Thursday, 14 May 2015

Definite Proof


1. Introduction

This post would be called “Oops!... I did it again”, if it didn't have the importance it has.

Yes, the reader can thank again Textusa's Little Helper, Insane, for pointing us in the right direction and what a direction it was this time.

So we will resist the urge of exploring the phrase “hit me one more time” from Britney Spears' “Baby one more time” and assume the seriousness this post deserves.

It is a follow-up to our “Irrefutable Evidence” post and it will show definitely that the Ocean Club booking sheets are doctored documents.

This is one of those posts we warn readers that it will not be an easy read. We caution those with eyes that bleed easily and/or have short attention spans to stop now. If they wish to continue we inform them they are doing so at own risk, so no complaints afterwards, please. 

But before showing how Insane helped us, we first have to clarify something about the reactions we received on that post.


2. OCR “mythology”

The only argument against what we showed in our “Irrefutable Evidence” post was that all errors were due to OCR.

Here is what one detractor, not Insane but another person who we wish not to name, had to say: 

“The Textusa analysis is crazy. The reason for the names or words changing in the various fields is because when the PJ scanned copies of everything in, they used OCR software built in to Adobe Acrobat. The optical character recognition does not always get it right and so computers DO make mistakes. This is why names like Berber become Bxrber or zeros become Os. I can't believe that someone would waste so much time forming a theory on the basis of optical character recognition errors. The mind boggles. The PJ files are replete with OCR errors. Duh.”

Another blogger, not Insane but one who we have already said we wish not to give any sort of publicity and because of this we shall not name either, said this (bold is ours):

“The Ocean Club arrivals list, under his partner Ms B O’Donnell (changed to Mrs on the pjfiles site) puts him in apartment 4-O, which I am confident is an OCR error.

Jeremy Wilkins, present and accounted for, in apartment 4O.”

Or, in other words, the OCR has garbled up the O'Donnell's apartment “G4O” into a “G4-O” as it appears in the booking sheets. What the blogger is trying to do is to justify why the O'Donnell's apartment appears with a dash in the sheet different from all other apartments from block 4:


What the blogger fails to explain is why the OCR repeated the exact same mistake on 4 different occasions:


A very selective OCR we would say.

So blame it on OCR for all the “errors” we showed on our “Irrefutable Evidence” post.

Sorry, but that is simply not possible.

Let's first see what OCR, or Optical Character Recognition is. As per Wikipedia (underlining is ours):

“Optical character recognition (OCR) is the mechanical or electronic conversion of images of typewritten or printed text into machine-encoded text. It is widely used as a form of data entry from printed paper data records, whether passport documents, invoices, bank statements, computerized receipts, business cards, mail, printouts of static-data, or any suitable documentation. It is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that it can be electronically edited, searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data and text mining.”

It's the capture and analysis of the contrast made by the ink of a printed character on a paper and converting this into its corresponding digital character. Converting a printed word into its corresponding digital format so it can be used digitally.

It has nothing to do with reproduction. In reproducing one seeks for the copy to be as approximate as the original as possible. And this objective is far from achieved from OCR as this software does produce some errors. Again by Wikipedia:

“Recognition of Latin-script, typewritten text is still not 100% accurate even where clear imaging is available. One study based on recognition of 19th- and early 20th-century newspaper pages concluded that character-by-character OCR accuracy for commercial OCR software varied from 81% to 99%”

(image from here)
When handing out the DVDs with the files we're certain that it was not PJ's intention to distribute documentation with garbled text vaguely similar to the originals.

But it is the booking sheets that prove that no OCR software was used. OCR is not able to recognise and reproduce handwriting and even if it did, it would reproduce it in digital characters and not in handwritten calligraphy:


Or this:


And much less this:


The thing about converting what was captured into digital characters is that the result is always printed with clarity. It may not make any sense whatsoever, filled with dots, dashes and other various characters but they will always be printed neatly.

For example in the example shown the meaningful but smudged word “portion” was converted by OCR into a neat but senseless “pntkm”:


OCR does not convert smudge into smudge. It corrects the smudge.

One either has a document reproduced via OCR or one doesn't. Both is not possible. Neither is having “OCR'd ” only the printed characters and the rest of the document not.

And the Guest booking sheets were clearly not reproduced using such software.

We would love to know which OCR errors the PJ Files are allegedly replete with so we will patiently wait for anyone to show them to us.  OCR errors, not spelling mistakes.

We are certain that no one will be able to do that for one simple reason, there aren't any because OCR technology wasn't used. It wasn't called for in a process where the objective was to copy and not for pixel analysis.

To our detractors please find another excuse to rebut what was shown in our  “Irrefutable Evidence” post other than OCR

It's not OCR that is responsible for the variance in dashes used (shouldn't they be the same every time the footer was printed?), nor for the different alignments nor for “PROFITUS” to have become “PROPITUS”:


It happened not because of OCR but of EHE or Evident Human Error.

And no, we don't consider we're wasting our time.


3. Apartment designation

This is what Insane – after failing on his promise to rebut line by line the contents of post – had to say on his corner of the internet on April 23 2015 about designations of apartments used by the Ocean Club in its booking sheets that we wrote on our “Irrefutable Evidence” post (red, his words, blue ours he quotes, yellow his highlighting, asterisks are ours):

I love a bit of thorough research, don't you?

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!!


Why didn't you just look at the bottom of the page, you d*zy
dingb*t? That's where the codes are

This was the bottom of the page Insane wanted us to see:


We, as the reader can verify, never said the designations did not exist. What we said and maintain is that we don't know what they designate.

More specifically how many bedrooms is an apartment with such designation is supposed to have. The “T” terminology that designates that number is very common in Portugal. Very simple, clear and understandable to all.

We have seen the plus sign (+) associated with said “T” terminology, like in T3+1, but that is used to refer rooms that aren't bedrooms but also are not social spaces like the dining or living rooms. Offices, for example. A “T3+1” would be a 3 bedroom house plus an office.

What we haven't seen before are the T3F, T3FB and T3FB designations used by the Ocean Club.

The point we were making above was how the same apartments, W21B and W22D, get different designations and it wasn't about whether designations exist or not.

Insane, again gives us the wag of the finger and tells us to “look at the bottom of the page”.

On April 25 2015, again in his blog he insists on the issue: [about whether the MW Childcare/Ocean Club “Missing Person Procedure” set in place or not when Dawn Bullen informs alleged night crèche that Maddie had disappeared] “Who said it was already in place? They put it in place, which you would know if you were as familiar with the files as you like to think. Of course we know you are not very familiar, hence the spectacle of you (censored) over what you said was a doctored code on a piece of paperwork, when in fact the codes were all listed at the foot of the page. Hint: Always scroll down before (censored) yourself into a coma over your ''discovery''”

A stern wag of the finger and the insistence for us to “always scroll down” meant that he really wanted us to look and we did just that.

And we're glad we did, because that “bottom of the page” gives us the definite proof that the sheets were indeed doctored.

He was showing that at the end of each day, there's a table where it sums up the values for that day. And indeed there it is, very clearly, the designation used by the Ocean Club to refer the type of its various apartments:


These are: T1 (1 bedroom), T2 (2 bedrooms), T3 (3 bedrooms), T3F (?? bedrooms), T4 (4 bedrooms), T3FP (?? bedrooms) and T3FB (?? bedrooms). 

After Insane's advice to look at this table we continue not to see what T3F, T3FP and T3FB stand for in terms of number of rooms these apartments. Also continue not to know what TZ, listed in sheets but unlisted on table, represents.

But our time was not wasted. We looked at this table (pg 618) and in at the other 5 tables (pgs 622, 626, 630, 634 and 638).

What was there to see was worth seeing.



4. Number of apartments available and occupied

The second column, “Quan.” (Quantity), of this table gives us the exact amount of apartments the resort had available for its costumers:


This number is constant. Ocean Club had, according to the booking sheets, 46 T1, 151 T2, 19 T3, 1 T3F, 1 T4, 2 T3FP and T3FB. A total of 223 apartments.

On the right hand side of the table there is the “Ocupado” (Occupied) column where is expressed the number of apartments for each type were used that day. Next to it is the “% Ocupação” (% Occupancy) column which translates that value into a percentage. For the day represented above, of the 46 T1 available, 23 were occupied which represented a 50% occupancy for that particular type of apartment.

We would like readers to note that according to the above of the 223 apartments available, according to the booking sheets, only 99 were occupied which represented a 44.39% occupancy.

Less than half, when the resort and Mark Warner were at 100%, or near that value, in terms of hiring of seasonal personnel as we showed in our “Tourism Diet” post. It strikes, like we said then, as strange such a hurry to hire people so early in the season.

The computer counts these “T” values from the designations used in the column “Tipo” (Type) on the various booking sheets:


   
5. Colours

To facilitate the visualisation of the information contained in the 24 pages in question we will use the same colour scheme we used on our  “Irrefutable Evidence” post (and have already used above):


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 will now look at what, on each of these days, is listed as occupied apartments. We warn it will be repetitive but it has to be that way as the reader will hopefully realise.


6. Listings of pages 615-618 (May 1 2007 03:45)

table at the bottom of page 618

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 615 to 618 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 615, 616, 617 and 618 more attentively one can see:

(i) That 63 (sixty-three) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 17 listed on page 615: ALLISTER, AUSTIN, BAMFORTH, BARBER, BENTON, BLACKBURN, BRAIN, BULLEN, BURCH, BURLTON, CAIRNS, CARPENTER, CARRUTHERS, CLODE, COX,  DOWNHAM and DUNFORD;

- 21 listed on page 616: ELSON, FOSTER, FRANCIS, HALL, HALLAM, HAMILL, HANDY, HARDING, HART, HART, HESELTON, HULME, IAN, IRWIN, JENSEN, KNAGGS, LEE, MACKENZIE, MANN, MARKWARNER.CO.UK and MASULO;

- 17 listed on page 617: MCNAMARA, MILLS, MILNES, NEWMAN, O'DONNEL, OBRIEN, OLDFIELD, PATEL, PLANE, PLUMBEY, PRESTON, REAP, ROSE, ROWBOTHAM, SCHARFENBERG, SEVEN EYE/WESSELS and SIMPSON;

- 8 listed on page 618: SPERREY, STALLION, TALBOT, TAYLOR, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOM, THORNHILL and VOISIN.

