Friday, 30 January 2015

Two men and a baby (cot)


1. The doomed dooming vessel

As we said in our post last week “To haste or not to haste”, the Government BH and Gonçalo Amaral were pleasantly surprised and both got more than they could expect, at least at this stage.

“As of Wednesday, the McCann ship is beyond repair”, as published by the Portugal Resident who were so kind to quote us.

And it is. It completely is.

It is just sitting there crippled and waiting for that merciful blow that will blow it out of the water. But it has to wait to be put out of its misery and it is an agonising wait indeed.

It has to wait because, as we have repeatedly said, the McCann ship was not, nor even by a longshot the Admiral ship of the other’s side’s fleet. It has only been its frontrunner. Taking the blows for others. Allowing them to remain hidden in the fog behind.

As we said in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” post, blowing the McCann ship to smithereens is but the beginning of a new phase of the case. A phase everyone is realising is coming and are preparing for it the best possible way they can.

We have tried in the blog to always be realistic. To keep our feet on the ground. We have only been optimistic when realism showed us we could be. And such is the case now.

Reading, and re-reading the document issued by the court last Wednesday, the proven/not proven facts have given the judge very little margin to work with in terms of matter of law. It’s her job to apply it to the matter of fact and we simply cannot see how she can do it in a way that grants the McCanns any sort of victory.

We will wait for the sentence and correct ourselves if that is the case but it’s our conviction that the McCann ship is doomed. And we’re convinced that the other side shares that conviction as well.

The document listing the proven/not proven facts issued by the Portuguese Court was a total game changer. It was expected only to come at sentencing but it came earlier and no one expected to be so clear and decisive.

It was a game changer for 2 reasons. Both benefit Gonçalo Amaral and one works for and the other against Government BH.

The first reason, is that if Murat’s card played in November/December 2014 was indeed the death of whitewashing, the proven/not proven document has put a definite full-stop to it.

Or, in other words, if by bringing Murat centre front was killing the white washing, the court document has caused it to die. If in the first instance there could still be the desperate temptation of rushing the whitewashing into an emergency room of a very expensive hospital and try to shock some life back into its heart, the second has pronounced it officially dead.

What story can now be invented of a burglar killing Maddie in panic without sounding ridiculous after a legitimate court has ruled that “It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such” and the only criticism it gives to the book is that the facts that aren’t complete are the ones Kate describes in her book?

A book that clearly accuses the McCanns, and not anyone else, of obstruction of justice and body concealment. Hard to explain why the McCanns helped a panicky burglar get rid of Maddie’s body and then embark on the abduction hoax.

From now on, every single time the word “burglar” is pronounced in relation to the Maddie case it will be met with heavy scepticism to say the least, if not laughed at.

The official death of whitewashing benefits both Government BH and Gonçalo Amaral as it gives either more leeway for upcoming combats-

Those questioning the reasons why Government BH linked the trial to moving on the McCanns you have here your answer. Only an official document/sentence produced by the Portuguese justice system legitimises the ridiculousness of the whitewashing. Which is the option sought by the Swinging BH. Now, no more.

That’s why this has been dragging on for so long. The Government BH have been waiting for what effectively empties out any other possible version proposed by the Swinging BH.

And it has been quite exasperating for the Government BH. They were betrayed in their planned timelines by both the fascinating way the Portuguese justice system works and by Gonçalo Amaral.

If thing had gone “normally”, or as announced by the Portuguese justice system, the sentence would have taken place in the first weeks of October 2013. 16 months later we’re not there yet.

All the Government BH planning was “betrayed” by Gonçalo Amaral.

If he hadn’t thrown in the WoC spanner into the engine, the final allegations would have been in January 2014, the proven/unproven facts in the following February if not sooner (no Christmas and New Year celebrations in between) and the sentencing would probably even take place that same month, or at the latest in March 2014 (no 30 days to present WoC document).

The predictions we made in our “Rats” post, would have been correct and this whole affair would be over and done with by Maddie’s 2014 anniversary, or the latest by the Summer of last year.

Instead, besides having the WoC question raised, we also had Gonçalo Amaral firing his lawyer in June and had the whole Autumn with the glitch in the software supporting the Portuguese justice system.

But, fortunately for all, we’re getting there. Not seeing any more unpleasant surprises as only sentencing is left to happen.

The second game changing effect that the document produced is that the McCann ship was hit too hard. Way too hard.

It’s useless, it’s scrap. And the problem is that it's an enormous and embarrassing piece of scrap. It’s very, very visible.

This works against the Government BH because it means the re-archiving option has gone out the window together with the whitewashing water and in Gonçalo Amaral’s favour as it facilitates significantly any future battles he wishes to undertake against the couple, and it seems he really is rolling up his sleeves.

One just has to add the £10Million to having to look at the horrendous spectacle of a visibly crippled ship, to easily understand that the Government BH have no other choice but go for truth.

It does have various degrees of truth to choose from. The degree up to where they want truth revealed. However, they mustn’t forget that whatever degree they choose it must answer all the 6 questions we have put in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” post.

But whatever choice is made, the Swinging BH will fight it with all their strength the lifting of any of that fog, as that will reveal ships they don’t want revealed.

We must note that these ships cloaked themselves with a fog they, the Swinging BH, created but back then were helped significantly by those now pursuing them, the Government BH in creating it, thus the “BH” acronym after Government

Because the damage is so great and everyone can see it, the protecting fog will have to be lifted, to some degree or another. No question about that anymore.

Other ships will have to be revealed. It’s not an option anymore, to re-archive the case will be unacceptably shameful for the UK and to go for the whitewashing, ridiculous just isn’t enough to describe it.

The other side is stunned. It will certainly react but now is much more worried and busy with their in-fighting to decide on who will “be given to die” [a contraband term – smugglers make a choice between the various boats about which one will be caught on purpose by authorities so that the others can get the goods to the beach while “victim” distracts them].

They’re running around clucking like chickens, calling on loyalties, blackmailing, now top priority is each ones skin and as the joke says, one doesn’t have to outrun the bear, one just has to run faster than a poor soul who will become the bear’s supper.

Some thought that Gonçalo Amaral’s interview was a little premature. A little too early. We disagree. He’s on the attack, he’s pressuring, not allowing the enemy to breathe. His sights are not on the sentence, but further ahead.

He’s not pressuring the judge but those who have wronged him. It’s his life mission and he will fulfil it.

Now is the time to pressure, the time to convince the Government BH that only a 80/90% of the truth is the wisest choice. That only that amount that puts a lid on the issue and let UK restore its dignity especially when dealing with international partners. This case has been an embarrassement to the nation for far too long.

We here, who, modesty aside, consider ourselves relevant players of this game will follow Gonçalo Amaral's suit and we will step on the gas pedal.

You see, like the Government BH, we have also been waiting for this moment. For the right time to exert pressure so that it maximises effects. Pressure those who we feel it's timely to pressure. Expose truth to shorten the adversary’s space to manoeuvre with each burst, with each post.


2. Dirty laundry

Last week in our post “To haste or not to haste”, we said that Mário Marreiros, Ocean Club’s laundryman, said in his PJ statement of May 8, 2014 that “He does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events.”

