Reconstruction for May 3rd 2007

Image from this website

1. Introduction

As everyone knows Mr Amaral has challenged the UK to do a reconstruction of the evening/night of May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night”).

We know an attempt was made to do a reconstruction in March 2008 by Mr Paulo Rebelo but due to the strange unavailability shown by some of the T7 it never went ahead.

Very strange how this group of friends came to the conclusion that the effort proposed by the rightful and legitimate authorities responsible for the investigation was useless to help find out what had happened to Maddie and so put whatever they had to do at the time before the interests of their friends McCanns.

After all, the reconstruction was supposed to help the McCanns clarify what had happened to their daughter and definitely help clear up all the suspicions that were hanging over them at the time but their friends apparently didn’t care less.

One would even be tempted to say that such friends only took such a position because they already knew what had happened to Maddie and so knew that participating in such an exercise would only serve the interests of the truth and not theirs.

But the novelty in Mr Amaral’s current proposal is Crèche Dad, someone outside the T9.

We agree wholeheartedly with him, Crèche Dad is essential to a proper reconstruction.

When the police ask for witnesses – ALL witnesses – to an incident to come forward, they mean anybody who was at the scene, whether they witnessed anything, or not, as the case may be.

To witness nothing may contradict the evidence of a person who claims to have seen something.

Mr Amaral’s current proposal apparently comes from his second book on the case and which is supposed to be all about: calling for a re-examination of the timeline for May 3rd 2007 and for a full reconstruction of events (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “Fresh agony for the McCanns: Former police chief plans second book on missing Madeleine”).

As we said, in March 2008 Mr Paulo Rebelo attempted to set up a reconstitution of the events that day, from 17.30 to 23.00, but was thwarted by the refusal of the other members of the Tapas group to take part.


2. The reconstruction

Jeremy Wilkins, someone also outside the T9, was also requested to participate, but expressed reluctance. After all, why fly to Portugal just because the world was holding its breath waiting to find out what had happened to the little girl?

He would be an important witness as he is actually vague about the time of his meeting with Gerry McCann and describes seeing Jane Tanner shortly after setting off with his buggy at 20.30 but is quite adamant in saying he didn’t see her when she is supposed to have passed them just before she says she sees Tannerman.

Jeremy Wilkins would be very useful to clarify once and for all who was right between Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann in that debate they had shown in the 2009 Mockumentary, moderated by a very biased Dave Edgar as Jane painfully found out, about on which side of the road the encounter between the 2 men took place:

Dave Edgar: “It’s like I said, there are, you know, inconsistencies, you know, in every major investigation.”

Jane Tanner: “Ok, that’s fine.”

Dave Edgar: “Obviously, the most important thing is what you saw, Jane. It’s not where Gerry and Jeremy were actually stood. Because they didn’t obstruct your view of the man. So...” 

We wouldn't call it just an expected inconsistency in a major investigation but a major discrepancy to be taken into account in a major investigation:

Apart from the McCanns, their friends and Jeremy Wilkins and the now proposed Crèche Dad, who else might now fit into Rebelo’s proposed timescale and scope of the reconstruction?

Mr Rebelo proposed the locations of the Tapas restaurant, the block of apartments and surrounding area.

Mr Amaral suggests the area be extended to the Rua da Escola Primária as he also says the Smith family should participate in the reconstruction.


3. People who have no statements in files

We also suggest the following people who were not asked to provide statements:

The Moyes, sitting on their balcony above apartment 5A that evening; seeing and hearing nothing.

Possibly Rev David Heal and his wife Pam, reported as visiting later that night or early morning, according to one account (or next evening, according to Kate’s book), as we showed in our “Holy Trinity” post.

Carolyn Carpenter, Stephen Carpenter’s wife, walking back to their apartment from the Tapas bar between 21.15 and 21.30, with Carolyn reporting hearing a cry of “Maddie” (although her statement is referred to, it is not included in the files).