(ii) That 55 (fifty-five) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 14 listed on page 615: AGG, BAKER, BAMFORD, BXBER, BEAUMONT, BERRY, BOWNESS, BURTON, CHARTERS, CLAYFIELD, CLIFFORD, CRONIN, DAVIES and OON;

- 18 listed on page 616: EATON, EDMONDS, ENGLAND, GORROD, GRANT, HACK, HAMMERSLEY, HILLS, HYND, JANCZUR, KASSIRI, KELLY, KERR, KNOWLES, LEEDS, LEWARDOWSKI, LORDAN and MCCABE;

- 15 listed on page 617: MCCANDLESS, MCCORMICK, MCLENNAGHAM, MCPHILIPS, McCANN, NAYLOR, NAYLOR, OGDEN, OSBORNE, PALMER, PATEL, PAYNE, SELF, SKINNER and SPEIRS;

- 8 listed on page 618: STEVENS, THOMAS COOK REPS, THOMPSON, TOTMAN, TULIP, WATKINS, WEINBURGER and WILLIAMS.

(iii) That 7 (seven) T3 apartments were occupied by ARENDS/BOXTEL (615), BARNES (615), CLOUGH (615), HURST (616), KEVIN (616), MCGARRY (617) and PLUMB (617).

(iv) That 2 (two) T3F apartments were occupied by BOOKER-MILBURN (615) and MORGAN (617).

(v) That 1 (one) T3FB apartment was occupied by RABIN (617).

(vi) That 1 (one) TZ apartment (TZ is a designation not listed in table) was occupied by TAVERNER (618):


(vii)  That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 615-618) as shown from (i) to (vii):
 

However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 618 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F, T3FP and T3FB apartments as only the number of T4 match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 64 were occupied on this day. Same overoccupying phenomenon happens with the T3F apartments: 1 available, 2 occupied.


7. Listings of pages 619-622 (May 3 2007 01:16)

table at the bottom of page 622

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 619 to 622 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 619, 620, 621 and 622 more attentively one can see:
(i) That 62 (sixty-two) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 18 listed on page 619: AUSTIN, BAMPORTH, BARBER, BENTON, BLACKBURN, BRAIN, BULLEN, BURCH, BURLTON, CAIRNS, CAMPBELL, CARPENTER, CARRUTHERS, CLODE, COX, DOWNHAM, DUNFORD and ELSON;

- 20 listed on page 620: FOSTER, FRANCIS, GILL, HALL, HALLAM, HAMILL, HANDY, HARDING, HART, HART, HESELTON, HULME, IAN, IRWIN, JENSEN, KNAGGS, MACKENZIE, MANN, MARKWARNER and MASULO;

- 18 listed on page 621: MCNAMARA, MILLS, MILNES, O'DONNEL, OBRIEN, OLDFIELD, PATEL, PENNELL, PLANE, PLUMBEY, PRESTON, REAP, ROSE, ROWBOTHAM, SCHARFENBERG, SIMPSON, SPERREY and STALLION;

- 6 listed on page 622: TALBOT, TAYLOR, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOM, THORNHILL and VOISIN.

(ii) That 54 (fifty-four) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 12 listed on page 619: AGG, ARTHUR, BAKER, BEAUMONT, BERRY, BOWNESS, BURTON, CHARTERS, CLIFFORD, CRONIN, DAVIES and EATON;

- 20 listed on page 620: EDMONDS, ENGLAND, GORROD, GRANT, HACK, HAMMERSLEY, HILLS, HYND, JANCZUR, KASSIRI, KELLY, KERR, KNOWLES, LEEDS, LEWARDOWSKI, LORDAN, MCCABE, MCCANDLESS, MCCORMICK and MCLENNAGHAM;

- 14 listed on page 621: MCPHILIPS, MOYES, McCANN, NAYLOR, NAYLOR, OGDEN, OSBORNE, PALMER, PATEL, PAYNE, SELF, SKINNER, SPEIRS and STEVENS;

- 8 listed on page 622: SWANN, THOMAS COOK REPS, THOMPSON, TOTMAN, TULIP, WATKINS, WEINBURGER and WILLIAMS.

(iii) That 7 (seven) T3 apartments were occupied by ARENDS/BOXTEL (619), BARNES (619), CLOUGH (619), HURST (620), KEVIN (620), MCGARRY (620) and PLUMB (621).

(iv) That 1 (one) T3F apartment was occupied BOOKER-MILBURN (619).

(v) That 2 (two) T3FB apartment was occupied by OGDEN (621) and RABIN (621).

(vi) That 1 (one) T38 apartment (T38 is a designation not listed in table) was occupied by MORGAN (621):


(vii)  That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 619-622) as shown from (i) to (vii):


However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 622 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3 and T3FT3FB apartments as only the number of T4, T3FP and T3FB match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 62 were occupied on this day.


8. Listings of pages 623-626 (May 4 2007 01:48)

table at the bottom of page 626

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 623 to 626 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 623, 624, 625 and 626 more attentively one can see:
(i) That 63 (sixty-three) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 19 listed on page 623: AUSTIN, BARBER, BLACKBURN, BRAIN, BULLEN, BURCH, BURLTON, CAMPBELL, CARPENTER, CARRUTHERS, CHAPMAN, COX, DAVIES, DOWNHAM, ELSON, FOSTER, FRANCIS, GIENCKE and GILL;

- 17 listed on page 624: HALL, HAMILL, HANDY, HARDING, HART, HART, HESELTON, HUMPHRIES, IAN, IRWIN, JENSEN, KNAGGS, MACKENZIE, MANGAN, MANN, MARKWARNER CO UK and MASULO;

- 17 listed on page 625: MCNAMARA, MILLS, MINTON, NELSON, O'DONNEL, OBRIEN, ODEDRA, OLDFIELD, PATEL, PENNELL, PRESTON, RATCLIFFE, REAP, ROWBOTHAM, SCHARFENBERG, SIMPSON and SPERREY;

- 10 listed on page 626: STALLION, TALBOT, TAYLOR, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOM, THOMAS COOK REP, THORNHILL, THUESDAY, VOISIN and WILCOX.

(ii) That 60 (sixty) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 14 listed on page 623: ARTHUR, BERRY, BOWNESS, BOWYER, BURTON, CAIRNS, CASH, CHARTERS, CLIFFORD, DAVIES, EATON, EDMONDS, ENGLAND and GORDON-CLARK;

- 22 listed on page 624: GORROD, GRANT, GWILYN, HACK, HAMMERSLEY, HILLS, HUMPHREYS, HYND, JANCZUR, KASSIRI, KELLY, KEMBER, KERR, KIRKHAM, KNOWLES, LANE, LEEDS, LORDAN, MARTIN, MCCABE, MCCANDLESS and MCCORMICK;

- 16 listed on page 625: MCLENNAGHAM, MCMILLAN, MCPHILIPS, MOYES, McCANN, NAYLOR, NAYLOR, OGDEN, OSBORNE, PALMER, PAYNE, PERKINS, RANDELL, SELF, SKINNER and SPEIRS;

- 8 listed on page 626: STEVENS, SWANN, THOMAS COOK REPS, TOTMAN, WATKINS, WEINBURGER, WESTBROOK and WILLIAMS.

(iii) That 7 (seven) T3 apartments were occupied by ARENDS/BOXTEL (623), BARNES (623), CLOUGH (623), HURST (624), KEVIN (624), MCGARRY (625) and PLMB (625).

(iv) That 1 (one) T3F apartment was occupied by BOOKER-MILBURN (623).

(v) That 1 (one) T3FB apartment was occupied by OGDEN (625).

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

(vii) That there were no “extraordinary” designations on this day.

The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 623-626) as shown from (i) to (vii):


However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 626 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3 and T3FT3FB apartments as only the number of T4, T3FP and T3FB match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 63 were occupied on this day.


9. Listings of pages 627-630 (May 5 2007 02:37)

table at the bottom of page 630

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 627 to 630 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 627, 628, 629 and 630 more attentively one can see:

(i) That 61 (sixty-one) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 18 listed on page 627: ALAN, AUSTIN, BARBER, BLACKBURN, BRAIN, BULLEN, BURLTON, CAMPBELL, CARPENTER, CARRUTHERS, CHAPMAN, COX, DAVIES, DOWNHAM, ELSON, FOSTER and FRANCIS;

- 19 listed on page 628: GIENCKE, GILL, HALL, HAMILL, HANDY, HARDING, HART, HART, HESELTON, HUMPHRIES, IRWIN, JENSEN, KNAGGS, MACKENZIE, MAHYE, MANGAN, MANN, MARKWARNER.CO.UK and MASULO;

- 15 listed on page 629: MCNAMARA, MILLS, MINTON, NELSON, O'DONNEL, OBRIEN, ODEDRA, OLDFIELD, PATEL, PENNELL, RATCLIFFE, REAP, ROWBOTHAM, SCHARFENBERG and SIMPSON;

- 10 listed on page 630: SPERREY, STALLION, TALBOT, TAYLOR, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOM, THOMAS COOK REP, THORNHILL, THUESDAY and WILCOX.

(ii) That 61 (sixty-one) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 17 listed on page 627: ARTHUR, BERRY, BOWNESS, BOWYER, BROOKS, BORTON, CAIRNS, CASH, CHARTERS, CLAIRE, CLIFFORD, DAVIES, DAVIS, EATON, EDDYE, EDMONDS and ENGLAND;

- 19 listed on page 628: GORDON-CLARK, GORROD, GWILYN, HACK, HAMMERSLEY, HILLS, HUMPHRIES, HYND, JANCZUR, KASSIRI, KELLY, KEMBER, KERR, KIRKHAM, KNOWLES, LANE, LEEDS, LORDAN and MARTIN;

- 18 listed on page 629: MCCABE, MCCANDLESS, MCCORMICK, MCMILLAN, MCPHILIPS, MOYES, McCANN, NAYLOR, NAYLOR, OGDEN, OSBORNE, PALMER, PAYNE, PERKINS, RANDELL, SELF, SKINNER and SPEIRS;

- 7 listed on page 630: STEVENS, SWANN, THOMAS COOK REPS, TOTMAN, WEINBURGER, WESTBROOK and WILLIAMS.

(iii) That 7 (seven) T3 apartments were occupied by ARENDS/BOXTEL (627), BARNES (627), CLOUGH (627), HURST (628), KEVIN (628), MCGARRY (629) and PLUMB (629).

(iv) That 2 (two) T3F apartments were occupied by BOOKER-MILBURN (627) and SHAKESPEARE (629).

(v) That 1 (one) T3FB apartment was occupied by OGDEN (629).

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

(vii) That there were no “extraordinary” designations on this day.

