Pimpleman, A Very, Very Sick Man?

Besides the fact that they’re all shown in that priceless piece of evidence handed out on a silver platter to all of us by the Black Hats themselves that is commonly known as the “Mockumentary”, what is the single common characteristic between the Pimpleman sightings?

If you've answered that it’s the fact that he was seen at three different times by three different people in exact the same place, your answer is... wrong.

Yes, although it’s true that all three, JW, TS and Derek Flack say they have seen Pimpleman standing at the corner of the parking lot opposite the Tapas Complex Entrance, he has also been seen once by TS at the back of Apartment 5A and one other time by JW in Rua do Ramalhete.

He was seen a total of five times by those same three people.

He was seen staring at the Apartment 5A by four  and not the five witnesses (JW’s first sighting sees him staring somewhere else), so that also isn’t it.

As it isn’t the game “Now I see, now you don’t” played by both team “TS & Mum” and team “Derek Flack & Partner” because JW’s 3 yr old child can hardly be qualified as a “player”, so there's no "JW & Daughter" team...

So what is it? What is it that is common in all 5 sightings?

I’ve already given you a clue as to what it is in what I’ve written above but I’ll give you a further hint: it’s something so extraordinary that it can be decomposed into two subsequent remarkable phenomena.

And it's something so important that it proves that Pimpleman, if he exists, suffers from such a serious handicap that accusing him of abducting Maddie is not only ridiculous as is cruel beyond any human expression as the poor man would be unable to abduct a parrot even if it landed on his shoulder.

Have you found the answer? No? Then I’ll tell you what it is: in all the five sightings he’s staring obsessively.

To understand the importance of this fact, let me do two experiments with you.

Experiment 1 - Staring

For this experiment you're only required to have a couch, as comfortable as possible, a TV and a timer.

The timer has to be placed outside the line of sight between the couch and the TV Set, but near enough to enable you, with just one quick look, to see what time it’s marking, allowing you to calculate, at any moment, how much time is there still left until end of the experiment.

During the experiment other people and any pets may enter and exit the room as they usually do, so don’t tell them you’re undergoing an experiment, nor ask from them any special behavior.

Set the timer for 15 minutes, sit comfortably in the couch and stare at the TV Set, which is switched OFF.

You’re not allowed to look at ANY other object in the room, just at the TV’s blank screen until the timer sounds. If your eyesight as so much moves away from it, such as taking a peek at the timer, do restart the experiment all over again.

Were you able to do it? Very much doubt it as looking at an inanimate object is as exciting as looking at... an inanimate object.

In fact nothing could define better boredom. The mind needs to be occupied, and staring at something you know won’t move or provide any sort of novelty requires a degree of concentration that is physically tiring.

Pimpleman is said to have been seen five times staring fixedly at something, in such a focused and concentrated manner that he doesn’t move his eyes from it even when people pass by him.

Three people say that happened on five occasions, can you believe it?

Add to all that the fact that Pimpleman isn’t, unlike you,  under any sort of experimentation, and could, if he wanted to, look somewhere else from time to time.

So the first decomposition of the “staring obsessively” statement that we can make is that Pimpleman has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects for abnormally long periods of time.

Let’s move on to the second experiment

Experiment 2 - Reflexes

For this experiment all you need a friend with a lighter.

You simply stick one of your fingers out and your friend moves the flame towards the tip of your finger.

The idea obviously is NOT for you to get burned, but to verify that, as expected, you’ll withdraw your hand in a sudden and involuntary motion, as a reflex to a violent stimulus.

The key word here is “involuntary”. It’s an unavoidable reflex.

In Wikipedia you find two interrelated topics about this: “withdrawal reflex” and “pain withdrawal reflex”.

About the “withdrawal reflex” it says the following:

“The withdrawal reflex (...) is a spinal reflex intended to protect the body from damaging stimuli. (…) When a person touches a hot object and withdraws their hand from it without thinking about it…”

About the “pain withdrawal reflex”, the following:

"The pain withdrawal reflex is an involuntary action in which the body reacts to pain by trying to move itself away from the source of the pain, to reduce or even eliminate that pain.

Although this is a reflex, there are two interesting aspects: (1) the body can be trained to over-ride that reflex; and (2) an unconscious body (or even drunk or drugged bodies) will not exhibit the reflex.”

There are various kinds of involuntary reactions, or responses, to different stimuli. The flame experiment is but an example.

The one we intend to focus on today is what may be called as the ”looking back reflex”. It's those times when you feel someone is looking at you and you instinctively respond, even if for just a glance, by looking back at the person that’s looking at you.

