TS, an 11 yr old girl, says the following when describing her second sighting of Pimpleman, which supposedly took place at 12.25/12.28 on May 2nd 2007:
"That on this day she didn’t go to school as she was sick, suffering from an infection in her right ear. Even so and being somewhat better, by 12H00, she went out alone, as her mother was working, accompanied by the dogs, heading to the..."
Ridiculous.
How could they make a child say such ridiculous and absolute utter tripe? Those were my exact thoughts when I read this part of TS’s statement.
You see, I as a child I was quite prone to ear infections, so I know how much pain and discomfort they cause, and how long they take to heal.
What should one avoid when one’s suffering from an ear infection? Well, for one, “When suffering from an ear infection, be sure to protect yourself from cold or avoid visiting cold climates if possible. Cold weather can cause a painful ear infection to worsen.”
NO WAY a child with an ear infection at 08.00 in the morning, serious enough to have stopped her from going to school that day, would, just 4 hours later, at 12.00, stroll around outside on a cold windy day.
Just based on this we could end this post right away and consider as proved that TS’s second encounter with Pimpleman was an absolute absurdity, thus nonexistent.
Either TS didn’t have an ear infection and went to school that day and didn’t see Pimpleman as she say she does, or she did have an ear infection painful enough to stop her from going to school and so didn’t see Pimpleman because she wouldn't have been able to leave her house at the time and manner she describes she does.
It’s as simple as that.
Just out of curiosity, it would be very interesting to have the Police ask the International School of the Algarve (ISA) for the register of this particular absence, as well as its justification, and verify if TS did indeed miss school on May 2nd 2007. Just a suggestion.
But let’s pretend we’re fooled by the 11 yr old girl.
Let's pretend that we believe that she either had the ear infection the day before, the Portuguese Labour Day holiday, and was feeling much better and didn’t go to school just to be on the safe side so the infection wouldn’t get worse, or even go as far as to pretend to believe that she was able to overcome an ear infection in just 4 hours.
She says that she leaves her house with 2 dogs at 12.00, stops 3 times to shop, at 2 supermarkets and 1 pharmacy, and returns home at 12.35.
I don’t know about you, but I take around about 10 minutes to do a "quick" shop.
It involves going in, finding what I want, even if I already know what it is and on what shelf it is, walking up to the cashier, having the goods registered and paid for, bagging them, picking them up and leaving. That, done at a leisurely pace, takes me around 10 minutes, as I said.
However, if I’m being pressured to return home like when I have visitors coming and I suddenly discover that I’ve run out of an essential ingredient and must to dash off to the nearest supermarket before they arrive, I’ll certainly take less than that, provided I’m not delayed at the checkout by with other customers.
Nowhere does TS mention in her statement any pressure to do her shopping, so I would say that 10 minutes would be the time she would also take in each one of her shopping locations. Maybe a little longer at the pharmacy because there you just don't walk up to the counter and take a box of ear plugs.
Take into account that it’s around noon, the time tourists be will doing their “lunch” shopping, so there’s a likelihood of finding other customers at both supermarkets lining up at the checkout, which means then those 10 minutes in these two locations would also not be sufficient.
Add to that that TS has to, at each location, tie up the two dogs she’s with when going in and untie them on her way out, so that’s an extra minute or two. By the way, in her detailed report, TS does forget to mention this in two of the shopping occasions.
If you take 10 minutes per shopping location, then TS’s trip is physically impossible. She would have spent 30 minutes shopping and that would mean she would have only 5 minutes to walk about 1,330 metres.
That’s the distance she says she walks in 35 minutes:
This distance, marked each 100 metres, passing by Alisuper (1), the pharmacy (2), Baptista (3) and Pimpleman (yellow star) is measured from, and to, the nearest crossing to her house, so one still has to add the time and distance it takes from there to where she lives, accompanied by her two dogs and with the shopping on her return.
So it’s impossible for her to have spent the “normal” 10 minutes per shopping location. She had to spend less time than that at each location. The amount of time spent is directly related with the speed she walked between them. The faster she walked, the more time she had.