However, 6 years later he does say on May 29, 2013 00:00, according to the Mirror, that he did see something:

“Mario Fernando, 47, told Portuguese cops about the “weird” stranger lurking at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz but has never been quizzed by British police or spoken publicly.”

(…)

“Mario recalls a “nervous” man wearing big sunglasses hiding in a stairwell seconds away from the holiday apartment where parents Gerry and Kate were staying with their three children. The laundryman is convinced the lurker was involved in the kidnap.”

(…)

“He said: “I was at my last collection point near the girl’s flat. I was always rushing. I’d park the van any-where.

“It was 7.30pm to 8pm. When cleaners cleared sheets they dropped them down the hole in the stairs to be collected by me at the bottom.

“When I walked down and turned into the hole to get the laundry, I saw the weird guy and we nearly bumped into each other. He was embarrassed. He looked nervous.

“He was walking out from the hole under the stairs and must have been much further inside but had taken several steps after hearing me coming. We were, like, dodging each other.

“He had a really fat face and had two-tone sunglasses on, they got lighter at the bottom and were big. I will never forget those glasses.

“There was no reason for him to be there and no reason to wear the glasses as it was dark under the stairs.”

“He did not walk away but watched what I did. I collected the sheets and took them to the van outside. He stayed there watching me.

“I had never seen him before. I knew everyone who was living at the complex and he was not one of them.

“It is still recorded in my head like it was at the time. It was not usual for people to be there, in the shadows.

“My theory is that guy must have been involved, either in the kidnapping or studying what to do — their movements.

"He was there for something, for sure!”


Summing it up, Marreiros, an Ocean Club employee working in the laundry and doing his rounds, in the early evening of May 3, 2007, was in block 5 (where apartment 5A is) to collect laundry from the beneath the stairs. He sees a man with a really fat face and wearing two-tone sunglasses walking out from under the hole of referred stairs, generally acting strangely, like they were dodging each other.

We then said this could easily just be tabloid talk and we showed readers why it wasn’t: our certainty came from what Berry was asked by PJ, via rogatory letter, and to which he answered on Apr 23, 2008.


It clearly showed that Marreiros could only been referring to Neil Berry.


3. The laundry hole

Marreiros speaks of a “hole in the stairs” in block 5, the building where apartment 5A is, from which the man seemed to come out of.

Because of this case, Luz has been photographed almost to the inch by media and many who have gone there with the specific purpose of documenting visually all that may minimally be related with the case.

Ironically, out of all the details chosen to be preserved visually for history, not ONE, we repeat not a single ONE, both of media and of people dedicated to the case, photographed the Big Round Table (BRT) at  the Tapas.

We have dozens of photos of windows, lampposts, shutters and key locks (both of 5A and similar) but not ONE of the BRT. We have hundreds of pictures of the various streets, pathways and alleyways but it didn’t occur to any of these people to photograph that particular table.

And apparently it also hasn’t occurred to the thousands of tourists who have passed through that Tapas esplanade on hols to take a photograph of that table, even if only in the background.

We even have, curiously, pictures taken supposedly from where the table was, and one in particular, from Gettyimages by a Jacques Lange, who apparently works for Paris-Match with a delicious peculiarity:

(photo from here)

“Cette photo a été prise par un appareil photo pose sur une table oú les Anglais ont passé la soirée” which translates to “This photo was taken by a camera on a table where the English spent that evening”.

Gettyimages states very clearly that the camera is set on the BRT but of the table itself we have but a glimpse of the edge. And he was ever so cautious to remove all chairs around it so they wouldn’t obstruct the view.

Or as it was shown to the world:


(photo from here)
As a sidenote, this photo, allegedly taken with the camera set on the BRT, shows a small round table for 4 between it and the apartment. That would mean that every single night a group would block the view to the apartment and we have always thought the group had a clear and unhindered one.

This relevant fact is never mentioned anywhere but here. Is Lange confused?

But the interesting thing that this particular magazine has also done is in their rather big piece on the case, when it came to illustrate the Tapas esplanade, what did it decide to show?

(photo from here)

The opposite side from where the McCanns were! Why not go to the other side, where the T9 allegedly were seated and photograph that side? Isn’t that just a coincidence?

The only person we know who states clearly that she has pictures of the BRT (with the added bonus of the T9 sitting around it) is Dianne Webster. We challenged her to publish them in our “Will Kate’s book definitely prove Textusa wrong?” post but, unsurprisingly, the challenge went unmet.

But unlike what happened with the BRT we fortunately have a very good photographic future memory of “hole in the stairs” that Marreiros speaks of when he says it was there he saw Berry.

And we say “happened” because PJ considers it a FACT in one of the questions to Berry; “considering the fact that you were seen by a witness, clarify what you were doing at that time next to the stairs leading to the upper floor, which are located next to the lift of Block 5 at the Ocean Club, i.e. not far from the apartment from where Madeleine McCann went missing?”

These are the stairs mentioned by Marreiros:


The location of these stairs in relation to Apartment 5A is the following:


To be clear, the “hole in the stairs” is on the opposite side of Building 5’s elevator shaft when one is coming from Apartment 5A.

In terms of where the “hole in the stairs” is in block 5:


So, taking into account that ““He was walking out from the hole under the stairs and must have been much further inside but had taken several steps after hearing me coming” this is where Marreiros saw Berry:


A very strange place to be, indeed. And unfortunately for Berry that was EXACTLY where Marreiros, Ocean Club’s laundryman, was going to pick up the laundry of that day dropped there by the cleaning ladies.


4. Berry dixit

Let’s now look at what PJ requested Neil Berry to be asked:

“VIII - Interview to NEIL BERRY, 42, MeXXXXXXXX ROXX, Surrey, SMX 7XX. He should be subject to a buccal swab and hair sample collection and asked the following questions:

* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police?

* Could you provide a thorough description regarding everything you did on 3rd May, 2007? Indicate time and place.

* Where did you have your meals and with whom?

*Where were you on this day between 8.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m.?

* At about 6.00 p.m., in particular, where were you? Who were you with?

* Considering the fact that you were seen by a witness, clarify what you were doing at that time next to the stairs leading to the upper floor, which are located next to the lift of Block 5 at the Ocean Club, i.e. not far from the apartment from where Madeleine McCann went missing?

* On that occasion, did you actually pass by an Ocean Club employee that went there to pick up laundry?

* If yes, what was the reaction like and why?

* Do you know a man identified as RAJINDER BALU? Who is he? From where do you know him? Did you travel together to Portugal? Did RAJINDER BALU travel together with his family?

* Explain clearly all your actions on that day between 6.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., namely with whom did you go to the TAPAS RESTAURANT to get food, and the kind of food you ordered, as well as the direction you took to go to the place where you ate.”

As already said, the content of these questions show clearly that it was Mr Neil Berry that Marreiros saw.

To these questions, after being asked whether he wanted to read his original statement in order to refresh his memory and having been granted that authorisation [why authorisation if he was the one being asked?] Mr Berry answered the following:

That he arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007.

That he didn’t leave the resort during his stay.