We dealt extensively with Stephen Carpenter, an essential and crucial witness in the uncovering of the truth, in our post “Planting a spy” and in the series of posts “All the world’s a stage (1/3)”,  “All the world’s a stage (2/3)” and “All the world’s a stage (3/3)”.

Maria Helena Horta, can confirm that Maria Manuela Silva, a frequent visitor to her apartment located in Block 6, left on the night of May 3 at the precise time the alarm was given.

Maria Helena tells Maria Manuela the time was 21H58 when the latter was about to leave when both still inside the apartment.

Maria Manuela, who has statement in the files has this to say: “that she commented with her partner that it could be noted not being summer yet given the movement she noted in the streets, thus reiterating that effectively the movement of people at that date and hour was nil”.

This was the route that Maria Manuela and her partner took after leaving Maria Helena’s apartment:

Maybe Maria Helena accompanied the couple visiting her outside to their car and can confirm or not that the movement was indeed nil. If, like the Moyes and Maria Manuela, she also saw and heard nothing.

Being the neighbour right across the street, it would be very interesting to know when and how she took knowledge that Maddie had disappeared.

And we would also like to know if she took part of the alleged search that mobilised, supposedly, the entire Praia da Luz (with the exception of Jeremy Wilkins) . If not, why not. 


4. Rastaman

The Rastaman episode needs clarification and we think a reconstruction would do just that.

It involves 2 people, one with no statement in files, Michael Sperrey and the other with various, Jeremy Wilkins.

Michael Sperrey and his partner (no statements made) booked at the Tapas for 21.00 on May 3, with Michael allegedly seen by Jeremy Wilkins, likely to have been suffering from some sort of urinary infection at the time, near the toilet area of the Tapas restaurant before he bumped into Gerry.

We spoke of the interaction between Sperrey and Wilkins in our “Bladderman” post.

The presence of both Jeremy Wilkins and Michael Sperrey in the reconstruction would allow the latter to be cleared as the suspect Rastaman because to this date, as far as we know, this particular suspect hasn’t been found as Wilkins hasn’t said yet if the man he saw in that toilet was Sperrey or not.

Wilkins could explain what was that Rastaman did to have him say this about the man he says he saw: “had a behaviour a little strange, as he seemed to be a little nervous”.

Sperrey could confirm what was that “behaviour a little strange” and explain why “ seemed to be a little nervous”.

The picture from Sperrey’s passport shows a man without dreadlocks. If Sperrey is not Wilkins’ man then the authorities will have a new suspect to chase, by coincidence one of the oldest ones: Rastaman.

And if Sperrey is not Wilkins’ man then SY will have one last line of inquiry to add to their current last line of inquiry, whatever it may be.

And it is very unlikely that Sperrey is Wilkins’ man. Not because of the absence of the dreadlocks but because Wilkins says this about him: “between 20:30 and 21 pm, when he was at the bar "TAPAS" he noticed that an individual (...) that this individual was there for a short time (...) he was alone, did not speak to anyone and left soon after.”

Rastaman is inside the Tapas area less time than it takes a grown-man to go to the toilet. Arrives, stays and leaves while Wilkins his inside to go specifically to the toilet.

To allow Wilkins to walk in circles around Luz after he leaves the Tapas area and meet Gerry at 21.15 when he’s returning, this toilet episode was certainly more around 20.30 than 21.00. To confirm this is the fact that Wilkins says he gets out of the house at that time and heads straight for the Tapas toilet. So how likely is it that Rastaman is Sperrey if Sperrey booked the meal for 21.00?

For Sperrey to be Rastaman, it would mean he would have left before the time he had reserved the meal for.

Is going in, staying for a very short time looking nervous and leaving the behaviour of someone who has a meal reserved?

No, Sperry can’t be Rastaman. SY, Rastaman is still out there!

Wilkins later contradicts himself completely: “I think that he was accompanied by a woman but I cannot be precise about any detail about her (...) When I arrived, I headed to the WC through the pool area. He was also was in the WC and appeared to be making time. I do not remember if he still remained there when I left. I did not see the woman in that area”.

