Jane W(B)ond

Before going on holiday, the blog underwent a meticulous process of debunking the three main independent witnesses who appeared in that priceless testimony which we all call Mockumentary: JW, TS and Derek Flack.

The McCanns sponsored and participated in it, meaning they’ve subscribed to it in full.

These three witnesses are the backbone of the “abductor thesis” defended by the couple. They’re the only ones who say they saw a suspicious individual looking suspiciously and obsessively at Apartment 5A in April/May 2007.

There’s one exception to this, as you know, and that is JW’s first sighting. She says she sees a man staring at something that, at least in the near foreseeable future, we’ll never know, but know it wasn't Apartment 5A.

Why is that? Because nowhere has it been shown where did JW thought Pimpleman was staring at, at that particular moment. In fact we don’t know what JW has said in statement besides the following sentences, shown in the Mockumentary, where it's referenced what she said somewhere else:

“She sees a suspect male, ambling along (...)”

“Not mentioned if she sees him from her ap(...) apartment 1) or from road?”

“Not possible it was from her apartment (...) tennis court or pool?”

“Which daughter is she with – the 3 year old or (...)”

In our post debunking the inexistent PJ Unpublished Files, we at a certain point, based on Pamalam’s commendable work, said that “You also have a set of statements, for which you have a roster that the people were heard by the PJ and which statements don’t appear in the PJ Files:

Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager;
Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;
Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance;
Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor;
Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor;
Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor;
Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor;
Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor;
Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor;
Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny;
Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor;
Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny;
Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny;
Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor;
Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor;
Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor;
Robert Ragone OC Kids Chef;
Jackie McConnel OC nanny.”

Besides the last name, Jackie McConnel, no other person has a first name starting with “J”, and none in the above list have the initials “JW”.

In the same post we also said “Then you have the statements, or "original statements" from a set of VERY interesting people, that are mentioned in the PJ Files but don’t appear in them:

Stephen Carpenter, original statement taken on 17th May 2007 by a UK Police Officer:

Rajinder Balu, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Neil Berry, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Carolyn Carpenter, rogatory interview not included in DVD.

Carole Tranmer, original interview and identikit not included in DVD (in the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading)”

Again no “JW”.

Interestingly enough, there’s also no Jenny Weinberger in either of the lists. Quite a coincidence as Mrs Weinberger seems to be a recurrent character in all of this as per our Baloney post.

Yet, the Mockumentary gives us a precious indication. JW hasn’t provided ONE statement, but at least TWO:

It’s very clear: “(Source JW Statement 2)”. It even provides a date, “pril 2007”, which we assume to be April 2007, and must be referring to the date of the events witnessed (as is shown in the Mockumentary) and not to the date of the statement itself, otherwise it would have happened before Maddie disappeared.

A statement is a written testimony either to the media or during the course of an investigation. The first is a public registry and easily accessible to all those interested in it; the latter is obvious reasons not releasable to public scrutiny before a decision has been taken about the case it belongs to.

If it wasn’t for the Mockumentary, we wouldn’t have known know about JW at all and what she had to say about Maddie so, in this context, her two statements are anything but public.

Obviously Dave Edgar had access to them but where did he get them?

To say that JW made her statements directly to him is ridiculous as the Mockumentary, as per its promoters at the time, was about new evidence found within the PJ Files.

Besides, if JW had spoken to Dave Edgar after the process was archived then it would have to have been deemed as “new evidence” so much so that the McCanns found it important enough to decide to include them in the Mockumentary..

Where are these TWO statements? If asked, will Dave tell?

Let me guess, they’re highly secretive. Their content surely will endanger national security.

From what we’ve seen portrayed in the Mockumentary together with the abovementioned parts of JW's sentences from her 2nd statement, there appears no reason to justify, even minimally, such a statement.

Could the big secret they hold be where exactly Pimpleman was staring during JW’s first sighting, that singular piece of information that has been kept hidden from us, but, apparently was enough for JW to find that particular individual to be suspicious?

Or could it be because that JW is a secret agent licensed to lie?

What is important to notice is the real significance of all this. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dave Edgar, a private investigator hired by the parents of the missing child, had access to evidence that those responsible for the investigation didn't have and nor did all those who had to make decisions about the process.

A decision based on anything less than the full facts is unquestionably a flawed decision.

Bluntly Bruntling Things Up

More than a year ago, more precisely on August 23, 2011, our reader, Guerra, placed a link to a video in a comment to our post Tapas Quiz Question #5.

