Friday, 27 April 2012

Breaking Non-News

by Sina J

We interrupt our break for this non-news announcement. It seems that besides being entertained by SY putting their foot in their mouths, as we predicted we would be, we'll have also have to watch the McCanns do the same. 

SY have found 195 lines of enquiry which come from 25% of the available material so that leaves 75% not yet looked at. Working on averages that would make 585 lines of enquiry yet to be revealed so in total it could be 780 potential ‘leads’ waiting to be discovered. 

Surely SY wouldn’t claim the PJ has missed so many opportunities? Has SY even revealed to the PJ what these lines of enquiry are and how do they know they are not the same ones the PJ investigated and dismissed if the discussions haven’t taken place? If these discussions did take place what an insult to the PJ to now tell them they had missed the obvious. And if not, how can it be claimed the PJ (or PM) have refused to re-open the case despite this ‘new’ material as they wouldn’t know on what grounds they were refusing? Come to think of it, if SY believe there was an abductor they wouldn’t be announcing it on TV alerting that person, it wasn’t even a news broadcast it was a pre-recorded programme. This is totally opposite to the usual police tactics of being silent until arrests are made.

Why don’t T9 cut out the middle man and just request the Portuguese to re-open the case then their reported dashed hopes could be restored? Two police forces working in tandem would be the perfect opportunity for the Mccanns to request the re-opening if that was their real objective. Why are they waiting until Wednesday before holding up to the world the latest image of Maddie? They are missing a great marketing opportunity while the news of the police looking for Maddie being alive is hot. Have they given up looking under every unturned stone? Second thoughts, there would be no money in that.

The PJ claim they have not formally been asked to re-open the case so how would it be possible for them to refuse an invitation they have never received? Although I suppose it’s like me saying even if the Queen invited me to tea I would refuse.

The McCanns claim people like Mr Bennett and Mr Amaral are damaging the search for their daughter so going by their usual reaction perhaps they should Carter Ruck the PJ for doing just that. Even better Carter Ruck themselves as refusing to do the reconstruction, not asking the Portuguese to re-open the case and K refusing to answer 48 questions would make them the worst offenders. These are 3 things that would be new evidence not merely lines of enquiry.

The British expression is ‘do as you would be done by’. 

195 new leads, or 195 new feet to mouth feed? The show must go on, mustn't it?

Back to our break...

Monday, 23 April 2012

Lapse Of Memory Or Lack Of Character?

If I were to elect the most ridiculous of all statements in the PJ Files on the Maddie Affair, I would have to pick Derek Flack’s.

The competition in such a championship would be furious and fierce as the quantity of possible candidates is indeed staggering but the various statements from this particular gentleman would win not by a nose, but by such a distance that when he’d be crossing the finish line, all others would still seem to be in their starting boxes.

So much so, that in a direct competition between him and an 11 yr old girl, Kate McCann chooses to prefer the child’s testimony as “credible” and “reliable”, while she has nothing to say in favour of the witness that, between all witnesses, was the one to have supposedly been closest to Pimpleman.

That says much doesn’t it? To be put down by one's own peers must really, really hurt.

We’ve seen how much credibility and reliability TS’s statement does really have, so picking on Derek Flack’s proves to be one difficult challenge.

One just doesn’t know where to start.

To use Derek Flack’s own words, which I’ll later come back to and more than once, “after having particularly reflected on such incidences” I’ve decided to start with Flack’s consistencies.

You know, where we know he’s telling the truth.

If one wants to be a purist, we have to limit Flack’s possible consistencies to ONLY one fact: he owns a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

That as we’ll see in future posts, is one very important detail.

As said, if we were to say that he’s only consistent about that then we would be much too strict with the man but more important than that it would mean being unfair to logic.

He’s basically consistent about THREE things.

The FIRST, already stated, is the ownership of a holiday apartment in Rua do Ramalhete.

The SECOND is that he’s not married to Christine, but had been living with her, at the time of his statement, for 36 years.

