At what time were the police called after Madeleine's disappearance?

[Mrs. B]

Problem? There is no problem as far as I'm concerned, there are conflicting statements & records in the files. As is to be expected in a major investigation.

[Redblossom]

You dodged the question, and there are no conflicting  records vis a vis when the police received their first phone call

Conflicting statements, yes a  penny a dozen for those and that includes the tapas 9

[icabodcrane]

You dodged the question, and there are no conflicting  records vis a vis when the police received their first phone call

Conflicting statements, yes a  penny a dozen for those and that includes the tapas 9

With regard to the first phone call to the police, there is only  one  conflicting witness statement  ...  that of the Ocean Club receptionist

His statement is in direct conflict with the recorded telephone data

No other witness  ...  not a single one ...  claims to have made a phone call to the police that night, either by landline or mobile 

it is insupportable to insist that someone 'might'  have done so, based on no evidence whatsoever

[Mrs. B]

Well, you can find it as insupportable as you wish. You have still not provided any proof that the witness was lying or is mistaken. And if you don't understand the concept of time, I really cannot help you.

[Redblossom]

Well, you can find it as insupportable as you wish. You have still not provided any proof that the witness was lying or is mistaken. And if you don't understand the concept of time, I really cannot help you.

Anyone corroborate this witness? Cos John Hill certainly doesnt

[Mrs. B]

So? Not a good enough reason to discard a witness off hand, there is nothing that contradicts it.

[icabodcrane]

So? Not a good enough reason to discard a witness off hand, there is nothing that contradicts it.

The factual,  unquestionable  'phone records'  contradict it

You are being obtuse in not accepting that simple truth 

[Redblossom]

So? Not a good enough reason to discard a witness off hand, there is nothing that contradicts it.

AT LEAST two witness statements contradict it, the pj police contradict it, so where does that leave your peculiar incessant need to make it true
 >@@(*&)

now you can argue it with someone who cares anymore for this pointless point

[Mrs. B]

No, I'm not actually. The telephone records are what they are, they show the time when A phone call was made to the police, they show nothing else but that.

[Mrs. B]

So? Not a good enough reason to discard a witness off hand, there is nothing that contradicts it.

AT LEAST two witness statements contradict it, the pj police contradict it, so where does that leave your peculiar incessant need to make it true
 >@@(*&)

LOL No, they don't. The only reference is to the land line record. Nobody is denying that A phone call was made. But it doesn't exclude that an earlier one COULD have taken place. 

[Redblossom]

So? Not a good enough reason to discard a witness off hand, there is nothing that contradicts it.

AT LEAST two witness statements contradict it, the pj police contradict it, so where does that leave your peculiar incessant need to make it true
 >@@(*&)

LOL No, they don't. The only reference is to the land line record. Nobody is denying that A phone call was made. But it doesn't exclude that an earlier one COULD have taken place.

Amy Tierney and John Hills statements contradict it, there are no records of calls to the police  so unless you want to accuse the PJ of hiding records of  phone calls made before 22 41 there is no Lol about it, enjoy, Im out of this  pointless merrygoround

[Mrs. B]

Yes, good idea, there are conflicting statements in the files. Live with it. Nothing changes that fact.

[Redblossom]

Yes, good idea, there are conflicting statements in the files. Live with it. Nothing changes that fact.

No, the POINT is no one and nothing corroborates your star witness, and you have no FACTS in this respect, there is a total lack of any, not rocket science

blocking you for time wasting claptrap

[Mrs. B]

Even better idea 

[AnneGuedes]

unless you want to accuse the PJ of hiding records of  phone calls made before 22 41 there is no Lol about it, enjoy, Im out of this  pointless merrygoround

Not as pointless as that, Redblossom, the subliminal attempt can't be but cast a doubt on the PJ, the GNR or the 112. One more doubt ! Is it a smart way to divert the doubt from elsewhere ? I... doubt it.
The eventually guilty entity eventually omitted the eventual cellphone call of the OC receptionist who regularly received eventual orders from Mr Hill and from nobody else.
In hotels, normally, every mature person (not having a cell phone, which is rare nowadays) can freely use the reception land line. No receptionist will refuse that.