Now the roles between him and Rastaman have changed. Rastaman now is inside and it is Wilkins who goes in and out of the Tapas area.

And now Wilkins says that Rastaman may have been with a woman. One wonders how can Wilkins know that because in this version, he finds Rastaman in the toilet and leaves toilet not knowing if the man was still there or not. So how can Wilkins think Rastaman is with a woman? He can’t.

Why has Rastaman been discarded? It really looks like everyone knows Wilkins is fibbing but as he’s one of the good guys, someone thought best to just let it go.

Another thing Wilkins could explain is why he says he encounters Gerry coming from different directions. He first says:

 

“He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry.”

But later he changes the direction from which he comes from to: 

 

“Eventually I got out of a street on the other side of the road to the pool complex, between the McCanns’ apartment and the Tapas bar.

To help locate this street, I think it was the street used later by the press and media satellite communication vehicles as shown by the car parked during the covering of the incident.

When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side.”

Which was it? Wilkins could clear that up in the reconstruction.

Why the change of story? Because coming up from Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins (initial version) doesn’t fit with him walking around Luz in circles and he needs to kill time in such a small town.

In fact, out of curiosity, we would love to know which circles he walked for about half an hour to 45 minutes from (A) to be in (B) and from there encounter Gerry:

“After I left the WC I continued to walk downhill, around the back of the tennis courts and returned by the route opposite the pool and Tapas complex (A in the picture above). While I was walking through the streets, I would be exploring waiting that my son fell asleep. Some of the routes didn’t have a way out, so, because of it, the walk was practically in circles.”

He says some routes (streets?) didn’t have a way out. Having been there, we didn’t find any that would fit his story.

Did he by any chance cross with Crèche Dad? Both apparently were out and about.

No wonder Wilkins was reluctant to participate in the reconstruction in 2008. Let’s hope that now he will be eager to participate.

We think opportune to remind readers of the words from Bridget O’Donnell’s (Jez Wilkins’ partner)  to The Guardian on December 14 2007,  especially the “There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday”:

“Throughout all this, I have always believed that Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent. When they were made suspects, when they were booed at, when one woman told me she was "glad" they had "done it" because it meant that her child was safe, I began to write this article - because I was there, and I believe that woman is wrong. There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday; instead, there was a bunch of ordinary parents wearing Berghaus and worrying about sleep patterns.”


5. Sightings people

The Smith family, as requested by Mr Amaral, who saw a man; Smithman, carrying a girl in pyjamas around 22.00.

Anyone can play Smithman, all that person has to do is to walk down Rua da Escola Primária and cross with the various members of the family where they say it happened and not where the McCanns tell in their tale in the 2009 Mockumentary, as we showed in our post “Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns”.

Crèche Dad, another man wandering with a girl in pyjama that night who reported himself to Leicester Police in 2007 (article from the Mirror on Dec 28 2013  by Tom Pettifor “Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising”) carrying his 2 year-old daughter back from the night-crèche around 21.15, re-discovered by Andy Redwood and identified on UK Crimewatch in October 2013 as the man seen by Jane Tanner.

He could wear the similar clothes to those he wore that night – the ones in which he appears wearing when photographed by SY, a photo was identified on Twitter as having exif data showing it was taken 5 months before SY used it on Crimewatch – and Jane Tanner could confirm that he was indeed the man she saw.

Maybe then Tannerman could finally be taken off the Find Madeleine website.

Surely Crèche Dad is a very likely witness to a lurking abductor around the time of Gerry’s proud dad moment around 21.10 when he observed his sleeping daughter?

The night crèche staff should be able to confirm Crèche Dad’s arrival and departure and dad himself should be able to explain the strange route he was using to return to his apartment.

An explanation as to why he never came forward to make a statement about such a crucially timed walkabout would be useful too.

The Smith family could also confirm or deny if Crèche Dad was Smithman, after all, as the direction this man supposedly says he walks past apartment 5A doesn’t make any sense for someone coming from the night crèche, who knows if he continued lost 45 minutes later and had also been down Rua da Escola Primária?

