Tapas Quiz Night, Question 1/?

The single question we made on our Tapas Quiz Night was meant to spawn a series of other questions about what happened in the Tapas Bar during that week.

We already had some questions of our own as we do think that the “reservation sheets” are filled with information just waiting to be seen. However, as expected, your contribution has made us think of quite a few more. Thank you.

From your comments, there were things we hadn’t noticed and things that we also had seen and now confirmed that they are there to be seen. There are also things that we’ve seen, and that you didn’t pick up. These we'll tell you about later.

The Quiz Night post was just a warm-up. We’re NOW going to start our Tapas Quiz Night.

Very much like it (never) happened in the Tapas Bar, we don’t have here a sound system, nor have handed you any pencils or answer sheets, so this is how we’ll play, for simplicity sake: we’ll be placing the questions here and follow it up with what we think is the right answer.

Unlike in a REAL Quiz Night, the right answer here is QUESTIONABLE and is, as should be, subject to challenge. Let’s get the game going then.

For tonight, the FIRST question, out of an unknown quantity of others to follow (and there are many, many to follow…):  
QUESTION: What are exactly the sheets that we’ve come to know as Reservation Sheets? 
a) Reservation Sheets 
b) Statistical sheets 
c) Presence Sheets 
d) None of the above 

ANSWER: d)

Let’s look at the data: On those pieces of paper we have the following information:

- A time, either already on the actual template, or handwritten, which we suppose to be the one desired by the customer to have his supper.

- A surname, e.g. McCann, which we suppose to be the identity of the customer

- A 3-character designation, constituted by numbers and letters, e.g. G5A, which we suppose is the apartment where the customer was occupying.

- A number, e.g. 4, 2+2, which we suppose is the total quantity of people present associated with the referred customer.

- A number, with 3 digits, e.g. 211, which we suppose is the reference to the table in which the customer and those associated with him, had their meals.

- A check mark, which we suppose was to confirm that the customer had been present and had had the meal at the allocated table.

- A number at the bottom of the pages followed by one of these words: “sangria”, “branco”, “tinto”, “aguas”, “sumos”or “red wine”, which we suppose refers to drink consumption. Not on all, but just on some sheets, we have the word “gastos”, which we suppose is associated with the drink consumption.

The template of the first three is completely different from the other three.

As an example, the first are in English the last in Portuguese.

The first three have three details that the other three don’t:

- the initials “MW” per customer (which we suppose refers that the Tapas Bar customer in question is also “Mark Warner” customer)

- the phrase “Mesas lá dentro – 4 mesas com 4 pax máximo” which , translates roughly into “Tables inside – 4 tables with 4 pax max”.

- clear definition of time in which, we’re supposing here once again, bookings were possible: “das 7pm às 9pm” 

In a first analysis we seem to have different types of registry concepts mixed up altogether in these pieces of paper that we’ve now become to know as “Tapas Bar Reservation Sheets”: the registration of reservations, the registration of billing and the registration of consumption.

The Portuguese have a saying for the “Jack of all trades, master of NONE”, which is “when you play too many musical instruments at once, you end up playing NONE well”…

Let’s look at these pieces of paper under each of those three registration concepts: reservations, consumption (or statistical) and billing (or presence) 

a) RESERVATION SHEETS

To be a reservation sheet, I would accept the whole information (except whatever is under “gastos”) that is there.

Just the way it is presented, makes it have no sense whatsoever as reservations sheets.

First, let’s understand what is intended by making a reservation. It’s a contract whereby Party A (customer) informs, IN ADVANCE, Party B (restaurant) that it is interested in taking a certain meal at a certain time and day.

Party B, on the other hand, accepts the responsibility to GUARANTEE the provision of the required for Party A to have the meal as desired.  

Party B is in clear disadvantage in this contract: Party A has CERTIFIED a place where and when to have its desired meal, while Party B has no guarantee that that meal will effectively be consumed. So the exchange of information between the parties has to be in accordance with the desired end: in order to guarantee Party A’s satisfaction and minimize Party B’s damages in case Party A doesn’t show up.

And what information is this? Usually, it’s the date and time pretended and the identification from Party A. Party B may ask for a contact just to be able to confirm that a possible non-arrival is that exactly, and not tardiness. This is the usual dialogue: “Good evening, if possible, I would like to reserve a table for 4, for Wednesday at 8 o’clock.” “Let me check, yes, there’s no problem. In what name should I make the reservation?” “Brown” “Could you please leave a contact?” And that’s it.

Of course, if you’re staying in a hotel, instead of a contact, the indication of your room can be used to replace the “contact”.

Although not usual, a table may be allocated to the customer at that moment. But it is at that moment, not on the evening of the meal. It’s completely irrelevant for the restaurant, in terms of RESERVATION, whether the Browns had their meal at table 219, 324 or 007.

When the customer arrives on the night in question, what the restaurant does is to cross out the name, or check it. It simply means that that particular customer that has made that reservation has arrived, and allows for Party B to check out those who he hasn’t checked, eventually call them, and confirm if they’re coming or not.

If they’re not coming, the reserved table can then be used by walk-in clients.

I know you know all this, but thought better to remind you, so that you’re aware of what is exactly at stake when you’re looking at a REAL “reservation sheet”.

All other superfluous information, either has reason or has a reason to be there…

Now look at those pieces of paper again. Are they reservation sheets? No, they’re not.

For example, the handwriting of the table number differs from whoever wrote down all the other information. This means clearly that the RESERVED tables were only allocated when the customers arrived.

Why? Is this important information to have on this particular type of document? On the cash-register, maybe yes, on the reservation sheet, no, it isn’t.

If required, you could easily prove that Brown did eat at table 314, by presenting the duplicate of the bill.

Now, if you can’t produce such a document, then you have to find some other way to do it, don’t you?

Is it necessary for a restaurant with the size of Tapas BAR to have a DAILY HANDWRITTEN reminder of in between what times were reservations allowed?

Those “reservation sheets” are for INTERNAL use ONLY, not for customers. Shouldn’t ANYONE minimally responsible for the bookings know that by heart?!?

We don’t know exactly yet what to call these pieces of paper, but one thing we know they aren’t and that is “Reservation Sheets”.  

b) STATISTICAL SHEETS

This would be related with the “Gastos” written on some of those sheets.

