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 September 27, 2013, 06:17:11 PM
-
It is normal for statements to differ, sometimes greatly, Especially when the people involved are under massive stress from the unexplained disappearance of their child.
It always surprises me that people who have never been through such an experience imagine if their own child was missing, perhaps with an abductor, perhaps dead at the hands of some maniac, they would be able to concentrate perfectly in a foreign police station while being questioned in a foreign language and would not make any errors at all in what they said. A total lack of empathy is not a good thing for even an online investigator as it means you don't fully understand the reality of a situation.
-
It is normal for statements to differ, sometimes greatly, Especially when the people involved are under massive stress from the unexplained disappearance of their child.
I've seen this mentioned a lot. Everything I've read about stressful moments indicates it has an enhancing effect on memory. Things are burned more clearly into your mind and detail is easier to recall.
I'd be interested to see any corroboration of this "normal for statements to differ" argument as I don't think that's true. Happy to be corrected though as I've not studied the subject.
-
I've seen this mentioned a lot. Everything I've read about stressful moments indicates it has an enhancing effect on memory. Things are burned more clearly into your mind and detail is easier to recall.
I'd be interested to see any corroboration of this "normal for statements to differ" argument as I don't think that's true. Happy to be corrected though as I've not studied the subject.
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
-
I've seen this mentioned a lot. Everything I've read about stressful moments indicates it has an enhancing effect on memory. Things are burned more clearly into your mind and detail is easier to recall.
I'd be interested to see any corroboration of this "normal for statements to differ" argument as I don't think that's true. Happy to be corrected though as I've not studied the subject.
There's actually no contradiction
Stress does have an enhancing effect on memory. Perceptions of crucial or traumatic events will be more vivid and better retained over time, in any one individual.
At the same time, everyone has their unique perception and perspective.
The trauma does not cancel out the individual differences in perception; rather, those perceptions will be more profoundly felt in each person.
-
You only need to look at the statements taken on the 4 May 2007, a week later and then look at the Rotatory ones to see how they have morphed.
The very fact that Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann couldn't even agree what side of the road Gerry and Jez were stood on speaks volumes as does her off/on ID of Robert Murat and her various non descriptions of bundleman.
To answer the op however, my own belief is that Mr Amaral will come out of this smelling of roses. No Portuguese Court is going to penalise him for exploring the facts and telling it as it was.
Unless SY meanwhile manages to determine the crime, i.e of course necessarily of abduction, a crime, as the AG deplored it, the McCanns couldn't demonstrate since their friends rejected the reconstitution.
This sounds like millions of pounds were wasted.
-
Unless SY meanwhile manages to determine the crime, i.e of course necessarily of abduction, a crime, as the AG deplored it, the McCanns couldn't demonstrate since their friends rejected the reconstitution.
This sounds like millions of pounds were wasted.
Like that is going to happen
@)(++(*
But you are right millions of pounds have been and will be wasted
-
There's actually no contradiction
Stress does have an enhancing effect on memory. Perceptions of crucial or traumatic events will be more vivid and better retained over time, in any one individual.
At the same time, everyone has their unique perception and perspective.
The trauma does not cancel out the individual differences in perception; rather, those perceptions will be more profoundly felt in each person.
It's not only the event that is enhanced but all that was around when you were shocked and had nothing to do with it. I remember exactly where I was, who told it, who was nearby, what time it was, what I was doing, etc. when I heard JFK had been assassinated. And I was a little girl.
Precisely because they were different persons with different perspectives but having all been shocked at the same instant (except Ms Tanner), they should have participated in a reconstitution that would have boosted their individual memories.
-
It's not only the event that is enhanced but all that was around when you were shocked and had nothing to do with it. I remember exactly where I was, who told it, who was nearby, what time it was, what I was doing, etc. when I heard JFK had been assassinated. And I was a little girl.
Precisely because they were different persons with different perspectives but having all been shocked at the same instant (except Ms Tanner), they should have participated in a reconstitution that would have boosted their individual memories.
Yes, the JFK assassination is the archetype of the so-called 'Flashbulb memory.'
I came across a good summary of the mechanics of memory and its three stages: acquisition, retention, retrieval. What is interesting about this particular article is that it explains the process in the context of witness accounts.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html
-
Thanks you, SH !
-
Thanks you, SH !
Welcome, Anne. I hope it will be useful to us...
-
It's not only the event that is enhanced but all that was around when you were shocked and had nothing to do with it. I remember exactly where I was, who told it, who was nearby, what time it was, what I was doing, etc. when I heard JFK had been assassinated. And I was a little girl.
Precisely because they were different persons with different perspectives but having all been shocked at the same instant (except Ms Tanner), they should have participated in a reconstitution that would have boosted their individual memories.
I would agree that the 'event' and everything that followed would be easy to remember, but not necessarily what happened before the event. The McCanns and the group were asked to recall everything they did from the moment they arrived in PDL right up to the moment Madeleine was abducted, and to expect them to all give identical accounts is frankly ridiculous.
As for the reconstruction - I am still waiting for someone to tell me how this can be achieved - when no-one except GM (9.05) could give the precise times of their movements. Normally in a reconstruction total accuracy would not be that important, but in this case it is - because to prove the small window of opportunity for an abductor to strike existed - makes accuracy vitally important - and that is the one thing the group - especially Jez Wilkins cannot guarantee.
Jez Wilkins says he spoke to Gerry for 3 to 5 mins. So which time do you choose for him to use during a reconstruction? Would it be 3 min or 4 mins or 5 mins? Or would they do 3 reconstructions using a different time every time. JT says she left the table 5 or 10 mins after Gerry - so the same problem exists there. The number of different combinations of times given by 10 different people are massive. It follows that the number of reconstructions required to cover all the possible variations is also massive.
However, Sy have overcome these problems by using the appropriate software - where they can key in all the different combinations of times etc etc and have been able to prove that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction to take place. In a very short time they have achieved the same with a computer what it may have taken days for a physical reconstruction to achieve, not to mention the disruption to the complex, and the cost and inconvenience caused to all those taking part - as well as the mental anguish of having to repeat such a painful time in all their lives.
As a result of this 'virtual reconstruction' SY are satisfied that there was time for an abduction to take place, and no doubt they will have shared their findings with their Portuguese counterparts. As far as I am concerned if it's good enough for SY it's good enough for me - and so the fact that no actual physical reconstruction has happened is no longer relevant IMO.
p.s.
The idea that a reconstruction will guarantee that the wind would be blowing in an identical fashion to how it did on the 3rd May is pure nonsense.
-
As for the reconstruction - I am still waiting for someone to tell me how this can be achieved - when no-one except GM (9.05) could give the precise times of their movements. Normally in a reconstruction total accuracy would not be that important, but in this case it is - because to prove the small window of opportunity for an abductor to strike existed - makes accuracy vitally important - and that is the one thing the group - especially Jez Wilkins cannot guarantee.
However, Sy have overcome these problems by using the appropriate software - where they can key in all the different combinations of times etc etc and have been able to prove that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction to take place. In a very short time they have achieved the same with a computer what it may have taken days for a physical reconstruction to achieve, not to mention the disruption to the complex, and the cost and inconvenience caused to all those taking part - as well as the mental anguish of having to repeat such a painful time in all their lives.
As a result of this 'virtual reconstruction' SY are satisfied that there was time for an abduction to take place, and no doubt they will have shared their findings with their Portuguese counterparts. As far as I am concerned if it's good enough for SY it's good enough for me - and so the fact that no actual physical reconstruction has happened is no longer relevant IMO.
Fascinating, Benice. The Yard is working with such sophistication. I did not know this software existed.
-
Fascinating, Benice. The Yard is working with such sophistication. I did not know this software existed.
Here is a commercial option used by at least one UK force.
http://www.crime-scene-vr.com/
This article provides a basic view of the possibilities of Crime Scene Reconstruction using Real-Time Interactive 3D Technology
http://www.pmsmicro.com/forensicscienceschapter_4d.pdf
And here is an article from Jornal de Noticias, outlining the SY use of software and bemoaning the PJ's mor "handmade" approach.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/virtual-reconstitution-tests-witnesses.html
-
I've seen this mentioned a lot. Everything I've read about stressful moments indicates it has an enhancing effect on memory. Things are burned more clearly into your mind and detail is easier to recall.
I'd be interested to see any corroboration of this "normal for statements to differ" argument as I don't think that's true. Happy to be corrected though as I've not studied the subject.
I apologise as I have only just seen this post.
I shall reply as soon as possible.
Reply.
The whole field of forensic linguistics (or more widely, corpus linguistics) is quite complex but I will attempt to make a few brief comments and references.
Witness statements are best (ie most accurate) when they record the actual words used by the person giving the statement in relation to the actual question posed to that witness.
In the case of the statements made in Portugal, these do not allow for real forensic examination in that they are mere summaries of replies and do not show the full question which was being answered or the verbatim response of the witness. In addition there is the further complication that no original is available to us for examination and we have to rely on translations.
To place absolute confidence in any of these statements as accurate reflections of what was said is rather foolhardy. Unless the witnesses are further questioned it is impossible to determine exactly what was intended by certain statements.
However setting aside these clear impediments to proper analysis of the statements there is the more general question as to the "accuracy" of witness statements taken in such stressful circumstances as those which faced the McCanns (their child having disappeared and the need to make a statement in a foreign police station about the matter).
UK Ministry of Justice guidelines state inter alia that:
"Trauma and stress can interfere with the process of remembering..."
"The additional stress of coping with an unfamiliar situation is likely to reduce the ability of witnesses to participate and to respond to questioning, or to effectively recall events in order to assist the fact-finding process of the criminal justice system."
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/vulnerable-witnesses/achieving-best-evidence-criminal-proceedings.pdf
A short summary of the problems related to eye-witness memory can be found here.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
A longer and more detailed account of various problems related to witness statements can be found in this cached Google document.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fartsweb.bham.ac.uk%2FMToolan%2Fnewsite%2FRock.doc&ei=gwtHUr_2AYjR7Ab5x4CACg&usg=AFQjCNGlXaUpONlexFFww5VHu61R-fIDJg&sig2=vE96e-siyMbKFwq27RpCSg
But a fuller review of the issues can be found in
"Analysing Witness Testimony: A Guide for Legal Practitioners and Other Professionals" edited by Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, Eric Shepherd & David Wolchover. Though much of the text is relevant, Chapter 17 is particularly so.
-
It's not only the event that is enhanced but all that was around when you were shocked and had nothing to do with it. I remember exactly where I was, who told it, who was nearby, what time it was, what I was doing, etc. when I heard JFK had been assassinated. And I was a little girl.
Precisely because they were different persons with different perspectives but having all been shocked at the same instant (except Ms Tanner), they should have participated in a reconstitution that would have boosted their individual memories.
wrong again........The effects of stress on memory include interference with one’s capacity to encode and ability retrieve information.[1] When stress occurs, the body reacts by secreting stress hormones into the blood stream. Stress can cause acute and chronic changes in certain brain areas which can cause long-term damages.[2] Over-secretion of stress hormones most frequently affects memory negatively, but in a few cases can affect it positively. In particular, the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex and the amygdala are affected
I cant see how you as a little girl suffered from stress when you heard about JFK...have another think..perhaps it has affected your memory
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
Nah. 8((()*/
-
Nah. 8((()*/
I thought as a chemistry graduate you would understand the role of neurotransmitters in the hippocampus and its role in cognitive behaviour but you can only manage "Nah"
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
A good thread, Davel.
But what specifically do you mean that memory is affected 'in a negative way'?
It has been well-researched for the past three or four decades at least that memory of a traumatic event is actually reinforced.
I quote part of a conversation from a different thread (So where does Amaral turn, now) from yesterday.
I also include a link to an article which goes over the three stages of memory, and which also discusses this process in the context of witnesses recounting events. Yes, there is a certain amount of distortion in the retrieval, but such distortion occurs in all circumstances.
In reply to Anne yesterday #54:
Yes, the JFK assassination is the archetype of the so-called 'Flashbulb memory.'
I came across a good summary of the mechanics of memory and its three stages: acquisition, retention, retrieval. What is interesting about this particular article is that it explains the process in the context of witness accounts.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html
-
I thought as a chemistry graduate you would understand the role of neurotransmitters in the hippocampus and its role in cognitive behaviour but you can only manage "Nah"
Do you know the difference between a Chemistry degree with some elements of Biochemistry and one in Biology, or is that too tough to grasp.
Also your original post does not prove the Mccanns or associates told the truth.
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
Straight fallibility in human memory does that.
If eye-witnesses are to be believed, Jean Paul de Menezes, shot dead by a British policeman on an underground train at Stockwell Train station, pole-vaulted a turn-style and dashed into a carriage of the train, wearing a heavy-weight, knee length overcoat.