It’s something we all do in crowded places, a non-aggressive attitude that it’s done to acknowledge that we’ve been looked at or, when we're the ones initiating it, to gather a situation awareness of both our surroundings as well as of those surrounding us.

There are those unpleasant occasions when a stranger “stares us down”.  This is quite aggressive and pretends to be domineering. The smartest thing to do in such situations is to avoid looking back.

What is important to retain and understand is that independent of if you’re reacting to someone who has just looked at you for an instant or to someone who is aggressively staring, the feeling of a stranger’s eyes on you is something that doesn’t go unnoticed.

It’s almost a physical thing, if it’s not indeed so. How many times have we turned our heads just because we had a feeling that someone was looking at us? We've all done that.

Another natural involuntary reflex is to react to movement. We naturally follow with our eyes anything that moves anywhere near and around us. It’s a natural defensive mechanism whereby we unconsciously evaluate the need, or not, to react to this new stimulus. It's something that we do, again, without thinking.

If we're to join the fact of somebody moving towards or near us with the fact that same person is looking at us, it’s almost impossible NOT to instinctively look back at that person.

So the second decomposition of Pimpleman’s “staring obsessively” statement is: he also has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects without deviating his eyes from his objective regardless of whatever may be happening around him.

I don’t think there’s a Yoga Master in the world that can match Pimpleman when it comes to concentration and self-alienation from surrounding reality.

But do notice that I just used the expression “almost impossible not to instinctively look”, didn’t I?. The word “almost” is of capital importance.

Let me repeat what Wikipedia says: “Although this is a reflex, there are two interesting aspects: (1) the body can be trained to over-ride that reflex; and (2) an unconscious body (or even drunk or drugged bodies) will not exhibit the reflex.”

It doesn’t take much training to “avoid looking”, does it? It’s a physical voluntary action by which you force your eyes to continue looking somewhere, contradicting the natural instinct of looking where you don’t want to look.

It’s like grabbing an nonexistent cylinder through which you’re looking at a certain moment, and reaching for every possible available spanners, nuts and screws, and tightly bolt the "thing" into place so it can't possibly budge even an inch.

It’s very uncomfortable situation and is one that you just want to get out of as quickly as possible.

But to pretend not see somebody it’s absolutely necessary that there’s a somebody that you don't want to see and that you pretend not to see. There’s no element of surprise.

The surprise may have happened when you first saw the undesired person and that you quickly looked away from before s/he was able to see you. But you looked. You saw him. You know the person is there. The element of surprise made you look and the fact that you're no longer surprised has allowed you to "avoid looking".

There’s no reason for Pimpleman to avoid looking at any of the three witnesses. He supposedly doesn’t know any of them. They appear before him surprisingly and he certainly is not trying to go unnoticed to anyone.

But the fact is that in five times out of five he doesn’t look back at any of the three witnesses, does he? We have written confirmation of that from two of those witnesses, TS and Derek Flack, in the PJ Files.

On Wednesday 2007/05/09, TS has this to say about her first sighting of Pimpleman: “...the man didn't see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony” and about the second time “... and saw the man, this time in front of the 'Ocean Club's' reception, once more looking at Madeleine's house in an ostensive manner (...) That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent.”

On Saturday 2007/05/06, Derek Flack says the following “Therefore, refers having realized that the individual above referenced observed fixedly the area in question, being very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent.”

It's absolutely clear what has happened between Pimpleman and with these two people. But this only accounts for two of the total of three witnesses and for three of five sightings.

What about JW and her two sightings?

Well we don’t have anything about JW and her sightings in the PJ Files, do we? We’ll speak about that in a later post, but for now all we have is what we can see in the Mockumentary in which both her sightings were reconstructed in detail.

I’ll start with the second one, because the all the relevant information is in the first.

In the second, as can be seen, JW looks at Pimpleman, and Pimpleman remains looking elsewhere. So we’re to assume that much like it happened with TS and Derek Flack, Pimpleman didn’t see “the deponent” also this time.

But let’s look at the reconstruction of JW's first sighting. First we have to thank Edgar and his board to understand where it happened:

I can’t see any connection between this man, where he was seen, what he was doing and Maddie’s alleged abduction.

In fact, one of the biggest Mockumentary’s mysteries is where exactly is Pimpleman fixing his observation during JW's first sighting:

He's just looking down a deserted street, but he's certainly observing fixedly something as the sequence shows:

He doesn’t for one second move his eyesight from wherever he’s looking at, which is extraordinary, to say the least.