To write down “12 bottles of red wine were consumed”, without specifying who drank what and what were the costs involved is as useful as writing “8 women in long dresses, 10 men in tuxedos”.

But, if you wanted to convey that the dinners at your restaurant were kind of fancy, then writing down “8 women in long dresses, 10 men in tuxedos” wouldn’t be that innocent would it? Hmmm… I wonder what message one would like to convey with “12 bottles of red wine were consumed”?

To justify the brandless and priceless mention of wine because there was only “house-wine” available (thus fixed price), besides being ridiculous, doesn’t explain the lack of attribution of the bottles to the tables that should have consumed them.

And to expect that a Restaurant that demands reservations beforehand, that allegedly has an open grill, that has inside and outside tables, that has Quiz Night twice a week and that has at least all the personnel heard by the PJ on May 4th, is only able to serve “house-wine”, or local plonk, requires one to be more gullible than those who believe in the Tooth Fairy or those, even more naïve, that believe that Maddie was abducted.  

c) PRESENCE SHEETS

This would be for billing.

This is absurd because nowhere is it referred what was consumed.  

I’m not talking about drinks. A grilled steak differs from a salad in price anywhere in the world.

Was there ONLY one kind of wine one could drink, and ONLY one kind of meal (it seems it was steak) that one could choose to have?

Oh, we’ve also said before, the lack of allocation to the registered drinks allegedly consumed with who in fact did so, would make, in the least, a very unjust way of charging people money…  

d) NONE OF THE ABOVE

As seen that’s the correct answer for today’s question.

As to what were these sheets exactly for, and what was the intention of producing them, we know you already suspect, but, as is our way of doing things, we will confirm with the question to follow on the Tapas Quiz Night.

We’ve only gone through the first one.

The REAL Quiz Night at Tapas

It seems that somebody owes the Tapas Bar a Quiz Night.

No, not Najoua, for as far as we know, she delivered all the QNs she had to.

If we only could gather up all those numerous people that are supposed to have accompanied the T9 during that so much entertaining meal at Tapas for Quiz Night, we would.

They’ve yet to confirm their presence there, but I’m sure that if asked, they would ALL fly back to PdL to do a reconstruction of that night.

No, not to help us out, but just out of the pure hilarious fun that it is to participate in a Quiz Night!

What we’re proposing to do now, if you agree, is to run a Quiz Night at Tapas, but instead of there, it will be right here in the blog!

So round up your team mates, have a pencil ready, and here's the QUIZ QUESTION:  

"From the Tapas Bar reservation sheets shown below, what can you tell us that you'd expect us to tell you?”

 Do remember to look because all that is to be known know is looking back at you, or as Sherlock Holmes said to Dr Watson: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

 

In Memorium

The Portuguese PM, José Socrates, has resigned.

Mysteries of a Non-Cryptic Photograph

Sometimes, perfectly innocent events, for some reason, take an importance never meant for them to have, by anyone, much less by the one who caused it. This, perfectly innocent picture, is, in our opinion such a case. It contains much more information that the photographer or whoever published it ever intended to reveal:

This picture was taken from Pamalam, a site that dedicates itself in gathering and putting together the most diverse documentation and material for public consultation that has been published and/or photographed about the Maddie Affair. This picture has the following information on the site:

Carol Tranmer gate ( Source sun)
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8
ImageDescription - PICTURE BY LEE THOMPSON 17/09/07 GV OF THE MARK WARNER OCEAN CLUB APARTMENTS IN PRAIA DA LUZ IN PORTUGAL AS SEEN FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING FROM IN MAY THIS YEAR. THE MCCANNS APARTMENT IS BOTTOM LEFT OF THE PICTURE.
SamplesPerPixel - 3
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - ImageReady
DateTime - 2008-04-17T15:50:41+01:00
Artist - LEE THOMPSON ExifOffset - 472
ExifImageWidth - 520
ExifImageHeight - 347

As said, Pamalam's site captures information gathered from various sources, and places it there not providing personal opinions about its data (although I remember reading one particular personal opinion, but it was from a contributor and not from Pamalam), so we assume that the above information is, like all other on that site, taken as was seen from the source in question: The Sun.

Let’s see the facts, taken from above, we consider relevant:

#1, Source: The Sun

#2, Photographer: LEE THOMPSON

#3, Location: FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING FROM

#4, Date: 17/09/07 or 2008-04-17

#5, Title: Carol Tranmer gate

Let’s start, as is obvious, with fact #3, LOCATION. It states quite clearly, that it was taken two floors above Apartment 5A, that means from the second floor, above Mrs Fenn’s apartment on the first floor.

Being I of the inquisitive mind, I decided to check if this was so. First, we’re able to see that nearest point to the street of each of the apartment’s balconies, first and second, are not exactly perpendicular to each other. The end of the first floor balcony is closer to the street than the one of the second floor:

By using the intersection of two simple straight lines, we can determine that if the picture was taken from the point of the second floor balcony nearest to the street, it would have been like so:

Equally, if the picture was taken from the point of the first floor balcony nearest to the street, it would have been like so:

Apparently it’s indifferent from where it was taken, but that is not the case. If we place these two simulations side by side, we can compare them and be able to detect the differences between them:

So, you can easily see that if the picture was taken from the second floor, the area represented in red below would be missing from it, but IS NOT MISSING, and would be seen in it, if taken from the first floor, as IT CAN BE SEEN:
 
Almost insignificant in quantity but full of significance, as this PROVES that the picture was NOT taken from the second floor, the one above Mrs Fenn, but from the one we've now come to know as the one belonging to the elderly lady, the first floor.

Only, as can be seen, from the apartment ABOVE the McCann’s is it possible to take a picture so near Rua Agostinho da Silva, and this is where THIS particular picture was taken:

That is the apartment, as said before and so many times repeated, where Mrs Fenn says she lives, which is the one above the McCanns.

It’s clear that the photographer, in his attempt to get the widest possible angle from where he was, stood up against the furthest wall in "Fenn’s balcony" and got one good and pretty picture indeed.

