Monday, 29 August 2011

Important (You) Notice

We think this should be given more visibility then it currently has in the comments box for the post Doing a TANNER. Please pardon the foul language, but we thought best to keep the comments as they were.

Comment from Insane at Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM: ''And yet the dogs would beg to differ. Thats the fundamental problem and very crux of the matter , we don't believe a word the M say , there is no evidence of an abduction!. I am afraid, Gerry says is totally insufficient , the shutters were lie one day one and so it has continued ad nuseum for 4 years'' Christ, the stupidity. This has nothing to do with the dogs, or what the McCann's say, don't you understand that? Disbelieve the McCanns all you like - I do. But that does not give anyone on this blog the right to harass and libel members of the public who have done nothing wrong. You have no right, and it makes you just as bad as the McCanns. How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Comment from Insane at Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM: '' ''Where in that is there a disbelief of the McCanns that you so much are claiming to divert the attention from the OC and guests?'' If you can translate that into English, I'll answer it Aug 28, 2011 12:14:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said... “ "Oh behave !! Is that seriously your evidence?" How long will it be until you say "Alright, we'll call it a draw"? Have you no sense of shame or decency?'' Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child? I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others. I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”  

Post Scriptum: Thank you Angelique for pointing this out to us.

Friday, 26 August 2011

Doing a TANNER

(Aug 26th, 2011)

Jane Tanner is quite adamant when she describes the table the T9 used at Tapas.

She says it was ROUND. However impossible it is to join up ROUND tables to make up a bigger ROUND one, as she says happened, she's clear of what shape was the end result: a BIG ROUND TABLE (BRT), the famous table #211, the T9 BRT:

Kate McCann takes this one step up, and, through a drawing, confirms Tanner’s verbal description of the table, one perfect circle:
  And if there were to be any doubts about the shape of the thing, Gerry McCann, in moving pictures, describes, with his left arm, the shape (and size) of the table under scrutiny: ROUND as ROUND can be:
So we have 3 out 9 people who say they sat, night after night, at that particular table, describing it, and all say that the exact same thing: it was ROUND.

 But a few days ago, Guerra, a respectable reader, placed the following comment on the Tapas Quiz Night Question 5/? post: “I don't know if the Tapas gang did or did not sit at a big round table, but I would just like to relate my experience in dealing with big round tables. I worked a few months as a busboy during the summer many years ago when I was seventeen.
And I along with my work colleagues set up large banquet halls. I do remember setting up many many round tables. We each rolled a table on its edge as if we were rolling a tire. Then when the table was at the location we wanted it to be we would unfold the legs and prop it up. At first I had some issues with run away tables but I later became an expert at it.
If I remember correctly, the tables I rolled when they were on edge were as tall or taller than I am. I'm about 5ft 10 in. Mathematically, if 9 people are sitting at a table, and you allow 2 ft of circumference for each person then the total circumference would be 18 ft.
The circumference for a circle is PI multiplied by the diameter. So you should be able to accomodate 9 people at a round table of approximately 6 ft in diameter. That being said, if you look at the following video by Martin Brunt, he is sitting at a table that he claims the McCanns were sitting at and it appears that the table is not a true round table but more of an oval table, with round ends that were joined together.
Of course we can't be sure that it's the exact table that was used by the McCanns and their friends.”

The novelty about Guerra’s comment is that he brings into the “equation” a new variable, and that is the possibility that the T9 BRT may, in fact NOT be a BRT but a BOT, a BIG OVAL TABLE.

Looking at the video, the shape of table where Martin Brunt is sitting seems to be, in fact, oval and what isn’t questionable is that he clearly says that he’s sitting at the SAME table where the T9 sat on the fateful evening.

THAT table is, according to SKY NEWS, the famous T9 BRT/BOT.

Finally, we have visual contact!!!

And that is one huge step forward. From now on, if any other picture of the T9 BRT ever surfaces, they have to match THIS table. If they don’t, then either they’re fake, or fake is Martin Brunt.

And what Martin Brunt says to be the table #211, does appears to be oval.

Is the shape of the table that important? Yes, it is, especially if one is to analyses adequately the “Brunt table”, which we will, hopefully, in the next post.

Martin Brunt’s video encapsulates much, much more than just the shape of that particular object in that particular commercial facility.