But if you look attentively at the sequence, maybe the solution to the mysteries of this character will unfold before your eyes.

Below, Pimpleman as he appears in all the photos of the sequence above:

As you can see, he’s as inanimate as any switched off TV set or apartment building. A woman and a child pass by him on a deserted street and he doesn’t move a facial muscle, much less a neck one to move his head. He just keeps on looking at... nowhere.

Completely and totally alienated from reality around him, isn’t he?

I have an explanation as to why: autism!

Pimpleman is autistic! That would explain why he doesn’t look at JW twice, doesn't look the exact same amount of times at TS, and doesn't look at Derek Flack although this man passes no further than a foot right in front of him. By the way, as it happens with JW on her first sighting, with Derek Flack, Pimpleman also stares pointlessly, but obsessively at an empty street...

This would explain all, except one thing. Why accuse a person with special needs with such a heinous crime? Have these people no conscience?

Or maybe Pimpleman is just drunk or drugged... I know I'd drink myself silly if I had to participate in the horrid "Mockumentary"...

Never Giving Up

Today Fred is as of Saturday evening quite baffled and absolutely puzzled.

All because, much to his surprise and astonishment, I jumped up in joy with Chelsea’s win in the Champion’s League Final.

Yes, I’m talking about soccer Men's ultimate frontier.

Do I understand the game? For me it’s eleven men against other eleven and the objective of the game is to put the ball in the opposing team’s goal.

The ball can be played with any part of the body except the arms and the game stops whenever the referee blows the whistle based solely on a personal and subjective judgment of what he’s just witnessed.

Any further complexity I don’t deem necessary to know about. Fred has explained to me countless times the offside rule, and countless times I just smilingly nod my head until he subsides into a pleasant silence.

And when he begins to get quite uptight and starts to qualify both the referee and his next of kin with hardly complimentary adjectives, I just say something like “Please do try and be a little more understanding with the gentleman, dear… after all even you confuse a Golden Retriever with a Labrador, don’t you?”

It puzzles his line of thought and always results in soothing his anger away.

Do I like the game? No, I don’t. But the same way Fred pretends to enjoy Grey’s Anatomy, I return the favour by pretending to be enthusiastic with the “important games”.

As in any European household where one has a “SY” in the trousers (Fred came up with the expression after the humiliating show put up by SY’s Redwood during the 2012 Maddie Silly Season by saying “Now, there’s one detective that really deserves to be called a d*ck!”) the Champion’s League Final is mandatory to be watched by all present in our house.

This year, however, it was different. I sat before the telly not because of Fred but because of myself and, as I’ll try to explain, because of the Maddie Affair.

It started with the semi-finals between Chelsea and Barcelona.

I watched it with the ingenuity of the simplest. I saw that although the Catalans, clearly a superior team, lost a million opportunities to score, Chelsea won the game.

Then a week later the show was almost repeated in Spain, only this time the game ended not in a win for Chelsea but in a draw.

As lover of Justice, it got me thinking how unfair this sport was. It seemed to reward the weaker and punish those who risked to win.

This is explained by the fact that the minimal difference of 1 is all that is required to win a soccer game. A single goal is decisive.

A goal is scored in less than 20 seconds, and that is already extending the time that effectively takes to make a thing called a “play”, which is but a choreography of planned and unplanned movements made between and by the players involved with or without the ball to the moment it passes the goal line.

A soccer game has, supposedly, 90 minutes, or 5,400 seconds. In less than 20 seconds, that is less than 0.37% of the playing time, a game is won and is lost.

This means that one team can “stall” for 99.63% of the time and come out the winner.

Is this unjust? No, it’s not. 

It may, which its not, be unfair, but certainly is not unjust. 

The rules are known to both, and playing defensively is a “legal” option, nothing wrong with it.

Is it even unfair? No, it also isn’t. 

It’s a tactical option to not allow the other team to play as far as I can understand. 

It may not be a pretty way to play a game but it certainly isn’t unjust or unfair if those who are only concentrating on not allowing the others to play, end up winning the game.

But what has this to do with Chelsea, the Maddie Affair and my enthusiasm for yesterday’s victory?

It has to do with the outstanding combativeness always shown by Chelsea.

It should set an unforgettable example for us White Hats.

Chelsea proved to be a cat not with seven lives, nor with nine, but with eleven or more. They tried time and time again to “kill” it, and it came out with the Cup secured in its claws.