And don’t forget that the gate seen below, the “Carol Tranmer gate”, is basically TWO floors below Mrs Fenn’s apartment, exactly as it appears in the picture. It certainly doesn't seem to be THREE floors below as it would appear if the picture had been taken from the apartment above Mrs Fenn's.

Perfectly innocent, and almost justifiable, if not for the fact that it was said to be taken from where it was NOT. And please do not attempt a discrepancy here. Remember, we’ve already had one, in which none of us believed in:

A difference of ONE floor in possible TWO cannot be taken as such.

Eventually it could’ve been said "taken from the second floor”, but it doesn’t. It’s quite clear where it says from where it was taken. Very, very precise and specific.

Now about Facts #1 and #2, SOURCE and PHOTOGRAPHER: The Sun, being the source makes perfect sense, so nothing is to be said about that. About the photographer, LEE THOMPSON, I searched the tabloid’s website, and did not get anything related to this person, much less anything linking him with Maddie.

And nothing guarantees that he’s in anyway related with the tabloid, or that he's not, and honestly, that's quite irrelevant.

Fact #4, DATE, we have two of them, one where it’s clearly said that it was taken on Sep 17th, 2007. but there’s another date, April 17th, 2008, which seems more related with technical details, such as being downloaded, so we’ll assume that it was the on the first date mentioned that the picture was effectively taken.

But that is not important. What is important is that the referred dates:

- BOTH are after Aug 18th, 2007, date The Sun published Mrs Fenn's complaint that she hadn’t yet been heard by the PJ; - BOTH are after Aug 20th, 2007, date in which Mrs Fenn had her statement taken; - BOTH are after The McCanns left Portugal;

- BOTH are before April 22nd, 2008, date in which Carol Tranmer-Fenn's made her rogatory statement; - BOTH are before any public release of the PJ Files. Fact #5, TITLE: CAROL TRANMER GATE.

We’ve contacted Pamalam, and was confirmed that the title of this photo was given by the site and not by The Sun.

If the photo had been taken in before May 3rd, 2007, the intent of such a photo would be clear that it was for marketing purposes, such as having it on the MW OC Website, although, as I’ll show you why, a much better picture could have been taken for such a reason.

We now know why the title appeared, but let's try and understand the reason why the picture was taken in the first place.

It was, as far as I can see, for one of the following reasons:

REASON #1, to highlight the gate that Carol Tranmer-Fenn saw. Not likely or reasonable. As far as we know, the only people to know what effectively Carol saw, were the Leicester Police who received her statement back in the UK. Pamalam’s title comes from looking at the picture and already knowing the files, and this knowledge has nothing to do with the one that whoever took the picture had.

REASON #2, a souvenir photo. Not likely or reasonable. The Apartment is privately owned and not rented to tourists. And it’s not from Mrs Fenn herself or from any of her visiting relatives.

REASON #3, commercial reasons. It makes sense, likely, just NOT reasonable, at least on those the terms stated on where it was taken. It makes sense, because as I said, it’s a beautiful picture of general view of the Tapas Complex. But why bother a resident to take such a picture, when one floor up you can take one other, with basically the same angle (not as wide, but the details left out, as we saw, don’t seem to be that relevant, do they?), given the fact that it would most likely be unoccupied, even if only when in-between rentals?

Plus with a much, much better view, as from the second floor, two apartments above the McCann apartment, you can see the tennis courts, that from this one, as all can see, you can’t?

But this photo appears to have come from The Sun and not from MW OC, which explains why it doesn’t appear on any MW websites for publicity.

So, The Sun reporter, decided to knock on Mrs Fenn door, an ELUSIVE and RECLUSIVE elderly lady (that’s the way they’ve made her been seen like), and ask her to open her door so that he could take a picture from her balcony, of a general view, when he could have contacted the OC Management and take the picture from one of the top apartments?

This, one must remember, was not asked following one of those initials interviews in late August, but, at best, about a month later. When the photographer took this photograph, he went specifically there to take this photograph.

Look at the picture, and tell me what was so important that it JUST HAD to be taken from THAT SPECIFIC balcony. See anything? I don’t either.

But, who is one to go against another's will just because reason states otherwise?

Many people have done assumingly unreasonable things, and lived none the worse. So if Mr. Thompson decided that that balcony was THE PLACE to take a picture of the general view of the Tapas Complex, one has just to accept that fact. He wanted a picture to go with some article about the McCanns, so fashionable at the time, from THERE, and he got it!

But then why say it was taken from the apartment above from where it was?

Unless… no, it's silly. You really want to read it? Well, YOU asked for it... what if the apartment above the McCanns, where the picture was taken, ISN'T WHERE Mrs Fenn lives?

Then, Mr Thompson, who used effectively an unoccupied apartment take the photo, but, after taking it, was reminded when he went back to the office by someone that in that particular apartment was supposed to be living a lovely elderly lady that had even showed the world how mean and negligent the McCanns were.

That would be a reason to change the caption of the photo to “AS SEEN FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING”.

 Now, I’m rather being silly, aren’t I?

War of the Words

Do read at Joana's and MC's blogs.  

Update: I have one small suggestion to make to Gonçalo Amaral, about the “The Truth of the Lie” book, and also for this upcoming one too.

Your book, Sir, is legally published in Portugal. It seems that you’re not able to obtain the same ability to exercise your right to Free Speech in the UK, an european and democratic Nation.

However, I haven’t read a word that it’s illegal to read your book in the UK.

So why not translate it, and publish an English version of the book… in Portugal?

The book would be on sale there, available to be bought by all English speaking tourists, as well as the various business travelers.

It would be a Portuguese book, just translated into another language, English, by chance and coincidence.

It would be fun to watch the UK authorities searching the luggage of their citizens… and also to see what kind of excuse they would come up with to apprehend the book from its rightful owners.

Why is Justice Forsaking Democracy?

It seems that the Portuguese Justice System has decided that there was no reason for Gonçalo Amaral not to sell the book. On the same day, it confirmed Gonçalo Amaral’s sentence of having lied when he stated that he didn’t have any knowledge of Leonor Cipriano being tortured by PJ Inspectors during interrogation.

 Let’s go and analyse things, and let’s try a do it with stone cold reasoning: both are questionable decisions.

