An example as to how stories changed over time and from person to person.

[peter claridge]

Oldfield's first statement

The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.

Oldfield's second statement

The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.
 
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Websters's second statement

Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
 
Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the Payne couple) for dinner the witness said no.
 
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
 
That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21h00, in the company of the Payne couple.
 
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and Matt had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
 
In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.

Let's not forget the fabricated timelines
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

[Mr Gray]

Oldfield's first statement

The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.

Oldfield's second statement

The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.
 
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Websters's second statement

Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
 
Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the Payne couple) for dinner the witness said no.
 
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
 
That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21h00, in the company of the Payne couple.
 
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and Matt had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
 
In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.

Let's not forget the fabricated timelines
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

It seems ..like me...SY think the PJ had rubbish interpreters

[sadie]

Oldfield's first statement

The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.

Oldfield's second statement

The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Websters's second statement

Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
 
Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the Payne couple) for dinner the witness said no.
 
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
 
That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21h00, in the company of the Payne couple.
 
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and Matt had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
 
In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.

Let's not forget the fabricated timelines
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where Gerald and Kate were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, Russell arrived.

I think the 19.45 is a typo Peter.  THe time doesn't fit into the rest of the statement and the whole sentence is a bit gobbledegook, isn't it?

It is completely at odds to his first statement which says

at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

John You have truncated by response and altered the emphasis to suit YOUR agenda.  You have changed my meaning.  I am NOT happy and will leave this forum if you do that again

[peter claridge]

I think the 19.45 is a typo Peter.  THe time doesn't fit into the rest of the statement and the whole sentence is a bit gobbledegook, isn't it?

Are you attempting to deflect from the important parts Sadie?

Oldfield's first statement
That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
 
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.

Oldfield's second statement
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Webster's second statement
Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
 
Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the Payne couple) for dinner the witness said no.
 
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
 
That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21h00, in the company of the Payne couple.
 
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and Matt had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
 
In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.

[sadie]

Are you attempting to deflect from the important parts Sadie?

Oldfield's first statement
That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 21h00.
 
That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.

Oldfield's second statement
The deponent added that David, Fiona and Dianne were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Webster's second statement
Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
 
Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the Payne couple) for dinner the witness said no.
 
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
 
That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21h00, in the company of the Payne couple.
 
That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and Matt had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
 
In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.

I thought the discrepancy in times was the important part Peter.  As I said, I think that must have been a typo, or it could have been misremembering.  Dianes memory seems a bit woolley in places.

Will have to get my head together and look again.  Am tired; sugar levels out atm

------------------------

Sorry this is so late.

Yep, I see what you mean now. 

Have you thought that this discrepancy could be explained by the party being spread out a bit liike the Smiths.  Say Diane Webster was late getting ready and her daughter and son-in-law started out without her, but hung around waiting for her to accompany her into the restaurant.  I may be completely wrong but three of them shared a bathroom, I think. 
Also the possibility that she forgot something (her tablets?)  and doubled back for them


There are a number of possibilities and the one thing that I notice in the three Daine Webster statements is her inability to recall times generally.  She was on holiday and had no need to worry about looking at her watch.  She seems quite woolley on a number of things, others are clear.

It is good that you have noticed these discrepancies Peter, but because of the fact that the early statements are third party [Chinese Whispers] and seem a bit disjointed they have limited value; have they been altered and are they written in PT?   They are recorded, I think in PT, so she signed without being sure of the content... and then translated a second time into English by amateurs  (I think) .... and along with her woolley memory, it seems to me that what appears conflicting evidence, is just not reliable. 

Or maybe the translators have messed up?  Some funny sentences in there.  Almost as tho the words have been altered a few times

FGS
Didn't she say 19.45 in the one statement and nearly 21.00 hours in the other?  About an hour difference. 
Or was it the translators who messed up?  I doubt it was deliberately altered .... was it?

In the rog, the British Police Officer commented on it..... >@@(*&)


There could be other reasons that I haven't thought of, but I see what you mean.  Good that you queried it

[peter claridge]

I thought the discrepancy in times was the important part Peter.  As I said, I think that must have been a typo, or it could have been misremembering.  Dianes memory seems a bit woolley in places.

