment keys weren’t’, but I think it’s the other way round really, I think, I think we were just given our, we were allocated numbers and I don’t think the packs had the keys in, but I can’t be sure, so it’s, it’s the same sort of thing, I’m not sure, but, erm, it’s the other way round”.
1578    “’We had been allocated room numbers and the packs may have included the apartment keys but I cannot be sure’?”
Reply    “I think they didn’t, they may have, yeah, I suppose, it’s just, I don’t think we did get the keys, but, erm, or the other way round.  I, I don’t suppose that’s terribly important.  Erm, I’m not, I can’t quite say, but certainly, in terms of that text message from a friend from Germany, I’ve only got a fairly dim recollection of it, it wouldn’t have been ringing me in relation to work, I mean, she was in Leicester as a student in our University Department about, nearly eight years ago, so there wouldn’t be any relation to work now, so it would have just been, maybe just delete in relation to work, because I think she’d either texted me or called me at some point.  Erm, I just want to clarify the, the third from bottom paragraph, on my copy that says ‘I recall that they spoke about where to eat’, erm, it’s just, we were actually at the Tapas here, it says ‘I recall this was to be – at the Millennium Restaurant’.  I don’t, I think that could be just deleted, I mean, we had, we had to eat at the Millennium Restaurant that night because the Tapas was not open on the, the day of arrivals I think, but that implies that we were at the Millennium Restaurant at the time a little bit, so I would perhaps just delete ‘at the Millennium Restaurant’.  They told, they went, they went through the eating arrangements and they introduced themselves and there were people recruiting for activities, but we were actually at the Tapas at the time”.
1578    “So take out ‘at the Millennium’?”
Reply    “I think just delete ‘at the Millennium Restaurant’, it just implies that we were in a different position there.  Erm, there’s an error in the next paragraph, erm, ‘We all went to the Millennium Restaurant that evening, it was a ten minute walk, this was around half six to seven’, probably, I don’t know whether we discussed the times, it was probably, maybe six to six thirty for a start.  And it says ‘Everyone expect Matt was there because he was feeling unwell’, that’s wrong, Matt actually did come with us but he started to feel quite unwell when we got there and just sort of sat looking fairly green and unhappy during the meal, so he did come with us”.
1578    “So we amend the time?”
Reply    “I think it was probably a bit earlier than that”.
1578    “Eighteen hundred”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
1578    “To eighteen thirty”.
Reply    “I don’t think it was, erm, particularly late”.
1578    “And Matt was present?”
Reply    “Yeah, but was just, erm”.
1578    “But feeling unwell?”
Reply    “Yes, and then it just rather jumps, the next paragraph, erm, ‘The children were all in bed’ and that the children came, the children were with us on this occasion, yeah, they came up to the Millennium, it was, every single person went up, because we were all in there.  I think, maybe the clarity is, after we returned from the Millennium Restaurant I think everyone just put their respective children to bed and called it”.
1578    “This implies that the children were not with you at the Millennium?”
Reply    “Yes”.
1578    “Which in fact they were?”
Reply    “No, every, we all went up and then we came back, erm, well I think, when, if we had the video, what, what went on and we talked about there, is that we return, after we returned from the Millennium Restaurant we didn’t really do much else, I think we just got our respective children to bed and then, and then probably went too, or not that much longer afterwards.  Erm, the rest of that page is fine.  Erm, a little bit sort of out of, out of, erm, tut, synch really about Jez, I mean, it’s talking, it’s going back to the coach and not saying much on the plane.  I think, I certainly don’t think I recall, I, I, we did see Jez around the MARK WARNER complex, we were on, erm, hello terms, I don’t know how, you know, we were on kind of greeting terms, we had the, the odd, the odd conversation here and there during the week, he played I think a lot more tennis, so he knew, he had more, a lot more time with Gerry than with me, erm, and it says ‘I hadn’t met him prior to being on’, oh yes I have, ‘We didn’t speak much’”.