(viii) That BURCH (627), VOISIN (630) and WATKINS (630) have no designation to their apartments:


(ix) That we have 1 (one) apartment with unknown designation, occupied by PRESTON (629), as strangely a strange logo appears on the sheet:


The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 627-630) as shown from (i) to (ix):


However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 630 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F and T4T3FB apartments as only the number of T3FP and T3FB match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 61 were occupied on this day. Same overoccupying phenomenon happens with the T3F apartments: 1 available, 2 occupied.


10. Listings of pages 631-634 (May 6 2007 07:05)

table at the bottom of page 634

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 631 to 634 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 631, 632, 633 and 634 more attentively one can see:

(i) That 64 (sixty-four) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 17 listed on page 631: ALAN, ALEX, ATTERTON, AUSTIN, BIRCH, BLACKBURN, BURCH, BURDEKIN, CAMPBELL, CHAPMAN, CIDRE, DAVIES, ELSON, FRY, GIENCKE, GILL and GOODYER;

- 17 listed on page 632: GRAFTON, HAMILL, HART, HART, HENSHAW, HIRST, HOBSON, HUMPHRIES, JENSEN, KERRIGAN, KILBY, KURI, LYNCH, MACDONALD, MAHYE, MANGAN and MARKWARNER.CO.UK;

- 19 listed on page 633: MINTON, MOORES, MULLARD, NELSON, NEWMAN, ODEDRA, PARKER, PARR, PENNELL, PRICE, RATCLIFFE, REAP, RING, ROGERS, ROTHWELL, SAVAGE, SCHARFENBERG, SIMPSON and STALLION;

- 11 listed on page 634: STEVENS, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOMAS COOK REP, THUESDAY, TREVETT, TURNER, VINCENT, VOISIN, WILCOX, WOOD and YIU.

(ii) That 65 (sixty-five) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 21 listed on page 631: ALLAN, MICHAEL, ARTHUR, ARUNDEL, BERRY, BOWYER, BREWIN, BROOKS, BURDEKIN, BYDFORD/LIM, CAIRNS, CASH, CLAIRE, CRAIG, CULSHAW, DAVID, DAVIS, DE LA MARE, EDDYE, ENGLAND and FRICKER;

- 23 listed on page 632: GORDON-CLARK, GORROD, GWILYN, HARLOW, HARRISON, HASLAM, HENDERSON, HEX, HINCHIN, HUMPHREYS, HYND, KELLY, KEMBER, KIRKHAM, KNOWLES, LANE, LECKENBY, LEEDS, LEIGH, LLOYD, LORDAN, MACKENSON and MARTIN;

- 12 listed on page 633: MCCABE, MCCANDLESS, MCMILLAN, MORTIMER-BALL, MOYES, PAWER, PEART, PERKINS, PLANT, RANDELL, ROBERTS and SKINNER;

- 9 listed on page 634: STINTON-HEELEY, SWANN, THOMAS COOK REPS, TOWLER, WARREN, WESTBROOK, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS and ZELEWITZ.

(iii) That 3 (three) T3 apartments were occupied by CLOUGH (631), HURST (632) and PLUMB (633).

(iv) That 2 (two) T3F apartments were occupied by BOOKER-MILBURN (631) and SHAKESPEARE (633).

(v) That 1 (one) T3FB apartment was occupied by OGDEN (633).

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

(vii) That there were no “extraordinary” designations on this day.

The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 631-634) as shown from (i) to (vii):


However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 634 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F and T4T3FB apartments as only the number of T3FP and T3FB match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 64 were occupied on this day. Same overoccupying phenomenon happens with the T3F apartments: 1 available, 2 occupied.


11. Listings of pages 635-638 (May 7 2007 07:16)

table at the bottom of page 638

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 635 to 638 by its various categories including that of occupancy.

On looking at pages 635, 636, 637 and 638 more attentively one can see:

(i) That 67 (sixty-seven) T1 apartments were occupied by:

- 15 listed on page 635ALAN, ALEX, ATTERTON, AUSTIN, BAKER, BIRCH, BLACK, BLACKBURN, BURCH, CAMPBELL, CHAPMAN, CIDRE, COOK, DAVIES and GIENCKE;

- 19 listed on page 636: GILL, GOODWIN, GOODYER, GRAFTON, GREENWOOD, HAMILL, HENSHAW, HIRST, HOBSON, HUMPHRIES, JENSEN/WILTSHIRE, KERRIGAN, KURI, LATHAM, LEAH, LEE, LYNCH, MACDONALD and MAHYE;

- 18 listed on page 637: MANGAN, MARKWARNER CO UK, MINTON, MOORES, MULLARD, NELSON, NEWMAN, ODEDRA, PARKER, PARR, PENNELL, PRICE, PSICOLOGO/ ALDERTON, RATCLIFFE, REAP, ROGERS, ROSS and ROTHWELL;

- 15 listed on page 638: SAVAGE, SCHARFENBERG, SIMPSON, STEVENS, STURROCK, THE TRAVEL CLUB UPMINSTER, THOMAS COOK REP, THUESDAY, TREVETT, TURNER, VEITCH, VINCENT, WILCOX, WOOD and YIU.

(ii) That 68 (sixty-eight) T2 apartments were occupied by:

- 21 listed on page 635: ALLAN, ARTHUR, ARUNDEL, BALLINGER, BERRY, BOWYER, BREWIN, BROOKS, BURDEKIN, BYDFORD/LIM, CAIRNS, CASH, CLAIRE, CRAIG, CULSHAW, DAVID, DAVIS, DE LA MARE, EDDYE, ENGLAND and FRICKER;

- 22 listed on page 636: GORDON-CLARK, GWILYN, HARLOW, HARRISON, HASLAM, HENDERSON, HEX, HINCHIN, HUBBARD, HUMPHREYS, HYND, KELLY, KEMBER, KIRKHAM, KNOWLES, LANE, LECKENBY, LEEDS, LEIGH, LLOYD, LORDAN and MACKESON;

- 13 listed on page 637: MARTIN, MCCABE, MCCANDLESS, MCMILLAN, MICHELLE, MORTIMER-BALL, MOYES, PALMER, PEART, PERKINS, PLANT, RANDELL and ROBERTS;

- 12 listed on page 638: SKINNER, STINTON-HEELEY, SWANN, THOMAS COOK REPS, TOWLER, TOWNLEY, WARREN, WESTBROOK, WILKINSON, WILLIAM, WORSWICK and ZELEWITZ.

(iii) That 3 (three) T3 apartments were occupied by CLOUGH (635), HURST (637) and PLUMB (637).

(iv) That 2 (two) T3F apartments were occupied by BOOKER-MILBURN (635) and SHAKESPEARE (638).

(v) That 1 (one) T3FP apartment was occupied by PATE (637).

(vi) That 1 (one) T3FB apartment was occupied by OGDEN (637).

(vii) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

(viii) That there were no “extraordinary” designations on this day.

The summary of apartment occupancy (pages 635-638) as shown from (i) to (viii):


However the summary table for those pages states the following:


Comparison between the table at bottom of page 638 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:


As can be seen, there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the occupancies referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F and T4T3FB apartments as only the number of T3FP and T3FB match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets. It begs the question:


Please note that although there were only 46 T1 apartments available, 67 were occupied on this day. Same overoccupying phenomenon happens with the T3F apartments: 1 available, 2 occupied.


12. Significant and evident difference in numbers

The 6 tables shown above:



The summary of the daily differences between the listings and respective table for all 24 pages:


In red, when there were more apartments occupied on the listing than there were on the table. Background blue represents the only times numbers between table and sheets match.

Too many “mistakes” to be accidental.

And in this case detractors cannot resort to “OCR mistakes” – not that they could as shown before in current post – because this counting process occurs independent of any sort of printing.

A computer does not make mistakes. It does not confuse a “B”for an “8” as they have completely different binary codes.

If instructed to count all “T1” in a column a computer counts all “T1” without exception or error. If a “T1” is misspelled as a “TI” then the computer will not count it as “T1” because it isn't one and that is not a computer error but one of data insertion.

It does beg the question that we have asked a few times today:


The answer is simple and straightforward: nothing.

The computer in this case was used simply as typing machine. The only computer thing the computer did was to calculate the % of occupancy and this is a further indication that they are Excel spreadsheets:


But even then, not all is well. We have a “%” become a “2” on the header of a field (or should we say column?):


And we have the percentage formatting gone wrong:




13. The time factor

The information in the guests' booking sheets, in our opinion and we think without any doubt, were doctored. All days without exception.

One thing that has to be noted is that not only the information pertaining to the time Maddie was in the resort was doctored.

The information concerning people who supposedly arrived afterwards was also edited.

Why change information about people who only arrived afterwards? Shouldn't every single “inconvenient” guest have left and shouldn't every “inconvenient” guest who was supposed to have arrived not stayed clear away from Luz and simply not arrive?

Why introduce manually, it takes time, effort, people and intention, 84 (eighty-four) names in an Excel spreasheet of people who arrived after Maddie had disappeared?

- booking sheets say that 7 (seven) checked in on Friday, May 4: ALAN, BROOKS, CLAIRE, DAVIS, EDDYE, MAHYE and SHAKESPEARE.

- booking sheets say that 60 (sixty) checked in on Saturday, May 5: ALEX, ALLAN, ARUNDEL, ATTERTON, BIRCH, BREWIN, BURDEKIN, BYDFORD/LIM, CIDRE, CRAIG, CULSHAW, DAVID, DE LA MARE, FRICKER, FRY, GOODYER, GRAFTON, HARLOW, HARRISON, HASLAM, HENDERSON, HENSHAW, HEX, HINCHIN, HIRST, HOBSON, KERRIGAN, KILBY, KURI, LECKENBY, LEIGH, LLOYD, LYNCH, MACDONALD, MACKENSON, MOORES, MORTIMER-BALL, MULLARD, NEWMAN, PARKER, PARR, PEART, PLANT, PRICE, RING, ROBERTS, ROGERS, ROTHWELL, SAVAGE, STEVENS, STINTON-HEELEY, TOWLER, TREVETT, TURNER, VINCENT, WARREN, WILKINSON, WOOD, YIU and ZELEWITZ.

- booking sheets say that 17 (seventeen) checked in on Sunday, May 6: BAKER, BALLINGER, COOK, GOODWIN, GREENWOOD, HUBBARD, LATHAM, LEAH, LEE, MICHELLE, PATE, PSICOLOGO/ ALDERTON, ROSS, STURROCK, TOWNLEY, VEITCH and WORSWICK.

Two of which, SHAKESPEARE and MULLARD, had their names corrected:


Why fiddle with the information about people who, supposedly, had nothing to do with case?

