Flack And The Pimpleman

As said before Derek Flack is quite a character.

Reading through his statements is very entertaining. It’s like reading Mr Bean pretending to be Johnny English.

Two individuals that are, for obvious reasons, identical in build and physical appearances but very much opposed in character, efficiency and proficiency.

A lesson to be learned to all those that keep “profiling” people based solely on their looks to determine if they’re either Brits or second rated individuals.

English has style and class although he’s far from being a James Bond but once you introduce Bean you strip away all said qualities and arrive at a Derek Flack.

Also said before, there’s too much to debunk about what Mr Flack has said for just a single post. We’ve already called your attention to both his peculiar memory problem as well as his objectiveness in term of what he effectively does to occupy his time late mornings and early afternoons.

There’s more, so, so much more.

Today we’ll focus on Pimpleman.

Derek Flack is, as we know, the person that has, allegedly, been the closest to Pimpleman. We know that by his own words.

Let’s see what our friend Derek Flack has this to say about the individual he sees:

On Saturday 2007/05/05:
“… he observed an individual (about 1.70 tall, brunet appearing to be of Portuguese nationality, with a one day beard, thick short hair that at the back extended up to a shirt collar and wearing a solid yellow t-shirt) that was standing on a sidewalk corner looking (this being the reason he was suspicious of him) towards the apartment from where MADELINE would later disappear”

And on Sunday 2007/05/06: 
“Asked to characterize this individual, the deponent refers that he would be a Caucasian individual and dark complexion, of medium height, about 1.70 to 1.75 meters tall, appearing to be about 25 to 35 years old.

Wishes to add that the individual in question had quite dark coloured and quite thick hair, not bearing any fringe.

With regard to his clothing, adds that he cannot characterize it in detail, but assesses that he was wearing a light coloured T-shirt, and, possibly, yellow.

The respondent also wishes to clarify having been convinced that he was not one of the many tourists who usually frequent that location, given the respective built and physical appearance.”

Based on Derek Flack’s statement the following photofit was made:

But on that same day and during certainly the same statement on Sunday 2007/05/06 (most certainly after having particularly reflected on such incidences) he concludes that:
“the deponent refers not being certain to be able to recognize him, in case he should be confronted with his presence.”

This is reiterated, 3 days later, in which he surely reflected further on such incidences, on Wednesday 2007/05/09 when he says that:
“although he could not recognize the individual in question in a peremptory way (as, otherwise, had been consigned within the respective inquiry)”
and:
“Still, enhancing that he’s unable to undertake any formal recognition (because reiterates not having able to view in detail the individual in question)”

So, Derek Flack is able to say the following about a person he was not able “to view in detail”:

- he’s a Caucasian individual

- he has a dark complexion / is a brunet appearing to be of Portuguese nationality

- he had a one day beard

- he was about 1.70 tall / he was medium height, about 1.70 to 1.75 meters tall

- he appeared to be about 25 to 35 years old.

- he had thick short hair that at the back extended up to a shirt collar / he had quite dark coloured and quite thick hair, not bearing any fringe.

- he was wearing a solid yellow t-shirt / he was wearing a light coloured T-shirt, possibly, yellow

- he was not one of the many tourists who usually frequent that location, given the respective built and physical appearance.

Can you imagine what he would have been able to tell us if he just had been able to see Pimpleman in detail?

But the question one should ask is: would he really have been able to see what he says he sees?

We know, or so he tells us, that there’s only about a foot of pure clean air between the two, so nothing would be obstructing his view, so why shouldn’t he?

If you look at sequence in the Mockumentary where Flack meets Pimpleman you notice a very interesting thing:

Flack’s observation of the Pimpleman is exactly the time it takes him to take three steps.

That takes about 1,5 seconds.

Now ask yourself the amount of information you can absorb in 1,5 seconds: complexion, hair colour, hair thickness, one day beard, fringes in front, collars at the back, age, height and the clear perception he wasn’t a tourist.

Add this to the fact that your brain is entertaining the thought that you’re finding odd that the man is staring fixedly and obsessively towards a white van that you've also just seen parked up the street behind you and which, for some inexplicable reason, you also decide to take notice of.

That cannot be the same brain that can’t remember which day it registered so much information in only 1,5 seconds, can it?

