Those Damn Discrepancies !!

fizzbomb200 wrote:

snoop wrote:

fizzbomb2002 wrote:the staff were suprised that they requested (Demanded) a Priest , at that hour , and the Mcs were hardly Thine were they ?

no. one member of staff was surprised. and that was only by her 3rd statement.

By Jane Tanners third statement , her abductor , had acquired a face

Don't forget the shiny brown shoes

woodward wrote:sorry to put a spanner in the spokes -gerry never said the front door was unlocked -they added the fact that the patio door was unlocked -no mention anywhere of main front door being left unlocked-whole thread on false premise-happy to be corrected

Woodward the quote below is from Gerrys' May 10th statement :

Different from his earlier declarations, he states now that he is certain that he left with Kate through the glass doors that were consequently closed but not locked, since this is only possible from the inside. Relative to the front access door, even though he is certain it was closed, it is unlikely that is was locked by key, since they left via the back way.

Gerry saying that the Quiz lady was sitting at their table on the 3rd when in fact it was the 1st. Why did he want her to be there then, alibi?

I think he is refering to the double lock -it does not mean that the main front door was left unlocked so that someone without a key could walk striaght in-if he was trying to infer that then the question why didnt the abductor just leave by the front door becomes even more pertinant-the door is on the same wall as the bedroom window and is much easier to use!

Faithlilly wrote:

woodward wrote:sorry to put a spanner in the spokes -gerry never said the front door was unlocked -they added the fact that the patio door was unlocked -no mention anywhere of main front door being left unlocked-whole thread on false premise-happy to be corrected

Woodward the quote below is from Gerrys' May 10th statement :

Different from his earlier declarations, he states now that he is certain that he left with Kate through the glass doors that were consequently closed but not locked, since this is only possible from the inside. Relative to the front access door, even though he is certain it was closed, it is unlikely that is was locked by key, since they left via the back way.

amazing coincidence he recalls a new narrative, not 1 day after making his 4/5 statement. but 6 days, surely enough time to assess the police, media, and professional opinion on his first attempted story..truly an amazing amount of generosity was afforded to them to have another go...

Any reason why his first statement was wrong?

woodward wrote:I think he is refering to the double lock -it does not mean that the main front door was left unlocked so that someone without a key could walk striaght in-if he was trying to infer that then the question why didnt the abductor just leave by the front door becomes even more pertinant-the door is on the same wall as the bedroom window and is much easier to use!

We probably will never know what he actually mean't Woodward. He was certainly not squeamish about leaving the patio doors unsecured so I doubt he'd balk at the front door being unsecured too.

WHY did he say he entered the apartment at his first check via the front door using his key?