That on Thursday 3rd May 2007, daughter doesn’t return to the Mark Warner Children’s Club after lunch and the Berrys, a party of 4, spent that afternoon together as a family at the Tapas pool [we suppose the other child didn’t return to whatever kid’s club it went although this is not mentioned].

That at 16.00 Berry had a few drinks with Raj Balu, Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire.

That at 17.00 his family returned to their apartment while he remained at Tapas with these 3 people for at least another half an hour.

That after that he returns to his apartment but although he doesn’t remember if Raj left with him or not he does remember that Jensen and Wiltshire remained at the bar [we must note the selective memory Berry has to only remember those he leaves behind and not who accompanies him, or not, all the way from Tapas to apartments].

That he tried to reserve a table at the Tapas Bar for that night but it was fully booked.

That he spoke to Raj Balu about this and they decided to order a meal from the restaurant and so that their 2 families could have dinner together in Berry’s apartment.

That he’s not certain where he was at 18.00. That at that time he could have already been in his apartment or be returning from the bar.

That to go from Tapas to his apartment he would walk along the side of the pool, crossing the stairs of block 4.

That, as he said, doesn’t remember if he was alone or not but if he was with someone, this person would have been Raj Balu.

That he doesn’t remember having seen a lift in any of the apartment blocks.

That he was NOT in block 5, but HAD to pass by it in order to arrive at his apartment.

That it is possible that he was on the other side of the street opposite block 5.

That he thinks that his apartment was 4G.

That he doesn’t remember having seen Ocean Club staff collecting dirty laundry at this hour.

That the Berry children went to bed at 19.00 and that Raj arrived at his apartment with his family, carrying a cot for his son.

That they [Neil Berry, Emma Berry, Raj Balu and Nicole Cox, 4 adults who were all parents] did not manage to set the cot up and so he [do note the singular] went to find a member of staff and he found a Mark Warner employee, whose name he cannot remember but remembers that she was the girlfriend of a maintenance employee called Rob [again please note Berry’s quite selective memory. The kind of memory that makes one not remember if it was a tree but that makes us certain there were high branches].

That the girlfriend of a maintenance employee called Rob accompanied them [do note the plural] back to the apartment and managed to set up the cot.

That they put Raj's child to bed [we suppose in the infamous travel cot] and sat down to relax and have a drink, once the children were asleep.

That at about 20.00 he and Raj went to the Tapas restaurant to place their order, probably had a drink while they waited and when they left with the meal.

That he doesn’t remember exactly what they ordered but he thinks included red cabbage [again that selective memory, cannot remember if it was meat, poultry, fish, seafood or pasta but does remember the red cabbage].

That they took the same walk back [well according to what he had said before, there was only one route back to the apartment which HAD to pass by block 5].

That he remembers that at dinner that the McCanns were not at the restaurant at the time that they left and we did not see them while he and Raj and were there [amazing memory Berry appears to have as it seems all that happens at Tapas – him leaving Jensen and Wiltshire behind there and noting the T9 were not there at around 20.00 – is etched in clearly in his memory while whatever he did outside the Tapas is almost like a blurred memory, namely if he, at 17.30/18.00, left the bar alone or not, if he left the apartment alone when he had to leave it to solve the travel cot assembling problem, the name of the girl who helped them, and even, amazingly, as we’ll show later, where his apartment is located. And why is he certain he doesn’t remember seeing the McCanns there? He doesn’t say “they could be there, I didn’t see them” but instead remembers they were not. Why remember the McCanns were not there when other people had already started to eat so the place was not empty? In fact, according to the Tapas reservation sheet that day, at 08.00, we had the Edmonds, the Manns, the Carpenters the Bullens and the Patells already there. A total of 17 people (with the T9 arriving that would make 26 people with only 20 covers available according to Ocean Club. With the Irwins and the Sperreys arriving that would raise the number of reserved covers to 30 out of a possible 20). So why notice that the T9 were not present? Could it be because they would have been a large group sitting around a large table that would be noted and he noticed that the large table was empty? No, that can't be it because we know that table doesn't exist].

That once back at the apartment both families had dinner and remained there.

From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in his previous statement of 7th May 2007.

And that’s all he had to say on this occasion. And he did say a lot. Maybe more than he wished he had as we hope to show.


5. To pass or not to pass through

Let’s start by clarifying where the various locations, blocks 4, 5 and 6 were in relation to Tapas, in the plant of the Ocean Club:


Using Google Maps:



It is quite clear that to go from Tapas to block 4, to go to apartment 4G where Berry thinks he stayed, one has to pass in the vicinity of block 5.

Apartment 4G would have to be G4G. The denomination is quite clear. All apartments in the blocks belongings to the “group” Waterside Gardens have their numbering starting with a “G”, which we suppose means Gardens. This is followed by the block number and ends with the identification of the respective apartment.

For examples the McCanns stayed at G5A, the Oldfields at G5B, the O’Briens at G5D and the Paynes at G5H

For block 4, the rooming sheets indicate the following apartments occupied:

G41 –  Bowness, Sandra

G46 – Heselton, Antony John

G4B – Carruthers, Beverley Ann

G4J – Jensen/Wiltshire

G4L – Weinberger, Jeni

G4M – Totman, Julian Edward Bartman

G4N – Naylor

G4-O – O'Donnel, Bridget Mary

No mention of the Berrys.

But, let’s suppose that he and his family indeed stayed in block 4 as he seems to affirm, not imply.

It is true that for to go from Tapas to block 4 one has to pass in the vicinity of block 5 but never through it. From various angles:


Apparently there are 3 possible routes from Tapas to block 4. None of them pass through block 5. None of them put anyone be at any point in the “hole in the stairs” inside that building.

The closest one to come to that is route 2 which passes through parking lot of block 5. To walk through the parking lot doesn’t in any way mean having to pass through the inside the building.

But, apparently, route 2 is blocked. The parking lot belongs only to block 5 and is independent from block 4’s:


The shortest route from Tapas to Block 4 is route 1. Through a pathway, which seems to serve only block 4 behind block 5. It makes sense as block 5 has a rear entrance for every apartment in that pathway.

That’s the most reasonable one to go from Tapas to block 4 and doesn’t make one go anywhere near the front of block 5.

What one can’t see is any reason for Berry to say “it is possible that I was on the other side of the street opposite block five” when going from Tapas to block 4. What street? Rua Agostinho da Silva or Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins?

Does he mean the pathway between blocks 4 and 5? That hardly qualifies as a street, does it?

But we think there’s a reason for him to say that. His brain has played a little trick on him and this was a slip of the tongue.

You see, Berry never stayed in block 4. He stayed in apartment G606.



Apartment G606, as in block 6. Not even a 4 in it to confuse.

And block 6 is indeed the one on the opposite side of the street (Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins) of block 5.


Berry has ALL the reasons to be at that time “on the other side of the street opposite block 5” but has absolutely NONE to pass, much less be inside block 5, where he was seen by Marreiros.

So what was he doing there literally holed up in the hole below the stairs of Block 5 early evening of May 3rd?

At around the time, 18.30, we think Maddie died? Or shortly before or after?

We hope readers now understand the importance of Marreiros, the laundryman, having been questioned in December 2014 by request of SY.