I first heard them “pronounced dead” when I sat to watch the first leg of Chelsea vs Barcelona, Fred quipped “they haven’t the faintest idea how they got this far, so we’re in for a slaughter tonight…”

They not only survived, but came out winners.

A week later, another pronouncement: “hell, they were unbelievable lucky here… I’m not seeing how they will survive there”… they survived, and the mighty Barcelona went home to pack, although they were already at home…

Then yesterday, a pronouncement again, and the game hadn’t even started: “They’re going to be clobbered. The Germans beat Real Madrid and Chelsea has half of their team punished…”

At half time, Fred, the soccer expert within our marriage, was confident, although against his own want, that the second half would be the “bloody battleground” filled with “Chelsea corpses” so much anticipated but yet to be fulfilled…

Then, at the end of the game came the fatal blow when the Germans scored. Fred grimaced and said “if they’d just hold for another ten minutes… poor chaps… they did more than was expected from them…”

But from the “dead” did they come back with that goal just before the final whistle.

The “cat” continued fighting. Proved to have the many lives like any "decent cat" should.

They had just come back to life when they were again mortally wounded with the penalty against them in  overtime.

Fred, in complete consternation, was pale with anguish, mourned the predicted outcome… but back to life sprang the cat! The Penalty was defended!

With the overtime over, Fred, always the optimist Fred, “Oh no! Now it’s really over…” when in the penalty shootout Chelsea missed the first one… The “cat” had “died” again.

It didn't take long to resuscitate yet again, when the Germans missed one, licked its paws clean when the Germans missed another, and calmly went to pick up the Cup when Chelsea scored the decisive one.

How many times had Chelsea been condemned to doom? Did you have the patience to count?!?

What’s the parallel with the Maddie Affair?

Chelsea faced “bigger and better” opponents who, because of their favouritism, benefited from a much “friendlier” media.

But Chelsea never gave up the fighting. They played loyally, within the rules, within the “boundaries” of the game. And against all odds, have come out as winners, "countless" times after being ruled off as the losers!

That’s the example they should be to us. How many times have we’ve been disenchanted? How many times have we felt we’ve “lost the game” because our opponents have it all and we have nothing? How many times have we been doomed as losers by "the establishment"?

They may seem to have it “all”, but they don’t have it. The will to continue fighting until that final whistle blows is yours, and it’s only up to you if you want to give it up.

Chelsea didn’t. Underdogs do bite!

Flack, Distances And Angles

One thing about Derek Flack that we can all agree on is that he's an expert "own-foot-in-mouth" implanter.

Remember me saying right at the beginning how ridiculous were all his interventions and how difficult it was to know where to begin debunking them? I hope by now that you’ve seen the reality in my words.

This man’s memory is selectively flawed, forgetting what are the most obvious and generic details but being very precise about all those little details that are relevant for the “Black Hatted Cause”.

We’ve seen that almost all relevant details to the Black Hats have a common characteristic: they’re fiction.

There's been good BH fiction and bad BH fiction. The good was what we’ve been told in such an excellent way that many take them as fact still today. But others have been so poorly delivered that even BHs avoid any mention of them.

In what exact position did Kate find the window shutters in is a good example of very poor story of this case.

Derek Flack is a one very, very poor storyteller.

But within all his poorly told stories there’s something on which he flunks on all counts: anything that involves angles and distances.

Flack considers Pimpleman’s attitude and posture suspicious solely because the man was looking fixedly at something in the opposite direction in which Flack was walking.

At what was Pimpleman supposedly looking at isn’t exactly clear from Flack’s words. It could be a parked white van, a person near or inside that vehicle, the back gate of Apartment 5A or the terrace and windows of that apartment.

One thing of which we’re certain is that Pimpleman was allegedly looking in the “opposite direction”. Knowing the direction of Flack's movements and also all of the above is located in the same vicinity, we can state that Flack is trying to tell us that Pimpleman was staring fixedly, obsessively, in the following direction:

That means roughly a 30º angle in relation with the Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins:

This is confirmed in the Mockumentary in both reconstructions made about the witnesses JW and TS:

Now, we all know by heart the surroundings of Apartment 5A, both in the front as well as in the back.

We all know that there’s a pedestrian pathway at the back, running between the apartment building and the Tapas pool complex.

We also know that if you're coming from the pathway, by turning right at the end and walking 10/15 meters down the road, you'll find the Tapas complex’s entrance.

We all also have the perception that on the other side of the road of this entrance  there’s a parking lot, on which top corner is supposed to have Pimpleman been seen on three separate accounts.

