The Frog's BRT

Foreword: for reasons of simplification, we will assume the Frog to be a woman. We believe it to be a woman behind the character and if we are wrong then wrong we are. As our readers know, gender is something we consider irrelevant and it’s just to save the “s/he”, “he/her” and “himself/herself” in the text.


1. Introduction

Let us start by saying that we hope that we are wrong about what we are discussing here. We truly hope that after we publish this post, the Frog will show us that we’re wrong. If she does that we will gladly admit that we are wrong.

The blog has been talking about the Tapas Big Round Table (BRT) for a very long time. The table where the T9 are alleged to have dined from Sunday to Thursday in that fateful May 2007 week.

We have been so alone in talking about the BRT that our critics have even attempted to say that we’ve talking about it only amongst ourselves for years.


2. Various BRTs

As readers are aware, the BRT has become a recent topic of debate.

We have shown that it simply didn’t exist. Those not wanting the truth outed have come up with the most ludicrous attempts to show that it did and that has helped us prove our point because seeing them falling over each other to prove something that should be very easy to prove and only helps further to prove that indeed never existed.

Although the BRT itself never existed, the need to prove that it did has caused the phenomena of alleged replicas. Various versions of the BRT abound: the Panorama BRT, the Frog BRT, the JBLittlemore BRT, the PJ/Sr Amaral BRT, the Ocean Club Sub-BRT, the Tapas Staff BRT, the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT, the Jules BRT, the Jules 2007 BRT, the Paris Match BRT, the Gerry McCann BRT, the McFadden/Kate McCann BRT and the Jane Tanner BRT. If we missed one, we apologise.

So many different BRTs and that’s the point.

How many different apartments 5A are there? Just one. How many 5A windows are there? Just one. How many front doors, how many sliding doors? Always one. But BRTs there are plenty of them.

Strange, isn’t it?


3. The strangely interesting Tapas dinners

There are 3 objects that are directly related to the case that we have never seen a clear and definite image of: both Payne and Tanner’s listening devices and the BRT. Shouldn’t all 3 be in the files for one reason or another? They should but aren’t.

And what do these 3 have in common? The Tapas dinners. Isn’t that interesting?

It seems all that is related to just those Tapas dinners is interesting.

One had to queue up to get a reservation but after checking the reservation sheets one realises there were lots of empty seats every night, on Thursday, at the time when Arlindo Peleja (http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm) goes in Tapas the esplanade is empty with the exception of 3 couples (where were all the other guests?).

Isn’t Dawn Bullen together with 3 other people supposed to have been there as well, as she’s the only guest who fits the description of the guest who warns the nannies at the creche that Maddie had just  disappeared? Peleja doesn’t see the group of 4!
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/03/luzs-secret-service.html

Tapas is the only restaurant that decides to jot down the collective consumption of alcohol on a daily basis on its reservation sheets, the only restaurant in the world where the reservations are done in chronological order every single day, and that has reservations of one day mirrored on a Waterpark stationary paper.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2011/08/tapas-quiz-night-question-4.html

And even though guests have to queue every single day to gain the right to dine there, there’s one who after having done exactly that in the morning decides  to have a take-away instead and miss out on such a memorable and difficult to get experience.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/01/two-men-and-baby-cot.html


4. The 2018 BRT debate

Jules has been at the centre of the “BRT storm” but it wasn’t her who put this table back on the table. The Frog was the one who did it with this tweet on Sept 24.

In it the Frog retweeted her tweet of Jan 27:

We didn’t notice this January tweet then, as then the attention was on Gemma O’Doherty (and ours in particular on her and Walkercan1000) and the Frog seemed to be some unimportant character who was defending Malinka and his pathetic book saga.

As we have shown, this picture is a screengrab from a CMTV video that was aired on November 16, 2013. This video:

The reader can see at 29:00 where the screengrab comes from.

Very important to note that this image comes from the Portuguese side of things. It was documentary in which Mr Amaral actively took part. This BRT is what we have called above the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT. Not the Frog’s BRT but the CMTV/Sr Amaral one. The images may seem the same but the differences between the two are enormous.

