Remarkable Marksmanship

As we have said, and we have said many things up to now and hopefully will continue to do so, we are an investigative blog.

This means we like to act and not react.

In the beginning of September we were analysing what, in our opinion, surrounded Maddie's death when our attention was diverted to more pressing issues: first, the ongoing McCann v Amaral Libel Trial and then the UK Crimewatch pantomine.

We felt we had to drop what we were doing and focus our efforts in helping man the wheel of our vessel, HMS Truth, as it was hit by one storm after the other. 

HMS Truth is now set on course. 

Yesterday's Sunday Times article was the first significant sign confirming that.

The compromising silence from Rothley and from star-puppet Clarence Mitchell, has underlined all.

Incomparably much less credible than any article from the Times but incomparably much more relevant in meaning is this Daily Star article today:
 

Let us remind you that this rag was the only one that gave a hand to the couple during the "McCann's Desert Crossing" back in the Summer of 2011.  From then on it became McCann's "last line of defense". That's why this article is particularly important.

But please be warned, those thinking that all is over and all is won, couldn't be further from the truth. The walk has just begun and it is a long winding road ahead as the beast will not concede easily.

If it does, it will be a surprise.

As nothing that is happening now isn’t anything we didn’t anticipate and as nothing that is being said isn't what we haven’t said before, we feel it’s our duty to return to our rightful posts and do our part in assuring that when truth is outed, it’s outed as a whole and not just convenient parts of it, leaving its largest chunks out of the spotlight. 

We can’t and won’t accept that. We would like to remind all those involved that no solution apart from truth fits the facts.

stains found on walls

In our DNA is... DNA post we said we were going to deconstruct all the information in the FSS Final Report about the stains found in the corner of apartment 5A that UK Crimewatch "forgot" to highlight  (Discrepancy 05 - The Living-Room Corner). 

We said were going to deconstruct it in 3 major areas "DNA Results", "Apparently Originating From" and "FSS' Opinion".

That early September post, DNA is... DNA, was about the first area, "DNA Results", today, is about the second: "Apparently Originating From".

The issue is just too complex for a single post, this being the first one about it.

Let's start with what FSS has to say about from where it APPARENTLY thinks the DNA in the stains originated:

Stains from the FLOOR:

#1 - “a male individual“ 
#2 - “at least two people“

#3 - “more than one person“

Stains from the EAST wall:

#4 - “a female individual“

#5 - “at least two persons“

#6 - “information was too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison“

#13 - “ no profile was obtained“

Stains from the NORTH wall:

#7 - “at least two persons“

#8 - “information was too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison“

#9 - “a male individual“

#10 - “at least two persons“

#11 - “no profile was obtained“

#12 - “at least two persons“

Stains from the COUCH:

#14 - “ not adequate for comparison purposes“

#15 - “at least three persons of whom at least two were male“

We can group them by the number of people that FSS thinks the DNA in the stains have originated from:

- THREE people (1 out of 15): stain 15

- TWO or MORE people (“at least two people”, “at least two persons” or “more than one person”) (6 of 15): stains: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12

- ONE person (“male individual” or “female individual”) (3 out 15): stains 1, 4 and 9

- UNQUANTIFIABLE (“information too meagre” or “not adequate for comparison”) (3 of 15): stains 6, 8 and 14

- NO PROFILE (2 of 15): stains 11 and 13

A staggering 47%, almost half of the tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains had DNA from more than one person in them!

One cannot but wonder how many people provided DNA to those other 5 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains (6, 8, 11, 13 and 14) that were either deemed UNQUANTIFIABLE or had NO PROFILE found.

Statistically, half of them would also be from more than 1 person…

Fact is that only 3 stains, out of a possible 15, had a single person DNA in them.

We don't think John Lowe realized that when he uses the expression "at least two persons", or similar ones to that, about the DNA in the stains, he's raising an hypothesis very damning to the BHs as we hope to show with this post.

We call it the “soup-effect”

As you know, a soup has many ingredients, and what happened is that in each one of those 7 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye stains a mixture of more than one "ingredient" was found.

This begs the question, where was each stain's "soup" made?

In loco, as in the floor, walls and couch, or somewhere else?

As far as we know, except in scientific experimentation and in proper labs, mixtures of anything, even soup, in tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye quantities aren’t possible to be done, much less on a wall or on a couch.