The question in question of that post in particular was to ask why were 4 people seated at Tapas Bar table #211 AKA the "Tapas Table" AKA the T9BRT (T9 Big Round Table), a table we were told had 9/10 covers, when there were other tables available that particular evening.

I had seen the video before and quite honestly didn’t give it any importance as at the time it didn’t cross my mind that the Ocean Club could have been involved in any way with the T9.

As you know, I quickly understood that we were before a swinging scenario but initially limited the people involved only to the T9.

I, like so many, looked at the Tapas Bar as the place where the T9 did have dinner when they said they did. It involved Portuguese staff so it never crossed my mind the possibility of them being involved. So I saw this video, at the time, the same way we all did, and that was that it proved how impossible it was to have visibility of the apartment as claimed by the McCanns as well to show that the distance was much further than they said it was.

It was, apparently, a video condemning the McCanns as it proved that the McCanns were lying when saying that it was just like having dinner in one’s back yard. I just shook my head and mumbled to myself how negligent these McCanns really were.

But that was a long time ago. As you know I now know how wrong I was in thinking that on that night and following days in Luz that the T9 were the only ones involved in the foul play, so when I revisited this video I looked at it with a totally different mindset. And there were, like in so many other pieces of information about this case, many things to be seen that no one had noticed before.

So let’s see what it tells us, what it intends to tell us, and what it really does tell us.

Let’s start with the three non-controversial facts that it provides us with.

FIRST, it’s VERY important that we finally have a visual registry of the T9BRT.

We finally have someone, Mr Martin Brunt,  telling us that that table was the T9BRT. That table and no other in the world. If anyone ever shows us a table different to that one, in material or colour, then Mr Brunt has a lot of explaining to do.

I’m sure that Dianne Webster’s pictures will confirm what Mr. Brunt has stated when they surface…

SECOND, it’s that it validates the Tapas bar furniture pictured in Amaral's book. Those two chairs on the left of Mr Brunt are identical to those that appear in the book. No question about that.

Looking at the pictures does it really look like Tapas Bar was a restaurant that served steaks and sardines? Or one that people would queue up to go to?

I see a lot of small square tables and two small round tables and none are exactly suitable to seat 4 people for DINNER. Just picture how you would layout the cutlery, the plates, the glasses, the napkins and the various drinking receptacles, for wine, water, sodas, sangrias, etc…

But if we’re made to believe that there was a kind of “Peter Pan" abductor who walks in through a front  door and flies out of a closed window, then surely we can make an effort and try to stretch our imagination to see all those things on those small table tops.

And after you've stretched your imagination, do stretch it a little more. Imagine now 47, or more, seating places in that esplanade that we showed that supposedly existed in our post Tapas Quiz Question #6. After all, one is free to imagine anything, isn’t one?

THIRD, we can determine with some precision, where, within the Tapas Bar esplanade was located the T9BRT.

The plastic canopy is made up of two parts, each with a big transparent window, as shown in pictures (1), (2) and (3). The beam in the middle is easily identifiable (yellow arrow) and that can be used for reference.

In picture (1), you can see that there’s some distance between Mr. Brunt and the beam.

Having other elements of reference, namely the tree (white arrow) you can extrapolate that the T9BRT was located between this tree and the beam, the furniture seen in picture (3) (blue arrow).

By simple triangulation it can be determined that the table is exactly where Gerry McCann says it to be: between the canopy and the tree in the side of the esplanade nearest to the building.

Strangely enough, there, where the T9BRT is supposed to have been, a corner of a square table is distinctly noticeable, as can be seen in picture (3), so we'd think that Mr Brunt would be sitting at a square table and not a round/oval one as appears to be…

To sum up, with this video Mr. Brunt shows us, CLEARLY, the T9BRT and where it was.

Is that all he shows us? Of course not.

Lest we forget, image management is this man’s profession. Any TV Reporter is a master of showing exactly what he wants to show.

I would say that Mr. Brunt and his crew threw in all the tricks of the trade known to them when filming the T9BRT. I smile just thinking the discussions that took place to set up things just the way they were to be shown. Many rehearsals and many more takes, certainly... Quite crafty are these people as you’ll see…

Today let’s just show you one trick. The shadow trick.

Look at the picture again:

Where is the table’s shadow? Mr. Brunt has the left half of his face lit up, while the other side is in shadow, meaning that a light projector from his left was used.

