Monday, 31 January 2011

When Nations Lie to Their Citizens

For some, the possibility for a WHOLE Nation’s Judicial System of a to be an active part of an HOAX is just not feasible.

To those, I would like to refresh their memory of a memorable episode of human history, in which this did happen, and it was not such a long time ago, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

This post is NOT about the assassination itself, but to illustrate that when the “Establishment” decides that its citizens are not worthy of handling the truth, it will stop at nothing to hide the truth from them.

Not even reason or common sense will be an obstacle.

So I ask you to please abstain from commenting about anything related with JFK, or with the characterization of a conspiracy behind the demise of the historical character. This blog is about the Maddie McCann Affair and will remain as such.

About JFK’s assassination, today it’s quite clear why the “single shooter” theory had to be the ONLY OFFICIAL version,

If just one other human being was involved, that would mean that some sort of conspiracy took place. The greater the number of it’s participants the greater the complexity of planning and execution. A lot of explaining to do when there was no want to give any sort explanation. It just HAD to be a lonesome act of a deranged individual.

To come up with its “single-shooter” thesis, the “Establishment” had the following limitations, which couldn’t be ignored:

First, the time, 6 to 8 seconds, which the vehicle was on the Dealy Plaza and remained as a possible target after that first shot.

Second, it was the fact that two shots were seen, by witnesses, having missed the Presidential car. This obviously meant that it was a third shot that killed JFK. Three shots that HAD to be explained.

Third, both the President and Governor Connally were physically wounded, and if two shots missed the car, then ONLY a SINGLE shot did all the damage on the bodies of these two individuals.

Fourth, the gun found, and filmed being found, was NOT an automatic rifle. It had to be MANUALLY reloaded.

These were the ingredients, and this was the recipe, according to Wikipedia:  

“According to the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, as President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, penetrated his neck, slightly damaged a spinal vertebra and the top of his right lung, exited his throat nearly centerline just beneath his Adam's apple, then nicked the left side of his suit tie knot. He then raised his elbows and clenched his fists in front of his face and neck, then leaned forward and towards his left (…). Governor Connally also reacted after the same bullet penetrated his back creating an oval entry wound, impacted and destroyed four inches of his right, fifth rib bone, exited his chest just below his right nipple creating a two-and-a-half inch oval sucking-air chest wound, then entered just above his right wrist, impacted and cleanly fractured his right wrist bone, exited just below the wrist at the inner side of his right palm, and entered his left inner thigh.”

If you want to entertain yourself with the all the intricate physical impossibilities of the “magical bullet” do go and read Wikipedia, but it doesn’t take a too bright mind to see immediately this thesis makes no sense at all

Let’s overlook the near physical impossibility to reload MANUALLY the rifle, fixate it to one’s shoulder to absorb the recoil, find the target and aim, in 6 to 8 seconds, not once, but twice to press the trigger to shoot thrice.

Let’s also overlook the odds required for someone who appears not to be a sharpshooter, after all he did miss, by yards, the first shot, and then misses the second shot, also by yards) to, under the pressure of having to fire against a disappearing target, have the luck of a hitting the target dead centre on the third shot.

Let’s suppose he got it right on the first shot, and then shot the other two just for fun’s sake. I want you to concentrate on the “magical bullet”, that, much like the McCann window, is completely impossible to have done what is said OFFICIALLY to have achieved.

Either the bullet had enough speed and the path going through the President’s body and would have been dead straight, regardless of bone found ahead, but then couldn’t have done all the zigzagging it seems to have done; or it was losing speed and did ricochet off the spine of the victim, but then wouldn’t have enough power to penetrate Connally’s body, much less end up in his leg after a grand tour around his body.

It either had the speed and couldn’t, or it didn’t have the speed and couldn’t also.

Simple and undeniable logic.

And once it’s blatantly false how it “entered” Connally’s body, any discussion involving what it did there, is futile, unnecessary and even ridiculous.

However, no matter how ridiculous it was, it stood as the OFFICIAL VERSION of FACT.

And as it was the OFFICIAL VERSION, it was (is?) the LEGITIMATE FACT of what happened.

False, but LEGITIMATE.

 The WHOLE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, for whatever reason, embarked on this farce.

And 20% of the Americans, it seems, believed it to be true: “The ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963–1964, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976–1979, and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby before he could stand trial. This conclusion was initially met with support among the American public; however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 concluded approximately 80 percent of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findings. “

Now, this was the assassination of the President of the world’s most powerful Nation about to embark on the unfortunate and EXPENSIVE Vietnam experience, which he supposedly opposed, so we can “understand” what was at stake.

But 44 years later, we seem to be witnessing a similar phenomenon. With an English couple on holiday. With friends. In a quaint little village in Portugal.

Back to the “magical bullet”, as I’ve said, it’s irrelevant to discuss what was said that the bullet did.

But the FACT that someone DID SAY it did what we know it didn't do deserves certainly an analysis.

And if that “someone” has the power to pronounce what is and what is not “LEGITIMATE FACT", than THAT analysis is no longer deserved, but MANDATORY.

Not on this forum, because, this, as was said, is about Maddie McCann’s death.

But a parallel can be established, besides the one already mentioned about the blatant interventions of entire National Judicial Systems, and that is what is RELEVANT to be discussed at this stage.

The whole discussion about if the McCanns, used here in broad sense, and getting broader by the day, “perhaps” did or not do it is OVER.