We do have a clear indication the speed she did walk on that particular day. She says that it takes 7 minutes from the spot she sees Pimpleman to her house, and that’s about 350 metres.
Before we determine what walking speed that represents, one really has to wonder how does she know that.
Although not in the direction she takes to school (when going to school it's downhill, while the direction she's talking about is uphill), could it be that she timed it then? Why choose that specific point? Even if it was because it was her grandma’s ex-house, why time it?
She’s also not a tourist, so not a user of the Ocean Club (if she was, she would know that that entrance is not a reception but just an entrance where some say that some OC Staff like to leave dinner reservation books open on convenient pages...)
So the questions remain, how does she know that it takes exactly 7 minutes from there to her house? And why?
Did she rehearse it before going to the PJ? If so, why?
Let’s forget that minor detail and move on. If she says it takes her 7 minutes, it’s because, for whatever reason, she knows it’s that time it takes her. After all, we’re before a very “credible” and “reliable” girl, aren’t we?
To take those 7 minutes to walk 350 metres, it means walking 50 metres per minute. That’s a speed of 3 km/h. Really slow.
This means she would have taken, not withstanding a patience that the dogs wouldn’t have, 26.6 minutes to walk those 1,350 metres. That would leave 8.4 minutes to do shopping in 3 different places, which in turn makes it be less than 3 minutes per shopping location.
Unlikely? No, simply impossible.
But, say you, you’ve said in the Alice post that on May 30th she would be walking around 6 km/h, didn’t you?
Yes I did.
And I also said then that 6 km/h was a fast and determined pace to be walking.
I justified that speed with two factors that existed on that particular occasion: that they were going downhill and that it was that the dogs were setting the pace, so much so that they even forced TS's mom, an adult, and TS, to cross the street.
But let’s on this occasion also put TS being pulled by the dogs at a walking speed of 6 km/h. That makes the round trip to have been done in 13.30 minutes, which in turn allows for 7.2 minutes per each shopping location.
A much more plausible time for each shopping location, though a little tight. She would have to arrive, stop and control the dogs that were controlling her (they are setting the pace and dogs don't come with breaks), find where to tie them, walk in and quickly find what she was looking for, which in the pharmacy would also require that she’d have had to have a “quick-paced” employee helping out, be the only customer at the various checkouts, pay, quickly walk out and untie the dogs, and quickly be on her way... quickly.
Can you imagine the exhausted state in which she would have arrived home? And what for? You haven’t forgotten she would have done all that with an ear infection have you?
But let’s once more be absurd and say that it’s plausible.
Even so, TS having arrived home exhausted wouldn't be her biggest problem with this tale.
Her biggest problem to having been able to have seen, and observed, Pimpleman would be coherence.
Remember why TS’s mom didn’t see Pimpleman? Because she was too focused on being pulled by two apparently very impatient dogs, right?
Now, who’s holding the leash? TS is, and is doing it all alone.
So if TS was being pulled by the dogs and walking at that fast and determined pace, breaking this rhythm only to stop to shop, would she be able to take notice of anyone in her path? Her mom didn’t, did she?
It was for exactly that reason that her mom didn’t see Pimpleman in the first sighting. She was too focused on what the dogs were doing and where they were forcing her to go.
Then we must apply the same principle with TS on this day, mustn’t we?
If you were to ask TS with how many people did she cross with in Rua Direita, she wouldn’t be able to tell you because she wouldn’t have paid any particular attention to anyone under the circumstances, which is understandable.
Nor would she have paid any attention to a man, Pimpleman, who just happens to be standing on the other side of the street, in Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins.
She would have been on the last leg of her exhausting trip, so how possibly could she have made a connection between him and the man she had seen for only 5 seconds two days before?
And how, please do tell, could she possibly notice the detail that he had a pen dangling from one of his pockets?
But this is me supposing that she was walking in a hurry, right? But was there any reason for her to be in one?