Basically we all have the perception that on the other side of the road in front of the pedestrian pathway is just a wall.

To all those of us more familiar with the case we have one particular reference about the location in question: the Edgar/Tanner discrepancy.

Where it was deemed “perfectly natural” for Tanner to have confused seeing two adult men and a stroller of being near the back gate of Apartment 5A with a spot located on the other side of the street where Gerry clearly remembers to have been when he talked to Jez Wilkins.

To sum up, we all, by now, have a clear perception of the space disposition of the various elements present in the referred site.

All? No, not all of us do. Derek Flack doesn’t. And as we’ll see, nor does Dave Edgar although with this particular gentleman I do think it has much more to do with petrifaction of the grey matter rather than having to do with any lack of perception.

Derek Flack is asked by the PJ to make a drawing of what he says he’s seen, or at least the tidbits he claims to remember because, as we’ve seen, it’s almost as much what he doesn’t recollect as is what he says he does.

He makes two attempts to make up this drawing.

That in itself is strange. Everyone is entitled to mistakes. By scribbling here and there as one's drawing one corrects oneself until one's satisfied with the end result. The idea is not to produce a work of art but to provide information. To have to redo the whole drawing as we’ll see, can only be explained by too many gross mistakes that make it impossible any sort of correction.

This is Flack’s first attempt:

As can be seen, the pedestrian pathway is directly on the opposite side of the street of the parking lot, which as we've shown, clearly is not. This is Flack’s first attempt, compared with reality:

The total misconception between the various existing elements is only achieved by misplacing the whole right side of Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins 15 metres further up North.

This is almost double the distance of Edgar/Tanner’s discrepancy. Remember, Flack is not a stranger in town. He owns an apartment in PDL and says that he usually spends significant periods of the year there.

This drawing makes the Pimpleman to have been on the other side of the road in a spot corresponding somewhere between the pedestrian walkway and Apartment 5A’s backgate.

The disconnection of what he says and what he draws is evident.

Not all of us have been blessed with drawing capabilities. In fact, most of us haven't, and Flack may well be one of the majority.

But even for those who lack this skill there still are basics. For example, one draws the eyes, the nose and the mouth, however childishly, inside the line that outlines the face.

To put them outside it, it makes one either to be a genius, like Picasso, or to suffer from some serious cognitive impairment.

And that is what Flack does. I'm not saying he's a genius, or that he's impaired, just saying he doesn't know what he's drawing. Not criticizing his drawing abilities but his capability to provide information. If there was one thing, and one thing only that the drawing had to convey, what would that be?

It would be the fact, stated and restated, that Pimpleman was looking in the “opposite direction”. That just had to be as explicit as possible in that drawing.

All else could be disproportionate in size and distance, but the one thing it cannot be accepted for Flack to get wrong is the direction of the arrow indicating from where and to where Pimpleman was looking. It had to be the nearest possible to the direction opposite in which Flack was walking. Certainly not almost 90º from it as was drawn!

But Flack makes a second attempt:

Much more accurate, in terms of message to be passed. If it wasn’t fiction, I would say it would be in conformity with his statements.

But before I debunk this “opposite direction” thing let me just show you how all blatantly ridiculous Dave Edgar and all those involved in producing the Mockumentary are.

I’m a blogger. I don’t get paid a penny for what I’m doing. The time I spend reading, analyzing and writing is at the expense, by choice, of time I could be doing other things. Some people have a passion for stamps, others for embroidery and/or needlepoint, I have this thing for bridge, golf,  justice and citizenship.

But those involved in the Mockumentary were paid to study the subject and come up with a visual document supposed to deceive us the best way possible. It was an impossible task indeed, but the least one could demand from them would be them having the decency of making a minimum effort.

The Derek Flack sequence demonstrates exactly the opposite.

Let me take you to the part of the Mockumentary whereby, inexplicably, Dave Edgar explains to the witnesses themselves what they were supposed to have seen. Funnily enough, he does this only with those that are playing themselves, TS and Flack, while we see no such preparation being taken care with the actress that played JW. Isn’t that just something?

But check out when Dave is explaining the scene to Derek and Christine in which, oddly again, she seems to be much more interested than him:

But look on which drawing does Edgar base all his explanations to this particular couple:

The first one. The absolutely wrong one. The arrogance is absolutely revolting.

This is how much they cared about the information they were filmed providing. That’s the respect they showed the general public.

But let’s get back to what matters, and that is to continue proving that what Derek Flack has to say doesn't fit reality.

