Timeline May 3rd

[Vertigo Swirl]

I bedlieve his statement to be an honest account of what he experienced. As did the Irish Police as far as I recall (no pun intended).

I know you believe that, but it wasn’t the point.  The point was about whether or not memory that is months old can be trusted.   You cast doubt upon the Rogs for this reason but don’t seem to have a problem with months old memory when it suits you.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I know you believe that, but it wasn’t the point.  The point was about whether or not memory that is months old can be trusted.   You cast doubt upon the Rogs for this reason but don’t seem to have a problem with months old memory when it suits you.

It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.

”the story was well rehearsed” sounds very much to me like you’re accusing all those who took part in the Rogs of a deliberate cover up, regardless of what you then go on to say.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Oh for goodness sake Ispy. The McCanns were educated professionals, not idiots. Do you really think that Gerry wouldn't have corrected the interpreter if he said "Sean and I" on 4th and the interpreter re-translated it as "twins"?

Gerry isn't stupid, he wouldn't sign an incorrect statement.

Gerry doesn’t speak Portuguese, Gunit.

He wouldn’t understand what the interpreter was saying he’d said!

How naive...

[The General]

Gerry doesn’t speak Portuguese, Gunit.

He wouldn’t understand what the interpreter was saying he’d said!

How naive...

That would be a very brief interview.

....and you forgot to insert a crass reference to kicking dogs / cruelty.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Of course he knew, it was read back to him.

.

By an INTERPRETER who was interpreting BACK again from Portuguese to English.

I take it you don’t speak a second language?

I do. And I know how just one subtle word can change the whole sentence.

Or, things can be thought differently due to the meaning of those subtle words in different languages,

Then you have the problem with the questions: for example, when the PO asked in Portuguese if Madeleine had said the twin had been crying, he may have verified to the interpreter if that was “last night”. The interpreter would then have asked Gerry or Kate “was that last night?” and they could have agreed , but it all got confused in translation as they never actually SAID that themselves.

It’s too time-consuming to explain to you as you won’t believe it, so I can’t be bothered 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

”the story was well rehearsed” sounds very much to me like you’re accusing all those who took part in the Rogs of a deliberate cover up, regardless of what you then go on to say.

Someone’s got to have a very, very vivid imagination if they think a group of nine people all rehearsed hw to act, what to do, what to say, what to eta, what to drink...FGS. Some people have no brain

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Were you there...do you know what was read back to him. No you dont...nobody knows how accurately it was read back to him. You are speculating

She doesn’t even understand the difficulties in translation...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I'm not speculating, I'm assuming the interpreters did the job they were paid to do. You're suggesting they didn't.

What don’t you understand about the fact that ALL translation is never, never 100% accurate because every language has words which when translated can have different meaning or several meanings.

Do you not speak a second language?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

That would be a very brief interview.

....and you forgot to insert a crass reference to kicking dogs / cruelty.

Don’t act idiotic. If you can’t grasp what I meant don’t bother commenting

The only thing gross about kicking a little dog in its nose and then SMIRKING with pleasure is the the person who kicked it

[The General]

Don’t act idiotic. If you can’t grasp what I meant don’t bother commenting

The only thing gross about kicking a little dog in its nose and then SMIRKING with pleasure is the the person who kicked it

There you go. Feel better now? Get that tired old 'kicked dog' trope in.

So what are you saying exactly, that Gerry didn't understand the questions, but was able to provide 100% pertinent answers?
Once again, you haven't read either, have you? You're winging it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I bedlieve his statement to be an honest account of what he experienced. As did the Irish Police as far as I recall (no pun intended).

.


Mr Smith had an encounter.

And you say you believe him but all he saw was a man carrying a toddler and it triggered the memory of when he saw the man in Portugal — which it WOULD do. Especially as it was ABOUT the McCanns!

It triggered his memory of the night when it was dark, he’d been drinking, and wasn’t wearing his glasses

And WHY is it he quickly scurried away and hid, refusing to talk to anyone, when the actual PORTUGUESE police told him it was NOT Gerry as they had PROOF he was in the Tapas Bar at 10pm?

Why did his wife REFUSE to corroborate what her husband said? Probably because she knows him very well...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

There you go. Feel better now? Get that tired old 'kicked dog' trope in.

So what are you saying exactly, that Gerry didn't understand the questions, but was able to provide 100% pertinent answers?
Once again, you haven't read either, have you? You're winging it.

It was YOU who mentioned the dog Gunit kicked, or have you already forgotten...I know your memory is bad...

I have read FYI, difference is, I understand it and you don’t

[The General]

It was YOU who mentioned the dog Gunit kicked, or have you already forgotten...I know your memory is bad...

I have read FYI, difference is, I understand it and you don’t

Crack on, love.

[Lace]

It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.

I don't think anything was rehearsed.   There is much too much detail in the answers.    The interviewer is clever too asked questions then a bit of casual talk then back into asking the same questions later on.   They wouldn't know what they were going to be asked and there is no delay in the answers.