The truth: he made a leisurely entrance to the platform, stopped to buy a newspaper, boarded the train in a conventional way, wearing a light-weight denim jacket, was pinned to the floor and shot dead with repeated shots to his head.
A reconstruction would never have stood a cat-in-hell's chance of recreating the true sequence of events.
But analysed CCTV footage of the actual events as they happened did!
-
A good thread, Davel.
But what specifically do you mean that memory is affected 'in a negative way'?
It has been well-researched for the past three or four decades at least that memory of a traumatic event is actually reinforced.
I quote part of a conversation from a different thread (So where does Amaral turn, now) from yesterday.
I also include a link to an article which goes over the three stages of memory, and which also discusses this process in the context of witnesses recounting events. Yes, there is a certain amount of distortion in the retrieval, but such distortion occurs in all circumstances.
In reply to Anne yesterday #54:
Yes, the JFK assassination is the archetype of the so-called 'Flashbulb memory.'
I came across a good summary of the mechanics of memory and its three stages: acquisition, retention, retrieval. What is interesting about this particular article is that it explains the process in the context of witness accounts.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html
Google and look at the EVIDENCE
JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces
I will look at the article but I imagine it is not in the context of a mothers memory after the loos of her daughter
-
Do you know the difference between a Chemistry degree with some elements of Biochemistry and one in Biology, or is that too tough to grasp.
Also your original post does not prove the Mccanns or associates told the truth.
Frankly, I'm amazed you can spell chemistry!
-
I can only speak on this subject from a personal perspective
About 18 years ago I experienced a situation so stressful that I pray to God I never do again
I remember every detail of it to this day ... what I was wearing, what others were wearing, what I said word for word, and what others said ... I remember the expressions on the faces of others and the surroundins to the most minute detail
I wish I didn't, to be honest ... I wish I could forget ... but it is burned onto mind like no other memory I have
I don't know if I am an exception or if others who have experienced extremely stressful situations would concur, but that is my perspective on the subject of stress and memory
-
Do you know the difference between a Chemistry degree with some elements of Biochemistry and one in Biology, or is that too tough to grasp.
Also your original post does not prove the Mccanns or associates told the truth.
oh Stephen, you sound so clever...physical chemistry..inorganic chemistry..biochemistry... I think I still know most of the Krebs cycle...biochemistry, then theres forensic chemistry...pharmacology.. thelist is endless but you can only cite 2...stick with nah...you don't make such a fool of yourself
-
I can only speak on this subject from a personal perspective
About 18 years ago I experienced a situation so stressful that I pray to God I never do again
I remember every detail of it to this day ... what I was wearing, what others were wearing, what I said word for word, and what others said ... I remember the expressions on the faces of others and the surroundins to the most minute detail
I wish I didn't, to be honest ... I wish I could forget ... but it is burned onto mind like no other memory I have
I don't know if I am an exception or if others who have experienced extremely stressful situations would concur, but that is my perspective on the subject of stress and memory
well done...that's called anectdotal evidence and real scientist don't take a lot of notice of it
-
Frankly, I'm amazed you can spell chemistry!
Damn, that reply is truly amazing.
Did you have to google it ? 8(0(* 8(0(*
-
oh Stephen, you sound so clever...physical chemistry..inorganic chemistry..biochemistry... I think I still know most of the Krebs cycle...biochemistry, then theres forensic chemistry...pharmacology.. thelist is endless but you can only cite 2...stick with nah...you don't make such a fool of yourself
Well, I didn't know there are different branches of Chemistry.
I am truly amazed. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
A good thread, Davel.
But what specifically do you mean that memory is affected 'in a negative way'?
It has been well-researched for the past three or four decades at least that memory of a traumatic event is actually reinforced.
I quote part of a conversation from a different thread (So where does Amaral turn, now) from yesterday.
I also include a link to an article which goes over the three stages of memory, and which also discusses this process in the context of witnesses recounting events. Yes, there is a certain amount of distortion in the retrieval, but such distortion occurs in all circumstances.
In reply to Anne yesterday #54:
Yes, the JFK assassination is the archetype of the so-called 'Flashbulb memory.'
I came across a good summary of the mechanics of memory and its three stages: acquisition, retention, retrieval. What is interesting about this particular article is that it explains the process in the context of witness accounts.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html
I didn't get very far in your article until I came across this....
Violence of event—the more violent the event, the harder it is to remember correctly.
Stress to witness—increasing stress first helps perception, then hinders it. The crossover point varies with the difficulty of the task.
So thanks for showing how stress may have caused the MccAnnns recall problems
-
Google and look at the EVIDENCE
JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces
I will look at the article but I imagine it is not in the context of a mothers memory after the loos of her daughter
The so-called flashbulb memory syndrome, of which the JFK assassination is the classic example, is not about how closely related to the event a person is , or how much it actually affected them, as the assassination would have affected JFK's wife.
The concept relates to how the 'bystanders', near or far, reacted - the 'I'll never forget where I was when I heard the news' phenomenon. Anne refers to this in that thread as well and this is the conversation to which I was referring in my previous post here.
If I were to ask you, Davel, where were you on September 11th 2001, you would, like the rest of us, be able to give a reasonably detailed account of where you were and what you were doing, much more so than a random date plucked from the calendar. That ability has nothing whatsoever to do with your actual connection to the event itself. It has everything to do, however, with how memory works when it comes to recounting what we did in our own lives, and hence its study is an important tool in cases like this one.
-
I can only speak on this subject from a personal perspective
About 18 years ago I experienced a situation so stressful that I pray to God I never do again
I remember every detail of it to this day ... what I was wearing, what others were wearing, what I said word for word, and what others said ... I remember the expressions on the faces of others and the surroundins to the most minute detail
I wish I didn't, to be honest ... I wish I could forget ... but it is burned onto mind like no other memory I have
I don't know if I am an exception or if others who have experienced extremely stressful situations would concur, but that is my perspective on the subject of stress and memory
That is exactly what happens, Icabod.
-
I didn't get very far in your article until I came across this....
Violence of event—the more violent the event, the harder it is to remember correctly.
Stress to witness—increasing stress first helps perception, then hinders it. The crossover point varies with the difficulty of the task.
So thanks for showing how stress may have caused the MccAnnns recall problems
You have to read the whole article and put all the pieces together. It is about how all these elements work in conjunction with each other. I can find a shorter summary.
-
The so-called flashbulb memory syndrome, of which the JFK assassination is the classic example, is not about how closely related to the event a person is , or how much it actually affected them, as the assassination would have affected JFK's wife.
The concept relates to how the 'bystanders', near or far, reacted - the 'I'll never forget where I was when I heard the news' phenomenon. Anne refers to this in that thread as well and this is the conversation to which I was referring in my previous post here.
If I were to ask you, Davel, where were you on September 11th 2001, you would, like the rest of us, be able to give a reasonably detailed account of where you were and what you were doing, much more so than a random date plucked from the calendar. That ability has nothing whatsoever to do with your actual connection to the event itself. It has everything to do, however, with how memory works when it comes to recounting what we did in our own lives, and hence its study is an important tool in cases like this one.
Sorry Sherlock but the article you quoted proves my point. perhaps you didn't read it properly,
, You are talking about memory without assessing the role of stress in recall
-
You have to read the whole article and put all the pieces together. It is about how all these elements work in conjunction with each other. I can find a shorter summary.
Don't bother Sherlock, just google memory and stress, there are thousands of articles
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
If it is true that stress may interfere with, your memory recovery (especially about events in the past, before the stressing event, or post-stress short-term memory) it is also true that highly emotional stressing situations implement the memory. That's why there are post-traumatic stress disorders. People that suffered highly stressing situations, like personal losses, warfare situations, natural disasters, sometimes cannot forget those events and become highly disturbed - they keep reviving those events.
-
Sorry Sherlock but the article you quoted proves my point. perhaps you didn't read it properly,
, You are talking about memory without assessing the role of stress in recall
Well I personally am not really trying to prove any 'point' other than the fact that, applying the well-known research out there to the witness accounts of T9, regarding the fact that their respective stories contain differences, one can see that those anomalies fall very much within what is considered to be the scientific / psychological norm.
In other words, there are slight deviations in what is being said and recounted by T9 - for the various reasons listed in the report I quoted - and this is exactly what is to be expected. Nothing suspicious about it at all.
-
Don't bother Sherlock, just google memory and stress, there are thousands of articles
Thanks for the google tip but I studied memory and stress for two years as part of a psychology degree.
There definitely has been more research conducted since the work I learned of a few years back, admittedly.
-
Thanks for the google tip but I studied memory and stress for two years as part of a psychology degree.
There definitely has been more research conducted since the work I learned of a few years back, admittedly.
The point I am trying to make is that there are those on this forum who have accused the McCanns of lying.
My light bulb moment was when I realised how stress can really shoot to pieces a persons memory.
-
If it is true that stress may interfere with, your memory recovery (especially about events in the past, before the stressing event, or post-stress short-term memory) it is also true that highly emotional stressing situations implement the memory. That's why there are post-traumatic stress disorders. People that suffered highly stressing situations, like personal losses, warfare situations, natural disasters, sometimes cannot forget those events and become highly disturbed - they keep reviving those events.
I agree with you Luz.
In fact many studies have shown that the 're-living' aspects of PSDM are more profound and intense, in other words, more unpleasant, than the original trauma. The soldier returning from the battlefield experiences all kinds of stresses and traumas in all areas of his life, that were unknown and irrelevant in the midst of the fight, when he was simply fighting for his life and focused entirely on that. A mark of how our response to an event is an evolving process, in terms of types of stress, how that stress is manifest in different circumstances, and of the different stages of memory.
There was a study performed recently in which participants watched videos of unpleasant events that they had lived through. Brain function measured in each instance to compare the different responses. It turned out that watching the video of the events produced a far higher degree of arousal - in other words, a strong negative physical reaction - than the reaction to the real-life event.
-
The point I am trying to make is that there are those on this forum who have accused the McCanns of lying.
My light bulb moment was when I realised how stress can really shoot to pieces a persons memory.
Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.
If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.
-
Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.
If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.
how refreshing to see some common sense
-
The accounts of the Mccanns and group merged after the Rothley meeting.
Mmm. >@@(*&)
They lied.
-
The accounts of the Mccanns and group merged after the Rothley meeting.
Mmm. >@@(*&)
They lied.
Now you are lying, the statementss were all taken in Portugal before the rothley meeting
-
Now you are lying, the statementss were all taken in Portugal before the rothley meeting
No lies.
Not quite as simple as that.
Why did they have the meeting in Rothley after the return from Portugal ?
-
The point I am trying to make is that there are those on this forum who have accused the McCanns of lying.
My light bulb moment was when I realised how stress can really shoot to pieces a persons memory.
You might be right, davel, but stress can also lead to panic and people doing bizarre things. It's a double-edged sword.
-
JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces
The president of the most powerful nation in the world !
-
Google and look at the EVIDENCE
JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces
I will look at the article but I imagine it is not in the context of a mothers memory after the loos of her daughter
Actually there was a whole generation of children growing up in America who were strongly traumatised and affected by the fact that their president had been shot. When you attack a president, you attack a nation, and a lot of the things it stands for. It affected various aspects of those children's development, and their views as adults. Much has been written on the topic and many studies carried out.
-
Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.
If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.
Something occurs to me in that case ... if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way ... would it also be more likely they were lying if they all forgot an event in the same way ?
I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz
I don't know if something significant happened that night, but it always struck me as strange that not a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on ... they were asked in their rogatory interviews, and not one of them could remember
Is uniformly 'forgetting' as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering' ?
-
Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements
Dont you think seasoned policemen are able to tell the difference between a genuine insignificant discrepancy and its opposite?
-
Something occurs to me in that case ... if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way ... would it also be more likely they were lying if they all forgot an event in the same way ?
I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz
I don't know if something significant happened that night, but it always struck me as strange that not a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on ... they were asked in their rogatory interviews, and not one of them could remember
Is uniformly 'forgetting' as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering' ?
Why is it strange? They remembered the quiz - as that was something 'different' to the norm - but the particular date on which it was held was of no importance at all, and made no difference to anything at the time - so no reason to specifically commit it to memory.
-
Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.
If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.
There's a way to establish whether someone told the truth or not. Supposing you can find evidence that contradicts or confirms his/her statement.
Forensic examination showed the McCanns didn't say the truth to their family/friends, when they said the shutters and window were forced (they never denied, unfortunately, Mr. Mitchell had to deny, end of October, to an Irish TV channel).
People with some reason will call that "lying".
Did the McCanns say the truth to the police about finding the shutters and the window open ? Nobody else saw the shutters and the window open, not even one of the group. This is an absurd statement since forensic proved nobody used this way in, opening them was then of no use.
People with some reason will doubt that story.
