Do witness discrepancies point to lies or are they just improved memory?

[gilet]

Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit.  I see.

The witness couldn't give a proper description...what could they do, be creative and invent a George Harrison or a monster like?!

Perhaps you have missed the bit in the files where it is explained that the PJ photofit "expert" was unable to make a representation of a side on view of the face which Jane Tanner was describing (quite naturally as the person was crossing her path rather than walking towards her.)?

The description was fine. It is just that the "expert" was not capable of interpreting it. It reminds me of the fact that Amaral also told us in his book that the photographers who were first on the scene did a poor job and that the fingerprint experts were not particularly competent. Interesting when you read everything carefully isn't it?

You are wrong my dear, the description didn't give any details about a face in fact she first stated she was unable to see it. She only described a male figure with longish hair holding a bundle of clothes in his arms.

As for Amaral's book, yours must be different from mine. He admits a lot of mistakes but what do those have to do with JT's memory evolving through different images after the initial blur?

The reality is that Jane Tanner was describing the view of a man from the side. The fact is that there is evidence that the PJ "expert" was unable to interpret this description into image form.  That inability relates very well to the claims made by Amaral in his own book that the skills of the "experts" in other technical aspects of policing within his team were not of a high standard. It is proof that the PJ was not as competent as some imagine.

It is not surprising that Jane seeing someone from the side at some distance,  there was no clear memory of the facial features. I would have been questioning her description had she claimed to have a facial description as that would seem impossible.

[gilet]

I don't think that when witnesses remember  additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes  a 'discrepency'  (  and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )

People being asked,  on re-interview,  if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me  ...  and if they  do remember additional details,  then that is a good thing.  The original statement remains unchanged with more details added

What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information,  but  altered information

Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key,  and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not   additional information, it is altered  information.  The original statement has been  'changed,  rather than added to   ( a discrepency  ) 

Similarly,  when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm  and then said  later that she had found the curtains to be closed,  she did not  add  details to her statement,  she   changed  it  ( a discrepency )

Where a new witness statement adds to,  but does not conflict,  with a previously given statement,  there is no discrepency

When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.

It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.

It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.

Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view.  When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?

[icabodcrane]

I don't think that when witnesses remember  additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes  a 'discrepency'  (  and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )

People being asked,  on re-interview,  if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me  ...  and if they  do remember additional details,  then that is a good thing.  The original statement remains unchanged with more details added

What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information,  but  altered information

Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key,  and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not   additional information, it is altered  information.  The original statement has been  'changed,  rather than added to   ( a discrepency  ) 

Similarly,  when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm  and then said  later that she had found the curtains to be closed,  she did not  add  details to her statement,  she   changed  it  ( a discrepency )

Where a new witness statement adds to,  but does not conflict,  with a previously given statement,  there is no discrepency

When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.

It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.

It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.

Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view.  When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?

It was not an alteration ...  it was additional information that did not conflict in any way with previously given statements

There is nothing remarkable about the fact that the three witnesses present at the time,  when asked to give a more detailed account of what had happened,  all mentioned the incident where Gerry McCann fell to his knees ( like a praying Arab )  ...  the very fact that  all  of them recalled it determines that there is  no discrepency

[icabodcrane]

So - if the McCanns and their friends all made statements to the effect that they noticed no suspcious activity around the Tapas Restaurant immediately prior to the abduction, but then subsequently at the rogatories they all remarked that the behaviour of one of the waiters was a bit odd and that he was acting all nervous and seemed out of breath, then that would not raise any suspicion in your mind whatsoever?   It would just be all of them deciding to add to the detail of the account of that evening would it?

But the three witnesses we are talking about here  (  two GNR officers and a member of staff )  did not say, in their original statements  there was nothing about the McCann's behaviour/demeanor  that they found odd  ... they said nothing at all about the McCann's behaviou/demeanor

When they were re-interviewed and asked to provide more details,  they  did  mention the McCann's behaviour/demeanor

They weren't changing information they had previously given  ( unlike the example you have given above )  ...  they were providing additional information

[icabodcrane]

So - if the McCanns and their friends all made statements to the effect that they noticed no suspcious activity around the Tapas Restaurant immediately prior to the abduction, but then subsequently at the rogatories they all remarked that the behaviour of one of the waiters was a bit odd and that he was acting all nervous and seemed out of breath, then that would not raise any suspicion in your mind whatsoever?   It would just be all of them deciding to add to the detail of the account of that evening would it?

But the three witnesses we are talking about here  (  two GNR officers and a member of staff )  did not say, in their original statements  there was nothing about the McCann's behaviour/demeanor  that they found odd  ... they said nothing at all about the McCann's behaviou/demeanor

When they were re-interviewed and asked to provide more details,  they  did  mention the McCann's behaviour/demeanor

They weren't changing information they had previously given  ( unlike the example you have given above )  ...  they were providing additional information

No, I disagree.  If the McCanns and their friends were asked to add any information about the events prior to Madeleine's disappearance that might be relevant and all said they had nothing further to add,  but subsequently ALL came forward at the Rogatories with a description of the nervous, out-of-breath waiter then that would be identical to what happened with regard the GNR officers, would it not?