As we are in the Rua da Escola Primária we think another person present would be the female British tourist who saw Womanman.

Womanman has practically gone unnoticed and was reported in the Correio da Manhã article of June 6 2014 by Tânia Laranjo and Rui Pando Gomes “Phone calls frame Maddie 'kidnappers'” (translated here by Joana Morais): “Scotland Yard also ensures that there is a British witness who saw one of the men carrying a child in his arms up to the wasteland, situated less than 500 meters from the resort. The British say that he fled, but before he was able to bury the girl's cadaver” and “The female tourist says she heard the suspect speaking in British English”.

If he’s “one of the men” as she says he is then this female British tourist knows exactly who it is, so he should be called in for the reconstruction. And maybe all the other men she’s referring to should too.

As far as we know, it was because of Womanman that SY put on that circus in Praia da Luz in June 2014.

Could Womanman be Smithman, Crèche Dad or Tannerman?

The sightings in the Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril differ significantly from each other.

According to the Smith family, Smithman is seen walking from North to South down the passageway towards the Dolphins restaurant.

According to UK Crimewatch he’s said to go from West to East down Rua 25 de Abril towards the church – this contradicts what the Smith family has said in the PJ Files.

And Womanman must have been seen going from East to West up Rua 25 de Abril, and the only reason why SY would search the hill West of Praia da Luz.

Note that we have every reason to believe that Womanman is Smithman.

Smithman is considered by SY as THE person of interest in the 2013 UK Crimewatch and Womanman is THE reason for SY to have come in full force to get on their hands and knees in 2014.

Confusion in the directions as to where this man was seen going is why we are certain only a proper reconstruction would clarify what really happened around 22.00 that night in the general area of Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril.

And it may even clarify a mystery surrounding Womanman which is why a Portuguese man would talk in English to another Portuguese man, as the Correio da Manhã article says: “Taking into account that it was a Portuguese man who was allegedly speaking to another Portuguese man, it's not plausible that the conversation took place in another language”.

Also to be brought in should be whoever says they saw 2 men speaking in the Rua Primeiro de Maio supposedly one asking the other why he had brought the body there.


6. Tapas esplanade

Let's now focus on where most of the reconstruction should take place: the Tapas esplanade.

Ocean Club should provide the Big Round Table, the one we have never seen to this day as we said in our post “The proof Ocean Club reads Textusa” or a table equal to the one used that night in that esplanade.

Not to be used is the one like the table shown in the 2013 UK Crimewatch which has nothing to do with the furniture seen in the Tapas esplanade:

Dianne Webster's photos of it could be used, the pictures we dared in our post “Will Kate’s book definitely prove Textusa wrong?” for them to be published in Kate’s book but weren’t.

Dianne Webster's words are clear about having that particular object photographed: “I think I was the only one that ever took any photographs in the evening and that was about the second night we were there, I just took pictures of everybody sitting round the table”.

The right object should be used so it could be seen what exactly could be seen of the apartment by each one of the T9 sitting around it.


7. Tapas Staff

And then we have the Tapas staff, NONE of whom claim to have seen Gerry at the time the alarm was raised.

Jerónimo Salcedas, from the UK, who sees Dianne Webster sitting on her own between 21.30 and 22.00 and hears a scream from a woman he thought was the child’s mother.

Ricardo Oliveira, who served at the tables but wasn’t sure if he served Madeleine’s parents and didn’t notice if they left the table. He didn’t remember anyone absent from the table. He says at 21.45, nobody was there after all the guests had left, after hearing shouts from the direction of the apartment.

José Baptista – of “Mind your Ps” post- who says he was in the kitchen between 22.00 and 22.30 and couldn’t say anything about the regularity of the people not there for the food.

Stefan Todorov says he was working in the kitchen. So not a witness to the events of the evening but it would be interesting to hear his opinion about having to reheat dishes that night due to the alleged checking. He could also compare if there had been an extra “re-heating” that night in comparison with the other nights of the week.