The blog was the first and for years the only one pointing out CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT in our post “The proof Ocean Club reads Textusa”. And as the title suggests we were immodest as to have said that table in the picture was put on the Tapas esplanade because of us.

In that post we gave our reasons why that was so and why we thought, and think, that the idea of proposing that table to have been the BRT was ridiculous. For some reason no one echoed our exposing that table as the BRT as it’s plain to see that the layout bears no resemblance to what we have seen in the pictures of the esplanade in Mr Amaral’s book.

 

In fact, the Frog had the audacity of using in both of her tweets above an image that we created for that post:

It would be really strange if we found it a problem with having someone use an image of ours we made up to prove a point to prove a point against us.


5. Proof of nothing

Plus, we showed in that post how in other images of the Tapas esplanade there was an empty space where that table was shown to have been in that CMTV image.

So to put it very cleary, this photo didn’t and this photo doesn’t prove there was a BRT at Tapas.

It's irrelevant if the picture was taken in 2007, in 2013 or sometime in between these years as we will see. We will later in the post analyse when we think the photo could have be taken but as we showed above, just looking at the images above one can see immediately that it’s absurd to think that anyone would use it to prove the existence of the BRT.

We have already given one reason by using the wedding-gown analogy. Trying to pass a wedding-dress as the clothes a woman wears every day is absurd. What one can see is the esplanade set up for some sort of reception.

The reader may disagree with us but will not disagree that the concentration of tables per square yard in that photo is much greater than in the photos we have been shown of that esplanade. It looks really overcrowded with furniture.

Still not convinced? Still wanting to disagree by saying that it isn’t so? Ok, we’ll let that fly and will simply ask… where are all the square tables?

All the square tables are gone from the esplanade. They’re gone. They have been moved. That apparently means furniture was moved out and other furniture was moved in the esplanade either for that photo, which we don’t believe, or for the reception that was held there.

On Oct 30, an Anonymous noticed the exact same thing in a comment we didn’t publish then:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Section 9":
what is interesting about these big round tables is where are the square tables as shown in Gonçalo Amarals book?
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/TAPAS_BAR.htm
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 30 Oct 2018, 21:40:00”

And if it was a reception, as we think it was, then the catering would have brought in their own furniture.

The thesis that the image shows a reception gains strength when one analyses the tablecloths being used. They are made of a patterned table skirt stapled to a round wooden top and a white cloth clamped over the rough wood top. Clearly a reception.

And clearly the round tops of the tables are just wooden tops. An explanation as to where the square tables were taken. They are there, beneath the wooden round tops. Only these round wooden tops were moved in.

And one round wooden top was bigger than the others to make up the main table of the reception.

What matters is that the tables on that photo count for nothing in terms of proving what furniture was there in the week Maddie died. For some obvious reason we were the only ones speaking about it for years and that should have been a clue!


6. The Frog’s BRT

Hopefully, this will put an end to any further attempts to make this CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT the BRT. But the fact that it was tried in 2013 and again tried this year is quite telling. Really, it tells us a lot.

After the Frog published this tweet on Sept 24, a debate around the BRT started during which JBLittlemore and the Jules tables entered the scene. We will speak about them and their BRTs in later posts but for now, because we believe it to be relevant to understand the importance of the Frog’s BRT, we would like to remind readers that Jules brought into the discussion a photographer who she allegedly spoke with and who gave her the proof that there was indeed a BRT.

Three people have vouched for this: JBlittlemore, Sallyinspire1 and EricaCantona7.

So what is the Frog’s BRT?

It’s this one, in a picture the Frog tweeted on Oct 21:

To be precise, the Frog’s BRT is this:

As we said in our comment at 21 Oct 2018, 19:47:00, we thought this photo to be very interesting.

We have since changed our minds and no longer think it’s very interesting but that it’s so important that it simply cracks open the entire case. That is, unless we’re wrong, and as we have said at the beginning, we truly hope we are.