As Magalhães e Menezes said, these aren't lies but "untruths" !
-
Dont you think seasoned policemen are able to tell the difference between a genuine insignificant discrepancy and its opposite?
It completely depends on the circumstances, Red.
If one witness says that something happened at 9.00, and another witness says it happened at ten past, that difference, be it attributable to human error or deliberate misrepresentation, could be completely inconsequential for the events as a whole.
On the other hand, the discrepancy could be fundamental to our understanding of events, depending on what else was going on at the time.
Without being more sure about how exactly everyone's timeline fitted in with everyone else's, it is hard for the police to evaluate between 'a geniune insignificant discrepancy and its opposite' as you put it.
That is where a reconstruction, properly conducted, would come in. That would help us get closer to what actually happened, in which context we could put aside the discrepancies that were not so relevant to our understanding of the case, and concentrate on what we could draw from what was left.
-
Something occurs to me in that case ... if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way ... would it also be more likely they were lying if they all forgot an event in the same way ?
I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz
I don't know if something significant happened that night, but it always struck me as strange that not a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on ... they were asked in their rogatory interviews, and not one of them could remember
Is uniformly 'forgetting' as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering' ?
It depends on how important the thing was. We memorise what matters to us.
Certain, seemingly trivial things can become ' important' in context - so perhaps the quiz wasn't.
-
Why is it strange? They remembered the quiz - as that was something 'different' to the norm - but the particular date on which it was held was of no importance at all, and made no difference to anything at the time - so no reason to specifically commit it to memory.
They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared
The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant
So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar might have been held ( it was Tuesday night by the way )
Yet not one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been ... not one of them !
I just wondered if collective forgetfulness was as indicative of lying as collective remembering
-
They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared
The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant
So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar might have been held ( it was Tuesday night by the way )
Yet not one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been ... not one of them !
I just wondered if collective forgetfulness was as indicative of lying as collective remembering
I'm not sure if I can work out what you mean...
They could have all got together to feign forgetfulness of which night the quiz took place?
-
It completely depends on the circumstances, Red.
If one witness says that something happened at 9.00, and another witness says it happened at ten past, that difference, be it attributable to human error or deliberate misrepresentation, could be completely inconsequential for the events as a whole.
On the other hand, the discrepancy could be fundamental to our understanding of events, depending on what else was going on at the time.
Without being more sure about how exactly everyone's timeline fitted in with everyone else's, it is hard for the police to evaluate between 'a geniune insignificant discrepancy and its opposite' as you put it.
That is where a reconstruction, properly conducted, would come in. That would help us get closer to what actually happened, in which context we could put aside the discrepancies that were not so relevant to our understanding of the case, and concentrate on what we could draw from what was left.
Thank you, its complex, more so with such a large group and people remembering an event so differently, events that happened, and some that didnt happen by most accounts. Eg Matthew Oldfield remembering that Kate Mccann and her kids were sat watchng the mens tennis on Thursday evening. Then you have David Payne sayng he knocked on the patio door of 5a and went inside and chatted to Kate Mccann for 3 mins or so, and how he was observing the children, but her testimony was he didnt go inside and she sent him away immediatly, Qaugmire.(sp.?) Theres many examples.
Eta
I agree they werent exactly clock watching so small differences in remembering times are of little relevance.
-
There's a way to establish whether someone told the truth or not. Supposing you can find evidence that contradicts or confirms his/her statement.
Forensic examination showed the McCanns didn't say the truth to their family/friends, when they said the shutters and window were forced (they never denied, unfortunately, Mr. Mitchell had to deny, end of October, to an Irish TV channel).
People with some reason will call that "lying".
Did the McCanns say the truth to the police about finding the shutters and the window open ? Nobody else saw the shutters and the window open, not even one of the group. This is an absurd statement since forensic proved nobody used this way in, opening them was then of no use.
People with some reason will doubt that story.
As Magalhães e Menezes said, these aren't lies but "untruths" !
And one example of such evidence would be the corroboration (or contradictory) evidence of another witness account in a timeline, hence the use of a reconstruction.
-
It depends on how important the thing was. We memorise what matters to us.
Certain, seemingly trivial things can become ' important' in context - so perhaps the quiz wasn't.
Well in the spirit of the thread, and the substantive subject under discussion, could we assume that the quiz night WAS important ... or, rather, something that happened on the quiz night was important ?
Purely hypothetically let's imagine the following scenario :
During the quiz, or some time later, Kate and Gerry have a blazing row ... I don't know, let's say because Gerry had been paying too much attention to the attractive quiz mistress ( purely hypothetical, remember ) ... and Kate stormed off back to the apartment on her own
Now, let's assume that the tapas friends would be reluctant to tell the police about that incident because they felt it had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis that unfolded two days later, but were afraid the police might 'make something out of it '
So out of loyalty to Kate and Gerry, they decide it is best not to mention the incident, which they feel is insignificant in any event
They cannot 'lie' to the police though ... so they collectively 'forget' all about that night ... indeed, they even forget what night it was
Given the research you are are refering to, is there a possibility that collective forgetfulness may be an indication of lying ... where the subject forgotten IS significant ( as in the hypothetical example I have given ) ?
-
Thank you, its complex, more so with such a large group and people remembering an event so differently, events that happened, and some that didnt happen by most accounts. Eg Matthew Oldfield remembering that Kate Mccann and her kids were sat watchng the mens tennis on Thursday evening. Then you have David Payne sayng he knocked on the patio door of 5a and went inside and chatted to Kate Mccann for 3 mins or so, and how he was observing the children, but her testimony was he didnt go inside and she sent him away immediatly, Qaugmire.(sp.?) Theres many examples.
Eta
I agree they werent exactly clock watching so small differences in remembering times are of little relevance.
Yes, it's a very complex tapestry with so many people involved.
-
They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared
The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant
So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar might have been held ( it was Tuesday night by the way )
Yet not one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been ... not one of them !
I just wondered if collective forgetfulness was as indicative of lying as collective remembering
IMO The date was trivial in the extreme compared to other things they were being asked to recall. I'm sure that had they been told it was of vital importance then they would have all been able to work out which night it was - once they gave it some serious thought - but as it happens they simply had had no reason to give it any special attention.
-
IMO The date was trivial in the extreme compared to other things they were being asked to recall. I'm sure that had they been told it was of vital importance then they would have all been able to work out which night it was - once they gave it some serious thought - but as it happens they simply had had no reason to give it any special attention.
Jane Tanner would have remembered surely as her other half was off sick? Or looking after his sick daughter, I dont recall which it was. Or maybe not then.
-
Well in the spirit of the thread, and the substantive subject under discussion, could we assume that the quiz night WAS important ... or, rather, something that happened on the quiz night was important ?
Purely hypothetically let's imagine the following scenario :
During the quiz, or some time later, Kate and Gerry have a blazing row ... I don't know, let's say because Gerry had been paying too much attention to the attractive quiz mistress ( purely hypothetical, remember ) ... and Kate stormed off back to the apartment on her own
Now, let's assume that the tapas friends would be reluctant to tell the police about that incident because they felt it had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis that unfolded two days later, but were afraid the police might 'make something out of it '
So out of loyalty to Kate and Gerry, they decide it is best not to mention the incident, which they feel is insignificant in any event
They cannot 'lie' to the police though ... so they collectively 'forget' all about that night ... indeed, they even forget what night it was
Given the research you are are refering to, is there a possibility that collective forgetfulness may be an indication of lying ... where the subject forgotten IS significant ( as in the hypothetical example I have given ) ?
Well that's a fascinating example, Icabod. And of course not too far removed from certain truths, as Gerry and Kate were alleged to have had an argument one night, weren't they?
But back to your theoretical example -
I just want to be sure of what you are saying at the very end. When you talk of 'collective forgetfulness' in this context, do you mean that that that forgetfulness was subconscious? In other words, the group subconsciously subdued their memories of when the quiz took place, as part of an instinctive manoeuvre to protect themselves and the McCanns?
-
Well that's a fascinating example, Icabod. And of course not too far removed from certain truths, as Gerry and Kate were alleged to have had an argument one night, weren't they?
But back to your theoretical example -
I just want to be sure of what you are saying at the very end. When you talk of 'collective forgetfulness' in this context, do you mean that that that forgetfulness was subconscious? In other words, the group subconsciously subdued their memories of when the quiz took place, as part of an instinctive manoeuvre to protect themselves and the McCanns?
No Sherlock, I was thinking more about a deliberate feigning of forgetfulness in order to avoid talking about a subject that might be damaging
You suggested that uniform 'remembering' might be an indication of lying, and I wondered if uniform 'forgetting' might indicate lying too
Just to add, whilst the scenario I painted was hypothetical, there are factually significant events associted with the 'forgotten' quiz night
It was the night Mrs Fenn heard crying in the McCann's apartment for an hour and a quarter .... and it was the night Kate McCann's mobile phone was' pinged' in the apartment showing a flurry of activety that was unique
-
IMO The date was trivial in the extreme compared to other things they were being asked to recall. I'm sure that had they been told it was of vital importance then they would have all been able to work out which night it was - once they gave it some serious thought - but as it happens they simply had had no reason to give it any special attention.
I agree with this Benice, because another aspect of memory in a case like this is that not only are important things better retained and more readily retrievable, but conversely, things that are trivial (subjectively, to the individual, that is) are temporarily forgotten, until someone else brings them up and reminds us.
We have all been in situations where we have been discussing an event long passed with a friend, and the friend says 'and do you remember such and such detail', and in fact such and such had been forgotten by us, until the friend's reminder, because we did not find it significant at the time. This is retrieval - the 'memory' is there lying dormant until someone gives us cause to refer back to it.
-
No Sherlock, I was thinking more about a deliberate feigning of forgetfulness in order to avoid talking about a subject that might be damaging
You suggested that uniform 'remembering' might be an indication of lying, and I wondered if uniform 'forgetting' might indicate lying too
Just to add, whilst the scenario I painted was hypothetical, there are factually significant events associted with the 'forgotten' quiz night
It was the night Mrs Fenn heard crying in the McCann's apartment for an hour and a quarter .... and it was the night Kate McCann's mobile phone was' pinged' in the apartment showing a flurry of activety that was unique
I think I see what you mean, Ichabod.
It's possible that the group could have got together to pretend to forget something that was inconvenient for their collective alibis, just as they could have plotted to fabricate a timeline they imagined people would find convincing.
It is interesting that quiz night did contain its own dramas; perhaps it could be significant that the date of the quiz night was 'forgotten'.
If so, this would be the only major anomaly in T9 recording of events, though, wouldn't it? Is there anything else that would qualify as being as glaring as that?
As things stand, the fact that the famous timeline (s) contain discrepancies neither too large nor too small can be read as an indication that there was no cover up.
-
Jane Tanner would have remembered surely as her other half was off sick? Or looking after his sick daughter, I dont recall which it was. Or maybe not then.
Well there you go Red, even you can't remember all the details - which is quite normal IMO.
Do you really think that if they were all individually told that the date of the Quiz was vital to the enquiry that they would NOT have come up with the correct time. Of course they would, it was just not something important enough to be able to bring to mind without first giving it serious thought - and as far as I know they were never asked to do that - as it was something that could easily be established elsewhere if necessary and so to deliberately lie would have been a complete waste of time anyway.
-
Well there you go Red, even you can't remember all the details - which is quite normal IMO.
@)(++(*
Remembering all the details of all their rogatory interviews is hardly the same as remembering what I or my partner was doing on a certain day, LOL Benice
-
@)(++(*
Remembering all the details of all their rogatory interviews is hardly the same as remembering what I or my partner was doing on a certain day, LOL Benice
But the principle is the same Red.
Night night.
-
Yes, it's a very complex tapestry with so many people involved.
Instead of thinking once or twice in order to deliver statements that would lead to a figure on the tapestry, it seems they didn't care, as if they thought it had nothing to do with the drama that had happened.
Had they doubted as reason requires but panic forbids, like wondering whether Madeleine had been taken from her bed or in the corridor or in the patio, they likely had made an effort and answered accurately. They didn't doubt the event was out there, not in PDL, not in the resort, not in the G5 anymore.
-
But the principle is the same Red.
Night night.
Sleep well
perhaps tomorrow you can offer an explanation of remembering things that didnt happen
>@@(*&)
Or why your word is so different from your friends in a given situation that you were both part of
-
But the principle is the same Red.
Night night.
From my own experience, if something truly awful and earth-shattering happens, you can recall every last detail, every sight, every sound, every last memory. It's seared onto your brain. You can remember what you wore, what you could smell, what you could hear....you are on such high-alert. You can recall silly things that didn't matter - every tiny detail is blown out of proportion. It's crazy to pretend that the McCanns can't recall every single moment when they realised that Madeleine was gone.
