Textusa will be back very soon

Our sister Textusa has been called away to attend to a relative again. We were all hoping for the person to make a full recovery but she has had a setback recently, so this has slowed her progress.

Please keep reading and posting as Textusa will still be watching over her blog even while she is away.

I’m sure our dedicated readers would like to send Textusa and her sick relative their best wishes.

Sina J

Missing In Action

by May I

In all battles, combatants go missing in action. Sometimes they have been taken prisoner or have been wounded and lost in the confusion of the war.

They may return with important stories, but sometimes they are never heard from again.

What happened to some important witnesses in the battle of which we write?

We still await some news of Father David Heal and his wife Pam.

We are also anxious for news of another couple who have not been heard of since October 2007. Susan and Paul Moyes were the occupants of apartment G5K, which was the apartment directly above Mrs Fenn's; 2 floors above.

They told the press that they arrived in Praia da Luz on the day that Madeleine disappeared. They returned from a “fabulous” night out at 9.15. and sat on their balcony, overlooking the Tapas restaurant.

They saw that the place was full of people eating and drinking. (would that be 15 people, according to Kate, minus Gerry who was carrying out his check and Jane Tanner, who was on her way to or from somewhere?)

The Moyes described the resort as safe and idyllic, a “paradise”, with no mention of recent burglaries or abductions; nor, for that matter, any commotion below that night. Their first inkling about what had happened was a knock on their door at 11.30, that evening, asking them to join in the search for a missing child.

There are no witness statements from them in the released files, despite the fact they would have been crucial witnesses to the events of that evening. Neither is there any mention of them by name in Kate's book.

She does mention an unwelcome visit that evening by a drunken woman, but it can't have been Mrs Moyes, because they say they knew nothing about what had happened until the next day and surely, Pam Heal, the vicar's wife, would not have arrived to console in such a drunken state.

Perhaps the drunken woman should also be listed as missing in action?

The occupant of G5I is listed as Irene McMillan, but according to the cleaner, who normally had this apartment on her list to clean, this was not one of the occupied apartments.

Susan Moyes was interviewed by Radio Stoke in October 2007. She described Madeleine's disappearance as “ a sad, unfortunate ACCIDENT”; a strangely muted choice of adjectives to describe a supposed abduction and an interesting word to use as an alternative to disappearance or abduction.

In the case of the missing in action, it is usual to issue a bulletin to this effect and hope that news of the missing, whatever it may be, will soon be forthcoming.

The Very Last Campaign of the British Empire

This post is dedicated to this blog’s #1 fan, a believer even before it existed.
 

The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday 18 June 1815 near Waterloo in present-day Belgium, then part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

An Imperial French army under the command of Emperor Napoleon was defeated by combined armies of the Seventh Coalition, an Anglo-Allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington combined with a Prussian army under the command of Gebhard von Blücher.

It was the culminating battle of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. The defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French and marked the end of his Hundred Days' return from exile.

Why do I bring here the Battle of Waterloo? Because with a few exceptions, it seems to portray the “The Maddie McCann Affair” or as I like to call it privately, “The Very Last Campaign of the British Empire”.

I hope, at the end of this post, you will understand why I call it that.

The Battle of Waterloo had two major belligerents: the French, led by Napoleon, and the “Others”, by the Duke of Wellington.

These, as we’ll see, made up mostly, but not exclusively, of British troops.

The Maddie McCann Affair, also has two major belligerents: the Truth, defended by multinational anonymous citizens, and the “Those Against the Truth”, these, as we’ll see, made up mostly, but not exclusively, of British citizens.

One first major difference about these two sets of events, is that in the IX Century Battle, the French did lose, while I’m certain that the Truth will prevail.

The Truth, in this case, is you.

You, the one trying to understand what really did happen, but that in the process of trying to do so have suffered so many “attacks” coming from so many different directions.

Yet you maintain your determination, and that was something the “attackers” didn’t count on.

Let’s look at the map of the Battle of Waterloo:
 
On the bottom, as said, we have the French flag, and on top, we have two sets of flags, on one side, the Union Jack with the Dutch flag, on the other, the Prussian one.

The United Kingdom, the United Netherlands and Prussia, those countries which flags are depicted, were part of the Seventh Coalition.

But they weren’t the only nations to be present at Waterloo fighting Napoleon. Hanover, Nassau and Brunswick were also there, only their flags aren’t shown:
 
But not all members of the Seventh Coalition were present at Waterloo.

I’ve just named those that were, but during the “Hundred Days War”, these nations were also part of it: Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Sicily, Tuscany and Switzerland.

Also, although not a nation, there were present the French Royalists:
 
There were a lot of participants that one hadn’t realized their presence just by looking at the battle maps, or reading history books.

Only three names are basically remembered: Duke of Wellington, Napoleon, and to a lesser degree, Blücher.

One curiosity, completely irrelevant, but we even have a Murat present. In this case a Joachim Murat, brother-in-law of Napoleon Bonaparte. This one died with dignity before a firing squad, after a failed attempt to regain the throne of Naples. It is said he was the one to give the order to fire to the firing squad "Soldats! Faites votre devoir! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu!" (“Soldiers! Do your duty! Straight to the heart but spare the face. Fire!”).

Let’s go back to our Battle Map. Let’s replace the following: The French flag, by “YOU”, the Union Jack by “GUESTS”, United Netherlands flag by “OCEAN CLUB” and the Prussian flag by “TAPAS 9”:
 
I’ll leave to your imagination and common sense with what, or who, you should replace the Hanover, Nassau and Brunswick flags, and where to place them on the Battlefield.

Just realize that although not represented, they’re there, and fighting against you.

