UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: gilet on April 19, 2013, 05:40:22 AM
-
The two first attenders (GNR) to the scene in PDL, officers José Maria Batista Roque and Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa made six statements in total. One each on 7th May, one each on 16th May and one each on 17th October.
At no point in the their first two statements did either of the two GNR officers mention either Kate or Gerry kneeling and putting their heads to the floor crying. Yet both recall in detail this event when questioned five months later.
It is even stranger because in May Jose Maria Batista Roque was specifically, “Urged to reveal other details that may be considered relevant to the investigation”. And his answer was “that he has no other knowledge of any elements that may help contribute to that end”. So the PJ officer questioning him at the time was not using closed questions but giving him the chance to offer any other details.
Later in October Roque describes two separate occurrences of this crying and claims that the crying was “a situation that seemed unusual to him”. Costa, referring to the kneeling and praying says in October that he “found it notable”. I find it odd that such unusual events would not have been mentioned in May.
Neither officer so much as alluded to it in May but both recalled it in October as being notable or unusual.
And then we have another witness to these strange events who also fails completely in her first two statements to mention even one word about kneeling or praying yet later recalls it.
Silvia Batista was interviewed on the 7th and 15th of May but recalled nothing of the kneeling and praying. Only when further interviewed on 26th July did she happen to recall this odd event.
In fact she recalls it as the very first thing that she saw when she met up with the GNR officers at reception, “When she arrived at the officer's location she saw that behind them was Gerry, Madeleine's father, with another person but she does not remember who it was. At that time Gerry was on the ground on his knees, he hit the ground with both his hands, looking like an Arab at prayer, and emitted two screams of rage [fury, madness] but she could not understand what he said.”
So three witnesses all fail to recall such a strange (and in their words notable/unusual) part of the events of that night for months (each having undergone two separate police interviews in that period) and then each at their third interview manages to recall exactly the same thing happening.
Can anyone explain why it would only become so important to the story five months after the event, why it would have slipped their minds till then? Is it clear from this that memory can improve over a period? Would that be similar to Jane Tanner?
Or should we, as many do with Jane Tanner, simply presume that such memory improvement does not exist and therefore all three of these people are simply lying?
-
Personally, I don't find Gerry's alleged actions at all strange, so quite possibly these people didn't either, in the beginning.
What is strange is that some months later, they did. Maybe they mentioned it to someone in charge who thought that everyone would throw up their hands in horror at such a carry on. Why on earth should two distraught parents behave like this?
Me? I shudder to think of what sort of fool I might have made of myself.
-
@ gilet
So let me get this straight. The police officers etc are not allowed to remember something later yet Dianne Webster, who was specifically asked, days after the disappearance, if she had seen Oldfield and said categorically no yet almost ten months later, and after the infamous Rothley meeting, she suddenly realises yes she did see him !
-
For the police officers it's one of a number of cases. For the T9 it's one specific case. Go figure.
-
Ah. So for the police officers in question there will have been a number of missing children cases in PdL, with all manner of parents behaving in different ways , which meant that they got a bit mixed up and forgetful, but all suddenly remembered in a blinding flash 5 months later. Thanks for the explanation CEdwards, it's all clear now. 8((()*/
And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
The police have many cases. They don't have to be specifically the same in order to cause confusion in similarities in recall. Any emotional adult would cloud their recall I'd have thought.
Personally I doubt anyone's recall improving. Recalling additional facts, yes. Improving details of existing facts, no. Hence me not believing Gerry McCann for a minute changing his mind on which door he used.
-
@ Martha
Oh don't be coy. We can all read the subtext of gilet's post.
Do you think the police officers and the translator have 'embellished' their statements ?
-
Ah. So for the police officers in question there will have been a number of missing children cases in PdL, with all manner of parents behaving in different ways , which meant that they got a bit mixed up and forgetful, but all suddenly remembered in a blinding flash 5 months later. Thanks for the explanation CEdwards, it's all clear now. 8((()*/
And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
The police have many cases. They don't have to be specifically the same in order to cause confusion in similarities in recall. Any emotional adult would cloud their recall I'd have thought.
Personally I doubt anyone's recall improving. Recalling additional facts, yes. Improving details of existing facts, no. Hence me not believing Gerry McCann for a minute changing his mind on which door he used.
No problem believing a couple of cops who suddenly remember a "notable/unusual" aspect of a case only a few months later having been interviewed twice before but you can't believe Gerry who was under the stress of having a child missing confusing a door (if it wasn't a translation error of course). Well, why does that not surprise me?
And while we are on the subject of memory, C.Edwards, I wonder if you would like to comment on your own strange memory quirk.
I refer to the fact that just a few days ago you were able to remember all kinds of details about satellite imagery (because of your super secret work on defence contracts which just happened to be dealing with satellites) but now you seem to have a complete memory lapse and are unable to remember anything with which to answer the questions posed to you on the subject. Memory is such a strange thing isn't it, but remembering and then conveniently forgetting really does seem peculiar.
-
Ah. So for the police officers in question there will have been a number of missing children cases in PdL, with all manner of parents behaving in different ways , which meant that they got a bit mixed up and forgetful, but all suddenly remembered in a blinding flash 5 months later. Thanks for the explanation CEdwards, it's all clear now. 8((()*/
And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
The police have many cases. They don't have to be specifically the same in order to cause confusion in similarities in recall. Any emotional adult would cloud their recall I'd have thought.
Personally I doubt anyone's recall improving. Recalling additional facts, yes. Improving details of existing facts, no. Hence me not believing Gerry McCann for a minute changing his mind on which door he used.
No problem believing a couple of cops who suddenly remember a "notable/unusual" aspect of a case only a few months later having been interviewed twice before but you can't believe Gerry who was under the stress of having a child missing confusing a door (if it wasn't a translation error of course). Well, why does that not surprise me?
And while we are on the subject of memory, C.Edwards, I wonder if you would like to comment on your own strange memory quirk.
I refer to the fact that just a few days ago you were able to remember all kinds of details about satellite imagery (because of your super secret work on defence contracts which just happened to be dealing with satellites) but now you seem to have a complete memory lapse and are unable to remember anything with which to answer the questions posed to you on the subject. Memory is such a strange thing isn't it, but remembering and then conveniently forgetting really does seem peculiar.
I'm not a performing monkey here to pander to your whims. I will comment where I want to and I make no such demands that others dance to my tune. I am well aware of what military surveillance satellites can do and I don't see any point in carrying on the discussion thanks. Kisses xxx
-
The couple of cops were not a couple of cops, they were GNR, military personal, whose action is of vigilance and help in rural areas. They were called because a child was missing and their urgency was to recover a possible wandering child around a small village. They are not trained to investigate crimes or to deal with set up scenarios by quite a handfull of foreigners. That's why they called the PJ and only gave brief accounts of that nights call. Later when questioned, naturally they offered more details. Is that so difficult to understand?
But J.T. was interrogated by experts and was supposed to give a full and detailed account of the events of the evening. Why didn't she?
There is quite a difference between the 2 situations, I think. 8-)(--)
-
Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit. I see.
-
Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit. I see.
The witness couldn't give a proper description...what could they do, be creative and invent a George Harrison or a monster like?!