As far as I can see, there’s only one reason for her to have been, possibly, in a hurry, and that would be that she needed, or thought she needed, the ear plugs urgently.
Not seeing any possible urgency related to buying chocolates or seeded bread.
But if you’re headed with urgency for the pharmacy for those ear-plugs, why buy the chocolates or seeded bread in separate locations? We know, she tells us, that Alisuper doesn’t sell the seeded bread she wants, but doesn’t Baptista sell chocolates? And if the urgency was the ear plugs, why buy chocolates first?
Why walk the extra 200 metres, or more, if you’re in a hurry, and make that detour all the way to Alisuper just for chocolates?
And if there was some sort of emergency, why take the dogs? They could’ve been left at home like they are everyday when TS is at school and her mom at work, couldn’t they?
And who tells TS to buy seeded bread? Her mom, who has left her home sick with an ear infection calls her and tells her to go and buy bread?!? How sensible is that?!?
Couldn’t mom just do that on her way home?
So, about the bread, what we have is an 11 yr old child deciding to go out with the idea of buying just chocolates and ear plugs. Pulled by two dogs, she buys the chocolates, dashes to the pharmacy and buys the ear plugs and then, and only then, remembers to buy what? Seeded bread!
What 11 yr old wouldn’t remember a thing like that?
To sum it up, we either have an 11 yr old child with an ear infection walking normally outside on a cold windy day and NOT having the time to do what she says she does, or we have the same an 11 yr old child with an ear infection dashing outside, on a cold windy day, being pulled by her 2 dogs and shopping at an unreasonable and incredible speed.
I can just hear the piano playing in the foreground with Charlie Chaplin doing his skidding around the corners...
But say you, in her defence, that when she says 12H00, it could mean she was saying "around 12H00" which could mean from 11H30 onwards...
That wouldn’t make her be the “precise” and “reliable” witness they all say she is, would it? Besides you are shortening the healing time for the ear infection aren't you? But, as always, I’ll pamper you. I’ll say that all of the above is possible.
You know what really gives her game away? Her visit to Baptista.
This is what she had to say:
“Next she went to the "Baptista" supermarket to buy seeded bread, as they don’t sell it at the "Alisuper." She left the dogs tied at the rear entrance of the "Baptista" and went to buy the bread. She paid, went out of "Baptista", picked up the dogs and crossed the supermarket’s hall to the main entrance, about four / five meters, which faces the street where she had seen the individual.”
She says that coming from the pharmacy she ties the dogs at one of Baptista's entrance, shops, picks up the dogs and crosses the 4/5 metre long supermarket’s hall to Baptista's other entrance, the one that faces the street she says she saw Pimpleman.
Didn’t she say she saw Pimpleman in a pathway? Yes, we all know that the pathway does lead to the street, Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, and to which Baptista has an entrance, but we’re just pointing out how someone who’s trying so much to be very precise, sometimes just isn’t, and one either has that personality trait or one doesn’t.
But what is terribly serious and most disturbing about this part of her statement is that she says the following:
Represented In red where she walks with the dogs and in blue, where she walks without them. She clearly states that she has walked with animals inside a supermarket.
This is such a serious offense that it could cost Baptista its licence.
Let me appease the Baptista owners that I’m not denouncing anything, because I don’t believe a word TS has said, much less ever having been animals inside your supermarket.
But it would make an interesting face-to-face discussion, if the PJ decided to have one arranged between TS and whoever was working at at Baptista on that particular noon, it certainly would.
After all, she didn’t have to cross that hall, did she? She did have other options:
In blue, she could have tied up the dogs at the rear entrance of Baptista, gone in and out, and continued up Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, or in red, she could have tied up the dogs at main entrance, gone is and out, and use to the pathway that leads to the same street.
What? You say that she says “left the dogs tied at the REAR entrance of the "Baptista” and went to buy the bread "...
Hmmm... she does say that, doesn’t she? But she also says that “"picked up the dogs and crossed the supermarket’s hall to the MAIN ENTRANCE, about four / five meters, WHICH FACES THE STREET where she had seen the individual.”
We seem to be having a problem of identifying which is the MAIN and which is the REAR entrance to Baptista. Let me help you with some pictures:
Which one do you think is the MAIN and which one do you think is the REAR? I think it’s pretty clear that TS has the Baptista entrances all mixed up.
She also a little bit confused about the dimensions of the place. She says she crosses the 4/5 metre long Baptista supermarket’s hall with her dogs, whereas it seems to be more like 15 metres:
We know that any 11 yr old, not just TS, hasn’t yet assimilated the correct notions of space, but to confuse a distance by its third a little bit too much.
In our opinion, the confusions she makes with the size of the hall and the rear vs main entries, as well as deeming possible walking dogs inside a supermarket makes it quite clear that she’s not familiar with the place or may even not ever have set foot there.
And why should she? Locals, the ex-Pats are included, tend to their shopping in larger commercial places located in Lagos. Small supermarkets like Baptista and Alisuper are more expensive and have less variety and are basically destined for tourists.
And any possible for last minute shopping, it seems that Alisuper is the best options as it's much nearer TS's house than Baptista.
This ignorance shown about Baptista only comes to reinforce our strongest suspicions that her daily walk to the school bus, wasn't done via Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, as she states when describing her first sighting of Pimpleman.
Well, we’ve shown how unrealistic are the variables presented by TS for her second sighting, which, in our opinion means that, realistically, it’s completely unrealistic.
So why does TS make up this whole story, or better yet, why does someone tell TS to tell the story this way?
Because, as I’ve told you before, a liar has to guide you through his lying tale, doesn’t he?
The liar cannot allow you to get the wrong impression, and that is exactly what he wants to do, to make an impression on you. Create in your mind what hasn’t ever happened.
So TS, on this second sighting is supposed to see Pimpleman in completely different circumstances than when she saw him the first time, which is stupid because if she had just said that when she was heading for the pharmacy, she had again seen the man she had seen two days before but this time in front of the OC entrance, she would have been much more credible, wouldn’t she? Yes, there's the question of seeing him still there when returning... but what's the problem of seeing the same person twice in the space of, say, 20 minutes?
After all, one thing we can say about Pimpleman is that the man certainly seems not to have wanted to hide himself from anyone, right?
But no, TS has to convey that she has gone the other way around... and approaches the man, although in the same area, from a different direction, as if that would give greater credibility to her story.
Which is just that, a story.
So she takes her dogs and ear infection down Rua Direita, Alisuper, pharmacy, Baptista, and up Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, appearing before Pimpleman in the opposite direction from which she had in the first sighting.
That's why she needs the chocolates at Alisuper so she can go by Rua Direita, the ear plugs so she can go right downtown and the seeded bread to avoid retracing her steps from the pharmacy and conveniently head towards Pimpleman. All in the sake of making you believe she’s not a liar. But by doing that she achieves the opposite which is to prove that she is indeed one.
With the ear infection, the dogs, the chocolates, the ear plugs, the Baptista entrances, the seeded bread and the 7 minutes, we can say beyond reasonable doubt that TS didn't see Pimpleman that day...
Nor did she see him on the first sighting.
We can safely say that TS has LIED about her sightings of Pimpleman, a person she never saw, and that if we were to base our opinion solely on her "credible" and "reliable" testimony, doesn't even exist.
We repeat that we think TC to be absolutely unaccountable for what she said, and maintain that the responsibility rests on all those that put her in this mess, on all those that orchestrated, very stupidly, all her actions in this and on all those that allowed for that to happen.
Notes:
The parts of TS’s statement made on May 9th 2007, as per PJ Files, pages 801 and 802, used in this post, in English and in it’s original Portuguese:
“(...) nor did she see him again until on May 2, Wednesday, after the holiday.