And don’t forget the flags of the Austrian Empire, of the Russian Empire, of Sweden, of Spain, of Portugal, of Sardinia, of Sicily, of Tuscany, of Switzerland and of the French Royalists, although they weren’t in the battle itself, they did participate in the campaign.

So we have basically the following: YOU being under attack from TWO main directions.

One coming from the GUESTS/OCEAN CLUB (a coalition-within-the coalition), and the other from the TAPAS 9 side:
 
Or to make things easier to understand graphically:
  This is how the Maddie McCann Affair War raged from 2007 to 2010.

The GUESTS/OCEAN CLUB, once purged of its foot soldiers that were inconvenient to have around, proved to be a united, cohesive and mighty force, which has, like at Waterloo, has been the Black Hat driving force.

The TAPAS 9, has suffered some setbacks, namely the abandonment of O’Brien, the “desertion” of Oldfield and the public humiliation of Tanner in the Mockumentary.

However, its nucleus, the Paynes and the McCanns, has remained intact, and they have, indeed, been highly reinforced, at least by the McCann clan of friends and family, which are those that we know of.

The Paynes like (or need) to be as discreet as possible, so what kind of help they’ve been able to arrange is unknown, but I’m sure existent.

By joining the strengths of these two camps, you can see that you were (are) before a mighty opponent, almost comparable with the Invincible Armada.

You also can now understand why we’ve had so many Black Hats in blogs and forums.

These people have resources to pay professionals, as well as are themselves personally involved to have to commit themselves as if their lives depended on it. In some cases, it does.

People that, at first, you took for gullible, naïve, as well as short-sighted. They stubbornly refused to accept the most obvious of facts, and yet accepted the most bizarre of coincidences for justification.

Then they started not to look that much innocent.

They kept on demanding from you proof of each word you said, while theirs was valid just because they had said so.

Politely they tired you out. What they said with a huge margin of uncertain and probability was to be taken as fact, while all you said with precision would, according to them, remain ambiguous.

They certainly had an hidden agenda, but you just couldn’t put your finger to it… until now.

When this didn’t work out they started to be rude, insulting, with the intent of disrupting, thus creating a hostile environment to drive away from the subject peaceful, reasonable people who were made to feel uncomfortable and just leave and not return.

They were given the impression that those writing about Maddie McCann were rude nutcases without hope of cure, who got their kicks out of fighting each other.

They used against you every tactic possible of counter-information; they threw at you all possible misinformation, which we here called “clutter”.

These people knew very well what was (and is) at stake, and withdrew from it their objectives, which they’ve fought hard for, with efficiency I must say.

Many of them, I remind you, were (and are) trained professionals.

Also, understanding that there was (is) a “Coalition”, you understand that there were (are) different agendas amongst the Black Hats.

You now understand why some defended only and only certain characters while accusing others; while others insisted on spoon feeding you with the negligence theory, agreeing with you whenever you suggested it, and why others lashed at this blog whenever we spoke of anyone outside the TAPAS 9, like Fenn or Murat, but remained in silence while we “trashed” the McCanns.

Although allies, each one of the parties involved defended it’s own interests with maximum priority.

But here the coincidences stop with Waterloo.

Napoleon lost. You’ve resisted. And we, together, stand our ground to this day, and remain resolute not to give it up.

They know that.

And then Gordon Brown’s Government toppled. With his leaving the stage, the relationship of forces within the “Coalition” changed dramatically.

Someone, somewhere, in a certain high place, understood the embarrassment that the McCann “cause” caused the UK to suffer, needlessly.

And Jim Gamble was strongly advised to leave. Was Jim Gamble, the Black Hats’ Duke of Wellington?

Not by a long shot. He was but, shall we say, the GUESTS/OCEAN CLUB’s liaison Officer with the TAPAS9.

He left, and he wasn’t replaced. This meant that the TAPAS9 not only saw themselves abandoned on the battlefield, and at once understood, quite correctly, that if they didn’t act, they would soon by wiped off the board, so they counter-attacked.

Notice that from this point onwards, all the manoeuvering is done between these two forces.

You, supposedly their common enemy, have been left to watch. Yes, now and then they do shoot a round in your direction, just for appearances' sake that they do remain "united", but, let me tell you that the blood shed, is a lot and is between them.

It’s one fierce and ruthless fight that is happening even as we speak.

You see, Kate’s book was indeed a bombshell in some households. Not in yours, nor mine, but it did catch by surprise many.

As said before, we fully understood why it was written. It was with the exact same purpose as when the tabloids paid the Tapas and Murat: to justify publicly money being given.

The idea was that once the book was on sale, the McCanns would have an “endless” source of income, independent of the selling numbers.

The difference between when the tabloids paid out, and now, is that then the “Coalition” was solid (although Murat didn’t like it very much to have been singled out by his own people…), and now the relationship between “allies” has changed completely.

JK Rowling distancing herself from the book, near its publishing date was a clear sign that not all was as it seemed about the book.

So when everyone expected the book to lash out viciously and directly at Gonçalo Amaral, Kate surprised all, by turning “on the hand that had protected her”.

I think she thought that she was just defending herself, but she completely misjudged, or as you'll see, misfired her words.

She clearly points a finger at the Ocean Club. According to her, they wrote down somewhere that the Tapas left the children alone in the apartments, and then proceeded to place the note in an easily accessible spot (one wonders if the Tapas personnel left the reservation book open on that specific page on purpose) as if pinned a roadside Bulletin Board for all to see.

Then, apparently, got their statements wrong by saying they saw the McCanns where they never were, and then that they whisked away, very, very conveniently, potentially important witnesses.

The path was laid out for the opening of the door by the abductor, to have been done by using one of the OC keys.

Also she’s quite harsh on her opinion about Mrs Fenn. I would even say, unnecessarily so.

