So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[Albertini]

Gerry's was the first interview (IIRC). Neither the interpreter not the police officer would have been familiar with the layout. Although there is no detail in the initial statements, I would have thought that the police officer would have tried to get a basic understanding of the layout of the apartment. It would be an easy mistake for either the interpreter or the officer to scribble a note to the effect that a key was needed to open one door from the outside and then get mixed up between which was the "back" door and the "front" one. Different words may have been used (e.g., patio instead of "back") concerning Matt's check. 

By the time Kate was interviewed, he may have already realised that the door issue didn't make sense, but Gerry's statement had already been typed up and signed.

Initial confusion seems far more likely to me than Gerry lying for no fathomable reason.

Which is fine had he not said:

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. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

If it was translation error then you would presume that he would have stated so.

[Benice]

Gerry's was the first interview (IIRC). Neither the interpreter not the police officer would have been familiar with the layout. Although there is no detail in the initial statements, I would have thought that the police officer would have tried to get a basic understanding of the layout of the apartment. It would be an easy mistake for either the interpreter or the officer to scribble a note to the effect that a key was needed to open one door from the outside and then get mixed up between which was the "back" door and the "front" one. Different words may have been used (e.g., patio instead of "back") concerning Matt's check. 

By the time Kate was interviewed, he may have already realised that the door issue didn't make sense, but Gerry's statement had already been typed up and signed.

Initial confusion seems far more likely to me than Gerry lying for no fathomable reason.

Totally agree Carana.

IMO It could also be that when writing up the 'summary' the officer included the word 'key' himself whenever he was referring to what he had understood was the front door - to differentiate between that and the patio door - for which there was no key.

Without a verbatim statement it's impossible to know how the misunderstandings occurred, but it's not difficult to see how easily they could occur at that first interview.

[Carana]

Which is fine had he not said:

If it was translation error then you would presume that he would have stated so.

Perhaps he did say so, but it wasn't considered relevant in terms of clarifying the facts...

There's no way of knowing who got muddled and how that may have occurred without a verbatim report of the 3-way process (witness, interpreter and officer). The statements are only a summary of what was understood.

[Albertini]

Perhaps he did say so, but it wasn't considered relevant in terms of clarifying the facts...

There's no way of knowing who got muddled and how that may have occurred without a verbatim report of the 3-way process (witness, interpreter and officer). The statements are only a summary of what was understood.

So at the point of being read back the statement, or at the point of having seen the translations, why did the Mccann's not seek formally to correct them?

[Benice]

So at the point of being read back the statement, or at the point of having seen the translations, why did the Mccann's not seek formally to correct them?

Gerry corrected his - I presume after he read his statement in English.  At that stage they would know nothing about the 'correct procedures' regarding witness statements - why would they?       

There's a big difference between reading the written word at your own pace where errors would jump out of the page at you and you can re-read stuff if necessary - and sitting exhausted and half out of your mind with worry over your missing daughter -  whilst listening to an interpretator reading to you at their pace and probably with a Portugese accent - something which they may have got more used to as time went on - but not at that first interview.   

I do find this reluctance from sceptics to allow the McCanns to have any of the normal human reactions to severe shock and trauma that anyone else would have in those circumstances  - but instead expect them to behave as if they were reporting the loss of nothing more important than their camera -  to be quite incomprehensible.




 

[Carana]

So at the point of being read back the statement, or at the point of having seen the translations, why did the Mccann's not seek formally to correct them?

If Gerry had said "This is not what I said", what would you have expected the police officer to note, bearing in mind that what was important was to clarify facts, not to attribute blame?

[Albertini]

If Gerry had said "This is not what I said", what would you have expected the police officer to note, bearing in mind that what was important was to clarify facts, not to attribute blame?

I would have expected Gerry to state:

"having read back the translation my words were interperated incorrectly, what i actually said was...."

But Gerry never did that, then or since.

[Benice]

I would have expected Gerry to state:

"having read back the translation my words were interperated incorrectly, what i actually said was...."

But Gerry never did that, then or since.

LOL how could you possibly know that?

[Lace]

I don't know about the abductor coming in through the patio doors.   It's a bit risky as the McCann's were checking that way and it only took minutes for them to get to the steps, so the abductor even knowing that someone had just done a check and left the apartment,  didn't know if someone might double back for some reason or other.   Unless the person was working for the OC and would not be obvious to someone who saw him/her.

I think the front door was in darkness,  I remember reading a statement by a person who had stayed in 5a and said that the front door area was dark and that they actually disturbed a man lurking outside there.

If the abductor had a key then he came in through the front door.

The window was opened for either an emergency escape, to pass Madeleine through,  to ventilate the room in order to remove a smell from something used to sedate Madeleine or a red herring by the abductor so that there would be no suspicion of a key being used.

To say that Kate McCann opened the window to fake an abduction,  seems ridiculous to me as one, if she was devious to do that then she would be devious enough to wipe her fingerprints off, and two, she said in her first statement that the patio doors were open.

[AnneGuedes]

To say that Kate McCann opened the window to fake an abduction,  seems ridiculous to me as one, if she was devious to do that then she would be devious enough to wipe her fingerprints off, and two, she said in her first statement that the patio doors were open.

And it is ridiculous. Mrs McCann didn't need to open the shutters and the window to pretend they were open, since nobody saw them open (except for Mr McCann who confirmed they were open).
This is likely why the PJ didn't attach much importance to Mrs McCann's fingerprints being on the window.

[Lace]

And it is ridiculous. Mrs McCann didn't need to open the shutters and the window to pretend they were open, since nobody saw them open (except for Mr McCann who confirmed they were open).
This is likely why the PJ didn't attach much importance to Mrs McCann's fingerprints being on the window.

Well that is even more proof that Kate McCann didn't stage an abduction by saying the window was open then,  isn't Anne?

[AnneGuedes]

Well that is even more proof that Kate McCann didn't stage an abduction by saying the window was open then,  isn't Anne?

Yes, the word "stage" isn't appropriate. I, not you ;), would say the abduction was story telling.

[Lace]

Yes, the word "stage" isn't appropriate. I, not you ;), would say the abduction was story telling.

Well we are all entitled to our opinion Anne.

Though it seems SY are of the opinion it was an abduction.

[Carana]

And it is ridiculous. Mrs McCann didn't need to open the shutters and the window to pretend they were open, since nobody saw them open (except for Mr McCann who confirmed they were open).
This is likely why the PJ didn't attach much importance to Mrs McCann's fingerprints being on the window.

Who do you mean by the "PJ"?

The fingerprints are mentioned in several interviews with Amaral. Where he and his interview pals got the idea that her prints were found in an "opening position" remains a mystery to me.

[Albertini]

LOL how could you possibly know that?

You can't but given the seriousness of the situation and the fact you were in a foreign country you'd be making damn sure the information you gave was accurate and clear.