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

[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

[icabodcrane]

And yet initially - the officers were “urged to reveal other details that may be considered relevant to the investigation”.

But replied that they had "no other knowledge of any elements that may help contribute to that end”.

So why did they not consider the allegedly odd behaviour relevant in May but somehow very relevant 5 months later?

Well I suppose it might be the case that in the early part of the investigation the claimed abduction was being treated as a priority.  Susequently, the 'demeanor'  of the parents, that night,  might not have been considered  relevent

Later,  however,  following intervention  by British police,  the Portuguese were advised to investigate the McCanns possible involvement in a homicide with the same vigour they had previously investigated the abductor theory  with

At that point,  it would be reasonable, therefore,  for the police who were present on the night to be  asked whether,  on recall,  there had been  anything suspicious or unusual  about the McCanns behaviour

[ferryman]

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

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  ) 


That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though.   Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?

[Eleanor]

Okay, Folks, what did they do that wasn't odd then, but is now that we are trying to fit them up?

[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

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  ) 


That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though.   Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?

I think the possibility of confusion over  'front or back'  is redundant,  given that Gerry told the police he had used his key to enter the apartment

The ( back )  patio doors were unlocked,  so no key needed there

[C.Edwards]

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

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  ) 


That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though.   Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?

Yes, keep clutching at those straws HB.  From Gerry's 10th May statement:

That that was the first time they walked altogether along the route inside and around the resort. They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, he followed the wall around and turned right, going down the side road to the resort up to the secondary reception where the entered without difficulty as they had an access card that they did not ask for but they had been given during the Check-in.

----- At 17h00 the OCEAN CLUB nursery care workers conducted MADELEINE and the other children in creche on the 1st floor of the main reception to [the area] next to the TAPAS, under awnings, where they [the children] had dinner under the supervision of the employees and, at times, with their parents. The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30. Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered.

---- Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.

----- They made their way on foot by the usual route to the creche next to the TAPAS where they left the twins, and, while KATE stayed to play tennis he took MADELEINE to her creche, through the short-cut, where they arrived at 09h15, and , since it was obligatory, he signed the child's attendance register. On returning, not by the short-cut, he went to the supermarket where he bought milk, he presumes, making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45

----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked.

I think we all know which is front and which is back now, so can we let that one lie?

[icabodcrane]

And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?

Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:

"Confusion is good"

Do I win a prize?

I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between  'adding'  information to a statement  (  as the police men did in this case )  and  'changing' information in a statement   as Gerry did )

Adding information does not present a discrepencey  ... changing information does

[Eleanor]

And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?

Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:

"Confusion is good"

Do I win a prize?

Oh, that old chestnut.  Did Gerry ever say that?

[Redblossom]

I think the possibility of confusion over  'front or back'  is redundant,  given that Gerry told the police he had used his key to enter the apartment

The ( back )  patio doors were unlocked,  so no key needed there

Even if they were locked (only possible from inside) you could not use a key to enter the flat that way. there is no outer lock. That, in itself, proves there was no mistranslation involved regarding Gerry Mccanns testimony that he entered through thr front door with the key, as has been suggested in the past.

[icabodcrane]

And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?

Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:

"Confusion is good"

Do I win a prize?

I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between  'adding'  information to a statement  (  as the police men did in this case )  and  'changing' information in a statement   as Gerry did )

Adding information does not present a discrepencey  ... changing information does

So it's not a discrepancy to say initially there was nothing of note to report and then 5 months later decide that there was?

No,  it is not a discrepency

Remembering additional details and adding them to an original statement  (  as Jane Tanner also did )  does  not present a discrepency

When the substance of a witness statement is changed at a later date  ...  not added to,  but changed  ( as Gerry McCann did )  there is a discrepency 

[Luz]

icabodecrane

I concur with the the principle that

Adding information does not present a discrepencey  ... changing information does

Jane Tanner changed the information when she went from a bundle of clothes to a child wearing pink pijamas, and from a faceless man to Robert Murat or to those other fantasist pictures created, allegedly, by a FBI trained artist.

[icabodcrane]

And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?

Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:

"Confusion is good"

Do I win a prize?

I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between  'adding'  information to a statement  (  as the police men did in this case )  and  'changing' information in a statement   as Gerry did )

Adding information does not present a discrepencey  ... changing information does

So it's not a discrepancy to say initially there was nothing of note to report and then 5 months later decide that there was?

No,  it is not a discrepency

Remembering additional details and adding them to an original statement  (  as Jane Tanner also did )  does present a discrepency

Why is rememering additional details and adding them to your statement a discrepancy in JT's case but not in the case of the GNR officers who did exactly the same thing?

I've already edited in the missing 'not'  in my quote  (  sorry ,  I can see how the missing word made the whole post seem unsupported )

As you can see,  my post now reflects my thoughts on Jane Tanner's statements ...  they do not present discrepencies   ( just additional detail ) 

[Redblossom]

Interesting. Does Jane Tanner saying that the man Mrs Cooper saw,  bore an 80% resemblance to the man she saw on the night constitute a discrepancy? It could not have been 'adding' more detail as she never saw the man's face that night.

[Eleanor]

Jane Tanner has never accused Robert Murat, but a whole load of people think she did, including Amaral who wasn't even there.

Whatever happened to Robert Murat bringing a case against Jane Tanner for Malicious Accusation?

[Luz]

So, if I'd been standing in the crowds in Dallas Texas on 22nd November 1963 and initially said that I saw nothing noteworthy on the grassy knoll, but then 5 months later I say I remember seeing a man with a rifle on it then there is not a discrepancy between my two statements  in your view?  I would be changing information about what I claim I saw, surely?

forget it