1578    “’I hadn’t met him prior to being on the plane’?”
Reply    “Yeah, I did meet him on the plane, yeah”.
1578    “That is correct, isn’t it?”
Reply    “Yeah, it’s just jumping around a bit, isn’t it really”.
1578    “’I can’t recall him being on the coach from the Airport but I think that he must have been on there as he was staying on the same resort’?”
Reply    “Yeah, I think it’s just to say that”.
1578    “So if we add there that you saw him”.
Reply    “It’s just like all three sentences are all kind of ploughing into one there.  ‘I recall seeing Jez around the MARK WARNER complex and was on’, erm, I don’t know, ‘polite terms with him’, we’d sort of say hello and not, we’ve had a couple of conversations probably, but not much more than that.  Erm, and then, erm, so, yeah, we didn’t speak much, ‘I hadn’t met him prior to being on the plane’, full stop.  ‘I can’t recall him being on the coach’, but, you know, he almost certainly was because he was staying on the same resort, that’s fine.  And I don’t, ‘I don’t know whereabouts he was staying but I think it was fairly near to where we were’”.
1578    “Fairly near to where you were?”
Reply    “Yeah, I think it was in, either the apartment blocks near us or there was some just over the other side of the road, as we discussed on Tuesday, MARK WARNER didn’t own every, every apartment in every block, they had a, sort of a splattering of apartments across the Ocean Club.  Erm, it says ‘Sunday the twenty-ninth of April’, I think it’s worth just saying, on that it currently runs, I think it’s actually running straight into the Monday thereafter, erm, we, I think I booked into Water Sports on the Saturday at this meeting at the Tapas, I think that’s where you made your bookings, it possibly may have been on the Sunday, I’m not entirely sure there, but, erm”.
1578    “So the booking for Water Sports?”
Reply    “May have been on the Saturday at the Tapas, it could have possibly been on, at a separate meeting on the Sunday, I’m not entirely sure whether there was one, one introductory meeting where everything happened including some of your bookings for what you wanted to do or whether there was a separate one on the Sunday.  But, erm, but just the way, the way this reads it implies that I had wind surfing lessons that day, but actually, erm, there was no water, I don’t think there was anything in terms, in terms of lessons down at the waterfront until the Monday”.
1578    “’I can’t recall exactly what I did on that day’ it should read, shouldn’t it?”
Reply    “On that day, yeah.  Erm, but ‘I’d agreed to have wind surfing lessons and do a bit of sailing’ shall we say ‘Monday through Thursday’, we add ‘Monday through Thursday’, because we certainly didn’t do that, I think the Sunday was sort of a, a relative day off for, erm, for the staff, well certainly with the, you know, for the staff at the beach I think.  I think the rest of it’s fine.  I don’t, I really can’t recall an awful lot about the Sunday, I think we probably just had a bit of a look round, a trip to the beach.  I’ve got a vague idea I, that you may have been able to still hire the kayaks, so I think I might have had a go on one of them, but I suppose that’s not terribly, terribly relevant.  Erm, it says on the next paragraph ‘I’m aware that Rachael asked to eat there each night for the remainder of our stay’, erm, that’s correct, but I think it’s worth pointing out that that booking was probably made on the Monday.  So we made one-off booking to eat at the Tapas on the Sunday, as I say, I think that was Rachael.  Erm, but I might be confusing it with the, the next day, where there were only a certain number of us around and I think Rachael made, asked, was asking if there was a block booking and I can certainly remember being stood, erm, around, there was a number of the group, erm, with her at the time, but I think it was Rachael that asked”.
1578    “So Rachael asked for the block booking on the Monday?”
Reply    “After we’d eaten there once.  We must, we, you know, we didn’t know what it was like and I think we ate there and, erm, enjoyed it and thought it was, it was going to be convenient, erm, for, for, for us and for the children and so the block booking would have been the next morning.  So, yeah, Matt was unwell on the Sunday.  Yeah, there was only eight of us there.  Erm, it doesn’t quite make sense here.  It says ‘In relation to the child care issues it was a collective decision made as a group’, fine.  ‘Dave and Fiona used their two-way child monitor’, erm, ‘alone to monitor their children’ because they”.
