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.


  1. Spot on , Textusa, as always!

    The ear infection thing also made me somewhat "uncomfortable", there was something not quite rigth about it, but I shied away from commenting because I thought I was being ridiculous, overly suspicious of everything and anything!
    My thoughts on the subject as I read it were, "why did she miss school? It is not contagious and obviously she is not all that ill if her mother allowed her to go and walk the dogs, and DO SOME SHOPPING?!". I also thought, "maybe she is a little 'truant', and faked the illness to miss school and enjoy a leisure day to walk about the streets of Luz with the dogs". But, her mother is in the health care business, she surelly would spot the "ruse" and not fall for it! Also, if the girl's condition was REAL, and her mother considered it serious enough to stay away from school, why would she give her daughter a shopping list?! I don't think the girl did the shopping out of her own decision, "oh, we're out of milk and bread, and we need some detergent too, I'd better go to the shops"...where would she get the money to pay for the goods? No, she must have been following her mother's instructions, left with money to do the shopping and reminded not to forget to take the dogs out for their midday walk. The mother works in Luz, she could have done the shopping herself on her lunch hour, surelly she would go home to check on her daughter, who was obviously left home alone, otherwise someone else, whoever was caring for her, would have walked the dogs and do the shopping.
    By the way...just to finish my long comment, two more thoughts:
    First - here we have an 11 year old girl, supposedly so ill she had to miss school, LEFT HOME ALONE AND UNSUPERVISED, which was bad enough, but on top of it, she is asked to walk the dogs and go to the shops ALL BY HERSELF!(I never dared to let my son out by himself at that age, but hey, I'm a portuguese mother-hen)
    Second - it is highly unlikely the girl would take the dogs with her if she intended to got to the shops. Here in Portugal dogs are not welcome in shops, it's s well known fact, she had to tie the dogs outside in all the 3 places she visited, how inconvenient! What if there was no suitable structure she could tie the dogs to in one of the places? What would she do, leave the dogs loose on the street? It's not like she went for a walk with the dogs and remembered to pick up something on the way, it was a planned shopping trip, she visited 3 places, and being the portuguese attitude towards animals what it is, I'm sure no one would think of taking TWO dogs along on a "multiple shop" shopping outing!
    Finished! Sorry for the long post...

  2. I feel a bit silly now...
    I apologize to Textusa and the readers of the blog for repeating in my comment things that have been adressed by Textusa in her comment. I must confess that I wrote my comment BEFORE reading the entire post (shame on me!), here's the reason for what it seems now a very repetitive and silly comment.
    I apologize, and promise to try not to jump into the comment box before reading the full posts!

  3. Where is it mentioned a shopping list made out of chocolates, a box of ear-plugs and bread with seeds?!? What this post shows is that TS's lies are not spontaneous. She was clearly given instructions.

  4. As you quite rightly point out the unrealistic time spent negoiating the child's round trip with her dogs dosn't figure into possible dog fouling issues and of its obvious impact on taking the dogs on what was a quick shop. Nobody, in my opinion, especially a child, would take their dogs, with the possibility of street fouling and cleaning same, on a quick visit to various stores. And again, not a sick child at that.

  5. I know customs differ from country to country, but would you as a parent, send your 11-year old daughter to the shops alone? (based on Textusa's maps, we are not talking of the shop round the corner here, but shops that were a fair distance away). Would you give her the responsibility of walking the two dogs by herself? (based on previous entries, the dogs were somewhat of a handful) - what if they had gotten into a fight?
    Nah ... this reeks of poor parenting or something written by Clarrence.

  6. So her mother is a health professional. Do you think she has anything else in common with the majority of tourists in PDL that April/May?

  7. Se os caes Sao os mesmos que aparecem no Moccmentario de Gerry e que terao arrastado a Mae no primeiro avistamento, podemos imaginar o drama de TS que com aqueles caes nunca tera cumprido o percurso planeado no tempo previsto, muito menos comprado 3 coisas tao superfluas em 3 espacos diferentes.
    Quem disse a TS que perante uma infeccao aguda ( que a Tera impedido de ir a Escola) nos ouvidos se colocam tampoes? Nem gotas se podem colocar, sob pena de piorar a situacao. Mais um detalhe que me parece acrescentado pela crianca na tentativa de fazer um trabalho perfeito, que acaba por ajudar a arruinar o testemunho.

  8. Steel-Magnolia

    Thank you for the information provided.

