Visits to the play area after tea. What is the truth?

[G-Unit]

H

Gunit, have you deliberately missed the point? 


Trying to take the readers eye off the importance of all the above facts?
 
Especially that the words are not even Matts, but from some kindly foreign person who tried to help.



Have you deliberately missed the point?  5 of them!

I have missed none of your assumptions.

[Mr Gray]

I have missed none of your assumptions.

And you are assuming the statements are accurate when theres evidence they are not

Most of Sadies points are facts... Not assumptions

[G-Unit]

And you are assuming the statements are accurate when theres evidence they are not

Most of Sadies points are facts... Not assumptions

1. Non-verbatim statements by UK police;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALAN-PIKE.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICHARD_SCHOFIELD.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KA-LEMc.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm

So why the fuss about non-verbatim statements taken by the PJ?

2. Who is this man?

3. Not a fact, an assumption.

4. Is this a fact? Did Matt say how long he was in 5A?

5. Not sure what this means?

[Mr Gray]

1. Non-verbatim statements by UK police;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALAN-PIKE.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICHARD_SCHOFIELD.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KA-LEMc.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm

So why the fuss about non-verbatim statements taken by the PJ?

2. Who is this man?

3. Not a fact, an assumption.

4. Is this a fact? Did Matt say how long he was in 5A?

5. Not sure what this means?

Those taken by UK police are taken in English... And written down in English..

[barrier]

Those taken by UK police are taken in English... And written down in English..

Then translated for the PJ then translated back from the files?

[Mr Gray]

Then translated for the PJ then translated back from the files?

At least they are taken in the persons own language so there is a more accurate record

[G-Unit]

At least they are taken in the persons own language so there is a more accurate record

They are non-verbatim and twice translated, just like the PJ interviews.

[barrier]

At least they are taken in the persons own language so there is a more accurate record

 The original's ratified and signed by the witness's no room for error,the supposed error only comes because they were released to the public for translation.

[sadie]

They are non-verbatim and twice translated, just like the PJ interviews.

You cant get away from th fact that the UK statements were recorded by someone who used english as his /her first language.


Personally, I do not like other peoples interpretations of what a witness said.


and that is without the added translating problem ... there is too much room for error.



Wouldn't stand up in Court ... would it ?   It would be torn to shreds.





On reflection:   Maybe it would stand up in some PT Courts   

[G-Unit]

You cant get away from th fact that the UK statements were recorded by someone who used english as his /her first language.


Personally, I do not like other peoples interpretations of what a witness said.


and that is without the added translating problem ... there is too much room for error.



Wouldn't stand up in Court ... would it ?   It would be torn to shreds.





On reflection:   Maybe it would stand up in some PT Courts   

I think you need to accept the fact that all the statements taken by the PJ were signed as correct by the witnesses.

[Eleanor]

I think you need to accept the fact that all the statements taken by the PJ were signed as correct by the witnesses.

No, Sadie doesn't.  And nor do I.

[Mr Gray]

I think you need to accept the fact that all the statements taken by the PJ were signed as correct by the witnesses.

That doesn't mean they are correct.  I think you need to accept that errors in the statements are, a perfectly valid possibility

[G-Unit]

No, Sadie doesn't.  And nor do I.

True; you can both choose to ignore the facts if you wish.

[G-Unit]

That doesn't mean they are correct.  I think you need to accept that errors in the statements are, a perfectly valid possibility

If they're incorrect the witnesses need to explain why they signed them.

[barrier]

You cant get away from th fact that the UK statements were recorded by someone who used english as his /her first language.


Personally, I do not like other peoples interpretations of what a witness said.


and that is without the added translating problem ... there is too much room for error.



Wouldn't stand up in Court ... would it ?   It would be torn to shreds.





On reflection:   Maybe it would stand up in some PT Courts   

Nothing that is known in the public domain hasn't a hope in hell of being heard in a court in this case imo,one of the reason's Redwood ruled tanner man out of almost certainly being an abductor imo is because of some information known only to the PJ/Og that Tannerman confirmed.