It's has been so repetitive that it has become tiresome to read about it (which is exactly what the Black Hats want you to feel). The McCanns “did it”.

But, likewise with the “magical bullet” we’ve been mislead by the OFFICIAL Judicial System on what the “McCann bullet” effectively did.

We know for certain that it wasn’t what they said they did.

So we have to uncover, and determine what that “McCann bullet” REALLY did do, and that can only be done by fully understanding what was the reason behind each lie.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Who Took the "Reason" Out of "Reasonable Doubt"?

We all have the correct notion of “innocent” and “guilty”.

They’re simple concepts, to differentiate between them is as easy as telling black and white apart. .

The “not guilty” one is much more complex. It’s neither “innocent” nor “guilty” as if either were it, it would then render useless the referred terminology.

Very few understand it, or rather, understand what it implies, what exactly it means, and how easily it can be misconstrued, distorted and even brought to be a mockery of itself.  

Because of it we are where we are in the Maddie Affair, and why with things remaining as they are, it’s not unlikely that the justice we all seek will be NOT be found unless we do something about it.

Let’s go back to basics, and understand where all this comes from.

Imagine that Justice is a simple grayscale array going from black to white. Black, meaning guilt, white innocence.

However, as we know, life is never black or white, but grey, in its infinite scale of possibilities
. Because they are the scale’s opposite extremes, neither black nor white really do exist. Before you say that black is black, remember that 99,99% black isn’t 100% black.

It’s in fact just a really, really, REALLY, dark grey, but it just isn’t black. It lacks that 0,01%.

So, if ONLY 100% black is guilt, and 100% black is impossible to obtain, then, apparently, that makes it impossible for society to convict.

However simple logic determines that 99,99% black is as black as black can get, so should REASONABLY be considered as such, assuming that way that guilt has been proven, as that 0,01% margin of white can be disregarded.
  It is that 0,01% that is what is called “reasonable doubt”.

It’s reasonable to consider that a 99.99% black is 100% black.

Now, what about 99,98% black? Or even 99,985% black? Should these percentages be considered black as well? From what percentage does grey end, and black start?

This discussion is of particular relevance when it comes for society to take away one of human being’s most precious possession, FREEDOM.

It’s always preferable to let a guilty man walk than to imprison an innocent one. That's the pillar that upholds all Justice’s principles.

But society MUST ALSO do all in its power to oblige those who don’t abide by its rules to be accountable for their deeds. The obvious reason is that it serves as a POSITIVE example to those who do abide, who constitute the large majority as one has to assume that the rules set by society itself are fair, just, reasonable, necessary and expected.

Nothing is worse for the morale and credibility of a nation than for the law-abiding citizens to witness the incapability their Judicial System to punish appropriate and accordingly those who have not obeyed the set Law.

It’s bad when this incapability results from incapacity, but much, much worse when it is from willingness, as we’ll see.

I’ve written in a previous post that a person does not walk into a court-room innocent and walks out guilty, but that he walks in either guilty or innocent, and walks out convicted or not convicted.

And if he walks in guilty and walks out not convicted, then that is ONLY due to a SINGLE reason: the “reasonable doubt” threshold to convict him was NOT surpassed.

Does that mean he was innocent in the first place? No, and we know it doesn’t.

It was just simply not possible, for various reasons, to reach that 99,99% gradient of black.

Imagine then the iron-clad protection one would be provided with if those with the responsibility to show that 99,99% black is indeed black, were unwilling to do so. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to find guilt when there’s NO want in finding it.

That would certainly be a scandal, the most evident distortion of Justice both in its nature and in its principles.

Apparently scandalous, yes, but is it really unlikely? As we’ve seen, “reasonable doubt” is a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision that should guarantee that an innocent is not convicted.

Using the grayscale example, it basically it states for example, that anything, say, as dark as 99,8% black, or darker is to be considered black, anything lighter than that is grey, and grey is “not guilty”. 

It’s a VERY SERIOUS decision to make, as it has associated VERY SERIOUS implications.

One can easily understand that when doubt settles in, we’re not discussing the lighter grey part of the scale, rather about the differences in shade between dark and darker grey

The relevant questions then to be asked are, who is to determine THAT value of gradient, and on what should that particular person base his opinion on?
For that, society has educated a very limited amount its citizens to be able to understand not only the full scope of the concept, but most importantly, the enormous responsibility of its appliance.

They’re called Judges.

A very limited set of people that society has given the power, the authority, as well as the LEGITIMACY, to determine what is and what isn’t “reasonable doubt”, in others words, has given them the power to convict, to take away other citizen's freedom from them.

They’re the only ones that are able to that LEGITIMATELY.

The ordinary citizen, like you and me, able to reason with logic, is able to understand what is reasonable and what is not, but lacks the LEGITIMACY to validate LEGALLY his opinion. This lack of validation DOESN’T mean lack of reason in any ways, or be an impediment to undertake the exercise, it just means that however right the citizen may be, his opinion is LEGALLY USELESS.

Morally right, but with no LEGAL value.

In a perfect society, this citizen’s LEGALLY USELESS opinion should coincide with the Judicial System's LEGITIMATE one. And that is what usually happens.

Courts are the place where Judges apply Justice, according to their education, experience and wisdom. By education, I’m implying that they base their decision on full knowledge of the LAW.

Now, let’s run off-track, because it’s about going awry that this post is all about.