The table ends up in (2) and not where the brain immediately assumes it does, in (1).

The space between (1) and (2) is the table's shadow. The way it was filmed, it gives the impression that the table is much bigger than it really is.

This is reinforced by how carefully Mr. Brunt places his hands and arms. Notice that his right hand is only partly placed on the table top. By positioning the body the way he does it seems that his right forearm is supported by the tabletop when in fact it isn't touching anything.

This might seem a minor detail but it has a huge effect. The idea, as said above was to make the table bigger than it was. And by distorting its size it also distorts its shape, doesn't it? Not that the shape is important because it's not as we've stated before. The size is important and an optical illusion about it was created by Mr Brunt and his filming crew.  

This is how your brain reacted when you first saw the video: how many people were there? Nine. How many chairs do you see? Four (one is where Mr. Brunt is sitting). Is the table big enough to accommodate them? It seems to be. Ok Brunt, go on.

He’s telling you where the T9 had their dinners in a way that as your brain processes the information as he speaks, it meets the requirements that your subconscious has set, so you accept it as valid. Neat little trick, isn't it?

If he showed you the real size of the table, you wouldn’t accept that 9 people sat around it, would you? 

Of course there's the possibility that you can't see what I see but then there's a reason for that and it isn't because I need an optician.

Such as this visual trick there are others. All there for you to see. I’ll speak about them in later posts.

Please don’t feel disappointed for having been fooled. There were so many doing their  best to fool you, that no one, really no one can say that they weren’t fooled in one way or another.

That’s why the taste of victory in this case will be much sweeter than in any other.

Size Matters

I happened to come across on the internet a very innocent and casual picture that I found to be very interesting to be seen within the Maddie case context. 

It's about the T9BRT.

I bet you've forgot what the above acronym means, but I'll remind you: it's the T9 Big Round Table. You know, the one they claim they used for almost a week, and we say they didn't because no one can use something that just didn't  exist.

Let's first recap.

We have two people describing to the PJ the said table: Kate McCann and Jane Tanner.

Kate McCann describes it as such:

Jane Tanner, a much more imaginative person than the rest of us, comes up with the concept that a series of tables, be they square or round, can be joined to make up a big round one:

We've shown that for a table to have 9 people around it for a meal it would have had to be a significant size:

However, from the various photos we've been able to see of the Tapas Bar, no table of such a size was ever shown:

None of the round tables shown above sits 9 people. Their size seem to fit more what Gerry McCann exemplifies with his hand, in the Mockumentary, the mysterious table:

There are some who think that the photos above may not have pictured ALL of the the furniture in the Tapas Bar at the time or even if the furniture could have been completely different. About the picture not being complete, if there was ever such a big table at Tapas, it would stand out and would certainly have appeared in the Tabloids over and over again. About the furniture being different, Martin Brunt clarifies that at least the chairs were the same when he shows us the table where the T9 "had" their Tapas dinners:

This is the picture I found:

Eight REAL people having a meal around a REAL Round Table. Now add one more place, because the Tapas were 9 and not 8, and another seat for Najoua during Quiz Night, without occupying anyone elses' place. That makes the T9BRT a table for 10 places.

As it can be clearly seen it's much more comparable in size with what we say would have to have been the T9BRT:

Finally, and taking the opportunity of having a picture of a REAL table right beneath the "Brunt" table, can you see how the Sky News reporter tried, ever so subtly, to fool you?

Textusa´s Non-Random Ramblings

We apologise for our long silence but the three of us have decided to enjoy our holidays in different times and this means that one of us, which I’ll refrain to name, is still having a jolly good time somewhere out there.

I’ve decided to “interrupt” the blog’s break due to the forthcoming the McCanns vs Amaral Trial scheduled to supposedly take place this month in Lisbon starting this week.

Much has happened since our break. I’ll just write some lines about what we think to be relevant and can be bridged over to the Maddie Affair before giving our opinion about the McCanns vs Amaral Trial.

First, the Tia Sharp murder, where, once again, an abduction made-up to cover the family involvement in the death of a child. Tia's death is alleged to be at the hands of her grandmother's partner.

The fact that a body recovery dog found the body when a specialist search team didn't is, in our opinion, very relevant.

The McCann's silence on the subject was deafening throughout, especially taking into account the  recently nominated Ambassador for Missing People Charity, Kate McCann. The most important thing about this particular silence was how embarrassingly audible it was.

