3 Penguins in the desert

1. Introduction

If the reader sees 3 penguins walking side-by-side leisurely in the scorching sands of the Sahara then we at least expect a surprised reaction and respond naturally with a “that’s nonsense, that has to be a mirage!”

But if we proved that the 3 Penguins were indeed penguins and the desert was indeed the Sahara, what would the reader then say?

There are no penguins in a desert, that's a fact.

If 3 Penguins are in the Sahara then they shouldn’t be there.

As there are no deserts in Madagascar, they didn’t arrive there on a ship they would have hijacked themselves in an animated movie about animals from the NY Central Zoo.

3 Penguins in the desert can only mean someone wrongly put them there where they should not be.

Today we’re 19 days into the 9th year of this saga.

Much has been investigated about the case based on the PJ Files and we’re certainly not alone in this.

We have played our part in this issue where the internet has played a decisive role.

We have shown the presence of that anonymous mass of people who the powerful have taken for granted up to now that we're an easily controlled numb herd when it comes to information and knowledge.

But the information era is upon them and us simultaneously and has made this paradigm to change.

They will, as expected, refuse this change and will resist it with all their might but the Maddie case is showing them no matter what they throw at us we will come back fighting.

And the more they resist the more distance they are putting between themselves and those they wish to control.

There's a Portuguese saying that maybe they should take heed of: “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

Stubbornness joined at the hip with arrogance leads to prohibition and prohibition only spikes our imagination.

Under prohibition we will find solutions we wouldn’t have found if they were less stubborn, arrogant and power thirsty.

And once a solution to circumvent them is found they will be rendered practically useless.

The younger generations are no longer reading papers or watching TV for their information. They obtain their information from alternative sources.

Not because they have moved against the mainstream media but because this generation does something the powerful most fear and it is to search for the news for themselves.

They do not wait for the news, they seek it. They do not wait passively waiting for it. That's a direct effect of this new age, the Era of Information.

And that’s what we have been doing in the past 8 years with the Maddie case.

We have refused what has been fed to us and have gone and searched the information ourselves. And we have dealt with the information with responsibility. We have resisted all the taunting and provocation.

And have now come to our own conclusions.

Conclusions that no matter the external effort outside ourselves will not make us change it.

Note, we're not saying our opinions won't change. They will and should whenever required but it will be because our research makes us find the reasons to change them. Our research and not from others.


2. Crèche sheets

In these past 8 years there are 2 things that could have been more scrutinised more thoroughly than Murat’s house and life, if that is even possible.

These documents are the last photo and the crèche sheets.

We in the blog have minimised both, we confess.

Maddie's alleged last photo

The first, the last photo, because it seems evident to us that it was produced not to prove Maddie was alive that afternoon but to fill the void required of “visual proof” of a family time that really didn't exist in what was supposed to be a family holiday.

The second, the crèche sheets, once the purpose of the tampering of the booking sheets is understood, it seemed evident to us they had the exact same one which was NOT to show who had really been in Luz that week.

Our opinion is that many more children used the crèche during the day but like with the booking sheets and the Tapas reservation sheets, only “volunteers” remained named in them.

What they probably didn’t realise is that they didn’t “volunteer” (if not then then tacitly later) for that moment but for history.

If with the first we thought that the analysis went a little over what was required to prove what the naked eye can immediately see, with the crèche sheets we must say we were mesmerised.

Handwriting comparisons have led to theories whereby Gerry handed over somebody else’s child, the Naylor’s we believe, and from that the whole construct of Maddie’s death early in the week.

The reader says but the handwriting of the signatures is similar for different people and we answer, yes, probably they are. Something to be expected in a doctored document.

And how do we know the documents were doctored? Exactly because of the handwriting.


3. Penguins and other sea creatures

The 3 Penguins in the desert are 3 characters that are inexplicably in the crèche sheets and, like the penguins in the desert, it stands out they shouldn’t be there.

2 of the characters were spotted by our good friend Sheharazade. We spotted the third.

Here they are.

On the sheet for the afternoon of April 30, 2007, it can be clearly seen that the capital “S” and the “e” in “Sean” are printed and not handwritten:

And that in the column “Time in”, also in Sean’s line, between the “15” and the “5” there’s a typed “a”. We supposed it’s was supposed to be a “2” as in “15.25” (as appears for Amelie) and certainly not “15.a5” as is on the sheet:

What are these 3 typed “penguins” doing in a handwritten “desert”?