A Judge may, for whatever reasons, decide that black is white or that white is black even if logic shows CLEARLY otherwise.
It’s a WRONG decision but a LEGITIMATE one, and because of that it is to be UPHELD.

What is there to stop making such a blatant wrong decision? Three things: common sense, own conscience and accountability.

If we dismiss the two first, both dismissible, accountability is the ONLY foreseeable obstacle stopping him to determine that hereforth black is white. But he’s ONLY accountable before his fellow colleagues in the Judicial System, other Judges, like himself, in which society relies to have the education, experience and wisdom to overturn a wrong decision, and eventually punish the Judge for abuse of power.

But what if, the collective Judicial System decides to embark on a farce? Or, if his decision to determine that black is white is but a part of a bigger scheme of things?

And to involve the whole Judicial System, the scheme really has to be BIG. Or BIG interests at stake to make it be that ENORMOUS.

So, if the Judicial System decides that black is white do start to get used to seeing brides walking down the aisles dressed in virginal black.

This whole Judicial System, in turn, is ONLY accountable to society, and society, as an entity, has no forum, other than the electoral one (and in some Countries not even that) to express its discontentment.

That’s why in dictatorial States, Justice is completely arbitrary, but one expects, in the so-called civilized world, like Portugal and the UK, for it not to be so.

Unfortunately, the Maddie Affair has proved otherwise. We can see that the PJ Files relay facts, or as I’ve said before, facts that people say to have happened, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they did.

Upon closely studying the evidence presented before him in by PJ Files, the Portuguese PGR, has concluded LEGITIMATELY that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns, and until further evidence is produced, the case was to be archived.

The Judicial System includes the prosecution. These have the capability, in “light-grey” cases, to deduce what is “reasonable doubt” to avoid overburdening needlessly the Courts. In this instance, the PGR did LEGITIMATELY decide to archive the process.

If a Court verdict of “Not Guilty” is NOT a declaration of innocence but just of lack of capability to convict (although that lack of capability may be the result of the Judge’s total conviction of the accused's innocence), the archiving of a process is even further from that.

But mind you, is as equally far from declaring a suspect guilty.

It means that the Prosecutor faced with the evidence presented before him, LEGITIMATELY decided that it the case at hand lay clearly on the lighter end of the grayscale of guilt, so no further action was required.

If anything new is to arise, then a new decision will be taken.

Do notice my insistence on LEGITIMATELY, which is far from being RIGHTFULLY. Let me say it straight that, in my opinion, the PGR’s decision is him looking at a really, really dark object and publicly declaring it as bleach white.

A LEGITIMATE decision, but taken with intentional wrong interpretation of the contents PJ Files.

And when you don’t want to see, you just WON'T SEE. And if you've compromised yourself into NOT SEEING, then it's impossible for you to ever correct your forged lack of sight. It's voluntary blindness, or even worse, voluntary distortion of whatever is meant not to be seen.

Then you will be able to see a million curves where millions of others see only a straight line, because it is indeed straight, and you will even be able to see the mathematically impossible beginning and end of a line that constitutes a circumference.

Blogs, like this one, have PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that the phrase “not enough evidence” is as hypocritical as saying that it's the Sun that goes around Earth and not the other way around, which may I remind you was the official LEGITIMATE version of the 24-hour cycle during a long, long time.   

The abduction of Maddie is absurd and was forged by the parents, by the family and by the missing child’s parents’ friends and acquaintances. Plus the blogs have PROVED that evidence points towards the girl’s death, making it also a crime, of horrendous ethical proportions, the setting up of the Fund.

This blog in particular, has PROVED the existence of, apparently, new facts.

That there was NO NEGLIGENCE, that the McStroller was no other than Dr. Gerry McCann, who was also proved to be a LIAR, that there was direct involvement of other OC Guests and some PdL Residents, and that this group’s watersports activities on May 3rd and the dinners at the Tapas Bar were simple fiction.

You’ve read it here, and you’ve seen how well we've justified all our statements, albeit the permanent and continuous threats of legal action against the blog, and even to its readers.

These facts have been here PROVED, and yes, they point towards a TOTALLY different version on which, apparently, the PGR’s based his decision upon.

That means that there IS, after all, EXISTING evidence for the McCanns to be prosecuted.

But is that really so? No, and let me tell you why.

All these “new” facts simply aren’t… new. They’re ALL in the PJ Files.

We’ve just limited ourselves in putting them together the way we thought they should be. But, they’re all in there, and "there" is where the PGR based his decision to archive.

So although we've said here that black is black because it’s black, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that all appeared to him to be white.

And when we showed here that something was as straight as a laser beam, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that to him it had more curves than a Formula 1 track.

With the same reasoning, whatever we here demonstrated to be a circumference, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that for him it just isn’t.

And he has the LEGITIMACY and we don’t.

Plus, as time as shown, he’s not alone in this highly selective way of looking onto things. It seems that the Judicial Systems of both Portugal and UK are not very keen in questioning his eyesight abilities, much less his judgmental ones.

Maybe because he's a mere instrument of their will?

To sum, whatever we may here say, and we WILL continue to say, apparently will never make him change his mind.

The McCannleaks, proved that. It really seems that absolutely nothing can be said that will change the PGR’s mind. What did he say about that? That the "leaked" facts were analyzed in due time so they didn’t constitute any new evidence.

It’s as almost as if he had read this post before I even wrote it.