-
Ah. So for the police officers in question there will have been a number of missing children cases in PdL, with all manner of parents behaving in different ways , which meant that they got a bit mixed up and forgetful, but all suddenly remembered in a blinding flash 5 months later. Thanks for the explanation CEdwards, it's all clear now. 8((()*/
And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
The police have many cases. They don't have to be specifically the same in order to cause confusion in similarities in recall. Any emotional adult would cloud their recall I'd have thought.
Personally I doubt anyone's recall improving. Recalling additional facts, yes. Improving details of existing facts, no. Hence me not believing Gerry McCann for a minute changing his mind on which door he used.
No problem believing a couple of cops who suddenly remember a "notable/unusual" aspect of a case only a few months later having been interviewed twice before but you can't believe Gerry who was under the stress of having a child missing confusing a door (if it wasn't a translation error of course). Well, why does that not surprise me?
And while we are on the subject of memory, C.Edwards, I wonder if you would like to comment on your own strange memory quirk.
I refer to the fact that just a few days ago you were able to remember all kinds of details about satellite imagery (because of your super secret work on defence contracts which just happened to be dealing with satellites) but now you seem to have a complete memory lapse and are unable to remember anything with which to answer the questions posed to you on the subject. Memory is such a strange thing isn't it, but remembering and then conveniently forgetting really does seem peculiar.
I'm not a performing monkey here to pander to your whims. I will comment where I want to and I make no such demands that others dance to my tune. I am well aware of what military surveillance satellites can do and I don't see any point in carrying on the discussion thanks. Kisses xxx
Quite. Because there are no examples whatsoever of them ever having been used in the way you claim. Its not a memory issue really is it as there is nothing to remember.
-
The couple of cops were not a couple of cops, they were GNR, military personal, whose action is of vigilance and help in rural areas. They were called because a child was missing and their urgency was to recover a possible wandering child around a small village. They are not trained to investigate crimes or to deal with set up scenarios by quite a handfull of foreigners. That's why they called the PJ and only gave brief accounts of that nights call. Later when questioned, naturally they offered more details. Is that so difficult to understand?
But J.T. was interrogated by experts and was supposed to give a full and detailed account of the events of the evening. Why didn't she?
There is quite a difference between the 2 situations, I think. 8-)(--)
So the same experts (the PJ) who questioned Tanner did not manage to get the information out of the GNR (who are presumably at least given some training in observation) till the third interview. And of course these GNR officers were not supposed to give full and detailed accounts, thats why one of the PJ specifically asked was there anything more of importance to be said. I understand now. When GNR officers are asked to give full details its not expected that they will but when Tanner is asked...
It is only Tanner at fault here and not either of the GNR team or Silvia Batista (a senior person on the OC staff). Interesting.
-
Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit. I see.
The witness couldn't give a proper description...what could they do, be creative and invent a George Harrison or a monster like?!
Perhaps you have missed the bit in the files where it is explained that the PJ photofit "expert" was unable to make a representation of a side on view of the face which Jane Tanner was describing (quite naturally as the person was crossing her path rather than walking towards her.)?
The description was fine. It is just that the "expert" was not capable of interpreting it. It reminds me of the fact that Amaral also told us in his book that the photographers who were first on the scene did a poor job and that the fingerprint experts were not particularly competent. Interesting when you read everything carefully isn't it?
-
Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit. I see.
The witness couldn't give a proper description...what could they do, be creative and invent a George Harrison or a monster like?!
Perhaps you have missed the bit in the files where it is explained that the PJ photofit "expert" was unable to make a representation of a side on view of the face which Jane Tanner was describing (quite naturally as the person was crossing her path rather than walking towards her.)?
The description was fine. It is just that the "expert" was not capable of interpreting it. It reminds me of the fact that Amaral also told us in his book that the photographers who were first on the scene did a poor job and that the fingerprint experts were not particularly competent. Interesting when you read everything carefully isn't it?
You are wrong my dear, the description didn't give any details about a face in fact she first stated she was unable to see it. She only described a male figure with longish hair holding a bundle of clothes in his arms.
As for Amaral's book, yours must be different from mine. He admits a lot of mistakes but what do those have to do with JT's memory evolving through different images after the initial blur?
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
-
And yet initially - the officers were “urged to reveal other details that may be considered relevant to the investigation”.
But replied that they had "no other knowledge of any elements that may help contribute to that end”.
So why did they not consider the allegedly odd behaviour relevant in May but somehow very relevant 5 months later?
Well I suppose it might be the case that in the early part of the investigation the claimed abduction was being treated as a priority. Susequently, the 'demeanor' of the parents, that night, might not have been considered relevent
Later, however, following intervention by British police, the Portuguese were advised to investigate the McCanns possible involvement in a homicide with the same vigour they had previously investigated the abductor theory with
At that point, it would be reasonable, therefore, for the police who were present on the night to be asked whether, on recall, there had been anything suspicious or unusual about the McCanns behaviour
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though. Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?
-
Okay, Folks, what did they do that wasn't odd then, but is now that we are trying to fit them up?
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though. Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?
I think the possibility of confusion over 'front or back' is redundant, given that Gerry told the police he had used his key to enter the apartment
The ( back ) patio doors were unlocked, so no key needed there
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
That could be a straightforward over prepositions, though. Especially in an apartment, what is 'front' or what is 'back'?
Yes, keep clutching at those straws HB. From Gerry's 10th May statement:
That that was the first time they walked altogether along the route inside and around the resort. They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, he followed the wall around and turned right, going down the side road to the resort up to the secondary reception where the entered without difficulty as they had an access card that they did not ask for but they had been given during the Check-in.
----- At 17h00 the OCEAN CLUB nursery care workers conducted MADELEINE and the other children in creche on the 1st floor of the main reception to [the area] next to the TAPAS, under awnings, where they [the children] had dinner under the supervision of the employees and, at times, with their parents. The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30. Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered.
---- Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
----- They made their way on foot by the usual route to the creche next to the TAPAS where they left the twins, and, while KATE stayed to play tennis he took MADELEINE to her creche, through the short-cut, where they arrived at 09h15, and , since it was obligatory, he signed the child's attendance register. On returning, not by the short-cut, he went to the supermarket where he bought milk, he presumes, making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45
----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked.
I think we all know which is front and which is back now, so can we let that one lie?
-
And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?
Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:
"Confusion is good"
Do I win a prize?
I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between 'adding' information to a statement ( as the police men did in this case ) and 'changing' information in a statement as Gerry did )
Adding information does not present a discrepencey ... changing information does
-
And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?
Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:
"Confusion is good"
Do I win a prize?
Oh, that old chestnut. Did Gerry ever say that?
-
I think the possibility of confusion over 'front or back' is redundant, given that Gerry told the police he had used his key to enter the apartment
The ( back ) patio doors were unlocked, so no key needed there
Even if they were locked (only possible from inside) you could not use a key to enter the flat that way. there is no outer lock. That, in itself, proves there was no mistranslation involved regarding Gerry Mccanns testimony that he entered through thr front door with the key, as has been suggested in the past.
-
And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?
Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:
"Confusion is good"
Do I win a prize?