We’ll consider that when he contacts the PJ on May 5th it wasn’t clearly understood that Christine was his “partner/companion” and not, as written, his “wife”. A natural misunderstanding so we’ll accept it as his second consistency. Besides, it has absolutely no relevance.

The THIRD consistency is the most important one of the three.

Not the only important one, only the most important of the three and that is that he consistently doesn’t remember the day he almost literally ran over Pimpleman.

Mind you, he can’t be precise JUST about the day, because, as you’ll see, he firstly hesitates about the hour but has, it seems, clarified that detail.

Let’s see what he has to say on this:

1. On May 5th 2007, he says “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon)”

2. Also on May 5th 2007, in a PJ External Diligence report it’s said “at a moment prior to the occurrence that is now intended to be investigated”.

3. On May 06th 2007, he says “in a date that he doesn’t remember with precision, but reports it to be late morning or early afternoon in the past May 02 or 03”.

4. On May 9th 2007, in a PJ External Diligence report it’s said “on date immediately prior or even contemporaneous to the occurrence currently being investigated”

5. And in April 2009, in the Mockumentary, he’s quoted as saying “I don’t remember whether I saw the man Wednesday 2nd or Thursday the 3rd of May”

Notice that the second time, when Flack is contacted by the PJ in an external diligence on May 5th, the same day he had contacted them earlier, he’s registered as saying “at a moment prior to the occurrence that is now intended to be investigated”. The occurrence being investigated happened on the night of May 3rd 2007 so we could interpret the said “moment prior” to be earlier on that same date.

But May 2nd is also “a moment prior” to May 3rd, as is February 12th and January 31st.

However, it's clear that all other four statements are adamant in Mr Flack's indecision.

So even with the exception of that one imprecise moment prior, it can be stated with total certainty that Derek Flack CONSISTENTLY doesn’t remember on which day he saw Pimpleman.

If it was on the Wednesday 2nd or the Thursday the 3rd of May.

He remembers many other little details as we’ll see in future posts but this one simply escapes him.

It’s a common occurrence when witnesses don’t remember with precision the time that an event, or events, happened.

Confusion occur with minutes, hours, days or even years, depending on how far back they’re asked to recall details.

But a memory is as more precise as how directly the witness has intervened in the event being recollected or how relevant it was in their lives.

For example, who doesn’t remember what the weather to their wedding day was?

Another way for a memory to be precise is when the event in question becomes unforgettable due to its impact on the general public.

Who doesn’t remember exactly what they were doing during the events of September 11th 2001?

The scale of an event’s public relevance has obviously to do with those it has affected.

The tragic events of the Twin Towers affected everyone worldwide, and that’s why we all remember what we were doing when that second plane hit the South Tower.

But, although in a similar scale of seriousness, if you ask a non Brit for the date when the London terrorist attack happened, it’s no disrespect to the UK or to the victims of the vile attack that they can’t recall that it was on July 7th 2005.

Nor is it that a non Spanish doesn’t remember that Madrid suffered a similar tragedy on March 11th 2004.

To prove the point, very few people could consciously put in order these two events. You see what I meant when I said that people even get years confused?

But separately these two dates are remembered by both the British and the Spanish respectively and the great majority of people that lived in these two countries at the time can recollect in detail what exactly they were doing when the tragedy in their country happened.

All this because Derek Flack cannot remember, on Saturday May 5th, if it was on Wednesday 2nd or the Thursday the 3rd of May that he saw Pimpleman.

Let me tell you that I’m absolutely sure that everyone that who was in PdL at the time Maddie disappeared remembers exactly what they did both on May 3rd and May 4th 2007.

The day that Maddie disappeared and the day the news got out.

Were you in PdL Mr Derek Flack?

Then you remember what you did on May 3rd.

And if you didn’t see Pimpleman on that day, then, according to you, it leaves only May 2nd for that to have happened. It's up to you to know in which day you say you saw him. With no justifiable indecision.