On 2007/05/05:

“... that was standing on a sidewalk corner looking (this being the reason he was suspicious of him) towards the apartment from where MADELINE would later disappear.

He added that, in the alignment from where the individual was looking, at the other side of the street, was parked a vehicle... “

On 2007/06/05:

“Following this fact, when walking this last street in the descending way, the deponent crossed with an individual who was positioned in a place situated on the existing sidewalk, on the left when descending, at the entrance of a small parking lot existing in front of that enterprise’s Reception.

At the moment in which he crossed with this individual, walking in the descending way, the deponent looked at him frontally, as he was facing the opposite street direction – that is, looking in the opposite direction on which he was going – appearing to observe attentively the movements adjacent to the place where the said vehicle was parked.

...

Therefore, refers having realized that the individual above referenced observed fixedly the area in question, being very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent.

....

To the question asked, refers that, initially, he had associated the individual in question with the vehicle referred above, because he had realized that he looked ostensibly at the vicinity of where it was parked.

....

Asked to justify this fact, clarifies that it happened as such because he would ascertain that the place where said vehicle was parked would be located a short distance from a pedestrian access existent on the lateral part of the residential building in which would be located the apartment in question, through which you can directly access the respective balcony.

Therefore, he would manage conclude that the individual was controlling the existing movements near that access, and, eventually inside the respective apartment.

Moreover, he wishes to add that, after having particularly reflected on such incidences, has concluded that one of the facts that alerted him to the movements of the individual in question would substantiate in the circumstance that he became aware that he looked ostensibly at the location where would happen the facts that would originate the present enquiry, during the scarce moments he had witnessed his fixation on the location referenced above.

Asked to reveal in detail the location where was parked the said vehicle, the respondent would refer not being able to specify whether if it was exactly in front of the said access, or instead, slightly above or below.

Even so would guarantee that it was precisely in its direction, and at a distance that looked pretty short to him.”

So it’s pretty clear and straightforward that the ONLY single fact that makes Derek Flack find Pimpleman suspicious is the way in which he was looking at the vicinity of Apartment 5A “very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent “

But is that really so?

If I asked, you already know the answer: no it isn’t so.

You see, unlike with the other witnesses, JW and TS, where Pimpleman appears effectively looking in the direction of Apartment 5A, when it comes to Flack, he’s, amazingly, not looking anywhere near it:

Oh say you, you can’t really say from the photo where exactly is Pimpleman looking at. After all it can all be just an optical illusion created by the camera’s position which makes it seem that he’s looking in a direction parallel to the wall and not towards the vicinity of Apartment 5A.

Sorry, no optical illusion here whatsoever. The Mockumentary shows very clearly that Pimpleman is looking somewhere between Derek Flack and the that wall:

This means simply this:

So why did Derek Flack find Pimpleman suspicious in any way just because he was looking in the direction he was coming from?

We must also mention Flack’s concept of distance. He says “Even so would guarantee that it was precisely in its direction, and at a distance that looked pretty short to him.”

The distance between Pimpleman and the gate is around 20 metres. That’s almost 22 yd/66 ft, just about 5 OPEL CORSA vans lined up. I don’t know about you, but that hardly qualifies as a “pretty short” for a distance, and not one that one can evaluate the direction with precision in just 1.5 seconds.

Plus that would be a thing "rather" difficult to evaluate anyhow taking into account the other person was not even looking in the direction one says he is...

On our last post, I said that there were two things that the scriptwriters had failed to tell Derek Flack. The first was that Barrigton Norton was 56 yrs old. Not 25/30 yr old.

The second thing that they didn’t tell him, he should have asked: why on earth would Norton park his van right in front of Apartment 5A’s gate, get out of the car, walk 20 meters down the road and turn around and observe the said apartment standing at the corner of a... parking lot?

Wouldn’t it make much more sense if he just drove and parked the car in that particular parking lot? Say, just like the vehicle I circled below...

Flack And The White Van

The whole “Mockumentary Witness Program” seems to have been more like a scouts group assignment. Everyone had a chore to complete, in this instance, each had to mislead the PJ on two counts:

- JW by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND somewhere else;

- TS by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND somewhere else;

- Derek Flack by seeing the abductor at the corner of the parking lot in front of Tapas entrance, AND...?

The white van.

The white van was the second thing that Flack had to make sure that the PJ noticed that he had allegedly noticed.

Why, we’ll see later.

Let’s see what the gentleman (?) has to say about the said vehicle.