Kate implies that she insulted the woman, but then again she does insult, literally, so many people in the book, that staying at the “implying” level must be taken as a compliment to the ex-Pat in question.

We now come to a very interesting phenomenon that we’re witnessing, and that is what I call the “Smith-Sighting-Reversed”. That is what is happening with the Carol Tranmer-Fenn’s (CTF) statement, which, by the way, was brought to your attention by this blog, back during last year’s Thanksgiving.

You see, the Smith Sighting was something desired by the McCanns until the moment they realized that it was Gerry who had been identified, and from then on become an issue that the “Coalition” made all possible efforts to keep away from public eyes.

With the CTF’s statement, the inverse happens. It was (is) highly compromising for the Tapas, as a sighting on the precise afternoon of the “abduction“ has been silenced and totally ignored until now, as it most likely describes Russ leaving the Oldfields’ apartments, when he was supposed to be saving Matt from drowning somewhere out at sea.

But now, in various forums, namely Amazon.com, CFT’s statement is popping up every so often, brought by Black Hats.

These are not ANY Black Hats. These can be, by the content of their comments, easily linked with the TAPAS9 camp.

To confirm this, the CFT sighting does appear in the book in all its glory. So, like a mirror image of the Smith Sighting, that was relevant and suddenly ceased to be, the CFT Sighting wasn’t important, and now suddenly is.

Why? Because it widens the circle of involvement onto others outside the Ocean Club institution.

The more involved, the merrier. Or, in other words, the more to take down with, if one is forced to go down, the better.

The above details are almost irrelevant. What is important is that you understand that the book fires in all directions, but uses only fratricide ammunition.

More commonly known as "friendly-fire". It kills as much as any other, only is that it's your "friends" pulling the trigger.

The fighting is now between themselves. The GUESTS/OCEAN CLUB vs TAPAS9.

And guess who’s the weakest link?

But why do I call the Maddie McCann Affair the “The Very Last Campaign of the British Empire”?

Because it all boils down to the arrogant imperialistic attitude with which the UK handled this whole issue. As if the Algarve was British soil, and Portugal some uncivilized part of the world.

For the UK, whatever happened in PdL was an “internal” issue to be dealt with “internally”.

Only with the outcry for Justice from the world, mainly led by anonymous citizens from both Portugal and the UK, have the British authorities realized that this attitude has not only embarrassed the Country worldwide as it has seriously compromised its interests everywhere.

Any British citizen is ashamed to talk about Maddie McCann in whatever corner of the world.

It’s a subject that is to be avoided at all costs, and if brought up, to be dampened as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, as with Maddie, the UK will finally lose its arrogant imperialistic posture, and this may well, we hope, have been the last we’ve seen of such outdated, incorrect and misplaced attitude.
  By the way, as a last remark, if you look at Kate’s pictures lately, she now seems to be worn out. Like we expected her to look when she lost her daughter. How we expect any human being to look after suffering a terrible loss. Kate, you look today, as if tragedy is either upon you, or to befall very soon.

A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

There are many, many “Oops… I think I’ve just confessed” moments in Kate McCanns book, “Madeleine”.

This is one of them.

On pages 241 and 242, this is what she says:

“Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.
I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.”

See the confession?

No?

Let me clarify: “Did this mean someone had planted it?”

The simple fact that her mind finds possible to generate the idea that someone may have planted Maddie’s DNA in the boot of a car rented many days after her supposed abduction, means one and only one very important thing, and that is she’s telling us all that she knows that Maddie’s body was accessible from which to withdraw samples from and plant them somewhere else.

Let me put it this way.

If I was to tell you that I’d just seen a monkey dressed in a tuxedo smoking a cigar in the boor of your car, which of the following questions would pop immediately into your mind:

- has this woman lost it completely or is she on hard drugs or something?

- who put the monkey there, and who made a tuxedo that size?

Yes, the FIRST is the logical thought because of the impossibility and infeasibility of the whole idea.

But that is not what she seems to be asking, is it?

She goes for the SECOND, which she knows, for certain, to be POSSIBLE and FEASIBLE.

Possible because she knows the why, feasible because she knows the how.

Yes...those words means she was working on the theory, in her own mind, of how to get herself out of this situation, not the practicality of where DNA would have to have come from.

If she knew, as she keeps telling us she knows, that Maddie was ABDUCTED, and that the car had been rented much later, her reaction would have been “There’s a mistake, that’s IMPOSSIBLE!”.

How feasible would it be to plant Maddie’s DNA in ANY PLACE if she was indeed ABDUCTED?

Only by the abductor. She does say, on page 242 “The only conclusion I could draw was that we’ve been framed, though this seemed completely implausible”

Yes, but that would mean that the “ABDUCTOR would have abducted and killed Maddie, kept the body with him/her, took some samples from it, continued to maintain surveillance on the couple, and, ONCE AGAIN, would have to have waited for an opportunity whereupon they would have left their car unattended and unlocked.

Talk about conspiracy theories… because if it wasn't the abductor, who could have been?

Not the PJ, unless she's implying the PJ abducted Maddie...

And if it was the abductor, why such determination and vengefulness?

So, basically, she’s CONFESSING, very LOUDLY and CLEARLY, that she knows that there was a source from which that found DNA had come from: the unabducted Maddie’s body.

The Tapas Duet

Remember our post, the Hymns Singers, where we showed how some Tapas Staff "sang" from the same "hymn sheet"?

Well, today we’re glad to present you with the latest Tapas “musical” sensation, the duet “Sandro and Luisa”.

Sandro, says he’s the resort receptionist, implying that there is but ONE, and only ONE reception in the entire Ocean Club Resort, but Luisa corrects him by stating that she’s the “Garden” receptionist.

We’re supposing that by “Garden” she means the “Tapas” Complex within the OC Resort.