1578    “’Dave and Fiona used their two-way child monitor to monitor their children’?”
Reply    “Yeah, and that, that’s what they used because they had this, they could, they could listen in and talk to, in their room as well, so they didn’t, erm.  And then it says, and it doesn’t make sense, it just says ‘Kate and Gerry to check their children’, there’s a verb missing there”.
1578    “Really it should be a full-stop after ‘their children’, shouldn’t it?”
Reply    “A full-stop, yeah.  Yeah, full-stop, yeah.  And then ‘Kate and Gerry’, erm, I’d say, ‘physically’, ‘physically went’, yeah, ‘physically checked’”.
1578    “’Kate and Gerry had to physically check their children’?”
Reply    “A physically check, ‘physically check their children’, erm, ‘as did Matt and Rachael to check Grace and Jane and myself to check Evie and Ella’.  Erm, I’m not sure that we were ever, I don’t think we were led to believe that there was a Baby Listening Service, I think, erm”.
1578    “Right, just bear with me a minute”.
Reply    “Sorry”.
1578    “’We were led to believe that there was a Baby Listening Service but this wasn’t the case’?”
Reply    “I don’t think we were led to believe, I think we, we, erm, we knew that there wasn’t a Baby Listening Service, erm, I don’t think we were led to believe that there was.  Erm, there were certain things in the brochure about the resort that were incorrect and that formed part of Dave’s emails, erm, but they were largely about other things, like hire and, erm”.
1578    “’The brochure was incorrect’?”
Reply    “In, in, in other ways, but I don’t think it was about, it wasn’t about”.
1578    “Was incorrect in relation to the Baby Listening Service?”
Reply    “No, I don’t think, I don’t, I don’t remember it was, I think, erm”.
1578    “’The brochure was incorrect in other aspects’?”
Reply    “Yeah, fairly trivial, just about, erm, I think”.
1578    “’And these formed part of’?”
Reply    “Of Dave’s correspondence with MARK WARNER.  I think it was, erm, there was, erm, there were a few things that I, because it was a new resort I think things had, were, were in a state of flux for MARK WARNER on what, on what was said in the brochure and what was actually there and things were changing and some things that we were promised didn’t happen, some things that, that were.  A lot in the brochure were actually there and, erm, I don’t, it wasn’t that there wasn’t a Baby Listening Service, I don’t think, but, erm, you know, I think, erm.  I think for the next paragraph, erm, ‘Kate and Gerry would check’, it says ‘Initially we would only check our own room’, I think actually it was, it was more, it was more fluid than that, I think early on, for instance”.
1578    “Sorry, whereabouts are we?”
Reply    “’I’m aware that initially we would only check on our own rooms, on occasions we may have listened at other apartments and doors and windows’, I think actually, generally speaking, what we would do is, we would often listen at other, often listened at the windows of the other apartments and routinely go into our own, erm.  But it wasn’t a question of initially we’d only check our own rooms, I think actually earlier on, and certainly from my point of view, I actually went into Kate and Gerry’s room, erm, on the Sunday and Matt’s room on the Sunday, we, at the start we were going to each and every room, but I think then, because there was a bit of, it was actually more that we would listen at the windows and go into our own room, because there was, you know, everyone was going up and down in a cycle, in the circuit, so”.
1578    “So ‘We may have listened at other’?”
Reply    “Listened and, and early on actually checked, yeah, early on we”.
1578    “’Listened at other apartment doors or windows’?”
Reply    “I think that happened, that happened quite a lot, we would often do that”.
1578    “So you are happy with ‘the doors or the windows’?”
Reply    “Yeah, ‘listened at the doors and windows’”.
1578    “’And also’?”
Reply    “’And checked on our own rooms and’, you know, ‘on some visits other people’s apartments’.  But I don’t think it was like, I don’t, it’s the word ‘initial’ ‘Initially we’d only check on our rooms’, I don’t think that was necessarily true, I think we would be listening at the window just to make sure no-one was awake”.
1578    “So we could take out that ‘initial’ then?”
Reply    “You can just say, yeah”.
-------------------------