The first, as I’ve said before, has the basis that the LEGITIMATE Portuguese Judicial System has found no sufficient evidence to prosecute the McCanns, and sees no reason for the process, as is, to continue. The decision was not to end it, as many Black Hats want you to believe.

You know my opinion about this “intermission” of the process as well as the “quantity” and “quality” of existing evidence there effectively is to prosecute the McCanns. If you didn’t know, you wouldn’t be reading this blog, nor would we be writing it.

But facts are facts, even when they are pretended to be ignored like the Portuguese Justice System has done with the McCanns.

However, this pretence ignorance of multiple facts, has made it, in fact, a fact that, LEGITIMATELY, the McCanns are NOT being in any way or in any manner being prosecuted by the Portuguese Justice System.  

That doesn’t mean, far from it, that the McCanns have been declared innocent by the same Portuguese Justice System, like many Black Hats so evidently distort.  

Gonçalo Amaral, in his book, gives his opinion that there is enough evidence for the McCanns to be prosecuted. There have been other books, published in Portugal, that have basically said the same, and have not suffered any persecution from the McCann machine.

The difference of this one is that, as we all know, Gonçalo Amaral led the LEGITIMATE Portuguese Justice System’s field investigation on the case. So it’s the credibility of the finger-pointing that is the problem. Not the content of the book, but that of the the author having had the LEGITIMATE powers invested in him during the investigation.  

Gonçalo Amaral’s finger has much more credibility than any other that has, is and will continue to point to the McCanns. But in doing so, that finger has blatantly pointed towards the Portuguese Justice System as well.

So the Portuguese Justice System was caught, to make a decision, between a rock and hard place. It had to decide between itself, saying that the LEGITIMATE decision of “seeing” that there was not enough evidence against the McCanns was correct, and the result would be to maintain the ban, as the book contradicted that decision; or decide in the sustainment of Free Speech, a Gonçalo Amaral’s right.

Fortunately, it decided for Free Speech. It could have gone the other way, and I, for one, would understand it (not agree) as I explained. It was a fair PUBLIC fight and the outcome has been decided. The book can be sold in Portugal, and its sale process is to continue.

 Having said that, let me tell you that I think the first decision, the one to ban the sale, was a wrong one, and worse than that, it gave the wrong message (maybe that was what was intended).

By the process’ archival, nobody has pronounced the McCanns neither GUILTY nor INNOCENT. So, it seems to me, a mere mortal on this world, that nobody, namely Gonçalo Amaral, can slander the McCann's INNOCENCE, as it is inexistent. What exists, technically, is the PRESUMPTION of innocence, and any PRESUMPTION can be questioned.

If this questioning is unmerited, it only requires the explanation as to why it lacks subject and no offense is to be taken.

About the second case, the Gonçalo Amaral’s sentence, the Portuguese Justice System was confronted with a person, with apparent evident physical injuries. That person states that it was due to having been to the submitted to torture by the PJ.

Let’s not forget that we’re thinking with reason here, and let’s put our personal opinions aside.

For the Portuguese Justice System there is proof that the person was beaten up. I agree, by the way.

For the Portuguese Justice System, this person was beaten up AFTER her arrest. I agree, by the way.

For the Portuguese Justice System, there is proof that this person was interrogated by the PJ Inspectors. I agree, by the way.

For the Portuguese Justice System, the aggressions did not occur within the walls of the prison where this person was held. Here I may not disagree, which I do, but certainly will not agree.

This fact is based on statements made by the prison personnel which would have to be disciplinary or criminally investigated if in fact these aggressions happened under their area of responsibility. But that is what they said, and that is what the Portuguese Justice System accepted as LEGITIMATE fact.

So adding up the facts, she was beaten up after the arrest, and it wasn’t in prison, so it could only have been, as the person herself stated, during the PJ interrogations.

Remember, we’re just looking at facts. The fact that the PJ said it wasn’t so, wasn’t sufficient to contradict the stated above, nor the fact that seems illogical to torture someone after they have confessed as well as the fact that the victim was unable to identify who effectively did torture her.

Apparently, they put a plastic bag over her head, which, impaired her not only from seeing as from hearing.

From the pictures, it was not a single hit to the body, but the result of multiple injuries, so sounds must have been made that would, without a shadow of a doubt, allow to identify the perpetrator, out of those present in the room.

And fear of reprisal is not a justification, because she did have the courage to denounce the whole thing. If it was all of PJ Inspectors present… then all the perpetrators would have been identified, wouldn’t they?

Anyhow, the Portuguese Justice System, faced with what it deemed as fact, took the decision that a victim was tortured but could not determine who in fact tortured the victim. A questionable decision.

Even further questionable, is the fact that Amaral is condemned for hiding evidence, just because he was the responsible for the team that did the interrogations. The responsibility of a leader has limits. In my opinion, as the interrogation is something that falls within the area of technical expertise, Amaral, as a non-present leader has none.

It’s like asking someone to know if a report that he told another person to type, if it was done by this person in a laptop or a PC, and if it was written with two fingers of the left hand and one of the right, or if the writer used all his fingers.  

Amaral, should, in my opinion, ONLY be condemned if he ORDERED the TORTURE (which, I don’t believe it happened, but just taking it for granted for argument’s sake), which the Portuguese Judicial System did not find any evidence of.

So, in accordance with the Portuguese Judicial System line of reasoning, if Amaral’s condemnation is due to him being professionally responsible for the alleged perpetrators, then why was Amaral’s boss taken off the hook? He should know too, shouldn’t he? And Amaral’s boss’s boss?

Now, if we just step back a little, and see that before all the lawyers started to “play” their game, the explanation by the PJ for what happened to Joana was coherent and logical, although horrific and disgusting, one must ask on how big and grotesque a monster Justice has become.

If, Leonor Cipriano’s confession was taken under torture, why is she still in prison?

The same Court, on the same day that determined PROVED the existence of said torture, should have, out of coherence and decency, acquitted Leonor and her brother and set them free.

It didn’t.

Why? Why this monstrous incoherency?

It’s a LEGITIMATE fact that Portugal holds in one of it’s prison a person who confessed under torture. No ifs or buts, that is the LEGITIMATE reality of Leonor Cipriano.