On Sunday 2007/05/06: 

“At this time, when passing in the vicinity of residential block that enterprise, the deponent noticed the presence of a vehicle which he describes as a passenger vehicle, commercial type (vehicle in all identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN), white in colour (dirty toned) and with only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door, however not knowing the respective brand, model or other identifying elements - among them, the respective number plate.

Moreover, states that, given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model.

....

To the question asked, refers that, initially, he had associated the individual in question with the vehicle referred above, because he had realized that he looked ostensibly at the vicinity of where it was parked."

First question that pops into one’s mind is to ask Mr Flack how many vehicles did he see parked before this one?

The total sum between those he saw parked in the Rua do Ramalhete plus those he saw in Rua Agostinho da Silva.

And out of those, how many were silver, blue or white?

He can’t tell? We know he surely can’t because it can’t be expected from anyone to notice especially when  strolling leisurely... or on his way shopping.

So we can't see any reason whatsoever for him to have noticed this particular white van. Why did he then?

Because he sees Pimpleman looking at it? He says he FIRST notices the vehicle and THEN notices a man looking at it, so Pimpleman is no an excuse for him to have singled out that vehicle.

Nowhere does Flack even suggest that when noticing that Pimpleman is looking fixedly at something, he, Derek Flack turns his head to see what the man is indeed looking at.

On the contrary, the Mockumentary confirms that Flack simply looks at the man and continues his path.

But this very short observation of a complete stranger’s face allows him to deduce, among other things, the following as stated on Saturday 2007/05/05: 

“He added that, in the alignment from where the individual was looking, at the other side of the street, was parked a vehicle, van type, white, with one person (doesn’t remember if the person was inside or outside the vehicle). Doesn’t know how to, in any way, describe this person.”

So, not only he takes notice of the vehicle, but he also takes notice of a person in the exact same spot!

He then goes into one of his typical “faulty memory modes” whereupon he doesn’t remember if the person was inside or outside the vehicle!

It’s just like someone saying that they’d seen Big Ben but just can’t remember where exactly... if it was in a tower or if floating on the Thames River...

But once again, as it seems to be recurring with Flack, he who says that it can’t turn out to be the same person who, surprisingly, is able to do something. He, Flack, who can’t remember if the person that he saw together with the vehicle was inside or outside it, turns out to be, surprisingly, able to say that:

- it was a vehicle identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN

- it was white in colour (dirty toned)

- it had only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door

- given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model

Doesn’t the phrase “given the characteristics of the vehicle in question, he believes that it would be of an older model” sound just like the “having been convinced that he was not one of the many tourists who usually frequent that location, given the respective built and physical appearance” when he spoke about Pimpleman?

Twice, he says his memory is imprecise, and twice passes judgement based on imprecise recollections. Amazing, to say the least. This is the man involved in neighbourhood watch where he lives in the UK, responsible for observations?

Remember that this is a vehicle not at all suspicious, nor the person inside/outside it is acting in any sort of suspicious manner. He passes by it, on the other side of the street; takes notice of it as anyone does when one sees ANY vehicle parked in ANY street. Plus, between him and the vehicle is Christine his partner. He, further away from it, apparently notices it, she, nearer it, apparently doesn't:

But, a little further down the road, he looks, for just 1.5 seconds, at someone looking opposite the direction in which he’s walking, and that fact triggers all the details that come to his mind.

Pretty awesome memory one must admit. Pity that it’s not that precise when it comes to weekdays...

He does remember a significant amount of detail if you do pay attention to what he’s said.

There are two that stick out like a sore thumb for, as said, someone who is unable to remember where the person he saw together with the vehicle was, if inside it, if outside it.

No, I’m not speaking about the fact that he details the colour down to the tone.

I’m talking about these two:

- a vehicle in all identical to the make and model of an OPEL CORSA VAN

- it had only one side window, inserted in the passenger side door

Why refer to the vehicle as an “OPEL CORSA”?

This particular brand of car, as we know, is VAUXHAULL in the UK, so shouldn’t a Brit have referred to it as a VAUXHAULL CORSA?

Oh, say you that he has certainly spent such a great deal of time in Portugal that he’s probably become accustomed to recognize any VAUXHAULL as an OPEL to the point that he might even do that when he’s in the UK.

It could be, but the fact remains that this particular white van seems to be indeed a VAUXHAULL and not an OPEL.

Why? Because Flack says so when he says the other detail he has also apparently registered: a single side window on the passenger side.

Which is the passenger side of a vehicle? The one where the steering wheel is not. The side where’s the steering wheel is known as the driver’s side, right?