It is very, very revealing.

What’s important today is the Black Hat’s attitude to this input from our reader, Guerra.

Insane, our pet troll, jumped gleefully like a two year old, when he finally realized, or so he thought, he could to disprove the blog with fact instead of the usual threats and insults.

So when an anonymous reader commented that restaurants worldwide don’t have oval tables, Insane just let it all rip: “"There's no restaurant in the world with oval tables!" Really? It took me all of 10 seconds to find several, including this one, which states: "Parties of 10-20 people can be seated at one large oval table."  
Oh, don't tell me - they're in on the conspiracy theory too! Do you have any idea how ridiculous you make yourself look?"

And with that, Insane just did a TANNER.

And what is a TANNER? A TANNER is a convenient and conscious change of one’s “convictions” not in accordance to reason but due to changes in direction in the winds of reality.

It’s a reactive, not proactive, process. It is not a change of mind after a thought-out process whereby one concludes, justifiably, that one’s initial opinion is wrong and must be changed under the penalty of useless stubbornness.

That is one commendable attitude, doing a TANNER is not.

It's changing one's opinion because what one said before just stopped making sense, and then changing it again, or not, because what we said first might start, or not, to make more sense then what we said after, and... you understand, what I'm saying. Quite confusing and totally shameless.

Doing a TANNER is to change opinion due to unreasonable reasons.

Who can forget Jane Tanner first seeing and then not seeing a blanket, being unable to see any facial features but then being able to detect afterwards small patterns in pyjamas, changing the colour of the abductor’s pants, then his hair length of hair, then… ?

Basically, it’s changing one’s opinion and being able to achieve only two things.

The first is to highlight the total falsehood of one’s initial version(s), and the second, to make a fool out of oneself.

That is a TANNER.

So Insane goes and searches enthusiastically the internet to prove that OVAL is a feasible shape for one of tables at Tapas, namely for table #211. It takes him 10 seconds, so he says.

What he does next is not a TANNER but a McCANN.

A McCANN is when one is allowed to resort to the most ridiculous of arguments and then argument away to the point of self-determined certainty that what is ridiculous isn’t ridiculous at all, or after all, which is ridiculous in itself, even if all is said with a straight face, a very difficult task that only few are able to master, and Gerry McCann is NOT one of those who has been able to, not by a long shot.

The same anonymous reader that was attacked by Insane, pointed out in response that comparing Tapas with Coles is like comparing the United States with East-Timor.

Both commercial facilities serve drinks, and both countries are bathed by the Pacific Ocean, and that’s it.

It’s just one ridiculous comparison.

But why is this relevant?

Well, when Insane goes after the OVAL look, by doing a TANNER, he thinks he's able, as we said, to disprove this blog. But what he does, is exactly the opposite.

When everyone, on the Black Hat side of things, clearly states that the table is ROUND, what does Insane goes and do? He goes after OVAL like a bulldog after a postman’s leg, and does a TANNER.

And when one does a TANNER one is only able to botch things up for one's side.

Desperate people do desperate things, and desperate things are never done right, like the Tapas "reservation" sheets never cease to show us.

What he doesn’t realize, is that if we were able to prove that the table was OVAL, it would please very much the authors and readers of this blog.

It would be further proof that the T9 were lying, wouldn't it?

He should have defended with all his might that the table was ROUND, and not OVAL!

There's no other option for Insane, but to defend that that table was ROUND.

To defend any other shape will just backfire.

The ROUNDNESS of the table, against it being OVAL, is the only option to confirm the reality of those Tapas dinners.

In this case, for him, defending what the McCanns have said is defending is own point of view. Defending the McCanns is defending existence of the Tapas dinners, and in turn, that is to defend the OC Staff and the guests, those who Insane accuses us of "falsely accusing".

See the cul-de-sac in which Insane got himself in? If that the table is to be OVAL it contradicts not this blog, but Tanner and the two McCanns.

When we’ve said, and we’ve said it many times, the table #211 is BIG and ROUND, and we said it because the T9 have said that it was so.

What we’ve also said is that the BRT, as it is so BIG and so ROUND, it never existed.

But the shape of the thing is certainly not from our authorship.

