Friday, 13 February 2015

Planting a spy


1. The 2 in 1

The 52yr (in 2007) Stephen Carpenter, or Steve as he prefers to be called, is a very fascinating man.

He’s the man who affirms he introduced Robert Murat to the case.

It was because of him, he says, that Murat was introduced as a translator to the case. How Murat must now regret ever having met, supposedly that is, Carpenter on that fateful morning of May 4, 2007 in that cul-de-sac.

Carpenter is the man who speaks of a mysterious man with grey hair who disappears mysteriously in the morning. Could it have been a vampire?

Carpenter is also the man who has a fascinating relationship with Ocean Club's laundry.

Before we get to what Carpenter had to say on April 21, 2008, just a note.

Carpenter was in 2007 a maintenance technician. Unless he did maintenance of sophisticated medical equipment, he doesn’t seem to fall under the medical profession.

As readers know, some think that the Pandora’s Box of the Maddie mystery was some sort of secret medical convention that supposedly took place in Praia da Luz that week. We cannot see where a maintenance technician fits into such a scenario but if there’s one thing this case has convinced us is that pigs do fly so we’ll maintain an open mind on the subject.

Carpenter’s rogatory, on April 21, 2008, is quite an interesting document to observe because it is, literally, 2 statements in 1.

Carpenter’s statement given to the British police on May 17, 2007, doesn’t appear in files. But DC Ferguson of Leicestershire Police, does us the favour of reading it out loud when questioning Carpenter on April 21 the following year.

The document available in the files, the rogatory interview of 2008 is basically the revision of what Carpenter said in 2007.

For example, when DC Ferguson says “Neil and Raj, two MW tourists that I saw in the Tapas Bar who were looking for Madeleine with me, doesn't make much sense, I think it was perhaps explaining who they are and where I met them” and “I will now describe the resort and to help me with this description I will base myself upon an aerial photograph from the Sun Newspaper dated the 16th May” is not the Leicestershire police officer speaking of Berry and Balu nor describing the resort but simply voicing Carpenter’s words said back in 2007.

From DC Ferguson’s voice we get to know what Carpenter said on May 17, 2007 and from what Carpenter himself said we get to know that he wants to further clarify what he said plus what he would like to add to what he then said.

This means, as DC Ferguson so rightfully says, that “Good. Right, this statement was taken by a UK police officer on the 17th May and so the facts should be quite fresh in your memory.”

This was just 3 days after Robert Murat was named arguido in the process.


2. The really-very-close-by neighbour

Stephen Carpenter is staying at apartment FP02. FP stands for Fiji Palms. We have seen it also called Fugi palms. Its the building just South Casa Liliana, the Murat's property:


Carpenter is very keen on telling us how near he is to Murat's property:

“…now knowing where Murat was in relation to us, because I don't know whether they showed you the proximity between us” and “here was the club where Gerry was, behind Murat's garden and here we were probably the people closest to Murat” and “...only thing is thinking about our proximity to Murat's property.”

He also tells us what path he used on the night of May 3 to go from the Tapas bar, where he says he had his dinner, to his apartment:


“Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves.”


Murat and Carpenter couldn't be closer neighbours.


3. Carpenter walks into the case

Knowing where exactly Carpenter and his family were lodged will allow us to better understand his movements on the morning after Maddie disappeared, May 4, 2007.

Please be reminded that DC Ferguson is reading from Carpenter’s statement on May 17, 2007.

This is how Carpenter becomes aware of what had happened to Maddie, the night before:

“Carpenter:  …and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.

DC Ferguson: “Yes, and where you state that it was on GMTV.

Carpenter:  Yes..

DC Ferguson: “I think that it was reported that it was a three year old child and probably thought who could it be and knew that Kate and Gerry were from Leicestershire and assumed that it was one of their children seeing that they had small children”

On hearing this news and assuming it was about the McCanns, Carpenter leaves the apartment:

“DC Ferguson: And afterwards you left your apartment to see if you could help in any way and as you said previously, everything was very quiet and there was nobody around. Then you say "I went to the MW reception and I met two of Gerry's surfing friends who told me that Madeleine had been abducted on the previous night, I asked if there was anything I could do to help and I think they were waiting for news from the Portuguese police.””:


Do note that the Tapas reception, has now become the MW reception. There’s no sign that refers it as such but that’s what Carpenter calls it:


From where did Carpenter get the idea that Gerry’s friends surfed? It seems clear from Carpenters words that only the McCanns were to be seen around the tennis courts. The others who appeared to join them at dinner, he assumes they were… surfing.

We wonder which of the 2 out of 3 friends of Gerry these 2 “surfing friends” were. Or better, which one wasn’t, David, Russ or Matt?

We bet that it was David who wasn’t. He’s required to be next to the McCanns when Yvonne Martin arrives so it cannot be him.


4. Let's get lost and stuck in a language barrier

Then the three, Carpenter, Russ and Matt “walked towards the supermarket and we ended up stopping at the reception opened 24 hours ”:


Why do they go towards the Supermarket? Carpenter doesn’t mention the reason why and we find that strange. Did they just decide to walk down the road? We think it would be perfectly natural to have said they were going there to get something to eat or drink. Why otherwise go down the street, if not to go to the supermarket?

But what doesn’t make any sense is saying “walked towards the supermarket and ended up stopping at the reception opened 24 hours”. It’s like saying “I was heading towards Big Ben and ended up in Liverpool.”

No one goes from the Tapas reception towards a supermarket 100m (109yds) down the road and ends up walking an extra 175m (290yds) without realising it and ends up in a completely different road altogether. The conversation must have been really interesting.

It's fascinating how easily people “get lost”, “walk in circles and “end up” in Praia da Luz. It must be have been very poorly conceived urbanly.

Why not just say, “we went to the main reception, passing by the Baptista supermarket”? Why the need to arrive at the 24h reception by surprise?

So they “ended up stopping” at the main reception.

What happens there? Did they go and ask someone for an update of the situation? If the reception knew anything new about Maddie?

No, one of them decides to make a phone call: “where one of the men tried to talk to one of the Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but the communication became complicated because the employee didn’t speak English and the man didn’t speak Portuguese”.

This, on first glance, appears to be the most ridiculous sentence written in the PJ Files. Not one of the most ridiculous but the most ridiculous one.

In the  Ocean Club 24h Reception, in the Algarve, Portugal’s most tourist oriented region of the country, in a hotel facility with approximately 100% English-speaking clients, a receptionist doesn’t speak English?!!

Please note it was “one of the Portuguese employees” which means there were other around who were just as helpless linguistically!

We would be more likely to buy a story from someone claiming they were kite-surfing in the middle of the Pacific and were suddenly blinded by a sand storm before buying this one.

This one is just too ridiculous.

Only it isn’t.

Yes, it’s over-egging an already over-egged pudding but it’s not ridiculous.

First, who makes the phone call and to whom? Or why the need for the call?  Carpenter doesn't explain and neither Matt nor Russ speak of this trip, by accident, down to the main reception and then wanting to make a phone call and not being able to because of linguistic problems with the Portuguese employees of the resort.

That’s what Carpenter clearly states.

Carpenter’s intent, dear reader, is to plant the seed that no one around among the locals, spoke English. Not even the resort’s receptionists. They were no good to help. They didn't serve as translators as even they couldn't understand the simple request to make a phone call. To convey the idea that all was happening in a foreign land to a group of British people who found themselves among locals who only spoke their native language so it was up to the Brits to urgently fill that communication gap somehow. The Portuguese working at the resort simply didn't serve the purpose.

A story not that ridiculous as it first appears to be. Not ridiculous at all.


5. People, let's take our places on stage, please!

The group of three, Steve, Russ and Matt, who “had ended up stopping” in the Ocean Club’s main reception, and on failing to be able to make a phone call, decide to go back to the Tapas reception or as Carpenter calls it, the MW reception.

Maybe to make the phone call from there?

No, they just to return there, apparently: “we returned to the MW reception where I asked whether there was anything I could do to help so that they would let me know…”:


So where did the need to make the phone call go?

Carpenter doesn’t say which route they take to return but we’re supposing they’re intelligent enough to go the shortest route possible.