Mr Bean and Johnny English taking turns in observing and in registering the observed?

The next episode: Flack and the White Van. Others to follow.

The Fall Of An "Angel"

No More Doubts and To Follow or Not To Follow.

Feeling Like a Tanner

Who can forget "the crying Tanner" from the Mockumentary?.

It was the purest, most formidable expression of betrayal sufferance that we’ve ever had the opportunity of setting our eyes on.

It was clear and precise. At once we all understood that we were before someone who has just been told mercilessly that “You’ve outlasted your use so you’re totally dispensable”.

It takes a total lack of conscience and of principles to tell that to someone who has significantly, under relevant risk, gone way out of his/her way to help you out of an enormously problematic situation that his/her, altruism and friendship are no longer of use in your favour but s/he should NEVER forget that their altruism has now become very useful to be used against them.

That is called to be made “feel like a Tanner”. Please, not to be confused with “doing a Tanner”.

To be made to "feel like a Tanner" is to have your friendship and trust bent by your trusted friends in such a way that it becomes a dagger pointed right at your heart.

We’ve lately been “blessed” with some “feeling like a Tanner” situations.

As you know, we’re not in the habit of running after each stick that is thrown out there for us to catch, nor do we intend of ever having it.

This is the reason why we basically stayed quiet during the “2012 McCann Silly Season”, which apparently diminishes in time as time passes by.

For example, last year it lasted for a little over six months, if memory doesn’t fail me. We started to hear about it from January onwards about Kate’s book. The show went on up until its publication, having quickly smothered down and away around a fortnight after, when McCann’s friends and “friends” read what the silly woman had indeed written.

This year, it started in April, I think, with the interview to a Swedish TV, and basically, lasted as much as a autumn leaf takes to be taken on a dry windy day. On May 4th, exactly 5 years to the day when the world was literally flooded with the news about Maddie’s disappearance, what did the  The Sun, have to say about it?

“THIRTY children have gone missing in Portugal since Madeleine McCann disappeared five years ago, official figures reveal.”

And that “And yesterday the Portuguese Attorney General Pinto Monteiro said British and Portuguese police weren’t even speaking.

He insisted there had been no formal request for Madeleine’s case to be reopened. When asked if he was having any talks with Brit cops he replied: “No.” “

That’s basically it. Such a disappointing little. 

Or maybe not, as you’ll see. Of the little, the sub-title is non-news because I don't think that only 5 children a year have gone missing in Portugal since 2007, and what matters in the rest of the piece is to confirm that someone, somewhere, in Portugal or/and UK, as usual, is lying. 

It’s clearly sad for the McCanns' objective of staying the longest possible in center stage that their "2012 Silly Season" only is to last a little over a month, as it's unlikely it will go much further. The May 4th when the interview with the disappointing Sandra Felgueiras was probably its final event. Now the issue will likely trickle back to its normal silence until next year.

There’s talk of an update of Kate’s book but we haven’t had much feedback on the issue. If there's one thing she should have learned from her first experience in writing is that she should never have picked up a pen again. But she did, didn’t she? Being her first experience the "diary", the disastrous book was a natural consequence and the proof that sometimes blondes are what blondes are said to be.

If was to advise this woman about this update I would tell her to not even think about it. She does have this amazing tendency of sticking her foot in her mouth faster than fast, so is unlikely to miss yet another opportunity to repeat the feat with her feet.

But, although short, the "2012 Silly Season", was full of surprises. So much so that it baffled me, which isn’t an easy thing to happen on this case as I think it and have said so many times, to be pretty simple and straightforward. 

It's complexity resides solely on the diversity, both in quality and quantity, of the people involved in the cover-up. Both the involved initially and those who were "sucked" into it afterwards.

But one thing we don’t do, ever, is to underestimate our opponents. In any situation, much less in this particular case, in which we're perfectly aware that we're up against the best of the best, and are now finding out just how ruthless and unprincipled they also are.

Bring expertise and intelligence together with lack of principles and conscience, and there isn’t a mightier foe. And that is exactly what we’re up against.

So baffled as I am, let me first state the facts, and only then try to reach some tentative conclusions about them.