And he’s not only contradicting the McCann, for that would be "acceptable" for him, as he likes to call them “McScum”, but he’s contradicting other Black Hats, like the very much missed Sidmouth:
“Just read the thread. They 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 children's 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 the pegolas to the side of the tapas where children can also be seated… There are lots of different size tables there anyway. (snickering emoticon)”

So Sidmouth, from MEMORY, sees not one, but FOUR ROUND tables, and not a single OVAL one… No wonder Sidmouth disappeared shortly after we denounced this comment to the world. But what is important to retain, is that he who does a TANNER tells us much more about himself then he ever intended to say.

As Jane Tanner did realize that to the point of tears on that chilly evening of 2009, where what she said she saw, and saw, on the street she wasn’t but said she was, helping a friend that proved to be everything but that, said so much more about herself then she ever intended for us to know…

That’s what happens to people who speak too much, and out of turn…

Post Scriptum: Thank you so much for you comment, Guerra. Sorry to have associated your name with a Black Hat such as Insane. Your comment is very valid and pertinent, as we hope to show on our next post.

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #6/?

Question: How many places could be booked at Tapas Bar on the week Maddie “disappeared”?
Answer: At least 47, but the exact number, only God knows.

Until Kate’s book was published, it was commonly perceived that the Tapas bar took 20 covers.

So says clearly Luisa Coutinho in her statement taken on May 8th: “However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking since it has a few seats reserved for, "Mark Warner" customers, 20 to be concrete”.  

Luis Barros confirms what Luisa says. He was a waiter at the Tapas, who also worked at the Mill, and said there were 20 diners on half board at the Tapas. He also said that he had to seek authorisation from his manager Steve (Cova) to make a block reservation for the T9. Steve Cova was the Angolan catering manager who had left at 8pm on the night Madeleine disappeared

But Kate's book says otherwise, and that is that Tapas could ONLY cope with 15.

And this is not a guessed up number as she says, in the book, that she did have some second thoughts about the T9 block reservation, for as, it seems, it was apparently unfair to some other family who also wanted to reserve there but couldn’t due to this. Kate decides to maintain the booking as these people would stay further on and could then, according to her, enjoy all the pleasures offered by such that exquisite dining facility.

But why take either Luisa’s words or Kate’s when we have physical evidence that can help us clarify, with some precision, how many reservations was it possible to make?

The Ocean Club, as an institution, is able to tell us, isn't it? All we have to do is to refer to those "reliable" documents, known as the Tapas “reservation” sheets. They tell all, all we have to do is just read.

Waiter Joaquim Jose Baptista says that to book a Tapas table, guests had to queue at reception from 11 am onwards on the day (The Sun 23/10/07), so we'll assume that the place was booked to up the hilt in EACH one of those nights.

 Kate’s second thoughts about the T9 reservation confirms that we’re correct to do so.

Looking at all “reservation” sheets we can see clearly mentioned a number, starting with “2” (201, 202... etc.) , that we assume to be a number with which the staff identified the different tables. This is a common procedure in restaurants, as it facilitates, for obvious reasons, both the service provided and the billing.

From the sheets we see that the tables at Tapas were identified with numbers from #201 to #212. If anyone sees any other meaning for these numbers, please say so. It's important, as you'll see, that they mean exactly what we say they mean.

We can’t see anything else that they could represent, especially as they are the only piece of coherent information of these “reservation” sheets, but we're, as always, are open to suggestions. Valid suggestions, that is.

Assuming they mean what they mean, we can then state that there were 12 tables available at Tapas. But, as our readers know how we like to be precise, we see that table #208 is never mentioned, we’ll consider that there were only 11 tables, #201 to #207 and #209 to #212.

The reasons why table #208 wasn’t used aren't important. It could be due to just a coincidence, or because it was unusable for some reason. It could have been because of a broken leg, because it was used as table top to support the other tables, for drinks for example, or because some other whatsoever reason. It isn’t mentioned, so we shan’t consider it.

But, as in all things that involve the Maddie Affair, even the simplest task just can’t be clear and simple. Like what is supposed to be plain and simple, like booking a meal at a restaurant, an act done billions of times daily, when it comes to the McCann & Co it just can’t be straightforward.