    As you, and our readers, know, we like to chew every bit of information by ourselves before presenting it publicly.

    We’ve decided not to publish your comment as it does contain a significant amount of information that requires that sort of in-house analysis.

    We hope that you understand and support our decision.

  9. Anon Apr 13, 2012 9:53:00 PM

    We don't believe that the linkage between those involved in this affair was a professional one, so, in that aspect, it's perfectly irrelevant what TS's mother's profession is.

    However, if she's indeed an health profession it only proves even further that TS's ear infection is more scripted than real,

    Anon Apr 14, 2012 7:11:00 AM

    You're right about the ear plugs. When I had an ear infection the last thing I wanted was having someone to touch me anywhere near that area, much less put some plugs in... I didn't pick up on that detail because my mind wandered off with the translation of "evitar a entrada de agua", which lead my subconscious to think she wanted to protect her ear with something while having a bath/shower (as it wasn't raining) and linked that with the unrealistic healing time. If she did heal that impossibly quick, and wanted to have a bath/shower (makes as much sense as walking dogs with an ear infection) then there are many other ways to stop water penetration that can be found at home, which would mean that the shopping trip would have been only for chocolates and seeded bread. Thank you for calling that to our attention.

  10. One of the symptoms of an ear infection in children is a very high fever, my children's temperature often are in the 39 Celsius range and plain pain & fever medicine such as paracetamol doesn't normally help, the temperature only lowers once they have had antibiotics for at least 24 hours. The discomfort & pain only starts feeling better after 48 hours of antibiotics. If you don't need antibiotics you don't have an ear infection, but maybe simply ear ache. My husband, a medical professional sometimes has patients whom doesn't feel any relieve after 24 hours and I have heard him mention to them, that they should just wait another 24 hours. This is not for ears, but a tooth absyss. The principal is the same. If the child said she had a ear infection, one has to check the doctors records to see how she was treated. From looking at how my children lie down from a high temperature, there is no way she could have walked anywhere. Or she simply had an ear ache or lied about having an ear ache and continued lying. When you lie about having an ear ache and your mother allows you to stay at home and not go to school, it also is only fun for awhile until you get plain bored. Has this child have the habit of lying? I know you are not blaming her, but the adults that use her... so then they may have a habitual problem with lying, a serious one at that. On the other hand, one of my children has a problem with lying and I have to be wide awake and listen to a lot of stories and many witnessess, before I get to any conclusions. He is 11 years old.

  11. I think that even more stupid than claiming to leave home with an ear infection is to say she leaves the house with the dogs. If the dogs forced her mom to change street sides the girl would have been scared to walk the dogs herself. If they were strong enough to drag an adult, what could a child be able to do to control them? TS would never risk being literally dragged by the dogs. It wouldn’t be a question of good sense but out of natural fear that a child that age would feel having seen what the dogs were able to do with her mom.
    I think that the map picture was very fortunate. Looking at it, it’s clear that it’s an impossible tale.

  12. It´s very sad adults using a child to transmit a story that want to adults only. I feel sorry for this child aged 11, at the time. How is it now as a teenager? Does she have a sense of what they did and the use made of her? I also think it is very important here in this blog, this post and other related dismantled and show what happened to her.
    The producers of Mock (Mockumentary) are unethical people. I'm not talking much of Edgar which I consider a slave couple. Well, the money received does not justify join this fraud. He should not have accepted such a role of director ..... filming, the script.
    A lot of people collaborated on all the lies to justify the actions of the couple and lies about the situation that happened in that apartment.

    This group, when using so many people, from adults to children made everyone lied.Adults who lied .One child was also used to lie. They , all, lied and all lie always in this case.
    A huge team from 11years old to 80 years to lie.

  13. Anon Apr 14, 2012 4:25:00 PM,

    I’ll just highlight the relevant parts of your comment, because, the rest, as you intended it to be, is just “flower arranging” around what you really want to say:

    “If you don't need antibiotics you don't have an ear infection, but maybe SIMPLY ear ache.”

    “Or she SIMPLY had an ear ache or lied about having an ear ache and CONTINUED lying.”

    “I know you are not blaming her, but the adults that use her... so then THEY MAY HAVE A HABITUAL PROBLEM WITH LYING, a serious one at that.”

    “On the other hand, one of my children has a problem with lying and I have to be wide awake and listen TO A LOT OF STORIES AND MANY WITNESSESS, BEFORE I GET TO ANY CONCLUSIONS. He is 11 years old.”