-
Do you really think that if they were all individually told that the date of the Quiz was vital to the enquiry that they would NOT have come up with the correct time.
The police knew the date, they were curious to know if the witnesses remembered it.
When something is disturbing but not vital for you, you tend to forget it.
You forgot it.. Did it really exist ? Was it serious ? Did it affect you ?
If you forgot it, surely it wasn't not important.
-
You can recall silly things that didn't matter - every tiny detail is blown out of proportion.
That's very true. Now why you do remember futile things ? Ask Sigmund ?
-
Actually Shona I find the reverse to be true. The trauma is so great that common sense and the ability to recall goes out of the window. So awful is the dilemma you find yourself in.
You won't believe me of course.
You can't make that claim to people who have experienced great trauma ... and recall every detail with absolute clarity, even years later
It's not a question of not believing you ... it is a question of knowing you are wrong, from personal experience
-
Actually Shona I find the reverse to be true. The trauma is so great that common sense and the ability to recall goes out of the window. So awful is the dilemma you find yourself in.
You won't believe me of course.
It's not that I don't believe you. But, what I've found is when something happens that is so truly awful, every last detail plays over and over again. What you wore, what you could smell, the song on the radio....are we programmed to remember?
-
I accept what you believe shona.
My experiences are somewhat different.
Do you accept that, sometimes, the smallest inconsequential fact could be of the most importance?
-
That's very true. Now why you do remember futile things ? Ask Sigmund ?
If you remember them, the're not futile to you.
That's why we remember all the tiny details at the time of something traumatic. Not because they are intrinsically important - who cares if I am wearing black shoes or brown - but because they are part of our experience of the event. Important through association.
-
Get back to you tomorrow shona.
Night.
Oh well, there you go.
The bottom line is....if Gerry and Kate hadn't have been so wanky and silly, and have treasured those much-wanted IVF children, it would be a different story.
-
You can't make that claim to people who have experienced great trauma ... and recall every detail with absolute clarity, even years later
It's not a question of not believing you ... it is a question of knowing you are wrong, from personal experience
You want to disregard proven scientific evidence that stress affects memory negatively because of your personal experience. Like the man who smokes 100 cigarettes a day and lives till hes a 100. Its called head in the sand mentality.
-
You want to disregard proven scientific evidence that stress affects memory negatively because of your personal experience. Like the man who smokes 100 cigarettes a day and lives till hes a 100. Its called head in the sand mentality.
No
I just say that it is not possible to disregard personal experience on the basis of scientific evidence
I think that it is a fair opinion
-
No
I just say that it is not possible to disregard personal experience on the basis of scientific evidence
I think that it is a fair opinion
As I said, personal experience is the man who smokes 100 cigarettes a day and lives till hes 100. You don't seem to understand science
-
As I said, personal experience is the man who smokes 100 cigarettes a day and lives till hes 100. You don't seem to understand science
And you don't understand that the classic propaganda technique of using pseudo-intellectual bull-shit or technicalese ( the use of technical-sounding garbage that means little or nothing ) matters not a jot when people are able to use their own life experience to come to their own conclusions
-
And you don't understand that the classic propaganda technique of using pseudo-intellectual bull-shit or technicalese ( the use of technical-sounding garbage that means little or nothing ) matters not a jot when people are able to use their own life experience to come to their own conclusions
I think you have lost it.
Do you rate PubMed as pseudo intellectual bull shit or classic propaganda. You really haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. I have. That is the proven scientific relationship between stress and memory. Not just my opinion. You see, when I use scientific words I actually understand them, they are not technical sounding garbage. I suppose the problem is that you don't.
-
haven't finished...
What supplies evidence isn't our own personal experience, that's anecdotal evidence. Real evidence comes from proper scientific research and double blind trials...but I suppose all thats gone totally over your head
-
I think you have lost it.
Do you rate PubMed as pseudo intellectual bull shit or classic propaganda. You really haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. I have. That is the proven scientific relationship between stress and memory. Not just my opinion. You see, when I use scientific words I actually understand them, they are not technical sounding garbage. I suppose the problem is that you don't.
You haven't proved one iota the Mccanns and associates gave truthful accounts of what happened.
-
You haven't proved one iota the Mccanns and associates gave truthful accounts of what happened.
I didn't intend to that's impossible on this board. What I have proved is that stress has a negative effect on memory. If you are a chemistry graduate you will understand the difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence..lets see if you do
-
I didn't intend to that's impossible on this board. What I have proved is that stress has a negative effect on memory. If you are a chemistry graduate you will understand the difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence..lets see if you do
What do you mean .... "That's impossible on this board" ?
Is your argument so weak that it will not stand up to scrutiny on a broad-church forum ?
-
What do you mean .... "That's impossible on this board" ?
Is your argument so weak that it will not stand up to scrutiny on a broad-church forum ?
Given up on the memory thing have you. Seeing as you are unwilling, or too unintelligent to accept incontrovertible proof that memory is affected by stress it would be impossible to prove ANYTHING on this board
-
Given up on the memory thing have you. Seeing as you are unwilling, or too unintelligent to accept incontrovertible proof that memory is affected by stress it would be impossible to prove ANYTHING on this board
That memory is negatively affected by stress is not a fact, it's a hypothesis. 30 years ago the opposite was believed. The research is on going and as far as I'm aware, the latest studies show that people believe that they recall stressful events more clearly than non stressful events, but that they actually degrade at the same rate. There was some interesting research done around the 9/11 bombings.
My personal experience is that my memory of the most stressful event of my life is permanently ingrained on my brain. This isn't falsifiable though, so entirely unscientific.
I should add that I am not a scientist. I have a terrible fondness for pop science books though, which basically means I know a little about a lot.
Cariad.
-
I didn't intend to that's impossible on this board. What I have proved is that stress has a negative effect on memory. If you are a chemistry graduate you will understand the difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence..lets see if you do
Indeed I am and I do.
You have not proved that stress caused the mccanns to lie, they could have lied to conceal the truth.
P.S. On the matter of Chemistry, do you know your pH from your pOH ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Not wishing to disrupt the discussion that's ongoing in this thread, I think that what the OP meant was that sometimes "traumatic events" may cause you to completely forget - they may be so painful that as a defense mechanism your mind blocks any recall (the freudian repression) and they can only be recovered through theraphy or some drug like scopolamine or sodium penthatol. But other events may be so deeply ingrained in your mind that you keep recalling them vividly.
When we speak about stress we usually refer to a continuous situation that affects your emotional and or rational system. If light and if you have the resources to deal with it, it may highly positive, if it is felt as too overbearing and if you are in a fragile situation it may lead to a very disfunctional situation - for instance the expression burnout is applied to this situations - people loose their ability to control their emotions and become incapable of facing their day-to-day life.
Whatever happened with Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, we don't know.
That's why I expected to see in Court some qualified expert giving testimony about the difficulties that the plaintiffs suffered.
-
Not wishing to disrupt the discussion that's ongoing in this thread, I think that what the OP meant was that sometimes "traumatic events" may cause you to completely forget - they may be so painful that as a defense mechanism your mind blocks any recall (the freudian repression) and they can only be recovered through theraphy or some drug like scopolamine or sodium penthatol. But other events may be so deeply ingrained in your mind that you keep recalling them vividly.
When we speak about stress we usually refer to a continuous situation that affects your emotional and or rational system. If light and if you have the resources to deal with it, it may highly positive, if it is felt as too overbearing and if you are in a fragile situation it may lead to a very disfunctional situation - for instance the expression burnout is applied to this situations - people loose their ability to control their emotions and become incapable of facing their day-to-day life.
Whatever happened with Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, we don't know.
That's why I expected to see in Court some qualified expert giving testimony about the difficulties that the plaintiffs suffered.
No ...what the thread relates to is the relatioinship between impaired memory and stress
You only have to google stress and memory to find literally thousands of articles confirming the link.Those that doubt the McCanns cannot accept incontrovertible evidence that this is the case.
-
Fascinating, Benice. The Yard is working with such sophistication. I did not know this software existed.
I do really wonder how HOLMES can appreciate and process the feelings (scent, breathing, sweat of the hidden one) of two people on each side of a door, one being pressed against the wall and the other ignoring the presence of the first.
-
I cant see how you as a little girl suffered from stress when you heard about JFK...have another think..perhaps it has affected your memory
Did I speak of stress ? I discovered that the most powerful man on the planet could leave for good in a nutshell.
-
In case anyone is interested "Misidentification: can you identify the criminal?":
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/misidentification-can-you-identify-the-criminal
-
In case anyone is interested "Misidentification: can you identify the criminal?":
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/misidentification-can-you-identify-the-criminal
Thanks for that link Carana ... very interesting
( I'll be playing with that photofit thing all night now though ! )
-
In case anyone is interested "Misidentification: can you identify the criminal?":
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/misidentification-can-you-identify-the-criminal
Thanks for that Carana - very informative indeed.
Many years ago I watched a TV prog where volunteers were requested to take part in a study. The chosen ones were asked to meet in a pub to be introduced to one another and to be told about the study. Whilst they were assembled around a table, a fracas broke out at the bar - and a bit of punch-up ensued. Unbeknown to the volunteers - they were actors. The volunteers were then asked to describe what they had witnessed. To say their accounts differed wildly is an understatement - with one person even thinking a weapon had been produced! The study concluded that discrepancies in witness statements - even major ones - was normal.
Anyone who thinks the discrepancies in witness statements in the McCann case are proof of people 'lying' - are definitely barking up the wrong tree. imo.
-
Here is a commercial option used by at least one UK force.
http://www.crime-scene-vr.com/
This article provides a basic view of the possibilities of Crime Scene Reconstruction using Real-Time Interactive 3D Technology
http://www.pmsmicro.com/forensicscienceschapter_4d.pdf
And here is an article from Jornal de Noticias, outlining the SY use of software and bemoaning the PJ's mor "handmade" approach.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/virtual-reconstitution-tests-witnesses.html
Thanks, gilet - interesting stuff.
I will have a proper look at it when I get the chance
I also appreciate your insights and info on forensic linguistics and will a be a look at this too
-
Thanks for that Carana - very informative indeed.
Many years ago I watched a TV prog where volunteers were requested to take part in a study. The chosen ones were asked to meet in a pub to be introduced to one another and to be told about the study. Whilst they were assembled around a table, a fracas broke out at the bar - and a bit of punch-up ensued. Unbeknown to the volunteers - they were actors. The volunteers were then asked to describe what they had witnessed. To say their accounts differed wildly is an understatement - with one person even thinking a weapon had been produced! The study concluded that discrepancies in witness statements - even major ones - was normal.
Anyone who thinks the discrepancies in witness statements in the McCann case are proof of people 'lying' - are definitely barking up the wrong tree. imo.
Does the misidenification study impact on Jane Tanner's witness statement, do you think ?
-
Does the misidenification study impact on Jane Tanner's witness statement, do you think ?
There is a kind of 'control' on this one by way of the Smith's descriptions of bundleman (if you accept he was the same person) which were by and large the same but with a few differences - as would be expected.
-
There is a kind of 'control' on this one by way of the Smith's descriptions of bundleman (if you accept he was the same person) which were by and large the same but with a few differences - as would be expected.
I don't accept the Man Tanner saw and the man the Smiths saw was 'the same man' ... there is no logical reason to do so
I was wondering about the misidentification presentation by Alan Pike, and wondering what might have been the case if Jane Tanner had been accompanied by six other people when she walked up the street that night, and 'saw' Madeleine being abducted
What might the others have seen I wonder .... according to Pike they would almost certainly have seen something different
Does Pike's study imply that Tanner's statement might be less than reliable ?
-
I don't accept the Man Tanner saw and the man the Smiths saw was 'the same man' ... there is no logical reason to do so
I was wondering about the misidentification presentation by Alan Pike, and wondering what might have been the case if Jane Tanner had been accompanied by six other people when she walked up the street that night, and 'saw' Madeleine being abducted
What might the others have seen I wonder .... according to Pike they would almost certainly have seen something different
Does Pike's study imply that Tanner's statement might be less than reliable ?
Re the tanner sighting and the Smith sighting. My biggest problem is that there were 45 minutes between the two and according to Pat Brown* it can be walked in 5 or 6 minutes.
I can't understand why someone would wander around with an abducted child for an unnecessary half an hour, or how a child could sleep through all that disruption either for that case. Surly ether the timing is off or one or the other sighting is a deferent person?
*Link to the article with the 5 minute walk claim http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-smith.html
-
Re the tanner sighting and the Smith sighting. My biggest problem is that there were 45 minutes between the two and according to Pat Brown* it can be walked in 5 or 6 minutes.
I can't understand why someone would wander around with an abducted child for an unnecessary half an hour, or how a child could sleep through all that disruption either for that case. Surly ether the timing is off or one or the other sighting is a deferent person?
