Diário de Notícias, 2 January, Interview with GA, please read!

Well if it is in Kate's book that Matt told Gerry the PJ suggested that Matt may have passed Maddie through the window, and then Gerry relayed this information to Kate, then in must be true. NOT!

Matt is a bold faced liar. I don't believe for a minute that he ever stepped foot in the McCanns apartment before Madeleine went missing. The PJ knew that he was lying due to the many discrepancies in his story (two windows in Maddie's room comes to mind, amongst countless others). If it was even true (doubtful) that the PJ suggested that Matt passed Maddie through the window, it was likely done in order to get to the bottom of all of his lies.

Kate's book is not FACT! This claim by Kate is only hearsay, which she heard secondhand, not through Matt himself, but through Gerry.

jinvta wrote:Well if it is in Kate's book that Matt told Gerry the PJ suggested that Matt may have passed Maddie through the window, and then Gerry relayed this information to Kate, then in must be true. NOT!

Matt is a bold faced liar. I don't believe for a minute that he ever stepped foot in the McCanns apartment before Madeleine went missing. The PJ knew that he was lying due to the many discrepancies in his story (two windows in Maddie's room comes to mind, amongst countless others). If it was even true (doubtful) that the PJ suggested that Matt passed Maddie through the window, it was likely done in order to get to the bottom of all of his lies.

Kate's book is not FACT! This claim by Kate is only hearsay, which she heard secondhand, not through Matt himself, but through Gerry.

I believe Matt also got the colour of the curtains in Maddie's room wrong. And it's the job of the police to get the information they need, which sometimes means throwing in, apropos of nothing, something to shake the interviewee up a bit! They're allowed to do it!

He thought the curtains were green and yellow!

No Matthew, that's the wristbands ......

almostgothic wrote:He thought the curtains were green and yellow!

No Matthew, that's the wristbands ......

I READ SOMEWHERE THAT WHEN MO WAS BEING INTERROGRATED,GERRY WAS NEARBY,MO WAS SOBBING AS POLICE ACCUSED MO OF KIDNAPPING MADELEINE.

The McCanns have come up with no proof whatsoever that Madeleine was alive during their meal in the restaurant.

Yes this is speculation, but it is speculation based on witness statements from the restaurant staff and Mrs Fenn.

There is actually no proof whatsoever that any of them went into the apartment. We only have their words. I am including Gerry McCann in this. There is no proof he went into the apartment and saw Madeleine, and thought how beautiful she was, blah, blah. The only witness is Jez Wilkins and he only made an assumption that Gerry had just checked because Gerry was outside the apartment when the two men spotted each other. There is no proof that Gerry went inside the apartment and he may have merely listened at the window/door, saw Jez and then went over to talk to him? Kate and all of the tapas group would have assumed that Gerry had been inside the apartment and had physically seen Madeleine and the twins. In fact his description of his sleeping daughter, and of going to the toilet, and so on, seems to be completely exagerated, especially when he later suggested that, at the same time, the abductor must have been hiding inside the apartment.

The McCanns have gone to lengths to come up with a timeline that avoids the accusation of neglect and which allows just a few little minutes for the deed of abduction to be carried out, and they even claim in this very short space of time that the abductor drugged all three children.

If Madeleine had later been discovered as having suffered an accident, Gerry would not be likely to admit that he didn't actually do his check properly. Goodness knows he has to say he saw her, because if she were lying fatally injured inside and all he did was listen at the door, then imagine the consequences of that!

Given the fact the McCanns cannot prove that Madeleine was alive during their meal, and given the fact that Mrs Fenn and the tapas staff bring into doubt the McCanns timeline, there is every chance indeed that Madeleine suffered an accident.

No.

Not an accident - but a misadventure.

Matt Oldfield also initially claimed that the Paynes arrived at the Tapas Bar at 9:00pm and then he went off for his check at 9:05 pm. By the rogatory interview, this check somehow ended up morphing into a visit to hurry up the Payne's, possibly because the timeline was shifted forward in order to explain why Tanner and O'Brien would conduct checks on their own children only 5 minutes apart (9:20 and 9:25 pm). Literally Russell would have needed to the leave the table just as Jane was returning. So the timeline shifted forward and Matt's check became a visit to get the Paynes and suddenly all of the Paynes remember passing Matt on their way to the restaurant, which none of them remembered in their first interview.

Matt did get the color of the curtains wrong, he did get the number of windows wrong, he absolutely could not have seen the twins breathing without seeing whether or not Madleine was in her bed, and he couldn't even decide if the purpose of his early visit was to hurry up the Paynes or conduct a check. It is no wonder that he was sobbing! How can one continue with so many lies? As mentioned above, the PJ had every right to accuse him of the worst, since clearly he has been obstructing justice since the beginning. Matt is clearly the weak link and needs to be drilled extensively by SY.

Claudia79 wrote:Sometimes ignorance gets tiring. The reconstruction could NEVER be released to the public because that would mean breaking a PORTUGUESE law. It's as simple as that. Just because it is done in a certain way somewhere else it doesn't mean it has to be done the same way everywhere. And the arrogance that THAT is the way is quite annoying although not surprising at all.

Thanks for that information. In the early days of this case there were plenty of Portuguese posters able to explain legal differences that led to further understanding of what was happening with the investigation. I wish more of them had stayed with us.

It seems a bit pathetic that Oldfield was sobbing and hysterical when accused of something he hadn't done. Isn't that the reaction of a child being told off by a parent - particularly a child who has been up to mischief - not the reaction of a grown man?