We have, for example, what I call, the “mystery” tables. People who were "chosen" by the OC staff to dine at unnumbered tables, unlike other guests. On May 3rd, the SPERREYs, a party of 2, have no table allocated, and they were checked, so they had the meal there, we just don’t know in which table.
Same happens with the FRICKENs, party of 2, on May 6th. No table allocated, but checked, so they also had their meal there. Table unknown:
On May 3rd, the COX, who required for some reason authorization from the manager Steve (also did the BULLEN’s (misspelled by the way) and neither family seems to have done a block booking, which we supposed was what was needed to trigger such requirement), has apparently no table allocated.

However if you look, in front of the check is a “2”, which we assume to be the table number, but as it doesn’t appear as a whole, so we don’t know if we should consider this family on a table #213 (or any other bigger number), or in any one of the other of the already mentioned tables:
On May 6th, the DE LA MAREs have no table allocated. There’s a check mark BEFORE the name, but no check mark after it, like it happens with the REAP and WILLIAMS families. So we don’t know if this family showed up or not. Really confusing:
On May 2nd, the WEINBURGERs have no table allocated, and are not checked, so one must assume that they reserved but didn’t show up.
We will not consider the DE LA MAREs nor WEINBURGERs as “mystery tables”. But we will not disregard that they were able to book for 2+1 and 2, respectfully.

It just seems like a waste of time having stood for some time in a line for such a sought after dinner and then not showing up, but who are we to judge others?

This totals 11 people who reserved, but we don’t know to which tables they were allocated to, and in some cases, like the WEINBURGERs and the DE LA MAREs if they even dined there.

Remember, the question is not about who dined there, but how many reservations could be made.

Then, we have the Take-Aways. Not criticizing or even questioning the existence of this service (which, by the way, I do) but just showing how strangely it was run. We have this restaurant that is apparently very highly requested by the guests, and it seems, it offers a Take-Away service.

Although not announced anywhere as a service offered by Tapas, we believe it to be, like ANY Take-Away, limitless. So why, one has to wonder, why, in so many guests, ONLY 3 families, BERRY, SAVAGE and MULLARD take advantage of this for a whole week?

I can only imagine that some people, who had stood in line but weren’t able to get a seat, to reserve Take-Away for that day, since they already had wasted time to eat the food offered.

 Also, with the BAPTISTA SUPERMARKET nearby, it seems to me to be a real practical option for evening meals: get the food from Tapas, drinks from the supermarket, and eat at the apartment. A very common practice among tourists everywhere in the world.

When everything suggests that this would be a very profitable business for Tapas, we see, as we've said, that only 3 families, totaling 10 meals, were served this way for a whole week. Strange is the least that one can say... and strange is also the fact that the Take-Aways even appear in a "reservation book".

This said, now let’s look now at how many people booked for each of the tables of Tapas restaurant week, ACCORDING to its “reservation” sheets, that can be seen in the PJ Files:
  The first thing that stands right out, is that in most of the days, there were a lot of FREE tables.

So why was there a queue? It absolutely just makes no sense at all, but we do have the word of the OC staff, don’t we?

The second thing is that Kate’s max number of 15 is, also, absolutely disproportionate, not making any sense whatsoever. One thing is to feel being surrounded by another 6 people (15 - T9 = 6), another is not realizing that there were in fact 3 times more than that.

On Tuesday, it was T9 plus 16, on Wednesday, T9 plus 17 and on Thursday, T9 plus 19. And we’re talking about the people that reserved AND dined.

They were there to be seen, and one wonders why she didn’t see them. But one thing is, one may argue, is the perception of a client, like Kate McCann, another is the knowledge of reality, as per OC Staff. As there are no tables that seat only 3 people (tables take only an even number of seats, with the exception of the BIG ROUND TABLE 211, but that is because it’s BIG and ROUND), we should consider that any table that was reserved for 3, accommodates, at least, 4.

Looking at the “reservations”, only table #212 was occupied with less than 3 people, so we shall consider this one as the only 2-seat table in the house. This means that:
  Without taking into account table #208, there were 47 places available.

This, I repeat, according to the very documentation handed over by the OC to the PJ. I'm just the messenger here.

This over than doubles the number said by Luisa. One gross error. Bigger than the one made by Kate, although we mustn't forget that Mrs McCann makes hers 4 years after the events, and Luisa does it 4 days afterwards, when things were confusing but supposedly under total control.