If, for whatever reason it may be one can imagine possible reasons as to why documents of the first week would be doctored (for example to hide the presence of some even from the police), apparently there is nothing that can justify the lists for Saturday (pages 631-634) and Sunday (pages 635-638) being doctored which should be transparent.

That would produce a list without mistakes printed quickly from the untouched database that we are certain existed and exists on the Ocean Club computers.

The apologists of the paedo thesis will find it hard to explain this. Why would new guests be involved or allow themselves to be involved?

The criticism we received from Insane and Johanna, almost 4 years ago in our post “Tapas Quiz Night #4/?” was based exactly on the fact that we were pointing the finger at people who had arrived after Maddie's disappearance so couldn't possibly be involved in the affair.

Today we can clearly see that one cannot simply take them out of the equation. For some reason the sheets in which they appear were tampered with.

We had already shown this to be so in our “Tapas Quiz Night #12/?” post of Oct 11 2011.

Only the swinging thesis can explain this because it focuses not only on the T9 but on the guests present in the resort and on the resort itself. Only this scope can justify the tampering of these pages.

In our opinion, these sheets try to show a continuance of occupancy that did not exist. We do not know how many of the people listed are real or made-up names nor in what period did they really stay in the resort.

An example of this is Dawn Bullen who is supposed to arrive on April 28 and is registered arriving on April 21 and yet has a “no show” in front of her name. A person who allegedly dined in Tapas in that fateful night and was allegedly the one who informs night crèche that Maddie had disappeared.


13. Conclusion

No documentation handed over by the Ocean Club can be trusted. This is a very important point.

One of the Socratic Paradoxes says that “No one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly”.

The loan with the highest interest rate of all is called a favour. It's a loan that one makes for life and no matter how much one pays back there's always residual interest due.

When one is defending one's own interest one tends to ask for favours.

In the Maddie case favours were done with the best of intentions but when things started to go wrong the interest rate of these loans rose steeply.

Things snowballed and have gone beyond any control.

Truth is there to be seen.

It is not easy for one to recognise that what one has believed for so long and with such a conviction is but the result of well orchestrated manipulation.

No one likes to be wrong and even less realise they've been fooled. That's why Mark Twain is so right when he said “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”.

But what each has to realise is that this is about truth and not ourselves and looking the other way will not make truth go away.

We're used to seeing the back of the heads of many but that will not stop us from doing what we feel is right. The truth, if indeed the truth, will always be the truth be it said by 1 or by a 1,000.

We acknowledge that there are others thinking differently from us are also striving to do the right thing and with full honesty are outing truth as they perceive it to be.

The problem is that truth doesn't allow any squeezing or twisting of its pieces to make them fit. All pieces must have the same value. One cannot say a statement is from a confused person because it goes against our grain and value another above all others because it fits nicely in our theory.

One cannot say a person has an agenda because he took 3 weeks to come forward and accept as natural another doing so 3 months after.

One cannot take for granted that a cream jacket may be mistaken for a dark brown one.

One cannot ignore that Smithman had more than enough opportunities to not encounter the Smiths and yet he insisted in doing so while carrying a living child in his arms.

One cannot pretend that the Big Round Table was the joining of square tables and its round shape is just confusion when we have Kate drawing a round table, Tanner speaking of a round table and Gerry drawing a round table with the gesture of his hand on the 2009 Mockumentary.

One cannot base entire theories on hand-writing comparisons and then ignore where printed word has been tampered with.

One cannot just sweep under the rug statements from guests like Jez Wilkins, Neil Berry, Raj Balu and Stephen Carpenter and their gross and evident inconsistencies and discrepancies. And one of them, Carpenter's, with the disgusting attempt to implicate an Ocean Club employee, Mr Mário Marreiros.

One cannot overlook the fact that Stephen Carpenter and Robert Murat are consistent about how they met, a meeting which would result in the first being the one responsible for taking the latter to become a translator in the case and a meeting we know impossible to have taken place.

One cannot ignore that 2 ex-pats, TS and Derek Flack, together with a guest, JW, give statements in which they invent a character, Pimpleman, which can only have the purpose of distracting the PJ.

One cannot forget about the McCluskeys who say they talked to a Portuguese speaking woman in Alvor who they later identify as Kate McCann. This identification happens at the same time, strange coincidence, that Martin Smith identifies Gerry McCann as being Smithman.

One cannot pretend that John and Donna Hill's names do not appear in either Ocean Club of Mark Warner employee list even though one is manager and the other on May 4 claims to MW's childcare manager and only to be “replaced” by Lyndsay Johnson a couple of days later.

One cannot let go unnoticed that by their own words the nannies on duty at the night crèche on May 3 2007 abandoned the children who were in the crèche when they were supposedly told Maddie had disappeared by a woman, Dawn Bullen, who couldn't have possibly have that information when it's said she has.

And today one cannot ignore that the booking sheets were tampered with including the people who supposedly arrived after Maddie disappeared.

In sum, one cannot pretend that there wasn't in situ a wide circle of people, which included guests, Ocean Club, Mark Warner and ex-pats who were actively and directly involved in obstructing justice in finding out the truth as to what really happened to Maddie McCann.

A circle obviously much, much bigger than those 9 people who we know as Tapas 9.

To those accusing us of ignoring the statements from the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin, we say we haven't. We are fully aware of them and of their content.

We don't pretend that they don't exist or say they're not worth analysis and discussion. We only have yet to explain, which we will do, why we think these are but pieces yet crucial ones we must add, to a very well implemented misleading campaign. A very sick one in our opinion which has led to an unthinkable witch hunt in the XXI century. That alone is enough to make us all think.

But if it does take courage to see the truth as it really is, it takes a whole lot more to act upon it. 

The level of decision of this case is at the political level. Only at that level can there be a direct and palpable influence on the case.

At our level, the best we can do is to stop discussing whether a sparrow is a seagull just because both have feathers and have a name that starts with an s.

This is not about us, this is not even about the McCanns. 

This is about injustice. The injustices to the memory of a little girl and to a man who was just doing his job.

81 comments:

  1. Yet again you shine, Textusa, through your much higher than average intelligence and ruthless resolve not to stop speaking the truth. Your attention to miniscule detail is laudable but more importantly, the facts you bring to the surface about these miniscule details.
    You have certainly provided "Definite Proof".






    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Textusa, another detailed post that will take a lot of reading?
    One point of interest page 617,Gererald Patrick McCann has a bill for £242.00,did he pay this in cash, as he and his wife did not have credit/debit cards with them to pay the bill,or was that card stolen from his person during the vacation by the Burgalor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cards referenced in the files are here - http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm

      "Transactions regarding the Mastercard Credit Cards, numbers 54355690018XXXXX and 54355690011XXXXX, used by GERALD McCANN in the time period between 1st April, 2007, and 30th September, 2007."

      OR this -

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS9_FINANCIAL.htm

      "Gerry McCann
      No record of a current bank account is held. No credit cards or loans recorded. His mortgage is with Northern Rock. No arrears or defaults recorded."

      Delete
    2. He must have carried wads of money with him!?

      Delete
  3. Bless, even by your standards this is absolutely feeble.

    Why don't you go back and look again?

    If, by this evening, you haven't spotted your glaring error, I'll put you out of your misery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane,

      If we have made a glaring error, it's important to acknowledge and correct.

      That's what we ask readers to do.

      Point out errors.

      If we ask others to correct their opinions when faced with contradicting evidence, it would be dishonest for us not to do same.

      Will be waiting for your corrections.

      Delete
    2. I suspect Insane is bluffing. Contact Burson- Marsteller's Department of "E-fluentials" for more details............................

      Delete
    3. Like last time, when you failed to even scroll down the page, or four years ago, when you were told what that sheet was?

      It's interesting to see that other posters set you straight last time too, but you withheld their posts - such a con artist.

      Let me give you a clue.

      Most people of even moderate intellect would realise that if the two figures they compared were vastly different, it wasn't a mere "error". Most people would then look for an explanation that did not involve intrigue, espionage, men in raincoats speaking into their sleeves and besuited agents in dark glasses.

      So go and look again, and consider these two words

      Mark. Warner.

      Delete
    4. Insane,

      As you insist on playing CLUEDO could we please say when do you consider is "by this evening"?

      We would like to know from when we should consider that you've given us ALL the clues that will, as you say, take us out of our misery.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  4. You're not trying very hard, Textusa. Come along now, you billed this as so important you delayed it so as not to clash with a General Election. Surely you possess the skills required to self-critique?
    I will give you one more clue for now.

    You have made a false assumption. That false assumption renders everything you have written utterly worthless.

    Start from there, see where you get........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane, how were the passports achieved? The MW assumption versus unit ownership and provenance I get, but not the passports. They are reminiscent of a scene from THE GREAT ESCAPE, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 10 May 2015, 04:58:00,

      You seem to give substance to Insane's words:

      "The MW assumption versus unit ownership and provenance I get"

      As you get what we fail to do could you please share with us what exactly is that, in your words, you get?

      We are really hoping that you are one of the people with "moderate intellect" (please note that such a qualification does not come from us but from Insane) who can show where we must correct our passport, no sorry, post.

      Annoying habit we have of writing passport for no reason, apologies.

      Delete
    3. Hi Textusa, Yes I am one of those people of 'moderate intellect', I am also a person who believes the entire Praia da Luz set-up reads like a script. Also, I can find no reason to accept the passports (the readable ones) to be genuine. In fact, in my humble opinion, all paperwork in this case should be treated with caution.

      Insane is clearly playing the intellectually superior game again, which tells me, in no uncertain terms, that you and your razor- sharp analytical skills are an insomnia-inducing, emasculating threat to him.

      Regarding ownership of units, I would rather express that privately. Thanks for your understanding and more importantly your indefatigable work and dogged determination.

      Carry on peeling that onion & have a lovely day. x

      Delete
  5. Off-topic.

    Mr Amaral's GoFund has grown since our "Election 2015" post, from £10,300 to £12,465.

    That's an increase of £2,165 (17%). Just £35 to the half-way mark. Well done! Congratulations!

    That's 16,65 times more than the £130 that Kate's eek bike ride fund has grown in the exact same amount of time.

    C'mon McCann supporters, you're falling behind!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonderful news Textusa, I shall be donating more as and when we can. Go Dr. Amaral, GO! Great piece of writing, I think you hit a nerve Textusa, AGAIN!

      Delete
  6. Insane,

    It is midnight, so we assume it is safe to think that "your evening" is over.

