|(image from here)|
Back in August 2011, almost 4 years ago, we published the post “Tapas Quiz Night #4/?” whereby we showed that the Slide & Splash sheet was a handwritten copy of what would be transcribed to the Tapas Reservation Sheet of May 7:
Then, we got a fierce and quite passionate response. Here are 6 of the comments received then:
Comment #1, from Insane to us:
“Anonymous 12 Aug 2011, 16:47:00
Newman 5th May to 12th May
Hynd 5th May to 12th May
It's there in the records, f***wits. [now censored by us]
All of those people, around whom you have built an elaborate theory, arrived in PdL AFTER Madeleine disappeared.
Make sure you print this, now, or I shall have to make sure it gets out that you are publishing deliberate lies
It's just a copy of a reservation sheet, for a dinner which happened days after Madeleine went. Now get a damn life, you ridiculous harpies”
Comment #2, from us, transcribing a comment from Insane that we then censored:
“Sina J 12 Aug 2011, 21:49:00
Zero tolerance from now on. You've been warned more than enough, as we've had enough of your rudeness. Learn to argue in a civilized manner or go somewhere else.
All, this is what Insane had to say:
"If *******, you would go and look for yourselves.
It's quite simple
None of those people listed on that reservation sheet - or the impromptu copy made on the slide and splash notepaper - arrived in PdL until AFTER Madeleine had disappeared. Go and check for yourselves, their names are all listed in the PJ files, together with the dates they stayed. You are being lied to, by Textusa and her sidekicks, for reasons best known to themselves.
These are all the details and references where they can be found
Savage, apartment G30, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
Newman (Misspelled as Newan ), apartment fp08, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Hynd, apartment 0011, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Harrison, apartment dp03, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Mullard, apartment gp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
Burdekin (misspelled as Budekin) apartment gp01, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Stinton-Heeley, apartment 0207, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
Mackeson, apartment 0025, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Vincent, apartment cp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
Stop lying to people. These guests ALL arrived after Madeleine went. Do your research properly.””
Comment #3, from Insane to us:
“Anonymous 12 Aug 2011, 00:42:00
Jesus, I have never seen someone get themselves so worked up over nothing.
It's just a copy of the dinner reservations for the night of the 7thMay. That's all. Nothing more. Whatever mad conspiracy you're all absorbed in, it's complete nonsense. Some of the guests on that reservation list didn't even arrive in Portugual until after Madeleine went missing. Take a chill pill. I know you won't print this - conspiraloons never tolerate their frauds being shot down, but you and I know - don't we?”
Comment #4, from Insane to us:
“Anonymous 12 Aug 2011, 01:02:00
I just went back and checked - none of those guests arrived in PdL until after Madeleine disappeared - and you are accusing them of being part of a cover up? You are nothing but a fraudster - and I know you won't print that. Fraudsters are always cowards too.
Go and get a life or look after the ill person you are supposed to be caring for - leave the fiary stories to someone who is good at it. You're not”
Comment #5, from Johanna to us:
“Johanna 13 Aug 2011, 19:42:00
Sorry to disappoint you all. I am certainly a seeker of the truth and I know the files almost by heart now.
The insinuation of this blog that every holidaymaker and every staff member is somehow involved in a huge conspiracy of WHAT?? is getting more and more ridiculous.
If this blog would AT LEAST do proper research and then spin their tale from actual facts it might be acceptable, but the facts are wrong.
This is the second booking sheet showing that the Hynds had a second week at the resort:
Try to keep to the facts is my advice.”
Comment #6, from Johanna to us:
“Johanna 13 Aug 2011, 11:07:00
Again a hilarious entry almost but not quite completely missing the point.
Just one thing. As demonstrated on the example of the Hynds: the booking sheets were always kept in a weekly record. If customers stayed for 2 weeks then there would be 2 sheets given to the Tapas restaurant.
The Hynds for example stayed 2 weeks. The first booking sheet given to the Tapas restaurant gives their stay from 28/04 until 05/05 and the second booking sheet was then given to the restaurant the following week listing the Hynds as staying from 05/05 until 12/05.
Research is not difficult. To use bad research to construct the most ludicrous theories is an offence against those that still have some hope that your blog might bring them enlightenment.”
Basically, both Insane and Johanna were giving us the wag of the finger and telling us to go and read, carefully, the Ocean Club reservation sheets.
Note that nothing they say alters the fact that the May 7 Reservation sheet is a replica of what was written on the Slide & Splash stationery paper. Insane confirms it without explaining why one would copy a page from a reservation book.