Like the true artists they are, they do go into “studio” to "record" separately, Sandro on May 7th, Luisa the day after.

But are they in harmonious synch!

Almost to the point of perfection. Just read what each has to say, especially how they say it.

Remember, they're not "singing" together.

This is Luisa Coutinho’s statement on May 8th, at 12:00 [1], partly of which you’ve read on a previous post:

“Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner.
For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation.
However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that states that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking since it has a few seats reserved for, "Mark Warner" customers, 20 to be concrete.
In this concrete case the rational choice for the family’s dinner would be the "Tapas" as it’s 40 meters from the accommodation, while the "Millennium" is about 200 meters from it.
(…)
The deponent states that, from the the restaurant, it’s possible to see the front part of the apartment, in which includes the living room window.
The deponent doesn’t know the location of the room where the couple's three children slept, however, on being informed that it was situated on the opposite side of the apartment, the deponent states that this room is completely out of sight from someone that is at the "Tapas” restaurant.
Therefore, the most viable solution would be to leave the kids either at the "baby sitter", which is the procedure that is normally adopted by the clients.
About the question of being offered a "Baby Sitting " service, between 19.30 and 23.30, says that she knows of its existence and that it is free.
Questioned, the deponent replied that she doesn’t understand how, being a free service, Madeleine Maccann’s parents didn’t use it.”

 Now this is Sandro Silva’s statement, taken the day before, May 7th at 18:45 [2].

“Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner. For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation.
However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that states that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking.
In this concrete case the rational choice for the family’s dinner would be the "Tapas" as it’s 40 meters from the accommodation, while the "Millennium" is about 200 meters from it.
The deponent states that, from the the restaurant, it’s possible to see the front part of the apartment, in which includes the living room window.
The deponent doesn’t know the location of the room where the couple's three children slept, however, on being informed that it was situated on the opposite side of the apartment, the deponent states that this room is completely out of sight from someone that is at the "Tapas” restaurant.
Therefore, the most viable solution would be to leave the kids either at the "baby sitter" or take the children to a small playground, fenced that exists in front of the “Tapas” restaurant where they were easily controlled from where the parents were having dinner.
About the question of being offered a "Baby Sitting " service, between 19.30 and 23.30, says that he knows of its existence and that it is free.
Questioned, the deponent replied that she doesn’t understand how, being a free service, Madeleine Maccann’s parents didn’t use it.”

I’ve highlighted, in both statements, by putting in bold, not what is relevant about what they say, but the differences between them.

Amazing isn’t it? I’d dare say that we’re before twin souls, such is the harmony. So much so that when you read this on Luisa’s statement [3].
“It should be referred that the family in question, came through the "MARK WARNER" company, this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company.”

And compare it with this on Sandro’s statement [4]: “With regard to the facts now being investigated, the deponent states that the family of Madeleine Maccann they received as normal, it should be referred that their stay was done through the Mark Warner agency, of which Mr. John Hill is its representative. It should be referred that this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company.”

You wouldn’t believe they’re saying the exact same thing, which they are, just because, this time, they use different wording from each other to express what they had to say.

We hope sincerely that you, by now, understand who composed the music, and who was conducting it... tasks not exactly befitting a group of British doctors, recently arrived on the premises.

Notes:

[1] Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes Mark Warner dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe transmitem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares reservados a clientes “Mark Warner”, mais concretamente 20. Neste caso concreto a escolha racional para jantar da família seria o “Tapas” uma vez que dista 40 metros do alojamento, ao passo que o “Millenium” dista cerca de 200 metros do mesmo (...) O ora depoente afirme que, do restaurante é possível ver a parte da frente do apartamneto onde se inclui a janela da sala. O ora depoente desconhece a localização do quarto onde dormiam os três filhos do casal, no entanto ao ser informado que se situava no lado oposto do apartamento, o depoente afirma que esta divisão sai completamente fora do campo de visão de alguém que se encontre no restaurante “Tapas” Porquanto a solução mais viável seria deixar as crianças ou na “baby sitter”, que é o procedimento que normalmente é adoptado pelos clientes. Quanto à questão de ser disponibilizado um serviço de “Baby Sitting”, entre as 19h30 e as 23h30, afirma que sabe da sua existência e que este é gratuíto. Questionado, o ora depoente respondeu que não entende como, sendo o serviço gratuíto, os pais de Madeleine Maccann não usufruiram dele. (In PJ Files pgs 569-570)

[2] Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes “Mark Warner” dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe transmitem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares. Neste caso concreto a escolha racional para jantar da família seria o “Tapas” uma vez que dista 40 metros do alojamento, ao passo que o “Millenium” dista cerca de 200 metros do mesmo O ora depoente afirma que, do restaurante, é possível ver a parte da frente do apartamento, onde se inclui a janela da sala. O ora depoente desconhece a localização do quarto onde dormiam os três filhos do casal, no entanto, ao ser informado que este se situava no lado oposto do apartamento, o dpeoente afirna que esta divisão sai completamente fora do campo de visão de alguém que se encontre no restaurante “Tapas”. Porquanto, a solução mais viável seria deixar as crianças ou na “baby sitter” ou levarem as crianças para um pequeno parque infantil, vedado que existe mesmo em frente ao restaurante “Tapas” onde eram facilmente controladas do local onde os pais se encontravam a jantar. Quanto à questão de ser disponibilizado um serviço de “Baby Sitting”, entre as 19h30 e as 23h30, afirma que sabe da sua existência e que este é gratuíto. Questionado, o ora depoente respondeu que não entende como, sendo o serviço gratuíto, os pais de Madeleine Maccann não usufruiram dele. (In PJ Files pgs 420-421)

[3] Importa referir que a família em questão, veio por intermédio da empresa “MARK WARNER”, esta empresa tem como política tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e as recepções, uma vez que esta última lida directamente com a empresa Mark Warner. (in PJ Files pgs 569-570)

[4] No que concerne aos factos que ora se investigam, o ora depoente afirma que, como normal receberam a família da Madeleine Maccann, importando referir que a sua estadia foi feita por intermádio da agência Mark Warner, da qual é representante o Sr. John Hill. Importa referir que esta empresa tem como politica tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e a recepção, uma vez que esta última lida drectamene com a empresa Mark Warner. (in PJ Files pg 420)

The PdL Triangle

Anonymous Jun 15, 2011 12:56:00 PM wrote:

“I couldn't agree more. Media, police files, statements hold the most important key of information on the first days. 