A really strange mistake to be made by someone who handles the reservations directly on a daily basis. One thing is 20, another, completely different is an amount that more than doubles that quantity.

Even if we consider (and we cannot understand why she should) that the “20” refers ONLY to MW clients, she’s still completely off. Because if we add in other agencies, the number just grows in size...

47 is the number we arrived at, as the quantity of seats that the OC Staff COULD, if they WOULD, reserve at Tapas. BUT if we throw in other admissible variables, than this number goes completely out of control, as we'll show.

If you consider table #208, as it is possible that it simply wasn’t used, then the number rises to 51.

 If you consider table #212 as one equal to all others, able to sit 4 PAX, then you have 49 places without #208, and 53 with it.

If you consider that table #211 holds 10 and not only 9, as per Najoua Chekaya’s statement, then please add a place to the number you’ve already come up with.

If you consider that the 4 tables with 4 PAX each "inside" are NOT mentioned in the “reservation” sheets (and there’s no indication that they are), then add 16, will you please?

If you on top of all, you add also the “mystery tables” then only God knows what number you should get. As He would be the only one to know how many places there really were if instead of only having tables up to #212, we also had tables #213, #214, etc.

 Notwithstanding all these variables, it’s safe to say that there were AT LEAST, 47 places that could have been reserved at Tapas restaurant (bar?) that week.

Unless those numbers mean anything different than what we said they mean, then it means, beyond reasonable doubt, that Luisa Coutinho is either ignorant or lying.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think ignorance has had any involvement in this. And if she's not lying, then the "reservation sheets" must be. Or... perhaps both?

As a last note, why only did 1 family reserve on Friday, May 4th? Even considering the “cancelled” tennis dinner of 12, and counting with the HYND family of 3, there would still be 32 (THIRTY-TWO) places available!

We’ve known that some T9 spent the night looking for Maddie, or so they say they did.

We also know that, altruistically, some of the Tapas staff looked for the child until late, but we have no record of any other guests having done that, the attempt to say that guests didn’t reserve because they were too tired is just not reasonable.

Also, the whole media commotion only began after the famous Tapas queue had taken place, so that doesn’t serve as excuse either.

Why were there so many free places that evening? Maybe because someone thought that just by writing a dinner for 12 it would have been enough to solve the “booking problem” for that particular day?

Monday, 15 August 2011

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #5/?

Question: What are the two most well known things that shrink to fit?
Answer: The Levi 112 jeans and the T9 Tapas Table #211.

Today, I must apologise to our readers. I’ve always tried, when posting here information, to look at any subject from all possible perspectives so that, through pure logic, I’m able to PROVE before you whatever I’m trying to PROVE in that particular moment.

 However, I must warn you that today’s post will be total speculation.

You see, I’m forced to rely on information given to me by others, and have nothing but their sources to corroborate it.

For example, about the jeans, having long lost the figure and long overcome the sensible age to use them, I have to rely on Levi’s advertisement that the 112 jeans do, in fact, shrink to fit to a woman’s body.

Maybe some of our younger readers can confirm that fact, although, honestly, it’s really not that important, nor is it about clothes that I wish to to talk about today.

I want to talk about the Tapas Bar table #211.

For that, as I said, I have to rely on what the Ocean Club tells us, and like with the jeans, I have to trust what they say.

And they say, as per the first three Tapas reservation sheets that the T9 (4 couples and a mother-in-law), had dinner, for at least 3 days, at a table with ref #211:

The famous Tapas T9 BIG ROUND TABLE. But the OC also tell us that, as per respective Tapas “reservation” sheet of May 7th, that on that night, at 19:45, the STINTON-HEELEY family ALSO used that particular table:
A rather difficult decision to understand, after all, as far as we can see, only 4 other tables were being used at the time (#201, #202, #203 and #205).

Sitting ONLY 4 people around such a BIG ROUND TABLE, is not, shall we say, the most comfortable way to have guests dine:
  It is possible, no question about it, but as I said before, and we’re speculating here, it just doesn't seem practical, especially taking into account that 2 members of this family were, as they were, children. Wouldn’t be more sensible to sit them on any of the other available square tables?

  But that was not the decision of whoever managed the seating arrangements that evening.

The only possibility I see for this decision to make any sense, is that table #211 is an INFLATABLE round table.