Now that we know the importance of the Tapas staff in the uncovering of the truth, we think it would also be useful in seeing them explain how they were able to serve the group in such an efficient way as they did as we showed in our “Nights of the Round Table” post.

And they someone could clear up who consumed the 8 bottles of red wine, the 6 of white and the 9 bottle of water. Was it the T9 only? Was all it the guests present? Need to clear that up.

It seems quite a significant quantity of liquids to be consumed if only by a table of 9 and a rather small one if the entire esplanade is to be considered.

Who ended up paying what in terms of drinks that night? Did Tapas offer all-you-can-drink meals in the half-board package? Not very profitable if that was the case as restaurants make most of their profits out of drinks. “Pre-paid” meals, as would be the case of those included in packages, have limitations as to what can be ordered to eat and as to what drinks are included in the price.

Even, by absurdity, if an all-you.can-drink, why register it this way? Statistics? Where was this data collated and treated?

Arlindo Peleja, the executive chef, describes seeing a dark-blue car at 21.10, a clamour at 21.20 and the table empty by 21.40.

To note that when he arrives at 21.20 he sees ONLY one table occupied by 3 couples and no other guests: “He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else”. 

Peleja must have just missed the Carpenter family who exited Tapas between 21.15 and 21.30 as he doesn’t see them. 

Maria José, the cook who wasn’t working and who last saw Madeleine at 16.30 for dinner, falls just outside Mr Rebelo’s time scale. However, it would seem appropriate to include her for a verification of a last sighting, independent of the Tapas 9.


8. Tapas clients

Phillip Edmonds, another guest on the Tapas list with his 2 boys for a meal at 19.00, chatted to the McCanns and may be able to clarify what he saw before he left and any person he saw after leaving the restaurant. Not having given a statement, we don’t know what time he left the restaurant but it must have been before 21.10, time Arlindo Peleja arrived.

Neither did the mysterious Irwin sisters, booked for 20.30 give statements. Were they added to the list in error, when it should have been the sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire who we spoke of in our post “60 of us”?

According to the Mail on 28 December 2007, it was the latter 2 sisters who ate in the same Tapas restaurant on May 3rd. A reconstitution would need to establish which sisters were alleged to have dined there.

Their sighting of the 2 blond men on the balcony of the apartment next to 5A (article from the Mail on Dec 31 2007 by Fiona Barton, Dan Newling and Vanessa Allen “British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'”) falls outside of Mr Rebelo’s timeline, so no need to include the blond men, even if they actually existed?

The sisters also claimed to have seen Robert Murat near 5A that night, as claimed by the T3, Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Rachael Mampilly. Murat says he was at home with his mother at that time, so any reconstruction would have to decide who was telling the truth. It would be interesting to see where each of these 5 witnesses would claim they saw Murat.

Add Neil Berry and Raj Balu, later swabbed for evidence. Berry wanted to dine at Tapas but it seems he didn't queue up that day to get a reservation, so convinced Balu, who had a booking at 20.00 in the name of his partner Nicole Cox, to have a take-away instead of the 4 adults occupying the table already reserved for Cox.

A highly desirable restaurant, where guests queued for the limited 15 (or is it 20 places?), prepared take-aways and guests preferred it? Quite the restaurant as we showed in our post “Cinderella of Luz”.

They could explain what difficulty 4 adults, all parents, found in assembling a travel cot, which is designed to practically falls into place by itself, as we showed in our post “Two men and a baby (cot)”.

The person who came to their apartment from the Mark Warner service desk (maybe meaning Ocean Club service desk or reception) to help them assemble the travel cot that anyone can easily, as s/he was out and about Praia da Luz at a critical time.

The Patells who were booked for 19.30: at the same time as Cox originally, but the Cox booking then has a hand-written alteration to 20.00. This situation needs some clarification.

Speaking of Berry, the reconstruction also needs Mário Marreiros, the laundryman who saw a man later identified as Berry, lurking in the stairwell of 5A at 18.30 which Berry denies to have been. A confrontation between him and Marreiros would clarify that.

