Has the discrepancy been discussed before - "did Kate enter by the front door"?

[Robittybob1]

"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open." 

That doesn't sound like Gerry talking but it could be a summary of what he said, but did he really say that?

It is from his 4th of May statement.  Was he of the belief that Kate used the front door?  He wasn't there to observe that so that at best is his understanding.

Kate in her 4th May statement makes it very plain "At around 10 pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."

So what is the reason Gerry's statement has this glaring error in it?

[Robittybob1]

Carana has put the error down to a misunderstanding http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8237.msg408420#msg408420
"We have an entire thread on the front / back door debate. IMO, it IS quite likely a translation / lost-in-confusion issue. Gerry was the first to be interviewed after very little sleep, by a police officer coming to grips with the situation and who took the bare minimum of notes, with whoever they could grab at that time of the morning to serve as an interpreter. The officer in question doesn't appear to have been one of the ones at the scene the previous evening and I can't find any indication that he understood the layout of the flat." 

I understand Carana is blaming the inspector writing the notes, not what Gerry has said may have happened.

[Robittybob1]

So the well quoted correction does not alter the fact that Kate entered by the front door!

"----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

All the time I was under the impression he was making an error about what door he entered but in fact the real controversy is over what door Kate entered, is that right?

Here Benice makes out it is Gerry who is changing his statement but I don't see it like that anymore.  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7180.msg329380#msg329380

Quote: "But it still doesn't give the reason WHY he changed his statement. "  The truth is Gerry didn't change his statement!
Well he might have changed it but changed it about what?

He doesn't say what door he left by in his 4th May statement: "The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner."

[Robittybob1]

If Gerry thought Kate had used the front door he would have had to hand her the one and only key.  Did he do that?

if he didn't do that it is not possible for Kate to have gone through the front door.

[Robittybob1]

Again Benice is defending Gerry and putting the blame on the process.  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6414.msg254187#msg254187
"IMO the first interview was rife for misunderstandings.   Gerry had had no sleep and was still in massive shock.    Any idea that he was cool calm and collected is absurd IMO.     There would be delays because of the necessity for translations -- and IIRC his replies were then typed out by the Police officer at the time.      AT that early point and in those circumstances then  IMO Gerry would find concentration very difficult and he would still be hoping and praying that news that Madeleine had been found would come at any minute.   


There is no credible reason that I can think of why anyone would lie about which doors they used.  What would they have to gain by doing that?   

On the other hand we know for definite that different people had different opinions on which door constituted the front door and which door they regarded as the back door.    It seem obvious to me that until they sorted that out then major confusion was inevitable during interviews.

IMO that was sorted out at Gerry's second interview. "

I take that it wasn't sorted out, for what does Gerry say about Kate entering the apartment in the second interview?

"----- Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house."  OK this time Kate enters by the rear door. 

How often does he use the expression rear door (quite often enough to establish it was the sliding door).
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.
----- He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without seeing the children of any other family because he had not been asked to by them."

So not only is Kate now coming through the rear door so is he.


So I I have to admit I was wrong for the second time, Gerry said in his first statement he used the key yet in his second he comes in via the sliding door.

[Robittybob1]

I'm in two minds as to which statement I believe.  In my heart I think the first one is correct about the door he enters, but he may have aligned with Kate on the 10th for some unknown reason.

[Robittybob1]

Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

snip

With the intense study on these doors there was nothing stopping the McCanns from deadlocking the front door from the inside.
"while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door" is not logical.   It is unlikely to be locked (deadlocked) simply because they hadn't inserted the key and rotated it twice to extend the deadlock bolt.  Maybe they weren't aware that that could be done, or they may have been concerned for the safety of the kids in case of a fire?  Who knows?

[Robittybob1]

Gerry McCann gave two accounts.

1. That he entered through the front door which was locked using his key to open it.
2.  That he entered through the patio/side/back door which was lying unlocked.

Both can't be right.  http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Key_Detail_Wrong.html

I disagree with this blogger on two accounts.
1.  "***He exits the apartment presumably by the front door the way he had entered, securing the apartment once more! ****" 
Correction:
No need to make presumptions it is in the statements.  They left at all times via the patio door.


2. "But why would he have exited by the patio/side door if he had entered by the front?  By doing so he is not able to then secure the apartment as it had been previously***" 
Correction:
Just closing the door is all they did the first time and exactly the same the second time it was closed

[Carana]

Carana has put the error down to a misunderstanding http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8237.msg408420#msg408420
"We have an entire thread on the front / back door debate. IMO, it IS quite likely a translation / lost-in-confusion issue. Gerry was the first to be interviewed after very little sleep, by a police officer coming to grips with the situation and who took the bare minimum of notes, with whoever they could grab at that time of the morning to serve as an interpreter. The officer in question doesn't appear to have been one of the ones at the scene the previous evening and I can't find any indication that he understood the layout of the flat." 

I understand Carana is blaming the inspector writing the notes, not what Gerry has said may have happened.