    All you have given to take us out of our misery (your words, not ours) is:

    - 2 words, "Mark" and "Warner";

    - a supposed unspecified assumption on our part which you state was false.

    Even you must agree that is very little.

    It's as true and as false and as useful as saying Murphy's Law wasn't written by Murphy but by a completely different Murphy altogether.

    We will continue to wait for further corrections from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane is pulling your leg, obviously!

      Anyone with an IQ would point out the error(s) straight-away. This Insane piece is probably an E-fluential from Burson-Marsteller - Crowd-Verb and Direct Impact remaining constant. Probably all part of the reputation management of so and so. Clarence Mitchell is nursing a hangover (he lost his bid for Parliament) so he is above suspicion.

      Now seriously - I suspect Insane's brain simply does not have the computational power to challenge you. Too much data to hold in perspective and NASA computers are too busy right now and so s/he sends you a verbal smirk instead, as if to imply "I am of a superior race, you know!?" Yeah! Yeah! (add a laugh here)

      It's all vaguely reminiscent of Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Grapes". Human nature never changes, does it?

      Textusa, I take my baseball cap off to you! Keep up the good work.

      Delete
    2. Reminiscent I would think of the McCanns promises to provide proof they had of abduction once the judicial secretracy was lifted

      Delete
  7. You seem to have missed some glaring errors such as Dr. Pawer/Palmer who is the same person and that gives an indication that the guestlists have been manually manipulated.

    All this was worked out by Stella and others some three years ago.

    OC club fiddled the records and got some of the staff to adjust their statements.
    There clearly was a need to do so and as it happened they had Control Risks on the spot as from Saturday.
    An expert in adjusting the truth one might say.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tigger,

      Please refer to point "6. Data input" of our post "Irrefutable Proof". The PALMER v PAWER confusion is there. Among 9 other such mistakes:

      - BXRBER
      - ROSALEEN v ROSA''EEN
      - PLUMB v PLMB
      - FRANCIS v ' FRANCIS
      - SHAKESPEARE v SHAKESPEARE, MARGARET MITCHELL (referred in present post)
      - MULLARD v MULLARD, KATHRYN (referred in present post)
      - ODEDRA, DIPA v ODEDRA,, DIPA
      - TAVERNER, ANDREW PAG C. FEE E30
      - LYNCH, ALLAN T078642P-A1

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/04/irrefutable-proof.html

      Please provide a link to Stella's work "some three years ago" so that readers are fully able to comprehend and acknowledge her work. Thank you.

      I think you mean this but please correct us if we’re wrong:
      http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Ocean-Club-Guests/RE-Random-Info-1-807105.html

      Could you also please clarify for our readers why "there clearly was a need" for the Ocean Club to have "fiddled the records"? We have extensively and repeatedly done so.

      Glad you acknowledge that Ocean Club management was directly involved as it "got some of the staff to adjust their statements". Care to explain to readers why would OC management do that, help guests they supposedly knew from nowhere?

      As we say in that post, we have this info since August 2011, thanks to Insane and Johanna but have decided to only use and contextualise it now and explained why.

      We are not racing with anyone. This is not a race.

      Stella saw the anomalies but didn’t explain them or show why they were excel sheets. We have moved another step forward from Stella, but every person who adds another step gives opportunity for others to add their step. If anyone can take another step from our information, we applaud and thank them.

      This is a joint effort to out the truth. All true and honest inputs to that end are welcome. Truthseekers are one big team!

      We hope you continue to find Insane's blog as amusing as ever.

      Delete
    2. Stella's work was on CMoMM forum. As she had experience with accounting software she noted the inexplicable mistakes and concluded that the lists had been manually adjusted.
      Imo part of the reasons for adjusting the records was to either to remove some names altogether or to hide the number of doctors and NHS related visitors there.
      The mistakes give it away, I apologise for missing Pawer/Palmer in your post but due to the lay-out and repetitions this was easily done imo.
      OC no doubt had their own reasons to back up the official story.
      As for statements by the staff - they are most contradictory.
      Stella reached the conclusion that the majority of the people there that week wanted/needed to keep a low profile for reasons we can guess but not be sure of.
      But definitely not swinging.

      I also feel that your summary (top right on the blog) for newcomers does not take account of the known facts. Also, if Maddie died accidentally in the early evening of the 3rd, why not report it? No earthly reason not to do so. Both parents were around or could say they were.
      Sorry, Textusa, I'm not going to go over all this old ground again.

      It was a three ring circus from the start and the McCs got lucky that it was inconvenient for other parties to expose the so-called abduction.




      Delete
    3. Tigger,

      Your now "OC no doubt had their own reasons to back up the official story." doesn't exactly clarify the clear in your intial "there clearly was a need". So it seems that clarity got murky.

      You say, "Stella reached the conclusion that the majority of the people there that week wanted/needed to keep a low profile for reasons we can guess but not be sure of".

      Please clarify what reasons are those even if you're purely speculatiing so that at least we know what is your line of thought. If you say "I'm speculating" before that opinion you will be safe from any libel accusations. We are all, as far as we know, allowed to speculate and have our own opinions.

      You say, "But definitely not swinging."

      Why? You seem so certain so you must have a sound, palpable reason to say that. Can we please know what it is?

      "...I apologise for missing Pawer/Palmer in your post but due to the lay-out and repetitions this was easily done imo.".

      Apologies accepted.

      And yes, we obviously respect your opinion even if we don't agree with it.

      We are used to being criticised on style rather than content. However, we do warn those readers who complain that they not able to read our posts not to do so, so our consciences are clear on that matter. And we shouldn't call then readers as, by their own account, are unable to read us.

      But we must also warn these same "readers-who-can't-read" not to read the PJ Files. They are very repetitive and complex. And their lay-out? Very poor as we're sure you will agree.

      Delete
    4. Tigger is saying he/she doesn't go over old ground again. Could please you please direct to which post or posts Tigger discussed that here? Tried to find it but couldn't. There are many posts and may have missed it. Thanks

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 10 May 2015, 17:36:00,

      No, Tigger is not a regular commentator here (unless publishing anonymous) and we have never discussed any of poster's theory here nor do we know waht old ground is being referrred.

      Delete
    6. In tiggers opinion the books were re-adjusted/altered 'to remove some names altogether or to hide the number of doctors and NHS related visitors there'. But never says WHY this would be the case, and shows no proof that there was an inordinate number of doctors or NHS visitors in PDL at that particular time. So, we are left with a sense of 'I have an opinion but won't tell you' scenario.

      Delete
  8. The Sun's reply to complaints:

    Dear Mr Bentley,

    I am sorry if the article upset you.

    I think we need to make clear here that this is a couple who lost their little girl in tragic circumstances, a heart-breaking event in anybody’s life, but made worse by the accusations that have been made against them personally but which have never been proven. They have never been charged with anything.

    Kate and Gerry McCann have just been awarded 500,000 Euros in libel damages by a Portuguese court against Gonçalo Amaral, who accused them of faking their daughter’s abduction.

    In the circumstances the newspaper is entitled to editorialise that those who accuse the couple of crimes are behaving in an unsubstantiated way. Online messages supporting Mr Amaral are frequently cruel and critical of the McCanns. In tabloid terms that is called ‘trolling’.

    The article does not claim that everybody who donates to the fund is a ‘troll’. Some are just people who believe that Mr Amaral has been badly treated. However, some contributors do qualify.

    I do not believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached in this instance.

    Yours sincerely

    Philippa Kennedy OBE

    Sun Ombudsman


    https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/817656148330461/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confirms that criticising Mcs makes one a troll.
      The Royal family, the Pope, David Cameron ... Can be accused of many things, lampooned, made subject of satirical cartoons, but criticise McCanns and you are labelled a troll.

      Delete
    2. The judge found as proven many of the findings of the PJ investigation.
      GA only found to have written a book when judge decided he should not have done so.
      Press are carefully avoiding that scenario. And the fact that Mcs must pay higher costs than GA.

      Delete
  9. Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral: Sentença: Documento Original
    http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/05/sentenca-documento-original.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. McCann family vs Amaral et al Judgment Verdict - April 27, 2015
    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.novagente.pt/7c1120a/mod_artigos_obj_moda.aspx?sid=be58dcf4-240c-4049-a85a-0fdf5b9a71a8&cntx=qazZ3vUumaDoI%2FImaS7lYbzAObMCnCtgtA9jXCp91NJx7H4ZtjOp5m8qjPP8aEjr

    Nova Gente:

    Gonçalo Amaral
    Fã inglesa cria fundo solidário

    9 maio 2015 , 20h00m
    1037 visualizações

    Em três dias, através das redes sociais, já arrecadaram sete mil euros para a defesa.

    Condenado pelo tribunal cível a pagar 500 mil euros aos pais de Madeleine McCann, por danos causados com a publicação do livro Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, o ex-inspetor Gonçalo Amaral vai recorrer da decisão para um tribunal superior.

    Saiba mais na sua revista NOVA GENTE (Nº2017), já nas bancas.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/576139/EXPRESS-COMMENT-We-must-never-give-up-on-Maddy

    EXPRESS COMMENT: We must never give up on Maddie McCann

    Eight years on, police may be close to solving the riddle of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. JAMES MURRAY, who has covered the case from the start, says the probe must continue.
    By James Murray
    PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, May 10, 2015 | UPDATED: 11:21, Sun, May 10, 2015

    ON TUESDAY a family will gather for a small birthday party. Carefully chosen gifts will be offered, birthday cake eaten and cherished memories re lived.

    Although the house will be filled with love and hope there will also be a feeling of emptiness as Kate and Gerry McCann and their 10-year-old twins Sean and Amelie remember much missed Madeleine, who should be celebrating her 12th birthday in the bosom of her family.

    Instead, her whereabouts are unknown and nobody knows whether she is even alive. As the election dust settles in the weeks ahead, questions will undoubtedly be asked about how much more should be spent trying to crack the mystery.

    Some pragmatists will argue that the £10million or so given by the Home Office to finance Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange “Maddy Squad” investigation is enough.

    They will call for the squad to be broken up, so the elite detectives can return to their jobs with homicide command.

    They will also argue that further probes should be paid for by the McCanns, with the money in their Madeleine Fund. It is my firm belief that Home Secretary Theresa May should resist those demands because it seems the truth is finally beginning to emerge.

    Grange officers have at last established a proper, professional working relationship with their Portuguese counterparts which is producing results. Certain people have been identified and interviewed.

    Their alibis and their reactions are being scrutinised as never before. Some have been cleared of any involvement but probes into others continue. One of the greatest achievements of the Grange team has been detailed analysis of phone records, showing roughly who was active on networks at key times on the evening of May 3, 2007, in the Algarve resort.