That way, it was filled up to the size required to fit the T9, and on May 7th, someone let the air out of it so it would “shrink to fit” the STINTON-HEELEY family!

The other option, which is that 2 adults and two children really dined around that BIG ROUND TABLE (that had enough space for at least 9 adults, or 10 if you count also the fact that Najoua joined the table on Quiz Night), can only be explained by a direct request from this family to sit at the same table that the T9 had sat on the night when Maddie was “abducted”.

Then, we hope, and don't forget that we’re continuing to speculate, they certainly would have taken pictures of that evening, that dinner and, most important of all, that table.

And since Dianne Webster missed the opportunity to publish her pictures on Kate’s book, maybe this is our last chance to get a glimpse of this famous table!

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #4/?

Foreword: As you know, I’ve been away from blogging on a personal decision to provide support to someone who’s seriously ailing. Only the importance of this post's content would make me come back. My decision continues to stand, and I’ll return to my relative’s (and dear, dear friend) bedside until I feel that the continuity of my presence is no longer required. Thank you for all your patience and understanding.
Question: How important is routine to a Brit tourist in PdL?  
Answer: Of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE. To the point of synchronizing their activities, be it leisure or be it meals, with those of other tourists, apparently complete strangers to one another, so that the intervals between the undertakings of said activities remain strictly fixed and enforced.

There is a document, in the PJ Files that has always baffled us: the Slide & Splash (S&S) "reservation" sheet.
It has baffled us, that is, until today.

Now we’re able to show you how important is this apparently irrelevant piece of paper in solving some “mysteries” of the Maddie McCann Affair.

 This piece of paper has the importance of PROVING the direct involvement of BOTH GUESTS and OCEAN CLUB STAFF in the cover-up of Maddie’s death.

Let’s start with the information it contains:
Now, on a first look, it seems to be filled up with senseless information. Complete nonsense. We have a set of reservations to go to a water park, the Slide & Splash, located 25 minutes from Lagos:
We also know that the Slide & Splash opens only at 10.00 am:
This makes the S&S sheet, if it is in anyway related to the referred theme park, to be able only to be a transportation roster, mentioning the various guests’ departing times from the OC to the Slide & Splash.

But that would mean that the OC apparently provided a mini-van every 15 minutes:
at 07.00, for 4 adults,
at 07.15, for 2 adults and 1 baby,
at 07.30, for 6 adults and 2 children,
at 07.45, for 4 adults and 2 children
at 08.00, for 8 adults.

If we add 10 minutes to the 25 minutes that it takes from Lagos to the water park to go from PdL to Slide & Splash, it can be determined that a round trip would take 1H10. For the mini-van used at 07.00 to be used again at 08.00, it would mean that it would ONLY take 5 minutes from PdL to Lagos, and the guests had to be punctual to the minute.

So, what this would really mean is that the OC would have to have provided, apparently, at least 5 different mini-vans and 5 different drivers to comply with what is determined in the S&S sheet. One significant expense of resources.

The S&S tours would have to be one MAIN attraction, if not the biggest one, that was provided by the OC resort.

And requested almost as much as the famous Tapas Bar dinners. After all 29 people apparently reserved for that day alone.

Wonder if it had a limited number of reservations also...

However, we haven’t seen it significantly announced anywhere, nor have we read about it in any of the reviews. Nor in any of of the statements in the PJ Files. Is this yet another secretive activity that could not be released to the public? It seems unlikely to say the least.

Another thing that doesn’t fit right here is that if the MACKENSONs and the VINCENTs left at 08.00, they would then arrive at the S&S park at 08.35, which would mean that would have to wait, at least, 01H25 for the facility to open its doors.

Good thing they had the SAVAGEs to talk with, as this family had to rise up real early to get to wait 02H25 at the entrance!

If this family would be in a no-talking mood, as one would expect, then they could also talk with the other 6 families that had arrived before them. If they were in the mood also, that is.

No, definitely, the S&S sheet IS NOT a reservation sheet nor a transportation roster to the Slide & Splash park.

Another indication to that effect is that it lacks both a date to which it refers to, as well as there’s no return times for those transported.

So, for a long time, the only relevant thing we thought that the S&S sheet showed of interest was the handwriting.