There was plenty the McCann's friends had to add in the rogatory interviews that they hadn't said in their original statements  (  the McCanns themselves were not re-intervied at that time )

During the first few days after Madeleine's disappearance  hundreds of interviews took place

The priority  at that point, clearly,  was to establish a sequence of events  ...  who was where, when, and what action did they take

Later,  when the information that was immediately needed had been processed,  witnesses were re-interviewed  in more depth,  and  additional information was sought and given

How on earth can that be questionable  ?

[Eleanor]

Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents?  Presuming it happened, of course.

[Carana]

A point to bear in mind is that the PT statements are not verbatim, they are only a summary, and there is room for confusion in the translation process, the general stress...

On the front door discrepancy, to me it seems like something got confused.

Gerry was one of the first (if not the first) to be interviewed. Wouldn't the officer have asked for a general description of the apartment to get a general understanding? If so, it's not recorded as such. There are no real details of the general routine in this interview, but we don't know if there had been a discussion for the officer to get a general idea or not. The officer and/or the translator could have been scribbling notes and could have got mixed up.

It makes no sense to me for Gerry to say that he and Kate had taken the long way around via the front door using a key, whilst in the same breath stating that Matt had gone to check via the unlocked veranda door. Why didn't the officer ask the obvious question at the time to clarify?


In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there."

[icabodcrane]

Fine - so we can conclude (in answer to the O)P that witness discrepancies between statements are more ofen than not down to improved memory rather than lying then?

No

Discrepencies exist where witness statements have been  'changed'  ...   as with Gerry McCann saying that he entered the apartment through the front door using his key,  and then changing his statement to say something entirely different  ...  that he had entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors

That is a discrepency  ( one of those witness statements  had to be untrue )

When the three witnesses cited in this thread  reported that Gerry McCann had fallen to ground like a praying Arab,  they were giving 'additional information'

There was no discrepency

'improved memory'  played  no part in either case 

[icabodcrane]

So to ask once again Icabod,  in the scenario I described above regarding the McCanns and their friends recalling additional info regarding one of the waiters months after the event, you'd have no problem with that, same as the GNR officers recalling the supposedly odd behaviour of the McCanns when their daughter went missing?

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I already have Martha 

 

[icabodcrane]

Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents?  Presuming it happened, of course.

I agree with this

I, too,  fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns

[Eleanor]

Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents?  Presuming it happened, of course.

I agree with this

I, too,  fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns

You and me both.  One minute The McCanns are being castigated for not showing enough emotion, and the next minute for showing too much.

[Carana]

Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents?  Presuming it happened, of course.

God knows.  It seems to me that the McCanns' actions in shock and grief has been used to mock them.

That is certainly how I perceived the portrayal of them, supposedly praying on the bed with their bums in the air in a certain documentary.

[icabodcrane]

Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents?  Presuming it happened, of course.

I agree with this

I, too,  fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns

You and me both.  One minute The McCanns are being castigated for not showing enough emotion, and the next minute for showing too much.

I visualise Gerry McCann on his knees like that and find it desperately sad 

To me, it seems it was an act of supplication  ...  begging them,  in fact ...  to find his child

[Eleanor]

It was goncalo Amaral's Documentary I do believe.  So why did he think it was strange?

[gilet]

I don't think that when witnesses remember  additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes  a 'discrepency'  (  and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )

People being asked,  on re-interview,  if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me  ...  and if they  do remember additional details,  then that is a good thing.  The original statement remains unchanged with more details added

What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information,  but  altered information

Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key,  and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not   additional information, it is altered  information.  The original statement has been  'changed,  rather than added to   ( a discrepency  ) 

Similarly,  when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm  and then said  later that she had found the curtains to be closed,  she did not  add  details to her statement,  she   changed  it  ( a discrepency )

Where a new witness statement adds to,  but does not conflict,  with a previously given statement,  there is no discrepency

When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.

It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.

It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.

Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view.  When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?

It was not an alteration ...  it was additional information that did not conflict in any way with previously given statements

There is nothing remarkable about the fact that the three witnesses present at the time,  when asked to give a more detailed account of what had happened,  all mentioned the incident where Gerry McCann fell to his knees ( like a praying Arab )  ...  the very fact that  all  of them recalled it determines that there is  no discrepency

But they had been asked to give a more detailed account before. But they didn't.

And no matter what you might think I think it mightily odd that three witnesses (two of them colleagues) should months later all decide that something they never mentioned before is now notable and unusual and would you believe it, it just happens to be the very same detail for each of them.

No thats just the way memory works isn't it?