Monday, 15 November 2010

In Fact, What Is Really Fact?

(Nov 15th, 2010)

Today, I would like to determine what in fact is fact and what isn’t fact at all.

And all the in-betweens.

It has been assumed, for a fact, that Gonçalo Amaral´s book is full of facts.

Well, it is… and it isn’t. Confused? Don’t be, I’ll do my best to explain.

As has been proved in Court, the majority of the content of Amaral’s book is based on the PJ Files. As you know, he was been very careful to not make the slightest change between what is said in the book that the files say and what they do say. To have done otherwise would have been unwise and foolish, two characteristics that he has proven largely not to have.

There are some bits there, where he describes his thoughts and decisions, and does, one time or another, give his opinion about what he finds odd in the behavior of some of the characters portrayed. For example, he thinks strange the apparent good mood in which Gerry McCann happens to appear to be in when they were about to make contact, via Messenger, with a possible abductor of his daughter.

Yes, Gerry is entitled to laugh, suck on a lollypop and talk about sports, but so is Amaral to find that absolutely strange.

It’s a subjective opinion, yet a legitimate one, and not as baseless as the ones, insulting and demeaning, which have been so many times made about Amaral.

But these personal passages in the book are in the minority. As I said, the majority is based on the PJ Files, and that is a fact.

But are the PJ Files fact? Well, they are… and aren’t.

And this is the crux of this post.

Much of what we consider fact, may, or not, be fact. For nothing proves that they are... fact.

There are events that we all are certain that they are facts, namely those reported by the adequate authorities.

For example, the rather curious question made by Gerry to the GNR Officer asking if he knew where there was a church nearby. No, the fact in question here is NOT whether Gerry knew, or not, about the church, but the fact, or not, if Gerry did ask that particular question.

See where your mind was already wandering to? Why is it Gerry's question, questionable? The only source we have is the GNR stating, in the files, that Gerry did ask him. What does that guarantee us that that it really did occur? Nothing, only the Officer's signed statement.

Let me clarify here that I’M NOT EVEN INSINUATING that the GNR lied, just trying to prove a point.

I'm just stating that the ONLY FACT that we have out of this little episode is that the GNR has said what he said. Absolutely nothing else is a fact.

And why is it a fact? As said, because it’s written down, and signed for, in the PJ Files, that's why. We can then conclude that the PJ Files is greatly made up of facts that people have said what they’ve said and we have no guarantees that what they’ve said is in fact, fact.

And we have so many times proved, for a fact, that many who have made statements in the PJ Files have blatantly lied.

But, on the other hand, it's been taken for a fact many a statement as true, when there was and isn't any reason for doing such. It's just been done because they seemed to be so truthful. Mrs Fenn ring a bell?

But, ask you, if you say that the existing facts are just that people have said something, than what are we to consider as what is said in their content? Certainly not everyone is lying...

Firstly, no, not everybody is a liar, but everybody is a potential liar.

Secondly, even those who lie, willingly or unwillingly, tell the truth, for various reasons, but mainly to give coherence to their lies, so should their statements not be totally regarded as false.

Thirdly, even those telling the truth, willingly or unwillingly, may mislead, for various reasons, but mainly for self-protection, so should their statements be continuously reevaluated.

Fourthly, from fact can fact be deduced, that is called logic. It is the Police’s job to deduce fact from fact, to evaluate or devaluate what has been said. It’s their job, it’s their profession. And that was what Gonçalo Amaral was doing when he got pulled off the case.

Using as example my previous post, we have three FACTS:

First, it’s a FACT that Mrs Fenn said that “at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that she also said that “the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and that “At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive”.

Second, its’ a FACT that Mrs McCann said that “she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom”.

Third, its’ a FACT that Mr McCann said that “As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom”.

 It’s a FACT that these three people have said what I’ve just said they said.

The PJ Files PROVE that they said what I’ve just said.

However as is easily understood, these three described FACTS are contradictory to each other, so, by placing them together we come up with a fourth FACT: either Mrs Fenn is lying, or the McCanns are.

The fourth FACT, just stated, doesn’t contradict a possible fifth FACT, and that is that all of them are lying.

This could be proved by joining other facts to these, but that is, as said, the Police’s job.

So please, next time you read either the PJ Files and Amaral’s book do try and make an effort to understand what is FACT and what isn’t.

And what is it that you’ve taken as fact, but is nothing but your own interpretation. It may be fact… and it may not.

Just because something “shuts the Pro’s up” it doesn’t make it true, because the so–called “Pros” might just want to be “shut” up in that exact manner, thus making you create the illusion you’ve won a battle when you’ve won nothing but a diversion.