First we have SY calling the PJ an incompetent lot of idiots, because having read about a quarter of what they still have to read they've apparently found nothing less than 195 reasons for the case not to have been archived. Only pure malignant negligence can justify for the PJ having "overlooked" so many precious and valid leads... By the way, this says little about Leics Police who having cooperated (and we know how much...) closely with the PJ, also didn't see them or have remained strangely silent all this time.

Then we have The Sun, a 1st Division player in the “Brit Tabloid League” unlike the "the-rag-within-rags which is the Daily Star, taking the McCanns' side again after having, practically for one year, dropped the couple and literally kicked them out of their pages. If you recall, between Kate’s book and up to quite recently, the McCanns were simply non-existing in this Tabloid's pages.

Lastly we have the McCanns coming out, full of confidence, saying that they now want to re-open the process and they want to cooperate in the reconstruction. Two things we know would put them away behind bars for a long time if they were ever to happen.

Three amazing facts in such short time.

And it has put many a head swirling around without knowing what to make head or tail out of it, hasn’t it?

Yes, I did say that I was baffled, but in the astounded sense of the word and not as in being confused.

Let me say what I think is happening.

I think the UK Government is making Murdoch “feel like a Tanner”.

I think Murdoch is making the UK Government “feel like a Tanner”.

I think the UK, namely through the SY, is making Portugal, namely the PGR, “feel like a Tanner”.

Three “feelings like a Tanner”.

The most important one for us is the third one.

For the world the most important are the first two but those are above not only my comprehension as well as above my want to comprehend.

Through the Leveson Inquiry, the UK Government basically told News International that their use was outlasted, thus the UK Government making Murdoch “feel like a Tanner”.

But Murdoch is not a Jane Tanner when it comes to comparisons. Tanner had, and has, nothing to throw back at those who stabbed her back to the point of public tears, but Murdoch does.

So by picking up the McCanns from their anguished ashes, and going to the extent of  using both an former SY (not just any former SY) and an ex-Home Secretary in the process (not just any former Home Secretary), Murdoch has clearly reacted.  

Labour's Alan Johnson's intervention at the end of the article in The Sun appears to be clearly a "return" of favours:

"myView

By ALAN JOHNSON, Former Home Secretary

I AM not surprised there is some resentment in Portugal. But we have to use all diplomatic channels now — including the Home Secretary ringing her opposite number.

The Portuguese police must put all that behind them and concentrate on one thing, and that is a little English girl who went missing.

I’m sure the Portuguese have the compassion and understanding to put away their enmities so we can pursue these leads together." 

This coming from someone who, within the UK, was supposed to be the one responsible to have done something on the issue when something should have had been done and wasn't but instead concentrated all his efforts in assuring that nothing got really done.  His words are very clear about that, otherwise why speak of "resentment" and "enmities"?

To say he's being shameless, hardly qualifies the gesture. 

News International is making it perfectly clear to the UK Government that their toes are not ones to be stepped on. The line was drawn at the NOTW closure and is not to go an inch further.

Now, why do I say that I think that Murdoch is making the UK Government “feel like a Tanner”?

From what I could understand, as of June/July last year, it seemed that the initial plan for the Maddie Review was to contain the damages within the T9 (thus the worrisome faces of both Kate and Gerry during the past year), to have News International (NI) take the blame for an exaggerated but comprehensible hype around this case, and all would go home, happy and smiling.

And so did the Leveson Inquiry come to life. To take care of the NI part of the question. A gentle slap on the wrist was the expected.

The McCann part, was to be taken care of by the SY.

But the McCanns, as we’ve said, hold, at least an ace up their sleeve. One impossible to go round, it seems.

So if the McCanns' heads can't be had, as apparently it can't, what is the Leveson Inquiry then to conclude? Oh, you’ve already forgotten its existence, its purpose and that it was supposed to reach a conclusion? So did we, don’t worry...

News International has clearly shown that it's not available to occupy the "vacant" scapegoat position left open by the McCanns. By not taking it lying down, NI is making the UK Government “feel like a Tanner”, because it has left on their lap the now cumbersome Leveson Inquiry, which most likely will come to an embarrassing non-conclusion and reveal to be yet another load of tax-payers' money thrown out with the window with the bath water...

