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.htmlKate 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.