7. Dating a lie

A photo, says the Frog, comes from a sequence of photos taken in 2007. And the Frog apparently knows that the man appearing in the background is a photographer, who, says the Frog, also appears in other early photos (plural), which we haven’t seen but would really like to:

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1054074061079412737
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @jules1602x
It's in a sequence of photos taken in the first months. The photographer in the background also appears in other early photos. The Tapas Bar was refurb'ed in around 2010 iirc & the open area was closed in...
11:16 AM - 21 Oct 2018”

On Oct 28, the Frog gave us the honour of letting us see one of those certainly many photos that, we repeat, haven’t seen but would really like to:

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1056689779813875712
“Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @jules1602x
Pssst. Let's see if Textusa finds this post.
Pic of BRT + Sky News video 4/5/07 - what are the odds of same photographer in same clothes?........
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqoaVTIXcAAP7o3.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqodkDHWsAEPqoE.jpg
4:30 pm - 28 Oct 2018”

Attached, these 2 photos:

Circled in both a man. A photographer the Frog says.

We will come back to the photographer but before that we would like first to date the Frog’s BRT as these 2 photos allow us to do just that.

We agree that it’s the same man.

The photo that the Frog presents as proof is then dated without question, as it was taken when the T9 were taken for statements on the 4th, as is said in the tweet. So according to the Frog, the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT photo was taken on that same day. As it’s still daylight, it was taken less than 24 hours after Maddie disappeared!

Is it credible to think the Tapas would be holding a reception that afternoon?

A reception when the world media was literally swarming in the little village and the PJ was questioning literally hundreds of witnesses?

We think it’s ridiculous to think that. Clearly the Frog is telling a fib. One with no legs to stand on.

Plus, why say, as the Frog does, “it’s in a sequence of photos taken in the first months” when one knows that it was, supposedly, taken just hours after Maddie disappeared.

The Frog has pinned herself to that photo having been taken on May 4. She cannot say it was taken on any other date. 


8. Len Port

It turns out that K9Truth thinks that it is Mr Len Port:

https://twitter.com/K9Truth/status/1056861542984097792
“Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
Replying to @FragrantFrog @jules1602x
Looks like the journalist Len Port.
#McCann
3:53 am - 29 Oct 2018”

Note that K9Truth refers to Mr Len Port as a journalist.

We agree with K9 truth that it is Mr Len Port, who defines himself as a journalist and an author, not a photographer.
https://twitter.com/algarvnewswatch

He’s also the author of the blog “Portugal Newswatch – Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port”:
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com/

Again, journalist and author. Nothing about him calling himself a photographer. We imagine that he does take the photographs for the articles he writes but we think that calling him a photographer as the Frog does is quite disrespectful.

But being Mr Len Port or not, we agree with the Frog that it is the same man. As we saw, if we are going to go by the Frog’s logic, then it’s very clear when the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT photo was taken: May 4 2007.

But does the presence of the same man in similar clothes in 2 different photos prove the photos were taken on the same day? No, it doesn’t.

And if the man in the photo turns out to be Mr Len Port, even less so.

Mr Len Port lives in the Algarve and because of the Maddie case has been frequently in Praia da Luz. Being being seen in different times (days, months or even years) with same or similar clothes would be likely.

If one wants to be picky, although the top seems to be of the same colour, the right sleeve is clearly longer in the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT than it is in the photo in the street and it doesn’t seem rolled up in the photo where it's shorter. Jeans are similar as all jeans are.

So, the proof that the Frog presents to determine the date of a photo boils down to a top of the same colour but, apparently, different sleeve sizes.

Summing up, whatever the Frog has intended to prove with the photos on her tweets up to now has served to prove absolutely nothing: it’s not the BRT used during the week in May and the photo cannot be dated.

By the way, we would love to see the entire sequence from where the Frog’s BRT came from. Maybe in the many photos that followed it we would be able see what was put on the tables?


9. 2007, 2013 or in-between?

Note, we are not discarding the possibility of the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT/Frog’s BRT having been photographed in 2007. In fact, if we are right, if that was the set-up for a reception, it would be likely the photo was indeed taken in 2007 as then Praia da Luz was buzzing with people, mainly media, that would justify the effort of setting up such an event.

But in much the same way we cannot discard the possibility of it being taken in 2007, the possibility cannot be discarded of that having been in 2013. Or in any of the years in-between.

We simply don’t know.

We don’t know how reliable a source is Mr Len Port to tell us whether there was a BRT. The support the McCanns received from the Algarve media certainly works against him. However, we would love to know if he is indeed the man in the photo and it would be interesting to know what he has to say about it for the record.