By the way, and sorry to wander off, but I don’t remember her lawyer demanding her freedom, only wanting Amaral to be found guilty of anything, even if just of a traffic misdemeanor.

Lawyers have long lost the sight of their mission. They seek not Justice, as their life sustainment is based on results; they seek only victories for their clients. It’s understandable, but not acceptable. Justice is no longer blindfolded for her not to differentiate who she is being applied to, but simply not to see, because, as experience shows, when accused, it matters much on who you are.

Or it maybe more than whom you are, it matters much more who you are up against, as Gonçalo Amaral, knows better than all of us put together.

We in this blog have never sanctified Gonçalo Amaral, nor we will start doing so now, but, as with any human being, he deserves whatever he’s due. And one thing he’s due, is respect.  

Amaral’s book, will not be the solution to the Maddie Affair. It exists on the internet, and if all those who’ve read it, had bought the book, it would have made Amaral a very rich man.

That’s one thing J. K. Rawlings cannot complain. Her readers buy her books legitimately, and so are her earnings.

Now, after the Portuguese Justice System decision on Amaral’s book, Britain has no plausible reason to stop the publication in its territory.

The reasons Britain alleges, are those that the McCanns presented to stop the sale. They’ve now been deemed baseless.

If Britain says, as it says, that the process is under Portuguese responsibility (as it is) then there is NO reason whatsoever not to allow the British citizens to make their own judgment about the contents of said book.

But let’s be realistic, Amaral’s book will only be published in Britain, after the British concede, not in allowing the book, but in having, finally the McCanns brought to Justice.

Until then, lawyers will find something to stop that from happening. Both the publishing and the bringing the couple to the Courts.

There’s a book to be on sale soon, part of which’s revenue is to stop another book from being sold. Life is ironic.

There are men and women in uniform risking their life this very moment for a thing called democracy.

Is Justice honoring them, or is their sacrifice being forsaken?

Quiz Night at the Tapas

 
Foreword:
  
For the benefit of Portuguese readers who may be unfamiliar with traditional UK Quiz Nights (QN), a short introduction. 

They are normally held in pubs, rather than restaurants; in fact I have never heard of a restaurant quiz evening. 

The usual format is at least 4 teams, consisting of 4-6 people- anything less is not much of a competition. The number of players in the team would be stated, as it would be an unfair advantage to have a bigger team. 

You need to have people with a spread of knowledge; history, popular culture, music, geography as things can become quite competitive, although we all maintain it’s just for fun! 

The teams give themselves a name, something deprecating like “The Losers”, who are determined to be any thing but.  

Sneaking off to the toilet to phone a friend is frowned upon.  

Plenty of space is essential because you don’t want the other tables to hear you discussing the answer. 

Arguing with the quiz host is part of the process, but the host has the final word and what the answer sheet says is gospel. 

The event is spread over a couple of hours, with a break to munch sandwiches and sausage rolls and buy another round.  

That’s the reason for pub quiz nights- to get everyone drinking and away from the pub down the road.
 

 
QUIZ QUESTION #1: Which night was Quiz Night and how many people were in the T9 quiz team?

We thought this would be an easy one, considering it could have been the very last night your life would ever be normal.

Let’s see what the contestants have to say. Russell O’Brien starts well. He says there was a trivia quiz on Tuesday or Wednesday conducted by the unnamed aerobics instructor.

He says Tuesday was the first night they were altogether,” 9 of us actually present “. He then goes onto say that the night the quiz took place was “ that was the night I wasn’t there” because he was looking after a sick child.

He remembers Rachael Oldfield wasn’t there either because she was ill.

Not the most confident answer, but he seems to be confirming that Wednesday was Quiz Night. That was the night before Maddie disappeared.  

Kate and Gerry make no mention of the quiz at all, as far as we can see.  

Dianne Webster remembers there was a quiz night, but can’t remember if it was Tuesday or Wednesday. She says nothing more about it, so was she there?  

Jane Tanner elaborates. The quiz was on two nights. One of them might be Tuesday.

One was a mini quiz of 5-10 minutes (how boring is that!) and the other a couple of rounds. She confirms their child was sick on Wednesday and didn’t attend the children’s club. She doesn’t mention anything more, so was she there?

David Payne was definitely there, because he remembers chatting to the Pilates and aerobics instructor one night, without saying which night. He does say they stayed until late on Wednesday night.

Fiona Payne was definitely there too, but she has to ask the interviewing police officer for help, which is against pub quiz rules. The officer isn’t much help so Fiona gamely tries to remember. She’s not sure if it was Monday, as there was potentially a second type of quiz night.

For Fiona, it also might be Wednesday because they were not in a row. She remembers there was some banter which they all joined in and that they LOST.

Well, there’s a first for everything.

She remembers inviting the quiz mistress for drinks at the table at the latter part of the meal.  

Matthew Oldfield describes a few sort of tables around that were occupied and that one night there was a quiz. Did the rest of the early sitting diners simply sit around waiting for the T6/7/(?) to finish their meal before the quiz could start?

And how did the Tapas child checking system fit into QN? Did all QN stop until the player returned?

One can only guess that those that had chosen to pay for the night nanny service not to be too satisfied with this, and protest...

And within each team, did the choice on who had to go and check the children befall on the one who knew the least about topic of the question in question? You know, if was sports, it was lady that would be picked to go...

Now this would appear to give those teams who had paid for the nannies, an unexpected bonus, but that, we’re sure, would be considered CHEATING! If they went to do checks they could be finding answers instead! It's worse than 'phoning a friend'!

Matthew also mentions going for a run with Kate at lunchtime because Rachael was ill in the apartment. (What a gent, leaving her to vomit alone) He doesn’t tell us anything about which night. So was he there?

This is a long question, so to clarify, let’s check Najoua Chekaya’s (NC) answer to make things easier

After all, she does the hosting, so, surely she should know better than anyone.  

NC says QN at the Tapas was on Tuesday and Sunday nights.

She remembers sitting at the table after Gerry invited her over for a drink. Right; so that’s Gerry there then.

She was there from 21.30 -21.50. One seat was empty and she wasn’t sure if she saw David Payne or Kate.