It’s PJ asking the questions only for reasons of jurisdiction but SY are the ones wanting the answers.


6. To take away a reservation

But the mystery around Berry’s behaviour that day doesn’t stop here.

To understand it lets describe what appears to be normalcy. Only, as the reader will see, it isn’t. Far from it.

Berry says he tries to book a table at Tapas but is unsuccessful [it’s not clear when this attempt was made but it seems Ocean Club forgot to tell some of its clients that they needed to queue in the morning of the day to get a reservation. Berry was a victim of this lack of notice].

But, supposing he had been successful and got a booking, then it means when he went there to try he had to have planned what to do with his children, one 4 yr old and another just over 1 yr.

We suppose that the Berrys, if successful, would have planned to use the night crèche for their children.

To argue they wanted the children to eat with them falls to the ground because by his own words Berry sends his own kids to bed early [apparently before the Balus arrive at the apartment with their 1 yr and half old infant and a travel cot].

So, it’s quite safe to assume that the Berrys, if they could have made a reservation that night would resort to the night crèche, like so many other guest-parents did.

But he has no success. After all, there were only 20 covers to reserve [if you go by Kate’s word, only 15].

But at around 17.00, he finds out from Balu that the latter has a table reserved. It is indeed reserved for 2, in the name of Nicole Cox, Raj’s partner:


What is peculiar is Cox and Bullen were “authorised by Steve”. A special favour. We haven’t been told the reasons for this small act of nepotism but it’s a fact that it’s mirrored on the Tapas reservation sheet.

The reservation for Cox is only for 2, which means they had plans as to what to do with their kid.

Yes, one could say that Balu/Cox probably wouldn’t book a place at a restaurant for such a young child but take it along and sit it in a high chair and feed it bits from their plates. But they would have to do so in advance to make sure a high chair was available and that request would be shown/confirmed on booking form.

Just like with the Berry’s we’re supposing that they arranged to use the night crèche for that evening.

So the first obvious question to ask and that really stands out is why didn’t Raj Balu invite the Berrys over to their table?

Was it a Tapas mandatory rule that reservations could only be used by those who had reserved? And because of that, as the table had been reserved for Cox/Balu for only 2 covers no one else could dine with them?

If not, it seems that the logical and immediate thing to do would be to propose to Berry “hey, I got a table, why don’t you sit with us? Just put your kids at night crèche like we’re doing [remember that Berry had already foreseen that possibility] and we meet here at 07.30?”

We see no table allocated to Cox, and that makes us think said allocation was done upon arrival of guests.

But looking through the sheet, we can see that tables 203 (4 covers), 207 (4 covers), 209 (4 covers) and 212 (2 covers) weren’t allocated or planned to be used that night [plus the mysterious table 208 that is never shown to be used in the Tapas reservation sheets], so a lot of available tables to sit 4.

All that was needed was to find whoever was responsible and inform [not ask] him/her to add the Berrys to whatever table was going to be allocated to Cox and then put a bracket joining them like it was done with the T9.

Or, if that someone couldn’t be found at that particular moment, then simply arrive together for dinner and proceed as described above.

The only difference for Tapas would be to serve 2 more meals and charge 1 more room.

That’s it. Simple. With kids tended to by night crèche, all would have the enjoyable meal in the Tapas esplanade they all so much desired for that night.

But no. Balu and Berry decide not to follow this logical, basic and simple reasoning and instead decide to give-up on Cox’s reservation.

We can only imagine that Steve was not happy. Seeing people turn down a favour one does is never pleasant.

This decision will later imply, as the reader will see, the temporary acquisition of a cumbersome travel cot, and.

But what fascinates us is the fact that the Cox reservation is checked:


It was checked for what? They didn’t eat there.

Was it to check the take-away? Then why no mention of Berry?

Did Balu decide on the spur of the moment to offer the meal to Berry as it would be his apartment being used?  If so, where is the “2+2” in front of Cox?

It’s not said by either Balu or Berry as to who pays for the meals so we’re supposing they each paid for their own.

So, very bizarrely, these 2 families decide to give up on a dinner, which both families had sought, at the Tapas esplanade and prefer to have a take away at Berry’s apartment.

One can always prefer to have a take-away at a friend's apartment rather than eat on an esplanade. Each to his own. But of that was the case then no need to whine about not getting a reservation and of having let go of it.


7. The hands that handled the craddle

And if you thought all of the above was sufficiently bizarre, now is the cue to enter the stage from the left the most bizarre object ever reported on the Maddie case: the Balu travel cot.



The Balus stayed in apartment G603. In block 6, 3 apartments away from the Berrys at G606.

Doesn’t this little piece of information make it really strange that Berry doesn’t remember if he came out of Tapas towards apartment accompanied or not by Balu?

They could have been in different ends of Luz and so as soon as each left the pool area each would go separate ways. But no, to go from Tapas to their respective apartments they have to go to the exact same building.

For Berry to not remember if he walked alone or if he engaged in conversation along the way with a friend with whom he was going to dine with that night is strange, very strange to say the least.

Let’s now look at what Balu has to say about what he did that late afternoon, early evening.

Balu says that from 15:30 onwards, the Tapas bar was full, as normally happened, with the majority of people there. Neil and Emma were having a drink with him and his wife.

That they had a table reserved in the restaurant for that night, but as the Berrys were not able to arrange a table and for this reason [so why not invite him over to yours?] they decided to leave their table and ate together in Berrys’ apartment using takeaway service.

That his partner left the bar with his son to gp back to the apartment and that Berry's wife, also took her children to their apartment.

That he and Berry stayed at the bar drinking and talking with Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire.

That he and Berry eventually left the bar after 19:00 [not at 18.00 as stated by Berry but then again Neil could have left earlier alone, we don’t know].

That he doesn’t remember if they left together or not [and we have already seen how really, really strange that is].

That he returned to his apartment and got ready to go out for dinner.

That around 19:00 [a little before he left the Tapas bar, which he did after 19.00], together with his my wife and son, they headed to the Berry apartment.

That when they arrived there, Neil was having problems in assembling a cot [Who? What? Where? We’ll come back to this later] which was placed there for his son.

That they had to head to the Mark Warner service desk [maybe meaning Ocean Club service desk or reception] and they sent [meaning a person left the reception to go with them] someone to help us [we remind readers, to assemble a travel cot and we’re supposing the referred person returned to reception after explaining how to assemble the thing].

That sometime between 19:45 and 20:00, he and Berry left the apartment and went to the Tapas restaurant. They ordered their food and had a drink whilst waiting for the food to arrive.

That they returned around 20:15-20:30 to the Berry apartment and all of them ate on the veranda.

That it was a takeaway order. That he remembers that he had a plate of grilled chicken, beef and salad [we’re supposing a red cabbage salad].

They also had chips and four bottles of red wine.

That he did not travel with Berry nor did they know each other prior to the holidays but got to know each other on the first day and got along well.

That Berry was there with his wife and two daughters and that they discovered later that their spouses had worked separately but for the same firm.

That they did not pass the day together but socialised occasionally at night.

That he and Berry spent two times together watching football games in the local bar.