Marreiros was one of the 11 interviewed by Scotland Yard in 2014, but doesn’t seem to have added much to their knowledge, as he later said he had been asked the same old questions. He was the only one of the 11 interviewed to have made any comment about the interview.


9. Mark Warner nannies

We have Dawn Bullen, who warns the night crèche workers of Madeleine’s disappearance at 22.15, referred to in “Luz Secret Service” and “3 hours? For Tapas????” posts, as it would be interesting to know when she left Tapas.

Very interesting to note is that Arlindo Peleja doesn’t see anyone other than 3 couples at a table, so he doesn’t see anyone from the Bullen party, on that esplanade when he arrives there at 21.10. The reconstruction should clarify this.

Dawn Bullen could also clarify who (and when and where) she spoke to on her way to the Crèche and told her that Maddie had disappeared and the help of the nannies was required;

The three nannies, Charlotte Pennington, Jacqueline Williams and Amy Tierney, on duty could clarify if Dawn Bullen picked up the last child of the evening as Charlotte says, or, as Jacqueline states, Charlotte stayed behind to take care of the children still to be picked up, as we showed in our “Doing a Kate McCann” post .

And Amy Tierney could explain when she offers her printer to Russ O’Brien to print out the initial photos. Did she help pick the photo? In fact, Russ could really clear up, as no one else mentions this meeting, who was there when it was decided which picture to use. He’s quite clear that a nanny – who he doesn’t identify but one must assume that it was Amy – is present and offers her printer for use, while Amy is clear in saying that it was Russ who walked into her office asking if she had a printer.

It would be really interesting if Amy could show how while everyone was looking for Maddie – she went back to her apartment, got her printer and we suppose the photo paper, went back to her office where Russ remained patiently waiting and we suppose alone – he doesn’t say he is but no one else speaks of accompanying him – installed the printer and printed the photos. And while doing it explain why she excused herself from the searches so early while everyone else continued.

And talking of nannies, Susan Owen could explain where she was that night because she wasn’t where she says she walked to the Mirage doesn’t exist. And could say why she was economical with the truth, as shown in our “Imagining things” post .

We would really love to hear what book Barrington Norton reading by flashlight while having a beer inside his van, when approached by a Kirsty Maryan, a nanny. Strange how a homeless man, living in a van, has enough money to waste the battery life of his flashlight to read.

It seems more like someone camping in a motor-home instead of a human being struggling through life. A homeless man who the people of Praia da Luz feel perfectly comfortable to hire to teach their kids how to play the guitar.


10. Ocean Club and Mark Warner managerial staff

Helder Luís, Vítor Santos, Lyndsay Johnson, Silvia Baptista, John Hill and George Crosland could clarify why they can’t get straight who called who and when that night warning each other Maddie disappeared:

09:30/22:15(?) – Helder Luís, on duty at the reception, is contacted between 09:30 and 22:00 by a Tapas colleague (in the reconstruction Luís could clarify who it was as no one from Tapas staff has said they called reception), who informed him one of the children of a client dining there had disappeared. He immediately calls the Lagos GNR. A little after, the “father of the child” and John Hill enter the reception and inform him of what had happened. He then calls the GNR for the second time. Afterwards he calls the Head of Reception, Vítor Santos, to inform him of the situation;

22:00/22:15 – Vítor Santos receives a call from Helder Luís informing him that John Hill was “extremely agitated” because a child had gone missing and that he Luís had contacted the GNR but they had not arrived yet;  

22:15 – George Crosland receives a call from John Hill informing him Maddie is missing (Hill does not refer to this call);

22:20 – Lyndsay Johnson is informed by Amy Tierney, by phone that Maddie is missing (Amy doesn’t speak of this call, Charlotte Pennington is the one who says she sees Amy calling Lyndsay);

22:25 – George Crosland arrives at the scene. John Hill and Silvia Batista are already there (10 minutes for him to get out of the house, into the car and drive from Lagos to Luz is a feat not many are able to achieve);