But what we have to acknowledge today is that if it wasn’t for them this post wouldn’t exist today. We were told to go and read them and we did just that.
And because we did go and read those pages very carefully, what we found THEN did indeed enlighten us as we hope to show today.
But then we were isolated. Then we were the only ones questioning neglect. And were, then, only starting to question the Tapas dinners.
We have kept this information for almost 4 years. We had to wait for the right time. We think now is the time to share it with our readers.
It’s about the 24 pages that make up the Ocean Club booking sheets (Volume III pgs 615 -638).
The pages we were told to read and that we did.
It’s quite a lot of information, so to facilitate things, we have decided to colour them by days:
This way the reader will be able to understand where the information comes from that we are presenting. For example, anything with a blue background is from pages 623 to 626 (May 4 01:48) and if yellow it will be from pages 631 to 634 (May 6 07:05).
We warn readers this post is not an easy read. Good news is that it provides a cheap cure for insomnia for those with short attention spans who we caution to proceed at own risk. Please do not complain afterwards.
2. Purpose of these sheets
What are these booking sheets for? That’s a question we have never seen asked but think of the utmost importance.
We’re not talking about the copies that exist in the PJ Files. We ask readers for a moment to withdraw themselves from the Maddie case context and place themselves in the normal, everyday routine that would exist if Maddie hadn't disappeared.
Apparently a list of the guests checking in was printed daily We do not see anywhere where it's said it was for the use of Tapas. Nor do we see any reason for that to be. Why does a place who only offers 20 covers to Mark Warner clients need the entire guest list for the day?
And, as we'll see, printed during the night? Wouldn't that simple fact automatically exclude all customers who arrived during the next day from having dinner at Tapas?
These sheets appear to be something printed out daily to be archived inside some binder on some shelf of some office (supposedly reception) of the Ocean Club.
A daily customer list of all those who were staying that day in the resort. On paper.
And the question we asked was, why? What for? What is their use or purpose? Just to be in a binder and look pretty on a shelf?
Who even reads them after they're put in the binders?
Who goes there to look, specifically on paper, for information? What information is there, on paper, that cannot be found, in a quicker and more practical manner, from the computer?
Pages 611-612 show very clearly that it was the sofware used by the Ocean Club that allowed the computer to be queried and get an immediate answer.
What added value has a printed list over what is stored on the computer? Companies that deal with a significant number of clients are required to keep, for a certain amount of time, a registry of their clients. But that is on hard disk, not on paper.
If no other reason to save on paper and ink cartridges. For example, by May 8 2007, averaging 4 pages a day, the Ocean Club would have archived in binders, only for that year, 876 pages (79 days x 4) of information for that year alone.
A year would represent 1,460 archived pages.
And we repeat the question, what for? Why go to the trouble to print out these pages every single day when the information it provides can be reached instantly at the touch of a finger?
There must have been some sort of added value. We simply cannot see what.
3. Printing times
Let’s suppose that Ocean Club likes to waste resources and do things the difficult way. That it likes to waste resources and prints out pointless information every single day and archive it in binders on some office shelf.
Next question is, why were they printed when they were printed? Or to be more specific, why were they printed during the time they appear to have been printed?
Let’s see when these sheets were printed out so the reader can understand the point we’re making.
On May 1, at 03:45; on May 3, at 01:16; on May 4, at 01:48; on May 5, at 02:37; on May 6, at 07:05 and on May 7, at 07:16.
From 01:16 to 07:16. In other words, anytime during the night. Apparently, it was up to the night duty receptionists to print these sheets daily.
But shouldn’t the printing times be approximate?
Wouldn't be logical for this printing be a part of some sort of daily routine? Either when the shift started or when the shift ended.
From the times listed it was done when whoever was on duty decided to do it.
Could this be the reason for the listings supposed to have been printed on the night from May 1 to May 2 to be missing? Because someone just forgot to print it that night? And nobody noticed?
Another question one must ask is if it makes any sense for the night shift to print this out?
Shouldn’t this be done by the reception at noon when one hotel day ends and the next one starts?
Hotel days change, as far as we know, around noon.
The time by which one has to check out, otherwise one ends up paying an extra day (computers are ruthless).
I’ve been to hotels where I have arrived before noon, and have been asked to wait until then to check-in because otherwise the system would account for a day I wouldn’t have been there.
So, to print out a daily sheet (we remind readers that we see no need to print these sheets out but simply entertaining the thought that there is a valid reason for them to be) it only makes sense for them to be printed out immediately after each hotel day ends. As part of a daily routine.