So, for the DNA originating from different people to be in such tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye spots, then the mixture had to be done somewhere else and then sprayed respectively on the floor, wall and couch.

What can possibly originate such a mixture of DNA? 

2 people bleeding together? Then carefully sprinkling their blood in tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eyes specks on walls, namely on one behind a couch, curtains and undercurtains?

And also the floor beneath that couch?

Various former guests had bled in the apartment and all were accident prone?

Was there a big fight? But who and why?

Nothing but mosquitos swats could have produced 2 samples in one spot.

But who goes and squashes mosquitos on a wall behind a couch, a curtain and a undercurtain? No one.

Who squashes mosquitos on the floor below a couch? Also no one.

Besides, a squashed mosquito makes a visible splat, having splattered a few myself. It produces a stain perfectly visible and not one that’s tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye.

Mosquito splats, you could say, could be cleaned by a cleaner and eradicated to naked eye.

Well, true if the cleaners were "specialized cleaners", like we believe the "6-Cleaners" to have been, but then that would simply confirm their presence and the need for their expertise.

By the way, we believe that is exactly what happened: "specialized cleaners" eradicated all the vestiges of blood they could. They just let some tiny, minuscule and invisible to the naked eye remain where they were  found.

Not on purpose, obviously. They just slipped through the cracks.

If we're talking about cleaners from Ocean Club, one must remember that one is not exactly speaking about the Waldorf Astoria.

Hotel cleaning staff don't wash walls unless there are big smears on them. These extraordinary occurrences are normally reported by guests and taken care of as soon as possible, so not part of the routine room cleaning proceedings between change of occupants.

A squashed mosquito does make a visible stain to the naked eye but it isn't one that call one's attention.

With the exception of "specialized cleaners", as just referred, hotel cleaners do not account for the number and location of stains found.

Could the DNA be contaminated by a person collecting it (LPC) or subsequently handling it (FSS)?

This topic will be dealt with in our next post but we can anticipate that Lowe specifically implies that one of LPC's forensic experts, Mr. Fernando Viegas, of doing just that.

We're talking about the most talked about case in world at the time. This blood finding was an enormous media bomb!

Its explosive sensitivity was public and evident.

LPC, and we're sure they didn't require any sort of guidance in this matter, certainly took EXTRA care on how these samples were collected.

Had there been any mishap in collections, we're certain that it would have been mentioned on the diligence report.

For the exact same reasons we don't believe that any of the samples were contaminated at FSS.

So the biggest problem for the BHs about the stains is the absolutely impossible marksmanship required.

Remember Robin Hood’s famous arrow shot? The one in which he splits an arrow, that has hit the dead centre bullseye, with another?

For two people to hit with their DNA the exact same tiny, minuscule, invisible to the eye spot it’s nothing short of repeating Robin Hood’s impossible arrow shot.

To do that 6 times over is more than mesmerizing. An adequate adjective has yet to be found to qualify such absolutely unbelievable wonder!

And one has to be rendered absolutely speechless in awe if on top of those 6 times we have one arrow that splits one that had split another:

And that has happened with stain 15: “at least three persons of whom at least two were male“!!

If we were to transpose what was said to be found in that inaccessible corner of the 5A’s living-room, to an archery shooting range, this is what we would have:

Lanes 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 would each get a GOLD STAR and lane 15 would have to get two of them!

Taking into account that lanes 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 weren't shot, that is one outstanding show of “archery”!!

Enough to send Robin Hood back to Sherwood Forest, shoulders slumped, after having been so completely humiliated in front of Lady Marion…

But we don't have to feel sympathy for Mr Hood as we know him to be a fictional character. Or at most a legend.

However, 5A marksmanship is very real. According to FSS that is.

UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies II

Almost two weeks after the "Battle of Painted Corner" on Oct 14 2013, in which Scotland Yard, certainly blinded by the light from the prospect of certain success, decided to put on blindfolds instead of sunglasses for their final and decisive charge.

And Scotland Yard, under Inspector Redwood’s leadership, charged just like the Light Brigade had done before at Balaclava, under Lord Cardigan, on Oct 25, 1854, 11 days short of 159 yrs.

We don’t know if there’s heaven or hell, but if either or both exist, we can only imagine how painful all must have been for General Custer due to cramps in his stomach from laughing so hard.

After a fortnight of intense propagandistic crescendo of promises that all things were to be solved and criminals arrested, Scotland Yard's Oct 14th charge resulted in the absolute lack of anyone being minimally in danger of being charged.