22:25 – Lyndsay Johnson says “procedure to search for missing child is launched”. (we cannot understand how, as none of the nannies receive any call from her, and the only one who is said to have talked to her, Amy Tierney, heads towards the apartment and NOT to any pre-designated area or muster point);

22:28 – John Hill says he’s informed by phone by Lyndsay Johnson  that Maddie is missing (13 minutes after he informed George Crosland of that fact and 3 minutes after Crosland has been on the scene);

22:30 – Silvia Batista is informed by George Crosland, by phone that Maddie is missing (Crosland doesn’t mention this call and has already been in Luz for 5 minutes where he has seen… Silvia);

22:33 – John Hill says he arrives at the scene (8 minutes after he was seen there by George Crosland when he arrived and about 30 minutes after he was supposed to have been in the reception “extremely agitated”);

22:25/22:35 –Vítor Santos arrives at the reception where the GNR was already there taking a statement from the “child’s father”;

22:40 – GNR reports having received first call about this case, about an hour after Helder Luís says he first calls them.

One cannot help notice that almost as busy as apartment 5A was the Ocean Club Reception. Matthew Oldfield says he was at reception 10:05/10.10.  With Gerry McCann, John Hill and Dawn Bullen there was quite a crowd there.

It must have been Matt who told Dawn Bullen that the nannies were needed to help in apartment 5A, although he makes no reference to this conversation and one has to wonder why he uses a total stranger to convey this information to the nannies when he’s right there to do that himself.

Helder Luís says nothing about Matt being present in the reception in that critical period and he does remember Gerry McCann and John Hill, so to expected he would refer a third man.

John Hill could also clear up where he gave instructions to the Ocean Club staff about where they should search in accordance with the Ocean Club Missing Child Plan. We know that some of the nannies headed from the Mirage to the Millenium and not to the Tapas where Hill was supposed to be to give those instructions.

 

He should take the opportunity to enlighten all as to what was his job in Praia da Luz was at the time as neither he nor his wife appear in either Ocean Club or Mark Warner employee list, as we showed in our post “Tourism diet”.

And of course, John Hill could clarify once and for all if the window was forced open or not.

Vítor Santos is quite clear there wasn’t any signs of a break-in: “then went to the apartment where there was an agglomeration of persons, however he managed to perceive that the apartment did not show any sign of disturbance not that anyone had attempted to break in”.

We had an anonymous point out to us in our “Vultures Circling” post that John Hill has confirmed what Vítor Santos said, that hat there were no signs of a break-in:

“Anonymous 4 Mar 2016, 14:20:00

Just one point, why did John hill say there was no sign of a break in if the OC wanted to participate in the cover up ?”

In fact, it seems that he did say that. John Blacksmith says this in a post in the Cracked Mirror blog:

“Faced with this irresistable stream of spin, colour and melodrama deriving from the horse's mouth and in which facts were by no means getting in the way of a great story, John Hill, the modest and level-headed Ocean Club manager had as much chance of getting his version of events into prominence as a gnat on the wall of apartment 5A. Though he was the man on the spot and had more much more reliable information about the night of May 3, the police effort and the state of the apartments than either of the McCanns, as well as being a neutral witness, his words were slowly drowned to death by the Gerry McCann version.  

“It's still questionable as to whether it's an abduction,” said Mr Hill correctly, in other reports that day, but his view was usually low down near the bottom of the page, after the inspired clan productions. “There was no physical evidence as yet that the girl had been abducted,” he said, but he could have been speaking to an empty room or or addressing the breakers on the beach at Praia de Luz., for all the impact his words had. “The staff at the Ocean Club were still hoping to find her nearby,” he added mutedly.”

And we replied to Anonymous:

“Textusa 4 Mar 2016, 15:21:00

While we wait for you to answer our questions [we had questioned Anonymous about what s/he thought was Hill’s job in Praia da Luz], let us answer yours which was "why did John hill say there was no sign of a break in if the OC wanted to participate in the cover up ?"