Why the reason for this Tapas reception – 24h reception – Tapas reception trip, we’re not told. We're only told that in the middle of it one of them remembered to make a phone call, can't and doesn't attempt to make it afterwards.

Were they going between receptions thinking the abductor, on seeing Maddie in broad daylight and feeling disappointed changed his mind about the “product” he had with him, would return the little girl to the main reception or drop her off at the Tapas reception?

What were Matt and Russ doing in the first place waiting at the entrance of the Tapas complex when Carpenter first arrives?

Wouldn’t it be better for them to be waiting sitting down inside the Tapas area for whatever, or whoever, they were waiting for?

Apparently, on the return trip both Russ and Matt agreed to let him know if there was anything he could do, so Carpenter “returned to my apartment by the same route as the previous night. Upon nearing my apartment…”:


So as can be seen, from the moment he heard the news on GMTV, Carpenter had one busy morning that day:


He does that morning what we call a “4-phase-walk”:

1. Alone, from apartment to Tapas reception;

2. With Russ and Matt (we suppose) from Tapas reception to 24h reception;

3. With Russ and Matt (we suppose) from 24h reception to Tapas reception;

4. Alone from Tapas reception to “nearing my apartment”

An absolutely pointless walk Tapas reception – 24h reception – Tapas reception trip. Started for no reason, didn't reach any objective and just ending where it started.

It does beg the question, if there was nothing to be done, why did Carpenter return to the Tapas reception when the group left the 24h Reception? Wouldn't make more sense for him to go from there to his apartment directly without making a long round trip?


Why? Because it gives a reason for Carpenter to approach his apartment by a route that passes nearby Murat's property. And, by sheer coincidence, just as he's doing that he hears a voice. “A male voice coming from the garden next to my apartment”

Not just any voice but that of a soon to be translator.


6. Conflicting stage props

Let’s see where exactly Carpenter says he is when he hears this voice:

 “…and returned to my apartment by the same route as the previous night. Upon nearing my apartment I heard a male voice coming from the garden next to my apartment. This would be the voice of Murat, correct?”

He is nearing his apartment when he’s walking in the semi-circular pathway nearing his apartment. Let's put him right at the nearest point he can be to Murat's property:


The orange star shows where Carpenter says he is when he says hears Murat’s voice.

Carpenter is in our opinion painting a picture.

He has up to now shown that he was staying so close to Robert Murat that if had then known he would have paid more attention to his neighbour and would now be able to make transcripts of every conversation the man had on the phone when in his the garden. That's how close Carpenter wants us to think he was to Murat without realising it.

He has shown that his commitment to the case from him having had a “buddy-morning” with 2 of the T9, Russ and Matt.

He has shown there’s a serious communication gap between the locals, which include the authorities and Ocean Club employees, and the many English speakers there, which includes not only the T9 but other guests who could prove to be crucial witnesses.

He has now placed himself to be able to accidentally meet Murat.

That moment in time when he’s nearing his apartment and hears “a male voice coming from the garden next to my apartment”

But Carpenter is not in his apartment. He's across a cul-de-sac and some trees and bushes from the South-West corner of Murat's property.


Shall we say IF Murat was perched up on the South-West corner of his property there would be about 15 metres (50 ft) between the two with no apparent line of sight between them due to the vegetation on both sides.

But what is the likelihood of Murat even being in that corner?

As we'll find out, the question Murat wants so desperately to ask is “what is happening, or what is going on?", so why not just open the front gate and try and find out himself?

Wasn't that exactly what Carpenter had done that morning? Didn't Carpenter simply exit his apartment and set about finding out what was going on instead of going to the balcony of his apartment and calling out?

So why would Murat go to a corner of the property filled with vegetation and wait there to see if he could see someone to call out and pop the question?

Note the further in Murat may be inside his property, the further away he will be from Carpenter so even the likely to have been able to be aware of Carpenter's presence when he passes on his way to his apartment.


Looking at the pictures taken from inside Murat's property, we don’t see Robert Murat being anywhere near the South-East corner of his property.


Carpenter seems to agree with us: “Yes. This garden is situated at the other side of the passage way from my apartment block and is enclosed by net fence of about 1.80 m in height, the garden is thick and it was not possible to see inside …”

Let's overlook that and see, when exactly Carpenter says he makes contact with Murat?

“At some stage I managed to see clearly inside the garden, but I did not know who the owner of the house was and I never saw anyone inside the garden or the house or see anyone leaving until the moment that I heard a voice calling me. Then a voice called me from over the hedge”

So now, he’s no longer nearing his apartment but is actually on the cul-de-sac making the best efforts to look inside Murat’s garden. He has gone and made a cross-country short-cut between the bushes and trees that are between the cul-de-sac and the pathway he was on.

But what is important to realise is that this clearly shows that Murat calls him not once but twice.

Once when Carpenter nears his apartment (otherwise he would have entered it and joined his family) and the second time when Carpenter is trying to look inside the garden.

So the scenario described by Carpenter is one that shows some despair on Murat’s part. Why would Robert be calling over a netted fence of 1,80m in height (6ft), thick with vegetation to a man he probably cannot see?

Only an urgent reason would make 2 complete strangers walk on each side of a high netted fence looking for a gap through which they could talk to each other. It sounds more like the story of someone inside a prison trying to communicate with a friend outside.

But so many strange things have happened and before we get hit by a stray pig from the sky let’s assume Robert Murat was really desperate and was jumping up and down at the South-West corner of his property shouting “what is happening, or what is going on? to whoever could hear him.

Carpenter, the good Samaritan of this story, hears his cries 15yds away, with bushes and trees in between, not to speak of a building. He cross-countries through bushes and trees, to get to the cul-de-sac and desperately looks to find a gap in the fence through which he may communicate with the man inside on the other side, who he doesn't know, and when they're finally able to communicate he hears the question made in despair, “what is happening, or what is going on?".

The suspense certainly calls for a stunned silence on Carpenter’s part. But he quickly reels back and is able to reply “that a three year old girl had disappeared”.

And what does the distressed person reply? Wait for it… wait for it… “I am going to come round to talk to you"

What?!?

Why didn’t he do just that in the first place?

Why didn’t he open his front gate and simply looked down the road and see the strange activity that was going on about 100m from the front of his house?


And if there was nothing to be seen because all was quiet, then wouldn’t the Baptista supermarket be the natural place to head towards to try to find out what was going on?

It seems that Murat is not that much of a nosy character after all. He prefers, according to Carpenter, to hole himself up in his property and from there call out to whoever can hear him. It makes perfect sense. Not.

But as we don’t want to be bombarded with pigs coming down on us we’re really, really, really going bend over backwards and pretend whatever Carpenter has said did indeed happen: Murat for some reason was desperate and calls out into the cul-de-sac, Carpenter comes to his rescue, they're able to see each other on separate sides of a netted fence somewhere along the cul-de-sac, Murat asks, Carpenter replies and Murat gets a “I am going to come round to talk to you.

Murat comes around and there you have it: a chance encounter between a guest and an ex-pat.


7. “In-synch” is not necessarily coordinated

The problem with Carpenter’s tale is not exactly it's total lack of credibility.

That would be serious enough but Carpenter's biggest problem is that he's proven wrong. By whom? By no other than Robert Murat, the man he's supposed to have encountered by mere chance. Or better said, by what Murat has said on May 14, 2007:

“On Friday, 04/05, woke around 09:00, took a bath, went to the kitchen to his mother, the latter told him that something terrible had happened, because a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz, according to 'Sky News' that she had been watching. At once the respondent and his Mother went to look in the garden, walled with a fence of 1m in height [looking at the pictures we tend to go more with Carpenters 1,80 netted fence with vegetation], checking if the child had managed to enter, which in a way was almost impossible without aid [even he recognises at once how ridiculous it is to have searched garden, at least with that urgency]. In one corner of the garden is a greenhouse, which was searched, and then they saw an English passer-by on the outside, he does not know the identity. When asked about this, he was told that the child had disappeared.”

So it’s when Robert and Jenny Murat had just finished searching the greenhouse on the corner that Murat first makes contact with Carpenter.