So, should we give up? No. This reality was present when we started and that didn't make us stop starting, and we're still here, and you will continue to find us right here.

 Let’s rewind a bit here. Remember I said that there were three things that could stop someone from saying that black was white: common sense, own conscience and accountability.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, on one side accountability is something is that is not to be feared by the decider, and on the other, one’s own conscience tends to take on a submissive role when other interests, own or other's, arise, or seemed to have arisen.

We’re left with common sense. The only way to win this battle is to beat them by shame, by brazenly exposing their lack of moral, ethical and intellectual honesty. By continuously exposing their arrogance.

By showing that whoever says “that if the PJ had to prosecute the McCanns they would have done that a long time ago”, is saying it in a deliberate malignant manner, using ignorance with much pretence as the McCanns have used negligence.

By showing the Judicial Systems, time and time again, that with power comes responsibility, and NOT, as they think it does, the freedom to act as they please.

By showing how EVIDENT is the EVIDENCE against the McCanns, we can hope that they will one day concede and backdown just a little. To hope to tame the “animal” is naïve, but we can certainly show him that there are boundaries that HAVE to be respected.

That’s why we fight this fight.

It’s much, much bigger than the McCanns, it’s about citizenship.

It’s about stopping today future hunting grounds that they, the “nobility”, may use and you, the “peasants”, may not.

Our goal is to prove that when it’s said that there’s NO EVIDENCE in the PJ FILES to prosecute the McCanns, although it’s a LEGITIMATELY absolutely right statement, it is ALSO, more importantly, not only a morally, ethically and intellectually ABSOLUTELY WRONG one to make.

It is as well a blatant and arrogant attempt to certify us, citizens, as a herd made up of thought-incapable morons.

There was a day when the LEGITIMATE Judicial System said that the Earth was flat, wasn’t there?

They even burned people at the stake who dared deny that then, didn't they?

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Open Letter to Textusa

by May I

Dear Textusa

When I became part of your blog there were things I disagreed with you about, and others you stated that, if asked, I wouldn’t have subscribed. 
One of them was your swingers scenario. Not because it wasn’t credible or that it was outrageous, I just like to keep all options in the open. 

I joined your blog because you, like me, seemed to have understood that we’re fighting those that should be fighting for us, so decided to set our differences aside and help you. 
I’m becoming more convinced that your swingers scenario is the most likely one. Pharmaceutical companies may have given an unethical freebie holiday to the doctors, Underhand property deals involving the Anglo Irish Bank may have been taking place; time will tell on this one, as we await the outcome of various prosecutions. 

The same can be said for the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester, now suspended for alleged fraudulent overseas property deals …… and the Metropolitan Police, for using undercover police to spy on protest groups for 7 years; not to protect the public, but to provide information to private companies whose commercial interests may have been threatened? 
Oh yes, our British police are wonderful sandwich munchers! 

Given the people and their backgrounds identified so far, I also think it highly unlikely that so many paedophiles would gather in one place. 
Statistically, some amongst them may well have been paedophiles; not necessarily known outside their circle, but to allege that a planned paedophilic operation was responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is not reasonable

The majority of the men were possibly Freemasons. Easily found, even amongst my own acquaintances, although I dislike all forms of nepotism. 
Most at the level I know say it’s the only way to get on in business and they do lots of charitable work. 

But, none of these factors seems to explain the number and varied occupations of the people involved in covering up for the McCanns, outside their circle of 7 friends. What unites them? I looked on the internet at the “KW” place you talked about, entering only the “K” word I found a luxurious hotel, where I might have chosen to spend a relaxing weekend with my husband- if we could afford it. It looked very exclusive.
Then I added the “W” and what a shock I would have got if I’d just booked from my first internet enquiry.

Would I have been concerned about all the strange coming and goings? Would I have been propositioned by strangers in a corridor? I realised that I could have unwittingly stumbled into a famous swingers’ scenario. Would any one have checked our intentions before we arrived? 
Children not welcome should have told me something. It is happening under the noses of the uninitiated like me! 

Swingers to me initially meant a few suburban couples chucking their keys onto a coffee table at a friend’s house, or “dogging” in the local car park. (Golf is beginning to sound more appealing!) KW made me realise how high class people were participating on a large scale and a look at sites in Portugal- only from the outside; as I didn’t go into them, (Miss Goody 2 Shoes) showed that even a Catholic country with strict family values hosted such events on a wide scale. 
Then I thought, no wonder the McCanns and friends had to justify incarcerating their children in the crèche for such long periods; having gone to the trouble of taking them on holiday, rather than leaving them at home to be indulged by Grandma. 

They had to be seen to be doing lots of wholesome activities which children couldn’t really participate in. Lots of youngish adults with NO children on holiday would have looked very strange to any holiday maker who had booked themselves into PdL in all ignorance of what the place was about. 

No wonder the OC didn’t want publicity about swingers- National outrage and plummeting profits in a climate where the property market shortly going into free-fall. 
No wonder either, that Control Risk groups were already on the scene, primed to head off any scandal that the entourage might unwittingly initiate and protect them from outside intrusion. 

No surprise that the leaders of Portugal and Great Britain, poised to sign the Lisbon Treaty, felt that this would be a disaster; captains of industry, property, banking and medicine, and perhaps the odd politician we are not yet aware of. 
Gerry apparently called in some favours; according to brother John of Astra Zeneca. More like “help us or else!” 