But whatever is happening between NI and the UK is much too “conspirational” for us and it involves power struggles at a level which we don’t wish to be acquainted with. They are like cats fighting in a bag. A grim business for democracy and the rule of law.

Let’s put our feet back on the ground and focus on what we think is important for us: the UK, namely through the SY, making Portugal, namely the PGR, “feel like a Tanner”.

The reasoning is simple, the logic easy to follow: the PGR, like Tanner with the Black Hats, helped the UK out a very problematic situation. That done and overcome, it outlasted its use to the helped party and, just like Tanner, was quickly transformed from partner into the doormat role, to be trampled upon like the obedient underdog it always was.

Now, to make someone “feel like a Tanner” you have to hold the significant cards in your hand. In Tanner’s case, they’re all in one blue bag.

So there must be some sort of “blue bag” which allows the UK to humiliate the PGR as it's doing.

I imagine that it consists of documentation that would prove the PGR’s involvement and commitment in the cover-up.

Something so compromising that makes it impossible for the process from ever being reopened. Knowing that, isn't so easy, as we've seen to ask for something that you know beforehand it can't be provided and with the added bonus of humiliating the other side?

Remember us saying that we’d given up on the Maddie Affair? We hope you finally understand why we said it.

So what’s new?

Well, basically the utter lack of principles. UK has dropped the mask and has shown its true face, and it's not pretty one.

We’ve become accustomed to UK’s arrogance in relation to Portugal, but to come out publicly demanding that the process be reopened when they well know that it can’t be is like a rerun of  hearing Edgar tell Tanner that the width of a road was just a “natural discrepancy”.

The PGR, like Tanner, did what was told, and now, also like Tanner, is being told what to do again, or else...

Thinking about review, SY have done a more cynical job than we thought they would. We thought they would come up with a more believable scenario, but they know they can get away with anything and this is what they are letting us know. 

With the "195-Episode", the SY did one very important thing and that was to publicly and shamelessly commit itself to the BH side: whitewashing the cover-up. 

The "establishment" has unquestionably clarified its position. 

And like the hyenas they are, the McCanns arrive at the party late and laughing. That’s why they now sound again so confident and brag about wanting what they can’t afford to have happen, even going back to the good old days of playing with words "We NEVER wanted the case to JUST be reopened, straight off, we wanted a REVIEW to be conducted, and that's why we campaigned for it for 3 years, because there's no point reopening it if there's nothing to act on."....

I would like to remind the McCanns and the UK that they can't forget one thing: to taunt a chained dog, you must make sure that the chain will hold, otherwise you best leave the animal alone.  

Bullies seldom, if ever, claim victory. They may win skirmishes and even battles, but never the war. The bullied tend to be resilient, and the Portuguese have proved in these last 5 years that they're far from giving up on the issue, independent of what their representatives and institutions may be forced to submit to.

And the PGR's attitude of denying publicly any request from Britain to reopen the process kind of leaves you with a "195-Baby" on your lap and not knowing exactly what to do with it.

And what will happen to British public opinion about the review when M is never found?

What use is democracy without Justice? Both countries are expending young men’s and women's lives in other countries in the name of principles we now see ruthlessly abused and that submissively accepted.

So the blog's main job continues to be continuing heading for the truth. Undaunted and uninterrupted.

We have to make it very difficult for SY to do a cover-up. No matter how many new leads they claim to have found, they will have to be able to account for all the discrepancies we keep throwing up in a constant stream.

True White Hats are already convinced by what they know already and we are past the stage where we need to please the crowd. We have enough readers coming back, so they must either like what we write, be afraid of what we write, or believe themselves to be as crazy as us! If we genuinely get it wrong, we apologise as we always do.

If you think we can be a bit crabby at times, they can attribute it to our hormonal imbalances.


Post Scriptum: 

From Mail Online:

"Critics said the decision to include information from ‘supernatural’ sources was a waste of resources."

Now we have a new synonym for "reasonable": CRITIC.  

Faulty Memory Day

Today is Saturday May 5th,

Yesterday, Friday, the world heard the news: Maddie disappeared.

Yesterday, Friday, between journos, GNR and PJ, the whole fishing village was completely turned upside down.

Yesterday, Friday,  peace in PdL had gone with Maddie’s life.