*Link to the article with the 5 minute walk claim http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-smith.html
Or one of the sightings never existed....
-
Re the tanner sighting and the Smith sighting. My biggest problem is that there were 45 minutes between the two and according to Pat Brown* it can be walked in 5 or 6 minutes.
I can't understand why someone would wander around with an abducted child for an unnecessary half an hour, or how a child could sleep through all that disruption either for that case. Surly ether the timing is off or one or the other sighting is a deferent person?
*Link to the article with the 5 minute walk claim http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-smith.html
On this occasion Pat Brown is right; there is only about 5 minutes walk between OC and the Smith sightings, but several suggestions have been made earlier on this forum as to where bundleman might have gone in the meantime. Including, IMO, THe Staff Quarters which are only just up the road, by about 40 - 50 metres from the most northerly of the Smiths sightings
Awful, but according to someone on The 3 A's, a scream was heard coming from the Staff Quarters, at a pertinent time.
-
On this occasion Pat Brown is right; there is only about 5 minutes walk between OC and the Smith sightings, but several suggestions have been made earlier on this forum as to where bundleman might have gone in the meantime. Including, IMO, THe Staff Quarters which are only just up the road, by about 40 - 50 metres from the most northerly of the Smiths sightings
Awful, but according to someone on The 3 A's, a scream was heard coming from the Staff Quarters, at a pertinent time.
Thank you for that. One of the problems with being a newbie is dragging up old ground that everyone else has covered. I did the same thing yesterday too! I do apologise, however, I'm almost certain to do it again at some point 8()-000(
My first thought reading about the child's scream was "so how long would a predator want with a child?"
My second thought was "you seriously need to stop thinking about this case if you're going to calmly pose questions like that to yourself".
On that note, I'm going to step away from the internet and think about kittens or something before I'm actually certifiable.
-
Thanks for that Carana - very informative indeed.
Many years ago I watched a TV prog where volunteers were requested to take part in a study. The chosen ones were asked to meet in a pub to be introduced to one another and to be told about the study. Whilst they were assembled around a table, a fracas broke out at the bar - and a bit of punch-up ensued. Unbeknown to the volunteers - they were actors. The volunteers were then asked to describe what they had witnessed. To say their accounts differed wildly is an understatement - with one person even thinking a weapon had been produced! The study concluded that discrepancies in witness statements - even major ones - was normal.
Anyone who thinks the discrepancies in witness statements in the McCann case are proof of people 'lying' - are definitely barking up the wrong tree. imo.
*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...
For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all. You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:
a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story
There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation. Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.
And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...
-
Thank you for that. One of the problems with being a newbie is dragging up old ground that everyone else has covered. I did the same thing yesterday too! I do apologise, however, I'm almost certain to do it again at some point 8()-000(
Don't worry about that Cariad. It's all been covered again and again but next to nothing is agreed on.
Sadie's post above is pure hypothesis.
-
Don't worry about that Cariad. It's all been covered again and again but next to nothing is agreed on.
Sadie's post above is pure hypothesis.
Second that post, cariad, maybe spend some time reading old threads, to get a feel, around all the subjects, your posts have been friendly petinent and valuable. Lyall is exactly right, it is like groundhog day, I doubt that will change much unless more definite facts are brought to the table, that no one can argue about...and less speculation, with such a case with massess of information and masses of press coverage, and comment, not to mention biases or preconceptions, there is so much chaffe and little wheat...people need to go with the wheat more
Dont blame you for taking a step back though...so much rubbish in this case, makes you wonder sometimes why bother
-
*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...
I reckon we all agree with that sentence. Question is how long are people willing to carry on with this? Six years is a very long time to discuss, argue, prove points, unravel myths and debate this case.
-
*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...
I reckon we all agree with that sentence. Question is how long are people willing to carry on with this? Six years is a very long time to discuss, argue, prove points, unravel myths and debate this case.
A long time I think drummer. The papers still put the case on the front page, so they're still very much interested too.
-
And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...
Why changing their minds (if not lying for convenience) ? First front door (for both), then doorwindow for both. First besides the patio gate, then on the other side of the street... First broken shutters and window, then open shutters and window... First everything open, then everything seeming shut, masking the opening... They're really lucky the public ignores all this.
-
*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...
For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all. You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:
a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story
There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation. Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.
And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...
C.Ed: And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes,
What are you ranting about C.Ed ?
-
A long time I think drummer. The papers still put the case on the front page, so they're still very much interested too.
Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc . Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.
-
Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc . Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.
Therein lies the problem. Two people can look at something as simple as a colour and disagree about it, let alone something as complex as a piece of evidence from the case files. Those who doubt the McCanns will tend to interpret one way, their supporters will choose another and both sides will be convinced that their opinion is the only decent/right one and will not look at it any other way. Periodically it all gets too depressing having to continually correct the blatant propaganda put out by one side or the other (obviously I'm more biased one way than the other and ferryman/honestbroker is an easy target because of his own pet theories and complete pig-headedness in persisting with things he's been proven wrong on time and again).
10/10 for persistence though HB. God loves a trier and all that.
-
Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc . Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.
I know what you mean drummer. There's a mass of information now but basically the equation remains exactly the same as it was the first week in May 07 - you either trust those nine people or you don't.
I think I agree there should be less analysis, and more description (if I'm right in thinking that's what you mean). People are still trying to solve the case, instead of describing it. Clearly solving is impossible. Better qualified minds than ours have tried and failed.
-
You're going all James Joyce there Red 8(>(( Finnegan's Wake.
But you're right of course. I was reading a book on the Jill Dando case the other day, and it says one witness was interviewed ten times. That's what should have happened in this case, and it would have been a different result more than likely. But it got political very quickly, and the police probably couldn't do what they wanted to do - then attention was diverted to Mr Murat.
-
Did I speak of stress ? I discovered that the most powerful man on the planet could leave for good in a nutshell.
Gosh - I always thought JFK had been shot ....
-
Why are you making a personal attack on ferryman?
Try answering the posts, not the poster.
Hmm.
We are supposed to believe Anne's transcripts from the court?
Her grasp of English is sadly lacking I'm afraid.
Add to that her sceptics postings then I really can't value anything she says.
Sorry.
I am indeed questioning the neutrality of her work.
The newspapers are reporting on the trial so I don't need Anne's version of events.
Sorry if this upsets you.
Tell you what Faithliily, don't tell me what to think and what to post.
A sceptic posting from the court will always cause me to question what they post.
Stop making things up Anne.
It makes you look silly.
Practise what you preach, Neeley.
-
*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...
For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all. You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:
a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story
There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation. Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.
And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...
Why the need to be so rude? I don't remember being rude to you at any time.
It's obvious to me from many posts - not necessarily here - that many people believe that if two witness statements conflict then one of the witnesses must be lying. My post was to illustrate that this is a fallacy.
The question of which door GM was referring to has been done to death, and I don't intend to go into it again except to say that we only have a summarised and not verbatim record of his interview and so never see the questions asked. A verbatim account would probably show how a misunderstanding may have occurred - which I believe was the case. Particularly as it is recorded (in JT's verbatim statement) by the Police Officer that confusion was originally caused by some people referring to the patio doors as the Front Door whilst others referred to them as the Back Door. If that wasn't a recipe for misunderstandings I don't know what is.
As far as I am concerned that is probably the reason for any misunderstandings that took place regarding 'doors' during that first interview - added to the fact that there is no sensible reason IMO for Gerry to deliberately lie.
-
I have worked with people with PTSD and other memory problems using CBT and EMDR. I have also taught courses for Police and Lawyers on problems with recall of events.
The key points that just about all professionals agree on are:
1/ Memory is completely Reconstructive. That is to say that 'facts' stored in our brains about the past are constructed in many ways- biased perception, biased analysis, biased retention, biased storage and biased recall. These biases occur because of previous experiences, expectations about the milieu, power relationships, personal involvement and many other features. There is clear evidence that if an event is witnessed by many people, the ensuing statements from different people always differ in content, tone and assumption.
2/ Although 'iconic' (claimed eidetic-photographically clear and apparently real, and especially accurate) memories are claimed for high emotion events, these too are reconstructed and when checked against reality are seen to be as biased as any other type of recall. This type of memory is common in PTSD and when the recall is normalised and defused emotionally, people come to realise that what they were claiming as photographic and clear recall was in fact their own construction of events- with as many fallacies as any other recall- eidetic memory is not especially valuable.
3/ Courts rely on identification evidence and factual witness statements despite rather than because of the scientific truth about such claims. Forensic specialists know that such evidence is empirically unsafe, but feel that given the need to make decisions, the best way is to allow Juries or Magistrates to hear the evidence supported and challenged in a Court. The truth is that most such evidence is almost totally valueless. There are lists of sentences that must be read by Judges to Juries (and internalised by Magistrates) about the major problems with such statements.
In summary about this case_
1/ The High Emotion involved with the loss of a child would neither improve nor impair statements made by the people.
2/ Witness statements taken from a group of people are always full of inconsistencies even under ideal circumstances, and even more so under high stress situations.
Having followed the McCann case previously before it was settled legally, I do understand that facts have little value in this debate and that people will continue believing what they wish in order to support their own views (that is human nature), but the above are the Empirical Facts about legal statements. No one suggests from a scientific stance (only from a political, forensic or emotional stance) that supposed 'eidetic' memories are especially accurate, or that a group of witness statements should be anywhere near consistent.
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I have worked with people with PTSD and other memory problems using CBT and EMDR. I have also taught courses for Police and Lawyers on problems with recall of events.
The key points that just about all professionals agree on are:
1/ Memory is completely Reconstructive. That is to say that 'facts' stored in our brains about the past are constructed in many ways- biased perception, biased analysis, biased retention, biased storage and biased recall. These biases occur because of previous experiences, expectations about the milieu, power relationships, personal involvement and many other features. There is clear evidence that if an event is witnessed by many people, the ensuing statements from different people always differ in content, tone and assumption.
2/ Although 'iconic' (claimed eidetic-photographically clear and apparently real, and especially accurate) memories are claimed for high emotion events, these too are reconstructed and when checked against reality are seen to be as biased as any other type of recall. This type of memory is common in PTSD and when the recall is normalised and defused emotionally, people come to realise that what they were claiming as photographic and clear recall was in fact their own construction of events- with as many fallacies as any other recall- eidetic memory is not especially valuable.
3/ Courts rely on identification evidence and factual witness statements despite rather than because of the scientific truth about such claims. Forensic specialists know that such evidence is empirically unsafe, but feel that given the need to make decisions, the best way is to allow Juries or Magistrates to hear the evidence supported and challenged in a Court. The truth is that most such evidence is almost totally valueless. There are lists of sentences that must be read by Judges to Juries (and internalised by Magistrates) about the major problems with such statements.
In summary about this case_
1/ The High Emotion involved with the loss of a child would neither improve nor impair statements made by the people.
2/ Witness statements taken from a group of people are always full of inconsistencies even under ideal circumstances, and even more so under high stress situations.
Having followed the McCann case previously before it was settled legally, I do understand that facts have little value in this debate and that people will continue believing what they wish in order to support their own views (that is human nature), but the above are the Empirical Facts about legal statements. No one suggests from a scientific stance (only from a political, forensic or emotional stance) that supposed 'eidetic' memories are especially accurate, or that a group of witness statements should be anywhere near consistent.
Interesting post, thank you.
Some interesting articles here:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/profiles/gep34
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/profiles/gep34
-
I have worked with people with PTSD and other memory problems using CBT and EMDR. I have also taught courses for Police and Lawyers on problems with recall of events.
The key points that just about all professionals agree on are:
1/ Memory is completely Reconstructive. That is to say that 'facts' stored in our brains about the past are constructed in many ways- biased perception, biased analysis, biased retention, biased storage and biased recall. These biases occur because of previous experiences, expectations about the milieu, power relationships, personal involvement and many other features. There is clear evidence that if an event is witnessed by many people, the ensuing statements from different people always differ in content, tone and assumption.
2/ Although 'iconic' (claimed eidetic-photographically clear and apparently real, and especially accurate) memories are claimed for high emotion events, these too are reconstructed and when checked against reality are seen to be as biased as any other type of recall. This type of memory is common in PTSD and when the recall is normalised and defused emotionally, people come to realise that what they were claiming as photographic and clear recall was in fact their own construction of events- with as many fallacies as any other recall- eidetic memory is not especially valuable.
3/ Courts rely on identification evidence and factual witness statements despite rather than because of the scientific truth about such claims. Forensic specialists know that such evidence is empirically unsafe, but feel that given the need to make decisions, the best way is to allow Juries or Magistrates to hear the evidence supported and challenged in a Court. The truth is that most such evidence is almost totally valueless. There are lists of sentences that must be read by Judges to Juries (and internalised by Magistrates) about the major problems with such statements.
