Did Rebelo Believe That David Payne Visited the McCann's Apartment ?

[Carana]

The quote in the OP appears in the Portuguese pdf Final PJ report, page 55, last paragraph

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MaddieMcCann_PJ.pdf

Yes, thanks Red, we know that now. The problem is that there is a translation issue: it doesn't correspond to the original Portuguese.

[Redblossom]

Yes, thanks Red, we know that now. The problem is that there is a translation issue: it doesn't correspond to the original Portuguese.

You obviously didnt read the link I gave, which IS in Portuguese and corresponds exactly to the quote in the OP

[AnneGuedes]

Absolutely.

[Carana]

Right, so the issue wasn't about translation after all, but would seem to be about two different versions of the final PJ report floating around.

The one I posted was the page just before the final one which was stamped and had handwritten numbers in the right-hand corner.

This other one (posted just now) isn't stamped, nor does it have numbers.

The PP report appears to have taken the details from the numbered/stamped version.

[Carana]

The page I posted with this issue is p. 58 (4582 in the right-hand corner).

The next page (the final one is p. 59 (4593) and the text goes two-thirds down the page. And has stamps and signatures on it.


So... how come there seem to be two versions floating around. And the number of pages don't coincide.

[Redblossom]

Hmmm, the unstamped version was probably a first draft, so small difference in number of pages is understandable if changes were made and  / or layout, margins, etc were different. The translations used for the mccannpjfiles seem to be from the unstamped one, and it is from those translations the OP quote came from, as they appear on the mccannpjfiles
Eta

Obviously in the final version the PJ were being clearer about what they meant as regards not knowing what happened on that evening vis a vis DPs visit, as they thought there wasnt clarity about the length and time of that visit after having read all their statements, including the LP taking a statement from DP saying he was there at  7pm! Im guessing, though the original draft could well have stayed, as there wasnt clarity in others statements for the time period from 5.30, ie Oldfield saying Kate and kids were watching the tennis match at 6.30! when K and Gs said different.
Oh well

[Carana]

Hmmm, the unstamped version was probably a first draft, so small difference in number of pages is understandable if changes were made and  / or layout, margins, etc were different. The translations used for the mccannpjfiles seem to be from the unstamped one, and it is from those translations the OP quote came from, as they appear on the mccannpjfiles

Yes, I think the unstamped one must have been a draft, particularly as it was dated 20 June (as opposed to 30 June).

But I found these stamped pages on there as well:






It can't be just changing margins as - at least in that paragraph - the content had been modified.

What else had been modified?

[Carana]

Another thing is that there is no watermark across the page on the unstamped one. I've no idea how that earlier version ended up on the Net.

[Redblossom]

Another thing is that there is no watermark across the page on the unstamped one. I've no idea how that earlier version ended up on the Net.

It was obviously part of the DVD files. To see if anything else was modified just compare the two versions line by line. Modification before a final version does not mean anything sinister was behind it!

[Carana]

It was obviously part of the DVD files. To see if anything else was modified just compare the two versions line by line. Modification before a final version does not mean anything sinister was behind it!

Was this draft part of the DVD or did it appear from somewhere else? The absence of a watermark seems a bit odd. I didn't suggest anything sinister was behind it.

There was clearly a modification - at least in that paragraph - which was the subject of the OP.

Which was:

From the PJ's Final Report :

' What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).'

Can we assume from the above that Rebelo did not believe the claims of the McCanns and their friends that David  Payne visited the McCann's apartment at 6.30 ?


I don't think we can assume anything as the translation doesn't correspond to the final version.

[AnneGuedes]

It might be related to the fact that the curious Paynes' UK written replies to questions aren't in the DVD.

[DCI]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
PAGE 47



From the original DVD FINAL REPORT

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;


From

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

Thanks to Kazlux 'astro', 'debk' and 'Joana Morais' for translation

What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).

It is obvious this has not been translated properly.

[Redblossom]

no DCI do keep up, it is obvious a different report was being translated, and PROPERLY

obviously someone assumed the final report was the same as the original  *draft* one and attached the jpeg images to the translation made for mccannpjfiles

ps we are talking about the final Pj report not the PPs legal summary whichis irrelevant here

[AnneGuedes]

Why did they suppress Mrs and Mr Payne visit at 19h in the 5A, as stated by PO Mike Marshall?

[Carana]

no DCI do keep up, it is obvious a different report was being translated, and PROPERLY

obviously someone assumed the final report was the same as the original  *draft* one and attached the jpeg images to the translation

ps we are talking about the final Pj report not the PPs legal summary whichis irrelevant here

No, don't think so, Red.

The translation on Pamalam's site corresponds to the draft version. The Jpgs of the Pt original along the left seem to be the final version.

The pdf that you posted earlier (from the same site) seems to be the 20 June draft. I hadn't seen that version before you posted it.