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

[Alice Purjorick]

The fact is no one knows what was actually  in those statement s because there is no accurate  record... No one can claim as, a fact that they are accurate

Even were there an accurate record of what was said that is no guarantee what was said  was the truth.

[Carana]

Even were there an accurate record of what was said that is no guarantee what was said  was the truth.

True, but it seems to be the so-called "discrepancy" itself that some find suspicious.

[Alice Purjorick]

Perhaps Russell had learned from experience the importance of checking every syllable he uttered?

A wise man.
The MSM is full of stories concerning "victims" who did not follow Rule 1 of Contract Law then signed something they lived to regret.
RTFSPS* as we say.
Read The Flipping Small Print Sucker

[Eleanor]

It is sometime what you don't say that matters.

[Robittybob1]

Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.

"Could have" means it is a possibility not a certainty.

[G-Unit]

No, I posted the 3 possibilities, and that's the only one that makes sense to me, plus the fact that I have experience of how such screw-ups can occur. Whether that's what actually happened or not, I don't know, I wasn't there.

ETA

Let's put it another way: can anyone think of a reasonable explanation as to why Gerry would have taken the long route (while also stating that Matt had gone in via the unlocked verandah) or why he would have lied?

When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.

[Robittybob1]

When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.

He clearly states different things as per his first 2 official statements.  Now if we are to assume the second one is more correct we can't have "When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked" otherwise we are calling him a liar.   It would have to be a different reason to that.  In fact even I can't get the logic right.    For if there was a reason to go through the front door then his second statement is incorrect rather than the first.

[Benice]

When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.

That would mean they left 5a for the Tapas restaurant through the front door at 8.30 as the patio door could not be locked from the outside.   

 Not sure whether it is stated anywhere that they did leave via the patio door, but in view of their concern re the noise the front door made when it was used, and their previous decision to use the patio door for ease of checking - I think it's highly unlikely that they left via the front door, unless for some specific reason.   If the latter was the case then they would have mentioned what that 'specific reason' was for changing their routine, in their statements IMO.

[G-Unit]

He clearly states different things as per his first 2 official statements.  Now if we are to assume the second one is more correct we can't have "When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked" otherwise we are calling him a liar.   It would have to be a different reason to that.  In fact even I can't get the logic right.    For if there was a reason to go through the front door then his second statement is incorrect rather than the first.

Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie). 

[Robittybob1]

Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie).

'

Personally I can't tell if the mistake is in the first statement or the second.

[Mr Gray]

Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie).

He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did

[Robittybob1]

He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did

It is Gerry's signature

[faithlilly]

He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did

Gerry corrected himself in his second statement. He had every opportunity to say that it was a translation error yet didn't.

' Despite what he said in his previous statements, '

[Benice]

Gerry corrected himself in his second statement. He had every opportunity to say that it was a translation error yet didn't.

' Despite what he said in his previous statements, '

What he said in his previous statement may well have been 'I entered through the front door'. -which is true, however he meant the patio door but it was mis-interpreted as meaning the carpark door.

I find it hard to believe that he would change his statement and give no reason for making that change to the PJ - or that they would not ask him why he wanted to change his statement.

I can however understand a reluctance to record that it was as a result of a mix-up during an interview for fear that that could be seen as a criticism of the interviewing PJ officer or interpreter.   Personally I would have no criticism at all if mistakes were made in that very first interview which was new territory for all concerned and carried out with the traumatised father of a missing child.

AIMHO

[Alice Purjorick]

Ideally, a recorded interview: the inspector's questions, the interpreter (both ways) and the witness would show where any misunderstandings occurred. I'm not sure that happens anywhere for a simple witness interview, though.

Despite Lewis,Morse, Joe Friday and Gideon of The Yard it does not because of the protocols that have to be followed to make the thing recording admissible in court. See UK rules under CPS Guff if you're short of laughs on a miserable day.
It's worth looking at Portuguese "nuts and bolts law" to obtain a better picture of how statements are used.
For the Xenophobes among you and to head off the bias at the pass, I suggest you look at Germanic Law, on which Portuguese Law is based, ..........................unless your mum's and dad's chippy was bombed by the Luftwaffe in whcih case I give up...