Like the Portuguese say, “the mountain gave birth to a mouse” (a montanha pariu um rato). That simple and that real. And that humiliating.

For the first time in history, as far as we know and have researched, it was decided to launch, on a state level, a spin about a non-politically related matter.

That matter being the covering-up of the death of a British citizen, a 4yr old one, at the hands and in the presence of other British citizens who were her parents and their 7 friends.

A matter for police, so logically UK used its most prestigious police force, Scotland Yard.

And decided to spin this on an international scale, so logically UK  used its most prestigious broadcasting service, the BBC.

Unseen, unheard and unwitnessed, until almost two weeks ago. Nothing like living history to adequately savour it.

And as we said last week, it was stopped short.

Stopped short by a peculiar equilibrium of the unwarranted use of arrogance, insult and vitriol with the determination and resolution of many in a relentless pursuit of truth.

Being victims of the first, the latter were kept motivated all these years.

Gonçalo Amaral, the first person who publicly put his foot down to stop this charade of unseen proportions, said this past Monday, the following (at 01:00 in the video above):

“Eu, este fim-de-semana estava à espera das notícias de Inglaterra, o que é que os jornais iam dizer, porque já havia umas identificações e um certo retrato-robot e eu estava com curiosidade para ver se já tinham prendido alguém. E portanto verifico que está tudo a zeros e que é preciso inventar histórias.”

Which translates into:

"I, this weekend was waiting for the news from England, what the newspapers would say, because there were already some identifications and a certain e-fit and I was curious to see if they had already arrested someone. And so I find that it's all still at zeros and that it’s needed for stories to be invented."

We, like him also waited for the announced arrest and the announced final resolution of the case.

A case followed by the whole world like no other and correctly named “the crime of the 21st Century”.

We, like him waited. Not in vain, but with a smile.

And the smile has spread into our hopes with Mr. Amaral's entry yesterday, Oct 24, on his Facebook page:

"Dearchiving ...

After 5 years in a dusty court archive, it looks like the process in which was investigated the mysterious disappearance of a child will finally see the light of day.
 
At this moment, it is not relevant to know who agreed to the archiving and always opposed its reopening of the investigation based on all content of the process, what matters is that the investigation continues, either from the point it was interrupted, or from the convictions of those who later examined the facts.
 
But we must remember that a criminal investigation must not have as a concern the politically correct, nor have its scope limited scope by personal, institutional or other interests, nor be the target of intolerable pressures and coercive acts, what is in question is to ascertain the truth and the fate of the child, so that those responsible for the mysterious disappearance are brought to justice.
 
If the reopening of the investigation allows the realization of all missing diligences to take place, if it will take into account all lines of investigation still open, and answer all the questions, then we can say that the investigation was free and objective, reaching the material truth, then doing justice to the mysteriously disappeared child."

UK Crimewatch, in our opinion, had the objective, as we implied in our The Beginning of the End of an Institution post with “As we’ve said time and time again there are no coincidences in “Maddie’s world”. We have a missing girl, we have no abduction and we have a Gerry lookalike seen with a child in Rua da Escola Primária, half a mile away from apartment 5A. Do you want us to join the dots?”, of introducing the idea for reopening the inquiry and appearing as neutral as possible.

The reopening could only take place in Portugal. Nowhere else. And that's where it has reopened as of yesterday, Oct 24 2013.

So Scotland Yard, in our opinion, has achieved its noblest objective: get the process reopened in Portugal under acceptable conditions to all. That must be complimented.

If PJ announced out of the blue the case was going to be reopened without this preamble then McCanns would instantly be presumed to be suspects/guilty.

We are currently being fed the abduction idea is on the agenda so the reopening appears positive for both sides and non-judgemental as well.

The CPS didn’t go to Portugal for a holiday and their remit is to judge whether a case stands a good chance of a prosecution so they were there for a very specific reason.

We hope that this time a deal isn’t being organised between the 2 countries to get out of the mess, making the outcome less reliant on the truth and more on what is only acceptable to both sides.

What is important is that we now have 2 ongoing investigations in 2 different countries.

Next month one will have been going on for 30 months and the other hasn't made its first 24 hours. But both will have to present tangible results.

Whatever their conclusions may, and will, be, they will have to be tangible and so subject to criticism if criticism is to be applicable.

Time will tell what conclusions there will effectively be and then, only then, can conclusions be made about what they will conclude. 

