What are the discrepancies between the McCann's and the friend's statements?

[Alice Purjorick]

In my opinion it is an absolute impossibility for an internet pundit to determine anything at all from non verbatim, at least twice translated statements recorded ~ initially by necessity ~ by amateurs.

It suggests to me the blind leading the blind.

I would imagine forum rules would allow an expression of opinion on apparent witness contradictions ... but that is all it would be ... an opinion.
Even an opinion would have to couched in non libellous terms to abide by forum protocols.

I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 

[Eleanor]

I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 

I think you might be right.  But not just yet.

[Brietta]

I would tend to agree, there being four possible places where a mistake may be made in each Q & A. By logical extension however this leads to the internet pundit being unsure of what the interrogator actually asked.
Couple this with the theory there is a pile of documents on the internet tainted by the hand of Levy and one is well and truly up a gum tree.
We might as well de-rig and all go home 

It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?

I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.

They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!

Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement? 
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements. 
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.

The story could only have come from one source.  The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?

• investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
• putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?

I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.

[Eleanor]

It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?

I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.

They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!

Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement? 
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements. 
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.

The story could only have come from one source.  The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?

• investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
• putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?

I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.

This is where the horrendous bias all began, and where else other than Law Enforcers, who themselves couldn't possibly have known anything.

I remain entirely convinced that there was a concerted effort to implicate The McCanns.

[Brietta]

This is where the horrendous bias all began, and where else other than Law Enforcers, who themselves couldn't possibly have known anything.

I remain entirely convinced that there was a concerted effort to implicate The McCanns.

I think it was all done against a dire economic background and internecine unrest within the Policia Judiciaria.  So I think politicking was involved but not by any means directed at "protecting" the McCanns.

In my opinion the McCanns had a disgraceful smear campaign launched against them by the very folk to whom they should only have been of interest while under investigation to rule them in or rule them out ... and whose duty was not initially to find a perpetrator(that could come later) but to throw every resource they had at finding the missing child.

To be fair, I believe there is evidence some did just that ... what is the saying, though ... lions led by donkeys?

[Alice Purjorick]

It is lovely for us to agree about something ... but isn't it logical that given the circumstances under which the statements were given and taken there would have been mistakes and misunderstandings?

I can't imagine the state those folks giving statements to the police were in given the shock they had all had.

They must have all been horribly aware that it could have been any one of their children who was missing.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their child care arrangements one has to ponder why seeds of doubt about the content of police statements given under secrecy laws by them and the missing child's parents, were within hours of being given ... published in the public domain under the billing of being a "BADLY TOLD STORY"!

Who determined to impugn witnesses by not insinuating but decreeing that they were in effect, lying?
At that stage in proceedings, who had had time to collate all the statements?
Who had checked the content?
Who among the witnesses had been called back to clarify something unclear in their statement? 
What appropriate investigative diligence, if any, had been performed regarding these statements. 
Who released them to the press thus instituting what was to become the trial by media of Madeleine McCann's parents?
Not forgetting that Portuguese law was being flouted the proof of which was the newspaper's pejorative headline and detailed story.

The story could only have come from one source.  The law enforcers who were supposed to be investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  So what exactly was the course of action being followed by law enforcers in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance?

• investigating the disappearance of a missing child?
• putting the first pieces of misinformation in place as part of building their case against her parents and their friends?

I think their priority was manifest and that initial newspaper headline makes it clear it was not Madeleine McCann.

Oh yes of course but that is where the skill of the interrogator comes into play.
Having identified pinch points where error can creep in, a skilled interrogator will take steps to monitor those pinch points in order to mitigate the effect of any potential errors. One way would be to ask the same question in three different ways.
Much has been made of the confusion over back and front with respect to doors. No one as far as I can tell has applied the conventional norm to resolve the problem. Then it becomes self selecting with no room for confusion.

One has to be careful with translation and pronunciation of course otherwise as in the case of John Fitzgerald Kennedy one proudly announces one is a jam and cream doughnut, in the case of James Carter one wishes to be carnal with the Polish people and in my case in an Italian tobacconists ca 1971 I confidently asked for a prostitute instead of asking to have my cigarette lighter filled with gas, luckily for me the signora had a sense of humour.
I guess in your neck of the woods a shifting spanner could easily become "Espanhola destemida"......hey ho

[Brietta]

Oh yes of course but that is where the skill of the interrogator comes into play.
Having identified pinch points where error can creep in, a skilled interrogator will take steps to monitor those pinch points in order to mitigate the effect of any potential errors. One way would be to ask the same question in three different ways.
Much has been made of the confusion over back and front with respect to doors. No one as far as I can tell has applied the conventional norm to resolve the problem. Then it becomes self selecting with no room for confusion.

One has to be careful with translation and pronunciation of course otherwise as in the case of John Fitzgerald Kennedy one proudly announces one is a jam and cream doughnut, in the case of James Carter one wishes to be carnal with the Polish people and in my case in an Italian tobacconists ca 1971 I confidently asked for a prostitute instead of asking to have my cigarette lighter filled with gas, luckily for me the signora had a sense of humour.
I guess in your neck of the woods a shifting spanner could easily become "Espanhola destemida"......hey ho

In my neck of the woods a shifting spanner would perhaps start off life as a jemmy