I haven't got time to finish the bolding process in this interview. In fact it would be simpler to bold the whole lot and undo small sections. I have never come across anything like it in my born days. It is absolutely outrageous that the Leicester Police were allowed to carry on in this fashion with a material witness to a child's disappearance and possible death. They should be under investigation, if they are not already.

In fact, the thought has struck me more than once that they may well be under investigation in tandem with this case, which would explain the huge amount of time SY would be forced to take. 

Lance De Boils wrote:

canada12 wrote:As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

This has always struck me as ominous-sounding.
Child is crying loudly for an hour and fifteen minutes. Parents arrive home. Crying stops.
I don't think Mrs. Fenn could tell whether one parent or both parents arrived home. Or even if it was the parents - it could have been anyone. It could have been one of the other Tapas members - since they were actually checking on one another's children... weren't they?
Crying stops. It could be because the child was comforted.
It could be because the child was told to stop.
It could be because something happened which caused the crying to stop.

Agreed.
A young child who has worked his/herself up into such a crying tizz usually takes a fair while to calm down. They do not just suddenly stop as soon as a parent appears. In my experience.

I generally only entertain the accident / cover up 'thesis' as Gerry might call it.
However, I can see how this might lead down the 'drunk Glaswegian lashes out / pulls sofa away from daughter who then falls over and cracks her head open'. Perhaps then this might be why the Glaswegian slept alone one night. It is possible that this could be part of the reason why Fiona Payne said that Kate was covered in bruises the next morning. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
And the helplessness, errm... of not being able to do anything, what should she be doing, what could they do? Errm... she was angry, really angry, tut, punching walls, kicking walls, she was covered in bruises the next day, because she just didn't know what, what else to do. She was angry at herself, she kept saying 'I've let her down. We've let her down Gerry', you know,

Although I am a feminist and as such I can entertain the "drunken Liverpudlian losing her rag" hypothesis.... 

Mirage wrote:

russiandoll wrote:also, unless you saw as well as heard an opening door, how would you know if that was related to an entry or an exit?

I agree entirely RD. The thing is, Mrs Fenn made an assumption there - quite reasonable under the circumstances - that the parents were returning, rather than person, or persons, were departing.

You mean "Rather than, Mwas departing from this earth and passing away." as if 'random people' were departing then the Mccann's story would add up much easier.

R O'B.
"I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC. I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me"
-------------------------

I wonder how many 'lags', detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, would even be there if they have been afforded the opportunity to refresh their memories by being allowed to see their now fellow convicted 'mate's' statements/documents before their trial?

ultimaThule wrote:

plebgate wrote:Ref. Mrs. Fenn's call to her friend about the crying.

Why would the friend not be surprised to hear Mrs. Fenn tell her that there was so much crying going on?

I have thought this before, the friend was not surprised to hear of the crying, so imo it must have been a regular occurence in the apartment, but for a more prolonged period one night when Mrs. Fenn felt the need to talk to someone about it?    I ony wish she had rung management or the police about it.

I wonder if SY intend for the friend to be interviewed about it?

ETA - just seen the post by Mirage previous page.

I suspect Mrs Fenn went to her grave wishing she'd called the police on 1st May but, whatever way I look at it, it seems to me her final years were blighted by the McCanns in much the same way that they blighted the entire town of Luz by their shameful behaviour both prior to, and after, their daughter's disappearance. 

With reference to Mirage's post, I don't find anything particularly odd about Mrs Fenn's friend (Edna Glynn) in PdL who she contacted after 23.00 being "not surprised about the child's crying" as it may be that Mrs Fenn intimated to her friend that the child's parents appeared to be out, in which case no-one would be surprised if a young child who'd been left alone continued to cry for the comforting presence that was exceedingly slow in coming.

re. red highlighting - why didn't the friend advise ringing the police or management I wonder? maybe because it was a regular occurence?

I hope that friend has not passed away and that the police interview her about that night.

jeanmonroe wrote:I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC. I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me
-------------------------

I wonder how many 'lags' detained at Her Majesty's pleasure would be there if they have been afforded the opportunity to refresh their memories from being allowed to see their 'mate's' statements before trial?

It does make you wonder just who exactly are these people (T9)?

jeanmonroe wrote:I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC. I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me
-------------------------

I wonder how many 'lags' detained at Her Majesty's pleasure would be there if they have been afforded the opportunity to refresh their memories from being allowed to see their 'mate's' statements before trial?

You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.  Sheeeesssshhh.

bobbin wrote:
This is suddenly very interesting.
Russel O'Brien has been very much the quiet one, in the background,

That's because the statements of the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin conspired to drop Payne right in the shit.

bobbin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY did Russell NOT tell the McCanns at 10:05pm on 3rd May 2007 that his 'partner' JT had 'seen' a child, dressed in the exact same pyjamas, as Madeleine was wearing, being carried off in X 'direction'?

And 'search' that route! (instead of running around like a headless chicken)

Oh silly me, JT didn't want to 'upset' Russell, as well as the McCanns, with that 'snippet' of information!