It seems that in this, like in so many things, the Ocean Club was an exception. The best time to print these sheets was at a random hour during the night although it makes no sense whatsoever.
4. Time interval
Why did Ocean Club hand over only the lists of guests who checked in from April 30 onwards (printed on May 1 03:45)?
Wouldn’t logic dictate that PJ would be interested in all guests who arrived the moment Madeleine McCann set foot in the resort on April 28?
The only reason we can see for this to be is that it would mean 2 extra days to be worked on, as we will explain later in the post.
5. Missing May 2
Why is May 2 missing? It baffles the mind. One thing is to have the first or last days missing, but it makes no sense at all for any of the ones in the middle to be missing.
One either opens the binder, takes the 4 pages per day out, copies them and puts them back in the binder. Then one repeats the process with the following day – without skipping a day – or one takes out all the pages from all the days in question, copies them as a whole and puts them back again – again without skipping a day.
To skip a day would mean a conscious effort to do so.
The only days one could accept as missing would be the ones at either extreme, the first or the last. So where is May 2?
The only reason we find to explain this inexplicable absence is haste.
For the same reason the Slide & Splash stationery paper was not supposed to go in the middle of the papers and it did, so the May 2 listing was not supposed to be left behind and was.
6. Data input
When one checks in, one gives the receptionist all the information that is required.
If the reservation is done before, the customer just confirms what was inserted in the system and complements the existing information.
The receptionist pulls up the customer name up from the computer and confirms if all is correct. Correcting what needs to be corrected and adding what needs to be added.
A new customer or CLIENTE DIRECTO will provide the same information at the reception desk.
Name, number of people in the party, and expected check-out date.
The computer then does the rest. If the customer hasn’t been allocated an apartment yet, the receptionist will choose one accordingly to the number of people – adults plus children – to be lodged. This number will – or is supposed to – determine the number of rooms needed.
The software, apparently developed by Profitus, will have the number of T1s, T2s or T3s available at that moment, and via a drop down menu, will allow the receptionist to choose one to allocate to the customer in front of her.
This is the moment the conversation between receptionist and customer takes place about where the apartment may be.
If it is to on the ground floor or if on the top floor, if with a view to the sea or not.
This is also the moment when customers who made their reservations previously (their information already in the computer) may introduce last minute changes, if possible.
It’s up to the receptionist to inform the customer if any desired change implies any alteration in the price to be paid.
Once that exchange of information ends and apartment allocation is done, an apartment key is given to the customer so s/he can start enjoying the stay.
From this moment the customer has only one way to be identified by the resort: by the apartment number.
He’s no longer Mr Smith, Mrs Brown or Miss Orange but customer of apartment XXX. That number is the only piece of information any staff needs to respond to any request or to bill.
Apartment XXX needs a cot? The receptionist pulls out apartment XXX (indifferent if it is Mr Smith, Mrs Brown or Miss Orange) and records the amount now owed by the customer of that particular apartment.
At the end of the stay at check-out, the receptionist may asks for the apartment number. Only by looking at the printed invoice will the customer realise, if that was the case, his/her name was mispelled all along.
It seems to be a simple and straightforward process. Only in the Ocean Club, back in 2007, it was not.
For some strange reason, names of the clients were corrected/or changed during their stay.
As per process described above, if for some reason Mr Smith's name was wrongly spelled, say as Smuth and the mistake wasn’t noticed during the check-in, one would expect the mistake to remain unnoticed during his entire stay at the resort.
For the computer (and resort) he would be Smuth and no one would be wiser.
During his check-out the mistake could be noticed and corrected or not if the customer thought it important to have it corrected.
It doesn’t cross anyone’s mind to have the receptionist go over the name of each one of the customers and verify if the name was correctly spelled or not.
Besides, without the customer being present how would the receptionist know what the correct spelling was? The customer could be Smuth and not Smith. And the Ocean Club does have a client with quite a strange name, Donal Bxrber, and we will assume that it is the correct spelling of that person’s name:
How rude it would be to call a customer and ask him, excuse me Sir, is your name really Smuth?
Whatever is put in the system during check-in remains intact until the check-out, except whatever is related to billing. Not for security or even privacy reasons but for practical and logical ones.
And, for whatever reason a name is corrected during the stay, then the change will remain there. To be corrected and then corrected again, raises red flags.