Yesterday, Friday, you certainly asked yourself, what the hell is going on.

Today, you spoke with the PJ. It’s first reported you did that at 15.00 in one external diligence made by that police on that day. The second time was at 16.40.

Today, Saturday May 5th, you weren’t able to remember if it was on THIS past Wednesday or on THIS past Thursday that you saw someone YOU thought SUSPECT, and probably RELATED with Maddie’s abduction.

Today is Saturday May 5th 2012.

Nothing eventful happened to me this week, but I can tell you, if you ask me today, what I did both on  Wednesday and Thursday this week.

If you ask me next Saturday, it's most likely that I won’t remember about most of the details of the week that has just passed, as I don’t about the week before this one.

But as I said, it was an uneventful week.

Today celebrates five years that on Saturday May 5th 2007, you gave a whole new meaning to “faulty memory”.

Um Poema Para Maddie

A pedido da May I, que solicitou um poema em Português neste dia:

O tempo dura tanto mais quanto mais é duro

Mas muito mais duro é ele quando não dura

Pequena andorinha loira de olho límpido e puro

Quebraram-te a asa e a tarde logo ficou escura

Teu corpo envolto foi em mantos de espinhos

Esses noutros até o nada poder ser o descoberto

Muitos e outros tantos se meteram por caminhos

Nos caminhos se meteram para que nada fosse certo

Fizeram-te ave fantástica voando por desertos e mares

Mais além do que um albatroz ousaria tentar voar

Mas áquem duma traição se nela te empenhares

Empenhados tantos foram, impossíveis de contar

O mal, esse sempre vem do lado mais mesquinho

Desconhecido é onde foi gerado esse degenerado

A floresta corrompeu a árvore, e esta o teu ninho

Pequena andorinha loira de olho agora marcado

Segredos seixos são empurrados pela corrente

Agora apanha-se um, um outro é quando se apanhar

Porque a eternidade protege a verdade, não quem mente

O tempo, duro ou não, dura  o que tiver de durar

Rough translation:

At May I's request, who asked for a Portuguese poem on this day:

Time lasts longer the harder it is

But much harder is it when it doesn’t last

Little blonde Swallow with a clear and pure eye

They broke your wing and the afternoon became dark

Your body was wrapped in cloaks of thorns

Others over these until nothing was what could be discovered

Many, and many more put themselves on the way

In the way they put themselves so that nothing would be right

They made you into a fantastic bird flying over deserts and seas

Further than an albatross would dare try to fly

But shorter than betrayal if you commit to it

And committed were so many, impossible to tell

Evil, always comes from the cheapest side

Unknown is where was generated that degenerate

The forest corrupted the tree, and she your nest

Little blonde Swallow with, now,  a marked eye

Secrets are pebbles pushed by the current

Now is one caught, another will be when it is

Eternity protects the truth, not those who lie

Time, hard or not, it lasts what it has to last

Do Ask Yourself

Breaking Non-News

by Sina J

We interrupt our break for this non-news announcement. It seems that besides being entertained by SY putting their foot in their mouths, as we predicted we would be, we'll have also have to watch the McCanns do the same. 

SY have found 195 lines of enquiry which come from 25% of the available material so that leaves 75% not yet looked at. Working on averages that would make 585 lines of enquiry yet to be revealed so in total it could be 780 potential ‘leads’ waiting to be discovered. 

Surely SY wouldn’t claim the PJ has missed so many opportunities? Has SY even revealed to the PJ what these lines of enquiry are and how do they know they are not the same ones the PJ investigated and dismissed if the discussions haven’t taken place? If these discussions did take place what an insult to the PJ to now tell them they had missed the obvious. And if not, how can it be claimed the PJ (or PM) have refused to re-open the case despite this ‘new’ material as they wouldn’t know on what grounds they were refusing? Come to think of it, if SY believe there was an abductor they wouldn’t be announcing it on TV alerting that person, it wasn’t even a news broadcast it was a pre-recorded programme. This is totally opposite to the usual police tactics of being silent until arrests are made.

