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

[G-Unit]

Are these supposed to be serious discrepancies ?    It's obvious they are all struggling to remember - minute by minute - details of stuff which wasn't remotely important at the time.   What one person may remember - another person may have forgotten.    Nothing odd about that at all IMO.

Jeez

There were certain things which were remembered because they stood out, even though the actual day when they happened is unclear. 

The quiz night.
The children's tennis lessons.
Tennis being rained off.

Each morning six people meet for an hour long tennis lesson. Jane Tanner thinks the group included Rachael. It didn't, it included Dianne. She also completely forgot about the lessons being cancelled one day due to rain. I find that strange.

[sadie]

We have already handled this discrepancy: "Only Jane saw the man carrying a child

But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him – was walking his eight months old son at that time. He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”, Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.

But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms."
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2008/03/madeleine-case-pact-of-silence.html

But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. - True

 Jeremy Wilkins – a TV producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him - True
 – was walking his eight months old son at that time. - Unverified
He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. - Debatable for Jez is reported as saying this conversation lasted 15 minutes.

At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”,.... How come?

"Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states". - Was it a woman instead?
For Jane just said originally "an individual" without defining the gender.

"But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms." - Originally an individual with a child in his/her arms.

Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”


One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven.  Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.


Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1)  Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him.  Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.

Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”


One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven.  Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.


Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1)  Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him.  Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.

Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.

So would Jane not see the open shutters/ window etc as she passed by?

[Robittybob1]

So would Jane not see the open shutters/ window etc as she passed by?

Good point but it can't be guaranteed that she would.

[G-Unit]

Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”


One only has to look at Amarals video 'Enigma' posted today to see where Jez and Gerry stood. On the edge of the rioad, by the alleyway,, so that argument is proven.  Amaral stood almost where Gerry stood and Jez was in the road. The pavement has considerable depth and then more if the alleyway is included.
No problem for Jane to pass unimpeded.


Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
We have gone thru this before several times.
1)  Tannerman was about 30 metres away and both Gerry and Jez were standing at right angles to him.  Therefore not only was he quiite far away but he was also out of the Field of Vision of both Gerry and Jez.

Of course they didn't see him especially with the additional fact that he was uphill and the lighting was poor.

In the passage I have bolded you seem to be saying that Amaral got something right!!!!! Or is that just because you think he agrees with you? Either way, it 'proves' nothing.

[Robittybob1]

In the passage I have bolded you seem to be saying that Amaral got something right!!!!! Or is that just because you think he agrees with you? Either way, it 'proves' nothing.

The one bit I agree that Amaral got right was the date 3rd May 2007.

[G-Unit]

The one bit I agree that Amaral got right was the date 3rd May 2007.

I think his knowledge of the case is greater than yours. 

[Robittybob1]

I think his knowledge of the case is greater than yours. 

You would hope so.  But I noticed how he dramatised the date and couldn't wait to comment on it.

[Robittybob1]

This seems an apparent contradiction that should be either confirmed or debunked:

"Contradiction 10: Gerry McCann was having high tea with the nanny Charlotte Pennington at 5.30pm to 6.00pm - Gerry McCann was ‘hanging around the tennis courts’ at this time

Gerry McCann has consistently said that he was on the tennis courts at Praia da Luz between about 3.30pm and 7.00pm. Yet the nanny, Charlotte Pennington, maintained in a statement to the ‘Daily Mail’ that: “I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents. It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm, but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm”. "  http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?69120-Contradictions

Kate in her book says Gerry was at high tea that night.  It is Kate that signs the kids out, but if the nannies bring the kids to high tea the sign out could be done from the Tapas area. 

[Robittybob1]

In Gerry's statement this is what he states: "----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played."

That on the face of it doesn't contradict Charlotte's statement for she was talking about all the kids and parents at high tea.

[Benice]

There were certain things which were remembered because they stood out, even though the actual day when they happened is unclear. 

The quiz night.
The children's tennis lessons.
Tennis being rained off.