Will have to get my head together and look again.  Am tired; sugar levels out atm

------------------------

Sorry this is so late.

Yep, I see what you mean now. 

Have you thought that this discrepancy could be explained by the party being spread out a bit liike the Smiths.  Say Diane Webster was late getting ready and her daughter and son-in-law started out without her, but hung around waiting for her to accompany her into the restaurant.  I may be completely wrong but three of them shared a bathroom, I think. 
Also the possibility that she forgot something (her tablets?)  and doubled back for them


There are a number of possibilities and the one thing that I notice in the three Daine Webster statements is her inability to recall times generally.  She was on holiday and had no need to worry about looking at her watch.  She seems quite woolley on a number of things, others are clear.

It is good that you have noticed these discrepancies Peter, but because of the fact that the early statements are third party [Chinese Whispers] and seem a bit disjointed they have limited value; have they been altered and are they written in PT?   They are recorded, I think in PT, so she signed without being sure of the content... and then translated a second time into English by amateurs  (I think) .... and along with her woolley memory, it seems to me that what appears conflicting evidence, is just not reliable. 

Or maybe the translators have messed up?  Some funny sentences in there.  Almost as tho the words have been altered a few times

FGS
Didn't she say 19.45 in the one statement and nearly 21.00 hours in the other?  About an hour difference. 
Or was it the translators who messed up?  I doubt it was deliberately altered .... was it?

In the rog, the British Police Officer commented on it..... >@@(*&)


There could be other reasons that I haven't thought of, but I see what you mean.  Good that you queried it

The other reason that you haven't thought of is that Dianne Webster is clearly telling the truth (the only one of the group to be doing so) and Mathew Oldfield clearly isn't!

Glad you brought up the rogs, this is where Webster joins in with the rest of the group (wonder when she was told the truth about that night) as she is remembered about certain events, goodness me she even recalls Jane Tanner leaving the table for a second time something that her partner O'Brien seemed to be unaware of in the untranslated timelines that he produced that very evening (see below).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

Apologies in advance for pointing this stuff out.

One could ponder that the reasons for the tapas deciding not to partake in an event to clarify when Madeleine was taken was that they were unsure about which version of their timelines should be used; which to this day are still being manipulated (see Redwood's fabricated crecheman) in an attempt to make them (cough) work!

[John]

It has been pointed out on many occasions that witnesses remember events differently.  Indeed, witnesses versions of events can also vary as time goes on as he or she remembers different timings and events. It is inevitable that witnesses will compare stories with other witnesses and recollections will morph over time.  There doesn't necessarily have to be a sinister aspect to this as it is quite normal.

[Benice]

It has been pointed out on many occasions that witnesses remember events differently.  Indeed, witnesses versions of events can also vary as time goes on as he or she remembers different timings and events. It is inevitable that witnesses will compare stories with other witnesses and recollections will morph over time.  There doesn't necessarily have to be a sinister aspect to this as it is quite normal.

This is so true - but largely ignored by many.

IIRC at one stage Russell(?) said that JT and Gerry had left the table at the same time.   I can well imagine that in a later discussion  JT would have said 'No you're wrong - don't you remember I was still at the table when we were joking about what had happened to Gerry -  we thought he might be watching the football - so we couldn't have left together?'.   And that would jog Russell's memory. 

The above is from my memory - so I could be wrong (see what I mean?) 

 I haven't got time to check.   Must go out now.

 

[Carana]

It has been pointed out on many occasions that witnesses remember events differently.  Indeed, witnesses versions of events can also vary as time goes on as he or she remembers different timings and events. It is inevitable that witnesses will compare stories with other witnesses and recollections will morph over time.  There doesn't necessarily have to be a sinister aspect to this as it is quite normal.

I posted this quite some time ago... I found it fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

[slartibartfast]

This is so true - but largely ignored by many.

IIRC at one stage Russell(?) said that JT and Gerry had left the table at the same time.   I can well imagine that in a later discussion  JT would have said 'No you're wrong - don't you remember I was still at the table when we were joking about what had happened to Gerry -  we thought he might be watching the football - so we couldn't have left together?'.   And that would jog Russell's memory. 

The above is from my memory - so I could be wrong (see what I mean?) 