Hidden beyond the hill, lies the bulk of the enemy’s army, that is doing the best it can not to be heard snickering.

Likewise, when you read something in favor of the McCanns version of events, don’t automatically think it a lie.

A fact is only a fact when it is, in fact, a fact and not because somebody, me or anybody else, tells you that it is.

About the statement I made in the beginning about Gonçalo Amaral´s book being, and not being, full of facts, I hope that you now understand, that yes, it’s full of factual statements (the PJ Files), but these, in turn, seem to have little fact in them.


  1. Textusa

    Oh I agree entirely - I have said as much on MM. But you put it better than I do.

    Everything time one of the TM say anything it is totally at odds with everything else they said. It just keeps changing. Because they don't want us to know the real facts at all. So in effect all the so-called facts we have and the PJ have - make no sense at all.


  2. Será por este facto que


    ( como coloca no Semanário Sol) ,

    Dr.ª Isabel D. não entregou os livros, A Verdade da Mentira, e, suponho os DVDs, apesar da decisão do Tribunal?

    Foi por estranhar o facto de AADVOGADA NÃO entregar e cumprir as decisões INCOMPLETAS do Tribunal, em Outubro , que Paulo S. questiona vários factos , no vídeo C. das Manhãs?


    Então a decisão do Tribunal ficou a meio ou a 2/3 ?


  3. Saiu-lhes um Jackpot na noite de 3 de Maio. Isso e que e um facto. E como qualquer facto para o ser, precisa no minimo de ser provado, mais de 3 anos de vida folgada e boemia, depois dessa noite, provam que este facto lhes valeu a pena. Valeu a pena terem escondido todos os factos que deixaram por contar e que poderiam ter levado ao aparecimento da filha, mas nao levariam de certeza, ao Jackpot e ao status que julgam ter. Entre os dois factos, 2 narcizistas, escolheram aquele que melhor preencheria as suas vidas e o seu ego.
    E um facto que nem todos os factos precisam de ser factos para adquirirem o estatuto de Factos quando se trata de uma investigacao policial. Senao a investigacao era linear e podia ser feita pelo mais burrinho dos mortais. As grandes investigacoes policiais dependem mais da astucia do investigador em ler nas entrelinhas e descobrir factos onde aparentemente so ha caos e ficcao. Foi isso que Amaral fez e e essa astucia que os Mccann tentam descredibilizar.
    O segundo relatorio do FSS e o FACTO que podia ter transformado todos os factos detectados pela investigacao em FACTOS SUSCEPTIVEIS DE CONDENACAO. Magicamente, veio inconclusivo. E um facto que deve suscitar duvidas a qualquer investigador, sobretudo porque qualquer investigador sabe que um facto so pode ser usado para condenar alguem se for provado.
    Os ultimos 3 anos dos Mccann revelaram mais factos sobre a noite de 3 de Maio do que eles pensam e sobretudo revelaram um outro facto que e o facto de nao haver absolutamente nenhum facto a sustentar o rapto. So o desaparecimento da crianca e um facto muito, muito frouxo.

  4. Out of being or not a fact:

    I believe Gerry asking the GNR about the Church.

    I don't believe that Gerry did not know where was the Church. After few days in PDL he had bumped on the Church many times, including on May 3.

    I believe GNR could not know where was the Church. If the GNR was not from PDL.

    I believe the Church was very important for Gerry since day one, and was not to hide a body. Then is in his master interess to know if the police know where is it?

    I believe the Church was the place elected " Safe to plan THE PLAN and meet people" out of spy eyes and spy microphones. Will be not easy for the police to set microphones and spy phones on the Church. And the clever Gerry refused from minute one the laptops gave to him by the police.

    It is a fact, for the police, that on the other side there is clever rats.