That’s why we find it quite strange that Roseleen Monica Hammill becomes, after 3 days (May 2 is missing) Rosel’en on May 4 01:48 listings and returns to be Rosaleen on the other listings:
Also, the exact same thing happens to Plumb (yes, that’s all we have from this person). Up to May 4 01:48 he’s Plumb and on that day becomes Plmb, to miraculously return to be Plumb again for the rest of the stay:
Francis McPhillips’ name on the May 1 03:45 and May 3 01:16 lists are corrected to the unconventional ‘ Francis McPhillips (note the apostrophe before Francis) on May 4 01:48 and then to the unusual Prancis McPhillips on the list of the following day on May 5 02:37:
Dr Palmer’s name is corrected to dr Pawer and back to dr Palmer:
Then one has Mullard who becomes Kathryn Mullard on the second day of her stay? Why? For completeness? Shouldn’t that have been done during the check-in? Or did the receptionist put a post it note, “add Kathryn to Mullard first thing tomorrow morning”?
Same happens with Margaret Mitchell Shakespeare who is only Shakespeare on the first day
Dipra Odedra’s misspelled 2 commas is corrected to a single comma:
The reader may say that it all just means that receptionists corrected mistakes as they found them. We could even overlook the fact that most of them seem to be more to incorrect rather than correct but we cannot overlook the fact there are people with somewhat unfamiliar names. For example Andrew Pag C. Fee E30 Taverner:
And the other Allan T078642P-A1 Lynch:
How these two must suffer whenever they have their names called out publicly. Evidently Taverner and Lynch only have their “unusual” names due to the introduction of erroneous information in their respective name field during check-in.
But the point is, if Hammill, Plumb, McPhillips, Palmer, Mullard and Shakespeare were corrected – implying a revision of every single name of every guest every single day – why weren’t Taverner and Lynch corrected? Or, the other way around, if their names were not corrected, why were the others?
Maybe because there was no name revision whatsoever?
Lastly about this name changing, we cannot understand why the Jensen sisters had the name of their reservation changed on the May 7 07:16 list. Note that this wasn’t their last day. Their reservation was up to May 12.
This has been interpreted as one of the sisters, Annie Wiltshire, joined her sister, Jayne Jensen on that day. But as can be seen it has always been a party of 2. At least from the May 1 03:45 list the G4J, a 1-bedroom apartment, was occupied by 2 people on all lists handed over to the PJ.
Still on names, in this case not about correcting them but about that we could not help but notice the strange amount of people who reserved via Mark Warner who were registered in the resort just by their surname, no first name:
Most of them for the second week of under analysis (starting May 5), the one expected to be paid less attention.
7. The mysterious letter
A computer is a very stupid thing. So stupid that it doesn’t make mistakes. Ever. It only does what it is told to do and does it very quickly and very precisely but never, ever, makes a mistake.
The mistake is always made by whoever tells it to do what it does. Other than wrong data being introduced, it’s the instructions, program or software responsible for any wrong output the computer produces.
The machine, in its binary simplicity, never errs. To err is the privilege of only the living. And a computer is not a living thing. Yet.
And, as far as we know, there’s no program on earth that tells a computer to put random letters in a field of a database unless it specifically wants to generate random data.
We don’t see any need for the Ocean Club’s guest database to generate any sort of randomness.
That’s why we find it very strange that a letter “r” appears on the “Folio” field for both Gerald Patrick McCann and the Thomas Cook reps:
It can only have been a human hand that introduced that letter there.
One with a space between it and the Folio number (r 33358) and the other without (r31951).
Why that change in a ref number? Did the receptionist check every single folio number each night too? That is taking the functions of receptionists a little over the top.
Do note, the Thomas Cook reps also has a comma corrected:
The field name has also been “corrected” as inexplicably as with Hammill, Plumb, McPhillips, Palmer, Mullard and Shakespeare.
8. The DYI (Do-It-Yourself) apartment building
One of the most fascinating things that the Ocean Club offered, trusting this database, is that the guest could tailor the number of rooms the apartments had.
If a guest was allocated a 2 bedroom apartment and only needed one, the guest could simply delete one. Literally.
On the contrary, if the guest needed two rooms and the apartment allocated had only one, all that was needed was to add one. Simple.
No, we’re not joking. We are being very serious.
The column “Tipo” has the letter T and a number. That letter when associated with habitation (apartment, villa, etc) designates the number of bedrooms the facility in question has. T1, one bedroom, T2, 2 bedrooms, T3, 3 bedrooms and so on. There’s absolutely no doubt what T1, T2 and T3 these represent. A T8 house has 8 bedrooms. Not 6, not 7 but 8.
So it was with fascination that we found out that apartments changed in the number of bedrooms in the time those lists represent, from May 1 03:45 to May 7 07:16.