In the book Vanished, by Danny Collins, written in 2008 before the PJ files were released, NC held QN at the Tapas on Thursday evening, the night Maddie disappeared and was invited to join them at the table.

Obviously he got it wrong, hence the confusing stories as to Which Night was Quiz Night? But Danny is an investigative journalist and obviously got much of his information from Clarence Mitchell or sources close to the family, as he says CM was made aware of the book’s contents.  

Collins also provides a link to the fund.

The Daily Mail had previously reported on August 16th 2007 that Najoua was chatting with the Tapas group on the night that Maddie had disappeared. “That night, Ms Chekaya had organised a bar quiz at the Ocean Club resort where the McCanns were staying. Her evidence is understood to corroborate the McCanns’ movements in the hour before the disappearance was discovered.” NB:

For Najoua’s statement to be corroborated, there would HAVE to have been a minimum of 2 other teams of 4, which with quiz mistress would mean an extra 9 people OTHER than the T9 to interview as witnesses that QN had been on Thursday.

Or on any other night, as you may pick out of the many that the T9 have put at your disposal to choose from.

However, in any of those nights, you still need those 18 people present.

And waiters, bartenders, cooks, and kitchen-helpers don’t count. If the QN was done exclusively between the T9, then how the 2 teams were split up would be remembered by all, including NC (at least better than the seating arrangements around the BIG ROUND TABLE).

If Gerry had invited her to his table of four players then she did not sit with the other four. Not to say that this blog has already said that it found very strange that that joyful and smiling company was so little remembered.
 
I now need to confer with my team members for the correct answers, so pass the sandwiches round (or if we're having dinner while playing do mind the forks, no answers with your mouth full please, and do be careful and don't blot the answer sheet) and mine’s a white wine, anything but Chardonnay.  

QUIZ QUESTION #2, what does… no, you’re right, no use continuing with the Quiz until question #1 is adequately clarified, otherwise we would all be playing a FICTITIOUS QN, wouldn’t we?

As said before, this blog leaves those frustrating attempts of transforming fiction into fact to some would-be “alchemists”
.

Looking at the Future, Today.

"Right at the start," he said, "written in huge letters, as it were, was 'Corruption Here', yet no one would accept it, no one would listen, there was this blanket of denial." And because the police refused to accept that there were lies and cover-ups in train, the vital moments passed. It was the arrogance of power, written in huge letters.

No, we’re not here anticipating the future, although we’re confident that in the future something very similar will be written about the McCann Affair.

We are quoting the present. From the article “Daniel Morgan was murdered. Now it seems justice is dead too” by journalist Duncan Campbell from The Observer.

The direct speech are words of Alastair Morgan, brother of slain Daniel, of which we’ve spoken about in the posts National Habits and National Habits II.

But, as you must agree with us, a carbon-copy of that paragraph is completely applicable to the McCann case.

But it’s not the only paragraph from that article that seems to fit like a glove to the Maddie Affair: "The Metropolitan police were silent, evasive, dishonest, arrogant, nonchalant, patronising and insolent towards both myself and my mother as we expressed our profound alarm at what was becoming clear to us." (Alastair Morgan) “(…) For a while the inquiry headquarters was abuzz with optimism and diligence. (…) But over the past two years the case has gradually fallen apart.”

And this one that really hits every single one of us right in the heart: “Alastair Morgan remarked laconically on Friday that the only hope now for the murderers to end up in jail would be if one of them "finds God". No investigation of a murder which was bursting with clues and motives should ever need divine intervention.”
 

National Habits II

Yesterday, I talked here about the nasty habit of the British Police tampering with evidence and shielding criminals.

However I did forget, my sincere apologies for that, to mention something that is as typical to Britain as cricket, lawn bowling and the 5 o’clock tea: the Libel Threat.

 Do read this fascinating article from newsassociates:  

"The dark arts of Jonathan Rees. 

The collapse of a high-profile murder trial over evidential questions poses uncomfortable questions for the police. 

But the case is of much wider significance, since it poses equally difficult questions for the prime minister, for his former press secretary, Andy Coulson, and for all those at News International who have stuck to their claim that no one in the company – bar one rotten apple – had any knowledge of illegal behaviour by, or on behalf of, its journalists.  

Jonathan Rees, who was yesterday cleared of murdering his former business partner, Daniel Morgan, is a private investigator of a particularly unpleasant and vindicative kind. 

In the late 1990s he was working for the News of the World, paid as much as £150,000 a year to use his dark arts to illegally trawl for personal information on the paper's targets. The work, which included bribing police officers, came to the attention of Scotland Yard's anti-corruption team, who bugged his office for six months. 

In December 2000 his newspaper work – which included work for the Mirror Group – came to a sudden and enforced halt when he was jailed for seven years after being caught planting cocaine on a woman. 

The aim was to discredit her prior to divorce hearings Rees was one of four private detectives – all of them now convicted criminals – who are known to have been retained by the News of the World, apparently without the knowledge of a single executive.  

Rees's exploits were certainly no secret. They were written about in two articles published by the Guardian in 2002, while Rees was in prison. One of them named a News of the World executive, Alex Marunchak, who had been caught on tape discussing payments of thousands of pounds. 

Despite all this – Rees's links to corrupt police, his prison sentence, the publication of his links to, and payment by, the newspaper – he returned to work for the News of the World, now edited by Andy Coulson, in 2005 after he had left prison.  

Rees was charged with murder in 2008, which meant that no newspaper could, until today, name him.
But both David Cameron and Nick Clegg knew of the background to the story in early 2010, well before they entered Downing Street. The new prime minister chose to ignore it, appointing Coulson head of communications at Downing Street in May 2010. 

It was an extraordinary piece of bad judgment, and surprising that Clegg apparently did not demur or distance himself in any way. 

Did no one carry out any official vetting before Coulson was allowed across the doorstep of No 10? Or did Cameron and Clegg want the former Murdoch editor so badly that they pretended not to know, and ignored the ticking time bomb which exploded yesterday? 

Meanwhile, what of Acting Deputy Commissioner John Yates, who was so quick to assure the world that there wasn't much to the phone-hacking stories uncovered by journalists on this and other newspapers? He has hired one of the UK's most notorious libel firms to warn off this newspaper for reporting the claim that he misled parliament. 