I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between 'adding' information to a statement ( as the police men did in this case ) and 'changing' information in a statement as Gerry did )
Adding information does not present a discrepencey ... changing information does
So it's not a discrepancy to say initially there was nothing of note to report and then 5 months later decide that there was?
No, it is not a discrepency
Remembering additional details and adding them to an original statement ( as Jane Tanner also did ) does not present a discrepency
When the substance of a witness statement is changed at a later date ... not added to, but changed ( as Gerry McCann did ) there is a discrepency
-
icabodecrane
I concur with the the principle that
Adding information does not present a discrepencey ... changing information does
Jane Tanner changed the information when she went from a bundle of clothes to a child wearing pink pijamas, and from a faceless man to Robert Murat or to those other fantasist pictures created, allegedly, by a FBI trained artist.
-
And his reason for lying about this detail in and then correcting it would be...?
Don't tell me, I can predict exactly what you are going to say:
"Confusion is good"
Do I win a prize?
I mentioned the changes Gerry made to his original statement as a way of defining the difference between 'adding' information to a statement ( as the police men did in this case ) and 'changing' information in a statement as Gerry did )
Adding information does not present a discrepencey ... changing information does
So it's not a discrepancy to say initially there was nothing of note to report and then 5 months later decide that there was?
No, it is not a discrepency
Remembering additional details and adding them to an original statement ( as Jane Tanner also did ) does present a discrepency
Why is rememering additional details and adding them to your statement a discrepancy in JT's case but not in the case of the GNR officers who did exactly the same thing?
I've already edited in the missing 'not' in my quote ( sorry , I can see how the missing word made the whole post seem unsupported )
As you can see, my post now reflects my thoughts on Jane Tanner's statements ... they do not present discrepencies ( just additional detail )
-
Interesting. Does Jane Tanner saying that the man Mrs Cooper saw, bore an 80% resemblance to the man she saw on the night constitute a discrepancy? It could not have been 'adding' more detail as she never saw the man's face that night.
-
Jane Tanner has never accused Robert Murat, but a whole load of people think she did, including Amaral who wasn't even there.
Whatever happened to Robert Murat bringing a case against Jane Tanner for Malicious Accusation?
-
So, if I'd been standing in the crowds in Dallas Texas on 22nd November 1963 and initially said that I saw nothing noteworthy on the grassy knoll, but then 5 months later I say I remember seeing a man with a rifle on it then there is not a discrepancy between my two statements in your view? I would be changing information about what I claim I saw, surely?
forget it
-
Jane Tanner was interrogated by Experts who couldn't even do a proper photofit. I see.
The witness couldn't give a proper description...what could they do, be creative and invent a George Harrison or a monster like?!
Perhaps you have missed the bit in the files where it is explained that the PJ photofit "expert" was unable to make a representation of a side on view of the face which Jane Tanner was describing (quite naturally as the person was crossing her path rather than walking towards her.)?
The description was fine. It is just that the "expert" was not capable of interpreting it. It reminds me of the fact that Amaral also told us in his book that the photographers who were first on the scene did a poor job and that the fingerprint experts were not particularly competent. Interesting when you read everything carefully isn't it?
You are wrong my dear, the description didn't give any details about a face in fact she first stated she was unable to see it. She only described a male figure with longish hair holding a bundle of clothes in his arms.
As for Amaral's book, yours must be different from mine. He admits a lot of mistakes but what do those have to do with JT's memory evolving through different images after the initial blur?
The reality is that Jane Tanner was describing the view of a man from the side. The fact is that there is evidence that the PJ "expert" was unable to interpret this description into image form. That inability relates very well to the claims made by Amaral in his own book that the skills of the "experts" in other technical aspects of policing within his team were not of a high standard. It is proof that the PJ was not as competent as some imagine.
It is not surprising that Jane seeing someone from the side at some distance, there was no clear memory of the facial features. I would have been questioning her description had she claimed to have a facial description as that would seem impossible.
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.
It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.
It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.
Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view. When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.
It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.
It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.
Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view. When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?
It was not an alteration ... it was additional information that did not conflict in any way with previously given statements
There is nothing remarkable about the fact that the three witnesses present at the time, when asked to give a more detailed account of what had happened, all mentioned the incident where Gerry McCann fell to his knees ( like a praying Arab ) ... the very fact that all of them recalled it determines that there is no discrepency
-
So - if the McCanns and their friends all made statements to the effect that they noticed no suspcious activity around the Tapas Restaurant immediately prior to the abduction, but then subsequently at the rogatories they all remarked that the behaviour of one of the waiters was a bit odd and that he was acting all nervous and seemed out of breath, then that would not raise any suspicion in your mind whatsoever? It would just be all of them deciding to add to the detail of the account of that evening would it?
But the three witnesses we are talking about here ( two GNR officers and a member of staff ) did not say, in their original statements there was nothing about the McCann's behaviour/demeanor that they found odd ... they said nothing at all about the McCann's behaviou/demeanor
When they were re-interviewed and asked to provide more details, they did mention the McCann's behaviour/demeanor
They weren't changing information they had previously given ( unlike the example you have given above ) ... they were providing additional information
-
So - if the McCanns and their friends all made statements to the effect that they noticed no suspcious activity around the Tapas Restaurant immediately prior to the abduction, but then subsequently at the rogatories they all remarked that the behaviour of one of the waiters was a bit odd and that he was acting all nervous and seemed out of breath, then that would not raise any suspicion in your mind whatsoever? It would just be all of them deciding to add to the detail of the account of that evening would it?
But the three witnesses we are talking about here ( two GNR officers and a member of staff ) did not say, in their original statements there was nothing about the McCann's behaviour/demeanor that they found odd ... they said nothing at all about the McCann's behaviou/demeanor
When they were re-interviewed and asked to provide more details, they did mention the McCann's behaviour/demeanor
They weren't changing information they had previously given ( unlike the example you have given above ) ... they were providing additional information
No, I disagree. If the McCanns and their friends were asked to add any information about the events prior to Madeleine's disappearance that might be relevant and all said they had nothing further to add, but subsequently ALL came forward at the Rogatories with a description of the nervous, out-of-breath waiter then that would be identical to what happened with regard the GNR officers, would it not?
There was plenty the McCann's friends had to add in the rogatory interviews that they hadn't said in their original statements ( the McCanns themselves were not re-intervied at that time )
During the first few days after Madeleine's disappearance hundreds of interviews took place
The priority at that point, clearly, was to establish a sequence of events ... who was where, when, and what action did they take
Later, when the information that was immediately needed had been processed, witnesses were re-interviewed in more depth, and additional information was sought and given
How on earth can that be questionable ?
-
Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents? Presuming it happened, of course.
-
A point to bear in mind is that the PT statements are not verbatim, they are only a summary, and there is room for confusion in the translation process, the general stress...
On the front door discrepancy, to me it seems like something got confused.
Gerry was one of the first (if not the first) to be interviewed. Wouldn't the officer have asked for a general description of the apartment to get a general understanding? If so, it's not recorded as such. There are no real details of the general routine in this interview, but we don't know if there had been a discussion for the officer to get a general idea or not. The officer and/or the translator could have been scribbling notes and could have got mixed up.
