Kids bedroom window closed but not locked. Can be opened from outside.

[Benice]

The suggestion is that Gerry didn't say he and his wife entered the apartment by using the key. If so, he would have noticed the mistake when the statement was read back to him. I'm quite sure that Natalie de Almeida omitted nothing. Therefore he did say it and he signed to confirm that he said it.

Not necessarily so IMO  There is a vast difference between having a statement read back to you at the reader's pace and in a foreign accent, than having the written statement in front of you, in your own language, to read through at your own pace.    It would be far more likely in those circumstances for errors to jump out of the page at you.   Also  you don't have to try to remember what has already been read out to you whilst continuing to take in what is currently being read out to you.   You can simply re-read if necessary.

Whilst Gerry would have signed original statements, neither he nor anyone else have signed those statements which were translated by amateurs - and which we use.        Therefore no confirmation exists from anyone - by way of signatures - that the contents of any of their translated statements are totally accurate.    For that to be the case, the translated statements would need to have been submitted to the witnesses for them to read and sign if they approved     This didn't happen.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

Not necessarily so IMO  There is a vast difference between having a statement read back to you at the reader's pace and in a foreign accent, than having the written statement in front of you, in your own language, to read through at your own pace.    It would be far more likely in those circumstances for errors to jump out of the page at you.   Also  you don't have to try to remember what has already been read out to you whilst continuing to take in what is currently being read out to you.   You can simply re-read if necessary.

Whilst Gerry would have signed original statements, neither he nor anyone else have signed those statements which were translated by amateurs - and which we use.        Therefore no confirmation exists from anyone - by way of signatures - that the contents of any of their translated statements are totally accurate.    For that to be the case, the translated statements would need to have been submitted to the witnesses for them to read and sign if they approved     This didn't happen.

AIMHO

Maybe he wasn't even listening. but he should have been. You now need to explain why the interpreter twice used the word 'key' if it wasn't used by the witness?

[Benice]

Maybe he wasn't even listening. but he should have been. You now need to explain why the interpreter twice used the word 'key' if it wasn't used by the witness?

And maybe he was traumatised and his head was all over the place.

We've done all this before G.     We know there was confusion during interviews over which door was being referred to.   IMO it could have been the PJ officer who decided to insert a ''with a key''  note in his notes  - to remind himself which door was being referred to when he typed up his summary.     If  he had the doors the wrong way round  -  then when Gerry said the front door (the one the PJ officer understood to have a key) he wouldn't realise that Gerry was actually talking about the patio door - and so wrote ''with a key'' next to it.

I'm sure if we could have seen the verbatim conversation - it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding first occurred.

IIRC Gerry had already confirmed that the patio door was open.  Therefore there is not a single credible reason  IMO for Gerry to claim that either he or Kate went all the way round to the front door when they knew the patio door was unlocked - and which was their regular and normal point of entry anyway.   Why would he make up such an unbelievable claim which IMO he would have no way whatsoever of explaining?     For him to do that makes no sense to me.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

And maybe he was traumatised and his head was all over the place.

We've done all this before G.     We know there was confusion during interviews over which door was being referred to.   IMO it could have been the PJ officer who decided to insert a ''with a key''  note in his notes  - to remind himself which door was being referred to when he typed up his summary.     If  he had the doors the wrong way round  -  then when Gerry said the front door (the one the PJ officer understood to have a key) he wouldn't realise that Gerry was actually talking about the patio door - and so wrote ''with a key'' next to it.

I'm sure if we could have seen the verbatim conversation - it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding first occurred.

IIRC Gerry had already confirmed that the patio door was open.  Therefore there is not a single credible reason  IMO for Gerry to claim that either he or Kate went all the way round to the front door when they knew the patio door was unlocked - and which was their regular and normal point of entry anyway.   Why would he make up such an unbelievable claim which IMO he would have no way whatsoever of explaining?     For him to do that makes no sense to me.

AIMHO

entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva estando a porta trancada
entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg

[Benice]

entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva estando a porta trancada
entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg

The PJ officer is summarising his understanding of Gerry's account.   IMO  ''the door being locked'' could be his own interpretation inserted to identify which door  (i.e. the locked front door -which needed a key) which he may have genuinely but mistakenly believed Gerry was referring to - if Gerry had been referring to the patio door as the 'front' door.

IMO it is very noticeable that the PJ never revealed the reasons Gerry gave for making changes to his statement - which imo were made after he saw his statement in English and realised there had been a misunderstanding about the doors - and which he then pointed out to the PJ at his next interview.

I do not believe that Gerry would have asked for his statement to be changed without giving the PJ  his reasons for making that request.  Similarly,  I do not believe the PJ would NOT have asked him to explain his reasons for making such a major change.       If the reasons he gave were considered by the PJ to be 'suspicious' in any way - then IMO they would most definitely have been recorded in his statement as potentially crucial evidence.   So why didn't they record them?

Could it be that if the PJ thought their own interviewing officer and/or the interpreter had made 'mistakes' during  the interview - they preferred not to mention it? - although IMO it is very easy to see how misunderstandings could have happened.     Taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding that first interview - I wouldn't blame anyone for any errors which may have occurred.   

However, if anyone believes that Gerry claimed to have ignored the unlocked Patio door a few feet away from him and took the long route round to the front door - then they need to come up with a reason why he would decide to make such a strange claim -  for which he could provide no credible explanation whatsoever - as far as I can see - (especially if he needed the Loo). 

What would he have to gain by claiming that he did not enter 5a via the patio door?   AFAIAC - the answer is 'zilch'.

All in my opinion.

[pathfinder73]

The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier  (afterall, the door was half-open again  ) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.

[sadie]

The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier  (afterall, the door was half-open again  ) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.

Are we in this awful insulting sign of  again?  It was removed once because it was so demeaning. 

I do not intend to lower myself to using it, no matter what i think of a poster

[pathfinder73]

That's for the half-open door. The key was found long ago.

[Benice]

The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier  (afterall, the door was half-open again  ) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.

None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations.      Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate.   

IMO

[sadie]

None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations.      Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate. 

IMO 

Vetry good point  Benice.  Well highlighted.

[John]

Reminder to all posters:

Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule.  Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.

Please feel free to start a new topic if there is a subject you wish to discuss on another issue which does not yet have its own thread.

TY

[G-Unit]

None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations.      Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate.   

IMO

Which is precisely why I took the trouble of translating the original signed statement in a previous post.

[Robittybob1]

The suggestion is that Gerry didn't say he and his wife entered the apartment by using the key. If so, he would have noticed the mistake when the statement was read back to him. I'm quite sure that Natalie de Almeida omitted nothing. Therefore he did say it and he signed to confirm that he said it.

I still think it is really possible that on Gerry's first trip back to the apartment he went in through the front door as he said.

[G-Unit]

I still think it is really possible that on Gerry's first trip back to the apartment he went in through the front door as he said.

Of course it is, why not? I don't understand why it has to be the interpreter, the PJ or, the latest suggestion, the amateur translator who made a mistake and not him.

[Robittybob1]

Of course it is, why not? I don't understand why it has to be the interpreter, the PJ or, the latest suggestion, the amateur translator who made a mistake and not him.

I don't think of it as a mistake.