The locked front door versus the unlocked rear patio door issue.

[John]

Fortunately only one door required a key and that was the front door located on the north side of the apartment.  All other patio doors (lounge and parent's bedroom) located on the south side only locked internally and that was by means of a push button snib.

Consequently, if anyone refers to using a key we know immediately they are referring to the front/north door.

[Carana]

Fortunately only one door required a key and that was the front door located on the north side of the apartment.  All other patio doors (lounge and parent's bedroom) located on the south side only locked internally and that was by means of a push button snib.

Consequently, if anyone refers to using a key we know immediately they are referring to the front/north door.

Now, yes. That may not have been clear to those involved in Gerry's statement on the morning of 4 May.

[pathfinder73]

Now, yes. That may not have been clear to those involved in Gerry's statement on the morning of 4 May.

Gerry said he used a key not them so there's no confusion.

[Mr Gray]

Gerry said he used a key not them so there's no confusion.

we do not know what gerry said     ...we justknow what twice translated garbled statements say

[Albertini]

From Rachel's statement:
The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.

Something seems to have got a bit garbled. Kate, Gerry and Matt lifted up the shutters on the patio doors to do their checks on 5A? That seems somewhat unlikely.

Yet previously Rachel had said they entered through the patio door. But in that statement i quoted she said it was locked.

If it was garbled why did they sign it or not seek to have it retracted or changed afterwards?

Why leave it "garbled"?

If i had given such contradictory statements i would have been ensuring i had it corrected through my own lawyers or through the lawyers the McCann's brought in.

[Carana]

Yet previously Rachel had said they entered through the patio door. But in that statement i quoted she said it was locked.

If it was garbled why did they sign it or not seek to have it retracted or changed afterwards?

Why leave it "garbled"?

If i had given such contradictory statements i would have been ensuring i had it corrected through my own lawyers or through the lawyers the McCann's brought in.

Is there any evidence that he'd been able to read through a translated statement prior to signing the Portuguese version on 4 May?

The issue was clarified in Gerry's 10 May statement.

[Mr Gray]

Yet previously Rachel had said they entered through the patio door. But in that statement i quoted she said it was locked.

If it was garbled why did they sign it or not seek to have it retracted or changed afterwards?

Why leave it "garbled"?

If i had given such contradictory statements i would have been ensuring i had it corrected through my own lawyers or through the lawyers the McCann's brought in.

these are not even official translations

[Albertini]

Is there any evidence that he'd been able to read through a translated statement prior to signing the Portuguese version on 4 May?

The issue was clarified in Gerry's 10 May statement.

What and he signed it without seeing a translation? As a professional doctor he signed something official like a police statement without reading it back or having it read to back to him in his mother tongue? If we are to believe that, and it's stretching credulity to do so, why not put out a correction AFTER the files were released?

Do you think they would have not protested when made arguidos that the evidence in their statements, which formed part of the basis for them being Arguido's, wasn't seen by them in English before they signed it?

Are we also expected to believe that their lawyer under that phase didn't read their statements with them and ask them if they said it or not?
 
Please.

[Albertini]

these are not even official translations

But they remain the public domain record of the case and their story, available to the whole world.

If nothing else why didn't Michael Wright and his band of useful idiots seek to have it corrected to change the perception?

[Mr Gray]

What and he signed it without seeing a translation? As a professional doctor he signed something official like a police statement without reading it back or having it read to back to him in his mother tongue? If we are to believe that, and it's stretching credulity to do so, why not put out a correction AFTER the files were released?

Do you think they would have not protested when made arguidos that the evidence in their statements, which formed part of the basis for them being Arguido's, wasn't seen by them in English before they signed it?

Are we also expected to believe that their lawyer under that phase didn't read their statements with them and ask them if they said it or not?

Please.

as I have said before these statements were given as victims ..not under caution...and could not be used in evidence and are therefore unimportant...moreover some of what you are referring to are not part of the official files but unofficial translations
 

[John]

as I have said before these statements were given as victims ..not under caution...and could not be used in evidence and are therefore unimportant...moreover some of what you are referring to are not part of the official files but unofficial translations

...evidence of what Dave?

[Albertini]

as I have said before these statements were given as victims ..not under caution...and could not be used in evidence and are therefore unimportant...moreover some of what you are referring to are not part of the official files but unofficial translations

Do you not think a lawyer worth his salt would have gone through those statements with his client to try and find how and why the police were building a case against them?

These unofficial translations remain the last word on the net, read by hundreds of thousands (if not more) of people.

If they were patently untrue why not seek to correct them or put a statement out to the world saying they are untrue?

Why would you and who would leave patently incorrect information, information which seeks to cast doubt on your stories, and imply guilt, without seeking to correct it?

Particularly when PR and internet monitoring have been such a vital part of your campaign?

[Eleanor]

I don't think they had a lawyer on the 4th of May, did they?

[Mr Gray]

...evidence of what Dave?

evidence in a trial

[Albertini]

I don't think they had a lawyer on the 4th of May, did they?

No, i never said nor implied they did. They did have  lawyers when they were made Arguido's who should have gone through the statements they gave after the disappearance and to review their testimonies and indeed case in general.

Why didn't the McCann's tell their lawyer they thought their statements were mistranslated?