It makes no sense to me for Gerry to say that he and Kate had taken the long way around via the front door using a key, whilst in the same breath stating that Matt had gone to check via the unlocked veranda door. Why didn't the officer ask the obvious question at the time to clarify?
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. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." 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. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there."
-
Fine - so we can conclude (in answer to the O)P that witness discrepancies between statements are more ofen than not down to improved memory rather than lying then?
No
Discrepencies exist where witness statements have been 'changed' ... as with Gerry McCann saying that he entered the apartment through the front door using his key, and then changing his statement to say something entirely different ... that he had entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors
That is a discrepency ( one of those witness statements had to be untrue )
When the three witnesses cited in this thread reported that Gerry McCann had fallen to ground like a praying Arab, they were giving 'additional information'
There was no discrepency
'improved memory' played no part in either case
-
So to ask once again Icabod, in the scenario I described above regarding the McCanns and their friends recalling additional info regarding one of the waiters months after the event, you'd have no problem with that, same as the GNR officers recalling the supposedly odd behaviour of the McCanns when their daughter went missing?
I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I already have Martha
-
Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents? Presuming it happened, of course.
I agree with this
I, too, fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns
-
Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents? Presuming it happened, of course.
I agree with this
I, too, fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns
You and me both. One minute The McCanns are being castigated for not showing enough emotion, and the next minute for showing too much.
-
Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents? Presuming it happened, of course.
God knows. It seems to me that the McCanns' actions in shock and grief has been used to mock them.
That is certainly how I perceived the portrayal of them, supposedly praying on the bed with their bums in the air in a certain documentary.
-
Dare I ask what was so strange about that behaviour of two distraught parents? Presuming it happened, of course.
I agree with this
I, too, fail to see what is significant about this reaction by the McCanns
You and me both. One minute The McCanns are being castigated for not showing enough emotion, and the next minute for showing too much.
I visualise Gerry McCann on his knees like that and find it desperately sad
To me, it seems it was an act of supplication ... begging them, in fact ... to find his child
-
It was goncalo Amaral's Documentary I do believe. So why did he think it was strange?
-
I don't think that when witnesses remember additional details and add to them to a previously given statement it constitutes a 'discrepency' ( and that includes Jane Tanner's statement )
People being asked, on re-interview, if there is anything else they can remember about an incident seems perfectly in order to me ... and if they do remember additional details, then that is a good thing. The original statement remains unchanged with more details added
What constitutes a discrepency is not additional information, but altered information
Gerry McCann saying he went into the apartment that night through the front door using a key, and then altering that statement to say he went in through the open patio doors is not additional information, it is altered information. The original statement has been 'changed, rather than added to ( a discrepency )
Similarly, when Kate McCann said the curtains were open when she went into the room at 10pm and then said later that she had found the curtains to be closed, she did not add details to her statement, she changed it ( a discrepency )
Where a new witness statement adds to, but does not conflict, with a previously given statement, there is no discrepency
When three witnesses add exactly the same detail to their statements months after the event, all relating that detail as being notable, unusual etc. then that is a major discrepancy in the statements.
It is a massive red flag about that information which may still be absolutely accurate. But there have to be serious questions asked as to why not one of them recalled it originally as they now deem it so notable/unusual.
It is not a discrepancy of detail (where a detail is altered) but a discrepancy between statements. This additional information is a serious alteration to the statements.
Had such a major alteration happened in the case of one witness, then perhaps it could be explained as simply memory returning. But for the exact same memory detail to return to three separate witnesses in almost exactly the same terms is to my mind quite remarkable. I would go so far as to say suspiciously so. And I would have thought that any serious police investigator would have a similar view. When three statements are altered at such a late stage to add the very same extra detail then other possibilities than simply improved memory must be considered surely?
It was not an alteration ... it was additional information that did not conflict in any way with previously given statements
There is nothing remarkable about the fact that the three witnesses present at the time, when asked to give a more detailed account of what had happened, all mentioned the incident where Gerry McCann fell to his knees ( like a praying Arab ) ... the very fact that all of them recalled it determines that there is no discrepency
But they had been asked to give a more detailed account before. But they didn't.
And no matter what you might think I think it mightily odd that three witnesses (two of them colleagues) should months later all decide that something they never mentioned before is now notable and unusual and would you believe it, it just happens to be the very same detail for each of them.
No thats just the way memory works isn't it?
-
It was goncalo Amaral's Documentary I do believe. So why did he think it was strange?
On reason might be that he had not properly read the witness statements. The portrayal in the documentary by Amaral does not even correspond to what the GNR officer said. Why is Amaral so appallingly lax with such detail?
-
It was goncalo Amaral's Documentary I do believe. So why did he think it was strange?
On reason might be that he had not properly read the witness statements. The portrayal in the documentary by Amaral does not even correspond to what the GNR officer said. Why is Amaral so appallingly lax with such detail?
In fairness, the reconstruction in Amaral's documentary was, on the whole, closer to actual witness statements than the reconstruction in the McCann's documentary was
-
It was goncalo Amaral's Documentary I do believe. So why did he think it was strange?
On reason might be that he had not properly read the witness statements. The portrayal in the documentary by Amaral does not even correspond to what the GNR officer said. Why is Amaral so appallingly lax with such detail?
How does that excuse his mistakes?
In fairness, the reconstruction in Amaral's documentary was, on the whole, closer to actual witness statements than the reconstruction in the McCann's documentary was
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehearsed (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
OK, let's explore that theory in relation to Gerry's two statements
The Tapas group arrived in Portugal on Saturday, and ate, together with their children in the Millenium restaurant that night
The following night ( Sunday night ) they ate for the first time in the Tapas bar, leaving their children in the apartments
That's when the McCanns started leaving the patio doors unlocked for checking ... on the very first night of using the tapas bar
So then, where did this memory of going in through the front door using his key to do a check come from ?
How could Gerry McCann remember doing something he had never done ?
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
OK, let's explore that theory in relation to Gerry's two statements
The Tapas group arrived in Portugal on Saturday, and ate, together with their children in the Millenium restaurant that night
The following night ( Sunday night ) they ate for the first time in the Tapas bar, leaving their children in the apartments
That's when the McCanns started leaving the patio doors unlocked for checking ... on the very first night of using the tapas bar
So then, where did this memory of going in through the front door using his key to do a check come from ?
How could Gerry McCann remember doing something he had never done ?
Because that is how memory works.
For reference see a paper entitled Lost In The Mall- I will look for the reference.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
OK, let's explore that theory in relation to Gerry's two statements
The Tapas group arrived in Portugal on Saturday, and ate, together with their children in the Millenium restaurant that night
The following night ( Sunday night ) they ate for the first time in the Tapas bar, leaving their children in the apartments
That's when the McCanns started leaving the patio doors unlocked for checking ... on the very first night of using the tapas bar
So then, where did this memory of going in through the front door using his key to do a check come from ?
How could Gerry McCann remember doing something he had never done ?
Because that is how memory works.
For reference see a paper entitled Lost In The Mall- I will look for the reference.
That's a disappointing response
I thought you might be able to apply your reasoning to this particular instance
-
When one person's memory of a situation alters, that is a discrepancy.