The reader knows our opinion.

Please note how in the template, which supposedly is a copy for every single day, the column “Parents Location” is written up as “Parents Lscation”:

We didn’t even consider this as a “Penguin”  as it's not surrounded by handwritten characters like the other 3. This is a misspelling where there shouldn't have been one.

OCR doesn’t explain it so probably now the justification will be that the nannies sat every single day and made up these tables on Word and Excel and got that particular word wrong on that particular afternoon.

But the reason we haven't named this misplaced character “s” was because we’re waiting for a decision on what to call it.

The names we want to use, Starfish or Jellyfish, have been used by Toddlers 2 club and we’re waiting for someone to tell us what that club was REALLY called.

Once we know THAT, we will name that odd “s” is “Lscation”.

Our hesitation derives from the fact that this particular club has 2 names: Starfish and Jellyfish (pictures are ours):

Sunday, April 29, AM: we don’t know;

Sunday, April 29, PM: it’s Jellyfish;

Monday, April 30, AM: it’s Starfish;

Monday, April 30, AM: it’s Starfish;

Tuesday, May 1, AM: it’s Jellyfish;

Tuesday, May 1, PM: it’s Jellyfish;

Wednesday, May 2, AM: it’s Jellyfish;

Wednesday, May 2, PM: it’s Jellyfish;

Thursday, May 3, AM: we don’t know;

Thursday, May 3, PM: it’s Jellyfish;

Friday, May 4, AM: we don’t know;

Friday, May 4, PM: it’s Jellyfish;

Damned April 29, some will say, if it wasn’t for you one could say the club changed its name with the month (although Maddie’s Lobsters does remain the same).

So which is it? Is it Starfish or Jellyfish?

If Toddlers 2 club was Starfish, then we will call our odd “s” of “Lscation” as Jellyfish.

If it was Jellyfish, then the “s” will be a Starfish.

The final title of this story is pending on that decision: “3 Penguins and a Starfish in the desert” or “3 Penguins and a Jellyfish in the desert”.

Why no one has seen these details (that we know of) in such scrutinised documents is another story and NOT a children’s one.

After having realised that Ocean Club tampered with documents, the booking sheets, it handed over to the PJ pertaining an ongoing investigation, we now see Mark Warner has done the same with the crèche sheets.

So much more can be said about these sheets that hasn't been said before. And we will.

Post Scriptum (May 23 2015 12:15):

We wrote a short post on purpose. To see what our detractors on length (those saying “I wish she would use 5 words to say what she has to say instead of 500!”) would find as an excuse not to debate its content.

We were not surprised, we got the expected response: silence.

We can now conclude that either the tampering of the crèche sheets by Mark Warner is not a sufficiently important subject to debated or the absence of discussion about our postings has nothing to with length of posts.

We will leave up to readers (including those who pretend they don't read us but do) to decide on which is which.

Fortunately, we know our message gets out there. The participation of readers on current post has been outstanding.

On the post that on the sheet for the afternoon of April 30, 2007 (pg 112) we saw how in the template, which supposedly is a copy for every single day, the header “Parents Location” is written up as “Parents Lscation”:

Thanks to our readers, some more “template misspellings” have been detected.

Our reader, Anonymous 22 May 2015, 15:18:00, showed us how on April 30, 2007 (pg 106) for the Lobsters club, Maddie's group, the word “Date” is typed “bate”:

Our reader Nuala, on 22 May 2015, 21:47:00, showed us how on that same page, April 30, 2007 (pg 106) for the Lobsters club, Maddie's group, only word “Location” appeared where there should be “Parents Location”:

Nuala also showed us how on the morning of May 2, 2007 (pg 116), “Parente signature” appeared instead of “Parents signature”:

We, in turn showed how the big word “markwarner” on the top r-hand of every sheet varied in font (pgs 105 - 108):

As can be seen very distinctly by the character “a” two different fonts were used:

And we pointed out that on page 116,  morning of May 2, 2007, the “m” of “markwarner” was made up of a “r” and a “n”:

Note, for now we are only pointing anomalies in form not content.