Saturday, 29 September 2012

Tim Cumper - Change of Mind

Tim Cumper poses the question "If we are to believe excuses made for the lack of communication from the hospital to myself - what are we to suppose caused them to change their policy, and their mind?"

Allegedly, a "xerox" of a generated bill was in the possession of a member of the real estate staff on Monday 13th August 2007 - as I was informed by her that she had encountered a problem whilst attempting to scan it at the real estate office - resulting in the figures for hospital charges having to be sent to me by her, as copied into an ordinary email using the real estate email account.
This caused questions as to why were the hospital not communicating, directly & officially, with  myself.

I received no official communication at all directly from the hospital (despite urgent requests that they do so) until the 21st August, when the JPG of a bill was sent to me by the hospital email account - 11 days after the alleged admission.

This proves, at the least, that the hospital had the ability to transmit such a document, despite many excuses made by others for why it could not be done - and despite assurances later on that it was not done any earlier because of "confidentiality" policy.

However, it was done eventually - so what was it that made the hospital do a U-turn on this policy?

The fact that the day before I had received this JPG of a bill, I revealed the URL of the story, as it appeared on my private blog at MySpace (made temporarily public and accessible for them to read) - drastically weakens the argument that it simply & coincidentally happened to arrive as a voluntary gesture at the time it did.
Its arrival at this time also seems odd in light of information contained in an email from the girl on 24th August, that some days previous to my receiving the JPG of the bill, arrangements had allegedly already been made that the account was to be paid by the girl's family.

Such staunch defenses have been proposed since, even by the hospital themselves in my later exchange with them, underlining the "confidentiality issue" - that this eventual change in policy by the hospital must be seen as curious.
Furthermore, and anyway, how could the simple confirmation by the hospital of information that I was already supposed to know (which was all I was hoping for) be described as "releasing confidential information?"

The hospital had already ignored completely, my emails to them  - but later on, they were alleged by the girl, to have denied ever receiving them.

In which event therefore, the subject of these emails must have been raised while the girl herself was still at the hospital - for the hospital could not have brought up the subject of emails never received.
If this is the case, why then was this genuine reason for lack of communication not transmitted to me at this time, when the subject was raised - instead of much later, only after she had allegedly been discharged - and why, in place of this genuine reason, were all manner of other excuses to be made, by others on the hospital's behalf? (see Tim Cumper - Red Flags No 44)

Or, if it was an alleged discussion of this nature which eventually prompted the immediate sending of the JPG of the bill, then why was the confidentiality issue still raised beyond this time as the reason for the hospital's non-communication, when they had obviously already voided (by the standards of their own policy) any confidentiality issue in the sending?
Why also, was this alleged discussion only happening at this time, when the subject of official confirmation from the hospital to myself had been my top priority - & I had urgently informed those I was able to correspond with of this fact, ever since Sunday 12th August?

All this would seem to strengthen the argument in favour of the reason for sending the JPG of the bill, as being  the reaction to my revealing the story online.

It strengthens the probability that it was not sent voluntarily at all, as nothing official had appeared - voluntarily or not, up to this time - and that it was eventually sent for some other reason.
Nor was this reason that they did not have the means to send it - nor was it not sent on the day of its first appearance (13th August) because of confidentiality issues (which were now, apparently of no importance) - nor was it in danger of remaining outstanding - which all give further cause to doubt its overall legitimacy.

I had presumed that the people I was communicating with, Sir F & Marivien (of the real estate staff - both whom I had met) - were acting on behalf of the girl (Mayen) - sincerely helping out by forming a communication bridge crossing the 6,000 miles between us.
Not for Mayen's exclusive benefit, although she was allegedly the one in need - but generally to protect the relationship that we were forging - I understood that they would realize the necessity of this bridge to be efficient and thorough - to ease us both through this difficult time.
From all descriptions given by these people - they classed themselves as Mayen's friend.

This was a tricky time - my suspicions were already latent & growing - but I had the unenviable difficulty of working at this situation from two, opposing points of view.
I was also at the crest of a wave, at the peak of my devotion towards the girl - so I was intent on continuing to build our dreams together - which meant I could not be too insensitive about my suspicions.
I reassured myself that the urgency of my requests would be understood and acted on swiftly - because of the general ambiance of friendship that I had perceived with the people who I was communicating with.

The answer was simple - to insist that the hospital dealt directly with myself in an official capacity.
Yes - I had on two occasions telephoned the hospital - but had never spoken to the girl other than on her cellphone.
Besides - word-of-mouth pledges and assurances are unreliable, and certainly do not carry the commitment & recognizable, verifiable authority - of an email using the hospital's traceable email account.

Further to this point, I saw the burden of proof as resting with those people who were corroborating the story on behalf of the girl - those I was communicating with - and that they would fully understand & respect this obvious & urgent requirement for verifiable, official proof.
With all the family members, friends and work colleagues in support of the girl - this urgent request was surely to be swiftly dealt with.

To go too much further, with precise demands, would be to risk the manufacture of evidence - purely to suit those demands - and a certain space had to be allowed, to assess what these people were prepared to volunteer, so as not to confuse it with duress.

Yes - I was due to fly out to the Philippines again - 4 days from receiving the first hint of all this news - and unfortunately, the coincidence of this event happening at precisely this time, for reasons which I didn't quite understand then - caused an added, nagging suspicion.

"The girl knew from my previous trip that I didn't have a credit card.
Money would have to be sent via Western Union (as it had twice previously, and as was first suggested for this situation) - or brought with me, in cash.
Could this have something to do with the timing of this incident?

It did coincide with the period in which normal Ectopic pregnancies are first diagnosed - but a ruptured Ectopic pregnancy of this type does not usually occur within this time frame. The earliest time, statistically, is still two weeks away.

If there was an original idea of extracting money for a faked, but normal pregnancy - this idea would have had to be scrapped (which it seemed it had - I was told that it was a false alarm) on the announcement of my second trip - because I could have sought independent verification on my arrival.
Any continued long term plan to gain money by this means would have then depended on a repeat performance of unprotected sex during my 2nd trip - which was highly unlikely - because although she had denied having an STD - she now knew that I had suspected contracting it from her. Whether or not she admitted to this in the future was irrelevant - as I would still be concerned over her protection, and I would no doubt be more cautious about future pregnancies.

Therefore, to benefit from the only realistic opportunity of a potential pregnancy for extracting money - it would have to somehow relate to the original pregnancy.
What fits the bill perfectly?
A ruptured Ectopic pregnancy operation - an emergency which would have had to be squeezed in before my forthcoming visit - to enable funds to be transferred before my trip or arrive with me - and to avoid the girl having to mimic the convincing symptoms of this emergency during my 2nd visit.

The ideal time would be to cause panic and confusion just before my trip - with not enough time to thoroughly satisfy the anticipated need for official confirmation - and yet with enough time for the girl to have herself discharged.
Already statistically early, and with a minimum hospitalisation time to consider - before I was to arrive - the optimum date is set."

So when all of this is added together - we can start to see the picture, from my perspective, and hopefully understand my reasons for caution - and that is just from this short episode, without the addition of doubts caused by a retrospect view of everything that had happened up to this point.

* Why was my simple request for official verification the cause for such hostility in the emails and messages from Sir F?

* Why did he send me his own bank account details to receive the payment?

* Why, instead of the anticipated and requested contact from the hospital, did I receive a list of figures, simply  printed in an email from the real estate office?

* Why was my simple request for official confirmation met with such emotionally manipulative hyperbole in the messages from Mayen, even before I had failed to arrive?

* Why had the hospital not replied to my emails?

* Why was my request not being acted on?

* Why was I only given a variety of other excuses in answer to my question of why the hospital had not communicated with me, until after the girl had allegedly been discharged?

Critically - why did the hospital eventually change their mind on their policy of confidentiality, if this was indeed the genuine reason?
If my request had been passed on to the hospital, urgently, when it was first made, why was I not informed of their response immediately?

If the change of policy was not as the consequence of my requests for official confirmation early on - for the hospital to later reverse their own policy that was robust enough to originally be strictly obeyed, and "strict & robust enough" to have been made in excuse ever since from all quarters - "confidentiality" as a solid reason to explain the hospital's lack of communication - then something, other than my requests, caused this dramatic change of policy.

The more powerful "adherence to policy" is made by those quoting it - then the more powerful must have been the influence which caused them to change their mind - they go hand in hand.

I suggest that if it was the revelation of my story which was sufficient cause for this change of mind - then it was equally sufficient to cause the JPG of a bill to be dispatched via the hospital email system - even if the hospitalization of the girl was not genuine - as an attempt to stop my probing any further into the situation.

