Did Kate McCann ever explain why she changed her story

[icabodcrane]

I'm reading her book at the moment,  and was struck by her detailed description of the way she found the children's bedroom that night,  and how it differed from the witness statement she gave to the police on the 4th of May 2007

In her witness statement to the police,  she describes how she was immediately alerted to the children's bedroom door being completely open. The window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open,  while she was certain of having closed them all. At that point  ( faced with that altered situation )  she verified that the twins were in their beds but that Madeleine had disappeared. She searched the apartment thoroughly and returned to the restaurant to alert her husband and the group.

So she sees the open curtains, window, and shutters first,  and then realizes Madeleine is missing

In her book,  however,  the way she found the room and her subsequent actions are significantly different

Here,  she says that she found the children's bedroom door to be open quite wide and that as she tried to gently pull it to, it suddenly slammed shut  ( note that she was closing the door without having looked into the room first ) 

At this point, being surprised that the door had slammed shut she retraced her steps to check if she had left the patio doors open,  causing a draught.

Having found that the patio doors were closed she went back to the children's room and opened the door a little. She glanced at Madeleine's bed but couldn't make her out in the dark  ( you see,  unlike the statement she had made to the police,  the curtains,  this time,  are closed )

When she realized that Madeleine was not in her bed she went to the other bedroom  (  her's and Gerry's )  to see if Madeleine had got into their bed.  Finding another empy bed she began to panic and as she ran back into the children's room the  ( now  closed )  curtains suddenly flew up in a gust of wind

It was only then, having already found Madeleine to be missing,  that she became aware that the window and shutters were open

This a very signicant change of story,  which impacts on the abductor theory presented by the McCanns themselves

Given that the McCanns have been free to speak about  all aspects of the case for several years now,  has Kate ever explained why her recollection  of events that night , as given to the police,  has since changed ? 

[debunker]

Memory is constructive, not linear and photographic.

[Eleanor]

This is just nit picking.  In My Opinion.

[icabodcrane]

This is just nit picking.  In My Opinion.

Hardly

You see,  if Kate McCann's description of the open curtains, window, and shutters was accurate, then that would mean the room was left like that by the abductor

The McCanns insist that Jane Tanner saw the abductor make off with Madeleine at 915pm that night  ...  which  would neccessarily mean that the curtains, window, and shutters were all open from 9.15 onwards

Except  ....  Matthew Oldfield went to the McCann children's bedroom at 9.30pm that night  (  failing to notice whether Madeleine was there or not  )   and he found the curtains to be closed

That being the case,  it would be clear that the abductor must have struck sometime between Mathew Olfield's 9.30pm check  ( curtains closed )  ...  and Kate McCann's 10.pm check  ( curtains open ) 

As it is though,  Kate McCann changed her original version of events, as given to the police,  and now claims the curtains were closed all along  ...  thereby accomodating Jane Tanner's abductor

[gilet]

It is impossible to be certain what precise questions Kate McCann was responding to in her interview.

It is also very difficult to be certain what the precise responses she made were from amateur translations of the original Portguguese.

For example in this case in the original statement the window is described as "aberta" or open, the door as "completamente aberta" which means completely open but the curtains are described as "afastadas" which simply means apart.

01_VOLUMEIa_Page_61

Apart strongly suggests not completely but only partly open which would very possibly account for the reduced light levels.  Another possibility is that the open blinds and window were simply allowing the curtains to be blown apart intermittently (would explain Oldfield).

Without full information about the questions posed, the witness reactions, and professional translations such picking apart the statements and making of comparisons by us amateurs is at best a method of determining possibilities. What it should never, in my opinion, become is the basis on which to make categorical assumptions about events or even worse, categorical claims about the truthfulness of the witnesses involved in this case, Kate McCann.

[faithlilly]

Memory is constructive, not linear and photographic.

And it doesn't get better with time.

[icabodcrane]

I can explain the (very slight) discrepancies.  Kate's statement to the police is not a verbatim account.  Nor was it given in the police officer's native language.  Not only that it has been translated into Portuguese and then translated back into English.  It is very much a third or fourth hand account.  This would likely account for the (very slight) discrepancies that arose between this account and the one that appears in her book. 

Here is the relevant part from her statement from the 4th May -

At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

Faced with this altered situation, she verified that the twins were in their beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was neatly pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual.

I don't agree that that the differences in the two versions given by Kate McCann are  'slight'  ...  indeed they are are of major significance

Whether or not the abductor left the curtains open  (  as she told the police )  or left them closed, as she now claims, dramatically changes the time at which it was possible for the abduction to have taken place

If the curtains were open when she got to the apartment at  10pm  (  as she told the police )  then the abduction could only have happened between 9.30 and 10pm  (  Mathew Oldfield having confirmed that the curtains were still closed at 9.30pm

If,  on the other hand,  the curtains were closed when she got back to the apartment  (  as she now claims )  then the abduction could have taken place between 9.10pm  when Gerry last saw Madeleine,  and 10.pm

This information,  and it's accuracy,  is crucial to the investigation

As to the suggestion  that Kate McCann's statement was mistranslated,  that is a possibility of course

However,  the mistranslation would have to  to have been  repeated in Gerry McCann's 4th of May interview too  ...  where he confirms that  "the door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn back"   (  as related to him by his wife it may be presumed ) 

[gilet]

What I find strange is that people think the McCanns, their lawyers who no doubt checked the book carefully and the publisher and their own lawyers who would have been all over this book, are so stupid as to have published a document which would, according to some, open them up to investigation for perjury.