I'm not blaming the inspector - one or all three could have been muddled.

My understanding of how this could have come about:

Gerry was the first to be interviewed, yet he wasn't asked to do a drawing of the layout in the files (which officers didn't start doing until later over other details).

The officer would have wanted to know how many doors there were.

So... fact established: 2 doors. One slides and wasn't fully shut; the other needed a key to get in. The interpreter and / or the inspector could have scribbled down a note to that effect.

Then: "Which door did you use?" Gerry could well have said the front door, but meaning the closest one - i.e., the verandah.

But the inspector / interpreter could have assumed that that meant the main roadside entrance and "using his respective key, the door being locked" got added, with checking whether all three were talking about the same door.

An unknown is whether the interpreter read back every word of the statement, or whether she simply read out what she thought were the main details.

In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.


Then:

At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. (It wasn't the door that was located laterally, it was the steps leading up to it).


What is written in Gerry's statement re Kate's check:
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key (...) The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked."

For some reason, at the time the inspector didn't think to ask why he would have gone the long way round, particularly when he needed to go to the loo, yet in the same statement, it was stated that Matt went in via the verandah door (which didn't need a key) and why Kate would have also gone the long way round when the verandah door wasn't locked and was nearest to them.


Later, in Jane's rog, there was an allusion to confusion over which constituted the back and the front, so the officer suggested using poolside and roadside to make it clearer:

 4078    “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah.”

4078    “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?”
Reply    “For checking or for anything?”

4078    “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?”
Reply    “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”

4078    “Yeah.”
Reply    “Thing that goes up and down.”

4078    “Oh right.”
Reply    “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already.”

4078    “Okay, so when you went out for your meal…”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “In the evening, the poolside door was always locked in your apartment.”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah.”

4078    “So when you did your treks you had to go in through the roadside?”
Reply    “Back, yeah through the back door.”

[Carana]

I find the title a bit misleading: Kate didn't say she went in via the front door.

Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's. He had entered the apartment by a glass sliding side door, that was always unlocked and once inside had not gone into the children's bedroom. He only looked through the door, and did not hear any noise. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.

At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

[faithlilly]

I'm not blaming the inspector - one or all three could have been muddled.

My understanding of how this could have come about:

Gerry was the first to be interviewed, yet he wasn't asked to do a drawing of the layout in the files (which officers didn't start doing until later over other details).

The officer would have wanted to know how many doors there were.

So... fact established: 2 doors. One slides and wasn't fully shut; the other needed a key to get in. The interpreter and / or the inspector could have scribbled down a note to that effect.

Then: "Which door did you use?" Gerry could well have said the front door, but meaning the closest one - i.e., the verandah.

But the inspector / interpreter could have assumed that that meant the main roadside entrance and "using his respective key, the door being locked" got added, with checking whether all three were talking about the same door.

An unknown is whether the interpreter read back every word of the statement, or whether she simply read out what she thought were the main details.

In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.


Then:

At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. (It wasn't the door that was located laterally, it was the steps leading up to it).


What is written in Gerry's statement re Kate's check:
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key (...) The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked."

For some reason, at the time the inspector didn't think to ask why he would have gone the long way round, particularly when he needed to go to the loo, yet in the same statement, it was stated that Matt went in via the verandah door (which didn't need a key) and why Kate would have also gone the long way round when the verandah door wasn't locked and was nearest to them.


Later, in Jane's rog, there was an allusion to confusion over which constituted the back and the front, so the officer suggested using poolside and roadside to make it clearer:

 4078    “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah.”

4078    “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?”
Reply    “For checking or for anything?”

4078    “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?”
Reply    “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”

4078    “Yeah.”
Reply    “Thing that goes up and down.”

4078    “Oh right.”
Reply    “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already.”

4078    “Okay, so when you went out for your meal…”
Reply    “Yeah.”

4078    “In the evening, the poolside door was always locked in your apartment.”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah.”

4078    “So when you did your treks you had to go in through the roadside?”
Reply    “Back, yeah through the back door.”

Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?

[Robittybob1]

Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?

Well that is a glaring error.  Did Gerry not really believe Kate either?  This case sends me crazy, so many twists and turns.

[jassi]

Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?

If both Gerry and Kate entered using a key, how did Matt gain entrance?

[Robittybob1]

If both Gerry and Kate entered using a key, how did Matt gain entrance?

He should have used the key but you can't turn the clock back.

[Carana]

I can only see 3 possibilities.

- Gerry told the truth about both him and Kate taking the long route round and entered with a key on 4 May, despite in the same statement stating that Matt entered via the unlocked verandah and the fact that Kate actually said the opposite in her own statement.

- Gerry lied about which door he entered, despite also mentioning that he needed a pee, and forgot to tell Kate to change her story. Why lie?

- It was a lost-in-confusion moment when what constituted the front / back door got mangled in Gerry's interview and was subsequently clarified in his 10 May one.

Faites vos jeux, as Alice is fond of saying.