Only then will we be able to say if either, or both, have been the result of free and objective investigations and if either, or both, have reached the material truth.

Scotland Yard after nearly 30 months has yet to produce any tangible result.

Hopefully this month's episode has shown those responsible in each of the 2 countries involved how really wary the public is becoming with all the games they're playing around this subject.

Nor is it finding it amusing seeing public money literally being wasted on it in times of economic crisis and violent financial hardship.

Hopefully they will have also realised how great are the expectations they have now created around it.  

What we have criticised about UK Crimewatch, and will continue to do so, was the disastrous manner in which it went about pursuing its objective: having had their chance for sheer brilliance, Scotland Yard blew it by linking its name and its reputation to a series of pathetic misleading informations.

For example, Crèche Dad will forevermore be cumbersome to Scotland Yard.

If PJ is to demystify truthfully the Bundleman/Crèche Dad sighting, what won't be forgotten is that on Oct 14 2103, Scotland Yard was afraid to tell the truth about a couple of doctors and their 4yr old daughter's death.

This fear made it necessary to produce a pantomime such as UK Crimewatch charade to pursue the truth.

And this fear, this very real fear of Britain's most prestigious police force, Scotland Yard, before 2 of its citizens has two sides to it.

First, it will need to be explained and second, it will be plain to see that on Oct 14 2013 Scotland Yard was playing politics and not doing police work.

Scotland Yard has committed the "White Hat" sin: wanting to out the truth but not the whole truth, just the part that's to their convenience.

Unfortunately for them but fortunately for us, truth is indivisible.  It's simply not a cake that one can quench the appetite with just a slice.

Truth has to be "eaten" whole to satisfy.

There will always be crumbs left over. But just crumbs and certainly not big chunks of it. Much less more than 3/4s of it.

Could Scotland Yard have done things differently? Of course it could.

UK Crimewatch was both arrogant and insulting.

Last week we posted the first 8 dicrepancies of UK Crimewatch. Here are the other 9:

Discrepancy 09 - The Fleece

When, at about the same time that Gerry is speaking to Jez in the street, UK Crimewatch portrays Jane Tanner getting up to do her checking and begin what would be the most famous walk anyone has ever done up a street, the Tanner Sighting walk.

Note her attire. A black sleveless, V-necked summer dress.

Where is Russ’s fleece that Tanner said she wore that evening for Tapas dinner?

But, immediately after this UK Crimewatch shows her walking on the street, now with what we are supposing to be a light knitted jacket. One thing is certain, no longer sleeveless arms.

Where did she pick up such a piece of clothing?

But what is important about this discrepancy is not that.

Its importance is about the apparent fickleness of PdL’s weather and about the real PdL’s weather on evening/night of May 3rd 2007.

We have already shown, here, how fickle the weather could be in PdL when one of the oddest climatic phenomenons occurred on May 2nd 2007: a sudden heat wave hit the little fishing town.

But now we’re confronted with another climatic phenomenon in the same little town just on the next day: a sudden, momentary and precisely located big drop of temperature!

Like shown above, according to UK Crimewatch Tanner leaves the BRT with just a flimsy dress.

 

But notice how lightly dressed all the T9 are for that dinner.

Dressed for a typical warm summer evening meal in an esplanade. Russ is even wearing a short sleeved shirt.

So, at around 21:15 Tanner leaves the table and that’s when, suddenly, the temperature apparently drops steeply.

First, she’s seen with her arms covered in the street as shown above, warmer although not as warm her character is portrayed in Mock to have been dressed at that moment:

And then she sees a man, Crèche Dad, who is wearing a dark jacket:

It's like the whole of PdL was warm and cozy with the exception of this crossing which is strangely chilly. Only Tanner and Crèche Dad seem to have felt the chill of the night. Talk about a microclimate!

Was this sudden chilliness a cinematographic eerie premonition of things about to happen? As now Bundleman isn’t, according to SY, the abductor, then Maddie is yet to have been abducted at this precise moment.

Later, at 21:40, Tanner again leaves the Tapas dinner wearing just her flimsy summer black dress.

Less than half hour for the temperature to drop and come back up again. Fantastic to say the least.

This Fleece Discrepancy, or "May 3rd PdL weather fickleness", implicates many things as we hope to show you.

We have shown, here, that the evening of May 3rd was indeed chilly, to say the least, and that fact alone could prove that only a sedated child could be transported in such temperatures barefooted and continue motionless and silently “asleep”.