When three people all suddenly come up with the same new material months after the event, that is a very, very big red flag.
And when someone then uses it as the only significant detail of the arrival on the scene of the first responders (no mention of the search organisation, no mention of the actions the GNR took, no mention of anything but the praying action) in his video to promote his thesis about death then it becomes an even bigger red flag in my opinion.
-
Interesting interview on cognitive interviews.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/becky-milne-explains-the-cognitive-interview
And this on eyewitness testimony:
http://www.whatispsychology.biz/putting-eyewitness-testimony-to-the-test-00030
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
I posted what I find the most plausible explanation a bit further up.
They are just summaries of what was understood in a 3-way communication process involving translation. It wasn't a verbatim report.
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
I get the impression that people are talking about different things.
One being memory recall, but the other is the content of (PT) statements which are not verbatim and which are simply a summary of what the officer has understood. Factor in stress, language difficulties... and what we see on paper may not equate to what was actually said / understood.
-
The Psychology of memory is complex. Memory is not a single facet, nor is it always accurate, or more accurate later rather than earlier.
Each time a memory is rehear..d (either silently or with other people, significant changes are introduced into the internal narrative that may in themselves become part of future recall.
Also, in interviews, what is produced is extremely dependent on the questions being asked and the context of the interview.
Anyone who claims to ´know´what statement is correct and what is not is either stupid or acting well above their intellectual pay-grade.
What we can know, without a shadow of doubt, is that when Gerry McCann said he entered the front door using his key ... and then said that he entered through the open patio doors ... that one of the statements had to be untrue
No need for anyone to punch above their intellectual weight to come to that simple conclusion
It is of course impossible for both to be true. But it is possible for a person to have different memories about the same event. This is normal. It does NOT mean that one of the statements is a lie- merely that his recollection was different at different times.
I get the impression that people are talking about different things.
One being memory recall, but the other is the content of (PT) statements which are not verbatim and which are simply a summary of what the officer has understood. Factor in stress, language difficulties... and what we see on paper may not equate to what was actually said / understood.
In the Roque, Costa and Batista instances there are no stress, translation, language difficulties or other similar problems.
The discrepancy is simple
Nothing said about the issue in the first or second statements by three separate people. Then months later these three separate people all remember the very same thing.
That type of language difficulty, translation problem or stress effect may of course have caused problems with the statements of Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstration.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstration.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstrationn.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
Because it is part of the evidence that memory is not a video recording but a set of continual reconstructions, some of which may be implanted, some may just be in error.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstrationn.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
Because it is part of the evidence that memory is not a video recording but a set of continual reconstructions, some of which may be implanted, some may just be in error.
Does your theory lead you to doubt Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor ? ... was that, perhaps an 'implanted' or 'false' memory ?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstrationn.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
Because it is part of the evidence that memory is not a video recording but a set of continual reconstructions, some of which may be implanted, some may just be in error.
Does your theory lead you to doubt Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor ? ... was that, perhaps an 'implanted' or 'false' memory ?
There is a difference between. Recall and memory recollections over time.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstrationn.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
Because it is part of the evidence that memory is not a video recording but a set of continual reconstructions, some of which may be implanted, some may just be in error.
Does your theory lead you to doubt Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor ? ... was that, perhaps an 'implanted' or 'false' memory ?
There is a difference between. Recall and memory recollections over time.
... and there is a difference between a false memory and a lie
Do you accept the possibility of that less complex explanation for Gerry's conflicting statements ... that one of them may, simply, have been a lie ?
-
there you go with the negative vibrations again icabodcrane
-
So, when does a changed statement become a lie then? Rather than an improved memory?
>@@(*&)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique
So you re suggesting Gerry's memory of doing his check by way of the front door using a key had been 'implanted' in his mind using the 'lost in the mall technique'
Who did this implanting then ?
tsk tsk, what nonsense
You have obviously failed to understand the import and context of that demonstrationn.
'Memory' is not representative but continually reconstructed.
THere are none so blind as those that will not see.
The article you quoted is not about memory being 'continually reconstructed' at all !
It is about the theory that 'false' memories can be 'implanted' in someone's mind by someone else
How can that be of any significance in Gerry's case ?
Because it is part of the evidence that memory is not a video recording but a set of continual reconstructions, some of which may be implanted, some may just be in error.
Does your theory lead you to doubt Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor ? ... was that, perhaps an 'implanted' or 'false' memory ?
k
There is a difference between. Recall and memory recollections over time.
... and there is a difference between a false memory and a lie
Do you accept the possibility of that less complex explanation for Gerry's conflicting statements ... that one of them may, simply, have been a lie ?
What do you mean by ' a lie'. The word is frequently misused on [ censored word ] forums.
-
Ah. So for the police officers in question there will have been a number of missing children cases in PdL, with all manner of parents behaving in different ways , which meant that they got a bit mixed up and forgetful, but all suddenly remembered in a blinding flash 5 months later. Thanks for the explanation CEdwards, it's all clear now. 8((()*/
And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
The police have many cases. They don't have to be specifically the same in order to cause confusion in similarities in recall. Any emotional adult would cloud their recall I'd have thought.
Personally I doubt anyone's recall improving. Recalling additional facts, yes. Improving details of existing facts, no. Hence me not believing Gerry McCann for a minute changing his mind on which door he used.
That is why competent Police Officers write in their pocket books, make statements the same day, or do a hand over sheet, s they get all the information down as soon as possible.
Lazy, incompetent officers do not, and rely on what others tell them to write.
In fact the Officers statements were written after the McCanns were arquidos and had returned to the UK...Obviously important information was never passed onto anybody then...
As for the praying and banging on the floor... hmm let me think..your child has gone missing, useless incompetent Police are on the scene and nobody doing anything, yes I would bang my fists on the floor in frustration
-
So, when does a changed statement become a lie then? Rather than an improved memory?
>@@(*&)
Bump
-
Let me guess at this one Redblossom. It's a lie when it's anti-McCann and improved memory when it's favourable to the McCanns is my guess.
-
Let me guess at this one Redblossom. It's a lie when it's anti-McCann and improved memory when it's favourable to the McCanns is my guess.
I think you could be onto something there..
-
Let me guess at this one Redblossom. It's a lie when it's anti-McCann and improved memory when it's favourable to the McCanns is my guess.
Memory for McCanns and others is constructed, not movies.
-
Let me guess at this one Redblossom. It's a lie when it's anti-McCann and improved memory when it's favourable to the McCanns is my guess.
>@@(*&)
8((()*/
I am sure some of the experts on memory here will elucidate
Whether Gerry really was *confused* when he gave one testimony and then another, I don't know, hmmm, the problem I find here is that anything and everything which is brought up as a discrepancy or an impossibility by any of the statements made by the Tapas group, some of which are totally contradictory with each other, is always explained away as innocent and always to have something to do with
- shock, stress
- mistranslations and misunderstandings
- deliberately altered statements by the nefarious pj
- improved memory, of course
- tapas group not knowing what day it was
You would think memory would be improved and not hampered when something serious happens, one would rack ones brains to remember exact details
I do remember Clarence Mitchell saying something to the effect, that anything found or not found, will have a wholly innocent explanation, like he *knows* or was there
-
Former Detective Reveals How To Tell When Suspects are Lying
Law enforcement can tell when suspects are lying, usually beginning with an initial 911 call or first interview.