    Portuguese officers, guided by Grange detectives, are now in a position to ask people what they were doing in Praia da Luz during that evening and why did they call or text so and so?

    Layers and layers of wrong leads and useless information have now been peeled away, allowing officers to concentrate on the core facts.

    Their dedication and graft has been appreciated by the McCanns and the friends who joined them on that fateful holiday, the so-called Tapas Seven: David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield, his wife Rachael and her mother Dianne Webster.

    Now we know, thanks to Grange, that the man Jane saw carrying a child near Apartment 5a of the Ocean Club was, in fact, an innocent holidaymaker. That in itself was a huge breakthrough.

    Thanks to Grange we know that Maddy was almost certainly in the arms of a man seen heading down towards the sea by the Smith family from Ireland.

    Photofits of the potential suspect have been released. Officers have also established a pattern of attacks on children in the Algarve, something Portuguese police did not manage, which could yet lead to a host of other sordid crimes being solved.

    Hopefully, the skills used by the Yard experts will be taken on board by the Portuguese, leading to better crime detection in the future.

    A week ago friends of the McCanns joined villagers in Rothley, Leicstershire, to mark the eighth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry could not be there as they were visiting her seriously ill father Brian in Liverpool. In her place, Fiona Payne read out a poem, The Tree Of Hope.

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  13. (cont)

    On a tree children attached touching messages. One wrote: “Dear God, please help all the missing children in the world and bring them back to their families.

    "Make sure they are in safe hands and are going to be reunited with their families. Please bring Madeleine back to us. Amen.”

    I would challenge any cold-hearted cynic to look that child in the eye and explain why the Grange operation should be shelved.

    IN A POSTING on their Find Madeleine site Kate and Gerry wrote: “We are also buoyed and reassured by the unwavering commitment and continued progress being made in the investigation.

    We are really grateful to the Metropolitan Police team for their conscientiousness, patience, consideration shown to us nd above all, their will to find Madeleine and determine what happened. “Co-operation with and from the Portuguese police has, and still is, vital to the success of the investigation.

    We are very appreciative of the joint working relationship established between the two forces.” After years of very little co-operation that acknowledgement is a milestone.
    Now with the rifts put aside, Grange lead detective Nicola Wall has a golden opportunity to justify the millions spent with a breakthrough.

    Lessons learned from Grange must now be adopted by all forces to improve the chances of other innocents like Madeleine, who had no control over their fate.

    In a civilised society, no price should ever be put on a child’s life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Officers have also established a pattern of attacks on children in the Algarve, something Portuguese police did not manage, which could yet lead to a host of other sordid crimes being solved"

      Google Translate .......its got nowt at all to do with the Maddie case but sure it will gave the Portuguese police a hand to solve other crimes.

      Maybe the UK could hire out OG all over Europe investigating crimes crimes that other nations missed

      Delete
  14. It's a good read with some excellent insights but I'm not with you this one time. If you examine the phone pdf files P1 to 195 and compare them to the word files that Jeanne D'arc produce you'll find thousands of examples of where the text changed very similar to above examples and there was no tampering with these records, they were between Vodafone and the PJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 10 May 2015, 19:58:00,

      "If you examine the phone pdf files P1 to 195 and compare them to the word files that Jeanne D'arc produce"

      Could you please provide link to both pages of PJ files and Jean D'Arc analysis/production?

      Thank you

      Delete
    2. New readers probably won't know that Jean D'Arc is Johanna...

      Delete
    3. http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_LISTINGS.htm

      I can provide a detailed list of examples where the text changes if you need. The data might be of use with some other analysis too.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 10 May 2015, 23:43:00,

      Thank you for the link.

      Please provide detailed text.

      Delete
    5. Sorry for the delay. Here is one example of thousands:

      http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_LISTINGS.htm

      If you look at the 5th line of page 003 of the phone records and 5th line of word document 01 from Jeanne D'arc you can see that GM made a call on

      2007-07-03 at 10:05:25 and the mast that it hit was Praia Da Luz Centro.

      This was transcribed to the word file: (I deleted parts of the phone numbers here)

      2007-O74SB<1O:O5:24 6188 6018 TMN 00:01:05 PJ^'DALOZ'&BJTRO-

      which changed the text in the date from -03 to 4SB and it created an extra character <. It then changed the mast name from PRAIA DA LUZ CENTRO to PJ^'DALOZ'&BJTRO-

      Screen shots would be easier however you can go along and compare all of the records in a similar way.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 11 May 2015, 17:01:00,

      Thank you!

      No, THANK YOU!

      Thank you for helping us prove our point!

      Will explain later, don't know whether here or in a post. Probably the latter.

      Insane has sent us, again, back to work and his suggestions come second to none when it comes to us.

      But we're sure that between this errand and the next one, we will find time to explain why your comment is of the utmost importance.

      Thank you, once again.

      Delete
    7. You're welcome! ld have no

      For some reason my brain didn't engage properly. IMO the problems with the doc file were caused because the files were converted from PDF/JPEG (with layers) back to text and while it looks similar to the problems with your reports is probably just coincidence. PJ wouldn't need to convert the PDF reports back to text.

      It's not an easy job to produce those print outs in excel for output to dot matrix printer. Besides if they went to that trouble wouldn't they ensured the totals matched? IMO Relatively easy to simply edit the print spool files before printing and that could explain why the totals don't match.

      Delete
  15. Hi Textusa,

    I respect your analysis (n.b. I was a Principal Analyst in the City of London and pretty much retired in my early 40s, in disgust at the salaries being wafted around, so I know how much energy has been put into your work... People I have worked with would have earned for doing your work what an 'average wage' person would have earned in several months doing a normal 9to5 job). Your analysis and attention to detail is valuable and shouldn't be underestimated.

    However, I must respectfully say, (as a UK citizen), that I think that 'swinging' is not grounds for, not remotely, involvement in any cover up. Here in the UK (maybe as we are nowhere near as religious as the USA?) 'swinging' isn't a concern. No one cares. Yes, a headline or two may have been eye-catching if Madeleine had died because 'swinging parents' were neglectful but it wouldn't have damaged careers. it would have been forgotten about within weeks, if not days. Please, trust me, the majority do not care what consenting adults get up to.

    Swinging isn't the taboo in the UK that I get the impression you think it might be. OK? Even if it did carry the risk of ruining someone's career your ideas would suggest that every one of the 60+ people there that week (plus cleaning staff?, etc.) would all feel that admitting to consensual sex between like minded adults wass worse than participating in covering up the death of a child for 8yrs. Why I have an issue with any 'swinger' motive is:

    (i) That all 60+ people, without exception, would have to consider that perfectly legal consensual sex between adults is a bigger 'crime' than the illegal concealment of the accidental death of a child, (n.b. The law aside, as regards 'cultural values' I don't think many people are remotely bothered about who does what to whom if they are adult and consent, (OK...OK... We all like a gossip at the water cooler, but that's about as far as it goes... Personally everyone I know would honestly be far more bothered about what colour carpets they've bought and whether they clash with their wallpaper than who they are swapping fluids with!! Sorry if that sounds crass, but I'm UK born and bred and of the same 'economic class' as the sort who seem to have gone to the Ocean Club that May).

    (ii) That the UK Government, Primeministers, and Met Police, also consider that expending millions of £s is warranted so as the world doesn't realise that some consenting adults were having sex with other consenting adults 8yrs ago in May

    (iii) That in the last 8yrs not one person there that week has decided, (or for economic reasons felt desperate enough) to sell their story to the highest media bidder and say "I have consensual sex with like minded adults... and the McCanns covered up the accidental death of their daughter"

    It's for that logic that adult swinging is, I have no doubt, not a factor in any cover up. Something far more damaging to adults' reputations and careers would have to be involved to warrant the covered up we are seeing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Knitted, in reply to your post 02.34.
      There is no doubt about a cover up, what with Clarence Mitchell,MI 5/6,Foreign Office Ambassadors,Home Secretaries, at least Three Prime Ministers, the MSM,Murdoch's influences.
      It still remains as to whether or not the Establishment has the Tenacity to reveal the reason for all the secrecy?
      They are really determined to see how much damage dirt that they can throw at the former Portugal Police Officer, Goncalo Amaral,Why for supposedly undertaking the job he was asked to investigate the disappearance, note it was the family who stated Abduction and have been insistent from 3 May 2007 up until the present day on that subject with no Evidence of an Abduction, no doubt that Operation Grange will come to that conclusion Eh former DCI Redwood,Crime watch October 2013 after having in their possession E-Fits of two person's not similar Allegedly made by an Irish Family, who stated to Portugal PJ as not to be able to recognise the person carrying a minor near to Apartment 5a?
      Yet one member of the family allegedly told the Portugal PJ that it was not RM the first named arquido, who JT had identified as the suspect carrying a child from near to said apartment at 21.15pm, Smith sighting 21.50pm,Abductor must have got lost on the narrow streets waiting to be seen?

      Delete
    2. The two e-fits are of people who are extremely similar and one of the e-fits is as close as an e-fit could ever get to being Gerry McCann.

      Why do you use the word "allegedly" when saying made by an Irish family?

      And why do you use the word "allegedly" when saying a member of that family told the PJ that the man they saw wasn't Robert Murat.

      It was Martin Smith said the man they saw carrying a child about 10pm on 3rd May 2007 wasn't Robert Murat. He knew Robert Murat by sight so was able to confirm that.

      What's "allegedly" about that?

      Nuala

      Delete
    3. Nuala, the reason for the use allegedly was used as a definition due to the PJ files statements made that, the Smith Family said they could not Identify him, due to the way he was carrying the child but One (Martin Smith) could conclude that it was not RM of whom he had met previously in Portugal.
      If you look at the way the current Operation Grange is working(Thesis,Stranger Abduction) Crime Watch October 2013 of how the way DCI Redwood would have us believe, that he has Identified the Father carrying his child home from a night Crehche, but doe's not state which night creche?
      What parent would take a child to a night creche in their pyjamas, when the purpose of the creche is to look after them for a set time, not sleeping attire?
      Nuala, have you seen the latest Richard D Halls Phantoms production, as Martin Smith did not want to take part in the filming or meet Richard, but met up with Brian Kennedy,Metodo 3 and was harassed by private Investigators of what he and his family had seen.
      One BK had a secret tryst meeting with RM's lawyers in Portugal,do not know if the Secrecy laws were broken as he may not have been an Arquido at that time of the meeting?But Hey it is only one former Police Officer Goncalo Amaral who has breached secrecy protocol in this investigation case?