The stills from Mock show how warmly dressed everyone was:

UK Crimewatch shows how Kate and Gerry had to dress up for their first press conference, on May 4, the next day:

We’re not questioning here Jane Tanner when she says she wore Russ’ fleece.

We’re questioning the fact that UK Crimewatch shows her not wearing it, especially at dinner.

And questioning why the other characters were portrayed dressed in summer attire during this meal outdoors.

The reason is very simple. Because it’s a very unpleasant experience to eat outdoors in an esplanade on a chilly evening.

Look at how Kate and Gerry are dressed on the evening of May 4th, at an earlier hour than the one the events portrayed in UK Crimewatch, and does that recommend that eating dinner outdoors is a sensible thing to do?

No it doesn't.

Plus having that dinner under a canopy open at both ends, which would certainly cause a chilly draft over the tables on top of an already chilly evening. Very, very unpleasant.

And what about the effect of that chilliness on the food itself when going for checks on the children?

Can you imagine how uneatable cold you would find your food upon your return?

The only right thing about this whole scenario would be the white wine that is supposed to be served chilled!

And, that is the crux of this discrepancy: would you queue up to just to be able to have a meal under such unpleasant conditions? 

Ocean Club says that was what happened.

And the many names that appear on the Tapas reservation sheets confirm that it was loads of fun to have chilly outdoor dinners.

And chilly outdoor Quiz Nights too!

Hard to believe, isn’t it?

That’s why UK Crimewatch had to show a “warm and pleasant summer outdoor dinner” around BRT.

Discrepancy 10 - The Bed

We captured, from UK Crimewatch, three pictures of the replicated bed from which Maddie was supposedly abducted, which are shown above. One even includes the child actress who played her part.

None resemble even remotely what appears photographed in the PJ Files:

Notice how in UK Crimewatch when they pulled the sheets back up, it's still noticeable that someone has been below those sheets and that in the bed photographed the PJ Files it's evident no one was.

When Scotland Yard/BBC cannot reproduce such an important detail as claimed by the missing child's parents, then we think all is said.

Also, as can be seen, the child actress on the bed is not laying in the position Gerry says Maddie was laying, the recovery position on top of the covers. It seems that it was hot in the kid's bedroom albeit all those adults coming in and going out on a chilly night.

Discrepancy 11 - The Direction

Just like the Black Hats got the abductor going in the wrong direction, as we explained here, so has Scotland Yard done the same with Crèche Dad, by putting him walking in the opposite direction he should have been. 

Crèche Dad is coming from crêche and not towards it, so saying he was there because he had just picked his child from the crêche simply doesn't make any sense.

It's like putting James Bond behind the wheel of a Vauxhaul and saying he's driving an Aston Martin just because they changed the logo on the hood.

Crèche Dad is unquestionably one of the biggest stars of UK Crimewatch. In more ways than one.

The introduction of this character by Scotland Yard into the storyline had the clear intention of making the statement that Jane Tanner's Bundleman wasn't Maddie's supposed abductor.

As to why, we can only speculate.

Redwood says that by taking Bundleman out of the picture (and out of the abduction "equation) they, Scotland Yard, could look at the period between 21.15 and 22.00 with another set of eyes.

For the rest of the documentary we waited with some anxiety as to what Scotland Yard's elite detectives had discovered in that period of time. We waited for nothing. Literally.

We do believe that on the next day, Tuesday, some tabloids ventured the possibility that the abductor was in the apartment just 5 minutes before Kate did her checking at 22.00.

But this is based on what? Inside information?  From who? Certainly not from Scotland Yard that just had on the previous evening aired a documentary, via BBC, with the opportunity to say exactly that but didn't.

And this fascination that the so-called abductors have with the McCann parents is bordering the psychopathic. First we had Bundleman sharing for a few minutes the apartment with Gerry and now Redwood's Phantom Menace missing Kate by just 5 minutes!

One thing is certain, to allow the time window to open up from 21.15, Scotland Yard threw out with the water the Black Hat abduction theory.

Bundleman not being the abductor, leaves no other piece of evidence, real or invented, to support that Maddie was abducted.

To support that only the fact that she's physically missing.

And that Redwood states that it has all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction but doesn't specify anything to support such a statement.

And a statement is just a statement as, for example, the McCanns stating that there was an abduction and that is very far from meaning that there was one.