    I didn’t say she had an ear-infection. I used TS’s wording, and an 11 yr old is not exactly an age one should trust for medical diagnosis.

    But the fact that you make a subtle connection with the words “SIMPLY” and “ear ache” is intentionally minimizing the symptoms, of discomfort and pain, that an ear ache causes. It may not be as severe as an ear infection, but it hurts and impairs one from play or walking out on the street on cold windy days pulled about by two dogs while shopping.

    Also you’re implying that TS’s mother exercised the sort of parenting by which she SIMPLY accepts the word of an 11 yr old saying that it she has an ear ache (or a tooth ache) and leave her alone at home and goes to work.

    If TS is possibly, as you imply, an habitual liar, plays hookey and then makes herself conspicuous by shopping all over accompanied by dogs, why would anyone believe her story anyway?

    Her mother must have taken her to the police interview and would have intervened to say what her daughter was doing at home when she should have been at school. Some explanation would have been given, like she felt unwell but later felt well enough to go out.

    The ear infection story was told to explain the ear plug shopping.

    But it’s interesting about you saying that the ADULTS around her have a big problem with her lying problem.

    Adults who take her to the Police, and set up, two year later, a significant filming event all just led by a child who fibs about a SIMPLE ear ache?!?

    You know what important information that your comment contains? It’s that TS gets to know and really understand what kind of friends she was convinced, when she was 11, to lie for: those that now say she’s a COMPULSIVE LIAR. That's the respect they have for her.

    That includes TS’s mother. You know, you even may be right about TS being a compulsive liar, after all she seems to have been subject to such a role model.

    We've said that TS has lied very clearly. As clearly as we also said that she was told to lie, not because she was any sort of compulsive liar.

    About your 11 yr old son, if you provide good role modelling of honesty he will probably grow out of the unpleasant habit of lying to his parents.

  14. I wish to all a very nice day.

    I agree with Textusa. I think TS is not a compulsive liar because in her innocence , she was used. And with 11 years old the only wish is to be helpful without thinking about abuse about her

    Many blogs or social networks, who are without news, go to make use of links of the past. But in yours, no! You analyse the past to raise important questions.

  15. Bem apropriado para este grupinho:
    Antonio Variacoes, 'Quando a cabeca nao tem juizo, o corpo e que paga'

  16. Anon Apr 15, 2012 10:02:00 AM

    Please do clarify to which "grupinho" are you referring to.

    Thank you

  17. Muito bom dia!

    Gosto bastante das canções e letras do A. Variações.

    Mas, estou, fiquei a pensar...... pequeno grupinho Apr 15, 2012 10:02:00 AM ?

    Que pequeno grupinho?

    Pequeno juntamente com grupinho será uma referência a 3 pessoas?

    O corpo é que paga quando a cabeça não funciona?

    Também não é para a então criança de 11 anos.

    Para mim, o grupo TODO de mentirosos é bem vasto:
    todos os que colaboraram com depoimentos a favor da mentira do 5A. E são imensos. É quase incontável.

  18. Tenho a ideia que a investigação a cargo da Equipa da Pj nem sequer deu importância a este " testemunho " desta criança naquela época. Esta criança só foi importante para o Mc Documentário, no qual nem a "Kate " entra; ou deixou de entrar.

    Evidentemente , em imensos casos as Pjs ouvem e tomam nota dos depoimentos de crianças. A seguir são bem analisados e investigados para se dar andamento .

    Ou não ! Como aqui com TS.