Obviously all will change if he presents a photo of the BRT placed amongst the furniture we know to have been there at the time. The furniture we can see in Mr Amaral’s book.He might just have one as he clearly appears to have had access to the Tapas area with a camera as the photo shows.

We don’t think we should consider Mr Len Port the photographer who Jules alleges to have talked with. He was not the one taking the picture and we see no reason for him to be in the possession of a picture that was not his and that, as far as we know, wasn’t picked up from any public website.

What the Frog tried by bringing Mr Len Port into the issue was to prove that the photo was from 2007. Even if that was proved, it would prove nothing as we saw but please retain this fact: the Frog attempted to prove that an image first seen in 2013 was indeed from 2007. That intent will be relevant to remember further on.


10. Separating the different versions

When we first saw the tweet from the Frog, as we commented, we noticed the difference of resolution between the photo shown in the CMTV documentary and the one in the tweet.

We watched the CMTV documentary on the day it aired, and being then basically the sole public advocators that the BRT didn’t exist, this image of the Tapas esplanade didn’t go unnoticed.

The image lasts 4 seconds and for those familiar with the images of the esplanade, the first time one sees it one is caught by surprise as it can be seen that it is indeed Tapas but doesn’t look like it.

The higher number of tables and the white of the cloths is what stood out as well as the low-quality of the image made one immediately question why on earth would someone use THAT picture to illustrate the Tapas esplanade. Please note that the low quality of the pic made us think that the tables were covered with a single tablecloth. Only when seeing the picture from the Frog's tweet did we realise that it had a patterned table skirt as we have shown above.

Only on reviewing the video (it must be said that the Tapas image was the first thing to be reviewed), did we see that bigger round table in the background. Yes, there and then we realised the purpose of the pic but we just wanted to point out that the low quality of the image stood out immediately like a sore thumb.

In exact same way the high resolution of Frog’s picture stood out the moment we laid our eyes on it.

So although apparently it was the same image it was a completely different quality picture from the one used on the CMTV documentary.

This alone would have huge implications as we will see but there’s much more to this than a difference of resolution.

As we said, they clearly come from the same photograph. Where they differ is that they are different versions of it. And not only in resolution:

As can be seen, the Frog BRT photo is part of the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT one. But, and that is very relevant, it has part, below (blue), that is not part of the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT:

And the red area is what appears to be missing from both images. That means that we are not seeing 2 but 3 pictures: the original, a cropped one used by CMTV and another, also cropped, used by the Frog:

And that already tells us something, and that is the Frog did attach to her tweet the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT image.

The Frog, or someone she knows had to have that cropped photograph or, most likely, the original one.


11. The impossible overlap

And why was Frog’s BRT cropped? Two reasons come to mind, the first and most obvious, to mask the origin and date of the original picture, and the other to subtly move the centre of the picture to the round table (star):

Knowing only this already tells us that we are seeing intentional deceit and if one has to deceive to convince, then all is said. But let’s continue.

The Frog became noticed by all of us during the Malinka book saga but only started to be relevant during the summer of this year.

The Frog came on Twitter on Mar 24 2015 but only started to tweet from the end of June 2017. Before that, less than 10 tweets. Another well-known Twitter character, Nick Townsend, created by NT, tried to pass as a veteran of the case but his historic registry showed that he was really only a newcomer. With the Frog the opposite happens as although her registry shows a newcomer to the case, the knowledge she has shown to have about it shows clearly that is not the case.

The Frog being in possession of a photo that has been cropped but we have never seen the original simply confirms this.

The importance of the Frog’s BRT is not because it’s cropped and higher resolution than CMTV’s BRT but because they both appeared in worlds that were not supposed to be connected in ANY way: the CMTV one and the Frog’s with Sr Amaral in the middle.

The Frog’s opinion of Sr Amaral is public and it’s not a very good one to say the least. In fact, if the Frog is who we think she is, we would say that one would be more likely to see us sharing tea and scones with NT than one would be able to see them working together under whatever circumstances.

The last thing one would expect was to see the Frog’s world and Mr Amaral’s worlds overlapping.