Why don’t T9 cut out the middle man and just request the Portuguese to re-open the case then their reported dashed hopes could be restored? Two police forces working in tandem would be the perfect opportunity for the Mccanns to request the re-opening if that was their real objective. Why are they waiting until Wednesday before holding up to the world the latest image of Maddie? They are missing a great marketing opportunity while the news of the police looking for Maddie being alive is hot. Have they given up looking under every unturned stone? Second thoughts, there would be no money in that.

The PJ claim they have not formally been asked to re-open the case so how would it be possible for them to refuse an invitation they have never received? Although I suppose it’s like me saying even if the Queen invited me to tea I would refuse.

The McCanns claim people like Mr Bennett and Mr Amaral are damaging the search for their daughter so going by their usual reaction perhaps they should Carter Ruck the PJ for doing just that. Even better Carter Ruck themselves as refusing to do the reconstruction, not asking the Portuguese to re-open the case and K refusing to answer 48 questions would make them the worst offenders. These are 3 things that would be new evidence not merely lines of enquiry.

The British expression is ‘do as you would be done by’. 

195 new leads, or 195 new feet to mouth feed? The show must go on, mustn't it?

Back to our break...

Lapse Of Memory Or Lack Of Character?

If I were to elect the most ridiculous of all statements in the PJ Files on the Maddie Affair, I would have to pick Derek Flack’s.

The competition in such a championship would be furious and fierce as the quantity of possible candidates is indeed staggering but the various statements from this particular gentleman would win not by a nose, but by such a distance that when he’d be crossing the finish line, all others would still seem to be in their starting boxes.

So much so, that in a direct competition between him and an 11 yr old girl, Kate McCann chooses to prefer the child’s testimony as “credible” and “reliable”, while she has nothing to say in favour of the witness that, between all witnesses, was the one to have supposedly been closest to Pimpleman.

That says much doesn’t it? To be put down by one's own peers must really, really hurt.

We’ve seen how much credibility and reliability TS’s statement does really have, so picking on Derek Flack’s proves to be one difficult challenge.

One just doesn’t know where to start.

To use Derek Flack’s own words, which I’ll later come back to and more than once, “after having particularly reflected on such incidences” I’ve decided to start with Flack’s consistencies.

You know, where we know he’s telling the truth.

If one wants to be a purist, we have to limit Flack’s possible consistencies to ONLY one fact: he owns a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

That as we’ll see in future posts, is one very important detail.

As said, if we were to say that he’s only consistent about that then we would be much too strict with the man but more important than that it would mean being unfair to logic.

He’s basically consistent about THREE things.

The FIRST, already stated, is the ownership of a holiday apartment in Rua do Ramalhete.

The SECOND is that he’s not married to Christine, but had been living with her, at the time of his statement, for 36 years.

We’ll consider that when he contacts the PJ on May 5th it wasn’t clearly understood that Christine was his “partner/companion” and not, as written, his “wife”. A natural misunderstanding so we’ll accept it as his second consistency. Besides, it has absolutely no relevance.

The THIRD consistency is the most important one of the three.

Not the only important one, only the most important of the three and that is that he consistently doesn’t remember the day he almost literally ran over Pimpleman.

Mind you, he can’t be precise JUST about the day, because, as you’ll see, he firstly hesitates about the hour but has, it seems, clarified that detail.

Let’s see what he has to say on this:

1. On May 5th 2007, he says “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon)”

2. Also on May 5th 2007, in a PJ External Diligence report it’s said “at a moment prior to the occurrence that is now intended to be investigated”.

3. On May 06th 2007, he says “in a date that he doesn’t remember with precision, but reports it to be late morning or early afternoon in the past May 02 or 03”.

4. On May 9th 2007, in a PJ External Diligence report it’s said “on date immediately prior or even contemporaneous to the occurrence currently being investigated”

5. And in April 2009, in the Mockumentary, he’s quoted as saying “I don’t remember whether I saw the man Wednesday 2nd or Thursday the 3rd of May”

Notice that the second time, when Flack is contacted by the PJ in an external diligence on May 5th, the same day he had contacted them earlier, he’s registered as saying “at a moment prior to the occurrence that is now intended to be investigated”. The occurrence being investigated happened on the night of May 3rd 2007 so we could interpret the said “moment prior” to be earlier on that same date.

But May 2nd is also “a moment prior” to May 3rd, as is February 12th and January 31st.

However, it's clear that all other four statements are adamant in Mr Flack's indecision.