This happened not once, or even twice but 12 times:
But that was not all. We have an apartment being transformed from something we know, a T1, into something unknown, a T3FP.
And we have a surreal case, with the same customer, Phil Morgan, something we don’t know is that a T3F apartment becomes one with nothing less than 38 rooms, a T38!!
9. The strangely non drop-down menus
The change of number of rooms is more baffling because one would expect that apartment identification would be a choice to be made by the receptionist by selection.
Or to be clear, that data would be already be inside the system, and on looking at the number of people in a party all the receptionist had to do was to choose between the available apartments at that moment that had the required number of bedrooms.
In practical terms, the information about an apartment (its identification and number of bedrooms) would be part of the resort’s permanent database from which the receptionist would make a selection.
In the Ocean Club, apparently that wasn’t the case.
As we saw above, the receptionists had to memorise the number of bedrooms each apartment had – and didn’t do a very good job doing that – but, it seems they also had to memorise all the apartments’ names.
Only that can explain how the identification of the same apartment is written in different ways:
Apartment G30 becomes 030:
Apartment O008 becomes 0008:
Apartment 0302 becomes O302 to becomes 0302 again:
Apartment O303 becomes 0303:
And apartment S7;7 (?) becomes S707:
As a side note, the changes in these sheets between capital Os and zeros, as shown above, are just too many to name.
10. The supposedly drop-down menus
One thing we are certain of is that the “Agency” field must be a drop down menu. The number of times these appear, make it completely unthinkable for the receptionists to have written them every time they inserted a customer:
- CLIENTES DIRECTOS
- JONATHAN MARKSON
- OWNER BKG
- STYLE HOLIDAYS
- THE TRAVEL CLUB (BA
- THOMAS COOK UK
If that had been the case, abbreviations would be used.
But the drop down menu presents a big problem to the Ocean Club and its reservation sheets: it doesn’t allow any variations of spelling.
The word will always be spelled in the way it was inserted by the programmer.
So it’s not understandable, unless due to direct human intervention, for the Travel Club to appear as “THE TRAVEL CLUB (BA” and “THE TRAVEL CLUB (lo” just to give an example.
We even have someone, a LORDAN, who is booked via “DONOS” and on one day, and on that day only, has been booked by “M O S”:
But the most evident one is the Mark Warner spelling. In one particular page, it appears spelled in 3 different ways one right after the other:
It’s amazing to see how it is misspelled (MARKWARHER), even when about itself!
As a sidenote we find it strange that MW reps are only registered in the system as of April 27 when 30 of its 33 employees were already there as of April 14 and left to arrive were only Charlotte Pennington (28/04/2007), Sarah Williamson (28/04/2007) and Robert Ragone (05/05/2007).
No one from MW arrived on April 27, so why this registry?
Back to the spelling, we even have a “MAR)<ARWNER.CO.UK” (see Mann). What an original way to write a “K”! And in the registration of a customer, Lindsay Elisabeth Mann who had already MARKWARNER misspelled as MARWAINIR:
But the most incredible mistake is one we least expect to find one, in Gerry McCanns registration:
The only registry that had to be absolutely right, has 2 big mistakes, the mysterious letter r and the MW misspelling. Talk about pressure, talk about haste, or to be more correct, talk about haste under pressure.
Do please note the corrections, were done on individual days. The remaining days have MARKWARNER.CO.UK correctly spelled. With the 2 dots et al.
The fact that there are variations proves the Agência (Agency) field was not drop down menu because in such menus one doesn't have direct access to the cell. One chooses from a menu, one does not write the information. One can't mispell even if one wants to.
What a gruelling profession it must have been to be a receptionist in the Ocean Club and what a poor software product put out by the Profitus programmers, responsible for the software used by the resort's receptionists.
Our apologies to Profitus as we know you have nothing to do with these sheets but it wasn't us who put your company's name in them.
11. Database? WOT Database?
In the images we have shown, we hope the reader has noted that the columns are not aligned as expected from the printing outs of the same database.
The main difference between a database, even a simple one from Access, and an Excel spreadsheet is that the user has no access to the settings. The user of a database is limited to filling up fields with information and choose from various options presented to him by the various menus.
For example, the column widths are defined by the programmer. Their settings cannot be changed by the end user.
Neither can what was introduced as field headings. If the programmer names a certain field “Apt” (as for apartment ID) then whenever that field is printed, so will “Apt”appear as the heading. Not “A” nor “Apartment” but the pre-defined “Apt”,
So all printing from the software should present the same column alignment as well as the same template.