  19. MC, 11:55,

    Sou Anon que escreveu o post do Antonio Variacoes e nao faco parte do grupo de pessoas que passa por aqui de " raspao" ou usa o Antonio Variacoes com outros objectivos. Pelo contrario, costumo escrever muitos comentarios aqui e no Blog da Joana Morais, ao contrario de muita gente que so le ou so comenta em determinados posts. E tambem ja comentei neste post (Anon 14, 7:11 am).
    So nao respondi imediatamente a reaccao de Textusa porque nao vi. Ha gente que trabalha e nao tem oportunidade de estar a tempo inteiro a acompanhar o que se vai passando na Net. Portanto o tempo que e dado para alguem reagir tem por isso uma dimensao diferente daquela pedida/ exigida por quem se sentiu ofendido, se nele equacionarmos todas as variaveis que o afectam.
    Nao tenho medo do que digo, nao sou hipocrita nem me escondo atras do "anonymous" para dizer o que penso. Mas tambem nao acho que seja o facto de aparecer com um nome ou com qualquer pseudonimo que credibiliza ou responsabiliza mais um comentador. A nao ser que exponha o seu Cartao do Cidadao. Portanto escrevo como muitos, com Anonimous, que podia ser MC ou Maria ou Joao.
    Ja respondi a Textusa, no post que ela dedicou a mim e que eu aproveito para dedicar a Antonio Variacoes e a Madeleine e assim homenagear os dois.
    Se Textusa entender publicar o meu post e se MC e os outros(as) que literalmente " me saltaram em cima" vendo no post o que eu nao disse e na musica de Variacoes o que nao esta la, entenderem que devem perder algum tempo a ler o que eu quis dizer, agradeco.
    A reaccao ao meu post e a prova de como basta o comentario de um para gerar uma avalanche de seguidores. No entanto, tenho a certeza de que ha tambem quem tenha lido e tenha percebido logo que o " grupinho" era aquele de que o Post falava e que levou uma crianca a vender mentiras usadas para promover atraves do filme a mensagem que interessava ao grupo: um raptor que seguiu o Casal e Pode planear o crime perfeito. Nao acho que seja um grupo tao vasto, como alguem defende. Um segredo carregado de mentiras nao Pode ser partilhado por muita gente ou correriam grandes riscos de nao conseguirem controla-lo. O que eles sabem e alguns segredos de muitos e, pelo sim pelo nao, usam as armas que tem( dinheiro e advogados) para intimidarem os que poderao ter visto algo ou ter conhecimento de algo. Por isso, e Tao grande o desespero em aceder as files da Pj em segredo de Justica. Sem saberem o que la esta andam numa tregua contra um monstro infinito.
    Tenho muita pena que MC tenha reagido de forma quase insultuosa a minha alusao a musica de Variacoes, que mantenho, esta bem adequada ao grupinho e ao contexto do post que esta a ser discutido. Houve de facto muita falta de juizo naquelas cabecas e mais tarde ou mais cedo paga-lo-ao porque este e um crime que esta na memoria e na historia de muitos paises. Nao se apagara so porque alguem os protegeu num dado momento. Mesmo que nunca venham a ser condenados pela justica, serao sempre perseguidos pelos seus proprios remorsos e pelas perguntas/acusacoes dos gemeos que se complicarao e adensarao a medida que forem crescendo.
    Pensar que Sou eu, quem neste blog tantas vezes chama a atencao dos leitores para posts/ artigos interessantes que vao aparecendo no blog de MC. Afinal, basta a interpretacao de um para gerar uma avalanche de mal entendidos.

  20. Interessante como os comentários têm aumentado.

  21. Depois da confusao que arranjei ontem com a musica do Variacoes,
    gostava de dedicar as musicas seguintes aos(as) leitores(as) deste blog, especialmente as autoras do blog e a MC.
    Tem sido arduo e longo o caminho, mas um dia a verdade emergera, provando que valeu a pena estarmos aqui.

    Para voces, Fernando Girao e Pedro Barroso, com os votos de uma optima noite.

    (Madeleine tem este dom de centralizar musica em seu redor. Deve ser a crianca a quem desconhecidos dedicaram mais musica. Entao amemos a musica e deixemos que de vez em quando nos alimente e renove.)

  22. Em relação aos posts sobre músicas e Madeleine, reparei noutra estranah coincidência, ou assim , nem sei o que lhe chame...já viram aquele anúncio da EDP em que a aparecem criancinhas de diversas nacionalidades a falar das façanhas que os seus pais fazem na sua profissão (pais que estão associados profissionalmente à EDP)? Já repararam na menina que representa a Inglaterra, pois fala em inglês? E no nome da menina, repararam...? Lourinha, de olhos claros e de nome...Madeleine! Ele há com cada "coincidência"! Ou então mau gosto, ou...mensagem subliminar...!?

  23. Textusa, thank you for your reply (Apr 15, 2012 9:47:00 AM) to my comment and the advice.

    You have already dealt with the issue at hand in detail in a previous post and I absolutely agree with you. When I read your posts I turn them around in my head and look at them from all different directions. I am a bit long winded, but you have the gift of really bringing things together in a nut shell and that has helped me to realize to what low levels adults are willing to stoop to. It becomes more shocking by the minute. Thank you for that and keep up the interesting posts.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.