Let’s forget the many, many discrepancies between what Balu and Berry have said about a night spent together with each other’s family and concentrate solely on the travel cot.

First question, what is the need for one? Couldn’t the infant be laid to sleep on one of the couches or on the parent’s bedroom bed? The other two children were asleep, one younger than the one in question, so why have a travel cot in an apartment with 4 adults present?

But where does the travel cot appear from? Berry says that it’s Balu who brings it but Balu says that when he arrives at apartment Berry is having a difficulty assembling it.



This is very strange because one does not forget that one has carried a thing with such significant volume. Whoever carried thing would have remembered. But neither do. Or better each one says it was the other.

But a question must be asked, as we have the McCann twins serving as an example: where did the Balu baby sleep all nights before in their apartment? We suppose that it was in a travel cot. Same question should be asked about Berry’s youngest.

So it’s really, really hard to believe that Balu doesn’t disassemble the cot in his apartment and take it with him to Berrys. And it’s even harder to believe that neither Berry nor Balu don’t know how to assemble a travel cot.

But let’s get back to the Berry & Balu storyline and we see a travel cot owned by neither [otherwise someone would have known how to assemble the thing] in the middle of that apartment

So one or the other had to have it requested it from front desk.

We won’t be picky to the point of who brought it from the front desk to the apartment but we would like to know who requested it and how. If the person who did it, Balu or Berry, walked all the way to the reception and asked for one or simply called front desk and asked for it to be delivered to the apartment. Or, as it would be more likely, called the reception to ask if there were travel cots available and one being there, was told s/he could pass by and pick it up.

We just want to know this because the path between Berry’s apartment and the reception is one that will be used and we just wanted to know if we had to add another round trip there by any of the participants in this epic saga.

Neither Berry nor Balu speak of this. So we’re completely left in the dark about how this particular travel cot was requested and who brought it there.

Now, a word has to be said in favour of Berry. He does say that “they”, as in all four, can’t assemble the cot. Balu on the other hand is not kind to his friend and points the finger at Berry (and implicitly Emma).

Nor does Balu try to help. It is for his child but apparently he prefers to look the other way.

The only conclusion that one can come to is that a travel cot MUST be something very complex to assemble. Frighteningly difficult. Something that only the brave should attempt.

In the following video of 31 seconds, it’s shown how one is assembled and disassembled:




31 seconds. A thing that is designed to be assembled with one hand while holding a baby with the other. A thing that if you turn your back on it and it will practically assemble itself.

Almost as simple as being shown a circumference and be asked to point where the circle is. Only simpler.

And if you really find it hard to assemble, the simple act of looking for instructions in it (even if they don’t exist) will be sufficient to open up and assemble itself.

We affirm it impossible for any adult or teenager not to be able to assemble a travel cot. But miracles do happen and we’re encountering one of unbelievable ignorance: 4 adults cannot assemble something that practically assembles itself.

Yet, Neil and Emma Berry and Raj Balu and Nicole Cox aren’t able to assemble a travel cot.

Assembling one is a straightforward process while in disassembling, as can be seen in video, there’s the trick of first pulling up a handle the middle of the base first. But the Berrys and Balus were struggling with the assembling.

To solve this problem they found a solution that many wouldn’t think of, and that was to send the men out to get external help without, for example, thinking of calling the reception first.

If they did, they would probably hear “Sir, all you have to do is spread the cot and you will see all will snap into place. For disassembling however, we would like to call your attention to the fact that you have first to pull the middle of the base…”

But no, why make something simple when you can complicate it? So they decide to walk all the way to the reception. Berry is even vague about on where to head when he says “I went to find a member of staff”.

He says he finds, without specifying where, a Mark Warner employee, whose name he cannot remember but she was the girlfriend of a maintenance employee called Rob and that she accompanied them back to the apartment [how did Berry know the name of MW employee's boyfriend and his job? Yet he didn't remember her name?].

Balu says they went to Mark Warner’s service desk, which we deduce to be the Ocean Club reception. That seems more reasonable within the absurdity of it all.

But, there and then, the receptionist, instead of explaining verbally, or even using another travel cot that may have been there, decides to abandon her working post and walk all the way to the apartment of these guests to assemble a travel cot.



If another problem meanwhile arose while she was gone, it would have to wait. Assembling self-assembling travel cots is top priority in any hotel business as everyone knows

Odd thing is that no Ocean Club receptionist speaks of going to any apartment to help set up a cot. Neither does the only Mark Warner customer support manager, Emma Knight.


8. Just in case you happen to see us around

Based solely on the statements form Berry and Balu, one has to wonder if such a take away dinner ever took place.

After the analysis done in the blog about the Tapas Reservation sheets and about the Big Round Table, we’re certain it didn’t.

Berry and Balu need alibis to be seen walking around in Luz from 18.00 to 20.30. And they have created 3 occasions:

- walking from Tapas to apartments between 18.00 and 19.00, using to confirm alibi if needed, Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire, we spoke of in our post “60 of us”, the two women who find very suspicious the simple fact that 2 men are standing on the balcony of an apartment of a building different from the one they were staying in [pure bad luck on Berry’s part to be seen in the “hole in the stairs” by Marreiros and having no excuse to be there, proving that faked alibis do go wrong].

- walking from Berry’s apartment to Ocean Club reception and back again to apartment with some female Mark Warner employee, from 19.00 to 20.00 [do note how Ocean Club is perfectly ignored in these statements and only speak Mark Warner – it was if Ocean Club was owned by the tour operator, that only had leisure (tennis and watersports) personnel and nannies present]

- walking to and from Tapas to fetch their take away dinner, from 20.00 to 20.30 [after turning down a reservation obtained by a favour to the restaurant both wanted to go].

These two have it well covered in case they were seen by a truly independent witness or witnesses (Marreiros being an example) as we explained in our “The importance of the inexistent witness” post.

Please note that all discrepancies (with the exception of not seeing the McCanns when they went to pick up dinner) involving Berry and Balu have nothing to do with the T9.
They are defending themselves and no one else. What were they trying to hide?

Pity neither Berry nor Balu see a tall bald man with glasses walking in the Tapas area straight to the tennis courts and after losing little time there, walking out at around 18.00/18.30 that day when both say they are at Tapas.

52 comments:

  1. (From C in Ireland) Brilliant post, as always Text. I had to hold my breath throughout! What, indeed, were these 'two' doing so far from home? And what was the cot for; and why look/stay/hide under a stairwell in a completely different block of apartments?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This explains why Berry was swabbed for DNA. It's not as clear as to why Balu was tested. Both are seen accompanying Murat on May 4th.
    Balu is likely to be the unnamed barrister who claimed to have seen Murat on the evening/ night of May 3rd. (I can't find any registration of him as a lawyer in the UK, but his company website states a legal background)
    Balu's first statement isn't in PJ files, as it was taken by UK police, but I do wonder if that statement mentions seeing Murat that night.
    It's also Balu who is in the background of the playground photo.
    SY once said the information they were looking for was contained in the existing files. So they should have ALL the information, including that held by UK police.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliant post, thank you! Your posts are always so meaty. Especially welcomed in these lean times waiting for the next moves in this unending saga.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have you ever considered a simplified version of your posts, for those readers on twitter who appear to have the attention span of a gnat?
    I blame it on a generation of students who seem to have been spoon-fed information in bite-size chunks.
    In my day, one had to take listen and take notes, as well as reading large tomes and extracting information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 Jan 2015, 18:11:00,

      With time we have come to realise that for some of those who "read" us, the attention span varies in size in conformity with convenience.

      Very much like the BRT. It becomes small when T9 not there, enormous when they arrive.

      We have reports of bleeding from their eyes after the second paragraph. How they must suffer whenever they have to read for themselves the PJ Files.

      Very, very difficult to write a post in a single short paragraph.

      If we wrote a short post without any references, photos or links would be criticised for failing to produce the evidence to support the post.

      We think most of our readers have the intelligence, motivation and perseverance to cope with the required mental effort of reading a post.

      The reading age of the average Sun reader is around 8, we believe.
      http://www.see-a-voice.org/marketing-ad/effective-communication/readability/

      We are confident our readers are well above tabloid standards.

      Delete
    2. I always take my time over your posts and go over them more than once at times. I am always sorry when I get to the end just like a really good book you don't want to finish!

      Keep up the good work.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Your analytical brain is second to none. Top cop Textusa. You've been on top of this since day one.

      Delete
  5. All travel cots by law have instructions and pictures underneath the mattress:

    Fortunately in an ingenious twist, large step-by-step instructions – including both words and pictures – are printed on the mattress base, explaining exactly how to erect your cot. For anyone who has ever dropped an instruction manual into the murky gap between cooker and fridge, this is a design feature more products would benefit from. Once instructions were followed and the multi-locking mechanism on the four sides had activated, I was impressed

    See more at: http://www.madeformums.com/reviews/cots-night-time-and-nursery/travel-cots-and-beds/mamas-and-papas-classic-travel-cot/518.html#sthash.BcHYgVzo.dpuf

    Doesn’t matter if language is different- Must have pics also

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Textusa,
    I've been reading your posts with interest. One question I always come back to about the Swinging theory is why has no swinger come out and said that the OC (or MW set-up) was used for this kind of pastime? Or, have they? As time has progressed society has become more acceptable of this kind of thing and I would have thought that somebody somewhere who was involved - and I'm not saying involved necessarily at the time of the "abduction" - and didn't need any kind of protection (even of character) would have said something, maybe even anonymously. Can you enlighten me at all on this as I have not read everything in nearly as much detail as yourself. Many thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous30 Jan 2015, 21:42:00,

      Thank you for your questions. Here are the posts in which we think our beliefs are adequately substantiated:

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/01/open-letter-to-textusa.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-fms.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-evidence.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/why-swing.html

      We will answer your question more adequately in a post we’re writing and hope to publish in the near future.

      Meanwhile, let us just say that when one is a stakeholder one tends to protect interests and when one is thinking of being as candidate to whistle-blowing one must weigh the pros and cons of whistling against being silent.

      Having information is not the same as being able to use it.

      For example, haven’t seen anyone from SY to come out and speak and say they were ridiculously used and shamed in June. Why not? They know they were.

      Delete
  7. appears to me you have 2 drunks trying to assemble a cot and conveniently seeking help (another beer mate?) and disorientation as per usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 Jan 2015, 21:49:00,

      Based on what are you making such allegations?

      Delete
    2. its not an allegation, but based on your post describing such behaviour that in my view resemble 2 holiday-makers somewhat worse for wear. Is it not a possibility? Would this not explain their erratic and unusual behaviour?
      Just saying.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 31 Jan 2015, 10:51:00,

      Let us see if we understood you correctly.

      A adults, two couples, both parents of young infants, are so drunk they couldn't put up something so simple to assemble that any drunken person could.

      But they not drunken enough to walk all the way to the reception and to convince the receptionist to come back with them to their apartment.

      The receptionist just leaves into the night with two drunken men badoning her post.

      Then, continuing in their alcohol numbeness they go and get take-away for 4. Drink each one, one more bottle of wine and then in that fine state go and help the searching of Maddie.

      Just a question. Not remembering, a year later, which block he was staying is still part of being drunk?

      Delete
    4. With the utmost respect, I have read your post several times and viewed through the eyes of a 'drunk' on holiday, watching football at a bar, drinking wine, meeting new friends, eating out and making merry, and generally wondering around 'lost' and creating more excuses to return for more of the same, does in my opinion, fit the profile you describe. The cot was not ready, or they were not ready or willing to assemble said cot because instead of the old saying "away to see a man about a dog" they were away to see a 'man about a cot'. An excuse to get out again. And as for the receptionist leaving her post? yes, in order to escort them safely back to their block.
      I would concede that I maybe totally wrong here but I want to raise a perspective that may explain those absurdities that you describe.

      Delete
    5. Marrieros says he sees someone acting dodgy not a man that was drunk.

      Delete
    6. In my opinion, Marrieros saw Berry while he was waiting for a text message / phone call on his mobile, inviting him to the apartment to partake of 'swinging activity' NOT to abduct a 3-year-old girl.

      Delete
    7. Lol anon at 12:0, was there a wee bar in the wee laundry room that marrieros seen berry hiding in. Maybe he got a carry out of drink and popped in there for a wee swift one

      Delete
  8. RM phoned MW on home phone
    282XXX816 to 96XXX7559 at 20.15.
    10:11 minutes.
    SY will want to know what that was about?

    ReplyDelete
  9. No one has come forward about swinging because it isn't true,i know that from personal experience of the Ocean Club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you know about swinging if not invited to join in? Discretion is obviously needed.

      Delete
    2. What were the 'sixty of us' up to then ? http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/60-of-us.html

      Delete
  10. Maybe the two ladies invited them back to their place and stopped of for reasons to them in a little cubby hole along the way different to the mile high club could be the cubbyhole club

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 Jan 2015, 08:10:00,

      You're confusing swinging with exhibitionism.

      Swinging is done with discretion and inside rooms. Swingers are not "pervs". Just normal people with a different way of expressing their sexuality with other adults and with their consent.

      If you're using humour, please be reminded that this is all about the death of a little girl.

      Delete
  11. I sense this post is touching a couple of nerves - just saying !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always when swinging is mentioned.

      Delete
  12. Hi textusa, it would seem as though this particular group of Adults and their professions leaves a lot to be desired with all their memory functions with regard the use of Alcohol,Kate, Gerry, tapas 9?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 Jan 2015, 17:00:00,

      Alcohol has nothing to do with memory "selectivity" surrounding the Maddie case..

      Doubt very much anyone involved in the events that night was in the mood for any kind of drinking.

      Them drinking irresponsibly is just another piece of clutter as is negligence.

      Delete
  13. https://mobile.twitter.com/UnterdenTeppich/status/561832280784900097?p=v
    Stairwellman not mentioned in files. Only in Metodo3 investigation. Why the need to threaten NB? What did he see from his balcony?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 1 Feb 2015, 12:10:00,

      Stairwell incident is well reported very clearly on files:

      First, in the question put by PJ to Neil Berry ““considering the fact that you were seen by a witness, clarify what you were doing at that time next to the stairs leading to the upper floor, which are located next to the lift of Block 5 at the Ocean Club, i.e. not far from the apartment from where Madeleine McCann went missing?”
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm

      PJ clearly identifies (in the PJ Files) that “Stairwellman” is Neil Berry and details quite well the incident.