Again, the Ocean Club is an exception. As shown, the various columns are not aligned.
This may appear to be just a slight detail but it isn’t. A computer will always start printing in the exact same place the same kind of information every time. It will leave the exact same amount of space for each column.
It takes a programmer some time to get the design of the page correct, so that all information is presented as required by the client when printed.
The fact that the alignment differs from different days means the different days have different columns widths. Something that no database allows a user to change.
These variances in columns show that this is not a database.
What we see are Excel spreadsheets. In these, the user can change the width of the column in which the information is in.
That would explain not only the different column widths but also the variances in the Mark Warner spelling as the user has direct access to the different cells.
It also explains the mix-up between the zeros and capital “Os”. Excel ignores all left zeros. If one types “0003” what Excel shows is just a “3”.
There are 2 ways to get around this problem. One is to “tell” the computer that one is writing text and not numbers and the other is to “tell” the computer that one wants a 4-digit number, thus “forcing” to write in all the selected cells numbers with those digits and they will appear as such: 0312, 4560 or 0007.
The people who are not experienced with Excel do not know this or how to do this. So the easiest way is to replace the zero with a capital O. A 0003 becomes an O003. Simple but just not the same.
But what is more telling is seeing a database but before an excel spreadsheet replicating a database is that a header of a field changes between what has been printed on pages 611/612 and pages 615/638.
Note that the double dash is replaced by a dash and a dot. This, as we’ve said, cannot be changed by the user.
If the database is the same, the template is the same. The user simply chooses the parameters of the query and clicks on “print”.
So it's simply not possible, using the same software (why use more than one for the same type of information?) for field “Ref” (of pages 615/638) to become a simple “R” in pages 611/612:
The same happens between pages 615 and page 650 “Listagem de chegadas previstas” (list of expected arrivals) of Volume III of the PJ Files. Only this time it's the field “Saldo” (of pages 615/638) that becomes a simple “S” in page 350:
This cannot be achieved if database unique. A string has only one heading and that is the one that will be reproduced whenever that column is printed out.
To appear as changed means that it was either an Excel spreadsheet or a word document in which the user can rename headers as many times as s/he wants.
12. Irrefutable proof (or a Guinness Record)
All of the above could have an explanation. We don’t see any but will keep an open mind. Even to the possibility for the night duty receptionist having the daily duty of reintroducing manually the data for each customer with no drop-down menus to help.
A daily needless torture but as always if proven wrong, we will stand corrected.
But there is one detail which proves, beyond any doubt, that the sheets known as the “booking sheets” were manipulated and cannot come directly from any database. They are either Word or Excel replicas. We would bet the latter rather than the first.
Let’s look exactly when each page was printed.
On May 1:
Pg 615 – 03:45:05
Pg 616 – 03:45:06
Pg 617 – 03:45:06
Pg 618 – 03:45:07
This means that 3 pages (616, 617, 618) were printed in the same second, 3 pages per second, or 180 pages per second.
On May 3:
Pg 619 – 01:16:02
Pg 620 – 01:16:02
Pg 621 – 01:16:03
Pg 622 – we don’t know
For now we cannot draw any relevant conclusion from this. But please do note the censoring of the date on page 622. Clearly not an accidental shortage of printer ink during printing nor copier toner when copying.
On May 4:
Pg 623 – 01:48:01
Pg 624 – 01:48:01
Pg 625 – 01:48:01
Pg 626 – 01:48:01
This means all 4 pages were printed in the same second, 4 pages per second or 240 pages a minute
On May 5:
Pg 627 – 02:37:05
Pg 628 – 02:37:06
Pg 629 – 02:37:06
Pg 630 – 02:37:06
Like on May 1, this means that 3 pages (628, 629, 630) were printed in the same second, 3 pages per second or 180 pages per second.
On May 6:
Pg 631 – 07:05:15
Pg 632 – 07:05:15
Pg 633 – 07:05:15
Pg 634 – 07:05:15
Like on May 4, this means all 4 pages were printed in the same second, 4 pages per second or 240 pages a minute
On May 07
Pg 635 – 07:16:48
Pg 636 – 07:16:48
Pg 637 – 07:16:48
Pg 638 – 07:16:47
Like on May 1 and May 5, this means that 3 pages (628, 629, 630) were printed in the same second, 3 pages per second or 180 pages per second.
On this particular day, the printing order, unlike on May 1, 3 and 5 (on May 4 and 6 we don’t know), is from back to front, an option the user does not have when printing a database (settings set by programmer determine in what order pages are printed) but available in Excel and Word.