In summary about this case_
1/ The High Emotion involved with the loss of a child would neither improve nor impair statements made by the people.
2/ Witness statements taken from a group of people are always full of inconsistencies even under ideal circumstances, and even more so under high stress situations.
Having followed the McCann case previously before it was settled legally, I do understand that facts have little value in this debate and that people will continue believing what they wish in order to support their own views (that is human nature), but the above are the Empirical Facts about legal statements. No one suggests from a scientific stance (only from a political, forensic or emotional stance) that supposed 'eidetic' memories are especially accurate, or that a group of witness statements should be anywhere near consistent.
Thanks for this summary, Saepe Sepe - amazingly clear and detailed
-
Gosh - I always thought JFK had been shot ....
But was saved ?
-
A verbatim account would probably show how a misunderstanding may have occurred - which I believe was the case. Particularly as it is recorded (in JT's verbatim statement) by the Police Officer that confusion was originally caused by some people referring to the patio doors as the Front Door whilst others referred to them as the Back Door. If that wasn't a recipe for misunderstandings I don't know what is.
This post sounds like a recipe for misunderstanding. Do you at least know the Portuguese word for "patio door" because it is not "porta do pátio" ?
-
There is clear evidence that if an event is witnessed by many people, the ensuing statements from different people always differ in content, tone and assumption.
As a psychologist (I assume you are), what would you say about statements from the same person differing in content and assumptions along time ?
-
I am not going to comment on my background given the sniping that goes on on forums about such things- a whole thread on Haverns last week about whether it was illegal to call oneself a therapist. Waste of Bandwidth.
The same applies to retaken statements as to differences between witnesses. Memory is reconstructed everytime it is formally or informally requested. Perfect recall is only possible when working toa script or having recently consulted previous notes.
An added complication, in my view, is that the PT witness statements were not verbatim, and were the result of attempted communication between the witnesses, whoever could be called upon to help interpret and the officer taking notes.
The statement (or at least notes) were apparently verbally retranslated for them, but what they signed was in Portuguese and I have never seen any indication that they had a written translation which they could read and with which they agreed and had also signed.
-
An added complication, in my view, is that the PT witness statements were not verbatim, and were the result of attempted communication between the witnesses, whoever could be called upon to help interpret and the officer taking notes.
The statement (or at least notes) were apparently verbally retranslated for them, but what they signed was in Portuguese and I have never seen any indication that they had a written translation which they could read and with which they agreed and had also signed.
Wasnt the Portuguese read back to them in English before they ratified/signed?
@Benice, Gerrys first statement is a poor example to use to argue that front and back door could have been mixed up in translation as he could not have possibly said he used the patio door seeing as he said he used his key to enter the flat as it was locked and those patio doors are not unlockable from the outside. Anyway....
-
There is extensive research into such serially recorded interviews. There is also research showing that police recordding (writing) of interviews almost always takes a police-biased version of events, with phrases strengthened and weakened to meet the assumptions already made. The University of Portsmouth hosted an excellent presentation on this very subject showing how statements distort reality.
Is this what you are referring to?
I posted on this months ago.
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://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1296.msg37311#msg37311
-
There is extensive research into such serially recorded interviews. There is also research showing that police recordding (writing) of interviews almost always takes a police-biased version of events, with phrases strengthened and weakened to meet the assumptions already made. The University of Portsmouth hosted an excellent presentation on this very subject showing how statements distort reality.
Hiya,
Would you share your views on the fact that the DR's McCann both first recalled using the front door, then both said they'd used the back door in a later statement?
Frankly I don't care what your background or qualifications are, you obviously have a vast knowledge on the subject and I don't. I'd really appreciate your opinion.
Cariad.
-
Hiya,
Would you share your views on the fact that the DR's McCann both first recalled using the front door, then both said they'd used the back door in a later statement?
Frankly I don't care what your background or qualifications are, you obviously have a vast knowledge on the subject and I don't. I'd really appreciate your opinion.
Cariad.
Saepe would first have to read the statements, I would have thought.
Only Gerry's initial statement stated that he and Kate had entered via the front (ie. the long way). This after little sleep, someone of undetermined experience having been brought in to interpret, and stress also for the PJ station.
It doesn't even make sense as - in the same statement - Gerry stated that Matt Oldfield had gone to check via the patio door.
In the same statement??? It makes no sense. I honestly believe that the police officer got it mixed up and it wasn't challenged at the time.
Kate never stated that she'd entered via the front door. Neither did Oldfield.
-
Hiya,
Would you share your views on the fact that the DR's McCann both first recalled using the front door, then both said they'd used the back door in a later statement?
Frankly I don't care what your background or qualifications are, you obviously have a vast knowledge on the subject and I don't. I'd really appreciate your opinion.
Cariad.
Hi Cariad,
I think they are easily mixed up. If I was to be in their apartment, I would call the patio door the front door, as it is at the front of the apartment. The front door, the back door, because to me you walk up and around to the back to enter, perhaps thats how Kate and Gerry, thought of them, until they were told different.
-
Saepe would first have to read the statements, I would have thought.
Only Gerry's initial statement stated that he and Kate had entered via the front (ie. the long way). This after little sleep, someone of undetermined experience having been brought in to interpret, and stress also for the PJ station.
It doesn't even make sense as - in the same statement - Gerry stated that Matt Oldfield had gone to check via the patio door.
In the same statement??? It makes no sense. I honestly believe that the police officer got it mixed up and it wasn't challenged at the time.
Kate never stated that she'd entered via the front door. Neither did Oldfield.
It's not the kind of point a case is going to hinge on. At least, not in the real world. Maybe it would be pivotal in a low-budget TV cop show, or in the even less authentic world of Amaral's brain, but not in reality.
Probably a mistranslation, or simply a mis-remembering as a result of the stress of the situation. certainly not worth considering in any detail.
-
It's not the kind of point a case is going to hinge on. At least, not in the real world. Maybe it would be pivotal in a low-budget TV cop show, or in the even less authentic world of Amaral's brain, but not in reality.
Probably a mistranslation, or simply a mis-remembering as a result of the stress of the situation. certainly not worth considering in any detail.
Ahh. But Amaral found this so-called discrepancy important. It didn't seem to occur to him that the initial chaos and language difficulties could have had any effect on the initial summary statements. And it has been repeated ad nauseum. As have other so-called discrepancies between the initial basic questions / answers by an overwhelmed police force and the statements taken 10 days later.
-
Saepe would first have to read the statements, I would have thought.
Only Gerry's initial statement stated that he and Kate had entered via the front (ie. the long way). This after little sleep, someone of undetermined experience having been brought in to interpret, and stress also for the PJ station.
It doesn't even make sense as - in the same statement - Gerry stated that Matt Oldfield had gone to check via the patio door.
In the same statement??? It makes no sense. I honestly believe that the police officer got it mixed up and it wasn't challenged at the time.
Kate never stated that she'd entered via the front door. Neither did Oldfield.
You're quite right, The statement I was referring to was this:
During his first interrogation, Gerald (pag 34) said that at 21:05h, when he went to the apartment to check the children, he entered through the main door; on the second inquisition (pag 891) he rectified and said he entered by the sliding door that leads to the veranda.
-On his first testemony, Gerald said that Kate, at around 22:00h, wento to the apartment and entered through the main door with the key. Immediately after entering noticed that the children’s bedroom door was opened back, the window opened and the shutter lifted (if it had happened that way it wouldn’t be after entering that such a picture would have been noticed. She would have noticed that immediately before entering since she would have pased in front of the window of her children’s bedroom).
-On the second interrogation, Gerald said that Kate had entered through the sliding door.
-On her interrogation (page 58), Kate said that she entered through the sliding door.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic32.html
Kate only said she'd used the sliding door.
I'm glad you noticed that. I would've sworn that they'd both changed their accounts!
It's not the kind of point a case is going to hinge on. At least, not in the real world. Maybe it would be pivotal in a low-budget TV cop show, or in the even less authentic world of Amaral's brain, but not in reality.
Probably a mistranslation, or simply a mis-remembering as a result of the stress of the situation. certainly not worth considering in any detail.
No, it's a tiny little detail, but one that interested me. It's really of no import at all, especially since Carena has pointed out that it didn't actually happen anyway.
As I have said, memories are constructed animals- even recall of recent events are frequently wrong. We are rarely asked to record what we remember and even more rarely do we actually analyse competing alternate descriptions; this is especially so when we are not in our usual setting where we have incredibly complex schemas about how we do anything- opening doors, which doors, what was happening. When doing this in an unknown surrounding, it can be difficult to recall what we did, not through lack of real memory (if we were at home we would 'remember' what our normal schema was and no one would question it) but because we did not yet have a schema. For instance, I know I always enter my house by the back door from habit. If asked how I entered the house two weeks ago, I would say 'back door' almost automatically. If I was on holiday and had been using a variety of ways of moving around an unknown area, I would have no schema to rely on and therefore would be quite likely to plump for the most likely for completely unrelated reasons; if asked again a few weeks later, different extraneous items might cause a different guess. Memory cannot be relied upon!
Thank you for that. I think my own mis remembering of the transcript I read last night, namely believing that they'd both changed their account of which door they'd used, is a nice little example of how unreliable memory can be.
-
An added complication, in my view, is that the PT witness statements were not verbatim, and were the result of attempted communication between the witnesses, whoever could be called upon to help interpret and the officer taking notes.
The statement (or at least notes) were apparently verbally retranslated for them, but what they signed was in Portuguese and I have never seen any indication that they had a written translation which they could read and with which they agreed and had also signed.
Comparing those statements with the verbatim rogatory interviews, what would you observe?
-
Wasnt the Portuguese read back to them in English before they ratified/signed?
@Benice, Gerrys first statement is a poor example to use to argue that front and back door could have been mixed up in translation as he could not have possibly said he used the patio door seeing as he said he used his key to enter the flat as it was locked and those patio doors are not unlockable from the outside. Anyway....
Of course it was, and slowly and repeated in order to make sure. Besides, the interviewing police officer would very likely have understood the original English statement even if s/he didn't admit it.
What Carana forgets is that the interpreter is signing as well and is juridically responsible. No interpreter will risk to be professionally discredited.
Yes, Redblossom, those door-windows, as they are called in Portuguese, aren't lockable with a key. Mr McCann even mentioned twice the key in relation to the entry door (when he entered and then when his wife entered).
-
Only Gerry's initial statement stated that he and Kate had entered via the front (ie. the long way). This after little sleep, someone of undetermined experience having been brought in to interpret, and stress also for the PJ station.
It doesn't even make sense as - in the same statement - Gerry stated that Matt Oldfield had gone to check via the patio door.
In the same statement??? It makes no sense. I honestly believe that the police officer got it mixed up and it wasn't challenged at the time.
Kate never stated that she'd entered via the front door. Neither did Oldfield.
Mrs McCann, yes, didn't say she entered through the door-window. Since she and Mr McCann had the same interpreter, it's far fetched to imagine a loss in translation in Mr McCann's case.
Now, yes, the short sleep and the desolation might explain the illogical mention of Mr Oldfield entering through the door-window.
Read the statements of people having stayed in the G5A and you'll see that nobody used the door-window as a door nor thought of having the choice between a short and a long way between the resort and the flat.
-
It's not the kind of point a case is going to hinge on. At least, not in the real world. Maybe it would be pivotal in a low-budget TV cop show, or in the even less authentic world of Amaral's brain, but not in reality.
Probably a mistranslation, or simply a mis-remembering as a result of the stress of the situation. certainly not worth considering in any detail.
Welcome to the forum, Victoria.
-
Of course it was, and slowly and repeated in order to make sure. Besides, the interviewing police officer would very likely have understood the original English statement even if s/he didn't admit it.
What Carana forgets is that the interpreter is signing as well and is juridically responsible. No interpreter will risk to be professionally discredited.
Yes, Redblossom, those door-windows, as they are called in Portuguese, aren't lockable with a key. Mr McCann even mentioned twice the key in relation to the entry door (when he entered and then when his wife entered).
Thanks! but Carana and others will argue they were without sleep and stressed so probably didnt listen properly to the translation read out before signing....if that was the case they could have asked the statements to be taken the day after, if they were not up to it, just like Kate Mccann got out of her second interview a week later
It seems to me that anything that is pointed out as not right is excused by any reason....including the alledged mix up of which door Gerry was talking about, when its impossible for such a mix up to occur as I already posted.....and wouldnt the last time Gerry saw Madeleine be etched in his brain? Did he really not remember if he went in from the front door or the back door? Also if both of them have told us after the first couple days they stopped usng the front door for checks so not to wake the kids, why would he imagine he did just that in his first statement? On the Thursday? Anyway......
-
It's not the kind of point a case is going to hinge on. At least, not in the real world. Maybe it would be pivotal in a low-budget TV cop show, or in the even less authentic world of Amaral's brain, but not in reality.