Apologise for patronising, but this is a very important detail, so I had to be as simple and straightforward about it as I could.

From which side of the vehicle is Derek Flack looking at it? The left.

Which countries have cars with the passenger side on the left side of their cars? UK is one.

So the spotted car a VAUXHAULL (UK) and not an OPEL (rest of Europe).

 

Oh, say you, Flack’s a Brit so he’s assuming the side he was looking at was the passenger side.

Either he’s a “British Brit” and says the “passenger side” + “VAUXHAULL CORSA” or then he’s an “ex-Pat Brit” and should have said "driver’s side” + “OPEL CORSA”.

He can’t be both. He can’t be simultaneously a “British Brit” for one and be an “ex-Pat Brit” for the other.

It shows, once again, how selective Flack's memory is indeed. He can't remember where was a person he sees with a car, bur he can remember on which side of the car he saw the steering wheel. It’s completely different for the PJ to go out looking for a VAUXHAULL than to go looking for a CORSA.

We know that he’s lying and we know that the van he saw parked is as real as the Pimpleman. But why is he lying?

Derek Flack’s mission was clear: create in the PJ the belief that he had seen Barrington Norton’s van parked next to Apartment 5A before Maddie disappeared.

Norton, AKA the vanman AKA the guitarman, owned and apparently lived in it, a FORD commercial white van.

On your left, Norton’s vehicle, on your right an OPEL van (do take notice of the side of the steering wheel):

The similarity is evident.

It’s quite easy to understand why Flack (or whoever helped him concoct this story) “reports” an OPEL, as it would appear too obvious to have said that it was a FORD van.

Then he introduces into the equation “the passenger side” detail, subtly letting the PJ know that it’s a Brit vehicle that he says he saw.

A witness, any witness, unless intentionally lying, doesn’t let the police know anything subtly. A witness tells all that s/he thought she saw and doesn’t beat about the bush. No witness in their right mind challenges the intellect of the police they're reporting to by playing any sort of mental games.

Fatal mistake Mr. Flack, unfortunately for you and fortunately for us, just one of the many you made.

But why does Mr. Flack want the PJ to believe that he has seen Barrington Norton’s van parked next to Apartment 5A?

Here you have to make a linkage with the infamous Gerry McCann’s statement on 2007/05/10 about the fictitious family beach trip.

We dealt with this issue on two posts.

In the first we proved that Dr. McCann lied about the family trip to the beach, when he says:

“----- Pertaining to the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.”

On the second post, we showed that the whole purpose of inventing such family trip was to direct the spotlight of suspicion onto a particular character:

"----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo', with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. On returning they left the children at their creches, as usual, the parents having gone to play tennis or went jogging."

So we have two totally independent witnesses stating about a street musician first being seen in person by the father of the missing child on Tuesday, 2007/05/01 and then having his vehicle seen by the other, by coincidence a Brit, parked just outside Apartment 5A, either on Wednesday, 2007/05/02 or Thursday 2007/05/03 (please don’t laugh because this is a serious matter)

Dr McCann and Mr Flack supposedly don’t know each other, so what was the PJ to think at the time?

The expression “Red Herring” rings a bell now, but there was no reason to ring one then, was there?

Very important is to ask why two people who don’t know each other from anywhere lie about the same person, about the same supposed crime.

Pity that the scriptwriters chose poorly the storytellers, but I’m sure that in the case of Mr Flack, they must share the burden of the blame because they forgot to tell him two things:

- The first was that Mr Norton was 56 years old, which would modify completely the photofit produced, or at least be aged accordingly instead of the one that depicts a 25/30 yr old and is de facto pretty ridiculous in terms of what the intended purpose was: to frame Norton. Very much like Tanner would be instructed to do a few days later with Murat. Notice that Dr. McCann is well indoctrinated in this area as he's careful to age the "suspect" by saying "almost shaven-headed with grey sides"

- The second thing, we’ll leave it for the next episode: Flack, Distances and Angles.

Post Scriptum:

Some readers are wondering where we’re heading with debunking people that are consensually taken as liars, otherwise the Mockumentary wouldn’t be known as the Mockumentary, would it?

It’s important that you understand completely and beyond any doubt that these people have indeed lied. We cannot simply let that to be a general perception. We have to assure that it’s a certainty.

Once proved that they’ve indeed lied, and then we’ll show you how pivotally important their falseness is, so we ask you, once again, to bear with us.

We still have to publish three or four more posts about the Mockumentary before we reach the level of certainty that we like and like to think we’ve accustomed you to, and reveal the climax it certainly deserves.