That on this day she didn’t go to school as she was sick, suffering from an infection in her right ear. Even so and being somewhat better, by 12H00, she went out alone, as her mother was working, accompanied by the dogs, heading to the "Alisuper" supermarket, located in a street perpendicular to Rua Direita, where she bought €3.63 worth of chocolates. Next she headed towards the pharmacy that is, in a lateral perspective, below the “Baptista”, supermarket, where she bought a box of ear plugs, in order to prevent water penetration, spending €4.55. Next she went to the "Baptista" supermarket to buy seeded bread, as they don’t sell it at the "Alisuper." She left the dogs tied at the rear entrance of the "Baptista" and went to buy the bread. She paid, went out of "Baptista", picked up the dogs and crossed the supermarket’s hall to the main entrance, about four / five meters, which faces the street where she had seen the individual. She started to walk up the road on the left sidewalk, in the ascending direction, having then seen the individual, this time in front of the "Ocean Club" reception, observing, she assesses, the two side windows of the house and part of the balcony. She thinks he could also have been looking at other houses that are in the same direction.
Then when going uphill she passed right in front of the individual, having observed him directly, an act to which he didn’t retaliate as he never looked at the deponent. The distance which she observed him corresponds to the width of the road.
After going past the individual, she went towards her house, by the road on the right, not looking at him again, nor turning her head back to observe him better.
After that she never saw him again.
As said before she left home at 12H00 and returned at 12H35, so she would have crossed with the individual at 12H25/12H28 (the remainder path takes seven minutes).
The second time he was wearing the same windbreaker, this time closed, as the day was colder than the first one, with wind. She didn’t notice the other articles of clothing. She refers that on this day he had a pen with a clip hanging from one of the pockets.”
"(...) nem mais o voltou a ver até ao dia 02 de Maio, quarta-feira, depois do feriado.
Que neste dia não foi à escola por se encontrar doente, acometida por estado infeccioso no ouvido direito. Ainda assim e estando algo melhor, pelas 12H00, saiu sozinha, já que a sua mãe estava a trabalhar, acompanhada dos cães, tendo-se dirigido ao supermercado “Alisuper”, sito numa perpendicular da Rua Direita, onde comprou chocolates no valor de €3.63. Logo após dirigiu-se à farmácia, que se situa abaixo do supermercado “Baptista”, numa perspectiva lateral, onde comprou uma caixa de tampões para os ouvidos, de forma a evitar a entrada de água, tendo gasto €4.55. Seguidamente foi ao supermercado “Baptista” comprar pão com sementes, uma vez que não vendem no “Alisuper”. Deixou os cães amarrados na entrada das traseiras do “Baptista” e foi comprar o pão. Pagou, saiu do “Baptista”, recolheu os cães e atravessou o hall do supermercado até à entrada principal, cerca de quatro/cinco metros, que dá para a rua onde havia visto o individuo. Começou a subir a artéria pela passeio do lado esquerdo, no sentido ascendente, tendo então visto o indivÃduo, desta feita em frente à recepção do “Ocean Club”, a observar, segundo julga, as duas janelas laterais da casa e parte da varanda. Pensa que ele também poderia estar a olhar para outra residências que ficam na mesma direcção.
Que ao subir passou mesmo em frente ao individuo, tendo o observado directamente, acto que esse não reatliou, pois nunca olhou para a depoente. A distância que o observou corresponde à largura da artéria.
Depois de passar pelo individuo, seguiu em direcção a sua casa, pela rua à direita, não voltando a olhar para aquele, nem se virou para trás de forma a melhor o observar.
Após aquela data nunca mais o viu.
Conforme detrás dito saiu de casa às 12H00 e regressou às 12H35, pelo que se terá cruzado com o individuo pelas 12H25/12H28 (o restante trajecto demora sete minutos).
(...)
Da segunda vez vestia o mesmo blusão, desta feita fechado, pois o dia estava mais frio que o primeiro, com vento. Não reparou nas outras peças de roupa. Refere que neste dia ele tinha uma caneta com presilha pendurada num dos bolsos.
(...)”
