Time line theory -question about origin.

[Alice Purjorick]

Would one attach any significance to the apparent absence of the Ministerio Publico watermark?

[Mr Gray]

It would be a real bonus to my theory that Madeleine left via the front door.  So don't worry I would love to be able to prove the front door was open when Kate did her check. 
"Gerry said the window was open, the shutters broken and the door, which had been locked, hanging open."  that could be an attempt at saving face with his sister, "and the door, which had been locked, hanging open"  you can't be sure which door he was meaning as in his first statement he came in via the front door.

The conversation with Jon Corner doesn't make logical sense either: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'
"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage.
"First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced, and then they saw the door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone"

Kate would have seen the door before the shutters unless she was talking about the front door.

Putting in more detail if they came in through the patio door: "First they saw one of the [kid's bedroom] window shutters had been forced, and then they saw the [front door] door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone"

Putting in more detail if they came in through the front door: "First they saw one of the [kid's bedroom] window shutters had been forced [from outside], and then they saw the [kids bedroom] door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone"

I don't believe it is possible to be certain that the truth was being told in those first few explanations.  I'd say it would be common for face saving to be done in circumstances like this.

first you are not quoting the mccanns...and secondly if you accuse them of lying thats libel

[Carana]

Would one attach any significance to the apparent absence of the Ministerio Publico watermark?

Not if it had been a translation.

However, from memory, it was one or more people who went through the files for timeline info and made a compilation back in the days of 3A.

[Robittybob1]

Not if it had been a translation.

However, from memory, it was one or more people who went through the files for timeline info and made a compilation back in the days of 3A.

Can anyone see a sentence in there that is not covered by the rest of the released file?

[Alice Purjorick]

Not if it had been a translation.

However, from memory, it was one or more people who went through the files for timeline info and made a compilation back in the days of 3A.

Gosh! what are you suggesting? 

[Robittybob1]

If it was third party analysis, why would it appear in the files?

The translators have been able to add notes and comments to the file.  So why not a whole document?  There are no reference details on it.  Just choosing a page randomly "TRANSLATIONS BY INES

05-Cartas Rogatorias Vol V Pages 11-12"  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm

and another "789 to 791 Witness statement of Elisa Angela Dias Romao 2007.05.09
03-Processo 3 page 789

TRANSLATION BY CAMERINA"

Both those had reference details and the other thing was the translations were "by" rather than "thanks to".
So it looks like this analysis is "THANKS TO  KAZLUX" and not something done by the UK police or the PJ. IMO.

[Robittybob1]

Gosh! what are you suggesting? 

What has been concerning me is where whole pages are missing could that be due to the translators ignoring certain pages?
If they can add them in can they also take others out?

[misty]

Can anyone see a sentence in there that is not covered by the rest of the released file?

"After 22:00 R. R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search."


In the public files NB in rogatory said:- (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm)
From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added.


In the public files RRSB in rogatory said :- (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm)
After 22:00 we were still sitting on the veranda in the Berry apartment. We heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches. I cannot add any more details save those which have already been given in this testimony.



No mention that either of the witnesses engaged with Gerry so Kazlux must have somehow seen the first statements made by Berry & Balu,
 

[Robittybob1]

Rajinder Raj Singh BALU  = RRSB you seem to be right Misty.  So how did they do that?

[Robittybob1]

"After 22:00 R. R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search."


In the public files NB in rogatory said:- (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm)
From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added.


In the public files RRSB in rogatory said :- (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm)
After 22:00 we were still sitting on the veranda in the Berry apartment. We heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches. I cannot add any more details save those which have already been given in this testimony.



No mention that either of the witnesses engaged with Gerry so Kazlux must have somehow seen the first statements made by Berry & Balu,
 

Have you ever worked out what they mean here: "and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches."  What is "the paper"?

[misty]

Have you ever worked out what they mean here: "and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches."  What is "the paper"?

I assume it was the copy photo printed off that night.

[sadie]

Not if it had been a translation.

However, from memory, it was one or more people who went through the files for timeline info and made a compilation back in the days of 3A.

I seem to remember that too, Carana.

A lot of work went into compiling that analysis.   Was it by Kazlux himself, I wonder?


ETA:  Soz, Rob
Seems you have already worked it out in an earlier post

[sadie]

I seem to remember that too, Carana.

A lot of work went into compiling that analysis.   Was it by Kazlux himself, I wonder?


ETA:  Soz, Rob
Seems you have already worked it out in an earlier post

I seem to remember that Kazlux was well known as a poster who was very much against the Mccanns .. a leading sceptic.   

Please could others verify what I am saying, cos it was a long time ago

I notice that he has chosen to rubbish all the times given by the Mccanns, the Tapas group and many other witnesses (The majority, I think) who were talking about 22.00 hours being the time that Madeleine was first missed.

Has he cherry picked the witnesses he prefers to believe?

Can anyone think of a good reason why?

[faithlilly]

I seem to remember that Kazlux was well known as a poster who was very much against the Mccanns .. a leading sceptic.   

Please could others verify what I am saying, cos it was a long time ago

I notice that he has chosen to rubbish all the times given by the Mccanns, the Tapas group and many other witnesses (The majority, I think) who were talking about 22.00 hours being the time that Madeleine was first missed.

Has he cherry picked the witnesses he prefers to believe?

Can anyone think of a good reason why?

It doesn’t matter how the statements were picked. What matters is that a narrative CAN be built from the available statements that cast doubt on the friends timeline. No speculation, just evidence from the horse’s mouths.

[misty]

It doesn’t matter how the statements were picked. What matters is that a narrative CAN be built from the available statements that cast doubt on the friends timeline. No speculation, just evidence from the horse’s mouths.

snipped
22.50 pm - First call to GNR Lagos precinct (Guarda Nacional Republicana, rural police); The first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was made at 10.50pm and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR.

==================================================

It also casts doubt on the GNR's timeline.