      Delete
    4. I can't find anywhere in the PJ files where Martin Smith said he couldn't identify the man he saw because of how the man was carrying the child, in fact MS said this "He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache" so he most certainly DID see the man's face and knowing Robert Murat by sight was able to confirm it wasn't him.

      As regards Operation Grange, you have no idea how they're working, none of us have, because there hasn't been a peep from OG, so anything you say about that is only supposition.

      Yes, I've seen Phantoms, and it's a shame that what could have been a valuable documentary was spoiled by Richard D Hall trying to discredit Martin Smith.

      Why on earth should Martin Smith take part in filming? And why does not taking part in filming make him guilty of something? There is no logic to that and Richard D Hall's insinuation that MS refusing to be interviewed somehow makes MS suspect is not only a cheap shot, it's disgraceful.

      MS met McCann investigators originally, and why wouldn't he, he was obviously trying to help in the search for Maddie at the time, but eight years on I don't blame him for not wanting to be interviewed, who would? Would you? I certainly wouldn't, and anyway for all we know OG has told him not to give interviews or talk about the case because he is a witness and it might jeapordise a future trial.

      Had you thought of that?

      Nuala

      Delete
    5. Nuala,

      Very good comment, thank you.

      Delete
    6. Hi Nuala,my post 12.19,I am not wishing to discredit MS and a future Trial?
      Let there be no doubt that masses of people throughout the World would wish for Justice in this case, it remains to be seen if that will happen.
      I agree with a lot of your posts in this case, I have not said Mr Martin Smith is guilty of anything or his family, just like a lot of people who could have been in the wrong place at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine.
      It is the perpetrators of the crime who are to blame for their Actions, all of the little helper friends and their pacts of silence are just as guilty for trying to hide the Truth of what actually happened to Madeleine McCann, make no mistake about that,shame on them!

      Delete
    7. Thanks Textusa x

      Anonymous 12 May 2015, 12:19:00 & 16:48:00

      I know you wouldn't want to jeopardise a future trial, but Martin Smith doing interviews could, something that doesn't seem to have occurred to Richard D Hall, despite him being a very intelligent man, which tells me he has an agenda and/or is too much influenced by certain other people.

      But anyway, it would be a good idea, would it not, to support Martin Smith's silence about the events of the night of 3rd May 2007 rather than implying there is something suspicious about it.

      Because, as you say, we all want justice in this case :)

      Nuala

      Delete
  16. I disagree Knitted. I think you are right in saying that if swinging parents had been neglectful etc it would have been forgotten by the general public in days ... BUT ... these people did not want to take that risk and allow it to become known. So whilst I agree that here in the UK we accept there is swinging and i is perfectly legal and noone is that bothered - it does make news and sell newspapers when it is exposed albeit we the public soon move on to the next thing. But we are talking here about a particular set of mindsets / characters / personas of the high status professional people involved. Such were their arrogant characters - that even though they might have understood it may be quickly forgotten - there was NO WAY they would allow it to be exposed - AT ANY COST. They had the power to do something about it and they used it.
    If I was a swinger (nothing wrong with that) and got found out - even though I know before long it would be yesterday's news - I would still try and prevent it from becoming public if I possibly could. Whilst these people may have later regretted their decision to hide it - they made the decision and once having staged an abduction they couldn't turn back...

    So whilst I respect your opinion I really dont agree that this was not swinging related.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm wondering what you're not getting. We're talking here about a young child who was probably killed (accidently or not) in a holiday resort in 2007 and, during this period, 'swinging' was taking place. A lot of those present were doctors or people who could afford to bring their kids to a cold resort as a cover-up for their activities. Imagine the Sun newspaper headlines and the other headlines that would follow? It is foolish to think that no criminal charges would follow because of the child's death. That's the McCann's careers GONE. It could well have fatally harmed, too, their Tapas friends. Bigger reputations were probably involved (or did not want to be involved or mentioned). Put into that mix the Ocean Club and it's reputation and you begin to see how it can blossom out of control. Then, of course, there's the lies and spin that has turned grotesquely out of control. Ask yourself - would YOU like banner headlines on all the rag newspapers, on Sky, on ITV, BBC etc about YOUR private life?

      Delete
    2. Look at it from a local level, yes headlines in a paper last but a few days but imagine if it was the local GP or the chief consultant in the hospital.........The scandal would last a lifetime and people are very judgemental, many people would refuse to be treated as a result of these headlines........why do you think GMC hospital said they would understand if people felt they didn't want to be treated by him......

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 11.53
      That's exactly what Sky News Corp had done to Mrs Brenda Leyland and Summers and Swan are still castigating Mrs Leyland in the release of their new rag book, no doubt with the blessing of a certain couple.
      The MSM in the UK are a joke, just look at the junk TV programmes produced and who there real targets are in Society.
      Nearly one hundred years ago we had people with mental illness locked away from prying eyes and we have all heard the horrific stories of their abuse they suffered, giving freezing cold baths to see how they reacted in front of drunken people as a sort of entertainment, now we have the productions of Benefit Street, my big fat gypsy wedding, X factor( what a name?) Big Brother, they are endless and the producers do not give a S**T of the ridicule people are opening themselves up to ridicule,they have the participants sign agreements before the show is aired, I really do despair at what people do in Society!
      Rest in Peace Brenda Leyland, publicly ridiculed by Martin Brunt,"Well your twitter account is not a secret any more!" Jonathon Levy Murdoch's Sky group, shame on them!

      Delete
    4. @ 11.53.00
      Please explain to me, why should Nannys, cleaners, laundrymen, bar staff, and chefs and whoever was else was working at the OC on minimum wage cover up swinging and the death of a child ?? Any one of these people could have exposed swinging to the media for a lifetimes salary, it would I imagine be like winning the lottery for them. You used to see it every week in the NOTW with some young lady exposing some footballer and the affair they were having after being paid a small fortune by said paper. If the OC worker got sacked for exposing swinging, SO WHAT, they would have had a big fat pay cheque and a clear conscience that they had helped to expose the truth about what was going on there and possibly help expose whatever happened to the poor child. Is there seriously anyone here who would shut up about this (swinging) just to keep a part time nannys job for a few months whilst in your early 20`s, that you know you were going to leave soon enough anyway, and have a childs death on conscience. No, I thought not. Personally I think there is something far more nefarious going on here. But I dont know what (before you ask) :-)
      Im a long time fan of your blog Tex, and am here at 12 on the nose Fridays.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 14 May 2015, 17:27:00,

      Having information and not being able to use it far worse than not having it.

      Not having it is blissed ignorance. Having it and not being able to use it means fear. Fear os the consequences of using it.

      We're sure you are familiar with Marlon Brando's character in The Godfather saying "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse".

      Sometimes such offers are made not be fictional mobsters but by non-fictional real life characters. And not in those exact words. Nor with physical violence involved.

      Give you an example. The GoFund supporting Mr Amaral's legal expenses has shown a great enthusiasm by the British public.

      Mr Amaral's book is not banned in the UK.

      Why is not Mr Amaral's book sold in the UK? It would be a lottery for the publisher, would it not?

      So why is there no editor willing to publish book?

      So please do not condemn "Nannys, cleaners, laundrymen, bar staff, and chefs and whoever was else was working at the OC on minimum wage cover up swinging and the death of a child".

      Those "Nannys, cleaners, laundrymen, bar staff, and chefs and whoever was else was working at the OC on minimum wage" see governments (and SY) on their knees. To who are they going to report to?

      Sometimes the planet is too small too hide or where there are places in which one can hide there's nothing money can buy.

      And no money can buy peace of mind or reward a lifetime of looking over one's shoulder.

      Delete
    6. Your point is read and understood Textusa.Tho not necessarily agreed with entirely. Its a very broad spectrum of workers from different countries and a wide range of ages, who none of choose to break rank and report to the papers/police/lawyer what they may know to bring to justice the perpatrators of a crime.

      Thats an awful lot of necks to balance over the chopping block, and for time indefinite !!!

      Regards

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 14 May 2015, 18:14:00,

      Thank you.

      Difference of opinion is always welcome.

      In that point I would like to clarify that the principle of fear applies to whatever secret (we believe to have been swinging and reputation management but accept other believe other reason and they may be right and we wrong) clouds the Maddie case.

      Delete
  17. Insane’s explanation, untouched (and even, exceptionally, uncensored) so its integrity will be preserved for history and at the same time allow readers to read and judge for themselves without any sort of interference on our part:

    “[quote blog]/ In red, when there were more apartments occupied on the listing than there were on the table. Background blue represents the only times numbers between table and sheets match. /[unquote (blog]

    Right - what should that tell you?

    It should tell you that the totals are meaningless in terms of the conclusions you are attempting to draw. There cannot be more families than there are apartments in which to house them, but the fact that there are apparently more customers occupying a one bedroom apartment than there are one bed apartments, and fewer occupying a two bedroom apartment than the report lists should raise the possibility that some customers are either wrongly coded or have been upgraded from a one bed to a two bed, which is not uncommon especially out of the main season. The O'Briens for example are shown as occupying a T1, when they occupied a two bed apartment. Some numbers correlate if you just count the ones on a Mark Warner holiday, but others don't, so that isn't a full explanation.

    So what you SHOULD have asked yourself is, ''what were these documents for?''

    They were for the Tapas restaurant.

    So why did they need a list? I gave you a clue yesterday.

    Because the Tapas restaurant was included as a dining option for Mark Warner guests on their package. This was not the case for other companies. Did they need to know occupancy rates? No. Would they give a monkey's fart about how an apartment was designated? No.

    The PJ took these reports along with the table bookings. They did not say ''Kindly supply us with a list of all your guests, along with occupancy rates, individual spend and the kind of detail which would bring joy to the life of an auditor'' They just took what was there. In business, there are many occasions where a report produces meaningless totals - no-one gives a shit so long as the ones upon which one needs to rely are accurate

    The big fucking mystery is how you get from there to your lunatic conclusion that this means that the reports are ''doctored'' and that this in any way supports your deranged theories?

    Seriously - an apartment is mis-coded as a T1 when it should be a T2 and you conclude that this means there was a huge, swinging conspiracy going on??”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa 11 May 2015, 14:26:00
      "So what you SHOULD have asked yourself is, ''what were these documents for?''
      They were for the Tapas restaurant."

      ...you are perfectly right!!!

      just take a look at this summary of statements and analysis!
      http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Ocean-Club-Guests/RE-Random-Info-1-807105.html

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 11 May 2015, 14:56:00,

      Please clarify your comment. That link has already been provided before when we responded to poster Tigger at 10 May 2015, 09:07:00.