How the circles of lies multiplied and how those now caught up in the circles must hate the McCanns. The in-fighting and blame must be going on as we speak, because the solid protections are now weakening-changes of governments, bank scandals and euro bail- outs in Ireland and Portugal, comments against the McCanns beginning to re-appear in the media,  
GA’s book unbanned, blogs continuing with business as usual, the joke libel laws in the UK facing real changes, the Met Police facing criticism on different fronts, Gamble gone from CEOP, FSS disbanded, Kennedy’s fortunes waning, Wikileaks and maybe more to come? …… 

The abduction scenario, a paedophile lurking within 10 miles of PdL, still out there after all these months. couldn’t have been good for business, but a swingers’ resort would have been the kiss of death
Efforts to spread the scare beyond Portugal seem to have ground to a halt, because we can link many “sightees” as having vested interests and links in PdL

The McCanns are circling the town again because that’s where the answer lies. It’s clear from the files that the Portuguese were nearly there in their investigation. 

Who killed it off- that’s the question?

Friday, 14 January 2011

Post Criticism

Unlike Black Hats would like you to believe, we, in this blog, do like to be questioned.

Valid criticism is always welcome, as it tests our understanding of things and provides a golden opportunity to change our vision on whatever subject is being subjected to it.

Also allows for us to consubstantiate our opinions, to and correct what is to be corrected, maintain what is not. The permanent and continuous testing of our beliefs is of the utmost importance, and that is only achieved by challenging them, which in this case, is obtained by criticism.

Done by oneself certainly, but also expected from you.

I found a comment, posted by docmac, in a thread at MMF, dedicated to the post superbly written by Sina J, “Hobie or not be? That is the question”.

As I thought that it raised some interesting points, I decided to give Sina J, an opportunity to respond. This is the comment:  

"Re: Hobie or not to be? That is the question/textusa  

docmac Wed 12 Jan at 10:44 pm 

I enjoy reading much of textusa's stuff. She certainly has an analytical mind and an eye for detail. However, there are inconsistencies in this article and the writer has obviously not fully read the rogatory interviews - Matt Oldfield's in particular. Below are but a few examples. 

Please do not view this as a criticism of textusa in this instance, as the article was not in fact written by her - the name of the author is quite clearly displayed at the top of the article, and textusa thanks the poster for her guest post in the first reply. 

First of all, reference is made to the doctors supposedly not referring to the type of craft used, specifically questioning whether they were 'Hobies' or 'Lasers'.  

“The Laser Pico is designed for simplicity and can be crewed by 2 children or 1 adult so we can assume this is not the craft the doctors had an incident with. So we are left with the Hobie, which is the craft for an experienced sailor and novice crew. In that case, it would be said “we took out a Hobie or even Hobie cat” but the doctors tell us they ‘did watersports’. Rather vague don’t you think?.” 

In fact Matt - the only experienced sailor in the group - does exactly this: “...they've got some (inaudible) cats, which are, erm, sort of sixteen foot long, but you ideally need, certainly in a breeze, you need two people to weight them down or they tend to turn over, so I'd always been trying to get him out on one of those and he sort of agreed to, erm, and he didn't have confidence in my sailing abilities, but, erm, he agreed to come on one of those and there was enough wind that lunchtime to actually do it. And so we went back down to the beach and took one of the cats out...” 

That sounds very much like a Hobie16 catamaran to me. May be wrong, but I doubt it. Next we see doubts expressed as to the following part of Dianne Webster's statement: “Dave I know was windsurfing in the afternoon, I’ve just got a picture of him walking out of the sea in his wetsuit.” 

The author wonders where this picture of David Payne might be. I believe 'picture' was used in a more figurative sense her, i.e. that she could still 'picture' him entering the water. The author further wonders what happened to the wetsuits:  

“according to Dianne, they go down to the beach, play around, Dianne takes pictures of David and of Russell and Matthew all in wetsuits, then the men come from the activities and all head for the Paraiso for high tea. When does the WET/DRY/CHANGE OF CLOTHES happen in this fairytale?”

 Again, in Matt's rogatory interview, he states: “Erm, by the time we'd got back in the, erm, the rest of the families were down on the beach, apart from Gerry and Kate and their kids, so it was Dave and Fiona and L*** and S******, erm, and Jane and E*** and E*** and they were playing on the beach. And so we sort of put the boat away, got changed and came over to them” 

Again, the writer states:  

“It’s typical of sports enthusiasts to use the terminology of their sport and the onlookers not to do that. None of the doctors name any of the craft they have purported to sail….why would that be? None of them mention going back to the apartment, having a shower or changing out of wetsuits, or puting away the wet kit in their statements”  

There are so many inconsistencies and lies to be found in the statements of this lot that it is often tempting to rush headlong into making assumptions after reading but a tiny extract of them. I've done this myself - hand on heart - but have always been ready to acknowledge that a mistake may have or has been made. This appears to me to be the case here."

Here is Sina J's response:

Dear Docmac,

You refer in your comment that I’ve some inconsistencies in my post. You may have found more, but you only refer three. First, the sailing experience, then Dianne Webster's photo of David Payne leaving the water, and lastly the changing of clothing. Let's look at each of them.

Sailing experience.