Well, we don't know what you are talking about.

On the SIC report at 20:00 of May 4th, John Hill can be seen and heard saying the following 01:08 – 01:22 of the vídeo):

“Nothing is missing in the apartment, one of the windows at the back here into the children’s room was left ajar with a blind had been risen up where previously the window was closed and the blind was down.”

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html

Isn't that describing a break-in?

Are you saying he later changes his mind about this? Why would he? He was one of the first on the scene, he certainly saw the window with the "blinds risen up"...”

A forced window is something one does not get confused about.

Oddly, or maybe not, this Anonymous never came back to us to give his/her opinion about this contradiction from John Hill.


11. Conclusion

Complicated and contradictory accounts of who was where that evening/night. Whoever is to arrange the reconstitution will have quite a headache. If it happens, of course. It should if finding the truth was the objective.

A reconstruction should be open to ALL lines of inquiry and leave no one out of suspicion. This includes ALL witnesses.

A witness can be a witness because s/he witnessed something but could also “be” because it is in his/her interest or that of somebody else to have “witnessed” something which they didn’t.

Discrepancies between witnesses should be clarified. If they can’t be then a reason must be found as to why this is so. If there’s no reason found then we are encountering lies and the reasons for the lies have to be found and the liars made accountable.

As we’ve already stated, we don’t believe the tapas sheets are genuine, and were prepared from a list written on the Slide and Splash sheet as we showed in our post “Tapas Quiz Night, Question #4/?” post.

A reconstruction with all of these witnesses would be a very interesting proposition and the key to demonstrating that the accounts of so many movements within that timeline were incredible, impossible and therefore, lies.

If we have forgotten someone, we welcome being reminded.

Is a reconstruction with all these people likely to happen? Hardly. What co-operation could Portugal expect in reality, and where are some of these people to be found now?  Beyond the easy reach of Portugal and unwilling to come forward voluntarily.

Shame on any of you who took part in this perversion of the course of justice if you continue to remain silent. Live the rest of your lives knowing this could blow up under your feet when you least expect it.

We are now breaking for our Summer Holiday. Please make the effort to enjoy yours as we will make the effort to enjoy ours.


Post Scriptum: 

The fact that we have never been inside Tapas has just been proved by Doug D, in his comments to the current post: we guessed wrong where the toilets are/were in the Tapas facilities.

Doug’s D input makes a passage that we wrote in the current post to be incorrect. And what is incorrect must be corrected.

We thought the toilets would be inside the Tapas building and we continue to think there must be some inside it as it’s the responsibility of the food establishment to provide this sort of conditions to their clients and not depend on hygiene facilities with different purpose and under the responsibility of others, as would be the case of the pool toilets.

But we do agree that Wilkins could have used the pool toilets. Outside the Tapas building.

From Doug D’s words we assumed wrongly that he was saying the toilets were in the reception building. He has corrected us and has told us that this is where the toilets are:

This means that Wilkins could have gone to the toilet and left without seeing who was in the esplanade.

It contradicts what we wrote:

First thing would be for Jeremy Wilkins to explain what route he used when he goes to the toilet. He says “I headed to the WC through the pool area” and that “I could not see inside the restaurant”.

When one enters the Tapas facilities there’s no such thing as going “through the pool area” without having to pass through the Tapas esplanade. Not next to it but through it.

When one enters the Tapas  area to use the toilet one HAS to see inside the restaurant because one has to pass inside the restaurant!

Anyone who used that area would know that. Anyone who passed through the esplanade with a stroller would know that. Why doesn’t Jeremy Wilkins know that?
We assume the error. We have deleted the above from the main post, as what it says is incorrect.

We maintain all other inconsistencies we pointed about Wilkins.

As we have said and continue saying, it’s with pleasure that we correct our path. Whenever we correct ourselves means that only that we now know a little more than we did before and, most important, we’re not stuck in our opinions just because they are our opinions.

Thank you, Doug D.