Saying that you don’t remember on which one of the days it happened is blatantly lying and we both know that.

But let’s pretend, Mr Flack that you’re as stupid as you pretend to be.

Let me try to help you jolt you memory.

I'll do a similar exercise that you people intended to do with the Mockumentary, which was to jolt nobody’s memory because you and all of those who participated in it, in front or behind the cameras, knew beforehand there was nothing to be jolted.

Like in your case, Mr. Flack, no one can jolt what isn’t there to jolted, can they? We know you didn’t see what you say you saw, when all you saw were recollections of figments of your imagination that your mind fed you at the time you had to comply with the character in the script that you were cast to play.

But let’s get back to the debunking, shall we?

The dates you give as possibilities are sandwiched between two relevant dates: May 3rd, the night Maddie disappeared and May 1st, the Portuguese Labour Day National holiday.

It was either the day after the holiday, or the day Maddie was gone, that simple to remember. Which was it?

You still don’t remember?

Well, let me help you then a little further. It was on the day that you, Mr Flack, “got ready to have a walk through the streets surrounding where he was domiciled, in Praia da Luz, together with his partner CHRISTINE.

Do you two decide to have this particular walk every single day?

If so you should have said “the walk” instead of “a walk”, shouldn’t you?

But if this “walk” is such a daily routine that it cannot be pinned in time, its path clearly is not always the same, because, as you say, on May 6th, you cannot wholly specify the path made, knowing however that they walked the road in which he resides in the ascending way, which would take the direction of Rua Agostinho da Silva, in the descending way, in order to access Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, in which is located the "Ocean Club Gardens" enterprise.

Hardly the description of a daily routine walk is it? Even stranger if one is to consider that this is coming from someone who owns an apartment in town, so is supposed, unlike the McCanns, to know the surroundings.

At least the near whereabouts of where you usually reside when you’re frequently in town. Honestly if you’re not able to specify a path that involves THREE streets, the one where you house is, the one where you allegedly saw Pimpleman and the one in between, what can you specify?

So Mr. Flack, it’s easy to remember. Just ask Christine if it was on Wednesday or Thursday that you two took that exceptional walk.

Still having a difficult time remembering? Oh, you don’t want to ask her?

Could it be because you don’t even remember why you were on Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins in the first place?

You see, as shown, on May 6th you say you happened to be there because of a stroll you decided to make around town, but, just 24 hours before, on May 5th when you contacted the PJ, it’s registered that you said “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon), accompanied by his wife, and when going to the "Baptista Supermarket", he observed an individual...

Please clarify, was it a strolling trip or was it a shopping one?

Why is this Baptista trip is not mentioned again? Please don’t say that the PJ misunderstood your intention to having been on that particular road at that particular time.

One thing is for the PJ to misunderstand between a partner and a wife, but it’s not acceptable to confuse a vague objective as a stroll with a clear and named shopping destination.

So Mr Flack, was it on Wednesday or Thursday that you went to Baptista? Still don't remember? Don't tell me that you go there so many times that you can't specify a particular trip...

How about asking your partner? After all it was you that contacted the PJ. It was your initiative, nobody else’s. You say you saw something suspicious and you felt that you should report it, so one would assume that you’d get your fact straight before you headed for the authorities.

It was you who went to the authorities, right? Not the other way around, so the least expected from you would be for you to remember exactly what you wanted to report.

We know that you and Christine played the same game “Now I see, Now you don’t” that TS and her mom also played, so we’re supposed to think she didn’t see Pimpleman. But we don’t want her to tell you any detail about the man, just about the day you say you saw Pimpleman.

A day has 24 hours, and each unique and full of all those particular details that make one different from the other and allow us to determine, with accuracy, to which day they belonged to, just 48/72 hours afterwards.

For example, did you buy an ice-cream downtown just like the McCanns on their single family trip to the beach?

