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

[G-Unit]

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

It may well have been, but this makes it absolutely clear which door he meant;

entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

[slartibartfast]

It may well have been, but this makes it absolutely clear which door he meant;

entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

One logical conclusion is that he couldn’t remember, unfortunately that scenario would cast doubt on all his other statement.

[Mr Gray]

One logical conclusion is that he couldn’t remember, unfortunately that scenario would cast doubt on all his other statement.

No reason to believe  it is true... Another logical conclusion  is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies

[Alice Purjorick]

No reason to believe  it is true... Another logical conclusion  is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies

I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed.....

Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?

[Carana]

I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed.....

Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?

   


ETA: Except that certain elements of the PJ drew attention to it as somehow evidence of some nefarious deed.

[Robittybob1]

I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed.....

Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?

I was waiting for the line about sitting around knitting but you seemed to omit that one.

[faithlilly]

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

If they had asked him why he had changed his statement there would have been the chance he would incriminate himself therefore he would have to have been made an arguido.

[G-Unit]

No reason to believe  it is true... Another logical conclusion  is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies

It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.

an interpreter was requested.

It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.

In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

[barrier]

It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.

an interpreter was requested.

It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.

In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

Operation Task debrief:On 4th May Leicestshire Police sent out FLO resources to supply support to the McCann's and to act as a link to the Portuguese investigation,whats to say that they were not sat in on any interviews.

[G-Unit]

Operation Task debrief:On 4th May Leicestshire Police sent out FLO resources to supply support to the McCann's and to act as a link to the Portuguese investigation,whats to say that they were not sat in on any interviews.

I think they flew out on 5th, Barrier.

At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm

[Carana]

If they had asked him why he had changed his statement there would have been the chance he would incriminate himself therefore he would have to have been made an arguido.

If the officer had noticed at the time that something wasn't making sense, he could have asked for clarification at the time to make sure that there wasn't a simple misunderstanding.

That's not a criticism of the officer, btw, but there was some urgency in trying to work out the basics, with a long day ahead.

[Mr Gray]

It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.

an interpreter was requested.

It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.

In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

I think it's been admitted by the pj there were errors..... There is absolutely  bound to be

[faithlilly]

If the officer had noticed at the time that something wasn't making sense, he could have asked for clarification at the time to make sure that there wasn't a simple misunderstanding.

That's not a criticism of the officer, btw, but there was some urgency in trying to work out the basics, with a long day ahead.

There was no need for clarification in the first interview. It was clear what Gerry had said.

[Carana]

It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.

an interpreter was requested.

It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.

In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

I think there might be a slight problem there, G-Unit.

I can't find the paragraph that you just quoted in the PT statement. AFAIK, that was an explanatory note by a blogger who'd translated the PT version into French, which Anna then translated into English.

[Carana]

There was no need for clarification in the first interview. It was clear what Gerry had said.

Were you there? I wasn't.

If the officer had had time to think, wouldn't it have been logical to ask if he'd decided to unlock the verandah door and if so, why?