On Feb 12 2103 “HP Launches Guinness World Record Fastest Inkjet Printer For The Desktop”. It prints up to 70 pages per minute. Only 70 ppm (pages per minute).
Before that, Brother had announced on April 12 2012 that “The world's fastest printer: 100 pages per minute” would arrive in 2013-2014”
A little better but still only 100 ppm.
Neither of them can compete with the printer that was in Ocean Club’s reception. On a “lazy” day it printed 180 pages per minute. And on 2 days of the days mentioned, it put out an amazing 240 pages per minute.
A Guinness Book of Records record! Since 2007 and with no foreseeable risk of being surpassed.
Did the reader know that?
Impossible, you say? Yes, we agree. Impossible. Completely and totally impossible. Irrefutably impossible.
In early May 2007 it was impossible to have 4 or even 3 pages printed in the same second as these documents allege to have happened.
We ask the reader to just try and say “whoosh, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh” in less time than the reader can say “one Mississippi”.
This means also that the time printed out on those sheets had nothing to do with the computer time. Even if altered, the computer continues to count time. The clock doesn't stop.
To have a fixed date, as was the case, it can only be through an artificial date manually inserted in a cell on the top of each page.
Easily done in Excel, impossible to do (unless one is the programmer) in a database.
This is valid for pages 611/612. No office printer in a reception is able to print 2 pages in the same second - 17:26:07:
That would mean 120 pages per minute. A printer not invented yet in 2007.
Our assessment is that the database was exported from the Profitus database, in an Excel format and then worked on, page by page, by the Ocean Club staff in that format.
This means that these documents, with all their mistakes, took a significant amount of time and effort on the part of the Ocean Club and its staff.
The sheets handed over by the Ocean Club to the PJ mean absolutely nothing. From them we don't know who was present nor during what period. Their content cannot be trusted.
13. Bullen, the perfect storm
Dawn Bullen was a completely unknown up until our post “Luz’s Secret Service”. We had only noticed her presence on Tapas on the same night Maddie disappeared but it didn’t attract any attention.
Plus, the blog is the only one questioning the existence of such dinners and even we only started to take notice of Bullen when we wrote that particular post.
However, Dawn Bullen appears to be a pivotal person in this saga. She seems to appear almost everywhere.
But before getting to her, let’s just point out 2 people who arrive after they were scheduled to arrive, Edmonds and Totman.
Totman does not have any flight details on the arrival list but Edmonds is said to be coming in on Apr 28 on flight LGW XLA6156 at 10:40.
Apparently he arrives on the next day. We believe tour operator packages do not contemplate reimbursements for missed flights so it seems Mr Edmonds paid for the incoming flights for him and his 3 sons separately.
Both Totman and Edmonds are entitled to arrive late. We just find it strange that with so many notes and caveats mentioned in the various documents about various people this is not mentioned anywhere.
For example why say Edmonds resides in Switzerland on the arrivals list? Wouldn’t it be enough just to say client wouldn’t take return flight? There’s no reason to justify why because the reasons that assited him don't pertain to anyone but to Mr Edmonds.
We're only finding strange a fact we think relevant for the resort (avoiding his apartment to being rented to another person) that both Edmonds and Totman arrive late, is not mentioned.
But what one isn’t entitled is to be where one is not supposed to be yet. And that’s the case of Bullen.
She’s expected to arrive on the April 28 but is already in the resort as of April 21:
Why is her name in the “Property Arrival List” for 7 nights with expected departure on May 5 via flight ZB215?
Then why does her party increase to 2 to 4 adults in a 1 bedroom apartment? Did the other 2 people sleep in the living room? With Bullen’s 2 yr old son? Or did they give up the bedroom to their friends and the family slept together in the living room?
But, if you remember, as we have showed you, Bullen’s apartment is one of those that changes number of rooms, when she leaves and Rachel Elizabeth Fricker moves in, it becomes a 2 bedroom apartment!
Wouldn’t it have been more practical if that change had happened during Bullen's stay instead of waiting for Fricker to arrive?
Now let’s recap for a moment Dawn Bullen’s “participation” in this affair.
Arrives one week before she is supposed to arrive – arrives on April 21 when supposed to arrive on April 28
Is allocated a 1 bedroom apartment with 4 adults and a 2 yr old boy. An apartment that becomes a 2 bedroom apartment once the Bullens (and their friends) leave.
Her apartment changes identification during her stay:
The Bullen couple has dinner in Tapas on the fateful night with their 2 friends. Dawn Bullen is the one who informs the night crèche between 22:05 and 22:15 that Maddie has disappeared and that her parents need the nannies help to look for her when Kate only leaves the table at around 22:00.