Or maybe you bought also some sunglasses? A newspaper? A coffee? I’m sure you did do something different that day that you didn’t do on the other.

Between the two of you, you should come up with something that would distinguish the Wednesday from the Thursday. The clothes each one wore, the meals you had that day, where did you go after you went down that street, something that would clarify if it was 72 hours or 48 hours that you, Mr Flack, had seen Pimpleman.

But it seems that, even though “moreover, he wishes to add that, after having particularly reflected on such incidences, has concluded that…” as you say on May 06th, nothing has come to both of your minds.


Very unbecoming for someone that characterizes himself as “To the question asked, the respondent refers that he perceived the facts reported above due to the fact that he possesses a great surveillance instinct, presumably resulting from the fact that he integrates a neighbours community that exists where he resides in England, established for security purposes, entrusted to ensure the maintenance of the order and for the surveillance and detection of suspicious people or movements in the vicinity of that location”

I do pity who rely on your skills back home. And even more those who rely on your instincts.

Fortunately for them, Pimpleman seems to be allergic to the UK. Cheshire and Ilford are both in the UK, aren’t they?

Both your supposed skills and instincts should've told you how important it would be for the Police to know, with the best possible precision, when a reported event did happen.

For example, in your case, one thing is for Pimpleman to have been seen by you on the Wednesday, the same day other two witnesses apparently also saw him, another, totally different, is for him to have been seen only by you on the Thursday, isn't it? 

But is your forgetfulness really that astray?

I don’t think it is. And you know why?

Because of the Mockumentary.

It shows clearly that sometime between May 5th 2007 and April 2009, you got your memory back.

On May 5th, you’re registered as saying “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon), accompanied by his wife…” and on May 06th that ”…reports it to be late morning or early afternoon in the past May 02 or 03."

And this is what the Mockumentary shows:

It says “aprox 11:30”

That’s late morning.

Where did “afternoon/early afternoon” go?

Mr. Flack, you do have a very selective memory, don’t you?

Post Scriptum:
The blog will now break until May 3rd. It will be the 5th anniversary of Maddie's death. The idea behind this break is the expectancy we have about what SY is to conclude until then, if it is to conclude anything by then. Both SY’s words and silence on this issue are significant.

Friday, 20 April 2012

Debunking Urban Myths: The Pimpleman

About our post A Mockery Within A Mockery it was called to our attention the following comment at MMF:

Re: New post from Textusa
ann_chovey on Fri 13 Apr 2012, 8:48 pm


This 'suspect' had already been found, named as MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN and eliminated from the inquiry, with all details presented in the PJ files.

The image below is from 'Madeleine was here' channel 4 documentary, (the one where Gerry arrives at the 'locked' back door and KM asks the twins..'shall we let him in'...Lol)

I presume this was run by the McCs beforehand but I have to say he looks neither spotty, ugly or remotely like the Pimpleman sketch."

It seems that there is a perception that Pimpleman has already been found, at least in two of his three versions.

About “TS’s Pimpleman” version, ann_chovey’s words couldn’t be more clear: “This 'suspect' had already been found, named as MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN”

The McCann files corroborate this in the link provided above, where there's a “verdict” for each one of the Mockumentary witnesses:

For Witness One (JW’s):

"Verdict: It has not been possible to locate this witness statement in the PJ files which were issued to journalists. It may be contained in files that the McCanns' lawyers have gained access to, which are still under judicial secrecy, or possibly from information they have received direct from the public or through Método 3."

For Witness two (TS's):

"Verdict: This 'suspect' had already been found, named as MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN and eliminated from the inquiry, with all details presented in the PJ files."

Witness three (DF's):

"Verdict: This 'suspect' had already been found, named as BARRINGTON GODFREY NORTON and eliminated from the inquiry, with all details presented in the PJ files"

So, as said, it appears that 2 out of 3 Pimpleman versions have been found. Only JW’s version is still at large. And about this one, we already know that to say "It may be contained in files that the McCanns' lawyers have gained access to, which are still under judicial secrecy", means absolutely nothingas there is no such thing as the Unpublished PJ Files. Only documents and statements that were conveniently left out of the PJ Files, and not by the PJ.

But as we’ll see, not only that is not exactly the case, as it is CLEAR that it is NOT the case.

Let’s see what the PJ Files final report has to say on the subject:

About  Witness two (TS) the PJ Files final report says:

"As of pg 800, it was made the inquiry of TMS, who saw on two occasions and in as many days, an individual observing the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared. A photo-fit was made based on the indications, not being, however, achieved its identification, being certain that diligences were made that led to the identification of MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN, who was subject to various diligences without incriminating results, pgs 632 to 726 of volume III, Appendix VI. Besides this individual, other diligences of the same sort were made, also without fruitful results for the investigation, as is told on Appendix VI"

It seems clear there wasn’t made any identification with the photo-fit made from TS’s indication.

It seems also clear that no incriminating results were found against MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN.

It’s clear that "Pimpleman-TS version" hasn’t been found.

About  Witness three (DF) the PJ Files final report says:

“A witness, DEREK FLACK, heard at page 200, reported the presence of a suspect, who was supposedly looking at the intended apartment, near a white van, pg. 145 and following ones. It wasn’t possible to identify this person, although a photo-fit was made, pg 205. However, we believe existing very strong possibilities of being construction workers – who were there making small works - a gardener (pg. 973), or BARRINGTON NORTON (pg. 833), inquired as per pg. 704. The latter is a regular frequenter of Praia da Luz, exercising the activity of musician on the streets of the town. Nothing was found relevant to the investigation.”.

So it’s clear that “It wasn’t possible identify this person, although a photo-fit was made, pg 205”. It just can’t get any much clearer than that.

It says that the PJ strongly believed that Pimpleman, DF version, could be one of the following:

- construction workers (notice the plural);

- a gardener;


Nowhere does it say it is BARRIGTON NORTON. It says it could be him as much as it says it could be a gardener but it DOES say clearly that it "wasn't possible to identify this person".

About identifying Norton as "his" Pimpleman, Derek Flack has to say this on May 9th 2007:

“Thus, in the sequence of having been shown such photographs, DEREK FLACK would refer that, although he could not recognize the individual in question in a peremptory way (as, otherwise, had been consigned within the respective inquiry), the physical features of BARRINGTON NORTON would be, broadly speaking, similar to those of the individual whose presence he reported during his hearing in the present case.

Still, enhancing that he’s unable to undertake any formal recognition (because reiterates not having able to view in detail the individual in question), the witness would make the point of highlighting that the individual whom he had intended to refer to within the inquiry would appear to be much younger than the above identified BARRINGTON NORTON.”

It would have been very unlikely and strange for Norton to be recognized as DF's Pimpleman as the man Flack describes to the PJ was “Caucasian individual and dark complexion, of medium height, about 1.70 to 1.75 meters tall, appearing to be about 25 to 35 years old, while Norton was 56.

It's clear that "Pimpleman-DF Version", hasn't also been found.

Concluding, nowhere does it say in the PJ Files that Pimpleman has been found in any of his three versions.

So Mothers of Algarve, Morocco, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, India and someplace else that I forgot to mention, lock up your children at night as Pimpleman is still OUT THERE!

UNLESS the witnesses JW (probably Jeni Weinberger), TS and Derek Flack have LIED, then Pimpleman is out there prowling, standing alone this very moment in some street in broad daylight observing attentively and ostensibly some house... and that house could just be yours...

It’s with your safety in mind that we, as you’ve noticed, are lately dissecting the various witness statements about the Pimpleman in the Mockumentary.

One never knows what important information one can find.

To find, a verb that is definitely NOT applicable when it comes to Pimpleman.

The good news is that we’ve proven at this point that at least one of the three Mockumentary witnesses, TS, has lied. That's one less Pimpleman out there.