Yet he 'included' her 'sighting' on both of his handwritten 'timelines'

Forgetting to mention, on either, Gerrys 'key' meeting/chat with JW, completely.

Hang on a mo'.
If it was Russell wrote the times on Maddie's book covers, he also must have written that Jane had seen abductorman, in which case he knew about the abductor. But then so did all of them, barring Kate apparently, at least certainly the men, who were all part of the 'time-line' configuration.
Do we know for sure 'who' wrote the words down. We know they were all mingling about when it was being done (except for Kate apparently) and apparently Gerry signed it, is that correct.
How prominent a part has Russell played in key roles, and how unobtrusive has he been when others have been in the full glare of lights, camera's, interviews, reconstructions, etc.

"Notable by his absence" comes to mind here.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Do we know for sure 'who' wrote the words down. We know they were all mingling about when it was being done (except for Kate apparently) and apparently Gerry signed it, is that correct."?
............................................

Forunately we DO! LOL.

Russell James O'Brien - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview
January 27, 2009 • 10:55 pm

1578 “Okay. The time is two eleven pm and that’s on Thursday the tenth of April, two thousand and eight. We’re in an interview room at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters. I’m Detective Constable 1578 Andrew GIERC from the Leicestershire Major Crime Unit. Would you give me your full name and date of birth please”?
Reply “Yeah it’s Russell James O’BRIEN, twenty sixth of November, nineteen seventy”.
1578 “Thank you Russell. This is the third interview of today, as I’ve stated previously you’re here voluntarily”.
Reply “Mmm”.
1578 “As a significant witness to assist the Portuguese Authorities in their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine MCCANN in Portugal on the third of May, two thousand and seven. I would now like to move on to some time lines and we have, these are copies of written documents or time lines written on the back of, looks like a kiddies book or something”.
Reply “Mmm mmm”.
1578 “An activity book. If we could just for a few moments go through these documents”.
Reply “Mmm mmm”.
1578 “Which one came first”?
Reply “Erm as we discussed the other day, I’d forgotten these over the year but I think this is an attempt, this is a draft attempt, they're both in MY handwriting, this is a draft attempt, err and then I think I’m transcribing in a slightly more a neater writing, hoping that it’s more legible for other people to read as well, so I think this one came first”.
1578 “So just to differentiate between the two documents”.
Reply “Mmm mmm”.
1578 “One of them has the word ‘Gerald’.”
Reply “Mmm mmm”.
1578 “Written towards the lower half of the document and the other one does not”.
Reply “Yeah”.
1578 “You’re saying the one with ‘Gerald’ written on it, was the final document”?
Reply “Well it was certainly second one, I said I think I was writing this down in a hurry when I”.
1578 “It came after this, this first one”?
Reply “It came after this one yeah, yeah”.
1578 “So the one that doesn’t bare the name of ‘Gerald’.”
Reply “Is the earlier one”.
1578 “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say. When was this drafted up”?
Reply “Erm this was drafted er around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A (inaudible) early in the morning of the fourth of May, two thousand and seven so erm I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat with Gerry erm Dave PAYNE and at least at some stage of it, the two Officers from the, from the PJ”.

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.

Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.

However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  

As far as I can ascertain, RO'B was a fellow student of the Paynes and MO at Leicester before he moved to Exeter, a town frequented by a certain Robert Murat, to become a GP.

Thanks uT.
I'm now confused greatly and need to go back. Is this correct ?

3rd May, c.9.15 Jane leaves table (sees Gerry, Jez, Tannerman) checks children, goes back to dinner.
3rd May, c.9.30 Russell goes back to clean, wash, change clothes, bed sheets etc. sick child.
3rd May, c.9.45 Jane leaves table, returns to apartment, so is next door when Kate later screams and rushes out.
3rd May, c.9.50 Russell has been 'relieved' by Jane, who now sits down to start his newly cooked supper.
3rd May, c.10.00, Kate does check and starts acting her part out, muffing her lines, runs screaming to Tapas.

So was Russell NOT at dinner on 1st May. Was this the day that he was (apparently) ill ? If he was ill, was that the night Jane took him a meal, and did he have earplugs in later, so as NOT to hear the crying from the McCs' apartment next door, that Mrs. Fenn was able to hear.