"The 911 call and initial statements are among the most important pieces of evidence should a case go to trial," said Stacy Dittrich, a former Ohio police detective, crime expert and author. "The entire case can build from those few sentences."
Dittrich has appeared on Nancy Grace, CNN and E! to discuss headline-making cases and explain what happens behind the yellow tape. She told us police can usually tell if a suspect is lying--even if their story seems to line up.
Here are the most tell-tale signs, revealed.
A pre-emptive 911 call: Criminals sometimes call police very early to cover their bases. For instance, a man with a missing spouse might call police within a couple hours to say something is wrong. "The first question the detective is asking is why they're assuming something is wrong because not getting ahold of someone right away is pretty normal," Dittrich said.
The emotions don't fit: even if what a suspect is saying on the call appears to be true, their tone is a big tip-off to police, Dittrich said. For instance, a calm demeanor while reporting a home invasion could indicate something is amiss because ``most people are hysterical in that kind of situation.''
Not answering "yes" or "no": an innocent person will usually answer questions with a direct yes or no. Not so for criminals, says Dittrich. When asked "are you involved in this murder?" they are likely to give a long answer like "I swear on my mother's grave and all my children I didn't." This is a way of stalling: even though they tell themselves to lie, they can't quite follow through.
Too many details: A criminal usually carefully plans their story in advance, anticipating that they'll eventually speaks with detectives. A 911 call with too many details about the suspect, such as what they did that day or whether they're happy with their significant other, is a red flag because it shows the person put thought into his or her story.
Lying about small stuff: Even the most innocuous statements can reveal inconsistencies, Dittrich said. A suspect talk of watching a television show in his or her alibi statement, but the show didn't air that night. Lies about small stuff usually culminate in bigger evidence against the accused.
Referring to a missing person in past-tense: Most people hold out hope that their missing loved one will be found alive. Referring to a person in past tense, saying "I really loved her" or "he and I were happily married,'' is incriminating, Dittrich said.
Saying ``huh?'' : When police ask a direct question, such as "Did you steal those items?" a guilty suspect will often pretend not to hear in order to stall and come up with a story, Dittrich said. Instead of answering a very direct question they say "huh?" or "what do you mean?" Dittrich said.
Helpfully offering another explanation: a suspect will often try and mislead detectives by putting another suspicious person on the investigation's radar, Dittrich said. If a person denies a kidnapping but mentions a creepy man in a van, it's important to see if there's any other evidence of such a person existing. If there's not, chances are the suspect made up a story to deflect the blame.
Most criminals destroy themselves with their own statements. The ones who are acquitted despite ample evidence are "sociopathic'' enough to convince themselves that the lies are reality, Dittricht told us, citing Casey Anthony, the infamous Florida mother acquitted of murdering her daughter.
"It's haunting because the people who get away are the ones deranged enough to believe their own lies,'' Dittrich said.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-05/news/31292010_1_answer-questions-mislead-detectives-nancy-grace#ixzz2RDtZkTPJ
-
Very interesting CE. Lets also not forget police are intrinsically *seasoned* especially when many years at the job to spot a liar. No brainer.
-
Very interesting CE. Lets also not forget police are intrinsically *seasoned* especially when many years at the job to spot a liar. No brainer.
That is how the police got it so right about the Birmingham 6, Stephan Kiszko, Barry George and so many other miscarriages of justice.
-
Former Detective Reveals How To Tell When Suspects are Lying
Law enforcement can tell when suspects are lying, usually beginning with an initial 911 call or first interview.
"The 911 call and initial statements are among the most important pieces of evidence should a case go to trial," said Stacy Dittrich, a former Ohio police detective, crime expert and author. "The entire case can build from those few sentences."
Dittrich has appeared on Nancy Grace, CNN and E! to discuss headline-making cases and explain what happens behind the yellow tape. She told us police can usually tell if a suspect is lying--even if their story seems to line up.
Here are the most tell-tale signs, revealed.
A pre-emptive 911 call: Criminals sometimes call police very early to cover their bases. For instance, a man with a missing spouse might call police within a couple hours to say something is wrong. "The first question the detective is asking is why they're assuming something is wrong because not getting ahold of someone right away is pretty normal," Dittrich said.
The emotions don't fit: even if what a suspect is saying on the call appears to be true, their tone is a big tip-off to police, Dittrich said. For instance, a calm demeanor while reporting a home invasion could indicate something is amiss because ``most people are hysterical in that kind of situation.''
Not answering "yes" or "no": an innocent person will usually answer questions with a direct yes or no. Not so for criminals, says Dittrich. When asked "are you involved in this murder?" they are likely to give a long answer like "I swear on my mother's grave and all my children I didn't." This is a way of stalling: even though they tell themselves to lie, they can't quite follow through.
Too many details: A criminal usually carefully plans their story in advance, anticipating that they'll eventually speaks with detectives. A 911 call with too many details about the suspect, such as what they did that day or whether they're happy with their significant other, is a red flag because it shows the person put thought into his or her story.
Lying about small stuff: Even the most innocuous statements can reveal inconsistencies, Dittrich said. A suspect talk of watching a television show in his or her alibi statement, but the show didn't air that night. Lies about small stuff usually culminate in bigger evidence against the accused.
Referring to a missing person in past-tense: Most people hold out hope that their missing loved one will be found alive. Referring to a person in past tense, saying "I really loved her" or "he and I were happily married,'' is incriminating, Dittrich said.
Saying ``huh?'' : When police ask a direct question, such as "Did you steal those items?" a guilty suspect will often pretend not to hear in order to stall and come up with a story, Dittrich said. Instead of answering a very direct question they say "huh?" or "what do you mean?" Dittrich said.
Helpfully offering another explanation: a suspect will often try and mislead detectives by putting another suspicious person on the investigation's radar, Dittrich said. If a person denies a kidnapping but mentions a creepy man in a van, it's important to see if there's any other evidence of such a person existing. If there's not, chances are the suspect made up a story to deflect the blame.
Most criminals destroy themselves with their own statements. The ones who are acquitted despite ample evidence are "sociopathic'' enough to convince themselves that the lies are reality, Dittricht told us, citing Casey Anthony, the infamous Florida mother acquitted of murdering her daughter.
"It's haunting because the people who get away are the ones deranged enough to believe their own lies,'' Dittrich said.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-05/news/31292010_1_answer-questions-mislead-detectives-nancy-grace#ixzz2RDtZkTPJ
That is a fascinating read ... especially when related to the McCann case !
Thanks for bringing it to us C Edwards ( that's the most interesting post on this thread by far )
-
Fine - so we can conclude (in answer to the O)P that witness discrepancies between statements are more ofen than not down to improved memory rather than lying then?
No
Discrepencies exist where witness statements have been 'changed' ... as with Gerry McCann saying that he entered the apartment through the front door using his key, and then changing his statement to say something entirely different ... that he had entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors
That is a discrepency ( one of those witness statements had to be untrue )
When the three witnesses cited in this thread reported that Gerry McCann had fallen to ground like a praying Arab, they were giving 'additional information'
There was no discrepency
'improved memory' played no part in either case
Like this one you mean?