Rest assured that this awkward silence will now become a trademark which we can call as the “McCann Curse”.

From now on whenever a child disappears the foul play will be either from those near the child, which will always be most likely, or the child will have been genuinely abducted.

If the foul play is from the family, the McCanns can’t help but remain detached and silent because it will be much too embarrassing and compromising for them when truth is discovered and people start to add up the two and two and the similarities of it with the Maddie case. In this instance the evil doers would welcome the McCann support but the McCanns won’t dare risk providing it.

If the child has been really abducted, then the McCanns can’t help but remain detached and silent because it will be much too embarrassing for the child’s parents to want to see the McCanns in any way related with their case. They'll want to have the couple as far away from them and their sufferance as possible. In this instance the McCanns would love to provide support but no support from the McCanns is minimally wanted or welcomed.

Let us make it absolutely clear that we’re NOT casting or wishing for any sort of curse upon the McCanns. That curse was cast upon them by themselves. Both when they decided to commit the crime we’re absolutely certain they did, which was obstruction of justice to cover up whatever happened beween Kate and David in the apartment that resulted in the death of Maddie, as well as when they decided to become the most visible faces of the case. This last decision may not have been theirs or theirs alone but it’s known a fact that the spotlight centred almost exclusively on them.

We call it the “McCann Curse” just because it befalls solely on the couple. All others involved live with their dark secret and nightmare of the inevitable day the truth shall surface but until then go on with their lives like any other human beings…

Let us also make it clear once again, that we wish no harm to the McCanns nor to any other person that was involved in all this sordid affair. We only demand for them to take responsibility for their acts in the proper forum which is a Court of Law. Them and all those who were involved.

To wish harm to any of them it would be like wishing harm to those who took the life of Tia Sharp. If you do, you don’t seek justice, you just seek blood. They, like the McCanns should be judged by those society has designated for that job. If there is to be any sort of punishment then it should be handed out by those mandated by society to do exactly that in an adequate, proportional and humane manner. Anything else is reprehensible and disgusting mob lynching.

And about Tia Sharp, we noted the irony of The Sun’s headlines August 11: “Neighbour Paul, 39, also arrested – on suspicion of assisting offenders”.

Those who now seek justice, rightfully so, for both those who killed Tia Sharp and for those who assisted the offenders must be coherent and also seek justice for both those who killed Maddie and for those who assisted the offenders under the penalty of loathsome hypocrisy.

Now that on this case criminal proceedings are in progress, the blog will align with the media and say nothing further about the case. We will take but not publish any comments relating to this case whilst it is ongoing.

Secondly, Ruth Breton and Jose Breton, two names, four people Ruth Breton the courageous, resilient and tenacious mother and her unfortunate child, apparently both victims of Jose Breton, the father, and Jose Breton who tragically shared his sister’s fate.

We will not get into the gruesome sadistic facts of this case, but will note that it was another disappearance made up and that, again, close family was involved. One has to highlight the most probable involvement of the father’s parents in covering up for their son and in the disposal of the bodies of their own grandchildren.

Do allow yourself the exercise of bridging the Breton case, within the adequate proportions and circumstances, over to the Maddie case.

Both cases mentioned, Sharp and Breton, seem to confirm that in the vast majority of these cases it’s the ones nearest to the victim who are responsible.

One is entitled to ask how sick mankind, mentioned by the late Neil Armstrong, to whom we here pay due homage, is really becoming.

Now about the McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral Trial.

I think that the McCanns have much more to fear from it then does Amaral. Sticking to the possible event itself, I repeat what the blog has stated many a time before and is that is that the McCanns cannot afford for facts to be discussed publicly in Court. One just has to go back to the Trial about the book and remember how disastrous it was for the McCanns when facts started to be discussed, to the point of making Isabel Duarte speak of unfollowed leads that were never asked to be followed and the willingness of Gerry McCann in reopening the process that was never formally materialized.

I’m not seeing how libel can be discussed without discussing facts, and if facts are to be discussed then it will be a huge embarrassment for the McCanns.

But maybe that’s what is intended after all as we'll try to explain.

You see, we believe that the “Establishment” is getting really sick and tired of the McCanns. Maddie has become a thorn that has gangrened many a limb.

But as we’ve said, the McCanns will not fall down alone. In that order, the SY Review was an unsuccessfull try and that’s why it apparently is to fade away inconclusively.