When Madeleine was gone I read that all the kids were alone in the same apartment. In fact, Madeleine was alone and dead in 5-A ready to be transferred to a safer place.

So, if Kate and Payne were there when she was bumped in the head, this trouble was cooked late in the afternoon, the dinner was planned to put the group away from the crime scene and to be seen during the evening.

At the same time n abduction window of opportunity was opened. Was Jez involved in this swinging process and forced to go along with them or was he in a wrong place in the wrong time?


Was Murat called to help them with a KEY (seems the man was plenty of keys from empty apartments...) because he is a relative of Mark Warner owner?

What would be MW resort problem refusing to help Mccanns? How could McCanns prove MW is a resort for special couples and selective swinging?

Wasn't even worse to be involved in a fake abduction, hiding a corpse and produce fake statements involving employees that do follow your orders today but may change direction tomorrow?

That takes me to this conclusion: hiding Madeleine fatal condition worths what they were saving, and that cannot be the swinging resort offering... might be related to what would be found in the autopsy.  

She didn't fall, was not an accident... but why would the resort got involved?

Because 

a) they've panic and did not realize how things went wrong;

b) someone from OC should be supervising kids and wasn't without knowing she was already dead and a civil complain was on the way to OC. Covering up was the solution;

c) someone very important could not be involved in such a thing and that person was....;  

d) at that time OC did his best and had no idea to what was dragged for;

e) you name it or correct me if you please”

Dear Anon, First, let me praise you for the fact that you exposed your ideas but left, intentionally, room for them to be debated freely, which is highly commendable.

You raise a very interesting subject, and that is what parties exactly were involved, and how so.

Their will, their commitment and which of them took the lead in what we call here “The Maddie Affair”.

First we have to define the parties involved.

In our opinion, there were, and still are, three: T9, OC (which includes ownership and a significant part of the staff), and guests.

For simplicity sake, we shall call them the T-Team, the O-Team and the G-Team.

There are some “loose” players, like the PdL resident Expats. These can be either O-Team (had the same, or more, to lose as the OC) or G-Team (had the same to lose as some of the guests, or then assumed, for many different reasons, the mission to protect at all costs any reference made about any kind of involvement by some of them), or "play" for both teams.

For example, I find difficult to fit Murat in any of these teams as he fits in both.

But the Expats, are not the only “loose” players around. As all things in life, there’s no strict and clear line separating, or intersecting, these groups.  

David Payne, for example, seems to be right in the middle of the intersection of the three teams.

Secondly, we have to define the time.

As it went by, so the power relation between the teams changed.

During a long time it did, more or less, remain stable, but took on a lively turn since Jim Gamble was, shall we say, asked to perform much more important and noble duties, like being told to fade away into the background.  

Then, we said it was the beginning of the end, today we see the evident signs of the unavoidable erosion that has followed.

But let’s freeze time at the exact time we believe Maddie McCann died: around 18:30 on May 3rd, 2007.

We do this so that we can analyse what each of the teams had to lose, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, or thought they had to lose when they did realize how compromising Maddie’s death actually was.

Before you think we’re going into highly secret, or covert scientifically secret, reasons, let me clarify those that are new to the blog, that Maddie’s death was compromising just because it was an inexplicably violent death of a child (we still believe it to have happened unwittingly) in the middle of a swinging holiday.

How many times has each one us thought we would do something DIFFERENTLY if we had had the chance of knowing, BEFOREHAND, the consequences?

It’s so easy to judge, or decide the best path or course of action, knowing the OUTCOME.

But these people don't know that. They're before a fact, and making assessments and evaluating the implications of that particular fact upon themselves, based on the information possible and available, which is very little.

AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, they know not the world will pick up on this issue.

They know not that they will face a stubborn policeman.

They know not that the investigation, the PJ Files, will become public, for public scrutiny.

All they know is that they have a dead child on their hands, whose cadaver bears the marks of a violent demise, and they know that they don’t want anyone else to know that they were present or in the vicinities when Maddie lost her life.

And if it had to be known, as they soon realized that it had to be, that they were in fact THERE, that would be within the permissible boundaries (this for some, for others, not even that was to be permitted), but what was ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED TO BE KNOWN was the WHY they were there.

The UK has very little PUBLIC tolerance for any sexual "deviation"...

It's a fact that the UK tabloids act as starved dogs around a bone whenever they can get their teeth into a nice and juicy sex-scandal. Even the most hungry hyenas seem tame compared to them.

So, for all three teams, things, at that moment, were not looking good. Not good at all. In fact, they looked bad, horrible, with unacceptable consequences.

So they decide to take action.  

Who decided what and when?

Let’s first understand the constitution of each team.

The T-Team is made up of 9 elements. It would later grow, as various Healy and McCann signed up.

The O-Team, would, at this time, be at the Ownership/Managerial level. Some of the other staff were involved that evening, but probably were not aware of most of the details. Simply followed orders. On the next day, and the days after, the staff was slowly brought up to speed. Some of them were fully briefed on what was going on, probably because they were paid specifically to cater for that event.