In a Commons debate this week, Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda, made the direct accusation that Yates did, indeed, mislead two parliamentary select committees. 

Moreover, it was alleged that Scotland Yard has known for five months that its evidence was incorrect. The two committees involved should, as a matter of some urgency, invite the police to explain its position.  

Until now most of the attention around phone hacking has centred on the activities of Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2006 for his work on behalf of the News of the World. Rees was actually paid more than Mulcaire and is alleged to have deployed a wider armoury of illegal methods to acquire information for his Fleet Street clients.  

Now that his name is no longer protected by court restrictions, another chapter in this disturbing saga of intrusion, power and criminality can be written."
 

Isn't that last paragraph just a frightening thing to read for some who have just read it?

National Habits

From the Guardian:  

“The family of Daniel Morgan have called for a judicial inquiry after the collapse of the case against three men accused over his murder. 

The family of a man found murdered 24 years ago with an axe embedded in his head has damned the entire criminal justice system as "not fit for purpose" after Scotland Yard admitted the killers had been shielded by police corruption.  

It followed the collapse of the trial of three men accused of the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987. The prosecution decided not to offer any evidence because it could not guarantee that the police could meet rules protecting the defendants' right to a fair trial. 

Charges against two other men had been dropped earlier. Scotland Yard's hunt for Morgan's killers had to overcome the fact that the original murder inquiry had been hampered by police corruption.  

One of those acquitted earlier in the current case was a former detective, Sid Fillery, who had been charged with perverting the course of justice. After the murder he replaced Morgan at Southern Investigations, the private detective firm Morgan ran with Jonathan Rees, who was accused of the murder and acquitted after the crown's case collapsed.”

The Portuguese, according to the British Tabloid Press seem to have the nasty habit of “sardine-munching”.

 This “munching” bit still requires to be clarified, as Brits have been seen, in various locations in Portugal, with the exact same type of “mandibular” MO as the locals when eating the referred fish, aggravated with the fact that many have also been seen coming back for seconds…

The English, seem, as per above article, to have acquired the taste for another kind of “habit”… You tell me which is the most disgusting.

Update: It seems that the Daily Mail has picked up on THIS story too.. I imagine the exact same thing is going to happen when the McCann castle of cards is to start to crumble... How everybody, in the Press that is, will seem to be surprised and outraged that day. The day we, at this blog shall not call of "Victory", but rather as the "The McCann Celebrity Remembrance Day".

Just a Word of Advice

Dear Celebrity,

We were ALL fooled in that month of May 2007.

ALL our hearts went out to the pain of that a young couple of doctors that had their daughter abruptly taken away from them.

Those who say otherwise are lying (leaving out the Police and all those involved in the scam, obviously).

So, it was natural for many celebrities, out of the purest goodness of their hearts, to have made make public appeals in support of the McCanns.

 I, for one, understood and understand what they did, and honestly do thank them for having done what they did.. My gratitude is sincere, they came forward in a time they felt they were needed.

But as we said, unfortunately all was but a scam and everyone is fooled ONCE. I do hope that all those celebrities do not feel now disheartened and will come forward again if a REAL situation of helping a child is to arises again. I’m sure they will because I believe that the human heart is much greater than one can imagine.

This blog, diligently and NOT lightheartedly, has exposed the Maddie Abduction to have been nothing but an ABSOLUTE FARCE.

It was, and IS, the exploitation of, and profiteering from, the image a child, whose responsible for the said promotion (in which both parents of the child are included and have participated actively), knew very well she was not alive, so impossible to be searched for in the terms they begged the WORLD to do so.

Disgusting beyond possible imagination.

Because we believe that those celebrities initially involved, were not aware that they were being used for the most machiavellian of reasons, and were as much a victims as the rest of us, this blogs refrains, and will maintain such position, from naming them here.

Victims just like all of us, their visibility was used, but unfortunately it wasn’t of any use, because there was no use for it, as the promoters so well knew.

But that is to be fooled once. To be fooled twice, and by the same set of people, can only mean one of two things. You’re either really a fool and deserve to be fooled or you want to be fooled.

In turn, if you want to be fooled, that can also mean only one of two things too: you’re either a part of the fooling party, and not being fooled at all, or you’re interested in being fooled. The latter may lead to many interpretations, in these times when the McCann popularity plummets.

The McCanns are making sure that when and if they are exposed, the number of humiliated people associated with them grows too.

Today, especially after the "McCannleaks", no one can allege ignorance on the subject.

Ordinary people may not be able to articulate why but they know there’s something dodgy about them. No ordinary folk we know seem to be interested in them anymore.

The fact that the tabloids do not allow any comments on the stories they publish about the McCanns is a quite clear message that their popularity has sunk, and only “friendly strings” keep them upright.

Even if you stretch all legal terms to the extreme, in no time, and in no Country have the McCanns been declared innocent.

On the other hand, there is surmount evidence that there was NO ABDUCTION.

 So, dear celebrity, in this particular time, any support given to the McCanns is NOT ignorant and will not be considered as such.

You may be being ill-advised by those surrounding you, so please do call your publicist or PA, or whoever handles those kinds of things for you at once and have him/her explain EXACTLY what you have to GAIN and what you have to LOSE by having your name linked with the McCanns.

You might be surprised of how profitable is the advice we’re providing you this very minute.

Rest assured that on the day that the McCanns face Justice, which they will, here you will find a place where ALL the names of those who’ve contributed in the attempt for this criminal farce to perpetuate will be shown.

Best regards,  

The Bronte-Cohen Sisters

Praia da Luz Hymn Singers

A reader's comment received in the post about the 4 Hymn Singers:

"Textusa, Notice how the employees, who, as you say, are UNABLE to quantify exactly the number of guests around a table, but they can be quite precise on who was missing:  

Svetlana a KITCHEN ASSISTANT says “one individual, purportedly the father of the victim, left the dinner table” and then says “a woman who she believes to be his wife also left the table”. She doesn’t know how many people were at the table, but she’s able to notice exactly who was missing from it. She either paid attention to the table or she didn’t. 