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H45
G.N.R. Military Personnel
Concerning the issue of the process said;
. In the sequence of facts, he was with the patrol of the GNR that went to the Ocean Club Gardens establishment (situated in Para da Luz) on night of May 03, 2007, with the goal of investigating the circumstances that surrounded the disappearance of a minor, of British nationality, that was installed there temporarily, together with the rest of her more direct family ' knowing these to be, the respective parents, and two siblings, twins, minors, whose name do not need to be clarified;
. Clarifies that the occurrence in question was transmitted to the above referenced patrol via radio, at time when they were located in Odiaxere;
. The patrol of which he took part, and now as a witness, went immediately to the principal reception of the aforementioned establishment, where there was encountered the father of the missing child;
. Following, this patrol went to the residence where the family of said minor was staying in the 'Ocean Garden' together with the father;
. At reaching the location, the two elements that made up the patrol , the current witness and his colleague, Jose Roque, proceeded into the interior of the apartment, with the goal of investigating the contours which eventually surrounded the disappearance of that minor;
. In this sentiment, the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance -- effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior;
. The question made, the deponent states that the access to interior of the residence was accessed through a principal door- that is, a wood door which is placed facing north;
. Inside, the deponent encountered the mother and two siblings of the missing minor;
. The deponent stats that he is unable to specify if that entrance door was found open or closed when he reached the apartment during which he was taking in the facts with the witness is now clarifying;
. In the sequence of confirming the facts of the effective disappearance of that minor, he states that this has been communicated prior, for the reason of helping the Polícia Judiciara;
. States that other details that may be relevant to the investigation concerns that they were directed to a citizen, of British nationality, who made up the group of tourists together with the family, name of Jane Tanner, and who detected the presence of a suspicious movement of an individual in the immediate area above identified, in the discourse of which was seen transporting a child of an early age;
. And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
. The document is duly signed by me '
Pedro Varanda, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciara.
05-Processos Vol V Pages 1340 – 1341
Witness Statement
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
Date: 2007-05-16
Occupation: GNR Officer
This is his second statement, in the first he gave a detailed description of police intervention at the site of the events.
He has been a GNR officer since 1994. He is a soldier, currently employed at the Lagos GNR post.
On the 3rd May he arrived at the resort in P da L at about 23.00, accompanied by officer Roque.
They went to the OC reception.
At that moment Madeleine’s father arrived at the reception and informed them of the events.
After having found out what happened, he went to the exact place Madeleine had disappeared from, accompanied by Roque, the girl’s father and a woman who was acting as interpreter, whose name he does not remember and another individual, a friend of the girl’s father, whose name he does not recall.
When asked, he says he never saw Robert Murat during any of the time he was on the scene.
No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.
Then in October, he says:
Witness Statement
Date: 17-10-2007
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
He comes to the process as a witness, as an officer from the Lagos GNR, he has worked for the Guarda for 13 years.
He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.
Regarding the facts on 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Roque in the Odiaxere zone, they received a radio communication from the central, telling them to go to P da L, specifically to the OC resort reception where the father of a little girl who had gone missing was. When they were on their way to this place and in the Valverde area, they received a new communication, informing them that this was a very young child and that her father had called again. They continued on their way, now with urgency, heading for the main reception of the resort.
When they arrived they saw the girls father, a friend whom the witness describes as tall and blond, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Baptista.
After hearing about the circumstances of the disappearance (from the father with the help of translation) he does not remember whether the word abduction was mentioned, and he went in his police car, to the apartment, accompanied by the father, the friend and the translator. When he arrived at the apartment he saw that the wooden door, now referred to as the main door, was closed and he thinks someone who he cannot identify opened it. When he entered, there were other individual apart from the mother, he does not know how many but there was at least another couple present.
Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.
He found it notable that when they were still at the main reception, the father kneeled down, laying his head on the ground and crying, at the same time as making an expression which the witness did not understand.
After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he does not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.
This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.
When asked, he said that at that time he also saw a lot of local people, who were searching for the missing girl.
Whilst he was outside he talked to the witness mentioned previously and to some residents who had not seen anything. He exchanged some words with the mother, who was crying and only asked for more police officers.
When questioned about the bedroom windows, he only remembers that blinds of the window of the girls bedroom were not totally closed. He does not remember about the existence of curtains or whether the window itself was closed.
He says that in the apartment there were two beds and two cots placed in Madeleines room, he does not remember their position. The children never woke up, he is sure, not knowing what position they were in, however he found this situation to be very strange, as a lot of noise was made.
As regards the parents, he says they were nervous and anxious, emotional. He adds that upon observing the scene it did not appear to him to be an abduction, but rather a normal disappearance where the child had left by her own means.
As regards the living room sofa, next to a curtain, he cannot be sure whether the sofa was against the wall.
He also refers to a situation at about 02 or 03.00, that the parents asked for a priest and his colleague had tried to contact one on his mobile, but did not manage to find one.
He also emphasises the situation that someone, who he cannot identify, having contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if were the parents.
He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception.
He has nothing else to add.
Reads, ratifies, signs.
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
Can you specify which statements are lies.
How do you see into the minds of the people to 'know' that they are 'lies' rather than 'errors'?
-
Now, why wasn't this help taken up, by the investigator, on the 6th May?? ?8)@)-)
Processo Vol II page 311-312
Attached we remit a copy of the translation of the message received today from the Sec.General's Office in Lyon related to the availability of means offered for the resolution of this case, asking for a response in accordance with the request of its contents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INTERPOL LYON SG
06-05-2007
- - - - - - - -
Ref: Unknown/nameless people [TRANSLATORS NOTE: I have no idea why such a word would be used in this context]
Through regular monitoring of open sources by the CCC we are aware that a 3 year old British female child, Madeleine McCann, was abducted from a tourist resort of a Portuguese beach, the police put out a sketch of a suspect based on the information of a witness.
In the scope of this case IPSG will make available all possible assistance, such as publication of a Yellow Alert or a Regional Alert in order to support the localisation of the missing child and the transmission of all information.
Interpol understands the critical situation of the investigation and we are available to process any verifications that may become necessary relating to possible suspects including DNA, finger prints and name database searches.
We are available for this case, with highest priority, to send a Blue Notice - search for the whereabouts of unidentified suspects and related passport alerts via STDL databases.
Our services are available 24 hours per day, 7 days a week through the CCC.
We ask that this information about the missing child is confirmed and you send all items about the case.
Thanks for your cooperation. END
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
Can you specify which statements are lies.
How do you see into the minds of the people to 'know' that they are 'lies' rather than 'errors'?
It's quicker to point out the truthful part which is from the third timeline, the meeting of Gerry and Jes.
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
Can you specify which statements are lies.
How do you see into the minds of the people to 'know' that they are 'lies' rather than 'errors'?
It's quicker to point out the truthful part which is from the third timeline, the meeting of Gerry and Jes.
Could you please elucidate what exactly is a lie.