These are the crafts that were used by Mark Warner:
For Beginners & Intermediates - Dart 16 - Laser Bahia - Laser Stratos - Laser Pico - Laser Vago
For Intermediates and Advanced - Hobie Cat 15 - Vago - RS Vision - Laser 1 - Laser XD

When Matt says “...they've got some (inaudible) cats, which are, erm, sort of sixteen foot long, and from whose words you assume it to be a Hobie16 catamaran, I have to say that I think he's referring to a Hobie 15, as the Hobie 16 is 17 feet long, and, as we can see, not available at MW.

But you’re not the one in judgment here. You’ve rightfully expressed your opinion, which I respect it, as I respect the fact that you did do it in another place other than this blog, where, I think, would have been the right place to question it.

What is being questioned is Matt’s sailing experience, and the near-drowning incident that he was allegedly involved with Rob.

Besides the Tapas saying so, we don’t really know how experienced a sailor Matt really is, and it’s not the simple fact that he says “cats” that makes him one. As you’ll see, it appears to me that he’s much more a beholder of indoctrinated experience rather than having a real one. But that is my opinion, and opinions are subjective and I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.

When Matt uses the term “cat”, my experience is that people use the term “Hobie” or “Hobie cat” and I’ve never heard just “cat”. I feel using the word "cat" is touching on the use of lingo but in MY experience all the sailors called them Hobies.

BUT my only experience of these crafts is a watersports holiday and not at a club maybe like you might have, docmac, as you appear to be a person with some sailing experience. If you don't, I apologise for assuming such fact.

But continuing, I'm not saying that it isn’t used, and maybe some people do, I just haven’t heard it, but it's the people from clubs are the ones who go on this type of holiday.

As I said it is not the use of the term “cat” to define a Hobie Cat 15, that determines Matt’s experience. Nor when he says, implying an unfulfilled wish, "I'd really like to sail" instead of “I like sailing xxxx” that one would the expect from an experienced sailor:

And I'd been, we'd been down to the beach a couple of times before but we'd end up going canoeing and I'd always wanted to go sailing because the boats that I'd really like to sail are the big catamarans”

One would expect such wishful thinking from the least experienced sailor Russell O’Brien.

But let’s return to the type of crafts as it’s relevant in terms of the experience of the person sailing it. Hobie 15 “The School”, with its original design, the huge hull volume, has become a reference in institutional off the beach sailing and has been chosen by a great number of sailing schools and leisure operators such as Club Med, Club Adriana, Club Robinson, Sunsail, UPCA, VDWS…

The huge volume of the hulls ensures buoyancy and safety.

The Hobie 16 is used for racing and one notable flaw is the tendency of the boat to “pitchpole” when running downwind, the sail plan and distribution of the floatation of the hulls is such that it can push the bows down far enough to dip them under the water, stopping the front of the boat and leading to a cartwheel or summersault and subsequent capsize of the boat.

The Hobie 16 is not the ideal craft for staff that is responsible for looking after their clients.

As MW advertise, they used the Hobie 15 as it would seem the best type to use for a range of sailors considering different levels of experience.  

Rob says “Well we, me and Matt had gone down to the beach to go on, as I say, Matt’s a good, quite a good sailor and we took one of the, the, erm, the catamarans out. So we’d gone down, erm, just after lunch, probably after the kids had gone back to the Kids Club, so two, two o’clock, two or three o’clock, and had quite a long sail, erm, we were out for a long time, Matt sailed for a bit and then I sailed for a bit and he kind of gave me a bit of a lesson really. Erm, as I said, he, he got bounced overboard and the kind of wire snapped and I had to learn quite quickly how to turn a catamaran round and not run someone over in the water with it. So we pick, you know, we picked him back up, erm, a boat came back out and repaired, you know, kind of repaired the, the bit that had snapped, erm, it was the harness.”

As I said, safety is paramount and all customers are monitored closely so the staff would know exactly who was on the water, the craft they were using and their experience.

There would be a RIB on the outer perimeter in radio contact with other staff. The Portuguese Navy is very rigorous in this matter, and the fact that you own a boat DOES NOT entitle you to just put yourself in it and sail out.

You have to have the adequate qualifications or be supervised by someone who has. From Rob’s words we now know that the ‘incident’ was monitored by the safety boat, therefore where was booking reference and where is the incident report?

Then, we also know that there was repair done out at sea by the safety boat, one supposes, but how one has to wonder. Do safety-boats bring along repair parts with them, or, as they should, are there to protect the safety of the sailors?

Also, when the boat was handed back, surely the damage must have been reported to the owner. You don't return a rented item that you've damaged and just walk away. No sign of such report, and no sign of wasting anytime reporting it.

 To be noticed at this point is the sailing abilities of a novice in handling a craft that, as we’ve seen, is for “Intermediates and Advanced” .

More from Rob: “Reply - I think I booked into Water Sports on the Saturday at this meeting at the Tapas, I think that’s where you made your bookings, it possibly may have been on the Sunday, I’m not entirely sure there, but, erm”.

How VAGUE is this? We have the holiday reviews which clearly state that daily water sport bookings were taken at breakfast at the Millennium, not at Tapas.  

"1578 “So the booking for Water Sports?” 

Reply “May have been on the Saturday at the Tapas, it could have possibly been on, at a separate meeting on the Sunday, I’m not entirely sure whether there was one, one introductory meeting where everything happened including some of your bookings for what you wanted to do or whether there was a separate one on the Sunday. But, erm, but just the way, the way this reads it implies that I had wind surfing lessons that day, but actually, erm, there was no water, I don’t think there was anything in terms, in terms of lessons down at the waterfront until the Monday”. 