Each morning six people meet for an hour long tennis lesson. Jane Tanner thinks the group included Rachael. It didn't, it included Dianne. She also completely forgot about the lessons being cancelled one day due to rain. I find that strange.

G - Do you think that  if someone later jogged her memory about the rainy day cancellation it is completely out of the question that JT might have said  ''Oh yes that's right - I'd forgotten about that'?    It's not as if tennis lessons took up the whole day - wasn't it just one hour?

I know you will say you only go by what is in the statements - and that's fair enough  - but it doesn't mean they tell you the whole story.    Just because she didn't have total recall of everything  at the time she gave her statement  -  doesn't mean that what she said is set in stone for eternity and nothing else can ever be considered.   

We are dealing with ordinary human beings here  - not  'super humans' with a magical ' instant total recall' of every single move they've ever made.        They each gave their recollections of some fairly insignificant events as they remembered them quite a long time after they had happened.     The fact that they are not identical is perfectly normal IMO.

You are entitled to your opinion G -  but no way would I consider these to be serious discrepancies which should be regarded as 'sinister' in any way.


AIMHO

[Brietta]

G - Do you think that  if someone later jogged her memory about the rainy day cancellation it is completely out of the question that JT might have said  ''Oh yes that's right - I'd forgotten about that'?    It's not as if tennis lessons took up the whole day - wasn't it just one hour?

I know you will say you only go by what is in the statements - and that's fair enough  - but it doesn't mean they tell you the whole story.    Just because she didn't have total recall of everything  at the time she gave her statement  -  doesn't mean that what she said is set in stone for eternity and nothing else can ever be considered.   

We are dealing with ordinary human beings here  - not  'super humans' with a magical ' instant total recall' of every single move they've ever made.        They each gave their recollections of some fairly insignificant events as they remembered them quite a long time after they had happened.     The fact that they are not identical is perfectly normal IMO.

You are entitled to your opinion G -  but no way would I consider these to be serious discrepancies which should be regarded as 'sinister' in any way.


AIMHO

Why do some of us think there are so called discrepancies in police witness statements given in the hours after Madeleine McCann's alleged abduction?

Could it be that is because it was what they were told to think?

Why would it be in anyone's interest to spread lies and confusion in reference to witness statements concerning the case of a missing child to confirm them considered riven with suspicions ?
I have no idea but it certainly seems that someone was determined to get in first and to ensure the 'on message' propaganda seeds were well and truly planted.
Even before there had been any opportunity to coordinate incoming information to lead the direction of the investigation in my opinion the path the direction the investigation was to take was already plotted.

How else to explain ...

"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
 
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
Thanks to 'Astro' for translation
 
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id119.htm

[Eleanor]

Why do some of us think there are so called discrepancies in police witness statements given in the hours after Madeleine McCann's alleged abduction?

Could it be that is because it was what they were told to think?

Why would it be in anyone's interest to spread lies and confusion in reference to witness statements concerning the case of a missing child to confirm them considered riven with suspicions ?
I have no idea but it certainly seems that someone was determined to get in first and to ensure the 'on message' propaganda seeds were well and truly planted.
Even before there had been any opportunity to coordinate incoming information to lead the direction of the investigation in my opinion the path the direction the investigation was to take was already plotted.

How else to explain ...

"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
 
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
Thanks to 'Astro' for translation
 
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id119.htm

That is shocking.

[pathfinder73]

In Gerry's statement this is what he states: "----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played."

That on the face of it doesn't contradict Charlotte's statement for she was talking about all the kids and parents at high tea.

Kate said they all entered via the front key door. Gerry said rear.

"They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

David contradicted Kate on everything about his visit.  Many contradictions only hours before Madeleine is reported missing.

[Robittybob1]

Kate said they all entered via the front key door. Gerry said rear.

"They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

David contradicted Kate on everything about his visit.  Many contradictions only hours before Madeleine is reported missing.

your first claim was "they all entered via the front key door" but Kate is just talking obout how the building was reopened.
Make a point re David with firm times and you may have a good point.