      Second, it’s in the Final Report of the Files:

      “Still on Appendix VI, pages 504 and in the following, it was investigated a situation relative to two individuals, NEIL BERRY and RAJINDER BALU (complementary inquests requested in the letter rogatory), specifically relative with the first one, whose information was crossed with the above aforementioned witness, T***** S******, namely to what concerns the photo-fit, having this one made clear that it was not that same individual.

      This occurrence was targeted due to an information given by an employee of the resort, pages 504 and 505 of the Appendix VI, where a somewhat peculiar situation was reported, supposedly to do with NEIL BERRY. However, in spite of the diligences done, inclusive in the letter rogatory, nothing was established that connected him to the disappearance of the British child.”
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

      We haven’t seen any documentation identified as “Metodo 3 investigation” so will refrain to say anything about it including what they may and what may not contain.

      Not seeing who is threatening Neil Berry, so can’t answer that question.

      We don’t know on which floor of block 6 is apartment G606, where the Berrys stayed. So we can’t say what view it may have or not over block 5.

      It seems to us that only the 3 apartments on the West side of that building have balconies with a view over block 5 and we don’t know if G606 is one of them.

      But as block 6 is further South than block 5 and the balconies of block 6 are (just like in blocks 4 and 5) facing South, one, being on a balcony of one of the 3 apartments of the West side of block 6, has to turn to specifically towards block 5 to see what is happening there.

      So to imply that Berry saw something from the balcony of his apartment without pointing out where the apartment is located in block 6 is just pure speculation.

      That's how myths are created and fed.
      Delete

      Delete
    2. Balu:
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_335.jpg
      Cox and Balu request ground floor.

      Berry:
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_334.jpg
      Request for ground floor and cot.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 2 Feb 2015, 16:19:00,

      Thank you!

      As block 6 is further downhill from block 5, then we find it difficult for anyone to see anything from the ground floor concerning Maddie even if the Berry apartment was the one on the West side of the block

      Delete
  14. That is a very, very detailed post Textusa, thank you very much for that.

    I was dubious about Mário Marreiros claims because it seemed strange to me that in 2007 he said he left work at 6pm and had seen nothing suspicious then six years later he tells the Mirror that at 7.30-8pm he had seen a man in the stairwell.

    Seeing it all laid out there though in your post, highlighting the many inconsistencies and the daft tale about not being able to assemble a travel cot, I see it differently now.

    I find it interesting that Mário Marreiros said 7.30-8pm to the Mirror (or at least that's what the Mirror reported) but the PJ clearly think it was 6pm that he saw Neil Berry.

    I wonder why Mário Marreiros mentions his van specifically:

    “I was at my last collection point near the girl’s flat. I was always rushing. I’d park the van anywhere."

    The reason that's interesting is because Stephen Carpenter is asked about a Portugese laundry man and his van in his April 2008 rogatory interview.

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  15. How someone could arrive at the conclusion that this was merely 'the lads' staggering around having a few laughs with a cot is what is staggering. It is, in itself, evidence of either or both, of the propaganda hands at work or the unbelievable lack of the flock's ability to apply logic to a series of reported events.

    Here is some logic:

    If, in the event, one was questioned relating to the disappearance of a young girl in the most widely reported missing person's cases in modern times, it would be then, at that time, you tell the authorities you we're drunk and embarrassed - This did not happen, because as Textusa has revealed it is about timelines & alibies - Then would have been the time to say, "Well, ok ... look, we we're very drunk, I didn't want my wife to know we were heading off for another beer and that we took a diversion ... but given the magnitude of my circumstance, that I can be either a drunk and in trouble with my wife, or a suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, I don't mind telling her now."


    Regardless, none of it matters now, it's done - exceptional research and reason Textusa - IMO Just a few select moves left to make, some names confirmed IN, some names confirmed OUT, and when all the deals are done, it's done;

    I await the arrival of the official verdict in the libel case, which, IMO, is dictated by the above progressing to close, then, you can expect a MSM story every day.

    GP

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clarence Mitchell - The Luckiest, Unluckiest Turd of All

    former spokesman for the McCann family

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/brightonpavilion/

    "CLARENCE MITCHELL (Conservative) Educated at Friern Barnet County School. Media strategy advisor, former spokesman for the McCann family and former BBC journalist"

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/02/a-message-from-goncalo-amaral.html

    A Message from Gonçalo Amaral

    Dear Friends,

    The civil suit that was filed against me by the McCann couple is in its final stages, and the decision concerning material facts, which to me seems rather favourable, is already known. A period for legal allegations ensues, after which we will await the verdict, which I envision will translate into my longed for acquittal and the consequent lifting of the attachments that have caused me such extensive financial difficulties over the past five years. This means that it has been only due to your help that I have been able to financially sustain the ongoing lawsuit, which nonetheless cannot be said about my increasingly strangled personal life.

    I say strangled because in reality I am experiencing a very serious crisis on an emotional as well as a financial level. This is due to those who have tried to asphyxiate me financially, wishing for my civil death and wanting to place me in a position where I would be unable to react judicially. After five years (counted since the civil suit was filed) the parents of the child that mysteriously disappeared on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Algarve were not able to fully achieve what they intended. I am alive, I'm able to financially sustain the civil suit, although not much more than that...

    Concerning my emotional crisis, I ask you to understand that for me, this whole struggle is not only about the fundamental discovery of the truth, because no matter how optimistic I may be, I can never forget the demand for damages amounting to 1.200.000 Euro that was filed by the couple, which, if absurdly it would be granted, will completely destroy me on all levels.

    To all of you, thank you very much.


    Gonçalo Amaral


    Lisboa, February 2, 2015

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for bringing us that message. It is easy to watch this case unfold and forget the emotional turmoil and stress that Dr. Amaral is suffering. Peoples lives have been uprooted by the actions of a group of cowardly people whose reputation had to be protected at all costs. Life can be so unfair. I hope Dr Amaral's life can be turned around as quickly as possible. All he ever did was his job to the best of his ability.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I feel so upset for that poor man, mr amaral.
    Reading this message from him is heartbreaking. The mcann and their helpers are evil with no conscience. Please know we continue our support for a good honest man we admire greatly

    ReplyDelete
  20. Textual great post. Obviously the ridiculous alibis created by berry was an attempt to cover up something presumably swinging. I wonder in hindsight if they all were aware that the pj would release the files and show how ridiculous a lot of the statements were, would they have participated in the cover up. I think this post has shown what happened with a lot of people who participated in this cover up.........they thought they would make statements which while ridiculous didn't incriminate themselves. Then even though the pj knew they were lying the case was going nowhere and their lies and inconsistencies would never be known. Oh how every day their lies and nonsense is read back to them on blogs and discussion forums must be worse than any punishment the courts would have handed out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi textusa, this group of people involved with the machinations over the years if found out should all be rounded up, whatever their profession and involvement deserve to serve prison sentences for the contempt of with holding/perverting the course of Justice.
    Good luck Goncalo Amaral for an improvement in your health and future life.
    PS. I do not know the reason behind Sonia Poultons door stepping of Kate McCann at her home in Leicester, stranger still is that the Mc Canns had CCTV installed costing over £600,000 yet Sonia could waltz up to her front door and "No boys in blue showed up?"
    It is said that Sonia is working for the MSM(Murdoch?) to be used as a weapon if the Brenda Leyland case is found to have been involved in the causation of the death of this lady!
    I would not be surprised in the least if this were the case, just look at the attempts made to sabotage the PJ investigations,hacking of phones, blackmail, Ricardo Palvas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're getting the value of the McCann house mixed up with the cost of CCTV. But you make a valid point about Poulton just breezing up to the front door - and then, allegedly, being invited in by Kate for a cosy fireside chat.