She is able to pick up her son from the night crèche in such a way that it is impossible for her to be identified by the nanny she spoke to – although nanny knows “mystery woman” was there to pick up her son who went to Toddler 2 club and that same woman had left the resort at the end of the week.
But to top it all, one must ask, was Dawn Bullen there that week at all?
The question, obviously, is not made from the top of our heads. It is based on what is stated on the sheet “Listagem de chegadas previstas” (list of expected arrivals) as per Volume III pg 350 of the PJ Files.
On that sheet, from the Ocean Club, Bullen, a party of 3, is not allocated apartment 0302 (or O302) but EP02 (a 2 bedroom apartment):
This change of apartment must be the reason why her Folio number changes from 33706 to 33567 (shouldn’t the number be higher instead of lower?).
And is supposed to arrive on April 28. When, apparently she was there since April 21.
But what really is fascinating is that a “no show” appears in front of Bullen’s name:
So, we ask again, was Bullen there that week or wasn’t she?
As we promised in our “Haste or not to haste” post, we have since been revealing, justifying each statement, how 4 vectors of this saga have not been transparent to say the least.
The guests, more exactly Neil Berry, Raj Balu, Jeremy Wilkins, Stephen Carpenter and Dawn Bullen. Their “known” participation is highly questionable and should be questioned.
The ex-pats, namely Robert and Jenny Murat. We have explained how the explanation given by both Murat and Carpenter for the former to be involved in the case as a translator is totally unrealistic as well given our opinion as to why (and how) Robert was named arguido (something he sensed would happen as early as May 5).
Mark Warner daycare. We explained how the night crèche was free of charge but it did have somewhat strange working procedures – apparently any stranger could pick up a child from there without being identified and when a missing person procedure was activated the children in the night crèche were simply abandoned.
The Ocean Club and Mark Warner, as commercial companies that showed very clearly that they expected the high-season to come earlier than the rest of the Algarve and so hired seasonal workers accordingly.
Today we have shown how Ocean Club manipulated completely the guest listings they provided the PJ with.
To make these lists, as we said, took a significant amount of time and effort on the part of the Ocean Club and its staff.
What had the Ocean Club to hide?
A simple query of listed guests from April 28 to May 8 – something done in a few minutes – would provide all the information needed. If there was no need to alter anything.
Why alter them by manipulation?
Who was there, or had been there, so important that their presence could not to be revealed to the PJ and why?
The hiding of a presence (or presences) that was more important than whatever had to do with a little girl's death. Unless someone speaks we will never know. The documentation given to the PJ by the Ocean Club ensures that.
We hope the reader now fully comprehends the extent of the circle that was directly involved in the cover-up that followed, immediately, Maddie's death and not because she died or the way she died but because what her death could represent to those present there.
Those who went to the effort of providing such documentation tothe authorities would have, in our opinion, little or no problem in “convincing” their staff to sing from their hymn sheet.
Much, much wider than a circle of 9 people.
As the reader knows, we think the death happened inside the circle of those 9 people but we are also certain that the magnitude that this case took was not because of them.
We would just like people to finally realise, without any sort of arrogance or attention seeking on our part, that when they keep repeating negligence and Maddie being a paedo-victim they are but “parroting” what they have been subtly, but very efficiently, “trained-to-parrot”.
No one is fooled because they want to be fooled, however it’s up to each one to decide what to do when looking reality in the eye.
What is known, cannot be unknown.
|(image from here)|
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank our friend, Shaherazade for her contribution to this post.
We have seen the following on a comment by Knitted on JH Forum:
“I agree with with Textusa's broad analysis, and the newer comments about the date/time stamp. Something is indeed 'odd' about these, and it seems unlikely that a business would deploy a process requiring daily manual interventions in its databases, especially if they have purchased a bespoke/propriety tool to do the work efficiently, (e.g. the Profitus tool).
However, as regards them being simply Excel printouts I'm confused by the horizontal lines (made up of '=' signs) at the top of the pages. Being as the '=' characters are equally spaced they wouldn't be characters in Excel columns. (n.b. You could get that effect if the cells in the row were merged, or if you typed " '= space = space = " etc., but then you'd get a break in the vertical dots that define the column edges). Here's the header parts I'm referring to...”
To Knitted, the vertical lines have been put there by us to show how the columns are not aligned. They do not exist in the originals that are in the PJ Files.
The horizontal lines on the sheets can easily be duplicated on Excel: