Missing People

BLUF: The Ocean Club booking sheets show there were more people present in the resort than the number shown added up to, more proof they were tampered with before being handed over to the PJ.


01. Introduction

Three times seems to be the right amount of times we break our summer breaks. We did so in 2014, and we did it again in 2015.

For some reason the Portuguese say there's isn't a 2 without a 3.

This year we broke our breaks with our “Playful molecules”, “Sigh...” and “Dura Lex Sed Lex” posts.

On the second one, “Sigh...”, we felt the need to put a stop to the hysteria generated by a simple computer glitch.

We were successful in helping the commendable efforts of posters like Syn, Nuala and BlueBag to put a stop to all the silliness that was taking place. The subject very quickly dwindled away shortly after our post.

But let's be very clear, the WBM/CEOP page thing was just pure and plain silliness.

We have in the past faced much worse clouds of clutter and have appropriately reacted to them by letting the soil naturally absorb their rain. The WBM/CEOP thunderstorm has passed and the sun has come back, so to make a mountain out of this molehill is to need a mountain of excuses when the real excuses (or reasons) ones are too inconvenient to admit or to be said publicly.

To use the molehill to make personal attacks is unbecoming but then again personal attacks are always demeaning to those who make them.

The positive side of the WBM/CEOP absolute silliness was that it made surface a series of individuals on both sides of the fence on this subject who passionately discussed it to its minutest technical details.

Only through genuine discussion can silliness be truly revealed and commonly understood as such.

We then said how strange we found it that those same people had “forgot” or “overlooked” to discuss in depth the tampering of the Ocean Club's booking sheets, however silly our revelations could have been, and seemed perfectly content that all had been because of OCR (Optical Character Recognition), which is, honestly just a silly thing to say. And we went to the trouble of showing why it was silly to say it was all due to OCR.

But the FACT these sheets were tampered with is far, far from being a silly thing and in our opinion does deserve a very serious discussion.

FACT is that we have shown VERY CLEARLY that they have been tampered with in our “Irrefutable proof” post. As we said, detractors said all was explained with OCR without explaining how such a sophisticated version of such software was able to recognise handwriting and doodles and and reproduce them digitally and then mumble up simple typed wording.

FACT is that we have also shown in our “Definite proof” post that the Ocean Club computer didn’t add up correctly the different types of apartments (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4, T3FP and T3FB) which it had listed.

FACT is that also in our “Balance: unbalanced” post we showed how the reason some had given for Tapas to be handed these sheets was ridiculous as the listed balances, or “saldos”, were also not correctly added up by the computer.

Many, many FACTUAL mistakes supposedly made by a single computer with direct implications to the Maddie case. Strangely (or not) they weren't discussed anywhere while a more than evident computer glitch that erroneously dated a webpage deserved a heated and passionate discussion.

These are FACTS. And the FACT that apparently they don't adapt to the theories of some doesn't make them any less FACT. They exist, they need an explanation for existing.

We have given ours. We wait for others to explain how these FACTS fit into their theories.

In the last paragraph of our “Sigh...” post we said “about the Ocean Club booking sheets, an instance where again the computer is blameless, we are not finished. We will be coming back to them with quite interesting finds. Of the reasonable kind, the kind people apparently prefer to pretend to ignore.”

That said, today, we are going to show another FACT about these booking sheets: how, not surprisingly, the number of people listed present was also incorrectly added up by the Ocean Club computer.

The computer shows there were more people than the same computer says that there were.

Just like it happened with its adding up of apartment type and “saldos”. One computer in particular with a very serious mathematical disorder.
 

02. Ref columns

We will now look at how many people, on each of these days, are listed as having been there.

Data from SHEETS: this information is in two of the columns in the booking sheets: “Ad” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cr” (Crianças/Children) below in red and blue respectively:

Data from TABLE: at the end of each day, or group of 4 pages, the values of the columns above are supposedly added up by the computer and shown as per table below:

The column headings for these in the summary tables are “Adu.” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cri.” (Crianças/Children).


03. OCR (im)precisions

To those alleging that OCR (Optical Character Recognition) malfunction is solely responsible for the inconsistencies we have found in these booking sheets we would love an explanation to how fascinatingly selective this OCR program would have to have been to only confuse “0” (zero) with “O” (capital letter O) and never confuse any other number with any other letter.

For example in these 24 pages (615 to 638) it never confuses any “5” with a “S” nor any “8” or “3” with a “B”.

But then it's quite ridiculous to even think OCR  was present in the reproduction process as what sort of program would, as we have already said, recognise with amazing accuracy handwriting and doodles (according to our detractors) but then confuse typed letters and numbers, isn't it?

We all know that no OCR was involved in the reproduction of these pages.

To say otherwise is just to be silly or to try to hide the sun with a sieve as the Portuguese say.


04. Adults and children same price? 

Also interesting to note is that there's a family, the DUNFORDs, occupying an apartment but no one knows how many people were in this family:

We would think that the number of people occupying an apartment would be a field with a mandatory entry but apparently it wasn't the case in the Ocean Club that week in 2007.

For how many people was this family charged for and on what basis?

The “sloppiness” with which these columns were supposed to have been filled is quite evident. When one is counting “adults” one must realise that one is not counting grown-ups but counting what the computer assumes to be adults because the receptionists frequently put adults and children together.

For example, we know that the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children. For some inexplicable reason, the receptionist introduced the whole family as adults:

For the Ocean Club computer Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann are adults and are counted as such.

The fact they are children does not alter the mathematical operation taking place when queried. Asked how many adults were there in the McCann family the computer will always return the same value: 5

One then must wonder what the children column was there for.

The receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, apparently couldn't care less in filling in or not the field of this column correctly when they just put the number of children together with the adults.

One would think those 2 columns, adults and children, existed to allow the computer to calculate the right amounts due as usually in hotels children pay less than adults but it seems that in the Ocean Club the prices for both were the same, which we note, is highly unusual in the industry.

Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann were, apparently, to be charged as adults.


05. # ADULTS

As we said when one counts adults in these booking sheets one is in fact counting what the computer assumes to be adults.

As we showed, the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children but the computer counts them as adults. In the end, when asked to count the number of adults present in a day, the computer will return a number of which 5 are the McCanns.

To simplify we have created a “database” blog, “Ocean Club Booking Sheets”, where we detail from where exactly on the booking sheets we have obtained the information and how we have reached the conclusions we have.

a. Adults listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:

Except the T4, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T3FP and T3FB) is added up correctly.

Note we are not counting the DUNFORDs, they would make the difference bigger.
 
72 of 328 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.95% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.13 % of adults than the 256 computer says there were.

b. Adults listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:

Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

71 of 330 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.52% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 27.41% of adults than the 259 computer says there were.

c. Adults listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:

Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

74 of 355 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 20.85% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 26.33% of adults than the 281 computer says there were.

d. Adults listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:

Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

82 of 368 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.28% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.67% of adults than the 286 computer says there were.

e. Adults listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:

Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

79 of 350 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.57% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 29.15% of adults than the 271 computer says there were.

f. Adults listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:

Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

86 of 360 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 23.89% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 31.39 % of adults than the 274 computer says there were.

g. Overall differences for # adults:

On average, of the 348.50 adults listed daily, 77.33 (22.18%) of them were disregarded,

Also, and also on average, there were 28.51% more adults (please remember that there are children included in these numbers) listed than the 271.16 stated by the computer in the various totals tables.

06. # CHILDREN

As we have said above, many children were registered as adults. This explains why of the 795 registries present in the Booking sheets, only 74 (just less than 10%) have children registered.

We have already pointed out that the receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, couldn't care less filling in this field properly or not, as it seems as we noted that it apparently was standard procedure to put adults and children in the same field.

Plus, if it wasn't for the BALLINGERs one would be able to say that only families with only ONE child could have children put in computer as children.

If it wasn't for that 1 particular registry, we could almost state that this column only accepted “0” and “1” values.

Only BALLINGER has a “2”.

Of the 795 registries only 1 is a “2”, the BALLINGERs..

Of the 74 registries with children, 73 of them are “1”.

Fascinating.

Like we did with the adults we will show here how and from where we got the information for pages 615 to 618. For pages 619 to 638 we will provide the respective links.

a. Children listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:

This, as will be seen, will be the only day where the totals of # children between table and sheets differ, in the case by 1.

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

b. Children listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

c. Children listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:

 

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

d. Children listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

e. Children listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:

The subtotals for apartments T1, T2 and T3 are not added up correctly. 

f. Children listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:

The subtotals for apartments T1, T3 and T3F are not added up correctly.

g. Overall differences for # children:

Although there's only the difference of 1 in the totals, the subtotals are wrongly added up with no plausible explanation whatsoever.


07. Consolidated data adults + children

On pages 615 - 618,  of the 337 people listed, 71 (21.07%) were disregarded, 26.69% more than the 266 stated by the computer on page 618.

On pages 619 - 622, of the 340 people listed, 71 (20.88%) were disregarded, 26.39% more than the 269 stated by the computer on page 622.