These were conscious accomplices when they lied to the Police.

There were others that were convinced to go and tell “white lies” just to help out a distraught family, that had got herself into trouble, so there was no need to aggravate their grief.

They were probably told that it would be inconsequential lies, as the whole thing was under control, would quickly be resolved and that normality would quickly return.

These honest, low-wage workers, are the ones that have the biggest right to curse, which I'm sure they do, the day somebody decided to invite the McCanns over to a "PdL party"...

The G-Team, would have been two, or three of the most “important” guests.

It's uncertain how they appear into events, and only, I'm sure, David Payne can clarify that, and, as we've seen, asking him serve nothing to know.

He either contacted the O-Team first, and this team contacted the G-Team, or he contacted the G-Team first. Is it relevant the order in which the other two teams were contacted? No, it isn't, but I think it was the G-Team first, as the "Party-Coordinator" came from its ranks.

Like it happened with the O-Team, other guests were informed of what had happened on the next morning.

Some flew immediately out of scene, others cooperated out of pure self-interest, and some, probably less important and influential were pulled in.

The names that appear on the "Tapas sheets" are not there innocently. Those sheets were done, and redone. But they were done under pressure, and some who agreed to let their names be there, quickly changed their mind. H

How do I know that? By their deafening silence.

At first I thought, like you, that the McCanns had had always the lead, and were the ones to set the pace up, but I began, progressively to think somewhat differently.

You see, although the Jim Gamble "piece" did fit in the puzzle with perfection, one of the other around it, did not. It had to be forced into place, or, in the very least, didn't fit gently in.

That "piece" was David Payne.

I just couldn't see any set of circumstances which would have place Gamble under Payne's foot.

The other way around did seem a possibility, but the facts pointed for Gamble to be helping Payne, and certainly not the other way around.  

Gamble is a "filth collector" not a "filth-monger" himself. He who beholds the filth controls the "filthee", not the other way around. And taking into account the number and importance of people involved, both manipulating and being manipulated, as well as the resources spent and required, it meant that all went much, much further than a possible friendly return of favours, however strong their eventual bonding.

The David Payne "piece" just didn't fit in the way I think pieces should fit in. Always gently and naturally, never forced or distorted.

After some thought, and researching, I now think that in those early moments of that May 3rd evening, the decisions were in fact "tri-partied". All three teams suggesting and discussing possible solutions to the unsolvable problem.

But this "cooperation" was not for long. In fact, it probably only happened for a very short period of time.

It quickly became an exclusive “bi-party” ran operation. Ran solely by the O-Team and the G-Team.

Only these two teams had the capability and resources to influence and manipulate so many people, both powerful and common.

The first knew the terrain; and brought in ex-Pat help, the second had the power and influence and may justify why all of a sudden the UK Government took such a keen and devout interest in a group of upper middle-class, if that, doctors.

The T-Team, as insignificant as they really are, were ordered to take the role of actors, in a script written by the other two.

Yes, there was an “actor” very keen to please, a Dr. Gerald McCann, who, if others like the Smiths had cooperated, would have played the role of his life. A BAFTA in the very least.

His "we're not here to have fun", seems to indicate that they were to be introduced to a "higher" circle of people.

This was to be their trial run, their initiation ceremony.

All T-Team players had very little influence, with the exception of David Payne, who appears to be the connecting point between the T-Team and the other two.

Please do not confuse Payne's influence, with power to influence. His was liaison role only, aggravated with the fact that he was the responsible one for all the mess.

The script was well written, the play even had a title: "NEGLIGENCE AND ABDUCTOR".

The story of a forbidden love between two fictitious characters, Mrs Negligence and Mr. Abductor, brought together, by fate, in the fictitious far, far away land of COLOBOMA.

Unfortunately for all, the Kate's untimely alarm rendered all cue cards useless... as we all know, that timing is EVERYTHING in theatre, and Kate ruined it all.

Gerry still hadn't returned, the window still hadn't been broken into, they didn't have that precious hour to get the details right between them at the Tapas joined up tables, which would clarify as to who sat where, and that they didn't sit around a BIG ROUND TABLE.

Adding to this, and the “critic”-on-duty, one Gonçalo Amaral, proved to be not in the mood to play along with what had suddenly turned from a Tony Award winning spectacle into a sad, pathetic play.

But what NOBODY realized there and then was that, once they launched the play, the casting was done, without a possibility of changing any of the actors.

Not for the supporting roles, much less for the leading ones.

And between you and me, the choice of actors was disastrous and would prove to be disastrous both for the O and G-Team.

Yes, they could remove, which they did, from the building some, or most of the participant stagehands, but the main cast, was, as was proved, irreplaceable.

Everyone was taken by surprise with the selfish, egocentric and narcissistic personality traits of the McCann couple.

These two soon realized how great the power the information they possessed had, and, stupidly, as only stupid people can be, misused it by exaggeration and completely spoiled its usefulness.

Maybe that’s why that when they came to the tabloids threatening that they were “running out of money in the fund (... or else)”, they were subtly convinced to write the book (an ode to stupidity), which, they were certainly told, would end their problems once and for all, especially their financial ones.

Selfish, egocentric and narcissistic people are known to be highly manipulative, but are so much in love with themselves that you just have to give a little tug on their vanity that they will follow you down any path you wish to take them on.

And what Kate wrote, was not a book, but a sworn and signed self-incriminatory testimony of 350 plus pages.

One month has passed since it was published, and I believe that they would gladly give back all the money the book has made to date, just to be able to return to May 11th, 2011.

To ask to return to May 3rd, 2007 is not for them to plead, because, as said, I believe that little after Maddie died, they had little or nothing to say in the matter of the events of that evening.

Am I implying that the O-Team and the G-Team had anything to do with Maddie's death?