And that is the importance of the Frog’s BRT: it overlaps these two worlds, that of the Frog with that of Sr Amaral via CMTV.

We are absolutely certain that this overlapping has happened without the knowledge of Sr Amaral. So it can only have happened with a third party. A third-party between who the Frog knows is close to CMTV/Sr Amaral but who Sr Amaral hasn’t the faintest idea who is close to the Frog.

Can the reader see where this is going? The relevance of the Frog’s BRT?


12. The Judas

Remember how we parodied in our comment at 12 Oct 2018, 11:59:00 the way Jules supposedly got to talk with the photographer she alleges to have talked to? A parody we ended with “as can be seen, very realistic. Are we being comical? No, Jules is. What she proposes is so ridiculous that it can only be laughable.”

Not so laughable now that we have seen that the Frog has published a different version of the photo, meaning that both she and CMTV had to have the same source.

To those who have come to the case after 2013, it’s convenient to clarify when this 2013 CMTV documentary fits in. Operation Grange was opened in 2011 but, for reasons we have already explained, remained inactive up to the fall of 2013. In October 2013 the PJ decided to reopen the Maddie case.

Maddie became again headlines all over the world.

On the Portuguese side of things 2 things happened. The first was being reported that the PJ considered Euclides Monteiro to be a person of interest to the case and the second, this documentary.

Sr Amaral clearly and actively participated in it, and it aired with a panel where he and Moita Flores appeared.

It was clear that it was a Portuguese production meant to help Mr Amaral. Very clearly so. Unquestionably so. To suggest that the McCanns had anything to do with it would be preposterous.

It would be indeed, until the Frog published that photo.

We had always wondered why that photo was used. The most logical thing to have happened would be for the film crew to ask to film the Tapas esplanade and it wasn’t allowed to do that. Why?

Before saying that it’s bad publicity, we don’t see why. According to the official narrative the Tapas bar is completely blameless and we have yet to see a single criticism against the Ocean Club for the parents to have been allegedly negligent. Everyone loves free publicity, except, it seems, the Tapas bar.

It could be said that the Tapas was not asked. Why would that be? Why would one be afraid to ask the Ocean Club to film inside their facilities?

The photo appeared in the documentary so in some way found its way there.

Why not use one of the pics from Sr Amaral’s book?

We understand that considering the damages trial was going on, there could be reservations about using the pictures from it, even though we cannot see what would be the problem of showing inanimate objects as they were in 2007.

Eliminating the hypothesis of filming the esplanade and not using pictures from the book, we’re left with a third party having provided the picture.

We remind readers that this a Portuguese production, done by the Portuguese to defend the Sr Amaral’s version of things, what he believes, right or wrong, happened that night. A production without the interference of the British. In fact, to put it bluntly, a production against the British and against the McCanns in particular. Without any interference from any of them.

The fact it appeared in the documentary means it came from a source trusted by CMTV and Sr Amaral. The fact the Frog has that photo means it came from a Judas.


13. The betrayal

The reader may say that it may have come from the Ocean Club. That doesn’t take away the Judas as the link between the Ocean Club and the Frog and would need to be explained.

Why would even the Ocean Club have such a photo? Does it hold every photo every photographer took inside the Tapas area since May 2007? Does it have copyrights to every photo taken there?

We don’t believe it to have been the Ocean Club providing this photo to CMTV.

We will see in another post, when we address the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT (which is not CMTV’s BRT or the Frog’s BRT), that someone made the effort of minimising the importance of this table in this documentary. Making it seen as an irrelevant detail in comparison, for example, with the amount of booze allegedly consumed by the group.

So the photo in the documentary has a clear intent. That means that there’s more to the photo than just asking and a supplying. The person who supplied it, may have come from the Ocean Club – we don’t think that to be the case – but what matters is that whoever it was, it was a trusted person by the CMTV and by Sr Amaral. Trusted enough to determine what would appear and what wouldn’t.

Are we saying that Sr Amaral was fooled? The answer to that is quite complex and we will try to explain how we see things but we can say right away that as we have said before, no one can say they aren’t fooled.

