The child gate located at the top of the steps.

[Brietta]

First statement by Gerry is that he used a key.  Then he asserted that Kate used a key.  The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow.  Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key.  Confused?

First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors.  It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.

In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate.  Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.

I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A.  And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'.  Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.

I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.

There is a credible reason why this might have arisen.  It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation.  And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.

Consistently throughout the statements those who were entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors are recorded as saying they were entering though the unlocked patio doors.

Just as Dr McCann stated, not that Madeleine would have been unable to open the doors, (I fell for that one) but that Madeleine would not have closed the patio doors behind her ... or the closed the child gate behind her ... or closed the outer gate behind her.

Apparently both inaccuracies have been promulgated by Pat Brown's profile which may be the 'driver' you seek. 

There is a more concise rebuttal here ...

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE

[Mr Gray]

Of course it is, Davel, of course it is 

when I pointed out the error it was confirmed by Anne Gueddes......by all means stay ignorant and don't accept facts that contradict your opinion

[G-Unit]

First statement by Gerry is that he used a key.  Then he asserted that Kate used a key.  The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow.  Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key.  Confused?

First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors.  It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.

In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate.  Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.

I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A.  And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'.  Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.

I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.

There is a credible reason why this might have arisen.  It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation.  And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.

The PJ noticed;

During Gerry's first questioning (Folio 34) he said that at 21.05 when he went to his apartment to 'check' the children, he entered by the main door; during his second questioning (Folio 891) he changed this by saying he had entered through the patio doors.
- During Gerry's first questioning he said that Kate, at 22.00, when she went to the apartment, entered by the locked front door . When she entered she noticed the door to the children's bedroom was opened inwards, the window was open and the shutter was raised. (if this had happened, she would not have noticed this scene after entering. She would have noticed this before entering the apartment, as she would have passed the window of the children's bedroom).
- During his second questioning, Gerry said that Kate entered through the patio doors.
- During Kate's questioning she said that she entered through the patio doors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

[Mr Gray]

The PJ noticed;

During Gerry's first questioning (Folio 34) he said that at 21.05 when he went to his apartment to 'check' the children, he entered by the main door; during his second questioning (Folio 891) he changed this by saying he had entered through the patio doors.
- During Gerry's first questioning he said that Kate, at 22.00, when she went to the apartment, entered by the locked front door . When she entered she noticed the door to the children's bedroom was opened inwards, the window was open and the shutter was raised. (if this had happened, she would not have noticed this scene after entering. She would have noticed this before entering the apartment, as she would have passed the window of the children's bedroom).
- During his second questioning, Gerry said that Kate entered through the patio doors.
- During Kate's questioning she said that she entered through the patio doors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm

You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court

[stephen25000]

Of course it is, Davel, of course it is 

Remember Jassi.

Dave's an expert on everything.

We have to thank him for working in casualty during the Birmingham Pub bombings in '74.

Where would this country be without him.

[Eleanor]

Insults are creeping in.  Please stop now.

[Brietta]

You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court

Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.

The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.

[stephen25000]

Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.

The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.

There is no independent verification of regular checks.

[jassi]

Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.

The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.

Is this your word of the week, courtesy of Readers Digest " extend your vocabulary"?

[G-Unit]

You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court

Would that be a Portuguese court?  If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.

[Brietta]

Is this your word of the week, courtesy of Readers Digest " extend your vocabulary"?

                        Nope, not just this week ... I use it quite a lot.  Did you have to look it up?

[Brietta]

Would that be a Portuguese court?  If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.

Maybe the cops were going through the processes when they were working on the case of a missing child.  I believe witness statements are useful in such circumstances.

[Mr Gray]

Would that be a Portuguese court?  If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.

surely someone with your knowledge of the case.....your knowledge of the evidence...doesn't have to ask someone like me such a question...are you under the impression Gerry's statement would be admissible?

[G-Unit]

surely someone with your knowledge of the case.....your knowledge of the evidence...doesn't have to ask someone like me such a question...are you under the impression Gerry's statement would be admissible?

It was a rhetorical question obviously. 

[Mr Gray]

It was a rhetorical question obviously. 

so you are under the illusion that these statements would be admissible as evidence