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Another Edgar Discrepancy

Derek Flack
The Mockumentary also introduces a couple from Cheshire as witnesses. The initials on the white board are DF, so this must be Derek Flack and his partner Christine Dale. Mr Flack also makes a statement about the man he witnessed
This must be Witness 5 in Kate's book, who was walking down Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins with his partner. The day is uncertain: either Wednesday 2 May of Thursday 3rd 2007.
The man was standing by the wall near the car park, opposite the entrance to the swimming pool and the Tapas restaurant. The witness described the man staring fixedly at an area close to apartment 5A, where a white van was parked.
The description is a man aged 25-35, 5ft.7-5ft.9 inches, medium build, thick dark hair ; wearing a plain light coloured T-shirt. Caucasian with dark skin; assumed to be Portuguese.

Why the man is assumed to be Portuguese isn't clear.

The reader is then referred to sketch number 3 in the book, which shows a man with no pimples and no glasses, appearing to be within the age group given.

According to Kate, however,  having perused the files for the first time in August 2008,  only learns then of the sightings by 4 independent witnesses in the 5 days prior to Madeleine's disappearance.
She looks at sightings 3 to 8 and states that these witness reports are highly relevant to the investigation. She says that the individuals may not be the same in all case, there were common characteristics suggesting some if not all of the sightings could be related.
She obviously distrusted the conclusions reached by the PJ in relation to Vanman, who is identified in the files as Barrington Norton. He is not in the age group given in the description on which the sketch is based as he was 56.

Kate's book mentions the trip to the beach on Tuesday May 1st. They borrowed a double buggy, but as the afternoon was rainy and they returned from the beach to buy ice creams for the 3 children. She then recounts how they went to a market stall to buy sunglasses and explains why she describes these minute details.  “ Every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important.”
Vanman/ Musicman is not mentioned here, nor in the statements of Kate or Gerry McCann, although the ice creams are mentioned.

Goncalo Amaral mentions Tuesday May 1st and gives a more comprehensive account than Kate's book.
In the afternoon from 13.30. all 3 children were taken to the beach by their parents, but they only stayed for 20 minutes because of the weather. Madeleine eats an ice cream on a terrace and close by, whilst a guitarist who looks like a tramp plays Latino music and collects money.
The book also refers to Vanman/ Musicman, as I'll call him.
On Tuesday May 8th the white van is seen near the Ocean Club, driven by a man who looks like a tramp. It belonged to an itinerant music teacher who Gerry McCann, according to Mr Amaral, passed on the promenade on the day that he bought an ice cream for Madeleine. He states that he was identified as the person seen near apartment 5A, in the van which he used to live in.
“The follow up investigation totally rules him out”

The couple from CHESHIRE?
In the Mockumentary, when speaking about Flack, the narrator says: "Witness number three is a man with his partner from Cheshire, he gave a statement to the Police, describing a man he’d seen near the apartment."

Derek Flack and his partner lived in Ilford in Essex. For any readers unfamiliar with UK geography, these counties are nowhere near each other, being on opposite sides of England. His statement gives the Ilford postcode and press reports refer to Mr Flack being the Neghbourhood Watch co-ordinator; a voluntary position, co-ordinating the activities of neighbours who try to keep their communities safe by watching out for criminal activity. One would assume Mr Flack was an observant guy, always on the look- out for suspicious activity.

Dave Edgar assisted the Mockumentary with his whiteboard. He would know where Cheshire was, as he worked for the Cheshire Police force before his career as a PI. The only couple from Cheshire that we recall were the Moyes.

Another “Edgar discrepancy”? Using Kate’s words, one discrepancy, two discrepancies – maybe they’re still discrepancies. Any more than that and it stops being discrepancy.

The other two (and counting...) :

Friday, 13 April 2012

A Mockery Within A Mockery

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..."
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:

Pics are from Pamalam
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 DireitaAlisuper, 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.

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 indivíduo, 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.