So even with the exception of that one imprecise “moment prior”, it can be stated with total certainty that Derek Flack CONSISTENTLY doesn’t remember on which day he saw Pimpleman.

If it was on the Wednesday 2nd or the Thursday the 3rd of May.

He remembers many other little details as we’ll see in future posts but this one simply escapes him.

It’s a common occurrence when witnesses don’t remember with precision the time that an event, or events, happened.

Confusion occur with minutes, hours, days or even years, depending on how far back they’re asked to recall details.

But a memory is as more precise as how directly the witness has intervened in the event being recollected or how relevant it was in their lives.

For example, who doesn’t remember what the weather to their wedding day was?

Another way for a memory to be precise is when the event in question becomes unforgettable due to its impact on the general public.

Who doesn’t remember exactly what they were doing during the events of September 11th 2001?

The scale of an event’s public relevance has obviously to do with those it has affected.

The tragic events of the Twin Towers affected everyone worldwide, and that’s why we all remember what we were doing when that second plane hit the South Tower.

But, although in a similar scale of seriousness, if you ask a non Brit for the date when the London terrorist attack happened, it’s no disrespect to the UK or to the victims of the vile attack that they can’t recall that it was on July 7th 2005.

Nor is it that a non Spanish doesn’t remember that Madrid suffered a similar tragedy on March 11th 2004.

To prove the point, very few people could consciously put in order these two events. You see what I meant when I said that people even get years confused?

But separately these two dates are remembered by both the British and the Spanish respectively and the great majority of people that lived in these two countries at the time can recollect in detail what exactly they were doing when the tragedy in their country happened.

All this because Derek Flack cannot remember, on Saturday May 5th, if it was on Wednesday 2nd or the Thursday the 3rd of May that he saw Pimpleman.

Let me tell you that I’m absolutely sure that everyone that who was in PdL at the time Maddie disappeared remembers exactly what they did both on May 3rd and May 4th 2007.

The day that Maddie disappeared and the day the news got out.

Were you in PdL Mr Derek Flack?

Then you remember what you did on May 3rd.

And if you didn’t see Pimpleman on that day, then, according to you, it leaves only May 2nd for that to have happened. It's up to you to know in which day you say you saw him. With no justifiable indecision.

Saying that you don’t remember on which one of the days it happened is blatantly lying and we both know that.

But let’s pretend, Mr Flack that you’re as stupid as you pretend to be.

Let me try to help you jolt you memory.

I'll do a similar exercise that you people intended to do with the Mockumentary, which was to jolt nobody’s memory because you and all of those who participated in it, in front or behind the cameras, knew beforehand there was nothing to be jolted.

Like in your case, Mr. Flack, no one can jolt what isn’t there to jolted, can they? We know you didn’t see what you say you saw, when all you saw were recollections of figments of your imagination that your mind fed you at the time you had to comply with the character in the script that you were cast to play.

But let’s get back to the debunking, shall we?

The dates you give as possibilities are sandwiched between two relevant dates: May 3rd, the night Maddie disappeared and May 1st, the Portuguese Labour Day National holiday.

It was either the day after the holiday, or the day Maddie was gone, that simple to remember. Which was it?

You still don’t remember?

Well, let me help you then a little further. It was on the day that you, Mr Flack, “got ready to have a walk through the streets surrounding where he was domiciled, in Praia da Luz, together with his partner CHRISTINE”.

Do you two decide to have this particular walk every single day?

If so you should have said “the walk” instead of “a walk”, shouldn’t you?

But if this “walk” is such a daily routine that it cannot be pinned in time, its path clearly is not always the same, because, as you say, on May 6th, you “cannot wholly specify the path made, knowing however that they walked the road in which he resides in the ascending way, which would take the direction of Rua Agostinho da Silva, in the descending way, in order to access Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, in which is located the "Ocean Club Gardens" enterprise “.

Hardly the description of a daily routine walk is it? Even stranger if one is to consider that this is coming from someone who owns an apartment in town, so is supposed, unlike the McCanns, to know the surroundings.

At least the near whereabouts of where you usually reside when you’re frequently in town. Honestly if you’re not able to specify a path that involves THREE streets, the one where you house is, the one where you allegedly saw Pimpleman and the one in between, what can you specify?

