Let's have a close look at what Matt says.

[John]

Gerry thought that he had interrupted the abductor but given the evidence I think it more likely that it was Matt who did so.  That period after 9.30pm until 10pm was the perfect window of opportunity.

[G-Unit]

The people interviewed were responding to the questions asked.... These aren't verbatim reports of Q & A.

Yes, of course, and did the interpreter's/policemen get the names and times wrong or was it the amateur biased translators or were the group too traumatised to remember?

Whatever, it couldn't possibly be the group making contradictory statements.  %£&)**#

[Carana]

Yes, of course, and did the interpreter's/policemen get the names and times wrong or was it the amateur biased translators or were the group too traumatised to remember?

Whatever, it couldn't possibly be the group making contradictory statements.  %£&)**#

There could be a combination of errors / misunderstandings made by any one or other parties. Or even a combination of several parties regarding the understanding of a particular detail or other.

[G-Unit]

There could be a combination of errors / misunderstandings made by any one or other parties. Or even a combination of several parties regarding the understanding of a particular detail or other.

Or no errors or misunderstandings at all. 

[Carana]

Or no errors or misunderstandings at all. 

Possibly, in some cases.

However, assuming that every detail had been accurately reported and that therefore every supposed discrepancy represents a lie would appear to be somewhat naive, IMO.

Anything serious should have been further investigated. Indeed, the question of whether Gerry entered via a locked door or the unlocked patio was clarified in his 10 May statement.

No one, to my knowledge has wondered why there was an apparent time warp across PdL - with some witnesses stating that all hell broke loose shortly after 10 pm, while others state virtually the same timeframe but an hour earlier.

[G-Unit]

Possibly, in some cases.

However, assuming that every detail had been accurately reported and that therefore every supposed discrepancy represents a lie would appear to be somewhat naive, IMO.

Anything serious should have been further investigated. Indeed, the question of whether Gerry entered via a locked door or the unlocked patio was clarified in his 10 May statement.

No one, to my knowledge has wondered why there was an apparent time warp across PdL - with some witnesses stating that all hell broke loose shortly after 10 pm, while others state virtually the same timeframe but an hour earlier.

I think your post would be more relevant to the 'What should the PJ have done better thread'. These problems probably should have been spotted, noted and clarified at the time. I suspect it's a hindsight thing, though. At the time they were trying to find information about an abductor. So we have what we have.

[Robittybob1]

Gerry thought that he had interrupted the abductor but given the evidence I think it more likely that it was Matt who did so.  That period after 9.30pm until 10pm was the perfect window of opportunity.

The abductors got their timing pretty wrong if they were in the building when two checks were being done.

[stephen25000]

The abductors got their timing pretty wrong if they were in the building when two checks were being done.

A brief reminder, abduction is a theory and unproven.

[Robittybob1]

A brief reminder, abduction is a theory and unproven.

Well if there was someone in the room while Gerry was there what would you call the other person?
Well if there was someone in the room while Matthew was there what would you call the other person?

[jassi]

Well if there was someone in the room while Gerry was there what would you call the other person?
Well if there was someone in the room while Matthew was there what would you call the other person?

They are mighty big IFs. There is nothing to prove your assertion.

[stephen25000]

Well if there was someone in the room while Gerry was there what would you call the other person?
Well if there was someone in the room while Matthew was there what would you call the other person?

IF is the operative word, and not a jot of forensic test results to support it.

[Robittybob1]

They are mighty big IFs. There is nothing to prove your assertion.

It was John who suggested it.  We are only working off suggestions and not making assertions yet.

[Robittybob1]

IF is the operative word, and not a jot of forensic test results to support it.

I was looking for a word to describe the (hypothetical) person.   
"Well if there was someone in the room while Gerry was there what would you call the other person?
Well if there was someone in the room while Matthew was there what would you call the other person?"

I suppose you could call them unpaid babysitters, intruders, burglars, thieves.  Unpaid child minders is my choice.

[jassi]

I was looking for a word to describe the (hypothetical) person.   
"Well if there was someone in the room while Gerry was there what would you call the other person?
Well if there was someone in the room while Matthew was there what would you call the other person?"

A child.

[Robittybob1]

A child.

was it three children or just the two?  was it three children plus the unpaid child minder?