Probably a mistranslation, or simply a mis-remembering as a result of the stress of the situation. certainly not worth considering in any detail.
Mmm.
Another representative from the Mccann supporters club. 8**8:/:
-
The door issue hasn't much value out of a context that is full of open doors, in particular a certain bedroom one that, in spite of attempts to have it almost shut, is permanently more open than it should.
The window, that Icabodcrane qualified as the Columbo mistake, is much more interesting.
-
Of course it was, and slowly and repeated in order to make sure. Besides, the interviewing police officer would very likely have understood the original English statement even if s/he didn't admit it.
What Carana forgets is that the interpreter is signing as well and is juridically responsible. No interpreter will risk to be professionally discredited.
Yes, Redblossom, those door-windows, as they are called in Portuguese, aren't lockable with a key. Mr McCann even mentioned twice the key in relation to the entry door (when he entered and then when his wife entered).
- How do you know exactly what was read back and how carefully? Could you be making an assumption based on what you would have done?
- Were any of them professionally trained interpreters? (Some people may be very good without professional training, but mistakes in their interpreting skills wouldn't affect their careers if their normal line of work was in a different area.)
- Is there a copy of what these "interpreters" actually had to sign in the files in terms of responsibility?
More importantly...
- Why on earth didn't the police officer notice the obvious glaring bizarre point of Gerry apparently stating that he'd entered via a locked door but that Matt had checked via the open patio door and clarify the point then and there?
-
- How do you know exactly what was read back and how carefully? Could you be making an assumption based on what you would have done?
Are you suggesting that Portuguese police officers are fools ?
-
- Were any of them professionally trained interpreters? (Some people may be very good without professional training, but mistakes in their interpreting skills wouldn't affect their careers if their normal line of work was in a different area.)
- Is there a copy of what these "interpreters" actually had to sign in the files in terms of responsibility?
I already told you, Carana, if doubt devores you, to ask in a paper letter to the PJ of Portimão whether the determined interpreters were professionals or not. I'm sure you'll get a reply. Besides they will send you a copy of the form that they do have to sign.
I seem to remember that I even offered to translate the letter ! Still valid !
-
Gosh - I always thought JFK had been shot ....
According to Marinho Pinto, he faked it to obtain votes for his brother.
-
- Why on earth didn't the police officer notice the obvious glaring bizarre point of Gerry apparently stating that he'd entered via a locked door but that Matt had checked via the open patio door and clarify the point then and there?
You don't seem to understand that, apart from the questioning on the identity, profession, and reason of presence in PDL etc., these witnesses weren't asked questions but listened to.
-
Thanks! but Carana and others will argue they were without sleep and stressed so probably didnt listen properly to the translation read out before signing....if that was the case they could have asked the statements to be taken the day after, if they were not up to it, just like Kate Mccann got out of her second interview a week later
It seems to me that anything that is pointed out as not right is excused by any reason....including the alledged mix up of which door Gerry was talking about, when its impossible for such a mix up to occur as I already posted.....and wouldnt the last time Gerry saw Madeleine be etched in his brain? Did he really not remember if he went in from the front door or the back door? Also if both of them have told us after the first couple days they stopped usng the front door for checks so not to wake the kids, why would he imagine he did just that in his first statement? On the Thursday? Anyway......
That's not quite how I understand the situation in context.
The priority seems to have been to get the ball rolling to find the child.
- Yes, I do expect that the parents were exhausted, panicked and all the rest of it.
- Some "interpreter" of unknown experience was called in at short notice. She no doubt did her best, but that doesn't mean that she was competent for the task.
- What resources did Portimão police station have at its disposal on 4 May? It isn't clear how much training or experience the officers in question would have had in interview techniques to deal with such situations.
When these factors are added together, I find that there is ample room for misunderstandings.
-
You don't seem to understand that, apart from the questioning on the identity, profession, and reason of presence in PDL etc., these witnesses weren't asked questions but listened to.
What makes you think that?
-
Welcome to the forum, Victoria.
Thank you, Rachel!
-
That's not quite how I understand the situation in context.
The priority seems to have been to get the ball rolling to find the child.
- Yes, I do expect that the parents were exhausted, panicked and all the rest of it.
- Some "interpreter" of unknown experience was called in at short notice. She no doubt did her best, but that doesn't mean that she was competent for the task.
- What resources did Portimão police station have at its disposal on 4 May? It isn't clear how much training or experience the officers in question would have had in interview techniques to deal with such situations.
When these factors are added together, I find that there is ample room for misunderstandings.
You are casting doubt on the interpreters and the PJs experience when Im sure the Mccanns were not the first in history in Portugal to be foreigners and end up in a police station, wheres your evidence to do so? Thats all you do, cast doubt on anyone and everythng to apologise for the Mccanns and others...exactly what kate mccann has done her book, cast aspersions and complain and blame on so many innocent people
-
Mmm.
Another representative from the Mccann supporters club. 8**8:/:
AKA the STM forum...
There is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about these statements about front/back door, with McCann apologists frantically scrambling to demonstrate how it's perfectly reasonable for someone to mistake front and back doors as the poor lambs were on holiday and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. If this had been something to do with Amaral and his men's farcical Cipriano incident and one of the protagonists was claiming he got mixed up between the front and back door, they'd all have black caps on and be tying a hangman's noose into a piece of rope. The hypocrisy and double-standards they demonstrate when looking at either side of the moral (and legal) coin is breathtaking.
It's utterly clear to those of us with a brain that the first statement was going to be the McCanns official story and it wasn't until Gerry was caught out by John Hill's statement during Gerry's interview that the story had to change.
-
It is well documented that translations of statements are even more unreliable than statements made in a common language.
Well then if it's "well documented" then it'll only take you a moment to find a few examples. Off you pop, we'll wait right here.
-
AKA the STM forum...
There is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about these statements about front/back door, with McCann apologists frantically scrambling to demonstrate how it's perfectly reasonable for someone to mistake front and back doors as the poor lambs were on holiday and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. If this had been something to do with Amaral and his men's farcical Cipriano incident and one of the protagonists was claiming he got mixed up between the front and back door, they'd all have black caps on and be tying a hangman's noose into a piece of rope. The hypocrisy and double-standards they demonstrate when looking at either side of the moral (and legal) coin is breathtaking.
It's utterly clear to those of us with a brain that the first statement was going to be the McCanns official story and it wasn't until Gerry was caught out by John Hill's statement during Gerry's interview that the story had to change.
Yes, you've got it in one.
-
AKA the STM forum...
There is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about these statements about front/back door, with McCann apologists frantically scrambling to demonstrate how it's perfectly reasonable for someone to mistake front and back doors as the poor lambs were on holiday and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. If this had been something to do with Amaral and his men's farcical Cipriano incident and one of the protagonists was claiming he got mixed up between the front and back door, they'd all have black caps on and be tying a hangman's noose into a piece of rope. The hypocrisy and double-standards they demonstrate when looking at either side of the moral (and legal) coin is breathtaking.
It's utterly clear to those of us with a brain that the first statement was going to be the McCanns official story and it wasn't until Gerry was caught out by John Hill's statement during Gerry's interview that the story had to change.
There was no language barrier in the Cipriano incident. IMO The worst thing that happened to the McCanns aside from the abduction of their daughter was the fact that they were in a foreign country and did not speak the language. To pretend it could not have had negative effect on the proceedings is unrealistic IMO.
We have not seen the actual signed witness statement, only someone else's condensed version of it which as far as I know was not signed.
If you think Gerry was deliberately lying then explain what his motive was and what he had to gain from telling such a daft lie. No-one with half a brain cell was going to believe that he would walk past the little gate - from where he could gain entry to 5A in a matter of seconds and instead choose the very much longer way round. Do you really think he was so stupid as not to realise that?
Right from the start no-one made any secret of the fact that the patio door was unlocked.
-
There was no language barrier in the Cipriano incident. IMO The worst thing that happened to the McCanns aside from the abduction of their daughter was the fact that they were in a foreign country and did not speak the language. To pretend it could not have had negative effect on the proceedings is unrealistic IMO.
We have not seen the actual signed witness statement, only someone else's condensed version of it which as far as I know was not signed.
If you think Gerry was deliberately lying then explain what his motive was and what he had to gain from telling such a daft lie. No-one with half a brain cell was going to believe that he would walk past the little gate - from where he could gain entry to 5A in a matter of seconds and instead choose the very much longer way round. Do you really think he was so stupid as not to realise that?
Right from the start no-one made any secret of the fact that the patio door was unlocked.
Why do you pretend the abduction is a fact as you repeatedly state it.
There is no else to blame for Madeleine's disappearance other than the Mccanns.
-
Why do you pretend the abduction is a fact as you repeatedly state it.
There is no else to blame for Madeleine's disappearance other than the Mccanns.
So according to your logic, a woman in a miniskirt is to be blamed for being raped?
-
So according to your logic, a woman in a miniskirt is to be blamed for being raped?
What rubbish.
How many times have we heard that ?
That is a nauseating comparison, but no more than what I have come to expect.
-
There was no language barrier in the Cipriano incident. IMO The worst thing that happened to the McCanns aside from the abduction of their daughter was the fact that they were in a foreign country and did not speak the language. To pretend it could not have had negative effect on the proceedings is unrealistic IMO.
We have not seen the actual signed witness statement, only someone else's condensed version of it which as far as I know was not signed.
If you think Gerry was deliberately lying then explain what his motive was and what he had to gain from telling such a daft lie. No-one with half a brain cell was going to believe that he would walk past the little gate - from where he could gain entry to 5A in a matter of seconds and instead choose the very much longer way round. Do you really think he was so stupid as not to realise that?
Right from the start no-one made any secret of the fact that the patio door was unlocked.
Where to start... As the patio door could only be locked from the inside and Gerry in his first statement mentions using his key to get in (and Kate, apparently) then what other door could he be talking about?
As he then goes on to say in his second statment, "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside," it is abundantly clear to all but those who have an agenda that his first statement referred to him going in through the front door. No amount of pyschobabble claptrap about stressful/traumatic incidents affecting the memory and/or mistranslations is going to hide the fact that Gerry clearly lied in his first statement as, at that time, their "story" was going to be that the abductor got in via the window (smashed/broken/jemmied/jimmed shutters, whatever) because both the front and back doors were locked because, well, they were, like, responsible parents you know?
Why would he lie? Because he's one of those people that thinks they're cleverer than the police, particularly sardine-munching johnny-foreigner cops, is one reason I can immediately think of.
-
Why do you pretend the abduction is a fact as you repeatedly state it.There is no else to blame for Madeleine's disappearance other than the Mccanns.
Because I believe SY know far more about the case than you do and so I agree with their conclusions rather than yours.
-
So according to your logic, a woman in a miniskirt is to be blamed for being raped?
That is such a silly argument
When a woman wears a short skirt she is not putting herself at risk of rape
To compare that with the very real risks involved in leaving three infants under the age of four, alone and vulnerable in an unescured apartment is quite ridiculous
-
AKA the STM forum...
There is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about these statements about front/back door, with McCann apologists frantically scrambling to demonstrate how it's perfectly reasonable for someone to mistake front and back doors as the poor lambs were on holiday and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. If this had been something to do with Amaral and his men's farcical Cipriano incident and one of the protagonists was claiming he got mixed up between the front and back door, they'd all have black caps on and be tying a hangman's noose into a piece of rope. The hypocrisy and double-standards they demonstrate when looking at either side of the moral (and legal) coin is breathtaking.
It's utterly clear to those of us with a brain that the first statement was going to be the McCanns official story and it wasn't until Gerry was caught out by John Hill's statement during Gerry's interview that the story had to change.
Why dont you face facts C.Ed? For about 4 years the front and back door of 5A were dreadfully muddled in interested peoples minds. That was in both pro and anti forums.
I got so exasperated that I put up a special post using North and South to specifically sort people out ... and gradually, with GE images to help, people ideas became sorted and correct.
Especially with the Mccann flat, it is very understandable that front and back should have been confused.
Not many places have a back door that opens on to a street and that door was the door most used by the family and most photographed.
It is obvious why there was confusion and people thought that it was the front door. I did myself for quite a while ... and I bet, if you were honest, you would admit that you got confused too for a long time.
It is the same as the distance of the Tapas restaurant from 5A
150 metres, 200 metres and even much further was mentioned over and over ... especially on the "put the boot in", anti forums ... and they were wrong. For severalyears, I was shouting it from the roof tops that it was 50 metres, but few knew how to measure on GE and the longer distances had becme entrenched in peoples minds
This incorrect much longer distance did enormous damage to The Mccanns and it wasn't until I published, step by step instructions on how to check the distance using GE ... that [ censored word] shut up and stopped shouting the much longer distances.