Of course not, because they didn't. That death occurred WITHIN the T-Team "compound".

Am I exempting the McCanns from any of their guilt?

Absolutely in no way.

 Once you understand this triangle, things will become much, much more clear.

Then, if you "submit" David Payne's "piece" to Gamble's one, and not the other way around, you'll find that it just slides in perfectly.

Post Scriptum:

About the reported, by Duarte Levy, suing of TVI, Goucha, Sargento and Carvalho, by the McCanns, this blog finds very strange that only Paulo Sargento has been constituted as "arguido".

The fact that a TV Station and ONE of its presenters seem to be involved, means that a certain, and specific, aired program merited this said judicial action.

A program where all three (Goucha, Sargento and Carvalho) were certainly present.

This in turn means it was single event in time, which would mean that ALL its PARTICIPANTS would have be named "arguido" at the same time, and not selectively, like seems to be the case with Sargento.

It simply doesn't make sense for him to have been notified of his "arguido" status on June 15th, and for Carvalho to be heard only in July.

When will then be the TVI Management heard or notified? Or Goucha?

Until we have confirmation from other sources other than Duarte Levy, this blog remains very skeptical about these "news".

And you know what we think about Levy's exclusive reporting...

The Devil's Finger is in the Detail

By May I
We thought the Tapas restaurant took 20 covers, just for MW guests [1] (not to be confused with OC guests as we know from the reviews that, at least, Thomas Cook also booked for that particular resort) and so did the receptionist, Luisa Coutinho [2].  

Kate's book has put us right and we now discover they could only cope with 15 [3].

She also confirms Rachael made the block booking for 9 [4] on Monday, as opposed to Russell O' Brien on Sunday, as stated by Luisa Coutinho, the receptionist. Presumably O'Brien, as he is described as tall and not the father of the child [5]

The customers could be assured of attentive service, as there were 7 members of staff on duty on the evening of May 3rd .

I've coped with as many as that at many of our at home gatherings and no dishwasher. I also watched as 4 young people efficiently prepared and served Sunday lunch and drinks for 25 customers, at the same time as running the bar at my local pub.

It's difficult to understand the willingness of prospective customers for the Tapas to queue for a booking for the remaining 6 places every morning, but Stephen Carpenter and Philip Edmonds obviously did.

One would imagine that men of their status wouldn't normally queue for anything, let alone a rather mediocre establishment which offered unsophisticated Quiz Nights as the highlight events.

Those Quiz Nights must have been rather boring, given that it must have consisted of one team of 9 against another of 6?

How did the T9 team manage to lose, given this advantage?  

Mr Carpenter says the whole T9 party were assembled at 8.30., but Kate doesn't mention this detail in her account of the truth.

 There are various accounts of the evening, so you can pick and choose to construct your own version of the night. Or the week, for that matter.

The two Irwin ladies had also made a successful bid for a table that night, but it seems they may not have turned up.

The T9 denied all knowledge of them when questioned by the Portuguese police. They did exist, as they are on the guest list, but no statements were obtained from them.

It looks like Luisa will be blamed for making the note on the reception book, as she says of the Tapas “O referido hóspede, justificou a exigência pelo facto de, no grupo, terem várias crianças pequenas que ficariam a dormir sózinhas, enquanto eles, os pais, iam jantar. Disse ainda que intervaladamente um dois pais se dirigiria aos apartamentos, a fim de verificar se estava tudo bem.”

This paragraph has a typo, as the expression “um dois pais” doesn’t exist in Portuguese. It can be either “um dos pais” (one of the parents) or “um ou dois pais” (one or two parents).

Either way this typo doesn’t alter the general sense of what Luisa had to say: “The mentioned guest justified the demand with the fact that, in the group, they had small children who would be sleeping alone, while they, the parents, would go dine. Furthermore said that at intervals one of the parents (or one or two parents) would go to the apartments, so as to verify that everything was alright.”

Inspector Hugo Silva continues Luisa’s statement with “The deponent put some restraints against the request, as it’s a very requested restaurant and that only has 20 daily places for the Mark Warner's guests, however after insistence from the mentioned guest, the deponent was able to make the requested bookings.” [6]

Inspector Hugo Silva took this statement on May 8th adding “During the present inquiry it was given by the deponent a minute book, handwritten, where is what was referred concerning the bookings to the restaurant “Tapas”’ [7]

What he DOESN'T say, however, is that she had made any notes IN THE BOOK about the group leaving children unattended.

We haven't been able to find ANY evidence of a written note in the RELEASED PJ files, but there is a possible source for Kate's observation that a note WAS written in the book [8], and it may be that the author she was relying on had simply made this interpretation from officer Silva's comment.  

Goncalo Amaral's book refers to the reception book, but in his account, it was on Tuesday May 1st; the day the Portuguese celebrate Labour Day, or Worker’s Day (Dia do Trabalhador).

 
Mr Amaral writes: “Coming the time for the adult’s dinner, the children again stay alone at home. In the restaurant "Tapas"’s reception book, a more diligent worker writes down the dinner booking and annotates that some elements of that group of tourists would get up from time to time, to go see the children who are in the apartments.” [9]

There was another trainee receptionist on duty on this day; Elise Romão, so is the suggestion here that she wrote the note in the book, or even another note?

 Goncalo Amaral later writes about the debate in the police crisis room: [10]:
“- It’s incomprehensible that an eventual predator would have the audacity of going inside an apartment and withdraw from it a child, having to suppose that the parents could arrive at any moment.
- That predator had to know the habits of parents and had to be sure of what he was going to do. - Another reason for that not to fall correctly into place... one of the two: either someone gave him the knowledge of such habits, and there we have to think of the "Tapas" restaurant staff or then he's hung around, studying the vicinity...
- If he studied the vicinity why did he go in through the front door and went out of the window, or even the other way around, the only door that was open was the one that goes to the pool area.
- Yes… there would have been easy to go in and out and run less risks of being seen.
- The child’s parents say that when they noticed Madeleine’s disappearance, the bedroom’s window was open and the front door closed  
- And if they’re not telling the truth?”

 It would be ironic if Kate's book, hinting at an inside job, relied on a source which she had banned from distribution, wouldn't it?

The weather-vane of this story has swung in many directions, but Kate's book seems to be taking us back to its initial position.

To recap, Robert Murat made the following infamous observation to David Jones of The Daily Mail on June 2nd 2007: “ Basically, I'm just an ordinary straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f.... up on the planet”, but the rest of the quote is less well remembered “If you want my opinion, it had to involve someone on the inside who works at the Ocean Club.”

So beware, Ocean Club employees, as the finger seems to be pointing back at you!  



Notes: 
[1] Luisa Coutinho says: “Importa referir que a família em questão, veio por intermédio da empresa “MARK WARNER”, esta empresa tem como política tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e as recepções, uma vez que esta última lida directamente com a empresa Mark Warner.” 
Which translates to: “It should be referred that the family in question, came through the "MARK WARNER" company, this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pgs 569 and 570) 

 [2] Luisa Coutinho says: “Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes Mark Warner dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe referem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares reservados a clientes “Mark Warner”, mais concretamente 20.” 
Which translates to: “Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner. For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation. However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking since it has a few seats reserved for "Mark Warner" customers, 20 to be concrete.” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570) 
And also says in the same statement: “A ora depoente colocou alguns entraves ao pedido, uma vez que é um restaurante muito solicitado e que dispões de apenas 20 lugares diários para os clientes da Mark warner, no entanto após insistência por parte do mencionado hóspede, a depoenete conseguiu efectuar as reservas solicitadas.”  
Which translates into: “The deponent put some restraints to the request, as it’s a very requested restaurant and that only has 20 daily seats for the Mark warner’s guests, however after insistence from the mentioned guest, the deponent was able to make the requested bookings.”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570)  

[3] “Today [Sunday] we’d been able to make a dinner reservation for the adult contingent at the poolside Tapas restaurant. Apparently, this restaurant, a canopied outdoor addition to the bar, catered for only up to fifteen diners in the evenings, and reservations could not be made until the morning of the day in question. Being so close, it was far more convenient than the Millennium.” 
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 52)  

[4] “In spite of what we’d been told about booking the Tapas restaurant, Rachael managed to get a table for nine at 8.30pm pencilled in for the rest of the week after having a word with the receptionist at the pool and Tapas area.”  
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 56) 

[5] Luisa Coutinho says: “Recorda que, no Domingo, 29, um dos elementos do grupo que chegou com a menor Madeleine MacCann , cujo nome desconhece e apenas saber ser do sexo masculino e alto e magro, dirigiu-se a ora depoente solicitando a marcação de jantar para todo o grupo, para toda a semana e sempre para as 20:30 Questionada afirma que o individuo que falou consigo não era o pai da menor, mas outro elemento do grupo que era visto regulatmente com ele.” 
Which translates into: “Recalls that on Sunday, 29, one of the elements of the group that came with the minor Madeleine MacCann, whose name she doesn’t know and only knows to be male and tall and thin, came to the deponent asking for dinner bookings for the entire group for the entire week and always for 20:30. Questioned says that the individual that spoke with her was not the father of the child, but another member of the group that was regularly with him.”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570) 

[6] Luisa Coutinho says: “A ora depoente colocou alguns entraves ao pedido, uma vez que é um restaurante muito solicitado e que dispões de apenas 20 lugares diários para os clientes da Mark warner, no entanto após insistência por parte do mencionado hóspede, a deponente conseguiu efectuar as reservas solicitadas” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570)  

[7] Luisa Coutinho says: “No decurso da presente inquirição foi entregue pela ora depoente um livro de actas, manuscrito, onde consta o que foi referido relativamente às reservas ao restaurante “Tapas”.” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 571)  

[8] “It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. 
To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."  
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 56)  

[9] “Chegada a hora de jantar dos adultos, as crianças ficam de novo sozinhas em casa. No livro da recepção do restaurante “Tapas”, uma funcionária mais diligente escreve a marcação do jantar e anota que alguns dos elementos daquele grupo de turistas se levanta de vez em quando, para ir ver os filhos que se encontram nos apartamentos.”  
(in MADDIE, A VERDADE DA MENTIRA, by Gonçalo Amaral, published in 2008 by Guerra e Paz, pg. 35)  

[10] “- Não se compreende que um eventual predador tivesse a ousadia de entrar dentro de um apartamento e dali retirado uma criança, tendo que supor que os pais podiam chegar a qualquer momento.  
- Esse predador tinha que conhecer os hábitos dos pais e estar seguro do que iria fazer. 
- Mais uma razão para isso não bater certo... das duas uma: ou alguém lhe deu a conhecer tais hábitos , e aí temos que pensar nos funcionários do restaurante “Tapas”, ou então ele andou ali a rondar e a estudar o terreno...
- Se estudou o terreno porque entrou pela porta principal e saiu pela janela, ou mesmo ao contrário, a única porta que se encontrava aberta é a que dá para a zona das piscinas. 
- Sim.... por aí seria fácil entrar e sair e corria menos riscos de ser visto. 
- Os pais da criança dizem que a janela do quarto se encontrava aberta e a porta principal fechada, quando deram pelo desaparecimento de Madeleine.  
- E se eles não estiverem a falar verdade?” 
(in MADDIE, A VERDADE DA MENTIRA, by Gonçalo Amaral, published in 2008 by Guerra e Paz, pg. 61)