      If you're using sarcasm, clarify please.

      If you're not using it, clarify as well please.

      There's a lot of information on that page, so please direct readers where exactly they should read to prove your point, either way.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. "If you're using sarcasm, clarify please."
      NO WAY!!!
      I´m sorry if this link was already provided!
      For me this case is to serious for any kind of sarcasm!
      If you feel - please delete!!!

      f.e.:
      "The Totman’s arrived on the 28th for 7 nights and stayed in G4M
      Mrs R Totman
      Mr J Totman
      Miss L Totman age 2
      Mstr W Totman age 3
      But there is a rather interesting comment at the foot of their booking which says;
      Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April.
      Now why would someone need 2 weeks childcare for a 1 week holiday ???"

      "MO May 10th
      By the way, he denied that at any time did any individuals named IRWIN form part of the table, refuting equally that he had made the acquaintance of anyone so named.

      GM May 10th
      States that on Thursday, 03/05/07, there was no one by the name of IRWIN sitting at the table nor does he know anyone with that name.
      Asked, he mentions that on Thursday, 3 May 2007, there was nobody from outside of the group seated at the table, nor does he know any person with the name IRWIN.

      Jane Tanner
      On these holidays, she never met nor dined (along with the rest of the group) with any family or person having the surname "Irwin".

      RMO
      ----- Questioned, she said that on Thursday, 03/05/2007, there was no body sitting at the table, strange to the group, and she does not know anyone with the name "IRWIN."
      This must have come about for two very important reasons.
      1. They were booked in exactly the same time as the tapas 9, when the alarm was raised.
      2. More importantly, they appeared before the McCann's booking, who we know booked their table in advance 5 days before that night.

      So you can see why they were all quizzed on the Irwin's."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 11 May 2015, 15:42:00,

      Thank you for your reply.

      Please understand our misunderstanding that led to the question: you followed a quote from Insane with the expression "...you are perfectly right!!!"

      Thank you for the detail you have provided.

      But please note that the majority of the info comes from docs other than the Booking sheets that are the ones under analysis on current post.

      The info you detail is most from the Arrivals lists. Documents which we think (will put it that way for now but if anyone wants to prove that before us, they're welcome) are also doctored.

      About what Insane says in his explanation, we have promised to keep silent so as not to interfere and that's what we will do however hard it may be to do so.

      Delete
    5. With all respect for Insane thought-processes (I am a psychiatric nurse) I did not quite get his argument in terms of Occam's razor, even assuming some of its inferences appear to compute but then, the probability of any conceivable event is always greater than zero...

      We also have some brilliant IQ's in our wards at St. Mary's but most of them rather twisted, I am afraid.

      The rule is, just because something computes it does not mean it fits into the overall pattern; and the overall pattern as you so aptly and thoroughly demonstrated, is a conspiracy to hide a crime (for concomitant reasons).

      That is what the data is telling us right from the moment the UKGB's government media monitor, arrives on the scene. Could Insane be working for the same media monitor? Burson-Marsteller E-fluentials department, say?

      Notice how is overuse of low IQ colloquialisms (mass appeal) is at odds with his pseudo-analytical prowess.

      Delete
  18. Maybe it meant T1 = Tapas 1
    T2 = Tapas 2
    Need I go on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got it!
      OC used this formula:
      Computer please count how many T1s there are until you reach 45 and then stop.
      The number to reach was changed every day.
      No need to thank me Textusa

      Delete
  19. Just a question?
    I´ve read somewhere (a long time ago) according to the Tapas booking sheets that none of the tapas guests on the 3rd had a child/children in the night/evening crèche.
    So I tried to look up the night/evening records in the files - but I found nothing.
    Are they withheld??? And if - why aren´t they available?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they be in the files? None of the Tapas group used the night creche, so there would be no reason to include them. That would be like including the booking sheets for a restaurant they never used.

      The information about who used the creche was not on the tapas booking sheets, so I don't understand your reference to them in this context.

      Delete
  20. http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop%E2%80%99s-legal-fund-%E2%80%9Cwell-on-the-way%E2%80%9D-to-the-%E2%82%AC25000-target

    Posted by portugalpress on May 11, 2015

    Maddie cop’s legal fund “well on the way” to the €25,000 target

    Within 11 days, the British fighting fund set up to help the former policeman dubbed by UK media as the “Maddie Lie Cop” has reached over €13,000.

    The target - set by young psychology student Leanne Baulch who was only 14 at the time Madeleine McCann went missing - is now less than €11,000 away, and donations are coming in bit by bit every few hours.

    The extraordinary aspect of this latest appeal is that it has been taken up by so many and no matter what the size of donations, people show their feelings that Amaral has been “badly treated” for reasons no-one appears able to fathom.

    Indeed, the €500,000 damages set by judge Emília Melo e Castro, plus the further €106,000 in interest - all destined to compensate the parents of Madeleine for the distress Amaral’s book The Truth of the Lie caused them - are reported to be the highest ever awarded against a Portuguese citizen.

    With questions constantly appearing on the fund website asking “what is being covered up”, Brits are giving in droves, with donors ranging from grandparents to young people who were teenagers at the time Madeleine went missing.

    One of the most recent of the 819 givers was grandmother Kathleen Conell who deposited her £50 saying: “I worry about your safety and only wish someone wealthy with courage would adopt your cause. The corruption in both the UK and Portuguese establishments must be stopped. Democracy is finished otherwise.”

    As this latest example of “people-power” righting what they see is a wrong plays out, the mainstream British media is making much of the so-called string of burglaries that appears to have taken place on the resort from which Madeleine went missing just over eight years ago.

    Sunday Express writer James Murray has written that British police “have established a pattern of attacks on children in the Algarve… which could lead to a host of other sordid crimes being solved”.

    It’s a line that has surfaced every now and then in this infinite mystery and which many query, as if there truly had been a spate of attacks on children in the Algarve, the feeling is that local and national media would have heard about them.
    As a source told us this week, what were originally described as “five or six cases, then morphed into over a dozen and suddenly exploded into 30 cases or so, if we are to believe the UK media”.

    Meantime, the instigator of the British appeal fund raising money for Amaral’s appeal tells us she has been approached by a number of UK newspapers, but none of them are keen to write about her effort until it reaches the €25,000 target.

    By NATASHA DONN natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

    ReplyDelete
  21. All those donations in memory of a girl, deliberately let down by her own parents, and in support of the police officer who still has to battle for her and his own justice. Nice to read people's wishes on the GoFundMe page. It's an honour to be part of the £ 12 army!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Textusa,hope you remember me from ! "way back",I am now 75 ,and now widowed,BUT .my only hope,every day is that little Madeleine gets justice,with your help.I think there is "a light at the end of the tunnel" Thank YOU XX lynn xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynn,

      Of course we remember you! What touching words! Thank you!

      We, those truly striving to out truth, do all our little bit. Differences accepted and respected because we all share a common goal.

      Sad to hear such sad news.

      Delete
  23. I love coming here reading your wonderful comments I'm not as intelligent as some of you and especially Textusa so reading your thoughts helps me to understand better Textusa's I thank you

    This post for me absolutely nailed it and I believe something huge is behind the cover up and for some reason the oc is obviously involved I have my own thoughts as Textusa knows and I'm not completely sold on swinging but have to say I have had friends refuse to be seen by Gerry McCann so a swinging headline too would certainly have not gone down well,I personally wouldn't want to know what my Gp gets up and their elderly patients hmmm

    I do feel though that insane brings nothing to the debate other than distraction he/she knows you will go away look again and come back thus he/she thinks putting you off for a time (stalling) any other research you may be working on
    Perhaps it's time to cut "shim"!! Loose and let the rest of us focus on what's important
    And not let your hard work and dedication get rail roaded by someone who probably dosn't really care what happened and who did it...keep up the great work my friend

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to say how your words effect me - simple precise, touching, and looking for truth. Thank you - and hope I don't come over as pretentious. Best wishes.

      C - Ireland

      Delete
  24. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13679360 Updated anti-extremism strategy published

    The new strategy also puts a renewed focus on the use of the internet and says the government will consider a "national blocking list" of violent and unlawful websites......

    Under the plans, computers in schools, libraries and colleges will also be barred from accessing unlawful material on the internet.........

    The Gaurdian reports a quote from speech by Cameron..."For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone".

    Good starting point for the final chapter of this farce then!

    You and your team are like a beacon in the night Textusa........Shine on!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well we could all be shut down now over this "threat" story.
    How we allowed our freedom to be sucked away from us out of fear and ignorance.
    Shame on us All.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Missing Ben's mother makes appeal on Greek TV
    http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/news/article/missing-bens-mother-makes-appeal-on-greek-tv

    Ben Needham from Sheffield, vanished on July 24 1991 at the age of 11, after traveling to the Greek island of Kos with his mother Kerry Needham and his grandparents.

    Over the years there have been a number of possible sightings and a range of theories about what happened to the youngster, who would now be 25.

    South Yorkshire Police have confirmed Mrs Needham and Ben's grandmother Christine Needham will be taking part in the TV show on Friday along with his sister Leighanna.

    Also taking part will be Detective Superintendent Matthew Fenwick and Detective Inspector Jon Cousins, the force said.

    The show, called Light At The End Of The Tunnel, broadcasts to around 50% of the Greek TV audience and is about missing people, and is a show about missing persons, presented by Angeliki Nikolouli.

    In January, South Yorkshire Police were granted Home Office funding to support the Greek authorities in continuing inquiries to find Ben.

    The force asked for the financial help to follow up information the family believes has never been properly investigated. The funding is for the financial year from April 2015 and is for up to £700,000.

    The Home Office backed a South Yorkshire Police operation in 2012 when land was excavated on Kos, near the farmhouse from where Ben went missing. No trace of him was found.

    Last year, a DNA test on a young man featured in video footage shot in Cyprus proved negative.

    Source: Express & Star

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11?! That's wrong, he was a toddler, wasn't he?

      Delete
  27. Made 2 donations for Sr. Amarals legal defence costs. And wrote/showed a simple message to underscore why...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Madeleine McCann: Top officer pledges that hunt for missing girl will continue apace

    Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Met Police Commissioner, reacted angrily to concerns raised by the Police Federation about the millions devoted to the case:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-top-officer-pledges-5699591

    Nuala

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two weeks after the general election and Bernard Hogan-Howe is presumably angry, hopefully Theresa has had a word. It sounds about right.

      Delete

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