Now - further questions are raised by the letter (allegedly) from the hospital's Legal Council.

"At the very outset, to the hospital, you were and still are a complete stranger. It was not at liberty to circulate information about her; the hospital treats its data in confidence. "

Besides not even considering the passages in the Patient's Bill Of Rights - 

- which suggest strongly, that the patient is at liberty to request that information is sent to whomever she requires to send it to - the next quote seems to be hinting that the JPG of a bill that was sent to me could have been "padded" - apart from the obvious increase due to an overstay simply because the hospital themselves were not communicating - the entire issue was about waiting for their response. 

"It might interest you to know that the hospital let go of Ms. Betita even despite her non-payment of a substantial portion of her bills."

Now if this theory is true - it would tie in with an email I received 27th August 2007, from someone who had been doing some investigation on my behalf.
Mayen had already left the hospital - and had told me via SMS that she had gone to her province - although the IP address of a surprise email from her, 7th September 2007, suggests that she was still in Manila.
This masquerade was pretended right up to immediately after the first "scar" revelation, when she then lied about returning to Manila with her father.

Unfortunately - this person who was helping investigate matters (another "complete stranger" - but one who was privileged to receive "confidential" information) quite probably received this information from the same source in the hospital - who had a) passed information to the nurse supervisor who spoke to me on the telephone when I was telephoning to check the figures I had received from the real estate office email.
b) passed information to the British Embassy - which was simply relayed to me.

Dear Tim,

After doing some research including a call to the hospital we came to the following:
- Mayen was in hospital and did require surgery (found out after making a phonecall)

The boss and relatives have decided you were responsible in some way and that they were going to ensure you paid, so they possibly padded the bill somewhat and lied about her being held at the hospital for non payment. 
She is not at the hospital any longer she was released on the 22nd, so there is a mix here, she has been in hospital, but the scam part comes in saying she is being held there till the bill is paid and they have doubled the bill as well.

- The Philippines is considered a cheap "young girl" adult entertainment (no offence to you) destination by many western men, and they in turn are looked on by the Filipinos as something of a cash cow. Both will act civilly till something goes wrong as it has here. 
If this were such a large and well organised set up we would certainly be seeing a lot more of this.

To make a long story short; No it is not a scam, but yes it is a scam. We can only guess what would have happened if you would have traveled there. 

All adding to the confusion - and making it even more critical that I received authoritative confirmation directly from the hospital - in a manner which would be committed on  record - such as an email using the hospital's own email account.
Certainly - I was not the only person giving myself that advice.

If this theory is true - through the thicket of other lies that were told - perhaps that would offer a reason why no other material evidence has been forthcoming (see also - protecting the hospital because they had padded the bill, and were negligent  in not communicating officially in some manner - with myself.

I repeat - "how could the simple confirmation by the hospital of information that I was already supposed to know (which was all I was hoping for) be described as "releasing confidential information?" - especially when the patient (allegedly) was insisting that this was urgently required.

"Confidentiality" appears to be rather a red-herring - as information was being passed out, allegedly - by Dras, nurses, accounts managers, left, right & centre - but not to the UK - at least, not in committed form - which was my yardstick of veracity - & would have been my green-flag to proceed.

So - how would this theory help us with making any sense of the bizarre appearance of the scar?

At seven weeks, according to all research done, it would not look anything like how it made its first appearance - its second appearance however did look much more appropriate.
How does it make any sense of the apparent smudging? 

We have to consider some alternatives.

Was the first showing that of a genuine scar – but one somewhat “enhanced” for its appearance on camera?
Could the first scar have been entirely fake, and owing to its strategic evidential value – kept in place for repeated showing should the need arise & could the exaggerated appearance of the first showing have been corrected for this second, perhaps more critical revelation?
Could all differences and indeed all apparent markers of fakery – be no more than artifacts of webcam video?

The matter of any fakery present is not to be decided by the video footage alone.
Obviously, attempts at fakery will closely mimic the real thing – and it is not possible to distinguish fake from genuine by webcam video alone.
The pertinence of this matter lies in the sheer coincidence of a strong possibility of fakery appearing in the wake of all other anomalies and inconsistencies.

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Tim Cumper - The Propaganda Plant

Entangled by the bonds of hate, he
who seeks his own happiness by
inflicting pain on others, is never
delivered from hatred.

Tim Cumper - The Bloggers