  5. There is one fact for sure in the PJ files and that is, that the dogs discovered cadaver odor in the appartment at 2 spots and in the rental car of the McCanns, which they hired 20 days after Madeleine disappeared. Coincidentally on that day, Gordon Brown phoned them again...
    There is another fact: The McCanns got a PR spokesman... this is odd for a couple, that just had their daughter abducted or missing like many other parents in the world. Never heard of this before. Its even odder, when you know, its not just ANY spokesperson, but the spokesperson of Gordon Brown. As if they need to show the world, that the McCanns are more important than the government of UK. How come? Is there a government behind the government, in which Gerry McCann is a member of and which is more important than the government we all think is the government of the UK?
    Why do the McCanns basically get a "diplomates" status, when they are not diplomats at all?
    Every other person with a child missing, claiming it was "abducted" and where cadaver odor was discovered in both, appartment&car, had gone to jail in order to wait for a trial and/or a later releasement due to lack of evidence. Every other person had gone to jail so that the police is able to find more evidence against them w/out the suspects interfering constantly or having the opportunity to influence other witnesses. In fact, you go to jail just for this reason: "risk of obscuration". The 2nd reason, when under suspicion of a major crime is: "risk of flight (escape)". Persons under suspicion of a major crime with such obvious evidence like the sniffer dogs found, in a foreign country where they do not live on a regular basis and do not have a registered home, will go to jail immediately. I wonder, what our prosecutors had to say about the McCanns. From what I know about the law, what the McCanns are doing and have always been doing, is nothing than obscuration in a major crime investigation. Before the eyes of the whole world. With the help of Gordon Brown and the mainstream media. Weird! What has the world come to?

  6. Anon @ 4.20
    "It is a fact, for the police, that on the other side there is clever rats".

    The imagery that conjures up, rats!
    The Mcs are like rats scuttling around behind the scenes doing their dirty work, spreading infection. In the sewers. They infect people with lies and confusion. Would you want to go anywhere near one? NO!

  7. Anon @6.22,Thanks for reminding us how really odd it was/is ,that the Macaans were "allocated"a spokesperson in the first place????My memory fails me in trying to remember how that was justified?So far today ,at least we,ve not had to endure his pathic response to promote the latest PR exercise,re "the book"which will be Kates version of the truth(pass me the sick bag PLEASE)

  8. I think the McCanns haven't done themselves a favor by accepting CM as their "spokesperson". Honestly, that guy - judged by the facial expression he gives to the world - would not only sell his grandma, but would sell his grandma even to his worst enemy! That's the type of guy you wouldn't even buy a used car from, yet we are supposed to take for granted, whatever he spouts off?
    If the Portuguese Police ever re-opens this case, I would strongly recommend to question Gordon Brown and what was HIS part in all of this?
    There is lots of other work to do for the police, once they are not distracted anymore by "fighting" the McCanns by figthing back via the media because the McCanns use the media to fight the Portuguese police.
    Pls put the McCanns at "pre-trial custody" beforehand the re-opening, so that they cannot obscure this investigation anymore by manipulating the public opinion via the UK mass media in their favor. All Brits, who are sick of this too, should demand the same from their government/ex-gov. Gordon Brown MUST be questioned.

  9. Why the McCanns even appeared on a Oprah Winfry show in USA is beyond me. Did they think at that time that Madeleine could have been shipped to the USA, bypassing the strict US coastguards so that the US citizens must have been warned and took notice of how Madeleine looks like?
    Over here, we have a case, that is somehow comparable with that of the McCanns.
    A 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rated celeb (all he does is moderating the weather to the Germans on a public TV channel) was accused of rape by a g/friend of him who also provided strong evidence (medical examination) that it acutally happened, too. He is not German, but of Swiss nationality. Therefore, as soon as he put a foot on German grounds again (after a holiday), he got arrested. For the reason: "risk of Flight (escape)". Because he had no registered home in Germany, but only in Switzerland and Canada. He had to sit in jail for 4 months (I do not know what game his lawyers played but obviously not one, that had taken him out of jail within a couple a weeks.) That might have been the agenda already. (Oooh, look at the poor "ssshhh", must sit for soooo long in jail, completely innooocent!) Allover the German sides we could read, how mad almost all males were and how much they demanded to let "the wholly innocent" guy free... despite of knowing any facts or evidence...
    This guy - a millionaire of course - also hired a lawyer specialising in "media rights". You would think he hires a lawyer specialising in criminal law, but nooo... it was a "media" lawyer. - Our media was full of this shit about this 4th ranked "VIP" and - you could tell, his lawyers tried to influence public opinion by simply using our media. Thank God, that did not work! Like everybody else, he must face his trial and must prove in his trial that he is innocent - if he indeed is. Trying to gain points beforehand is just a proof that something is not right. Also abusing his position as a "VIP" - even a 4th rated Vip only - does not show him in a good light.
    So, very much like the McCanns, only the McCanns weren't even 4th rated "VIPs" within UK when all that occured. I still see before my eyes, how they escaped from Portugal with their kids - I almost hold my breathe, because what we saw was nothing else than that suspects of a major crime escaped - under the eyes of the media and therefore the whole world. Breathtaking.
    Anyhow, ask the McCanns in their next interview, how their performance at the Oprah Winfrey exactly "helped" to find "Maaadlin". I am curious.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.