So Mr. Flack, it’s easy to remember. Just ask Christine if it was on Wednesday or Thursday that you two took that exceptional walk.

Still having a difficult time remembering? Oh, you don’t want to ask her?

Could it be because you don’t even remember why you were on Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins in the first place?

You see, as shown, on May 6th you say you happened to be there because of a stroll you decided to make around town, but, just 24 hours before, on May 5th when you contacted the PJ, it’s registered that you said “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon), accompanied by his wife, and when going to the "Baptista Supermarket", he observed an individual...”

Please clarify, was it a strolling trip or was it a shopping one?

Why is this Baptista trip is not mentioned again? Please don’t say that the PJ misunderstood your intention to having been on that particular road at that particular time.

One thing is for the PJ to misunderstand between a partner and a wife, but it’s not acceptable to confuse a vague objective as a stroll with a clear and named shopping destination.

So Mr Flack, was it on Wednesday or Thursday that you went to Baptista? Still don't remember? Don't tell me that you go there so many times that you can't specify a particular trip...

How about asking your partner? After all it was you that contacted the PJ. It was your initiative, nobody else’s. You say you saw something suspicious and you felt that you should report it, so one would assume that you’d get your fact straight before you headed for the authorities.

It was you who went to the authorities, right? Not the other way around, so the least expected from you would be for you to remember exactly what you wanted to report.

We know that you and Christine played the same game “Now I see, Now you don’t” that TS and her mom also played, so we’re supposed to think she didn’t see Pimpleman. But we don’t want her to tell you any detail about the man, just about the day you say you saw Pimpleman.

A day has 24 hours, and each unique and full of all those particular details that make one different from the other and allow us to determine, with accuracy, to which day they belonged to, just 48/72 hours afterwards.

For example, did you buy an ice-cream downtown just like the McCanns on their single family trip to the beach?

Or maybe you bought also some sunglasses? A newspaper? A coffee? I’m sure you did do something different that day that you didn’t do on the other.

Between the two of you, you should come up with something that would distinguish the Wednesday from the Thursday. The clothes each one wore, the meals you had that day, where did you go after you went down that street, something that would clarify if it was 72 hours or 48 hours that you, Mr Flack, had seen Pimpleman.

But it seems that, even though “moreover, he wishes to add that, after having particularly reflected on such incidences, has concluded that…” as you say on May 06th, nothing has come to both of your minds.

Pity.

Very unbecoming for someone that characterizes himself as “To the question asked, the respondent refers that he perceived the facts reported above due to the fact that he possesses a great surveillance instinct, presumably resulting from the fact that he integrates a neighbours community that exists where he resides in England, established for security purposes, entrusted to ensure the maintenance of the order and for the surveillance and detection of suspicious people or movements in the vicinity of that location”

I do pity who rely on your skills back home. And even more those who rely on your instincts.

Fortunately for them, Pimpleman seems to be allergic to the UK. Cheshire and Ilford are both in the UK, aren’t they?

Both your supposed skills and instincts should've told you how important it would be for the Police to know, with the best possible precision, when a reported event did happen.

For example, in your case, one thing is for Pimpleman to have been seen by you on the Wednesday, the same day other two witnesses apparently also saw him, another, totally different, is for him to have been seen only by you on the Thursday, isn't it? 

But is your forgetfulness really that astray?

I don’t think it is. And you know why?

Because of the Mockumentary.

It shows clearly that sometime between May 5th 2007 and April 2009, you got your memory back.

On May 5th, you’re registered as saying “Last Wednesday (May 2nd) or Thursday (May 3rd), during the day (doesn’t remember but says that possibly in the afternoon), accompanied by his wife…” and on May 06th that ”…reports it to be late morning or early afternoon in the past May 02 or 03."

And this is what the Mockumentary shows:

It says “aprox 11:30”

That’s late morning.

Where did “afternoon/early afternoon” go?

Mr. Flack, you do have a very selective memory, don’t you?

Post Scriptum:

The blog will now break until May 3rd. It will be the 5th anniversary of Maddie's death. The idea behind this break is the expectancy we have about what SY is to conclude until then, if it is to conclude anything by then. Both SY’s words and silence on this issue are significant.