Do witness statements have any relevance at a trial?

[Robittybob1]

I was talking about evidence. I don't consider media reports to be evidence.

What about hearing them speak as in a video?

[G-Unit]

What about hearing them speak as in a video?

Why would the UK police wish to hide evidence which had already been aired in the media?

[jassi]

What about hearing them speak as in a video?

Speaking on a video confirms exactly what was said,( unless edited to deceive), but doesn't mean that the content of  what was said is correct

[Carana]

Speaking on a video confirms exactly what was said,( unless edited to deceive), but doesn't mean that the content of  what was said is correct

Agreed Jassi, but it's one step up from whatever an inspector noted during Gerry's first interview involving a 3-way conversation, for example. IMO.

Perhaps he did lie, or got mixed up. No idea, I wasn't there. On the other hand, a lost-in-translation /confusion issue seems totally plausible to me.

Whatever people's views, I find it important to at least be open to context.

My impression is that you are on the whole, Jassi, but others aren't.

[Robittybob1]

Why would the UK police wish to hide evidence which had already been aired in the media?

It is their policy to keep certain information close to their chest.  Maybe they haven't noticed the significance of the fact yet?

[Robittybob1]

Speaking on a video confirms exactly what was said,( unless edited to deceive), but doesn't mean that the content of  what was said is correct

That is what detectives are paid to do.    If you think the discrepancies in Gerry's statements are significant, how about what is now appearing in Jez' statement? 

[Robittybob1]

Agreed Jassi, but it's one step up from whatever an inspector noted during Gerry's first interview involving a 3-way conversation, for example. IMO.

Perhaps he did lie, or got mixed up. No idea, I wasn't there. On the other hand, a lost-in-translation /confusion issue seems totally plausible to me.

Whatever people's views, I find it important to at least be open to context.

My impression is that you are on the whole, Jassi, but others aren't.

The context as I see it.
Jez says he stayed in after arriving home after 9:30 PM, yet two ladies in his tennis group talk to him while he is out on the streets, and he informs them it is Gerry's daughter that is missing, yet at 1:00 AM he says he was informed of this fact by a visit from John Hill and Matt Oldfield.  Still doesn't join the search after that.

[jassi]

The context as I see it.
Jez says he stayed in after arriving home after 9:30 PM, yet two ladies in his tennis group talk to him while he is out on the streets, and he informs them it is Gerry's daughter that is missing, yet at 1:00 AM he says he was informed of this fact by a visit from John Hill and Matt Oldfield.  Still doesn't join the search after that.

Is there any certainty about what these ladies said ? Do they give a time for this?
As his  wife says he was in all night after his return, did they confuse his identity with another member of their tennis group ?

[Robittybob1]

Is there any certainty about what these ladies said ? Do they give a time for this?
As his  wife says he was in all night after his return, did they confuse his identity with another member of their tennis group ?

There is certainty in that the same sort of statement has been made multiple times.  Timing has always been an issue, but the interview on Netflix is highly suggestive it was in the first hour of the missing person search IMO.

A wife's alibi is the weakest alibi one can have.
No, there is no chance of confusion IMO.

[jassi]

There is certainty in that the same sort of statement has been made multiple times.  Timing has always been an issue, but the interview on Netflix is highly suggestive it was in the first hour of the missing person search IMO.

A wife's alibi is the weakest alibi one can have.
No, there is no chance of confusion IMO.

Not having seen these statements I can't really comment on the detail, but would point that saying the same thing over & over doesn't necessarily mean it is true, merely that the people  involved are convinced that it is what happened.

[Carana]

The context as I see it.
Jez says he stayed in after arriving home after 9:30 PM, yet two ladies in his tennis group talk to him while he is out on the streets, and he informs them it is Gerry's daughter that is missing, yet at 1:00 AM he says he was informed of this fact by a visit from John Hill and Matt Oldfield.  Still doesn't join the search after that.

Can you remember which episode that was, Rob? I've managed to see bits of several, but not the totality so far.

[Robittybob1]

Not having seen these statements I can't really comment on the detail, but would point that saying the same thing over & over doesn't necessarily mean it is true, merely that the people  involved are convinced that it is what happened.

Being convinced is a good start. 

[Robittybob1]

Can you remember which episode that was, Rob? I've managed to see bits of several, but not the totality so far.

Hopefully I noted the episode on the Netflix thread I'll search for Jensen on that thread.

[Robittybob1]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10613.msg522246;topicseen#msg522246

What I wrote was "Finally signed up for Netflix so I can watch the McCann doco.   At 15:30 episode 1 Jayne Jensen discusses meeting up with Jez Wilkins.  If the documentary is correct they portray that happening soon after the search begins.  If this is true Jayne's testimony contradicts Jez Wilkins' statements where he states he arrives home at 9:30 PM and stayed in for the night."

[Carana]

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