Anyone accompanying the case has realised that Sr Amaral believes that the reason Maddie died is linked to David Payne and him being allegedly a paedo. He may truly believe it – as he seems to do – or he may think that the way to uncover the truth is to attack this vector. We don’t know.

What seems to be apparent is that he is determined to pursue the David Payne/paedo line of inquiry. No question about that. Anything outside it we think he considers as some sort of unhelpful noise.

And that, we believe, was what he was focused on so it would be quite easy for a trusted someone, close to him and/or the production to slip in deceiving information to protect those outside the T9.

This in turn shows how the Frog’s BRT helps show one of the most disgusting aspects of the case: that those, or at least some of those, close to Sr Amaral don’t want truth revealed, that truth that implicates anyone outside the T9. If it is to go after the T9, they’re the best of Sr Amaral’s friends but that when it comes to others, their loyalty lies elsewhere.

In fact, them coming near Sr Amaral had that exact purpose, which was to make sure Sr Amaral would not veer to where it wasn’t convenient. And yes, we are talking on the Portuguese side of things. As close to Sr Amaral as CMTV. If not closer.


14. Identifying the photographer

But do the revelations from the Frog’s BRT stops here?

No, they don’t. And for that we have to take the reader back to what we said above in the post when we summed up Frog’s attempt: “What the Frog tried by bringing Mr Len Port into the issue was to prove that the photo was from 2007. Even if that was proved, it would prove nothing as we saw but please retain this fact: the Frog attempted to prove that an image first seen in 2013 was indeed from 2007.”

Where does the reader remember something from 2013 that wasn’t from 2013 but from 2007 and what is from 2007 is not what 2007 means?

We will give the reader 2 hints: Jules and the Chilean video:

We know this 2013/2007 may get a little confusing but please, for now, forget for a moment all the 2013s and 2007s we have spoken about above.

Please just remember what Jules meant when she spoke of when she mentioned those 2 years: that the 2013 BRT was the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT (low quality video still) and the 2007 BRT was the Chilean video one (which we only shown it now).

Now introduce the Frog’s BRT into the equation, the one Frog has tried to say was from 2007.

With the Frog’s BRT, Jules’ 2013 BRT (CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT) stops being from 2013 to be from 2007 and Jules 2007 BRT (Chilean video one) stops being the ‘2007’ BRT because the BRT for that year is now the Frog’s BRT!

Now, with that in mind, please read again what we wrote above “something from 2013 that wasn’t from 2013 but from 2007 (the CMTV/Sr Amaral BRT) and what is from 2007 (the Chilean screengrab) is not what 2007 means (because now 2007 means the Frog’s BRT).”

Did that make sense? Because if it did, it is because the reader without realising has just figured out that the Frog is the ‘photographer’ Jules alleges to have talked about.

Jules has nothing up her sleeve other than the Frog. That simple and that little.

The fact that Jules on Oct 30 echoes the Frog’s tweets as proof of the existence of the BRT shows clearly that this is the case.

Now, why would Jules and the Frog be talking off-line? Aren’t they usually debating each publicly as if they are in opposing camps?

And if the photographer Jules has indeed talked with is the Frog, then we know that 3 other people also know this: JBLittlemore, Sallyinspire1 and EricaCantona7.

And is it believable that this conversation would be contained to the people listed? Of course not.


15. Conclusion

And that’s why we say the Frog’s BRT is so important. It shows not only the betrayal of the Portuguese side of things as it shows how these people talk to each other while pretending not to do so publicly. Nothing but a sick and shameless game where respect for the truth and respect for Maddie take last place in priorities.

It cracks the case because it shows all the games being played.

We started this post saying we wanted to be wrong. And we do. We know what we have said above to be true but nonetheless is shocking when boiled down and the Frog’s BRT photo is the physical evidence proving it.

So, if proven wrong about the Frog’s BRT we can safely say that all the assessments we have made about the networks it shows, were wrong.

And how can we be proven wrong about the Frog’s BRT and what it means it terms of networking? Very easily. All that is needed is for the Frog to provide a link to a public website, one that won’t link her to CMTV. One that won’t link her to Sr Amaral’s Judas.

Showing us that, all would have the simple and innocent explanation that it was from there the Frog obtained the photo.

Over to you, Frog.