So, Black Hats, as of Monday Oct 14 2013, unless Scotland Yard backtracks, you simply have no abduction. Sorry, but you just can't have Bundleman be Bundleman and not be Bundleman at the same time.

So please remove Bundleman from your site as someone you seek help to be identified:

He has already been clearly identified by the Scotland Yard's elite detectives: he's Crèche Dad.

We don't know when the Crèche Dad "moment of revelation" came to Scotland Yard.

Redwood is clear that it was the result of a conversation, when the Met questioned one of the families that had used the night crèche on May 3rd.

So we're supposing that it came as much of surprise to this family as it did to Scotland Yard that this father and his sibling played, according to the Met, a significant role in the Maddie Affair.

This would explain why it took 4 to 6 years to find Crèche Dad. A surprise to all.

But the problem with fabrications is that they are just that, fabrications.

Let's start with how Crèche Dad was presented to the world:
 

Uncannily similar, said Redwood. And we agree.

But give us a dark jacket and a pair of beige trousers and we'll produce a million, or more, and we're speaking literally, of others with the exact same uncannily similarity. All we need is to find a male with Bundleman's approximate built.

Redwood doesn't explain why the man remembers what clothes he was wearing on a night, so many years ago, that has nothing remarkable to remind him of it.

Can anyone of us remember what we wore on May 3rd 2007? Why would he remember? We see no reason whatsoever.

Redwood also speaks of another uncannily similarity, that of the pyjamas worn by Crèche Dad's sibling and the one by Bundleman's child. Here we have to disagree.

The colours are all wrong, one is blue toned and the other pink. But it was night and the lighting could confuse.

But what is most noticeable on the pyjamas on the left are its orange bottoms while on the one on the right, are its frills.

Would you give a discription of the one on the left compared with the one on the right? Jane Tanner has, according to Scotland Yard.

And the same question we have asked about Crèche Dad remembering what he wore on that particular night back in 2007 has to be asked about why does this family remember exactly what pyjamas the child wore that same night. We see no reason.

But one mustn't stop the questioning there as one is also curious as to why this family kept these pyjamas this whole time. Again, we see no reason.

There is one incredible thing that this whole Créche Dad episode means. The amazing coincidence of two children using "uncannily similar" pyjamas at the exact same time and location that Jane Tanner is walking up the street: Maddie and Crèche Dad's sibling.

Simply incredible. Really. As in we don't believe it.

And what's this with having a blanket next to the pijamas when these are presented in UK Crimewatch? 

To revive the blanket controversy?

We thought that the Black Hats had settled that Bundleman carried Maddie with no blanket. There is no blanket on Bundleman-now-Crèche Dad's sketch:

Did Crèche Dad take the child to night crèche in a blanket but forgot to bring it for the return journey?

What Scotland Yard hasn’t considered is that any child taken to a crèche would have been wearing shoes to go there and to play around before going to sleep.

Did Crèche Dad take his child without shoes to crèche or was he carrying them in his pocket?

One would think crèche staff would remember a child being brought in not wearing shoes and no coat.

The other thing not mentioned anywhere is Crèche Dad isn't referenced by anyone when carrying his child (daughter that was a son at one point) to the crèche earlier when it was busier.

Carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas on a chilly evening would be something to remember.

Lastly, at least we got to know that the McCanns weren't the only parents that forgot to bring a buggy to this holiday.

Discrepancy 12 - The Space

In UK Crimewatch, the digital reconstruction of the kid's room, the image has been "handled" to consciously mislead the unconscious viewer.

Notice how the beige cot is closer to the blue one so that it seems that there was a passage available to the window.

To help this illusion, the bed near the window has been subtly pulled away from the wall and also to allow for curtain whooshing.

However the scenario is so absurdly unreal that not even the artificial and intentional, replacement of objects make the abduction via window minimally feasible.

Discrepancy 13 - The Smith Sighting

This discrepancy is particularly serious. Both in terms of content and of ethical implications.

During UK Crimewatch, when talking about this sighting the reporter says that Two-Face was seen going down the road towards the beach as per picture above.

In the PJ Files, A. Smith (AS), a minor, is very clear in saying that the man she saw carrying the little girl went down the stairs towards where Kelly's Bar is located (from where the Smiths were coming from), like we showed here, and not down the road as said in UK Crimewatch.

Ethically, this is totally and blatantly disrespecting a minor, distorting completely what she has said and is in the PJ Files, both in words and pictures.