On pages 623 - 626,   of the 366 people listed, 74 (20.22%) were disregarded, 25.34% more than the 292 stated by the computer on page 626.

On pages 627 - 630, of the 380 people listed, 82 (21.58%) were disregarded, 27.52% more than the 298 stated by the computer on page 630.

On pages 631 - 634,  of the 365 people listed, 79 (21.64%) were disregarded, 27.62% more than the 286 stated by the computer on page 634.

On pages 635 - 638,  of the 378 people listed, 86 (22.75%) were disregarded, 29.45% more than the 292 stated by the computer on page 638.

On average: of the 361 people listed daily, 77 (21.36%) were disregarded, 27.17% more than the 284 stated by the computer.

This is FACT.

08. Conclusion

Clearly, very clearly, there was the intent to show that fewer people were present in Luz than there really were.

Only the willingly blind, AKA the intellectual dishonest, can after 4 posts (“Irrefutable proof”, “Definite proof”, “Balance: unbalanced” and this one) continue to say that all is due to a faulty character recognition software either when making copies of these lists to hand over to the authorities or by PJ when making the DVDs that were handed out.

One also has to add to the blame of this amazing OCR version for the typed characters found among handwritten wording in the crèche sheets as shown in our “3 penguins in the desert” post. 

We know people will always believe what they want to believe but now we would like to add to that that some will just keep on saying they believe in what they don't believe at all.

We know they don't and many others like us don't. We know that they are bound to say they believe in something when they don't.

A shamelessness we silently enjoy observing. And by we, we don't mean just the team.

We now hope that all those who say they lost all respect they ever had for us because we adamantly refused to discuss the technicalities of the WBM/CEOP computer glitch, will now rise up and show how indeed superior they are to us and discuss technically, to its minutest details, the discrepancies we have found and exposed in the booking and crèche sheets.

Those with less technical capabilities we suggest they discuss why would the Ocean Club management want to convey the idea to the PJ that there were less people in Praia da Luz than really were there.

And we're only counting those who appear on the sheets because the number probably is higher but impossible to calculate as we don't know how many had their names deleted from the sheets when they were tampered with.

We won't hold our breath though waiting for the technical and non-technical discussions to happen. We'll just put on a smile that just says we know you've read us, you naughty, naughty you.

About the number of “missing people” VERY significant conclusions can be made but we will speak of them about that in the future.


09. September 2015

This could, or should be a Post Scriptum as we feel we have a duty to say something about what has happened and is happening since the start of this month, September 2015.

We have had someone say that Operation Grange should be shut down because it has already taken up a ridiculous £11M from taxpayers money.

By the way, we must note that the majority of this money is to pay salaries which means it would be spent anyhow, only from a different budget. As far as we know, now it comes from the Home Office and if Operation Grange wasn’t in place these salaries would be coming out of the Met.

For us much more important than the money spent is the ring-fencing of the manpower dedicated to Grange but we imagine that’s how services are rendered which can later be harvested as favours.

The following move by these people was to confirm that there was no problem whatsoever in closing down Operation Grange as even the parents of the missing child didn’t really mind if that happened, as they had taken several thousand from the Fraudulent Fund and put it into a another account in case the public police stopped searching for their daughter.

What they were basically trying to say was, please close the thing down as the parents understand that at some point enough is enough and they have enough money to proceed. How much? Let’s just say for now it’s enough.

Here was where this group showed their first sign of despair.

In wanting so much to find arguments to convince public opinion to shut Operation Grange immediately their desperation made them overlook that their argument represented an enormous shot in the foot.

First because Fraudulent Fund is, supposedly, about searching for Maddie.

To take money away from it with the objective of searching for the girl is to assume publicly the actual fund is for something else.

In fact if one reads the full objectives of the fund, the word “search” doesn't appear:

“To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;

To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and

To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.”

So the fund is not to search for Maddie. That’s not what, it seems, people have been donating for after all.

Others will have to search for her, thus the reason that if parents want to fund any sort of searching they had to create this account and transfer to it money from the Fraudulent Fund that was donated by people who did not do it to have her searched for (even though they thought they did).

However, as can be seen, the fund does contemplate clearly other objectives such as financial assistance to Madeleine's family. Grandparents, cousins... old aunt ..? Her trip to the supermarket? Mortgage, legal fees...? A new car?

Apparently only when others find her can then the fund money be used to secure her safe return to her family.

Note that the fact that only thousands were taken away from it to search for Maddie means that its largest chunk continues to be for those objectives other than searching for her.