Let’s suppose that this incapability for the “Establishment” to nail the McCanns is because they hold, like we think they do, a compromising piece of evidence that would prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they didn’t act alone and were indeed assisted every step of the way.

Imagine, for argument’s sake, that this so-called compromising evidence is a piece of paper. Not discussing its content (although we have a pretty good idea of what it is) just calling it a damning blank piece of paper with which the McCanns are able to successfully threaten the “Establishment” if they wave it publicly around.

So the “Establishment” seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place wanting to get rid of the McCanns but being unable to do so. The McCanns won’t, obviously, hear any of it, and the “Establishment” can’t do anything about it, can it?

Yes, it can.

All the “Establishment” has to do is to remain absolutely and completely motionless when and if the McCann vs Amaral Trial ever occurs.

If the Trial is to take place, which I believe it will one day, the best outcome that the McCanns can hope for is to be publicly questioned and thus openly ridiculed, further damaging their already irreparable reputation and credibility.

And that is, as said, the best outcome that the McCanns can hope for from the Trial when and if it happens. There are other possible outcomes very unpleasant for them but that would please the “Establishment” indeed.

Once again, if the Trial takes place, when the facts are indeed discussed and if the proceedings don't stop at McCann's public humiliation and further degradation of their public image, then it can progress quickly to the point of proving publicly that the McCanns have lied.

We all know they did and we all know that any discussion outside their control will very quickly expose their contradictions. Gonçalo Amaral doesn’t even need to have any ace up his sleeve. If he has, then the McCann situation will evolve from disastrous to tragic.

If this public proof of perjury happens, as it surely will, it may even force the Portuguese to reopen the process immediately and in such conditions that the couple may not be allowed to leave the Country. Thus the very wise decision from the McCanns in exploring yet another flaw in the Portuguese Law, which allows them to be represented in Court and not be present as they should be.

But would the dam just break only in Portugal? What about when news of this is to break up in Britain? Can it be ignored? I don't think so. Then, would the tabloids persist on betting on such a lame losing horse? Or would they, as we expect they would, very quickly realign their editorial options and guidelines and start a blood thirsty mob lynching campaign against the couple "now" "shockingly" "exposed" as manipulative liars to "everyone's" "surprise"?

Notice that the “Establishment” has done nothing for the above to happen so there’s no reason for the McCanns to turn against it in self-defence. This would all have been a disgrace brought on them by themselves when they decided to sue Amaral.

The “Establishment” wouldn't have contributed in anyway for these turns of events, so for the McCanns to wave the abovementioned compromising paper in these circumstances would only make them to be seen as utterly desperate, further confirming their evilness and manipulative traits, two lunatics who’ve ignominiously fooled us all (including poor, poor “Establishment”) about their daughter’s unfortunate fate.

Then maybe, just maybe, the SY Review would just find a conclusion suitable to all except the McCanns and the remainder Ts, all this with the “Establishment" just being an innocent (very motionless) observing bystander.

I imagine how much lately the McCanns have been frantically and desperately lobbying for the Trial to be adjourned to a later date. It’s said that they've been able to do just that.

This time.

I can just imagine the amount of sympathetic assurances of actions they got that ended in nothing but dead ends, inexplicably. We’re absolutely certain that the “Establishment” will continue, for obvious reasons, to be cooperative and helpful, however the words cynical and hypocritical seem to come to mind…

If you haven’t understood by now, let me tell you that Kate McCann was correctly nominated Ambassador for Missing Persons. She has a very important job to do. Not related to charity or to go help find all those unfortunate souls who’re indeed missing but to assure that they, the McCanns, make certain that they start, once and for all, to become “missing”. The "Establishment" is fed up with the embarrassment that their visibility causes and has decided to have them "shelved" for now, just like Portugal did with the Maddie case.

Let’s wait and see. I for one am curious on how the game will be played.

If the Trial is, at it seems it will be, adjourned, then it just confirms the rightful fear that the McCanns have. They have placed themselves in a position from which they’re unable to back down without being totally compromising and unable to let it happen.

Amaral with his tenacity and resilience (reminding us of Ruth Breton) will continue to be a key player by pursuing that this Trial effectively takes place.

When the Trial does take place, Amaral will have done his job due to his courage, honesty and integrity. Then he can rest because the game will be played in other much more important and efficient playing grounds.