I find it truly naive of some people that they believe that the details of statements and stories do not change over time. Memory is not fixed, never will be fixed and no matter how many TV cop shows might make it look like statements are inviolable, they really are not.

[icabodcrane]

What I find strange is that people think the McCanns, their lawyers who no doubt checked the book carefully and the publisher and their own lawyers who would have been all over this book, are so stupid as to have published a document which would, according to some, open them up to investigation for perjury.

I find it truly naive of some people that they believe that the details of statements and stories do not change over time. Memory is not fixed, never will be fixed and no matter how many TV cop shows might make it look like statements are inviolable, they really are not.

Are you saying that at some point Kate  'remembered'  that the curtains hadn't been open  as she had  told the police ?

...  that the awful moment she recalled about walking into the room and seeing the curtains, window, and shutters all open, and immediately seeing that Madeleine was not in her bed  ...  was something she had been mistaken about ?  ...  and that she remembered it differently as time went on  ?

Is that what you think happened ?

[Eleanor]

Considering the translation problem, there are several interpretations that could be put on this, but I am not prepared to go into any further speculation because it is impossible to decide which would be correct.

[John]

Off topic here guys...just want to let you know we are still editing back posts and removing anything which is inappropriate.

If there are any posts you aren't happy with please 'report' them.

Please bear with us.   

[icabodcrane]

I can explain the (very slight) discrepancies.  Kate's statement to the police is not a verbatim account.  Nor was it given in the police officer's native language.  Not only that it has been translated into Portuguese and then translated back into English.  It is very much a third or fourth hand account.  This would likely account for the (very slight) discrepancies that arose between this account and the one that appears in her book. 

Here is the relevant part from her statement from the 4th May -

At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

Faced with this altered situation, she verified that the twins were in their beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was neatly pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual.

I don't agree that that the differences in the two versions given by Kate McCann are  'slight'  ...  indeed they are are of major significance

Whether or not the abductor left the curtains open  (  as she told the police )  or left them closed, as she now claims, dramatically changes the time at which it was possible for the abduction to have taken place

If the curtains were open when she got to the apartment at  10pm  (  as she told the police )  then the abduction could only have happened between 9.30 and 10pm  (  Mathew Oldfield having confirmed that the curtains were still closed at 9.30pm

If,  on the other hand,  the curtains were closed when she got back to the apartment  (  as she now claims )  then the abduction could have taken place between 9.10pm  when Gerry last saw Madeleine,  and 10.pm

This information,  and it's accuracy,  is crucial to the investigation

As to the suggestion  that Kate McCann's statement was mistranslated,  that is a possibility of course

However,  the mistranslation would have to  to have been  repeated in Gerry McCann's 4th of May interview too  ...  where he confirms that  "the door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn back"   (  as related to him by his wife it may be presumed )

Do you seriously think that Kate McCann would deliberately alter this one detail in order to lend credence to Jane Tanner's statement years after the event?  Why would she do that, for who's benefit?  When Kate was writing the book there was no investigation, no review.  There is no mention made in the book about the curtains being shut validating JT's sighting so unless you were a complete McCann obsessive this point would pass you by without further thought.  That being the case, why would Kate McCann risk "lying" in her book for such a seemingly trivial point?

I don't know why Kate McCann's story changed  (  that's why my thread title asks if she has ever given an explanation for it )  ...  but change it has,  and not in a  'trivial' way at all

[John]

Could it have been that the curtain were drawn but the opening of the apartment door had caused a suction which gave the appearance that the curtains were in fact open or partially open as they blew in the wind?

[Eleanor]

Could it have been that the curtain were drawn but the opening of the apartment door had caused a suction which gave the appearance that the curtains were in fact open or partially open as they blew in the wind?

Phew.  That's what I would have said but couldn't quite put the words together.  And then Kate quite possibly pulled them further apart when she looked out of the window.

[gilet]

What I find strange is that people think the McCanns, their lawyers who no doubt checked the book carefully and the publisher and their own lawyers who would have been all over this book, are so stupid as to have published a document which would, according to some, open them up to investigation for perjury.

I find it truly naive of some people that they believe that the details of statements and stories do not change over time. Memory is not fixed, never will be fixed and no matter how many TV cop shows might make it look like statements are inviolable, they really are not.

Are you saying that at some point Kate  'remembered'  that the curtains hadn't been open  as she had  told the police ?

...  that the awful moment she recalled about walking into the room and seeing the curtains, window, and shutters all open, and immediately seeing that Madeleine was not in her bed  ...  was something she had been mistaken about ?  ...  and that she remembered it differently as time went on  ?

Is that what you think happened ?

No I have not said that at all.

I have said that to place complete trust in these statements of which we have little knowledge (such as questions asked, quality of translation etc.) is simply naive.

It is interesting that you offer as justification against the poor translation argument that it would have been necessary for two separate errors to have occurred, in both Gerry's and Kate's statements. I disagree with you. If you look at the original Portuguese it would appear that at least one little section is simply a direct repeat of the other.

From Gerry's which indicates it is a version of what Kate said:

"...e verificou desde logo que a porta do quarto filhos estava completamente aberta, a janela tambem aberta, as persianas subidas e as cortinas afastadas."
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_37


From Kate's:

"...e verificou desde logo que a porta do quarto filhos estava completamente aberta, a janela tambem aberta, as persianas subidas e as cortinas afastadas."
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_61

Interestingly the amateur translators have given two different versions when producing the English text. They do not differ greatly but do show up the need for care in trusting these documents.


Gerry:

"...the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open."

Kate:

"...the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open."