Definite Proof

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. OCR “mythology”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A very selective OCR we would say.

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

Sorry, but that is simply not possible.

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

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

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

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

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

(image from here)

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

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

Or this:

And much less this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


3. Apartment designation

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

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

But that was not all. We have an apartment being transformed from something we know, a T1, into something unknown, a T3FP.

And we have a surreal case, with the same customer, Phil Morgan, something we don’t know is that a T3F apartment becomes one with nothing less than 38 rooms, a T38!!

Why didn't you just look at the bottom of the page, you d*zy

dingb*t? That's where the codes are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was there to see was worth seeing.



4. Number of apartments available and occupied

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

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

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

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

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

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

   
5. Colours

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

This way the reader will be able to understand where the information comes from that we are presenting. For example, anything with a blue background is from pages 623 to 626 (May 4 01:48) and if yellow it will be from pages 631 to 634 (May 6 07:05).

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


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

table at the bottom of page 618

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii)  That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

It begs the question:

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


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

table at the bottom of page 622

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii)  That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

It begs the question:

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


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

table at the bottom of page 626

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

It begs the question:

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


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

table at the bottom of page 630

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

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

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

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

It begs the question:

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


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

table at the bottom of page 634

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vi) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

It begs the question:

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


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

table at the bottom of page 638

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii) That no T4 or T3FP were occupied.

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

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

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

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

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

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


12. Significant and evident difference in numbers

The 6 tables shown above:

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

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

Too many “mistakes” to be accidental.

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

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

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

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

The answer is simple and straightforward: nothing.

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

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

And we have the percentage formatting gone wrong:

13. The time factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


13. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Things snowballed and have gone beyond any control.

Truth is there to be seen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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