New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zable" data-source="post: 165778" data-attributes="member: 47">Madeleine Was Here (MwH): Part 2b_Will the Real Mr Spotty Please Stand Up (Part 2)_For reasons best known to the doco makers and, perhaps, Team McCann, the The Cutting Edge voice-over identifies reconstruction Witness #3 (DF) as someone from Cheshire (a county that is in the north-west of England). That someone was one Derek Flack. In his formal statement to the PJ on May 6th 2007, he’d said he was from Ilford in Essex (a county in the south-east of England). Perhaps Mr Flack had moved by the time of the reconstruction in 2009. Perhaps.DF first gave an informal statement to the PJ at its operations base at the Luz Ocean Club on May 5th 2007.Below are excerpts from DF’s formal statement of May 6th. Some sentences have been edited out, or repositioned from their original place in the narrative, or duplicated in different sections:Route: He owns a holiday home on Rua do Ramalhete in Praia da Luz. …On the late morning or early afternoon of either 2nd or 3rd May, not being certain which, the deponent and his partner [C.M. Dale; identified as Christine Dale by British Press] were out walking. ….he does not recall the exact route taken but they walked … then down Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins where the “[Luz] Ocean Club Gardens" is situated.White van:  At that time as they passed the residential block [LOCG] he noticed a light commercial vehicle, (in all respects the same as an Opel Corsa Van), white in colour but dirty, with only one side window in the 'hanging' door, but not knowing the exact make, model or other identifying characteristics - including the number plate.  .…he judged it to be an old model. ….the van was situated close to the gateway on the side of the building, [which] led to the veranda of the apartment in question [apartment 5A].  ….the deponent could not be certain if the vehicle was directly next to, slightly above or slightly below, the gateway. However, he was certain that it was a very short distance from, and directly in the path of the gate.Seeing the suspicious man: When going down [Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins] he [DF] passed an individual standing on his left at the beginning of a path and at the entrance of a small car park opposite the reception of the resort. ….the deponent had seen him face-on because he [the suspicious man] was facing the opposite direction to which he [DF] was walking, and appeared to be watching attentively [the] movements [occurring] adjacent to the parked vehicle. ….he [DF] was aware that the man's attention was fixed on the area in question [adjacent to the van] in such a way that he [the man] was unaware of the deponent's presence.  …he [DF] had associated the man with the van because [the man] had looked deliberately at the area around it. ….the van was situated close to the gateway on the side of the building, [which] led to the veranda of the apartment in question [apartment 5A]. Hence, one could conclude that the man was monitoring the movements next to that gate and, possibly, of the interior of the apartment. Description of suspicious man: ….the deponent said he was Caucasian, dark-skinned, medium stature, 1,70 to 1,75m tall, about 25 to 35 years old … had dark and thick hair but with no noticeable fringe [at the front]. Regarding [the man's] apparel he [DF] adds that he didn't observe this in detail, judging that [the man] wore a plain T-shirt, possibly yellow.The deponent wished to clarify that he was convinced that the man was not one of the many tourists who frequented that area, considering his features and physical appearance.  … The deponent is not sure if he would recognise him again in the event that they should meet.White van (additionally, from DF’s informal statement of May 5th): He adds that near to where the individual was watching, on the other side of the road, was a parked vehicle, van type, white, with a person (he does not remember whether the person was inside or outside the vehicle). He cannot describe that person. … A sketch was drawn up at his request, identifying the suspicious man as No. 2 and the parked car with the other person about whom he can remember no further details as No 1.The retrato robot (robot portrait, ie, computer-generated, not hand sketched) of suspicious man No. 2 that DF helped the PJ to create is here: <a href="http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUMEIa_Page_205.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUMEIa_Page_205.jpg </a>Do you think that’s Mr Spotty or Mr Less Spotty? Or someone who’s close to being their doppelgänger?Since Team McCann included DF’s sighting in their Mr Spotty re-enactments on MwH and got someone to play him and Ms Dale, one might assume TM had not seen in the PJ files released to the public the retrato robot that he’d helped to create. I find that hard to believe that Team McCann and MwH’s makers weren’t aware of the existence of the retrato robot.Circa August 5th/6th the previous year, the Daily Mail and MailOnline had taken it upon themselves to reveal the retrato robot to their British and American readers (and whoever else got their news), being very indignant that Portuguese police had not publicised it from the get-go, or let the McCanns know about it much earlier. ….The Mail report of 2008 contained a direct quote from Mr Flack, indicating he’d spoken to the reporters the day before publication, and he was identified as being from Ilford.If, in fact, DF had not changed residence by the following year, the situation to be considered is whether the makers of MwH were helping Team McCann and/or DF to try and conceal his identity. Or,  were the The Cutting Edge folk simply mistaken? I observe that during the re-enactment of his sighting, no mention was made of the other person DF had seen in or around the van. Did they think the sighting of that other person was too insignificant to be mentioned?  Or, were they trying not to draw attention to the fact that this Witness #3 was the Mr Flack the Daily Mail & Mail Online reports had identified, who was now being made a party (whether knowingly or not) to 2 different ‘photo-fits’ of The Man Who Watched Intently? ***0***In the PJ’s Final Report, it’s said: A witness, DEREK FLACK, heard at page 200, reported the presence of a suspect, who was allegedly looking at the target apartment, near a white truck, pages 145 and following pages. It was not possible to identify this person, despite having been made a portrait-robot, page 205. However, we believe there are very strong possibilities of being construction workers – who were there making small works - a gardener (fls. 973), or BARRINGTON NORTON (fls 833), inquired at page 704. The latter is a regular of Praia da Luz, engaged in the activity of musician on the streets of the town. Nothing was found relevant to the investigation.The PJ makes clear that suspicious man No.2 – who must be the suspect referred to because the retrato robot is mentioned – could not be identified.But I don’t know whether something got lost in the translation, or not. According to Dr Gonçalo Amaral, Mr Norton was the owner of a white van (not of the model DF mentioned), which he lived in, and he’d once parked it near the McCann unit when he went to a supermarket; so if anything I’d say BN was more likely to have been man No.1 that DF saw or someone else rather than man No. 2.In any case, an external inquiry report in the PJ’s files shows that police did show DF photographs of BN with the aim “to make a final determination as to whether the latter could be the individual who [Derek] reported”.The external inquiry report goes on to say: “… Derek Flack states that, although not definitely able to recognise the individual in question … the physical features of Barrington Norton are in general, similar to those of the individual whose presence relates to his statement … However, he emphasises that he is unable to offer any formal recognition (given that he reiterates that he was not able to see the detailed features of the individual in question) [and] … the individual he reported … appeared much younger than … Barrington Norton.This is a copy of Mr Norton’s photograph in the PJ documents which IDed him: <a href="http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P3/03_VOLUMEIIIa_Page_710a.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P3/03_VOLUMEIIIa_Page_710a.jpg </a>Note that his hair appears white, whereas DF had described dark hair.The reports relating to DF are here: <a href="http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm</a>The News of the World did a number on Mr Norton. (And, it told its readers “Our own investigation uncovered Barrington Norton”. Yeah, by reading the PJ’s Final report, like me. Then, approaching BN anyway after digging up all his stuff, because NotW obviously wasn’t going to take the PJ’s final word on things.) The Portugal resident has a version of that story: <a href="https://www.portugalresident.com/2009/08/17/algarve-resident-hounded-by-madeleine-mccann-case/" target="_blank">https://www.portugalresident.com/2009/08/17/algarve-resident-hounded-by-madeleine-mccann-case/</a>I can understand the PJ checking on who was working outdoors, hence the mention of construction workers and a gardener.  In fact, the PJ files has a number of statements from folk who worked primarily as gardeners at the Luz Ocean Resort. Dr Amaral said on Portugal’s SIC TV that all those individuals investigated in connection with the sightings that were the focus of the first three reenactments of Team McCann’s reconstruction turned out to be British, including a gardener he didn’t name.I’m guessing that was expat George James, a gardener and cleaner who worked once-a-week, on Wednesdays, at Block G4 in the Gardens section of the Luz Ocean Resort. From his *statement, seen here <a href="http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE-JONES.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE-JONES.htm</a>, we know he’d park his car “in the area of Block 4” – which should include Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and around the corner of the intersection (T-junction) with Rua Dr Francisco Martin Gentils alongside the McCann unit. *Note: the folk at mccannpjfiles have erroneously tagged Mr James as George Jones in the website's link.If DF and his partner had made their sighting of Suspicious Man No. 2 on May 2nd and not May 3rd, and if their walk was in the early afternoon and not morning, and they'd passed by the LOC Gardens section after 2pm, then possibly one of the two men DF had seen in the vicinity of the McCann apartment was George J.Unfortunately, I don’t have a picture of George to compare and contrast with DF’s retrato robot (whom I’ve christened Flackman) and Mr Spotty.Speaking of the latter….Can you help us identify them, the Find Madeleine website asks on its home page. Click the link to Mr Spotty’s home on the website <a href="http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html" target="_blank">http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html</a> and you’ll find this stated about him: The picture shows a man that was seen several times by different witnesses during the days leading up to Madeleine's abduction on May 3rd 2007. He was described as ugly with pock-marked skin and was said to be watching the family's apartment intently.Which different witnesses pray tell, dear Team McCann. Did Derek F tell police (Portuguese or otherwise) that someone looking just like Mr Spotty was watching the McCanns’ holiday unit intently? No.[To be Continued]</blockquote>

Verification: What month follows July?