Charlotte Pennington - what is the truth?

[Mr Gray]

In your opinion of course Davel but then I wonder why you are here discussing this, if that is your feelings.

Her story changed so greatly that I believe it was her choice to change it and not any inaccuracies in the initial translations during statements made in May 2007.

That's your opinion... My opinion is... We can't trust the translation by Murat as, being accurate and we can't trust the papers ad being accurate..
So what would be her motive in deliberately  changing her accounts or is this just a pointer that discrepancies  can be totally innocent

[Sunny]

That's your opinion... My opinion is... We can't trust the translation by Murat as, being accurate and we can't trust the papers ad being accurate..
So what would be her motive in deliberately  changing her accounts or is this just a pointer that discrepancies  can be totally innocent

Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers.  Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?

I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.

[Mr Gray]

Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers.  Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?

I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.

The translations are non verbatim and amateur.. I think it's far more likely that the statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate

[barrier]

The translations are non verbatim and amateur.. I think it's far more likely that the statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate

There is every chance a certain window wasn't open then.

[Eleanor]

There is every chance a certain window wasn't open then.

No.  Not every chance.

[Robittybob1]

What rules are you referring to?
 was suggesting that you can't cherry pick what to believe in a persons's statement, unless it is corroborated by a 3rd person.

Is that what you have done too.  You don't say the McCanns or the Tapas 7 did anything other than what you can find in the file?

That is what I am doing.  To make all Charlotte's statements true she has to go to the apartment then return to work until all the kids are sent home IMO.  Was the lady picking up the child the last child?  If so she didn't abandon any other kids?

What does she say about how many kids had to be picked up in the Dispatches documentary?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499392#msg499392

"Transcription 2:
 
'I was working that night at something called 'Drop-in Creche'. We had one child left and... errm, the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned 'Hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who's run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner, but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.'"

So if that is correct and they all went together they weren't abandoning any other kids, so what did she have to stay back for?

It is hard to understand what Charlotte and her friends were saying as it is written but then again I can't accept it is all incorrect.

If it was the last child Charlotte might not be that far behind the other two.

[Robittybob1]

I would agree, particularly when they alter what they say they did in their statements at a later date.

They are not the only staff members who have changed their statements.  Mario the laundry man added to his statement and I think a cleaner with a first name Manuela is on a YouTube giving a different version.

Another staff member Silvia Batista gave a talk that was reported in the media where she makes claims of personally offering the McCanns free babysitting on the day Madeleine went missing.  With the way information on the internet changes, the original article can't be found any more, but re-quotes of what she said are still there.

[Robittybob1]

In your opinion of course Davel but then I wonder why you are here discussing this, if that is your feelings.

Her story changed so greatly that I believe it was her choice to change it and not any inaccuracies in the initial translations during statements made in May 2007.

That is what happens if the initial statements were not absolutely comprehensive.  Once we have two versions we ask ourselves which one is true.  Once she is no longer working for OC/MW she is no longer under their instructions.

[G-Unit]

Is that what you have done too.  You don't say the McCanns or the Tapas 7 did anything other than what you can find in the file?

That is what I am doing.  To make all Charlotte true she has to go to the apartment then return to work until all the kids are sent home.  Was the lady picking up the child the last child, so she didn't abandon ant other kids?

What does she say about how many kids had to be picked up in the Dispatches documentary?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499392#msg499392

"Transcription 2:
 
'I was working that night at something called 'Drop-in Creche'. We had one child left and... errm, the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned 'Hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who's run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner, but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.'"

So if the is correct and they all went together they weren't abandoning any other kids, so what did she have to stay back for?

It is hard to understand what Charlotte and her friends were saying as it is written but then again I can't accept it is all incorrect.

if it was the last child Charlotte might not be that far behind the other two.

Jackie said it wasn't the lasr child and that Charlotte stayed behind.

[Eleanor]

They are not the only staff members who have changed their statements.  Mario the laundry man added to his statement and I think a cleaner with a first name Manuela is on a YouTube giving a different version.

Another staff member Silvia Batista gave a talk that was reported in the media where she makes claims of personally offering the McCanns free babysitting on the day Madeleine went missing.  With the way information on the internet changes, the original article can't be found any more, but re-quotes of what she said are still there.

The statement about Free Babysitting is simply not true.

[Robittybob1]

Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers.  Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?

I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.

What I notice about the statements translated  by Robert Murat is the lack of fluency that appears in the reverse translation.

Robert took the English and wrote it down in Portuguese, now later those Portuguese statements were re-translated but to English, but in all reality none of them read as like you'd expect the witness to talk in real life.  He was OK but not the best translator IMO.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm

"Witness statement
Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 14H30
Childcare Worker
Irish Citizen
Translator Robert Murat"

Here is an example, do you think Charlotte said this following statement?

 "- The witness further clarifies that the Baby Club group was divided in three sub-groups, with each group composed of two babies, so that each group had a different infant educator allocated to it;"

It is a description of the truth but it doesn't seem to tell us what is happening clearly on re-translation IMO.

[Robittybob1]

Jackie said it wasn't the lasr child and that Charlotte stayed behind.

They both can't be absolutely correct or can they?

[Robittybob1]

The statement about Free Babysitting is simply not true.

The night creche service was free.  Was that all Silvia was offering?

[Eleanor]

The night creche service was free.  Was that all Silvia was offering?

This Myth stemmed from The McCanns being dragged back from Chaplin's because the children were crying.  That never happened either.

[Robittybob1]

This Myth stemmed from The McCanns being dragged back from Chaplin's because the children were crying.  That never happened either.

I don't know if that is the origin, but what I did notice there were several references to this interview with Silvia Batista saying various things but no matter how much I looked for it I couldn't find the original article originating from Portugal.

But it is just one of several incidences of inconsistencies in people's statements and subsequent reports in the media.

The Tapas 9  and Jeremy Wilkins get repeated interviews, and their statements are presented in the file, whereas others are interviewed more than once yet only their most recent interview is released.
So for one group we have multiple statements to compare and from that some will claim inconsistencies but there is nothing to really compare that to.  What is the normal rate of inconsistencies in statements?