Cos they knew that anyone could check and that they would be proved liars.
I just wish that Kate had learned how to use GE before her book was published. Kate is clearly impecibly honest and rather than cause controversy, in her ignorance of the true distance, gave a much longer distance.
I forget, was it double the actual distance?
-
Where to start... As the patio door could only be locked from the inside and Gerry in his first statement mentions using his key to get in (and Kate, apparently) then what other door could he be talking about?
As he then goes on to say in his second statment, "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside," it is abundantly clear to all but those who have an agenda that his first statement referred to him going in through the front door. No amount of pyschobabble claptrap about stressful/traumatic incidents affecting the memory and/or mistranslations is going to hide the fact that Gerry clearly lied in his first statement as, at that time, their "story" was going to be that the abductor got in via the window (smashed/broken/jemmied/jimmed shutters, whatever) because both the front and back doors were locked because, well, they were, like, responsible parents you know?
Why would he lie? Because he's one of those people that thinks they're cleverer than the police, particularly sardine-munching johnny-foreigner cops, is one reason I can immediately think of.
Is that supposed to be a credible reason for why he should deliberately lie? I thought better of you C.Ed.
If you really think that physical and mental exhaustion can have no effect on a traumatised person during a long drawn out interview, where everything was having to be translated back and forth, and where every second you were hoping that someone would come through the door and tell you your daughter had been found- and falling deeper into despair when that didnt happen - then I can only conclude you have no ability to empathise.
If GM decided to lie about the doors, then he must have had a very good reason - what is it? What exactly did he have to gain from it? How would it assist him - to make such an obviously unbelievable claim?
-
Where to start... As the patio door could only be locked from the inside and Gerry in his first statement mentions using his key to get in (and Kate, apparently) then what other door could he be talking about?
As he then goes on to say in his second statment, "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside," it is abundantly clear to all but those who have an agenda that his first statement referred to him going in through the front door. No amount of pyschobabble claptrap about stressful/traumatic incidents affecting the memory and/or mistranslations is going to hide the fact that Gerry clearly lied in his first statement as, at that time, their "story" was going to be that the abductor got in via the window (smashed/broken/jemmied/jimmed shutters, whatever) because both the front and back doors were locked because, well, they were, like, responsible parents you know?
Why would he lie? Because he's one of those people that thinks they're cleverer than the police, particularly sardine-munching johnny-foreigner cops, is one reason I can immediately think of.
I dont think that you have ever had a huge trauma in your life C.Ed. I have when I watched my little boy slowly dying.
I know what it did to me, my mind and my memory.
It jumbled every thought up and there were massive blanks in my memory. My mind was either crazily racing or dead as a dodo. I rarely functioned. I thank God for all the good friends and strangers who rallied round to suppport us.
No "put the boot in freaks" around then. Everyone was magnaminous, totally generous, in their support for our little family.
-
Where to start... As the patio door could only be locked from the inside and Gerry in his first statement mentions using his key to get in (and Kate, apparently) then what other door could he be talking about?
As he then goes on to say in his second statment, "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside," it is abundantly clear to all but those who have an agenda that his first statement referred to him going in through the front door. No amount of pyschobabble claptrap about stressful/traumatic incidents affecting the memory and/or mistranslations is going to hide the fact that Gerry clearly lied in his first statement as, at that time, their "story" was going to be that the abductor got in via the window (smashed/broken/jemmied/jimmed shutters, whatever) because both the front and back doors were locked because, well, they were, like, responsible parents you know?
Why would he lie? Because he's one of those people that thinks they're cleverer than the police, particularly sardine-munching johnny-foreigner cops, is one reason I can immediately think of.
So why would this be recorded in the same 4 May statement?
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.
-
So why would this be recorded in the same 4 May statement?
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.
What's hearsay about Matt got to do with Gerry McCann? Furthermore it clearly proves once and for all the Gerry McCann was talking about the front door and not the patio door. Thanks Carana! 8((()*/
-
What's hearsay about Matt got to do with Gerry McCann? Furthermore it clearly proves once and for all the Gerry McCann was talking about the front door and not the patio door. Thanks Carana! 8((()*/
Since when have witness statements been hearsay?
Only in your mind and a few other peoples mean minds
-
What's hearsay about Matt got to do with Gerry McCann? Furthermore it clearly proves once and for all the Gerry McCann was talking about the front door and not the patio door. Thanks Carana! 8((()*/
It's not a question of "hearsay" regarding Matt (which would also apply to Kate in his statement), but the fact that in the same statement, he'd said that the patio door was unlocked.
What then, would have been the point of lying?
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.
-
I just wish that Kate had learned how to use GE before her book was published. Kate is clearly impecibly honest and rather than cause controversy, in her ignorance of the true distance, gave a much longer distance.
I forget, was it double the actual distance?
There was no ignorance on the distance as the crow flies, just less than fifty metres she says in her book and just a little further if you go round to the front door (well we know its more than double not just a little further) and she is very capable of playing with GE as she said in one interview around the book launch that it is actually 49.4 if you want to be exact!
She also says in her book the papers were printing that it was several hundred metres away whch is an exageration, the most the papers ever printed was about 120, and many did print the 50 metres distance
8((()*/
-
[deleted
-
Untrue.
Whch bit
@)(++(*
-
Whch bit
@)(++(*
You will see that I have deleted my comment. Because I haven't the energy or time or eyesight to go trawling tru to find facts. I dont have a team behind me.
-
You are casting doubt on the interpreters and the PJs experience when Im sure the Mccanns were not the first in history in Portugal to be foreigners and end up in a police station, wheres your evidence to do so? Thats all you do, cast doubt on anyone and everythng to apologise for the Mccanns and others...exactly what kate mccann has done her book, cast aspersions and complain and blame on so many innocent people
I wasn't, though. I was trying to point out that the conditions for everyone were likely to have been chaotic in those early days, particularly that morning.
-
There was no ignorance on the distance as the crow flies, just less than fifty metres she says in her book and just a little further if you go round to the front door (well we know its more than double not just a little further) and she is very capable of playing with GE as she said in one interview around the book launch that it is actually 49.4 if you want to be exact!
She also says in her book the papers were printing that it was several hundred metres away whch is an exageration, the most the papers ever printed was about 120, and many did print the 50 metres distance
8((()*/
120 metres is still a huge exaggeration though isn't it Red? Even Amaral states they were dining 100 metres away - which is twice the actual distance.
Quote from his book:
At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away
Unquote.
-
You will see that I have deleted my comment. Because I haven't the energy or time or eyesight to go trawling tru to find facts. I dont have a team behind me.
Which fact are you tryng to find? Which part of my post was untrue? thats all I asked. I dont have a team behnd me either
@)(++(*
-
May we quote you that 5a is just 50 metres from the Tapas bar? For years people against the McCanns have tried to deny that.
Its always been known that the distance as the crow flies was less than half the distance right to the front door
-
Cite for always please. I remember long debates on the Mirror Forum and the 3As that denied that proximity.
Cite debunker please. 8((()*/
-
120 metres is still a huge exaggeration though isn't it Red? Even Amaral states they were dining 100 metres away - which is twice the actual distance.
Quote from his book:
At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away
Unquote.
Well thats true though isnt it? The kids were in a bedroom around that distance away from the restaraunt. The 100/120 metres mentioned was always distance to the front door which presumably journos assumed was normal mode of entry to a dwelling. Heres a selection of articles picked at random, its not true papers were printing several hundred metres away
50
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/05-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
100
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/GUARDIAN_05_05_2007.htm
40
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/PEOPLE-06-05-07.htm
50
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SUN_06_05_07.htm
40
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Smh_06_05_2007.htm
120
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/10_08_2007-2.htm
-
Cite for always please. I remember long debates on the Mirror Forum and the 3As that denied that proximity.
I vaguely remember a discussion around Mitchells claim the flat was just 20 paces away which it patently was not and people joked about that. What people may have been sayng on the issue doesnt matter seeing as the correct distances to both doors were more or less accurately reported.
-
I have never understood the arguments over 50 metres, 100 metres etc
The fact is that "as the crow flies" is irrelevant in terms of how long it would take to get back to the apartment, as the route to be taken would be the length that mattered.
And secondly, if there was indeed an abduction, the parents were out of sight and hearing (or, to put it the other way, the children were out of sight and hearing) and that is what mattered, however far it was
-
That is another question.
And? So what is there to argue about (in terms that actually matter?)
-
Cite please for both you claims- Mitchell at 20 and anti- mccanns accepting 50 Meter crow fly.
How bullish
Where did I say anythng about anti mccanns accepting anything, I said it has been known from the beginning, general knowledge, as reported n the papers. Mitchells comment is from memory, I didnt pluck that out of nowhere! I dont know if I can find anything now but will take a look.
Perhaps you can cite then to show they didnt
-
I have never understood the arguments over 50 metres, 100 metres etc
The fact is that "as the crow flies" is irrelevant in terms of how long it would take to get back to the apartment, as the route to be taken would be the length that mattered.
And secondly, if there was indeed an abduction, the parents were out of sight and hearing (or, to put it the other way, the children were out of sight and hearing) and that is what mattered, however far it was
Totally agree.
-
Well thats true though isnt it? The kids were in a bedroom around that distance away from the restaraunt. The 100/120 metres mentioned was always distance to the front door which presumably journos assumed was normal mode of entry to a dwelling. Heres a selection of articles picked at random, its not true papers were printing several hundred metres away
50
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/05-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
100
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/GUARDIAN_05_05_2007.htm
40
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/PEOPLE-06-05-07.htm
50
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SUN_06_05_07.htm
40
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Smh_06_05_2007.htm
120
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/10_08_2007-2.htm
I disagree Red. Imo from the point of view of a reader of his book who was not au fait with the details of these distances and with no extra explanation offered by Amaral, they would assume that the parents were sitting in a place 100 metres away from their apartment. They were not.
If you had a short but wide back garden which had a zig zag path all the way down it - would you give the length of your back garden as the distance from your house to the end of your garden - as the crow flies - or would you measure the length of the zig zag path - and claim that was the length of your garden?
IMo the accepted 'checkable' fact to people who do not have an agenda - is that they were sitting at the Restaurant - 50 metres away from their apartment - which depending on the speed they walked - they could reach in seconds - not minutes.
p.s. I haven't clicked on your links Red because I tend to have problems with 'freezing' after I do that. But I appreciate your efforts in posting them.
-
I disagree Red. Imo from the point of view of a reader of his book who was not au fait with the details of these distances and with no extra explanation offered by Amaral, they would assume that the parents were sitting in a place 100 metres away from their apartment. They were not.
If you had a short but wide back garden which had a zig zag path all the way down it - would you give the length of your back garden as the distance from your house to the end of your garden - as the crow flies - or would you measure the length of the zig zag path - and claim that was the length of your garden?
IMo the accepted 'checkable' fact to people who do not have an agenda - is that they were sitting at the Restaurant - 50 metres away from their apartment - which depending on the speed they walked - they could reach in seconds - not minutes.
p.s. I haven't clicked on your links Red because I tend to have problems with 'freezing' after I do that. But I appreciate your efforts in posting them.
Does it really matter? That they were sitting 50 yards as the crow flies? It was more than that when they actually had to walk through the restaraunt and around and thats just to the gate, add the length of the apartment and you have a more realistic distance, seeing as they couldnt fly! What if the length of the restauarant was more? Would saying 50 yards away still be ok? As CPN said earlier, its moot as the kids were out of sight and sound, and even if any of them did go out eg onto the balcony.Anyway weve gone totally off topic. The links are ok, it doesnt matter if your pc freezes, you dont need to read them as Ive listed the distance each paper quoted and Ive never read in any paper as KM alledges in her book that the distance was quoted as several hundred yards
-
Page 116
Kate say's in her book "some initial reports were misleading, suggesting that we were sitting several hundred metres away. journalists were actually in Praia da Luz and saw the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to the apartment (as the crow flies, just under fifty metres; a little further walking round the road way)".
Not several hundred yards away.
-
Page 116
Kate say's in her book "some initial reports were misleading, suggesting that we were sitting several hundred metres away. journalists were actually in Praia da Luz and saw the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to the apartment (as the crow flies, just under fifty metres; a little further walking round the road way)".
Not several hundred yards away.
Makes no diference to the message, cant believe you posted that!!
@)(++(*
ps 1 yard is .9 metres.....petty
-
Makes no diference to the message, cant believe you posted that!!
@)(++(*
ps 1 yard is .9 metres.....petty
To prove you wrong again.
And its 1 yd = 0.9144 m to be exact. @)(++(*
-
To prove you wrong again.
And its 1 yd = 0.9144 m to be exact. @)(++(*
not in any material way...yards, metres, no important difference.. and find any report then to prove what she said....any...mentioning several hundred metres....
>@@(*&)