It’s the same as the one that wrote the first two Tapas “reservation” sheets.

The third, as we know, the one for May 3rd, was written by someone trying to imitate this particular handwriting, but did do a poor job.

The fact that the handwriting is the same is an important detail but not a clarifying one, in terms of objectivity to determine the purpose of the paper.

It does allow questioning the fact that the Tapas Bar was used to book a lot of activities, such as dinners, tennis and Slide & Splash tours, when we’ve read in the reviews that ALL the bookings were done at The Mill.

But that doesn’t clarify why the S&S sheet even exists.

But if the S&S sheet baffled the three of us, it really, really bugged Sina J.

Whenever possible, within context or completely out of it, she would bring it into the discussion. But these discussions led nowhere. We weren't able to come to any adequate conclusion. The intent of this paper remained a mystery, as it just didn’t make any sense at all.

But what is there to be seen remains there to be seen. Evidence has one HUGE quality, and that it is patient. It will wait whatever time is required for the adequate eyes to see it.

Recently, Sina J said the following: “I have been thinking yet again about this S&S timetable as it makes no sense as a theme park booking. Could it be a…? Or a…? There is obviously a reason for….. On the other hand could it be a…? It's bugging me that I can't work out what it could be. These names don't crop up elsewhere and there are no statements from them. I don't even know why this was included in the PJ files.”

This led to yet another brainstorming session between the three of us. But this time with positive results.

Thanks again to Sina J, we finally understood what the S&S sheet was all about.

All because she simply paired up the May 7th Tapas “reservation” sheet with the S&S sheet. Here is the that particular Tapas sheet:
This is what it says:
  If you look attentively at the scribbled line, you don’t have to be great of a detective to see that what was scribbled out was this:
  This then means that the original list, for that day, was made up as such:
Let’s now compare what the S&S sheet (blue) with the Tapas one (red), line by line (I’ll just change on the S&S sheet the order in which the room number with the # people appear, in each of the lines):
So if you transform the apparent a.m. time of the S&S sheet with the p.m. time of the Tapas sheet, you have a PERFECT match, with the exception of the MACKENSON and VINCENT families.

Isn’t that just a fascinating coincidence?

Another coincidence is that BOTH these documents join up, in time, these families in the exact same groups: HYND with HARRISON and MULLARD; BUDEKIN with STINTON-HEELEY; and MACKENSON with VINCENT.

The third coincidence is that BOTH these documents keep SAVAGE and NEWAN alone.

What does Kate McCann have to say about three coincidences?

That they’re no longer coincidences. Her words, not mine.

So, unless these 29 people were into a VERY UNUSUAL ROUTINE of doing things in the exact same groups, separated by the exact same intervals of times, which is not only unlikely, as is ridiculous, these TWO different documents, mentioning completely distinct activities ARE INTERLINKED.

They have the exact same information on them.

This PROVES that both the named GUESTS and the OC STAFF that wrote down the information and handed both these papers over to the PJ knew they were providing FALSE information.  

They are part of a cover-up.

One just has to wonder why HYND was scribbled out at the last minute…

No, say you, there’s the 08.00 vs 20.30 discrepancy in the MACKENSON and VINCENT times.

First, it’s a minor discrepancy, as both families’ times are changed maintaining the structure of the group, and second, there’s no discrepancy at all, as the change has a reason.

Here you have to remember that the handwriting of the S&S sheet is the SAME as the one that wrote up the first two Tapas “reservation” sheets.

This means that the S&S sheet is nothing but a draft of a list of GUESTS to be used when in the mocking up of an nonexistent "Tapas reservation book", but wasn’t used, at least, at first.

It’s information that has been written down on a Slide & Splash stationary notepad, and has got nothing to do with that theme park in any form or manner. It was written there as it could have been written on another pad with a completely different logo. Or no logo at all.

The information on it is about Tapas “reservations”, and not about anything else.

What most likely happened is that somebody, by request or own initiative, tried to hand over to the PJ only the first three sheets, May 1st, May 2nd and May 3rd. These were the only ones they had made up until then.

However, when the reservation sheets were handed over, most likely the PJ requested ALL existing reservation sheets for the month of May, and not only those leading up to the May 3rd evening.

A natural and adequate request, in my opinion.