1578 “’I can’t recall exactly what I did on that day’ it should read, shouldn’t it?” 

Reply “On that day, yeah. Erm, but ‘I’d agreed to have wind surfing lessons and do a bit of sailing’ shall we say ‘Monday through Thursday’, we add ‘Monday through Thursday’, because we certainly didn’t do that, I think the Sunday was sort of a, a relative day off for, erm, for the staff, staff work weekends as well well certainly with the, you know, for the staff at the beach I think. I think the rest of it’s fine. I don’t, I really can’t recall an awful lot about the Sunday, I think we probably just had a bit of a look round, a trip to the beach. I’ve got a vague idea I, that you may have been able to still hire the kayaks, so I think I might have had a go on one of them,”

Let's overlook the fact the Police tells what a witness means to say. Where are these booking statements? If they existed the staff would know him and have to arrange instruction or assessment, and by the way, in the tourism business, there is such no thing as a week-end.  

Saturdays and Sundays are usually the most busy days, as those on holiday are joined by those on weekends looking for leisure.

Yes, they do rest, but that’s usually called the “day-off”.

We now see, from these statements that the staff knew these people and had spent time making sure they knew how to handle the craft. (Could it be possible the staff knew these people in the UK so knew their capabilities? Witnesses coerced?).

Now, one must wonder who really is the experienced sailor. Matt’s sailor lingo seems not to match up with the experience, Rob is the one that says that he reserves the watersports, and not the experienced sailor, and lastly, when Rob says that “I had to learn quite quickly how to turn a catamaran round and not run someone over in the water with it, when supposedly they were a mile out to sea, where, we’re supposing, the sailing “traffic” wouldn't be that intense, and hardly anyone to run over, seems more like an experienced sailor describing what, if he were a novice, he would do, as safety of others is key factor in sailing. It runs in their blood.

I don’t think a real novice would be worried in hitting someone in the head, but would be concentrating all his efforts in maintaining minimum control of the craft until help arrived.  

Matt says “....took one of the cats out and we were out a bit longer than expected because part of the boat's strapping fell off and I fell off the back and so we got sort of stranded in the water and he didn't really know how to sail but managed to bring the boat round and I was sort of like a mile from shore thinking I'm going to have to swim all the way back.”

Normally one falls off the side of a boat and not the back.

Would an experienced sailor think of swimming back a mile, when he knows that safety boats patrol the area, and keep a look out? I say NO WAY.

I say he would try to maintain contact with his novice friend, instructing him the best way possible, helping him in all possible ways, until the safety boat arrived.

I think it should be considered that Russell might be more experienced than Matt. Russell is a friend of James Gorrod who is a watersports coach and CD of Surfers against sewage.  

Mr Gorrod lives in Exeter and was on holiday at the same time as T9.

Anyhow, I don’t think, docmac, I really don’t think I was inconsistent in my post on this issue. The pronunciation of one lingo word, doesn’t make one a pro, and there seems some indications that the gentleman in question, Matt, may not be as experienced as he would like us to believe he is. Why this role reversal?
Dianne Webster's photo.

Let’s use her words: “Yeah, again I’ve got a photograph of them on the beach after that” This is she speaking about Rob and Matt, but the “again” clearly states a repetition of action.

A picture is a picture... the expression to be used, in case she intended to use it as you suggest, then would be more like "…I still have the image of...", or "… I’ve got this picture in my mind…". The words “again” and “photograph” are quite sufficient to clarify this non-inconsistency, I think, and hope you agree, docmac.

The wetsuits.

Rob, in his own words, has booked watersports activities for most of the week, so is NOT a random whim. It’s a clear intent. They did not just stroll by the beach, saw the boats, and said, hey, let’s sail!  

He says he booked at MW right after they arrived. This, in my view, means they would hardly book a watersports holiday with the intention of sailing and windsurfing without taking their own kit. In which case they would have kit bags (not Tesco carrier bags) in which to put the suits after dripping.

Again from experience, wetsuits are important pieces of kit. In all their statements they deny taking any.

What I did really forget to mention is when you come from the water and hang your suit up to drip, you would normally leave it for a while before going back to collect it. Or the other thing is to wear it for a while until it's dry enough to pack it a bag, one that is big enough to take a man size suit.  

Matt looks very tall and that photo looks like 2 men of the same height. I just don't believe any of these doctors would dream of wearing borrowed wetsuits (people do pee in them) when they would have their own kit.

I just think it wouldn't happen, as I think they have made a big mistake with this whole thing saying they didn't take any equipment with them.

When I did this sort of holiday, in the room I would put on my swimming costume and then put my wetsuit on like shorts leaving the top hanging loose then put a T shirt on top to walk down to the beach.

I didn't take clothes with me. After skiing I would stand under the shower to rinse the salt off the suit then take it off, hang it up to dry then put the T shirt back on over the swimsuit and go back to the room to shower properly.

Wet wetsuits are like sponges so need to drip for a while before putting them in a bag. The bag then has to be taken somewhere. And you can imagine what happens if you put a wet wetsuit on the sand?  

No-one says they had to take kit or bags back to the apartment.

I would like to know if anyone saw any wetsuits hanging out to dry on any of the balconies on any of the days?

We haven’t seen any evidence that there are showering and changing facilities on the beach. There's this Beach Hut, that seems more into spur of the moment kind of water fun such as flyfish, bananas and ringos, that sort of thing, but also caters sailing, winsurf and kayaking.