Second because they have opened a door to scrutiny for fraud.

The withdrawal of these thousands have to be reflected somewhere in the fund’s accounting. As far as we know from the accounting papers presented for the past years there are no such movements of cash.

Someone, somewhere has to explain where the money for this new account has come from otherwise, if real, it's fraud.

With these 2 moves, this group launched an offensive with the objective of having Operation Grange shut down. Immediately. The reasons presented was because it was enough waste of money and parents didn’t mind.

Then apparently another group of people responded with a dry, no, we have no intention of shutting down the Operation Grange, it's fine as it is.

This provoked the most interesting reaction from the first group as they literally snitched about the luxurious conditions in which SY officers had stayed in Algarve last year.

Funny how MSM didn’t remember to have noticed this last year.

Luz had become a media circus and we’re sure that where SY was staying was no secret. Reporters from all over the world, but most importantly from Britain, witnessed SY going in and out of their luxurious resorts and then didn’t find the exaggerated luxury worthy of mention in their news pieces.

Only now they decided to find it outrageous.

But most importantly, and we’ll be coming back to this, this reaction clearly revealed despair which they only hinted of having before. This group of people were now showing to be in panic. We almost expected to read that the officers with the choice between 2 wines had gone for the most expensive and behold some of them had even used the pool on the weekend.

The second group of people reacted to this reaction by explaining that not only was there no intention of closing Grange as it was going on its own rhythm as an LOR had been sent to Portugal in July.

Panic semi-explained. Or panic explaining the importance of this LOR and in turn its importance explains the panic.

We don’t know what was requested in the LOR but we haven’t heard that anyone is to be notified to give statements so we’re supposing that it’s not about hearing new witnesses or arguidos.

Our bet is on forensics. That would make some BH quarters panic. And there seems to be panic abounding.

Lastly we had the group of people wanting to close Grange bringing up Ben Needham to force the closure. This we must say was a new low even for them. It’s sad that the UK only remembers Ben when someone wants to convey a message about Maddie.

So clearly we have 2 groups of people.

This gunfire volley show one side wanting to close Grange right away and another clearly wanting it to continue.

The fact that there are 2 sides begs the question: why are there 2 sides to UK’s “higher echelon” on Maddie?

Aren’t these things supposed to be controlled by a single person? The almighty Mitchell?

Is Mitchell suffering from some sort of a serious personality disorder or is he revealing to be someone who wakes up wanting something but after breakfast starts to want the opposite and repeats this process throughout the day?

If that “higher echelon” fractured in 2, who has defected and why?

Note, we have explained that this fracture happened a long time ago. In our opinion, it started when May asked CEOP for a report about Maddie.

The fracture showed its first visible sign in 2010 when Gamble volunteered to be ousted and then broke clean on May 2011 to be exact with the launching of Operation Grange.

Oh no, said most then, you’ve got it all wrong, it’s Mitchell and Mitchell alone who is running the show. We then said and continue to say it to this day that Mitchell only read a script someone with real importance wrote for him.

But the most important thing to be noted is the panic. Shown by the blunder about the fund v search account, the viciousness about SY’s Algarvian expenditures and resorting to poor Ben Needham.

And their panic can only mean one thing. Something is afoot.

Add to this David Cameron’s visit to Portugal shortly after deciding on the country to spend part of his holidays.

We cannot see any other issue besides Maddie that is of the exclusive interest of just the 2 countries. Plus the fact that Cameron took the trouble to come to Portugal personally should be, in our opinion, worrisome for those who showed panic.

Before that, we had as of December last year, a wall of silence from Scotland Yard. This wall included the internet where we witnessed the sudden lack of inside knowledge and the abrupt silence of some.

Then we had Clarence Mitchell abandon ship. He had tried to do so in May but things didn’t go well electorally. Having failed that he found the only excuse he could have for excusing himself out of the mess and that was to supposedly start a PR company which the last time we checked didn’t have a single like on its Facebook page. Quite strange for a PR company to say the least.

Then we also had the Sun open up its comments doors on its article about a psychic and his visions about Maddie. For those only following the case for the last couple of years, let us tell you that some of the comments we read, those making them would be afraid to think of them much less express them.

Something is afoot and as always we will be here watching.

We have said before and will say it again that we don’t believe the whitewashing is a possibility.

The Maddie case can only have one of 2 solutions: archival without conclusions or full truth (full as in 90% as we are not naïve to think the name of some will ever be revealed (if they are we will be pleasantly surprised)).

The post above is just our contribution to show deciders full truth is the only way to go.