The whole “Mockumentary Witness Program” seems to have been more like a scouts group assignment. Everyone had a chore to complete, in this instance, each had to mislead the PJ on two counts:
- JW by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND somewhere else;
- TS by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND somewhere else;
- Derek Flack by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND...?
The white van.
The white van was the second thing that Flack had to make sure that the PJ noticed that he had allegedly noticed.
Why, we’ll see later.
Let’s see what the gentleman (?) has to say about the said vehicle.
On Sunday 2007/05/06:
“At this time, when passing in the vicinity of residential block that enterprise, the deponent noticed the presence of a vehicle which he describes as a passenger vehicle, commercial type (vehicle in all identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN), white in colour (dirty toned) and with only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door, however not knowing the respective brand, model or other identifying elements - among them, the respective number plate.
Moreover, states that, given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model.
To the question asked, refers that, initially, he had associated the individual in question with the vehicle referred above, because he had realized that he looked ostensibly at the vicinity of where it was parked."
First question that pops into one’s mind is to ask Mr Flack how many vehicles did he see parked before this one?
The total sum between those he saw parked in the Rua do Ramalhete plus those he saw in Rua Agostinho da Silva.
And out of those, how many were silver, blue or white?
He can’t tell? We know he surely can’t because it can’t be expected from anyone to notice especially when strolling leisurely... or on his way shopping.
So we can't see any reason whatsoever for him to have noticed this particular white van. Why did he then?
Because he sees Pimpleman looking at it? He says he FIRST notices the vehicle and THEN notices a man looking at it, so Pimpleman is no an excuse for him to have singled out that vehicle.
Nowhere does Flack even suggest that when noticing that Pimpleman is looking fixedly at something, he, Derek Flack turns his head to see what the man is indeed looking at.
On the contrary, the Mockumentary confirms that Flack simply looks at the man and continues his path.
But this very short observation of a complete stranger’s face allows him to deduce, among other things, the following as stated on Saturday 2007/05/05:
“He added that, in the alignment from where the individual was looking, at the other side of the street, was parked a vehicle, van type, white, with one person (doesn’t remember if the person was inside or outside the vehicle). Doesn’t know how to, in any way, describe this person.”
So, not only he takes notice of the vehicle, but he also takes notice of a person in the exact same spot!
He then goes into one of his typical “faulty memory modes” whereupon he doesn’t remember if the person was inside or outside the vehicle!
It’s just like someone saying that they’d seen Big Ben but just can’t remember where exactly... if it was in a tower or if floating on the Thames River...
But once again, as it seems to be recurring with Flack, he who says that it can’t turn out to be the same person who, surprisingly, is able to do something. He, Flack, who can’t remember if the person that he saw together with the vehicle was inside or outside it, turns out to be, surprisingly, able to say that:
- it was a vehicle identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN
- it was white in colour (dirty toned)
- it had only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door
- given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model
Doesn’t the phrase “given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model” sound just like the “having been convinced that he was not one of the many tourists who usually frequent that location, given the respective built and physical appearance” when he spoke about Pimpleman?
Twice, he says his memory is imprecise, and twice passes judgement based on imprecise recollections. Amazing, to say the least. This is the man involved in neighbourhood watch where he lives in the UK, responsible for observations?
Remember that this is a vehicle not at all suspicious, nor the person inside/outside it is acting in any sort of suspicious manner. He passes by it, on the other side of the street; takes notice of it as anyone does when one sees ANY vehicle parked in ANY street. Plus, between him and the vehicle is Christine his partner. He, further away from it, apparently notices it, she, nearer it, apparently doesn't:
But, a little further down the road, he looks, for just 1.5 seconds, at someone looking opposite the direction in which he’s walking, and that fact triggers all the details that come to his mind.
Pretty awesome memory one must admit. Pity that it’s not that precise when it comes to weekdays...
He does remember a significant amount of detail if you do pay attention to what he’s said.
There are two that stick out like a sore thumb for, as said, someone who is unable to remember where the person he saw together with the vehicle was, if inside it, if outside it.
No, I’m not speaking about the fact that he details the colour down to the tone.
I’m talking about these two:
- a vehicle in all identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN
- it had only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door
Why refer to the vehicle as an “OPEL CORSA”?
This particular brand of car, as we know, is VAUXHAULL in the UK, so shouldn’t a Brit have referred to it as a VAUXHAULL CORSA?
Oh, say you that he has certainly spent such a great deal of time in Portugal that he’s probably become accustomed to recognize any VAUXHAULL as an OPEL to the point that he might even do that when he’s in the UK.
It could be, but the fact remains that this particular white van seems to be indeed a VAUXHAULL and not an OPEL.