Also, how does she know, less than 24 hours after, WHO, out of all those men was the father of the victim? I Imagine the PJ showed her a pic of Maddie, but how can she make any sort of connection between Maddie and any of the men as her father? And how does she make a connection that Gerry and Kate are married if, as they say, they sat apart from one another at dinner? 

On the same note Joaquim, notices that two men leave the table. How, once again, did he know it was two men, and not two women, or a couple, supposing that he’s saying this by having noticed two empty chairs. 

 Remember that he also has a vague idea about how many people were in the group. Ricardo is even more precise in the description of the person who has left the table for 15 minutes! He also says that the parents were there. How does he know that? It’s not said anywhere that the PJ walked around with pictures of the whole group. 

He doesn’t know the parents of that child, but says he knows that they were present in a table that he cannot be more precise about it than saying it was a group of 8/9? 

It’s EVIDENT these people are lying. And they’re not lying to defend themselves. It’ EVIDENT they’re saying to the PJ what they’ve been told to say. 

As you say Textusa, things were supposed to be solved quickly and nobody would even notice their statements. But unfortunately for them, things remain unsolved today 

Good job Tex et al!"

Thank you, dear reader, for such an enlightened comment.

What fascinates me the most about these statements is absolute arrogance that one may have to have to even think that they favor, in any way, the confirmation of the T9’s presence “as usual” for dinner at Tapas.

As you show, the evidence of prearrangement is such that one would hope that there would be some sort of minimum decency in keeping these statements “hidden” amongst the so many others.

Like they’ve done with some statements, of capital importance that little or nothing is heard of about them from their mouths… and that we'll soon highlight here.

But no, in this case, they’ve practically rubbed in our faces what was, in fact, evidence against themselves, and doing it as if it was the biggest trump they were playing.

That demonstrates either desperation or arrogance, most likely both.

But, so that these FOUR hymn singers don’t feel alone, let me remind you of a famous duo that also sang the same lyrics once:

Respectful Pause

This blog will, as of now, temporarily cease all activity, in respect to all the victims of the dreadful events that have happened today in Japan. We ask you to join us in directing all our prayers to all those in need in these extreme difficult times. This blog offers its space to help in whatever capacity it has, however small it may be. People of Japan, you’re in our hearts and prayers.

If you seek or have information, please do use Google Person Finder, a tool made available by Google for horrific scenarios such as these.

Update:

A life is a life, and yesterday many were lost in Japan. Fortunately (as if such word can be used under such circumstances) the death toll, apparently in the thousands, is not anywhere near those occurred in Indonesia in 2004, which was in hundreds of thousands.

Do thank the mercifulness of whatever Entity you may believe oversees all of us, or, if you're not a believer, in the clemency shown by nature in this case.

The link posted above remains will obviously remain for use, and we should, as we must, help Japan back to restoration.

And one way to help, is to do our share in the continuance of life, and show that albeit adversity, we must continue in respect for those who lost their lives, and for the sake of us all, from the individual, up to all the societies of which his is society is a part of. Japan, our hearts will always continue to remain with you.

Textusa Meltdown - "The Day After"

On the previous post, I mentioned a character called Sidmouth. 

Sidmouth is (or was, as you'll see in a minute) a Black Hatted regular commentator of Maggot World.

It just happens that in one of his comments, about this very blog, he made one bad move: his argumentation was based on, said he, not us, on his memomry, thus confessing to all that he had been in PdL during that fateful week.

Back in December when the blog first approached the issue that we thought that the Tapas dinners were nothing but yet another McCannish large clunk of clutter, the Black Hats decided to start a thread on the subject with the fatalist title of "Textusa Meltdown".

I, in turn, used all their statements/questions at the time, and without altering minimally their content, transformed them all into questions, which were answered to show how ridiculous their counter-argumentation was.

And this was one of Sidmouth's "question": "You are trying to figure out where the staff would have got a large round table from...... 
It's there right at the back of the tapas...there’s three of them from memory. They are used for the childrens dinner from the creche so all the kids can sit on the same table or two tables if need be.
There are also larger table up above under the pegolas to the side of the tapas where children can also be seated.... 
Don’t you think there are lots of different size tables that could be used anyway?"

So Sidmouth, by saying "there’s three of them from memory" together with "It's there right at the back of the tapas" and "There are also larger table up above under the pegolas to the side of the tapas" explains clearly to us all where were existing round tables at the Tapas complex during the week in question... and that kind of information one can only know first hand...

I decided to go and revisit the Maggot's “Textusa Meltdown” thread , and was quite surprised (no I wasn’t), to see that Sidmouth is no longer there.  

All his comments have vanished into thin air.

As far as I know, only two entities are able to delete comments placed in a forum: the forum admin or the actual author. You may still read (if you wish and before they erase this too) that preciousramtswe says, quite clearly that "Textusa attempts line by line a rebuttal of this thread":

The key words here are "line be line", so just refer to the post on this blog, and check exactly what Sidmouths comments were erased. 

I'll help you. Besides the one already mentioned, were these::  

"They don’t even serve tapas there, do they?" 

 "And if they did serve tapas there do you really think they would seat them at a table that’s not big enough?"  

And even that compliment "bluj1515, WOW!!" in response to bluj1515's "I'm going to blow your freaking provincial European minds" scenario is gone... 

But whoever was with the rubber, got a little too excited and also wiped off alibongo's "Can you fit 9 people around a round table?" away too. 

It just means that it wasn't the author who was doing the rubbing out... 

A scenario very similar to George Orwell's 1984, whereby all "inconvenient" were literally cut out of history: “In the Ministry of Truth, protagonist Winston Smith is a civil servant responsible for perpetuating the Party's propaganda by revising historical records to render the Party omniscient and always correct”. 

The idea was to make the existence of these "inconvenient" totally unrecorded, so that they simply ceased to have even existed. 

But in the FICTIONAL "1984", ONLY BIG BROTHER controlled ALL recording devices... today, in the REAL world, to attempt to do the same is to be able only to achieve foolishness. 

Really coherent people these. 

If they don't have a drop of dignity for Maddie's memory, why should they have any for themselves? 

At least this Maggot thread lived to justify its name. A part of it has really melted off... 

Oh, how wonderful must have been those peaceful afternoons under the pergola...