Maybe Scotland Yard, like we have with TS, has concluded that AS isn't exactly accurate.

However, unlike with TS's statements, we find AS's to be logically consistent with her father's and her brother's statements.

And unlike what Scotland Yard has done with AS's statement, we have not distorted a single word TS has said. We have simply demonstrated why, in our opinion, we think what TS has said is devoid of logic and reason.

And we have always defended that TS, as the minor she was, may have been told it was for a good reason, with no idea of the consequences, thus blameless.

If Scotland Yard has found the need to correct a witness' statement, either in content or significance, like it seems to be the case with AS, it should explain.

In exactly the same the way they did with Tanner's Bundleman v Crèche Dad.

Otherwise it's just messing with a witness statement.

What Scotland Yard has done with AS is unforgivable. We do hope that Redwood's announced trip to Ireland was to try to explain and correct this.

In terms of content, messing with the intent to mislead with the "new" information that Scotland Yard says UK Crimewatch contains, which is Two-Face, just proves that it's nothing but a hypocritical exercise.

To say the man is in his thirties, as Redwood says, and not in his forties as the Smiths have said and is written in the PJ Files, is intentionally misleading.

To say that the man went down the road towards the beach instead of down the stairs as AS has said and is written in the PJ Files, is grossly misleading.

Why?

We're sure Scotland Yard has read how we have debunked, here but mainly here, that any and all reason for the Stroller, now Two-Face, to go to either one of the beaches is absolutely nonsensical, so we imagine Scotland Yard knows that Two-Face going down "towards the beach" is ridiculous in any of the two possible routes, road (according to SY) or stairs (according to AS).

The difference is that the stairs, the direction the man did take, is even more absurd than the going down the road, as it heads towards where there was night life in Praia da Luz, namely Kelly's Bar and Dolphins.

So they now have him going down a path he didn't go, disrespecting completely what a minor said she saw.

Discrepancy 14 - The Pimpleman Sightings

 

The UK Crimewatch speaks of four sightings of Pimpleman: one that has to be seriously questioned, TS’s as we showed in many posts; another by Carole Tranmer, Mrs Fenn’s niece, that we spoke of here; another of two men by the Jensen sisters that we spoke of here and the last one, the laundryman sighting, or Mario Moreira's Improved Memory Syndrome that we spoke of here and here.

The first important thing to say is that Scotland Yard confirms what we have said here about Pimpleman, and that is that he is still out there. Why hasn't a significant effort been made to find him since 2009, we don't know.

Please don't confuse Bundleman with Pimpleman. Scotland Yard in UK Crimewatch casts doubt about the first but, with these 4 sightings, confirms the existence of the latter, who has yet to be found.

The first two UK Crimewatch sightings, TS's and Carole Tranmer's are well documented in the PJ Files.

The other two, Jensens' and Laundryman's, aren't.

We have two graphic detailings of Pimpleman sightings that were known up to May 2011.

The first one is Dave Edgar's white board, shown in Mock, May 2009:

 

The other a picture from Kate's Book, published May 2011:

We proved here that the only difference between them was Carole Tranmer's sighting, one we were the first to reveal here.

But the UK Crimewatch does one amazing thing, to say the least, and that is to discard completely the only place where Pimpleman was claimed to be seen by all three witnesses that appeared on Mock, JW, TS and Derek Flack.

We even wrote a post, here, about the controversial amount of clothing he wore while standing in that exact spot, supposedly looking at Apartment 5A:

So, according to Scotland Yard, neither JW, nor TS, nor Derek Flack see him as shown below in Mock:

 

 

It is convenient to say that both TS's and Derek Flack's sightings are very well documented in the PJ Files and we know, as Mock has shown here, that JW has provided at least two statements, although neither appear in files.

Now both JW and Derek Flack have seen nothing.

We then hope that we're correct in assuming that Derek Flack hasn't also seen the white van that we spoke of in our post, here:

Discrepancy 15 - The TS's Sighting

We're particularly sensitive about this discrepancy. No one can watch a child be abused three times and remain unaffected.

The first time TS was abused was when her innocence was exploited by whoever convinced her, with her parents' permission, to go to the PJ and say things devoid of logic and reason.

The second time was when those same things, devoid of logic and reason, were publicly exposed in Mock, including the "correction" of one of them, the road side discrepancy, as showed here.

And now, with Crimewatch, she's again abused.

Like AS, she's had her statement messed with.