Is the 1st May also the night that Kate claimed to have slept in the kids' room, because she was miffed with Gerry eyeing the big bosom'd lady up, which then morphed into 'because he was snoring', and then somehow, time warped to become the Wednesday night,( i.e. before the Thursday 3rd breakfast) on which day Maddie complained of 'crying' yet, Kate having time-shifted her being in that bedroom, caused posters to question why, if she was in that room on the Wednesday night, she had not heard the crying....

Question, focus on Russell the superdad, was he at dinner on 1st May, or was he in his apartment, and if so, why?

bobbin wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.

Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.

However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  

As far as I can ascertain, RO'B was a fellow student of the Paynes and MO at Leicester before he moved to Exeter, a town frequented by a certain Robert Murat, to become a GP.

Thanks uT.
I'm now confused greatly and need to go back. Is this correct ?

3rd May, c.9.15 Jane leaves table (sees Gerry, Jez, Tannerman) checks children, goes back to dinner.
3rd May, c.9.30 Russell goes back to clean, wash, change clothes, bed sheets etc. sick child.
3rd May, c.9.45 Jane leaves table, returns to apartment, so is next door when Kate later screams and rushes out.
3rd May, c.9.50 Russell has been 'relieved' by Jane, who now sits down to start his newly cooked supper.
3rd May, c.10.00, Kate does check and starts acting her part out, muffing her lines, runs screaming to Tapas.

So was Russell NOT at dinner on 1st May. Was this the day that he was (apparently) ill ? If he was ill, was that the night Jane took him a meal, and did he have earplugs in later, so as NOT to hear the crying from the McCs' apartment next door, that Mrs. Fenn was able to hear.

Is the 1st May also the night that Kate claimed to have slept in the kids' room, because she was miffed with Gerry eyeing the big bosom'd lady up, which then morphed into 'because he was snoring', and then somehow, time warped to become the Wednesday night,( i.e. before the Thursday 3rd breakfast) on which day Maddie complained of 'crying' yet, Kate having time-shifted her being in that bedroom, caused posters to question why, if she was in that room on the Wednesday night, she had not heard the crying....

Question, focus on Russell the superdad, was he at dinner on 1st May, or was he in his apartment, and if so, why?

This is all going so fast, I’ve snipped two bits from previous posts.
If it is correct, that the child was sick on 1st May, and Russell was not at the Tapas Quiz, the big bosom’d lass noted that a chair was empty and she did not see Kate that would have to be 2 chairs empty.
Yet, on 3rd May, Russell is back at the apartment, from 9.30 to 9.50 with Jane needing to ‘relieve’ him from duty, to go and get his re-heated dinner, which he’d had to leave because Jane had sent him back because his child was sick.
Firstly, am I correct that Jane has two children, E*** and E*** the baby.

Two snipped extracts,
A…..Snipped…..
"However, both Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the "Quiz Night" (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007 ), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter . Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O'Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!"

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

B…Snipped….
[quote="ultimaThule"]As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.
Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.
However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  
Snipped.
When was the child sick, when was Russell sick if he was?

Brought over from Alex Woolfall 'knows' thread, where it's now more appropriate.

Post bobbin Today at 8:22 pm

dantezebu wrote:

Portia wrote:

dantezebu wrote:Are they the new ones he bought at "sunglasses corner?"


Could be

So where are his old ones?


KM made a big deal about them stopping to buy sunglasses for GM on their way back from the beach on 1st May in her book. Apparently he didn't have any.
She also wrote about it in her diary:

"Tuesday 01.05.2007 (holiday)
Breakfast apartment
Kids club - mini-tennis ↓
09.15-10.15 K ↓
G 10.15-11.15 ↓
Madeleine and Ella
* Get camera
Lunch → apartment
RAIN
Kids club beach, sunglasses
Ice cream
13:30 → 15:00 ish
Kids club? 15.15
? time not so good
? G tennis lessons - ok
High tea 16:30
? recreational area
Restaurant? object tennis
No Russell, Evie felt ill
(5D) Russ remained in apartment
Food was brought up"

Why did she need to make sure this was dated? Was it to prove the pool photo came after the 1st May?


focussing on Russell, On 1st May, Kate pinpoints that Evie was ill and he stayed in apartment, food taken up.
So why, on 3rd May did he have to go to his apartment at 9.30, when Jane returned from her 9.15 check seeing Gerry, Jez and Tannerman, to rush her dinner, to go back to apartment, so Russell could go down to dinner again and have a new steak cooked because his meal had got cold when he went back to his 'supposed' sick child.
Was this the day he claims to have changed sheets, washed the child, changed clothes, washed the sheets in a matter of minutes before going back to dinner.
Why is Kate making so much of someone elses lives in HER diary for the twins later on. With just sparse words for all else, she suddenly gives almost sentences over, to Russell being with ill child, etc.

What does ? time not so good mean. It's not referring to weather but 'time'.

Was Ella in Maddie's creche group, if so, the tennis was on Tuesday 1st and not the Thursday 3rd when Jez Wilkins' wife waxed lyrical about Maddie, that she must have been on the court, as it was mini tennis time, although the girls all looked pink and pretty or whatever.

Kate fetching camera, (to photograph Maddie and the tennis balls).

Sounds like a lot of detail and effort to place Maddie on certain dates in certain places, yet according to Mrs. Fenn this would be the night when Maddie would be crying and Kate would be taking umbrage at Gerry ogling the busty quiz mistress in the Tapas.

Russell the Quiet is not at dinner that evening re sick child, yet why was he so often so absent during the meal on 3rd May, JUST BEFORE Kate let out her screams.

He left the table with MO at 9.30 on the 3rd May, to go to check his child.

This is the famous Matt Oldfield event, seeing the twins breathing, hidden behind the door and cot sides, yet not noticing Maddie's bed and whether she was in it or not, albeit the bed was in full view on opening the door, even less open than that needed to see the twins.

What were Matt Oldfield and Russell O'Brien actually doing at 9.30. AIMO.when Russell was laying claim to being superdad/sheet washing hero.

bobbin wrote:

bobbin wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.

Due to his  fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.

However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  

As far as I can ascertain, RO'B was a fellow student of the Paynes and MO at Leicester before he moved to Exeter, a town frequented by a certain Robert Murat, to become a GP.

Thanks uT.
I'm now confused greatly and need to go back. Is this correct ?

3rd May, c.9.15 Jane leaves table (sees Gerry, Jez, Tannerman) checks children, goes back to dinner.
3rd May, c.9.30 Russell goes back to clean, wash, change clothes, bed sheets etc. sick child.
3rd May, c.9.45 Jane leaves table, returns to apartment, so is next door when Kate later screams and rushes out.
3rd May, c.9.50 Russell has been 'relieved' by Jane, who now sits down to start his newly cooked supper.
3rd May, c.10.00, Kate does check and starts acting her part out, muffing her lines, runs screaming to Tapas.

So was Russell NOT at dinner on 1st May. Was this the day that he was (apparently) ill ? If he was ill, was that the night Jane took him a meal, and did he have earplugs in later, so as NOT to hear the crying from the McCs' apartment next door, that Mrs. Fenn was able to hear.

Is the 1st May also the night that Kate claimed to have slept in the kids' room, because she was miffed with Gerry eyeing the big bosom'd lady up, which then morphed into 'because he was snoring', and then somehow, time warped to become the Wednesday night,( i.e. before the Thursday 3rd breakfast) on which day Maddie complained of 'crying' yet, Kate having time-shifted her being in that bedroom, caused posters to question why, if she was in that room on the Wednesday night, she had not heard the crying....

Question, focus on Russell the superdad, was he at dinner on 1st May, or was he in his apartment, and if so, why?

This is all going so fast, I’ve snipped two bits from previous posts.
If it is correct, that the child was sick on 1st May, and Russell was not at the Tapas Quiz, the big bosom’d lass noted that a chair was empty and she did not see Kate that would have to be 2 chairs empty.
Yet, on 3rd May, Russell is back at the apartment, from 9.30 to 9.50 with Jane needing to ‘relieve’ him from duty, to go and get his re-heated dinner, which he’d had to leave because Jane had sent him back because his child was sick.
Firstly, am I correct that Jane has two children, E*** and E*** the baby.

Two snipped extracts,
A…..Snipped…..
"However, both Jane Tanner and Russell  O'Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the "Quiz Night" (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007 ), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter . Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O'Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!"

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

B…Snipped….

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.
Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.
However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  
Snipped.
When was the child sick, when was Russell sick if he was?