 I haven't got time to check.   Must go out now.

It would have been useful to do a reconstruction.

[sadie]

The other reason that you haven't thought of is that Dianne Webster is clearly telling the truth (the only one of the group to be doing so) and Mathew Oldfield clearly isn't!

Glad you brought up the rogs, this is where Webster joins in with the rest of the group (wonder when she was told the truth about that night) as she is remembered about certain events, goodness me she even recalls Jane Tanner leaving the table for a second time something that her partner O'Brien seemed to be unaware of in the untranslated timelines that he produced that very evening (see below).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19

Apologies in advance for pointing this stuff out.

One could ponder that the reasons for the tapas deciding not to partake in an event to clarify when Madeleine was taken was that they were unsure about which version of their timelines should be used; which to this day are still being manipulated (see Redwood's fabricated crecheman) in an attempt to make them (cough) work!

I think you are being very cinical there, especially as the PT versions were signed as correct by a person who:
i)  doesn't speak the langiage,
ii)  they are third person [Chinese Whispers] and
iii) there are signs that they may have been altered/ tampered with.  The British Police Officer directing Diane Websters Rog,  commented on the peculiarities.

and also Diane is a bit woolley with some of her memories; others are clear.

[peter claridge]

Consuming alcohol and being Litzt are not the same.  Whatever did they did teach you at school?

So why do you think that Oldfield didn't carry out a 10.00pm check on his own child or ask Kate to return the favour?

[pathfinder73]

Kate left the table to check closer to 9.50 than 10pm. That incorrect time is confusing a lot of people and the reason why many were ruling certain people out of the Smithman sighting. So I would estimate Kate came running back to the tapas at 9.55 - certainly before 10pm when they all went running to 5A.

[Benice]

I posted this quite some time ago... I found it fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617945.stm

Thankyou  for posting that Carana - I do remember watching the programme at the time, and have mentioned it several times since with regard to this case.

The inconsistencies in recall amongst the 10 volunteers are huge but no-one is called a liar because their recollection was different to someone else's.   

Unfortunately the opposite is often true on forums - and the McCanns and their friends have been accused of 'lying' at one stage or another -  with the inconsistencies in their statements being cited as irrefutable 'proof.'

Fortunately SY are aware of this human  'phenomenum' - although I do sometimes wonder whether elements of the PJ were.  I suspect they were - but imo were willing to ignore it if it aided them in getting 'a result',

 I say that because it seems to me that when 'inconsistencies' are mentioned - it is always to 'suggest' that these were a major reason to doubt the veracity of the McCanns and their friends - and completely ignored the accepted fact that discrepancies  - even major ones  - are perfectly normal when people are asked to recall, in detail, incidents which they had no prior knowledge they would ever need to remember.


 

[Carana]

Thankyou  for posting that Carana - I do remember watching the programme at the time, and have mentioned it several times since with regard to this case.

The inconsistencies in recall amongst the 10 volunteers are huge but no-one is called a liar because their recollection was different to someone else's.   

Unfortunately the opposite is often true on forums - and the McCanns and their friends have been accused of 'lying' at one stage or another -  with the inconsistencies in their statements being cited as irrefutable 'proof.'

Fortunately SY are aware of this human  'phenomenum' - although I do sometimes wonder whether elements of the PJ were.  I suspect they were - but imo were willing to ignore it if it aided them in getting 'a result',

 I say that because it seems to me that when 'inconsistencies' are mentioned - it is always to 'suggest' that these were a major reason to doubt the veracity of the McCanns and their friends - and completely ignored the accepted fact that discrepancies  - even major ones  - are perfectly normal when people are asked to recall, in detail, incidents which they had no prior knowledge they would ever need to remember.

To add to normal discrepancies between the witness recollections (and I'd have found it strange if every detail tallied perfectly), there are also complications due to the fact that the PT statements were not verbatim, the potential for either the person serving as an interpreter or the police officer misunderstanding and noting details incorrectly.

On the whole, more detailed interviews were conducted and clarifications were sought during the second round... but by then it was deemed that any differences between the two were necessarily suspicious.

The rog interviews were an opportunity to explain their recollections in their own words and language, but they took place a year later.