MadeleineMcCann Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
MadeleineMcCann > IMPORTANT INFO > DIscrepancies by Topic Go to subcategory:
Author Content
TinLizzy
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Date Posted:08/04/2010 8:56 AMCopy HTML


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8129-160.html?sid=0b465cf2d40a36917a73ab97d98c0973

beachy
I do not believe all the similarities in those statements are due to the person who transcribed them. There would be some similarity, of course, because the PJ would have been asking Kate and Gerry similar questions in their first interview, but the sameness of the way the answers are phrased is noticeable.

Regarding meaningless information: In his May 10 statement to the PJ, Gerry says that he and Kate would drink either Portuguese or New Zealand wine in the evenings before leaving for the tapas. And the police would care about that because?

In the article by John Perry that appeared in The Sun, Gerry even recalls the name of the New Zealand wine - Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc.
<!-- m -->http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 096610.ece<!-- m -->

However, in his interviews after Maddie went missing, Gerry is considerably less certain of important details such as whether or not the door nearest the car park was locked when he and Kate went out, leaving the children alone, and which door he used to enter the apartment for his check on the kids shortly after 9.00.

In his statement of 4 May, 2007, Gerry had this to say: Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.
<!-- l -->post410.html#p410<!-- l -->

Yet in his May 10, 2007 statement, Gerry said this about how he entered apartment 5A to do his check:

He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide,

And, further:
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.

<!-- l -->post524.html#p524<!-- l -->

If you thought your child had been abducted from your apartment, don't you know that you would have gone over and over and over in your mind how it could have happened? Would you not have relived every moment of that night endless times trying to think of something you could have done differently?

Suppose that sometime between 4 May and 10 May you had experienced an "OMG" moment and remembered that you did NOT, in fact, as you had told the police, leave the front door locked when you left the apartment as could be inferred from the fact that you said you had to unlock it in order to perform your check at 9.05. You remember unlocking the front door when you came back from tennis and do not remember locking it again that night. Would you not have hurried to the police immediately to let them know that an abductor could have just walked in? Would you have just said to yourself, in effect, "Oh, bother, I'm sure they'll probably interview us again, and I'll tell them then"? I find that very difficult to understand as well.

And from David Payne's rogatory interview, responding to a question from DC Ivor Messiah about what he saw when he visited the McCanns' apartment late on the afternoon of 3 May:

. . .I know, it does sound bizarre but I just looked at the three of them and I couldn’t, you know they were just so well presented and so clean and immaculate it was, you know I was, and you know they just looked such healthy children, err you know, there’s, there’s you know nothing that normally… Triggers in my mind like that but it was just how well that they looked and err…””

This was in response to a request to, . . .imagine, remember what you saw, and what David Payne says impressed him about the McCann children was how "healthy" and "well" they looked. Is that what one would normally notice in a situation like that? You go to a friend's apartment to check in, and what you notice is not that all three of the children are still up, that they are playing together and appear to be lively or active or squabbling or, alternatively, perhaps a bit tired from the long day they've had, what strikes you is that they look "healthy" and "well"? Why on earth would there be any reason to think they'd be otherwise? It strikes me as an odd thing to say, in essence, "I went to the apartment and found them well." And he refers to this observed health or wellness not once but twice, almost as if he is trying to convince the interviewer of it. Odd, that, in my opinion.

What this case badly needed, in my opinion, as Southernbelle says, was some serious pinning down of people about inconsistencies and statements that sometimes do not appear to make a great deal of sense. Didn't happen. There were probably many reasons that contributed to that, but it was just another situation that might have contributed to a different outcome, IMO.
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.