      If she was invited in, it would certainly have been pre-arranged. And the only way they would agree to it would surely be for something completely in their favour, either now or in the near future.

      And Ms Hutton? Done up like a kipper, as the saying goes.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 Feb 2015, 12:00:00

      I echo your sentiments regarding Goncalo Amaral and those who have caused him so much suffering, very well put.

      As regards Sonia Poulton though, I don't agree. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her doorstepping Kate McCann (about which I have no real opinion at present as we haven't seen the footage so it would be premature to form one) I don't believe for one moment she is in cahoots with Sky/Murdoch to aid them in any way to try and lessen their guilt or involvement in the death of poor Brenda Leyland.

      It was because of the death of Brenda and the outrageous labelling of her as a tr*ll in the MSM that Sonia set about making her documentary in the first place and anyway it won't be broadcast until after Brenda Leyland's inquest in March so I don't see how it can aid any defence by Sky.

      One of Sonia's biggest and most vocal critics regarding the documentary is the same person who has tried for a long time to discredit the Smith sighting on 3rd May 2007 for reasons known only to him, but a strange thing to do indeed if one if supposedly looking for justice for Madeleine McCann.

      Nuala x

      Delete
  22. Please can somebody tell me what has happened to Joana Morais blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://twitter.com/xklamation
      "Joana Morais @xklamation · 14m 14 minutes ago

      "It was no hearing and is over. No public reading but some infos will come." via @aacg http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm"

      "My blogs are closed indefinitely. Enjoy Isabel"

      Shaun Hutchinson ‏@shiveringgoat 30 mins30 minutes ago
      @xklamation hi Joana what happed to your excellent site? Hope all ok:) best Shaun

      Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 25 mins25 minutes ago
      @shiveringgoat Hi Shaun, how are you? Tired of being a punching bag for both "pros" & "antis". Time to move on. Thank you for everything Smile

      Delete
  23. Hi Textusa, it seems more than a coincidence to me, that the majority of the guests at the Ocean Club during that week, were middle/upper middle class professionals. Lawyers, barristers, doctors, etc, what are the chances of that being the case in any other average holiday resort?

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop-thanks-all-those-who-have-supported-him-this-far

    Posted by portugalpress on February 03, 2015

    Maddie cop thanks all those who have supported him this far

    In a statement that points to the agony endured through five horrendously difficult years, former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral has written a public statement to thank all those who have stood beside him, and stood up for him, with donations of support that have made his court battle possible.

    As we reported last week, the long-running civil case for defamation against Amaral taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann looks at last like coming to a close (see: http://portugalresident.com/as-dust-settles-on-judge%E2%80%99s-findings-...).

    On Monday, Amaral posted a personal message on the “Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral” blogspot, reiterating the fact that the judge’s decisions on “the material facts” would appear to run in his favour.

    “The period for legal allegations ensue” before a verdict, he explains, which he “envisions” will translate into his “longed-for acquittal and the consequent lifting of the attachments that have caused me such extensive financial difficulties over the past five years”.

    What none of the mainstream news stories have ever really tackled is the extent to which Amaral has been financially hamstrung since the McCanns lodged their civil action in 2009.

    Talking to me in 2011, he said: “I’ve been left with no chances; no way of paying my debts; liens on my property. I’ve had to move away from my family in order to protect them.”

    In this week’s message - only the fourth to be posted during the five-year battle - he reiterates the fact that the case has sought to “asphyxiate” him financially and push him to a “civil death”, a position where he would be “unable to react judicially”.

    “After five years, the parents of the child that mysteriously disappeared on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Algarve were not able to fully achieve what they intended. I am alive, I'm able to financially sustain the civil suit, although not much more than that…,” he says.

    Set against a side-bar that gives the banking details for the Lisbon bank that holds his Legal Defence Account, Amaral tells his supporters “it has been only due to your help that I have been able to financially sustain the ongoing lawsuit, which nonetheless cannot be said about my extremely strangled personal life”.

    Stressing that he is battling on both financial and emotional levels, the former university graduate in juridical and criminal sciences concludes: “Concerning my emotional crisis, I ask you to understand that this whole struggle is not, for me, about the fundamental discovery of the truth - because, no matter how optimistic I may be, I can never forget that the demand for damages amounting to €1.200.000 that was filed by the couple, if absurdly it is granted, will completely destroy me on all levels.”

    It is a statement that shows that no matter what the decision of Judge Emília Melo e Castro, there will be no winners in this agonising chapter of the case that has taken up so many column inches over the years - and which has cost two police forces well over €12 million and rising.

    For Gonçalo Amaral’s full message in English, see: http://pjga.blogspot.pt/

    By NATASHA DONN natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not win - only not lose
      As you said in a post

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 Feb 2015, 16:21:00,

      Thank you.

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/09/losing-v-not-winning.html

      Delete
  25. Hi Textusa

    Intriguing stuff.

    Can you please answer these questions?

    If Neil Berry was hanging around in the stair well awaiting his invitation to the party - which
    apartment would have been the likely venue?

    I ask this because if the apartment was allegedly one of the Tapas 9's then the children from that apartment would have ben shipped out to another apartment before activities commenced.

    It was mentioned by the Pj at one point that all the T9 children may have been in one apartment. Could that apartment have been 5a?


    Just as an additional question: In the Playground photo of Madeleine and the Mccann male twin and I think Madeleine's travelling companion ( Payne's daughter ) Raj Balu is seen looking at the photographer. Is there any indication in his statement as to whom he saw taking the photo that day?

    Finally I hope Mr Amaral gains a victory here but I do suspect that if he wins an appeal will be lodged. The last thing the so called Team want is sufficient funds for a counter suing by Mr Amaral. If you can tie his ' Fighting Fund ' up in the slow moving Portuguese legal processes
    it slows down the chance of him getting the money together to fight on his own behalf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It never dawned on me that Neil Berry might be hanging around waiting for 'a party'. I had thought he might be helping T9 and the McCanns with something - helping them hide something -- and then there's the baby cot. Or was the baby cot story a load of smoke to hide the detail behind the smoke?

      Delete
  26. McCann's have, apparently, handed in to the Lisbon court the documentation re Madeleine and WoC issue:

    http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.nl/2015/02/mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-nearing.html?spref=tw

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete

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.

Textusa