 So whoever was handing over the papers, was surprised by this request and had to go back quickly and come up with the “missing” ones.

To say that they didn't have them would give away the whole thing, wouldn't it?

This justifies the difference in the templates and handwritings that we can see between the first three and the last three.

This person had at least one drafted list with him (the handwriting seems to be male) and used it, the S&S sheet.

But there’s one MAIN difference between the times that both these documents were written up: the alleged T9 reservation.

When the S&S sheet was written up, the 20:30 timeslot was booked by the T9, so MACKENSON & VINCENT had to be put at 08.00. But on Monday 7th, there was to be NO T9 booking, so this guy thought it very clever to put these two families at that time, just to reinforce that fact.

Stupid move, as we can now clearly see the intent.

If anything, it PROVES that the S&S sheet was written up BEFORE the Tapas sheet.

As stupid it was to forget to take out the S&S sheet before handing over the whole lot of the papers.

It must have been the hurry and the pressure that made him do a mistake like that. I can only imagine how hard it was to go back and make up three further “reservation” sheets, and hand them over appearing to have just gone back to pick up three existing ones.

And I can imagie what this person has been suffering knowing that the document appeared in the PJ Files, and what it really revealed...

So the handing over of the S&S sheet was an understandable mistake.

However, a fatal one.

As a final note, I’ll leave a comment by Sina J, about the S&S sheet that so much bothered her, but no longer does: “The other thing about that S&S sheet is when you check the dates of these people arriving and leaving they don't match up. Some leave May 5th and others arrive on that date.”

I hope you do understand the importance of this post.

Now, if you don't mind, I must go back to my nursing duties, so please, do continue to behave while I’m not around.

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

An extract from a poem by W H Auden

1st of September 1939
"All I have is a voice 
To undo the folded lie, 
The romantic lie in the brain 
of the sensual man- in- the- street 
and the lie of Authority 
Whose buildings grope the sky: 
There is no such thing as the State 
And no one exists alone 
Hunger allows no choice 
To the citizen or the police; 
We must love one another or die 
Defenceless under the night 
Our world in stupor lies; 
Yet dotted everywhere 
Ironic points of light 
Flash out whenever the Just 
Exchange their messages: 
May I, composed like them 
Of Eros and of dust 
Beleaguered by the same 
Negation and despair 
Show an affirming flame." 

May I and I want to let our good readers know that Textusa has asked us to let you know that she needs to spend more time with her relative and time spent on the blog is a distraction from that at the moment. 

She is always grateful for your good wishes and expresses her thanks for your concern. 

We will be publishing posts while she is away and as always we value your thoughts and comments. There are a lot of matters we have been looking at closely so will share them with you shortly. 

It seems we are living through a time of change and events are being exposed that we didn’t think possible.

We knew as members of the public we were being treated like the proverbial mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on manure but we didn’t all realise the extent of the force feeding. 

Much of the news and media was administered like a dictatorship producing propaganda. We have a duty to ensure this practice and the corruption that goes hand in hand with it is stamped out. 

We need to speak out. 

We all have a voice and “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” (attributed to Aristotle) and as Auden believed we can use it to ‘undo the folded lie’, collectively the noise we make will be harder to ignore than if we all speak individually. 


The powerful methods of communication now available to us allows people all over the world to have a collective voice and places such as blogs and forums are meeting places for like minded people to share information and opinions. 

What has been happening with News Corp shows the level of corruption when too much power is in the hands of one man. 

It has been called a nest if vipers and the snakes are turning on each other with venom to save themselves, many have nothing to lose now they have lost their jobs. We have been given indications of the pressures the NI staff were under. 

Others hope to rescue their credibility and be exonerated from any wrong doing by default of working alongside the snakes, even if that means turning on those they worked alongside. 

We have all talked about these things as individuals but felt helpless to bring about change. 

Never say “never”. 

But as this blog is dedicated to Maddie McCann we could now possibly see another nest of vipers turn on each other for self preservation. 

The McCanns no longer have the security and protection they previously relied on. 

As we have seen there is little loyalty among colleagues when faced with saving themselves and their reputations. 

Goodness knows, the Murdochs may even deflect attention onto the McCanns so they can deflect some of the spotlight away from themselves. What a story that would be! 

It is far bigger and wider reaching than just the mysterious disappearance of a little girl.