Bobbin: Oochi Coochi the Quiz mistress saw one empty chair: Russels. But there were 2 empty chairs: the other one was the one Gerry kindly invited her to sit on. Hence: it is very well possible -even probable- both RO AND KH were absent together (i.e. simultaneously)

Portia wrote:

bobbin wrote:

bobbin wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.

Due to his  fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.

However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  

As far as I can ascertain, RO'B was a fellow student of the Paynes and MO at Leicester before he moved to Exeter, a town frequented by a certain Robert Murat, to become a GP.

Thanks uT.
I'm now confused greatly and need to go back. Is this correct ?

3rd May, c.9.15 Jane leaves table (sees Gerry, Jez, Tannerman) checks children, goes back to dinner.
3rd May, c.9.30 Russell goes back to clean, wash, change clothes, bed sheets etc. sick child.
3rd May, c.9.45 Jane leaves table, returns to apartment, so is next door when Kate later screams and rushes out.
3rd May, c.9.50 Russell has been 'relieved' by Jane, who now sits down to start his newly cooked supper.
3rd May, c.10.00, Kate does check and starts acting her part out, muffing her lines, runs screaming to Tapas.

So was Russell NOT at dinner on 1st May. Was this the day that he was (apparently) ill ? If he was ill, was that the night Jane took him a meal, and did he have earplugs in later, so as NOT to hear the crying from the McCs' apartment next door, that Mrs. Fenn was able to hear.

Is the 1st May also the night that Kate claimed to have slept in the kids' room, because she was miffed with Gerry eyeing the big bosom'd lady up, which then morphed into 'because he was snoring', and then somehow, time warped to become the Wednesday night,( i.e. before the Thursday 3rd breakfast) on which day Maddie complained of 'crying' yet, Kate having time-shifted her being in that bedroom, caused posters to question why, if she was in that room on the Wednesday night, she had not heard the crying....

Question, focus on Russell the superdad, was he at dinner on 1st May, or was he in his apartment, and if so, why?

This is all going so fast, I’ve snipped two bits from previous posts.
If it is correct, that the child was sick on 1st May, and Russell was not at the Tapas Quiz, the big bosom’d lass noted that a chair was empty and she did not see Kate that would have to be 2 chairs empty.
Yet, on 3rd May, Russell is back at the apartment, from 9.30 to 9.50 with Jane needing to ‘relieve’ him from duty, to go and get his re-heated dinner, which he’d had to leave because Jane had sent him back because his child was sick.
Firstly, am I correct that Jane has two children, E*** and E*** the baby.

Two snipped extracts,
A…..Snipped…..
"However, both Jane Tanner and Russell  O'Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the "Quiz Night" (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007 ), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter . Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O'Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!"

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

B…Snipped….

ultimaThule wrote:As I recall, Jane Tanner left the group's table c9.15pm to check on her daughter.  RO'B subsequently left the table with MO c9.30pm to check on her.  JT then returned to the table and was able hastily finish her meal before leaving again c9.45pm to 'relieve' (cue innuendo and sniggering) her partner, bobbin.
Due to his fatherly devotion to his sick child and duties as laundrymaid, RO'B's previously ordered and now cold steak was binned and a fresh one cooked for him when he rejoined the group's table c9.50pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 and he'd barely had a few bites before being disturbed by KM's re-entrance to the Tapas Bar.
However, the statements of independent witnesses have it that after c9.30pm on the evening in question only Dianne Webster remained at the group's table.  
Snipped.
When was the child sick, when was Russell sick if he was?

Bobbin: Oochi Coochi the Quiz mistress saw one empty chair: Russels. But there were 2 empty chairs: the other one was the one Gerry kindly invited her to sit on. Hence: it is very well possible -even probable- both RO AND KH were absent together (i.e. simultaneously)

Of course, Portia, you are right, I hadn't thought of it that way.
So, known facts for 1st May are:-
Kate's phone makes 6 calls to Non-Tapas, in 11 minutes, 3 minutes before Mrs. Fenn hears the crying starting at 10.30 p.m. on 1st May.
Kate's Diary states that Russell is not at dinner, but in apartment looking after sick child Evie (may be true or false statement).
Is it correct that Tanner/ O'Brien are direct neighbours of McCs (in terms of hearing 'crying' through walls)
Tanner and O'Brien do not mention hearing 'crying', in their statements.

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