Ripley's Believe It or NOT

(Jan 24th, 2010)

Dom GIRALDO 15.01.2010/21:50 Caso Joana, GA foi condenado a prisão : na sentença: "particularmente grave em pessoas têm obrigação combater crime" .Caso Maddie :"não foi conseguido qualquer elemento prova permita a um homem MÉDIO , à luz critérios da lógica , da normalidade e das regras gerais experiência , formular conclusão LÚCIDA , SENSATA , SÉRIA e HONESTA sobre circunstâncias que se verificou retirada criança apartamento, nem enunciar prognostico consistente " . Nada foi provado. O cão segundo o dono nada prova , apenas dá indicios. Cheiro a mortos ? Pode ter sido o coveiro do vizinho cemitério ter antes estado a fazer amor com uma inglesa; cheiro a sangue, foi a empregada que se terá ferido ... ADN parcial , com fertilização in vitreo ? GA não percebe nada 

 I was tipped about a newspaper column written by a Fernanda Constâncio, in the Diário de Notícias on Jan 15th, expressing her opinion about the on-going Trial (?) about the “Truth of the Lie”.

This opinion, coming from who it’s coming from, as well as its content deserves an exclusive post about it, even if only due to a certain Jorge Van Krieken commenting it favorably.

What she wrote can be summed up by giving reason for the McCann to proceed legally against Amaral, I started to read the comments in search of intelligent and coherent argumentation from the “other side” which is so scarce.

And I came upon this piece of enlightened rationale. Avoiding the task of translating the whole paragraph, as it's the same usual cr*p that we’ve grown used to, I will translate only the very, very UNUSUAL cr*p that it contains, the sentence that I put in bold: “Smell of dead? Could have been the graveyard digger from the neighboring cemetery that could have been there before making love with an English woman;”
Yes, you read it correctly. At least three times, if you did like I did.

Let’s not forget that the only one with an obscene mind here is me.

That’s an exclusive that has already been agreed upon by all parties, so I’m pretty much offended by this comment. Honestly, my sick, depraved and thwarted brain couldn’t have come up with something anywhere near this.

It’s irrelevant that graveyard diggers don’t smell of dead people as they don’t go anywhere near a body. They just dig up the grave. They just smell of dirt.

It must have been a naughty undertaker that had been romping around English (why on earth she had to be English? Any possible particular behavior from this nationality that makes a natural link to necrophilia that I’m not aware of?) damsel.

Everybody knows how that profession is known to seduce lonely housewives. Who doesn't know a joke involving an undertaker and infidelity? There are millions fo them.

I’m not sure how many funeral homes are there in PdL, but I do suggest to Mr. Dave Edgar to go on an immediate coffin-opening adventure in the area.

Another irrelevant detail, is the places where the dogs picked up the smell in the apartment: between the couch and wall, and in the cupboard. Both, reasonable places for a couple to make-love.

Don’t mock it if you haven’t tried, and I haven’t, so I’ll just take this commentator's word for it.

The scent might have been there left by the undertakers leaving his clothes lying “around” neatly bundled in between the couch and a wall, and in the shelf of a cupboard.

A known and perfectly logical behavior whilst undressing in the midst of passion: “Let’s put half of my clothes in the cupboard and the other half behind the couch.” And nowhere else, because nowhere else in the apartment was the scent picked up.

But, wait a second. If that was the case, then Kate’s clothes, where the dogs also picked up the scent in (we all know she contacted 6 (?) dead people before coming to Portugal, thus justifying the scent), would have contaminated the WHOLE apartment and the cadaver dog would have had a feast inside, which it didn't…

Nope, have to discard the clothes-discarding theory..

Left only with the love making. Gosh, what a afternoon that must have been.

As I said, its not the ignorance that is the fact. It’s the fact that the ignorance is so lightly taken as fact. And so lightheartedly written and accepted, even if only by the author, as fact, just to justify the unjustifiable.

If you’ve been invited, please don’t forget your check book. It’s on the 27th.

Believe it or not.