Do witness statements have any relevance at a trial?

[Robittybob1]

Thanks, Rob. I'll try to have a look tomorrow.

Thank you.  Annie Wiltshire, Jayne's sister is now deceased so we can't get both reports any longer, but they did report their experiences in several press releases years ago.

[G-Unit]

Thank you.  Annie Wiltshire, Jayne's sister is now deceased so we can't get both reports any longer, but they did report their experiences in several press releases years ago.

Jayne Jensen's account is cut into three segments. In the first one she refers to 'us'; she and her sister. Then she changes to 'I' because she's left her sister in the bar and has gone back up alone and arrives at where the commotion was. CUT

At 15:39 she has changed to 'we'. 'We' bumped into Jez who told us it was Gerry's little girl. CUT

At 15:53 she's back to 'I' again. It is 'I' who hears Kate howling, not 'we'.

Although the three segments follow sequentially the change of pronouns suggests that she was speaking of different occasions. She gives the impression in the newspapers that it was the fiollowing day when they saw Wilkins because she's talking about the following day when she mentions him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
 .

[Robittybob1]

Jayne Jensen's account is cut into three segments. In the first one she refers to 'us'; she and her sister. Then she changes to 'I' because she's left her sister in the bar and has gone back up alone and arrives at where the commotion was. CUT

At 15:39 she has changed to 'we'. 'We' bumped into Jez who told us it was Gerry's little girl. CUT

At 15:53 she's back to 'I' again. It is 'I' who hears Kate howling, not 'we'.

Although the three segments follow sequentially the change of pronouns suggests that she was speaking of different occasions. She gives the impression in the newspapers that it was the fiollowing day when they saw Wilkins because she's talking about the following day when she mentions him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
 .

I think it needs to be clarified as to when they met up with Jez.

[jassi]

I think it needs to be clarified as to when they met up with Jez.

The way it is written in the Mail, it was the following morning that they met Jez.

Have you evidence to contradict that?

I suppose the definitive statement is that made to the police. Is that available ?

[Robittybob1]

The way it is written in the Mail, it was the following morning that they met Jez.

Have you evidence to contradict that?

I suppose the definitive statement is that made to the police. Is that available ?

How do you make it read that it was the next day?

This sentence has "next day"in it: "The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister."
but I think that just applies to when they met Robert Murat.

[jassi]

How do you make it read that it was the next day?

This sentence has "next day"in it: "The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister."
but I think that just applies to when they met Robert Murat.

I don't agree with you. The way it is written is quite clear - IMO

" The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister.

"It was hideous when we realised that the little girl had not been found. It really began to hit home that something horrible had happened.

"I thought maybe she had fallen down a manhole, or hit her head. I didn't think she had been taken at that point and we helped search bins and scrubland."

As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.

"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.

Have you anything that suggests this meeting was the previous evening ?

[G-Unit]

There are some statements in the files which are most peculiar in my opinion. Paul Gordon for exanple, who stayed in 5A the week before the McCanns did. He made a statement on 6th May; a very quick response.

His statement isn't typical of UK police statements, however. It's typed on plain paper,  is unsigned and doesn't name the interviewer.

Consequently it's not worth the paper it's written on in my opinion.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

[Venturi Swirl]

There are some statements in the files which are most peculiar in my opinion. Paul Gordon for exanple, who stayed in 5A the week before the McCanns did. He made a statement on 6th May; a very quick response.

His statement isn't typical of UK police statements, however. It's typed on plain paper,  is unsigned and doesn't name the interviewer.

Consequently it's not worth the paper it's written on in my opinion.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

His signature appears right at the bottom under the photofit.  You seem to be suggesting that there is something dodgy going on....?

[G-Unit]

His signature appears right at the bottom under the photofit.  You seem to be suggesting that there is something dodgy going on....?

It does, but the photofit was done by Operation Task and is signed by the operator and the witness. It isn't connected with his May 2007 statement though; it was done seven months later in January 2008.

[Venturi Swirl]

It does, but the photofit was done by Operation Task and is signed by the operator and the witness. It isn't connected with his May 2007 statement though; it was done seven months later in January 2008.

OK.  Do you think it's possible that these statements were faked?

[G-Unit]

OK.  Do you think it's possible that these statements were faked?

The statement dated 6th May doesn't look like it was produced by a UK police force. It looks more like an unsigned letter.

[Venturi Swirl]

The statement dated 6th May doesn't look like it was produced by a UK police force. It looks more like an unsigned letter.

And what do you deduce from this observation that you have drawn to our attention?  Nothing at all, I bet!

[G-Unit]

And what do you deduce from this observation that you have drawn to our attention?  Nothing at all, I bet!

It isn't a police statement because it isn't signed and it doesn't include this;

 a declaration by the maker that it is true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and that it was made knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, the maker would be liable to prosecution if s/he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true (known as a `perjury declaration');
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-witness.htm

In the UK it would be inadmissible as evidence therefore. I expect the same applies in Portugal.

[Venturi Swirl]

It isn't a police statement because it isn't signed and it doesn't include this;

 a declaration by the maker that it is true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and that it was made knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, the maker would be liable to prosecution if s/he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true (known as a `perjury declaration');
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-witness.htm

In the UK it would be inadmissible as evidence therefore. I expect the same applies in Portugal.

What was it doing in the official police files then?

[G-Unit]

What was it doing in the official police files then?

It was sent to Portugal with his two rogatory interviews in May 2008.