First, let’s see where said greenhouse is:


The greenhouse is on the North-East corner of the property, the furthest away from where Carpenter says he was when he says he first hears someone call from that property [note Murat makes no reference to this calling].


This means that around 70m (230 ft) separate Carpenter from Murat when the former says he hears someone calling from that property. A house and lots of vegetation in-between.

A call Murat makes no mention of making.

Without this call, there’s absolutely no reason for Carpenter to be in that cul-de-sac as he was heading towards his apartment and would have no reason to not go inside.

Also note that Murat is very clear when he says “and then they saw an English passer-by on the outside”, the “they” being him and Jenny Murat.

Carpenter makes no reference to Robert’s mother whatsoever.

And Murat Robert doesn’t mention saying “I am going to come round to talk to you”


8. A question of time

To add to Carpenter’s “crash-and-burn” on how he and Murat meet, Robert corrects himself about this particular episode in his statement of July 10, 2007:

“Further to what he said about Friday morning he intends to change the time that he woke up. In listings of his fixed phone it says that he made a call to Michaela at 08:27, which he presumes he must have done, despite not remembering the contents of the conversation nor even having made that call, and therefore he did not wake at 09:00 but before that time.”

So he no longer gets up at 09:00. Half an hour before, at 08:27 he makes a phone call. One that on May 14, 2007 he doesn’t remember making and even when correcting himself he only admits he may have made it because it is registered. So it's not exactly a passionate call made on waking up. He's already awake.

So around 08:27 Robert is most likely heading for breakfast when a little after his mother tells him about the tragic events. “At once the respondent and his Mother went to look in the garden” which wouldn’t take more than 10 minutes and when they are coming out of the greenhouse, they see Carpenter.

We’re talking about 08:40/08:50.

This begs the question, at what time did Carpenter wake up?

Note that up to this point in time, Carpenter makes no reference about breakfast. Did he leave for the Tapas reception after he and his family had breakfast? If so, where? At home or at the Mill? Or are the Carpenters also one of those families who have breakfast in their apartment, paying for the food while they have it already included in the price at the resort’s restaurant?

Carpenter makes no mention of breakfast. Neither for him or his family. We simply don’t know if he left for the Tapas reception after he and his family had breakfast.

One could say that the Carpenters stuck to their usual routine, which would be the family going to the Mill for breakfast, returning and only then switch on GMTV and hear the news about Maddie.

For him to be in the cul-de-sac at 08:40/08:50 means he has to have woken up, washed and got dressed [taken or not his breakfast at the Mill, and if he did please allow time for that], watched GMTV and only then started his “4-phase-walk” - from apartment to the Tapas reception , wasting some time there engaging in some sort of conversation, walk leisurely towards the Baptista supermarket and end up stopping at the 24hour reception [which is only more than double the distance to the supermarket and on a completely different street], watch the frustrated attempt of one of the T9 men, Russ or Matt, failing to make a simple phone call, decide to return together to the Tapas reception and again waste some time engaging in small talk about where he could be found if they needed something from him and then walk back, with no need to hurry, to his apartment.

The story about the Ocean Club receptionist not being able to speak English is becoming more credible in comparison with the Carpenter-Murat chance get-together.


9. Boy, am I glad I found you!

But the most important part of what has been said above, is that even with all the ridiculousness, it's that the statements from Murat and Carpenter match!

Their statements tally up on the essential.

First, Murat agrees with Carpenter that they met with the former inside the property and the latter in the cul-de-sac.

They both agree that it’s Murat who asks Carpenter something and in reply gets “told that the child had disappeared”.

They both agree that it is Carpenter who introduces Murat to Gerry to help out with the translation.

Carpenter says:

“…and he did this, walked round to come over towards me and said "I have lived here for fourteen years, I speak Portuguese fluently and I can help to translate", and we introduced ourselves, he told me he was Robert and this was the first time I had seen this man. Robert mentioned that he had a daughter in Norfolk who was the same age as Madeleine, and that is why he was able to understand what they were going through. We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently, he told Gerry that it was important to have someone who spoke the language so that nothing would be lost in translation.. And that was how Robert Murat was presented as a translator.”

Murat says:

“Accompanied by that person, he went to the place of the disappearance, and was introduced to the parents of the child, as he spoke the two languages, Portuguese and English. Assumes that the passer-by would be staying at the Luz Ocean Club, in the block opposite the home of the respondent. This individual already knew the parents of MADELEINE, or met them at the time. He started a conversation with the family of the child, offering to help.”

Both agree that if it wasn’t for Carpenter, Murat apparently would have not become a translator in the case. By the hand of Carpenter, and we would even say pressure, Murat is introduced to Gerry.

Carpenter is very adamant on this point.

“DC Ferguson: During your conversations with Robert is there anything that you would like to comment on?

Carpenter: Humm, no, its probably nothing relevant, the only thing since all of this happened and from reading the papers, I'm not sure if I am right or wrong, but his involvement in the translations was due to my intervention, clearly it was I who, based upon what he told me, took him to see Gerry, humm..and just that, I do not know whether it was already explained and wasn't published in the papers or I do not know why (inaudible) I think that the reason for his involvement was because of me.

DC Ferguson: Mmm.

Carpenter: And then the first thing that he said was "Well, I did not actually offer my services, I "bumped" into this individual.

DC Ferguson: Yes.

Carpenter: That is the only, only thing that I would correct and I think it is a bit strange that someone would state that they offer themselves as a volunteer, or the way in which it really happened after having told me that he spoke Portuguese fluently, I said to him "Well, in this case that could be useful" and afterwards accompanied him - and that was how he (inaudible) thought that it was a bit strange. Because the way he said it gave the impression that it was voluntary.”

According to Carpenter, Murat was not a volunteer but was convinced by him to go and be introduced to Gerry to help translating.

Do note the arrogance of Carpenter’s statement.

It’s as if the Portuguese authorities don’t exist. It’s Gerry who, according to Carpenter, runs the show. Gerry has, apparently the power to decide on who or not becomes a translator. This is quite telling about the spirit with which the British, namely the guests, looked at the problem before them.

One way was to look as if the Ocean Club practically didn’t exist, they were just local people. It was Mark Warner, a mere tourist operator, who ran the resort.

The other way was to look at it as an exclusively British problem to be solved only by the British. The local authorities? Their job was simply to do what they were told.


10. The importance of not being a volunteer

To those justifying Murat’s enthusiastic participation in the case to his over-eager nature to volunteer must recognise that he put his over-eagerness in his pocket when the moment came to… volunteer.

The statements made by both him and Carpenter make it clear that it is much more Carpenter pushing Murat into becoming a translator than him wanting to be one.

He comes across as a timid ex-pat, one who literally doesn't leave his property to try and find out what was happening, being introduced to Gerry by an eager guest, who at this point in time has seen NOTHING suspicious about the case [except a vague “Madeleine, Madeleine” which his wife may have heard when they left Tapas the night before and about which we’ll speak in a future post] and who barely knows Gerry McCann.

Mind you, as the reader will be able to see in future posts, Murat almost immediately loses any and all shyness and is invaded by the spirit of eagerness.

Only his entrance into the scene is discreet and by the hand of another.

We hope that readers can understand what Carpenter’s main mission was: for him to be the reason Murat is introduced into the process.

A guest freshly aware of a linguistic problem who happens to encounter an ex-pat who speaks Portuguese and convinces him to help.

This way a very important thing is achieved, Murat comes into the process “out-of-the-blue”, or by the unsuspected hand of a guest, to help people who he supposedly hasn’t met before.

It Murat had walked out of his house and gone to the apartment 5A area and after asking what was going on would offer his help someone could start wondering why his interest in the case. Coming by the hand of another, who he also hadn’t met before, would explain that he only came into the case by… sheer accident, the result of a chance encounter.

With Carpenter’s help he becomes the perfect mole inside the investigation. Well, not exactly perfect because his exaggerated curiosity in the proceedings fired up red flags within the PJ investigation. As Inspector Pedro Varanda says on May 11, 2007:

“As an example, it should be highlighted that he has asked insistently and repeatedly the signatory in relation to the identity of possible suspects, to the strategy that would be outlined by the responsible coordination for the current investigation and to the diligences that eventually would be foreseeable in the next days.

In view of this attitude, because it was so unusual and absolutely untimely it immediately raised in me an enormous suspicion, I always retorted, urging that interlocutor to take conscience of the duties to which he was attached, due to the quality [job] he had assumed within the present investigation, highlighting that it was currently in the inquiry phase, and, naturally under the cover of judicial secrecy.”

Here we have to go back to what Murat told a witness, Jez Wilkins, about the fact that Rastaman had been eliminated as a suspect because it was determined he was a local individual. A clear breach of his duties as a translator in an ongoing investigation.

As we said, all could be attributed to an over-eager personality. That of someone who wants to tackle out of the best of good-wills.

Unfortunately for Murat and Carpenter there isn’t enough good-will to explain why both their statements are so well synchronised in terms of getting Murat being a translator, starting with both saying [with all the discrepancies shown] they met in a cul-de-sac where one, Carpenter, had absolutely no reason to be.

But for the story to fulfill its objectives the encounter between them has to be by chance. That means Carpenter has to be in that cul-de-sac unexpectedly [only goes there because he hears a call on his way back to apartment] and Murat needs to be inside the property when he sees the guest [reason why he feels the urgent need to search the garden knowing full well, as he does recognise, that it would be impossible for the child to have entered his property – note – without help].   

Who was lying? Carpenter? Or was it Murat? It seems to us, both. We would love to see a reconstruction of their chance-encounter.

In our post “Bladderman” we said the following:

“Some of the detractors of the swinging theory ask the question: why would people lie for a group of people they didn't know from anywhere?

Now they have another question they must ask: why would 2 members of a group of people lie for a person, Jez Wilkins, who one of them, Gerry, had only met that week?”

Today we add a third question to be asked: why would an ex-pat and a guest who supposedly have never met each other have synchronised statements describing something that evidently didn’t happen?

About Carpenter’s other missions, we will speak about them later.



Post Scriptum (Feb 16, 2015 10:30)

In this post we received the following comment from GP:

“Anonymous 13 Feb 2015, 14:48:00

"We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently,.."

Had he previously been at 'Gerry's apartment?' ... Assume he means the 'MW reception' he referred to earlier that morning ... right? :)

GP”

We went as far as congratulating GP, and “complaining” that what he had spotted would spoil a bit a follow-up post on Carpenter.

However, both we and GP were misled by a mistranslation of what is the files. It’s subtle but changes the meaning entirely.

In the files, we don’t have the original English version of the rogatory statement but its translation into Portuguese.


The translation above says “Voltamos de regresso pelo caminho que eu tinha percorrido até ao apartamento do Gerry e expliquei que o Robert falava fluentemente Português…”

This translates to “We returned by the path I had taken to Gerry’s apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently”.

The difference is that Carpenter is saying that he retraced his steps from where he was, in the cul-de-sac, to go to apartment 5A and not saying he’s been to apartment 5A before.

Does this better understanding of what he said make this bit of his statement less compromising?

No. It’s as compromising. But it does aggravate Murat’s participation in this episode.

First thing as that it remains valid the question how does Carpenter know where Gerry’s apartment is? Not because he's been there, but to know where to go and find Gerry and introduce Murat to him.

Do guests in Luz know where each other are staying? For example, does Gerry know where Carpenter’s apartment is? Does Carpenter know where Gerry’s surfer friends’ apartments are? If all answers are affirmative, one must wonder why. As Carpenter says, in Luz, “here was different because we could find the same person two or three times a day, others we could pass three or four days without seeing them because one is on this side and the others on the other side...”

There's nothing in Carpenter's statement that indicates he meets the McCanns two or three times a day outside the tennis courts. So where does he know where Gerry would be for him to be able to take Murat there?

There’s nothing in his statement that says he does know.

According to him “all was very quiet and there was no one around”. Only Gerry surfing friends, as he calls them, were there and they only tell him that “Madeleine had been kidnapped on the night before”.

Nowhere Carpenter says that they identified the apartment. He just “thinks they were waiting for news from the Portuguese Police” and then the three of them walk down the road towards the supermarket.

So from where does Carpenter know where Gerry McCann lives?

But to make things even worse for Carpenter, as of that morning, Gerry is no longer in block 5 but in block 4, to where the McCanns moved.

Again, the question must be asked, how did Carpenter know where to go to introduce Murat to Gerry? We are supposing that “Gerry’s apartment” is where he 's now staying and not apartment 5A. After all he did introduce Murat to him, so the three did meet. According to Carpenter and Murat.

But let’s speculate in favour of Carpenter.

Let’s suppose that during the initial conversation with surfer friends, they pointed out apartment 5A to Carpenter and went as far as telling him that the McCanns were now staying in block 4. That's from where, speculating, Carpenter knows where to find Gerry.

The problem for Carpenter about this “let's-introduce-Murat-to-Gerry” trip is where it starts.

It starts exactly where happens the conversation between Carpenter and Murat where one tells the he would be useful as a translator and convinces him to offer his help.

It happens in the cul-de-sac. In front of Murat's property.

Remember, Carpenter leaves the pathway that he’s walking on his way back to his apartment that morning and enters the cul-de-sac (here we would like to point out there’s no passageway between the 2) only because he hears Murat calling.

He walks along the cul-de-sac, Northbound, trying to look inside Murat’s property to see through the high netted fence with thick vegetation who he has heard calling. At some point he’s able to see inside and Murat asks him the question to which he answers.

This causes Murat to say “I’ll come around to talk to you”.

We’re assuming when Murat came around he exited the property by the front gate. We’re also supposing Carpenter walked towards him to meet him.


So we would estimate that they were very near the gate when they talked and decided to go to offer Murat’s help to the McCanns. We would say this conversation took place at point A. Certainly between points B and C:


If the reader was at point A and wanted to go to block 4, which route would the reader choose? The BLUE route or the YELLOW one?


Carpenter chooses the YELLOW one. Carpenter says he retraces his steps.

That means he takes Murat back into the cul-de-sac, into the semi-circular pathway and from there walking the “Jez Wilkins” route up to block 4 where the McCanns were then staying.

It doesn’t take a genius when standing at point A to realise that the road before him goes directly in the direction he intends to go. But Carpenter must have walked that week around Luz like Hansel dropping breadcrumbs wherever he went so he wouldn't get lost.

But what really stands out in this, is Murat’s attitude. He follows Carpenter right into the cul-de-sac! Certainly in the conversation, the word Tapas must have popped up. If nothing else, to say “it happened to a family I met at the Tapas bar”.

The expected reaction on Murat’s part would be to lead the way (he’s the ex-pat, Carpenter the guest) down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva to block 4, where, as we have presumed, Carpenter knows the McCanns are staying by reasons we have speculated.

So why does Murat follow Carpenter on this ridiculous journey?

56 comments:

  1. Thank you Textusa!

    I'm going to make a coffee and read this very, very carefully.

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thats really interesting - so they schemed to find an explanation for Robert's 'entrance' to the case. As you have shown - this was just a made-up story.. What a lot of scheming took place -but unfortunately not very thoroughly. They needed to get a mole in the investigation, clearly.. and lucky they had Robert available onsite. I am surprised so many of the guests were so happy to help in the scheming and didnt instead choose to try and distance themselves. Out of 60 guests why did only certain ones such as JW / NB / SC play a more prominent role?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliant Textusa, I look forward to more on Mr Carpenter's statement :)

    A couple of things I found odd. Firstly, he says when referring to Thurs 3rd May when leaving the MW reception area:

    "When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there."

    He took some time crossing the road because there were cars parked and he was carrying his child? This is a grown man who needs to take some time crossing a quiet road where there is no traffic? A quick glance left and right would be all that was needed, after all he would hear the engine of a car coming down that quiet street at that time of night and seen the headlights. There should have been no need to mention parked cars at all, but looking left seems to be important to him:

    "I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything"

    He didn't look to the right? He's concerned about crossing the road because he's carrying his child but he only looks to his left? Twice he says left, which is towards Apt 5A.

    Secondly, about the following morning, he says:

    “I think that it was reported that it was a three year old child and probably thought who could it be and knew that Kate and Gerry were from Leicestershire and assumed that it was one of their children seeing that they had small children”

    He assumed that because the family whose child had been abducted were from Leicestershire it must be Kate and Gerry?

    Very strange assumption to make, there could have been several couples from Leicestershire with small children in PdL.

    I could have understood if he'd said something like "We were worried it might be Kate and Gerry's child because we knew they were from Leicestershire" but no, he automatically assumes it must be them.

    Just some thoughts :)

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry for keeping repeating myself Textusa but I cringe when I read what they have written and said and it wasnt even me who said it. Just imagining the agony of SC and RM reading their own lies and deceit back to them has allowed me to enjoy my morning tea even more. It is all such a riveting read. I hadn't really time this morning to read it but couldn't stop myself having a wee sneak preview at who was being exposed this week and then that was me hooked couldn't leave it until I had read it all. Roll on next Friday......

    ReplyDelete
  5. "We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently,.."

    Had he previously been at 'Gerry's apartment?' ... Assume he means the 'MW reception' he referred to earlier that morning ... right? :)

    GP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wow, good catch

      Delete
    2. Carpenter, Berry, Balu. Three of the twelve elements spoken of by the PJ who frequented apartment 5A?

      Delete
    3. My thoughts also GP. For a holiday maker he seems very familiar with his fellow guests and their arrangements.

      Delete
  6. Shouldn't the first question that Murat should ask Carpenter be "Have you heard the news?"
    Because Carpenter may know nothing about what is going on. Asking "what's happening?" is taking for granted that Carpenter knows that Maddie is missing and Murat has no way of knowing that!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi textusa, do not know about you but, why would the Leicester Police force be allowing Gerry and Kate to ask questions on their behalf?
    It would seem as though Gerry has very good connections with the Police, such as when he spoke to Martin Grimes superiors about his role,Eddie, Keela in the investigation of the disappearance of Madeline McCann?
    I would hazard a guess that when Steve met Robert and introduced him to Gerry, was this the first occasion, remember the video "do you know Robert Muret",Gerry's reply "i'm not going to answer that question", why not Gerry cat got your tongue then Gerry!?
    Your good friend Jane Tanner fingered Robert Muret as bundleman / Creche dad, Andy Redwood ruled creche dad out as a suspect in the Abduction, UK crimewatch, this was before he heard from Robert Muret as a witness(POI) or arquido for the second time?
    Is Robert Muret still on the hit list of SY?
    Funny how Andy Redwood, managed to manipulate the time frame of the Stranger Abductor from a few minutes to an hour, he must be a miracle worker as he has managed to make time expand for a special group of friends, Tapas 9+ Clarence's finger prints, another good Conservative choice David?
    Didn't David Cameron take his daughter and have a secret tryst with Gerry McCann in a public House, where bye David left his Daughter unattended to, whilst he had a discussion with Gerry in the public House beer Garden, I am sure it was reported in the MSM, but teflon Dave escaped serious questions of neglect?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 13 Feb 2015, 16:41:00,

      We are assuming this is a tongue in cheek comment about neglect, as we don't want readers to think we believe that Cameron met Gerry in a pub.

      The Camerons did accidentally leave their daughter behind at a pub, each thinking she was with the other, without their bodyguard noticing either.

      Nothing to do with Gerry McCann.

      Delete
    2. It was a newspaper story about G. McCann phoning M.Grime's boss, Grime was self employed at the time.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 13 Feb 2015, 16:41:00,

      You raise an interesting question. You did spot it during the writing of the post but decided that it was possible for the McCanns, as arguidos to submit questions to witnesses.

      An arguido has the following procedural rights:

      “- Be present at the procedural steps that directly concern him;”

      and

      “- Intervening in the investigation and the instruction, offering evidence and requiring the steps it will prove necessary”

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

      Now, a process has 2 phases, the inquiry and the instruction. The first is destined to formulate the accusation, or in other words clarify all matters of fact and of law before accusing the arguido.

      The instruction, which is optional, is requested by the arguido when he has full knowledge of facts he’s being accused of. He can then request further diligences in order to convince the Public ministry that the accusation is wrong.

      This implies that on the first phase, the inquiry, the arguido not be made fully aware of all the proceedings and their results.

      However, we imagine he’s informed of what witnesses will be heard and when so we see it as a possibility for them to request if person X is questioned, be asked this and that.

      We are no legal experts and stand correction. However this is why we didn’t consider the McCanns submitting questions for witnesses to answer as any “foul-play” on their part.

      Delete
  8. We're not saying that what this man claims is the true reason behind what he's done. That's up to the Justice system to determine.

    However, we would like to call to the attention of all those believing in paedophilia as a cause of Maddie’s death (opinion which we respect) that sometimes witch-hunting has perverse results.

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/490840/aberdeen-man-downloaded-child-porn-whilst-trying-find-madeleine-mccann/

    News
    13 February 2015

    Aberdeen man downloaded child porn whilst ‘trying to find Madeleine McCann’

    By Stephen Walsh

    A north-east pensioner downloaded hundreds of indecent images of children in a “one-man crusade” to find Madeleine McCann, a court has heard.

    David Brinkman, who lives at Richmond Street in Aberdeen, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court today after admitting to distributing indecent images at an earlier hearing.

    The 68-year-old pled guilty to four charges related to the possession and distribution of indecent images of children and extreme adult pornography over the course of 10 months, from April 2013 to January 2014.

    In total, Brinkman, a qualified engineer, downloaded 694 indecent pictures and 88 clips – with a duration of just under five hours.

    The court heard from solicitor Mike Monro, defending, who said his client had a “fixation” with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann – the three-year-old girl who was abducted from a Portuguese holiday resort in 2007 leading to one of the biggest manhunts in history.

    This was sparked by Brinkman reading a book by her mother, Kate McCann, about her daughter’s disappearance.

    Brinkman became convinced Madeleine had been abducted into a paedophile ring and he was the one to find her.

    He became so convinced by his theory, the court was told, that he “trawled” through hundreds of sick images in the hope of spotting the missing girl’s eye defect, which was highlighted by investigators after the disappearance.

    Brinkman believed if he exchanged the downloads for others on the internet, at some point he would “discover” her whereabouts.

    Mr Monro added: “He immersed himself in looking at child pornography – looking for a needle in a haystack is an understatement.

    “So far as I’m aware, he has not notified either the British or Portuguese police, or the McCann family about his investigation.”

    Sheriff Graeme Napier warned Brinkman he could be jailed but deferred sentence until March 12 so a psychological report could be obtained.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Using Joy Savage’s words on FB, something interesting has happened on FB tonight.

    Lorraine Holden, member of “Justice for Madeleine”, placed me a question on the following post:

    “Lorraine Holden Bronte: Textusa do think Steve carpenter is Edmonds alibi with him allegedly telling Steve before the alarm raised that he was going home early?

    My answer was:

    “Bronte Textusa: Lorraine Holden, that is something to deal with in a future post.

    I can say that I had some days ago a heated discussion with someone who basically asked me where was the proof Edmonds had flown out at 4am of the 4th.

    We, obviously haven't looked at everything at the files, and some we have looked at it but have not really seen it.

    Edmonds early exit is something completely ingrained and taken as a fact, so I answered "I don't know where the proof is, but it's such an exposed fact and no one has contradicted it to the best of my knowledge, so I'm assuming somewhere in the internet that proof must exist"

    Truth is that we have searched and have found nothing. Only Carpenter's word. Which, for us, is not exactly a reliable source.

    But, mind you, a source. A source who may be saying something completely false but it's not convenient for the other side to contradict him.

    Why? Because then they would have to explain why he was lying.

    So until someone provides proof of that early flight, we have no reason to take as fact that Edmonds left earlier than anticipated.

    Hope I answered you question.”

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/775336925895717/

    Joy Savage then found it appropriate to place the questions raised to the “The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann” FB group:

    “Something very interesting came to light today after the lovely Lorraine Holden asked a question of Bronte Textusa....there is NO proof that Edmonds left pdl early? Nor at 4am?
    underneath is brontes reply to lorraine, and with it a challenge for yous....can anyone find proof Edmonds left early? Or at 4am?”

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/1588231431421344/?notif_t=group_comment_follow

    We would like to place this same challenge here.

    We have all taken as fact that Philip Edmonds left Luz in the early morning of May 4, 2007. We have even heard of a time and means of transportation: 4 am on a private jet.

    We are aware that Mr Bennett has written a letter to Philip Edmonds, questioning him about his early departure. The answer, made public (we have already published it in our blog) by Mr Bennett, does not confirm or deny any early departure.

    We are also aware of this webpage containing information about Philip Edmonds but none of it refers to his early departure.

    http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Ocean-Club-Guests/RE-Random-Info-1-807105.html

    We would be very grateful if anyone provided proof that Philip Edmonds left Luz on May 4, 2007. If it also proves that he left at 4am on a private jet the better.

    If we don't get any proof, it's not due to the lack of trying.

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi textusa, with regard to my post 16.41,I may be wrong with regard to Gerry meeting David in the public house garden and stand corrected, sincere apologies with regard to it!
    I know everything on the internet is not of fact the truth, but if you look at the amount of people with connections to specific places that have " Quite possible" connections to sitting MP's on several inquiry panels in the house of commons of Alleged child Abuse throughout the past forty five years.
    As has been stated in numerous previous posts all we know for certain is Madeline McCann was alive and well when entering into 5a Ocean club apartments 3 May 2007 and since then we have no knowledge of her well being, the tapas 7/9 group of which have made statements, then refused to return to Portugal to further assist the PJ to conclude what happened in the disappearance of Madeline McCann, such loyalties come with a price it seems,pact of silence, tapas 7/9 Clarence, Carter Ruck paid mouth pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nuala at 13 Feb 2015, 10:32:00 and GP at 13 Feb 2015, 14:48:00,

    Thank you for spoiling a little future posts. :)

    Please feel free to spoil them even further!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Textusa great post. RM when he came to breakfast his mother told him a little girl had gone missing practically next door to them. My husband doesn't sleep well and regularly ( much to my annoyance at times) wakes me to tell me about things on the early morning news that has something to do with the town I live in. I would imagine if a child went missing next door to me that he would have woken t h e whole neighbourhood. Mrs Murat kindly waits until he waken,washed and went enters for breakfast before causally mentioning it.


    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think I'm clever enough to spoil any of your future posts Textusa but I do have more thoughts on Mr Carpenter's statement.

    This bit for examle:

    "SC: Humm, anything relevant, not really....hummmm... it was normal, possibly after having left and now knowing where Murat was in relation to us, because i don't know whether they showed you the proximity between us."

    That implied he didn't know the proximity to his accommodation of RM's house until after he left Portugal. Even if you take the "having left" as possibly being ambiguous the "now" seems to confirm it.

    Then as regards the evening of 3rd May SC said they arrived at 7pm at the Tapas, and:

    "At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them"

    Ten people? He mentions ten again later in the statement as well.

    "Were already seated at their table" rather than "arrived and sat down" and anyway this doesn't tally with the T9's account of that evening. According to them the group all arrived at different times. The Oldfield's for example arrived about 8.45pm with the Payne's being last and arriving at about 9pm, so it's not possible for all (ten?) of the group to be there and "already seated" at 8.30pm as SC claims.

    And he would know as their table was "so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them".

    The morning of 4th May having presented RM as a translator to GM, they search some empty apartments then he goes off with RM to search the beach area:

    "Robert and I searched the areas near to the beach."

    That isn't mentioned in RM's statement, also RM says he doesn't know SC's name "then they saw an English passer-by on the outside, he does not know the identity". So RM spent time with SC walking to the McCann's, looking in empty apartments, then down at the beach, but SC never told him his name, or perhaps he did and RM forgot. He does, however, know where SC was staying:

    "Assumes that the passer-by would be staying at the Luz Ocean Club, in the block opposite the home of the respondent."

    Cont . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them"

      ...then, maybe the mythical 10th Tapas does exist?!

      http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/The-10th-Tapas-1-791041.html

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 15 Feb 2015, 00:05:00,

      Around which Big Round Table? The one that doesn't exist?

      Delete
  14. Cont . . .

    Then we come to the 50 yr man with grey dreadlocks who introduced himself to RB and NB the night before. He told them he lived in Portugal and had purchased an apartment block, even telling them the price, so they had quite a chat it seems with Mr Dreadlocks, and this was while they were carrying out searches for the missing child. Seems they didn't remember his name despite him introducing himself, and apparently they didn't tell him they hadn't got time to listen to his apartment buying stories. Despite frantically looking for a missing child they politely listened to him.

    What they thought was suspicious about him we don't know, just that Mr Dreadlocks appeared suspicious, like Rastaman seen in the Tapas toilets by JW.

    Anyway in the morning Mr Dreadlocks was gone and SC was concerned he should be found "to eliminate him from the list of suspects, so that he would be at least one less person to worry about" and when he mentions it to GM on Saturday GM said "that the fifty year old man had not been taken into consideration".

    It's another case of the holidaymakers appearing to run the investigation themselves.

    On 14th May 2007 SC hears on the news that RM has been made a suspect and he is concerned about this, so what does he do? Contact the police? No, his wife phones Philomena, and she tells them to contact the police support service, which he does, then Hertford police contact him on 16th May and take his statement on 17th May.

    17th May must have been a busy day for SC because as well as giving his statement to the police he also emails Sky News about Mr Dreadlocks and speaks to Sky reporter, Ian Woods.

    Why does he do that when he's just given his statement to the police that same day and told them about Mr Dreadlocks?

    And how come he had Philomena's phone number?

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  15. A few more thoughts Textusa. Well you did say ;-)

    Due to the disappearance of Mr Dreadlocks, SC thinks they should "open the maximum possible number of doors" which he does with Dave's help:

    "At this moment I also met an English man called Dave who lived in the area and helped the Ocean Club to authorise entry into all the apartments possible, some of the apartments in Gerry's block belonged to local owners and Dave helped to get the keys to these apartments so that they could check them and search them, they checked them all in a general manner."

    Dave also speaks Portugese "I can't remember the name of the man who I also met by chance and who was doing some translating, what was his name again, who helped open the doors." He's forgotten his name at that point, but that was Dave.

    "I can't remember his name, but he...humm also knew the local estate agent and different people who helped to get the keys of the properties from the letters, some of whom were on holiday." << It's Dave.

    So Dave speaks Portugese, knows the local estate agent and various people who helped get keys. I wonder if Dave was also suggested as a translator. The more the better I would have thought. It was only a few moments ago it seemed like RM was the only person in
    PdL capable of helping with translation, so much emphasis was put on the importance of his introduction to GM.

    Anyway, rather than opening apartment doors, which was the original intention, instead a garage door is opened and it's:

    "not just a garage for a car, it was a type of 'capsule' of about six by nine metres in size which became longer where there was a bed in the corner, and it was when we were searching this, the English man with grey hair whose identity I did not know" << it's Dave "but who had explained this to me . . . this garage belonged to a Portuguese man, the man from the laundry."

    This laundryman is, apparently, connected to the laundry van SC realises later "I think that afterwards, and afterwards coincides with the fact that he was the man from the laundry and of the van parked there".

    SC has thought it strange that the van was parked in a dead end road. It's actually the road running along the edge of RM's property.

    He says " I never saw anyone and more than once assumed that it would be cleaning staff and only this thought coincided with the presence of the man from the laundry" who he thinks is "forty five to fifty years old, I think" but he is unable to describe him except he is of an "age that implied that he could have a small child living in the garage or it could be expected that the had a grown up child."

    SC says the van was "to transport the bedlinen and towels" however he "never saw anyone drive it" just that he "saw it parked" and "it was not always there, I saw it about two or three times".

    Cont . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cont . . .

    So to summarise:

    1) SC is let into a garage he is told belongs to a laundry man
    2) He connects that laundry man to a van he's seen parked in the dead end road alongside RM's garden.
    3) He thinks parking in a dead end road is strange, even though it isn't.
    4) He assumed more than once the van belonged to cleaning staff but doesn't give any reason why he assumed this.
    5) He goes further and says the van is to transport the bed linen and towels
    6) Because he assumed more than once the van was something to do with cleaning staff he believes it belongs to the laundry man who owns the garage.
    7) He never saw anyone in the van or driving the van, so in fact has no idea whatsoever who owned the van or what it was used for.
    8) Despite this he knows the laundry man is 45 to 50 years old.
    9) He cannot describe the laundry man any further, which is fair enough, because he's never actually seen him.

    So there was a van parked in the dead end road alongside RM's garden which SC saw two or three times. He didn't look in the van, he never saw anyone at, or in, or driving the van, and YET he knows that the van was used to transport bed linen and towels and was therefore used by a laundry man he'd never seen but who must be the same laundry man whose garage Dave let him in to.

    In other words, it's all a load of tosh.

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuala, what a nice job!

      You’re leaving us with little to write about!

      You’re leaving us with almost no surprises for the follow-up post!

      But, by all means, do continue! Please eliminate the all!

      Your comments are very valuable and mean a lot to us.

      Their value lies not only in their content but as well in demonstrating that things are there to be read and we’re not the only ones able to read them.

      Thank you so much.

      Delete
    2. Interesting, Nuala :) Riveting reading here, Textusa Sisters, it becomes 'curiouser and curiouser' as Alice would say. This snooping carpenter, RM 's name popping up again and again, reading like a chapter from "Dame, König, As, Spion" one more person, the laundry man and is this the van with the cleaners? and reporting to gerry mccann reveals much of their strategy and sidetracking the police investigation and little mr edmonds who so quietly slipped away ? ! You are revealing this 8 year old kate and gerry mccann scam, word for word; well done good for you, give them a run for their money ! We're looking forward to read more....thank you! :)

      Delete
  17. One of the 'surfers' could be James Gorrod, neighbour in Exeter, of Jane Tanner and Russell O' Brien. Gorrod has a company called Surfers Against Sewage. Website = www.sas.org.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 15 Feb 2015, 10:31:00,

      But how would Carpenter know that on May 17, 2007?

      The question is noy whether friends surfed or not but the perception Carpenter has of them at that moment.

      Delete
    2. To my knowledge, not one single picture of any of the Tapas 9 surfing, no surf boards in sight, nothing! And, surfing in the Algarve, on the south coast?! Ridiculous! Surfing on one-foot high waves?!

      Delete
  18. I know OBVIOUSLY no surfing at PDL but the fact that he referred to 'surfers' tells us he DID know of Gorrod's surfing connection .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 15 Feb 2015, 17:11:00,

      We're afraid that the fact that Carpenter says that Gerry's friends are surfers is not enough to deduce that he's referring to Gorrod nor to deduce that he may know that Gorrod has any surfing connections.

      Delete
  19. Thank you for your kind words Textusa, I'm honoured you found that useful :)

    As regards eliminating all, no chance of that I'm afraid, there is a lot in SC's statement and I'm not sure what to make of some of it. I would just comment though on his motivation for contacting the police to make a statement on 14th May 2007.

    SC was a witness to a crime. Witnesses aren't just those that have been there at the moment the crime was committed, it also includes those on the scene before and after, and when a crime is committed the police ask for everyone to come forward, even if they think whatever they saw might be trivial, the police still want to know about it, because it can still help in the investigation.

    Now SC has more than just trivial information, according to him. He was in the Tapas bar with the parents of the child only half an hour before the child went missing. The following morning he was involved in searches for the child and he's aware of a suspicious man with dreadlocks, a suspicious laundry man, a suspicious van and a garage with a bed and children's toys. All very suspicious indeed and stuff you'd think he'd want to make sure the police knew about.

    So what does he do with all this suspicious information when he gets back to the UK? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. And it's not like he doesn't still take an interest in events, he follows it on TV, and never once thinks to himself that perhaps he'd better tell the police about all the suspicious things he saw.

    THEN on the 14th May 2007 Robert Murat is made a suspect and suddenly everything becomes urgent. SC's wife is straight on the phone to a member of the McCann family (Philomena) then to the police support service and at long last his statement is taken by the police on 17th May.

    And what motivated this sudden urgency? Was it to help find the missing child? To tell the police, at long last about all the suspicious things he'd seen? No, he wanted to talk about Robert Murat.

    First of all he wants to make it clear that it was him (SC) who introduced RM as a translator and not RM volunteering:

    "That is the only, only thing that I would correct and I think it is a bit strange that someone would state that they offer themselves as a volunteer, or the way in which it really happened after having told me that he spoke Portuguese fluently, I said to him "Well, in this case that could be useful" and afterwards accompanied him - and that was how he (inaudible) thought that it was a bit strange. Because the way he said it gave the impression that it was voluntary."

    This is important it seems and is repeated several times, and also he's concerned that the police are looking at the wrong man as a suspect:

    "Of course with Murat there is Murat and the Russian individual, you know....I thought that we might well be looking for the totally wrong person and the fact that a bed existed in the garage and some children's toys . . . I thought, ohhh...its worth mentioning this and that's the reason I mentioned it in my statement."

    So it's worth mentioning it to the police a couple of weeks after the child went missing, but not any sooner, and it also begs the question - if RM hadn't been made a suspect would SC have contacted the police at all?

    Cont . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cont . . . .

    Just to add, the supposed garage, I can't find that anywhere on Google Earth, the apartment block SC is referring to, the one NB and RB stayed in, there are no garages that I can see or anywhere surrounding, but I could be wrong or have misunderstood where to look.

    It's also worth noting I think, the reasons for the rogatory interview with SC on 21st April 2008 is because the PJ want the UK police to ask SC about the McCann's, not about garages or laundry men or vans, it's the McCann's the PJ is interested in and I found SC's answer to this question interesting:

    DCF: I think this refers to the McCann family, did you ever see them in a car

    SC: Humm, during that week

    DCF: Mmm, mmm.

    SC: I think not.

    Mmm, mmm indeed. Why did SC have to clarify "during that week"?

    SC's wife perhaps hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" - I've no idea Textusa, over to you with that one :)

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa or Nula

      Is this laundryman Mario Marreios? ( or Mario Fernando as the Mirror calls him).

      The laundryman who says he saw a " very fat faced " man emerge from the shadows in the foyer near the stairs of the 5a block?

      My question is: does SC have a very fat face?

      SC says he never saw this mystery laundryman but if he (SC ) is the one who was near the stairs talked about in the previous blog he will know what the laundryman looks like.

      The question is - does Mario know what SC looks like?

      Or is he not the " very fat faced man " afterall ?"

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 15 Feb 2015, 20:58:00,

      Yes, laundryman who Carpenter speaks about is Marreiros. Why we say so, we will explain in a follow-up post.

      No, the man who Marreiros saw was not Carpenter but Neil Berry.

      PJ is very clear that it is Neil Berry.

      As we said in our post "Two men and a baby (cot)", 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?”
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/01/two-men-and-baby-cot.html

      Neil Berry and not Carpenter.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the reply.

      I know what NB looks like but I don't know what SC
      looks like.

      Good stuff though from yoursel and Nuala.

      Who was leading who and why?

      The thing tha's always puzzled me vis - RM and his mother is why they
      never heard anything on the night ,being as 5a is about 75 metres away from Casa Liliana?

      Keep upthe good work.

      Delete
  21. Nuala,

    It’s Sunday. At this rhythm and enthusiasm on your part (which we cannot put into words our appreciation and gratitude) we predict that by Tuesday you will have written the follow-up post completely!

    Your reasoning in ALL your posts is spot on!

    One minor (or major) correction. You, like us have been misled by an incorrect translation.

    Carpenter says, in Portuguese “E explicaram-lhe que tinham avistado um homem com tochas e sentiram algo de suspeito acerca dele, que não estavam nada satisfeitos com ele”

    This translates into "And explained to him that they had seen a man with torches and felt something suspicious about him, that they were not at all satisfied with him”.

    A man who Carpenter afterwards describes as being “na casa dos cinquenta e de cabelo cinza” or “in his fifties with grey hair”. Not blond or in his thirties.

    The question resides in the meaning of the word “tochas”. The literal translation would be burning torch.

    The document in the files is a translation from English into Portuguese. We don’t have access to the original transcript, so we don’t know what word DC Ferguson said which ended up being translated as “tochas”.

    We’re supposing that the original word would be torch (singular), or torches (plural), which would translate into a Portuguese “lanterna” (singular) or “lanternas” (plural).

    The word “tochas” related with hair means chunks. As in chunks of hair falling off, which remind one of flames of a burning torch.

    It’s only mentioned related with hair in cases of serious diseases, which we don’t think was the spirit of the sentence.

    So our assessment at this point in time (which is subject to correction) – in the post we have referred that Carpenter speaking of a man with dreadlocks, which we will now correct to a man with grey hair – is that he speaks of a man with a torch, or torches, who NB and RB had met and found suspicious. Nothing to do with dreadlocks.

    We thought important to make the correction as soon the mistake was detected, which, we repeat, we also made.

    About the garages, we have found some collective ones. We would signal 2:

    One in Rua da Escola Primária, which we have shown in our post “Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns” which seems to be a colective garage.
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/07/public-misleading-of-public-by-mccanns.html

    The other, near block 5, in the building that is NOT part of the Ocean Club, at the crossing of Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva with Rua do Ramalhete. Doesn’t seem to be the "laundryman garage" described by Carpenter.

    We have only found 3 individual garages. It was on Beco da Alegria, just as one turns right coming from Rua da Escola Primária.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What I can't get my head round is that it seems to me almost all the guests/employees there that week were/are in on it or got convinced to tell a story.

    I just can't think what/who would compel them to do such a thing and then (seemingly) keep it up for 8 years.

    Can I just thank you TextUSA for these highly detailed blog posts of yours. Love reading them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They haven't had to keep it up for 8 years........they mad statements early in the investigation and were to the best of my knowledge not questioned since. If SY have questioned them we are not aware if they have continued to cover up or some of them have decided to come clean

      Delete
  23. We inform readers that we have just added a Post-Scriptum to the post.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you Textusa, but sadly work gets in the way during the week and unfortunately I don't have so much time to ponder these things, so I'm afraid I'm going to let you down for Tuesday ;-)

    Thanks also for the info re the garages and the Portugese/English translation. So it's Mr Torchman then :)

    Your post scriptum prompted me to take a look at Kate's book to see what she had to say about events though I don't know how helpful it is because she's not exactly reliable, but this is what she had to say about the morning of 4th May:

    "At about nine o'clock we all went out on to Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva to find out what was going on and to look out for the PJ."

    Then she talks a bit about tracker dogs etc etc then:

    "Several people I recognised as other Mark Warner guests were milling around and a few of the men offered to help. Steve Carpenter told us that he had approached John Hill, the resort manager, insisting that all the apartments, occupied or not . . . should be opened
    up and searched."

    Then a lady tells her about a car going up the Rocha Nigra, then Yvonne Martin arrives. (Note: YM's statement says "At around 09H00, she met the McCann couple next to the apartment from where the child had disappeared, accompanied by a third person, a male, who seemed quite familiar to her.")

    Kate continues:

    "Steve Carpenter returned with a man who had offered his assistance. He was, he'd told Steve, bilingual in English and Portugese and could maybe assist with interpreting."

    This was, of course, Robert Murat.

    So if you go by Kate's version SC was outside Apt 5A about 9am, he talked to Kate and whoever was with her and told them he'd spoken to John Hill. SC then goes off and returns with RM.

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  25. Seems JW and SC were both going round in circles and down dead-ends on the 3rd and 4th.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Textusa have you any assessment yet of the reaction of the BHs to these latest blogs. I get the impression that you havent really got started on your offensive and yet your evidence is already quite damming

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like the cat has got the tongue of the blogger who created the anti-textusa blog. No reaction to the last 3 posts

      Delete
  27. Textusa,

    Many thanks indeed for the Post Scriptum reference and the subsequent investigating of.

    The sentence can most definitely be explained as such; heading back the path he had already been - so appreciate you investigating and pointing out the translation as a key point here. However, as you say, a sentence to note. :)

    The real undercurrent to highlighting these is in my enjoyment calling out the ambiguity, the loose language and rubbish phraseology, and as a result the poor quality of all and every 'witness' statement within the circle of trust. Like any lie - no detail versus sudden, tremendous detail - it is skill make it elastic. That's why sometimes, little things come out in the smallest of ways, lost, or revealed, in translation.


    Nuala - great posts, thank you. A great example of how Textusa has made clear - it's all there for everyone to read for themselves!

    GP.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes - you can read through these statements passively and say OK or you can actually 'read' the statements and gain lots of wonderful insight and information. Textusa has thankfully made lots of us more aware of how to read & understand properly..also thanks to Nuala's contributions! It is now becoming apparent who is part of the charade

    ReplyDelete
  29. Im feeling quite buoyed by this from The times media online today.... A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4357525.ece

    McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

    Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent
    Published at 10:01PM, February 17 2015

    A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.

    The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

    Martin Brunt, Sky’s crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loz and Anonymous 17 Feb 2015, 23:45:00,

      The Times? How interesting.

      Delete
    2. If Brunt reveals his source, his career as a journalist is ruined. Are we looking at Brunt doing time?

      Delete
    3. The full article:

      McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

      Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent
      Published 17 February 2015

      A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.

      The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

      Martin Brunt, Sky’s crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October.

      Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt’s exposé of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

      Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousands of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the “worst of humankind”.

      Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since.

      Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering and operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.

      Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago.

      Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: “I don’t think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It’s a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers.

      “As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists.

      Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was “always worrying” when a journalist was asked to reveal their source as they should “obviously” remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities in recent years to know journalistic sources, which had previously been “sacrosanct”.

      He added: “Its almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that’s a highly dangerous position.”

      The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge’s agreement before they can snoop on journalists. It took action after it emerged that phone or email data was accessed to uncover confidential sources on 600 occasions.

      Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.

      Sky News and Leicestershire police declined to comment.


      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medi ... 357525.ece (I pinched it from JAT)

      Delete
  31. DO NOT PUBLISH reader at 17 Feb 2015, 21:44:00,

    We hope to answer your questions soon. Simplicty is the key.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Is it beginning to stir on the Western Front ? ...Brunty and the times Slowly but surely our suspects who fled pdl are revealing their workings 'behind the scenes' and what is it with NSY who are just not making any 'progress' What is it now, DCI Hall, waiting for better days ? Almost 8 weeks into 2015 and no visible action !

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi textusa,I have just read from the jillhavernforum that,"Leicestershire Police Force have wrote to Sky" on behalf of the coroner as part of the coroners inquest?
    Wasn't this the same Police Force who told people if they had information on the disappearance of Madeline to contact certain person;s with it instead of the Police?
    You can be sure of one thing,Leicester Police Force will have informed Sky that the Coroner will have to apply to a Judge to divulge to them "provide their source of information to Martin Brunt",protection for certain "Fat Ankles"could this source of information be one of Gerry's relatives,PM?
    Who is protecting who?
    Police advising Sky of their legal rights of revelation of their source of information! Or of how to protect their source and non disclosure of identity of the person, after all you can trust Leicestershire Police Force, FSS results to a Mr. Prior and PJ in the Madeline McCann missing person/ child case?
    Why did the Police Advise the FSS to destroy the DNA after they had finished "Analysing this DNA"?
    Surely this must be a first that the Police Force Advise/ Or ordered this in an unsolved case?
    Can the Times be trusted, owned by Rupert who has paid out nearly £500,000 in damages to the parents of Madeline McCann.

    ReplyDelete
  34. https://mobile.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/519065318720024577?p=vhttps://mobile.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/519065318720024577?p=v

    Lord Sugar@Lord_Sugar Brenda Leyland:If she took her own life by pressure from media.There maybe a legal case against the media for incitement to commit suicide

    Well done, Lord Sugar!!
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Textusa I am currently working my way through all your posts which I find enthralling! In fact I'm being naughty and reading at work. I have just been through the post with regard to the booking sheets for the supposed Tapas and just wondered if these could be simply booking sheets for staff at the OC to pass the bookings on to the Mill/Chaplins ie OC package holidays? With them being copied I just thought that the names on the sheets were the ones who had booked for the week and the add-ons were those who hadn't booked a package holiday?

    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