Why? Because Flack says so when he says the other detail he has also apparently registered: a single side window on the passenger side.
Which is the passenger side of a vehicle? The one where the steering wheel is not. The side where’s the steering wheel is known as the driver’s side, right?
Apologise for patronising, but this is a very important detail, so I had to be as simple and straightforward about it as I could.
From which side of the vehicle is Derek Flack looking at it? The left.
Which countries have cars with the passenger side on the left side of their cars? UK is one.
So the spotted car a VAUXHAULL (UK) and not an OPEL (rest of Europe).
Either he’s a “British Brit” and says the “passenger side” + “VAUXHAULL CORSA” or then he’s an “ex-Pat Brit” and should have said "driver’s side” + “OPEL CORSA”.
He can’t be both. He can’t be simultaneously a “British Brit” for one and be an “ex-Pat Brit” for the other.
It shows, once again, how selective Flack's memory is indeed. He can't remember where was a person he sees with a car, bur he can remember on which side of the car he saw the steering wheel. It’s completely different for the PJ to go out looking for a VAUXHAULL than to go looking for a CORSA.
We know that he’s lying and we know that the van he saw parked is as real as the Pimpleman. But why is he lying?
Derek Flack’s mission was clear: create in the PJ the belief that he had seen Barrington Norton’s van parked next to Apartment 5A before Maddie disappeared.
Norton, AKA the vanman AKA the guitarman, owned and apparently lived in it, a FORD commercial white van.
On your left, Norton’s vehicle, on your right an OPEL van (do take notice of the side of the steering wheel):
The similarity is evident.
It’s quite easy to understand why Flack (or whoever helped him concoct this story) “reports” an OPEL, as it would appear too obvious to have said that it was a FORD van.
Then he introduces into the equation “the passenger side” detail, subtly letting the PJ know that it’s a Brit vehicle that he says he saw.
A witness, any witness, unless intentionally lying, doesn’t let the police know anything subtly. A witness tells all that s/he thought she saw and doesn’t beat about the bush. No witness in their right mind challenges the intellect of the police they're reporting to by playing any sort of mental games.
Fatal mistake Mr. Flack, unfortunately for you and fortunately for us, just one of the many you made.
But why does Mr. Flack want the PJ to believe that he has seen Barrington Norton’s van parked next to Apartment 5A?
Here you have to make a linkage with the infamous Gerry McCann’s statement on 2007/05/10 about the fictitious family beach trip.
We dealt with this issue on two posts.
In the first we proved that Dr. McCann lied about the family trip to the beach, when he says:
“----- Pertaining to the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.”
On the second post, we showed that the whole purpose of inventing such family trip was to direct the spotlight of suspicion onto a particular character:
"----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo', with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. On returning they left the children at their creches, as usual, the parents having gone to play tennis or went jogging."
So we have two totally independent witnesses stating about a street musician first being seen in person by the father of the missing child on Tuesday, 2007/05/01 and then having his vehicle seen by the other, by coincidence a Brit, parked just outside Apartment 5A, either on Wednesday, 2007/05/02 or Thursday 2007/05/03 (please don’t laugh because this is a serious matter)
Dr McCann and Mr Flack supposedly don’t know each other, so what was the PJ to think at the time?
The expression “Red Herring” rings a bell now, but there was no reason to ring one then, was there?
Very important is to ask why two people who don’t know each other from anywhere lie about the same person, about the same supposed crime.
Pity that the scriptwriters chose poorly the storytellers, but I’m sure that in the case of Mr Flack, they must share the burden of the blame because they forgot to tell him two things:
- The first was that Mr Norton was 56 years old, which would modify completely the photofit produced, or at least be aged accordingly instead of the one that depicts a 25/30 yr old and is de facto pretty ridiculous in terms of what the intended purpose was: to frame Norton. Very much like Tanner would be instructed to do a few days later with Murat. Notice that Dr. McCann is well indoctrinated in this area as he's careful to age the "suspect" by saying "almost shaven-headed with grey sides"
- The second thing, we’ll leave it for the next episode: Flack, Distances and Angles.
Some readers are wondering where we’re heading with debunking people that are consensually taken as liars, otherwise the Mockumentary wouldn’t be known as the Mockumentary, would it?
It’s important that you understand completely and beyond any doubt that these people have indeed lied. We cannot simply let that to be a general perception. We have to assure that it’s a certainty.
Once proved that they’ve indeed lied, and then we’ll show you how pivotally important their falseness is, so we ask you, once again, to bear with us.
We still have to publish three or four more posts about the Mockumentary before we reach the level of certainty that we like and like to think we’ve accustomed you to, and reveal the climax it certainly deserves.