One thing is for that to happen in a "private venture" such as the Mock, another, completely different is having that done by the Scotland Yard.

Like we said with AS, if, for some reason Scotland Yard found a reason to correct anything that TS has said in the PJ Files, either in content or signifcance, then it had to the exact same kind of explanation it did with Tanner's Bundleman v Crèche Dad.

It didn't. It just altered her statement and hoped nobody noticed. Unaceptable and unforgivable.

And we're not talking about the minor discrepancy, which we will disregard, which is the detail about Pimpleman's arms in TS's first sighting, although taking into account the height of the wall that he's supposed to be leaning on, we haven't the faintest idea where his feet might be:

Where TS is seriously abused by Scotland Yard is on the her second sighting when she says, as it is written in the PJ Files, that she sees Pimpleman on one side of the street and Scotland Yard says she sees him on the other, in the exact same place where she says she herself was when she saw him while walking her dogs:

With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

One has to wonder why this was done. We don't see any possible answer.

But as we are on the subject, one has to ask Scotland Yard that since they put Pimpleman on the other side of the street, specifically at the entrance of the Tapas pool entrance, why didn't they put him reading the reservation book that Kate claims was left open on the page with the note that said that T9 left their children alone in the apartments?

You took Kate's word as fact for the first pool swim as we saw, so we're supposing that you also believe this reservation book story, so why didn't you use it?

Discrepancy 16 - The Jensen Sisters' Sighting

The Jensen Sisters' Sighting is not, as we have said, in the PJ Files, nor was it shown in Emma Loach's Mock.

A new sighting that we spoke about it here.

Jayne Jensen and her sister Annie Wiltshire speak of seeing “two blond men in their 30's, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCann's flat ….   One had curly hair....one was stockier than the other”, both were “tanned and in Bermuda shorts”

According to Annie; “ One of the guys was walking down the steps and as I looked at him, he walked back up and started talking to the other one.”

Sorry, we don't see neither tanned, nor blond, but what is not seen is either the balcony or the stairs referred.

Scotland Yard does say "outside an empty apartment". That hardly qualifies as either stairs or balcony.

Discrepancy 17 - The Carole Tranmer's Sighting

Carole Tranmer says in her rogatory interview, in the PJ Files, "'And, humm... then I believe I saw him wearing a blue-grey T-shirt, it was not dark blue, more of a pallid colour and it was, humm... a type of blue with short sleeves, humm... but I did not see anything below, I did not see the trousers or shoes or anything else, only the top part and he would have, I would say'humm, when looking from above, he was not short, I would say he was about a 1'78, about medium height. He was not thing nor was he muscular. So he was of average stature. I would say he was European but not Portuguese. He was not dark and, he was not short, but I would say that he looked Scandinavian if you will, because he was very light and could have been British or Scandinavian. Even though I was looking upwards, he had big eyes, there is nothing else. He did not have tattoos, nothing like this, humm'a person of common appearance, it was his furtiveness that called my attention, humm, no, I can't'".

T-shirt colour and sleeve size confirm that this is her sighting. 

But what we don't see in Crimewatch is this:: 'Humm... he was blonde, with a lot of hair, very short, not like mine but a little more, humm... but not like a footballer, do you know what I mean' A style close to shaven. Very short, blonde, the head was very sculptured. The shape of the head was very sculptured, more oval shaped." and "No, nothing from what I remember, because he was very blonde. 

Scotland Yard, in Crimewatch, says that these sightings refer to fair-haired men. None of the men shown in all 4 sightings, including this one, are either blond or fair-headed.

But the biggest discrepancy is this: 'We were all seated on the terrace, hummm'talking, and I was inclined to look below and this is when I saw someone leave the apartment of the first floor, closing the gate very gently as they were leaving, opening and closing the gate with much caution and in silence. It appeared to me very strange. They looked to one side and the other, shut the gate and walked very quickly downwards. It was at this point that I turned to my aunt and my husband and exclaimed 'That was really very strange'..."

She is not exactly describing a man walking peacefully and naturally in the pathway behind the apartments as this sighting is portrayed in Crimewatch.

If seeing a blonde man exiting furtively what seems to be the Oldfield’s apartment in the afternoon of May 3rd, the day that Maddie disappeared, is not considered important enough do be described with accuracy by the Scotland Yard, then we don't know what is.

And it wasn't Matthew Oldfield, otherwise this wouldn't be a sighting. 


See also UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies I