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
"http://www.mccannfiles.com/id239.html
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gained access to, which are still under judicial secrecy", means absolutely nothing, as there is no such thing as the Unpublished PJ Files.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;
- BARRINGTON NORTON.
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.
Re: New post from Textusa
ann_chovey on Fri 13 Apr 2012, 8:48 pm
"http://www.mccannfiles.com/id239.html
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 nothing, as 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;
- BARRINGTON NORTON.
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.
The fact that the Final Report doesn't mention JW's Pimpleman is further proof that the PJ were not aware of this sighting. If they had been they would have taken action on it as they did with the other two and they didn't. Besides what could be secretive about a woman who says she feels unnerved by a man in one occasion and in another sees him outside the Tapss entrance?
ReplyDeleteThe Pimpleman lost importance to Hewlett, who they tried to pin on the character but weren't able to.
ReplyDeleteIs this what SY is spending the money on? In finding someone that fits the bill?
Tex,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen at MMF, it seems that fake negligence is accpeted as fact. Your message is sinking in, keep up the good work.
For me, it is clear, most witnesses lied. Some attracted by the opportunity of 5 minutes of fame, some dragged in by the Mccann's or somebody on their behalf. All, who have been involved on Mccann's video were dragged in and who wrote their statements tried to pin some physical characteristics of more then one guy, they know or saw in PDL, somewhere, not exactly near the 5A. Because they don't want to give information that could lead the police to recognize a guy they know is innocent. They want a bouquet of potential abductors. That entertains the police and the public without pinning the trouble into a real guy. With that, they achieved what they wanted without having the risks of being sued by any pseudo- abductor.
ReplyDeleteWith this team, nothing is straightforward . Nothing is green, red....It is always an innuendo, a rainbow of possibilities and that is part of the secret of their apparent success...until the stories started being debunked.
Hewlett, if I'm not in error, was pinned on the case by the media contacted by team McCann, who used somebody who knows hewlett and knows how ill he was. I always had the suspicion that The Photofit made like a comic character from a kids story, was made having the real photo of Hewlett, as a model. What ruin their plans was Hewlett attitude. He refuses to do them a favor and go to the grave holding the guilt of having taking Madeleine from the bed that night. If he had accepted the deal, the Mccann's were save from being suspects on the disappearance of their daughter and will had the Found legitimate forever to search their daughter, because all indicates that their target was having Hewlett assuming the abduction but not revealing the destiny of the child. They don't want the body to be found because that ruins their business. Just an abduction qb.
Anon 11.38
ReplyDeleteTS's lies are much too elaborate and thought out to be from someone seeking their 5 or 15 minutes of fame. It leaves out the McCanns or somebody else. Not on behalf of the McCanns but on their own behalf IMHO.
Anon 1:46,
ReplyDeleteBut this is exactly what I'm saying.
TS is on Mccann's video, then must be dragged in by the Mccann's or by somebody on their behalf. In that case, I will go with Hubbards or the expat man who gave them the keys of the church, which I really suspect is the same who handed over the car when they left in September. But the statements must be wrote by Gerry and Kate. They had plenty of time in PDL to do it, a laptop and good advisers.
We should not forget that when the police was searching a possible sight in Spain that end up with a couple arrested because they wanted some money, Gerry was enjoying a lollipop and checking the football results for Uk teams. That shows, he was controlling the situation and knows that such sight had no any chance to lead to anywhere. Most of the sights and witnesses have them behind it. If not, why all that stories fall fatally on one nationality- British.
There was people from other nationalities in PDL, including the local Portuguese, who were working in the OC or in the surrounds, then more close to the crime scene, no one witnessed anything suspicious. Morning or middle day are very busy hours with people going in and out to beach or to have breakfast and lunch. A very inappropriate time for a stupid abductor who was clever enough to accomplish the perfect crime, to be near the crime scene and available to be seen by many witnesses. Or since, looks like there is 3 different abductors standing on the same place, the place near the 5a, must be the most busy place at certain moment with abductors bumping on each other, all looking for the best position to target a girl who has nothing different then any other child they could target and follow with more time if they just walk away few meters to stand in front of a Scholl located near by.
Where did we see something similar? A busy street full of people going out and in to control the Mccann's children? The street in front the 5a on third May night. Then, who wrote the events of the third May, must be the same person who wrote the statements of this witnesses. There is always small details that fall out of the control of the criminals. No matter how clever they are . For me, that obsession of having always more then one individual to do the same thing is very relevant and indicates who could be the author of many of the events/ misinformation on Maddie saga. It is a characteristic of who build the stories.
"A NORSE! A NORSE! MY KINGDOM FOR A NORSE!"
ReplyDeleteDr Martin Roberts, Mccannfiles.
Anon at:
ReplyDeleteApr 21, 2012 1:40:00 PM
Apr 21, 2012 2:15:00 PM
Apr 21, 2012 2:41:00 PM
We’re not publishing your comments because you’re getting ahead of the blog. The issues you raise will be dealt with further ahead. The fact that you raise them means that the blog is doing a good job.
Thank you so for your contribution and engagement.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315879/Madeleine-McCann-aged-eight-as-US-experts-see-her
ReplyDeleteThat is the last ridiculous article on that farce. The fact they assumed the picture is representing a 8 years old Maddie while the real one will be 9 if alive, Says it all about the quality of the " US experts" and the objective of that campaign.
I will be not far from the truth if I speculate the US experts never put their feet in US soil. They must be living near Rothley and be payed by bread scrambles from the Fund, to come out with such rubbish. All strategies need to be used to remember that there is a book out there, covered in dust and sharing with crawling insects some spider webs. "Madeleine", not the new version.... The old version which was publicized as a sale success, when in fact was a disaster. Many books still out there, in a storeroom, not in the bookstore shelves because many bookstores received bad reaction/ comments from clients, when they saw the book. Over the time, become a shame, having your business associated with that gang.
Now, is for the gang that I endorse my last words. Not the Mccann's and their Tapas 7 friends, but the others who help them setting a cover up based in faked sights with them playing the roll of fake witnesses. How do you feel, today, 5 years later with a new picture of a girl, you know died long ago and never ever will have a chance to look like that? How can you sleep or face the child's you cross with, every day....? You are a shame.... You deserve no respect.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yluQBnVrb9g/T5Q07Niy_cI/AAAAAAAAKVA/RQ61_bxEeTA/s1600/Sem+nome.png
ReplyDeleteIt´s a danger! I cropped the eyes.
And not only the couple, the TapasFriends(lol) but a huge amount of "witnesses" who testified, in addition to all others who belong to an infinite number.
Interesting 'Pink Pinky' @ MC blog 'Palavras escritas'
ReplyDeleteAbout TS & Ruth Mccann9 the owner of the 5a)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_gr-ELFrqWk/T5RAN_CQNyI/AAAAAAAAKVY/q1iz5eL1sf0/s1600/Sem+nome2.png
ReplyDeleteComo e tao previsivel o negocio do casal. Eternamente....a cadencia de uma por ano, la vai envelhecendo Madeleine, nas paginas dos jornais, para que os papas vivam desafogadamente, enganando os mais distraidos.