A lie is a statement made that is false with the intent to mislead another person.
How do you differentiate any statement made in honest error from a lie.
Are you telepathic?
-
When did Jane Tanner inform the PJ of her sighting?
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
Can you specify which statements are lies.
How do you see into the minds of the people to 'know' that they are 'lies' rather than 'errors'?
It's quicker to point out the truthful part which is from the third timeline, the meeting of Gerry and Jes.
Could you please elucidate what exactly is a lie.
A lie is a statement made that is false with the intent to mislead another person.
How do you differentiate any statement made in honest error from a lie.
Are you telepathic?
A lie is the opposite of the truth.
Correct.
Simple, you compare the changing timelines with the changing statements and the lie becomes obvious - you should try it sometime.
No.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
-
Clear examples of lies
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20
Can you specify which statements are lies.
How do you see into the minds of the people to 'know' that they are 'lies' rather than 'errors'?
It's quicker to point out the truthful part which is from the third timeline, the meeting of Gerry and Jes.
Could you please elucidate what exactly is a lie.
A lie is a statement made that is false with the intent to mislead another person.
How do you differentiate any statement made in honest error from a lie.
Are you telepathic?
A lie is the opposite of the truth.
Correct.
Simple, you compare the changing timelines with the changing statements and the lie becomes obvious - you should try it sometime.
No.
NO. The opposite of the truth is an untruth, which may be an error honestly made or a lie with theintention to deceive; there are different untruths and only some untruths are lies.
To correctly call something a lie, one needs to know the intention of the person at the time of the statement. A difference from the truth may be merely an error.
To claim an error is a lie without evidence of intention is sloppy usage and often wrong.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
This what we have had to deal with for the last six years. And don't imagine that these people don't know the difference. Of course they do. It just suits them to say that these things are lies. Not that it actually makes any difference. All rather pointless really, and only serves to prove that they don't know what they are talking about.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
When Kate and Gerry had the abductor entering through the window they claimed to have a clear view of the rear of the apartment, when they had the abductor entering through the unlocked patio doors they were looking the other way. Which catergory does this fall into?
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Hi Eleanor, that is most probably the best definition of a lie that I have ever heard !
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Hi Eleanor, that is most probably the best definition of a lie that I have ever heard !
Thank You. But it isn't difficult, is it. And anyone who pretends otherwise is a liar. Think about that.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Hi Eleanor, that is most probably the best definition of a lie that I have ever heard !
Thank You. But it isn't difficult, is it. And anyone who pretends otherwise is a liar. Think about that.
Very true !!
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
You may be right
It may have been that Gerry McCann was distraught and not thinking clearly ... or that the translation 'got lost'
All that is possible
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
But in that very interview he has Mathew Oldfield entering through the unlocked patio doors. I think you're correct Gerry was confused but in his defence they had only fabricated the timeline a few hours earlier!
Any thoughts yet on their change of seating arrangements at the tapas bar?
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
But in that very interview he has Mathew Oldfield entering through the unlocked patio doors. I think you're correct Gerry was confused but in his defence they had only fabricated the timeline a few hours earlier!
Any thoughts yet on their change of seating arrangements at the tapas bar?
Aw, Peter. You are at it again. Saying as fact that gerry and Co fabricated the time line. You dont even have the decency to slip in a word like "apparently" fabricated ....
I have no idea if the seating arrangements changed at the table, or not, but we used to attend regular wine tasting parties with about 10 -18 guests at the dinner table. It was expected of us that we changed around to chat with other people between courses. That we mixed. Maybe you do not attend gatherings of people for dinner?
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
The difference is that educated rational people can make the intellectual effort to understand that it could be a lie or it could be a memory that was incorrect. Further such people realise that the only way they can know it was a lie was by knowing what was in Gerry's mind at the time, and being intelligent and rational, they know that they cannot know that as they are not telepathic. Therefore they speak of 'errors' preferring to be correct rather than incorrect.
[ censored word ]s call them lies because, although they have no proof of it, it suits there defamatory agenda.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
You may be right
It may have been that Gerry McCann was distraught and not thinking clearly ... or that the translation 'got lost'
All that is possible
So the statement that Gerry was 'lying' is in error.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
But in that very interview he has Mathew Oldfield entering through the unlocked patio doors. I think you're correct Gerry was confused but in his defence they had only fabricated the timeline a few hours earlier!
Any thoughts yet on their change of seating arrangements at the tapas bar?
Nice fairy tale. Telepathic are you?
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
You may be right
It may have been that Gerry McCann was distraught and not thinking clearly ... or that the translation 'got lost'
All that is possible
So the statement that Gerry was 'lying' is in error.
Gerry McCann having lied with the intention to deceive is also a posssibility
-
Gerry Mccann in his first statement could never have meant that he entered the flat via the patio doors if he mentioned a key as no key could possibly be involved in that scenario, even if the patio doors were locked
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
You may be right
It may have been that Gerry McCann was distraught and not thinking clearly ... or that the translation 'got lost'
All that is possible
So the statement that Gerry was 'lying' is in error.
Gerry McCann having lied with the intention to deceive is also a posssibility
It is a possibility. You cannot know that unless you are telepathic. It ma not be true but you have no grounds for calling it a lie.
-
No. A lie is when you tell a deliberate untruth with the intention to deceive.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed at the inability of some to differentiate between a lie and an opinion.
As you say, a lie is when you know that what you are saying is untrue and is done deliberately to deceive.
An opinion is when you genuinely believe what you are saying is true, but which may not necessarily be true.
For example. When Kate said the shutters had been jemmied (or words to that effect) then it was because she genuinely thought that is what must have happened as she believed they had been left closed and locked. It was her opinion at the time. It was also what any normal person would have concluded. On being told later that there was no sign of the shutters being forced, then she would have to revise her thinking based on that new information. At no time does 'lying' even come into it.
... and when Gerry said he entered the apartment through the front door using his key that night ... it was an opinion ?
... and when he later changed his mind and said he entered the apartment through the open patio doors ? it was what ? ... a change of opinion ?
Is there a possibility, do you think, that one of those statements was a lie ... a straight forward ... in your face ... LIE !
No I dont' think he lied. This was his first interview on 4th May. He'd had no sleep and was obvously in the most terrible state - his mind must have been all over the place. This was also the first interview for the PJ policeman who may not have been familiar with the layout of 5A. To make matters worse there was the language barrier to contend with, with everything having to be translated back and forth. The whole situation IMO was ripe for misunderstandings and mistranslations on both sides.
If you read Jane Tanners rog interview, the police officer refers to the previous confusion caused because of the patio doors being described as the Front door and the door facing out onto the carpark as the Back door. She suggests that they call the patio door the Poolside door and the other door the Roadside door in order to avoid similar confusion. I think it is possible that this is where the confusion arose with GMs interview. Unfortunately we only have a summary of that interview and so do not know the precise questions that were asked.
You may be right
It may have been that Gerry McCann was distraught and not thinking clearly ... or that the translation 'got lost'
All that is possible
So the statement that Gerry was 'lying' is in error.
Gerry McCann having lied with the intention to deceive is also a posssibility
It is a possibility.
I'm glad we can agree for once