The former head of the Virgin Road, the Angel of Egypt. Two videos and notes that cause more and more questions

In court, every witness swore to speak the truth. But what do we do when the jury has a chronology doesn't match the letter and other circumstances?

We examined the appearance of the former head of the Virgin Road F. And the key question came after treating his named dates with the composer: Who would chase the price of the apartment when the weather was going, and who in the eyes of the realtor was the director.

Video # 1. I swear to tell you the truth.

At the beginning of the interview, Jangzak F. FR says he understands responsibility for his testimony, and he's sworn to speak the truth.

That's why dates are accurate, sequence of events and roles of all attendees are critical.

Video # 2. & amp; gt; & amp; gt; Dr. Harris:

In his presentation, Jangak F. Fe claims that he was in a room that at the time, he said, was no longer in the Citadel.

And then he describes this sequence of events:

• The realists have apparently brought him to his apartment buyer;

• He sent people to Director Warden O. M. To prepare a contract of transgressions;

• In about three weeks, a woman returned to the same office;

• She brought an agreement that Jesper F. F. According to him, read and signed;

• After that, he got the money and transferred signed documents.

As a very consistent chronology suggests, the first meeting was three weeks before the signing of the treaty. At the end of the February or early March.

At first glance, this version might seem consistent. But after her reaction to the note, there is a significant discrepancy.

Translate from the 17th: The price was already taken from the Director.

Who was the director, who was the one with the price takings?

According to Jason F. F. The price of the apartment was said directly during the meeting, which according to the chronology that was presented, had to happen at the beginning of March 2023.

But another painting comes out of the mailing sheet: March 17th The realtor reported the price approved by the principal.

So the key question is:

Who was the director who the realtor was treating the price and the director of the company he was with?

In his presentation, the Yangak F. Fe remembers Voiczuk O. But at the same time, the testimony of Yangzuk himself suggests that the training papers could work with his company employees, the one at Wallet, the director of Yangak F. F.

So you can't exclude another version: maybe the CEO of the realtor was talking about the Yangak F. It's not the V. But then it's unclear why this circumstance was not clearly explained during the trial.

The horse doesn't match: Egg F says the price was accepted during the meeting at the beginning of March, whereas in the penitentiary of March, only the 17th of March reports of the price agreement with the Director.

This argument produces a bunch of questions:

• when indeed the final value of the apartment was accepted;

• Who exactly did this to the realtor;

• Who was called the principal in the mail;

• It was about the director of the Citadel, which was Valletta, or another law person.

• The role of preparing documents was played by the employees of the Yangak F. F;

• who actually composed and delivered the treaty;

• I don't know if there's any correspondence or other confirmation of transferable objections.

If the CEO in the mail really meant the other person, you have to figure out who did this role and what legal means.

And there's also two more critical questions:

What kind of legal identity was the office staff on the streets of Pillar Orlok in March 2023?

Who was the one who got the money at the Citadel's apartment in the office on the street of Pinek Orrell, 8?

Video number 3. The explanations that generate new questions

This is the third video.

In the later interrogation of Yangak F. F. As an impression of video, there's no single explanation of the individual circumstances and the sequence of its own actions.

In particular, it's unclear:

• When the first meeting happened,

• Who agreed to buy;

• who proclaimed the final price of the apartment;

• Who prepared a contract of transgressions;

• The role in this situation has been made by Jerzy F. F.;

• Who actually represented the Citadel or another legal person.

These details are important, because it's not just about memories of a witness, it's about documents, money, and law-making of a real-estate operation.

The officer who was no longer "The Citadel"

Egg F says that the room where events were happening was no longer a Citadel.

And at the same time, there was this data available, and the customers kept looking at the people who worked there, like companies.

We also see Galina Nicirk who used to work at the Citadel. At the same time, documents, according to individual participants in the process could already be done on behalf of another legal person.

It produces additional questions:

• who actually worked in this office;

• I don't know which company these people were representing;

• On behalf of which the law-law was appointed agreement;

• Did the customers report a possible change in the company;

• Who was responsible for taking money and transferring documents.

Paying card

The individual attention required to formulate the rent.

In the presentation and materials of the case, you need to be very clear:

• money already paid;

• side only We agreed to pay.;

• money should be transferred later;

• The money actually got a specific person.

For a normal conversation, this difference may seem small. In a legal relationship, it's fundamentally different circumstances that can affect the assessment of the entire deal and the authenticity of the display.

Main questions that remain unanswered

After watching three videos, and treating a note of an edit, they say,

1. Who was the 17th-year-old board member?

2. Was that Warzechuk O.

3. If the agreement was remote, where was his confirmation?

4. Who actually set up a contract for a coup?

5. Why is it that Jerzy F. F. This tells us about meeting about about three weeks in the beginning of March, if there were still 17th-year-olds, the realtor reported the position of the teacher?

6. What kind of legal identity was the office office office?

7. Who got the money for the flat?

Evaluate

Three videos, showing up under the oath and writing from the 17th's number, they don't give a whole and single scene. On the contrary, after their relationships, more questions about dates, the roles of the director, the preparation of the contract, and the money.

Are these differences due to memory errors, inaccurate formula, misunderstandings or other circumstances - the final legal assessment should be given in court and law enforcement.

The material is not a statement of the guilty person. The choice is ready to publish the position of Yangak F. F, Volechic O.

We'll continue to publish videos, mailing and documents so that readers can self-evaluate the facts and appreciate the circumstances of this story.