No mention of wetsuit rental, but that doesn't mean it hasn't:
We can now see Beach Hut provides the watersports now (presumably previously used by MW?) but the hut does not look like a shower block, a place fully equipped for showers and changing clothes. Or left stored there while they were at Paraiso.

And would one book a boat at MW, and the wetsuit down at the beach? Is there ANY logic in that?

But let’s hear Rob on this particular subject:  

“Reply ’Matt and I went kayaking’. I think Dave came, yeah, maybe even Dave came as well. There was, there was several on one occasion, the three, the three of us”. 

1578 “’Kayaking, possibly with Dave’?” 

Reply “Possibly, but certainly with Matt and maybe, erm, ‘with Matt and possibly also Dave’. There was one, there was one occasion when the three of us took the kayaks out. And then we came back to the shore and by the time we got back to the shore, and I think we’d noticed for some time before that the, a lot of the others had congregated down on the beach and were down by the, by the waterfront, pretty much at the end of the, the boardwalk from the Paradiso Restaurant. 
So me and Matt got, dropped the boat off, came over, erm, lots of general laughter about Matt’s near death experience and, erm, I trying to, you know, play up the glory as much as possible of course. Erm, the kids were playing there, erm, this was, I would imagine would be, you know, quarter past four, half four time, erm, when we probably finished sailing. Erm, went for a swim."

 So, were they on kayaks or were they on “cats”?!?

Can't these people just for ONE time make up their minds on what they did?!?

Did Matt fall off the back of a kayak?

Anyhow, even kayaking would still be watched on the water for safety reasons, and any accident reported. 

But the big question here is: when does Rob swim? Clearly it’s after sailing, and Matt says, like you say he does “And so we sort of put the boat away, got changed and came over to them”, so apparently, for the two statements to make sense, Rob, sailed, got out of his wetsuit (we still don’t know where they left it or where they took them), put’s on dry clothes, “comes over”, then changes back into swimming trunks, or the same wetsuit, takes a swim, and then changes back again into dry clothes, as appears as dry as if he never has been in water the whole day at Paraíso’s.

Oh, and somewhere in between he dashes off to pick up his daughter from the Creche.

The devil is in the detail, docmac.

Thank you for questioning me, it gave me an opportunity to solidify even further my belief that none of the Tapas did any watersports, in the afternoon of May 3rd.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

Hobie or not to be? That is the question.

by Sina J

I think we can state none of the group did watersports, because if they did the watersports staff would have been questioned intensely.

There was talk of Maddie's body being dumped at sea so they would have been the people who had records of who took out each craft on each day.

Having enjoyed a watersports holiday and being a regular of water sports on home territory I was surprised that in none of the statements no-one mentioned what type of craft they took out on the water.

Normally one would say I took a Laser Pico or a Hobie, both different sorts of crafts and very different to a windsurfer.  

Superman may well spend a couple of hours windsurfing but I very much doubt that a doctor may have the same endurance so can we suppose that when David Payne states he was on the water for ‘a couple of hours’, was not windsurfing, as only he's just human.

 In which case he sailed a Laser or Hobie.

The Laser Pico is designed for simplicity and can be crewed by 2 children or 1 adult so we can assume this is not the craft the doctors had an incident with.

So we are left with the Hobie, which is the craft for an experienced sailor and novice crew.

In that case, it would be said “we took out a Hobie or even Hobie cat” but the doctors tell us they ‘did watersports’. Rather vague don’t you think?

On Monday, we are told Fiona and David spent the morning on the beach, after dropping children off, sailing with another chap. It was cold. They wore short wetsuits and returned when it was time to pick up the children. So did they take their own kit?

According to statements nobody took any kit for watersports so where did they get these suits from?

I’m sure the watersports staff keep a check on who makes use of their equipment and they would only be given to customers. Lent only to those customers who have booked a craft, so if they have made a booking there would be a record and the staff would be requested to give statements to confirm this.

Dianne Webster says: “So afternoon activities wouldn’t start until they’d had their nap and that particular day Dave I know was windsurfing in the afternoon, I’ve just got a picture of him walking out of the sea in his wetsuit. Russell and Matt took out a boat because I remember Russell, who doesn’t know anything about sailing, had to rescue Matt.”

Where is there this photo of David Payne? And what did he do with his craft? Leave it in the water??? Normally you take/moor it where you took it from. Unless he didn’t take a craft out????

She continues: “Yeah, again I’ve got a photograph of them on the beach after that, so after the, after the girls had had their sleep we obviously went down to the beach and we all went down apart, well again Kate and Gerry, I think they were more into tennis than the beach, so I didn’t see, see them there that day. So there was myself, Fiona, Rachael, and Jane with all the children. We went down to the beach that day and just played around for a bit and then the men came in from their activities and we then went, because it was quite late, we decided rather than rush the children, to high tea at the Ocean Club. We’d just give them high tea in this beach restaurant that we’d been to before."

Is this the photo that Dianne says she takes this so unclear one? No time and no date on it and basically it's just ANY two men standing together in wetsuits.
So, according to Dianne, they go down to the beach, play around, Dianne takes pictures of David and of Russell and Matthew all in wetsuits, then the men come from the activities and all head for the Paraiso for high tea.  

When does the WET/DRY/CHANGE OF CLOTHES happen in this fairytale?

And did they tell their RESCUE STORY at this point? It’s typical of sports enthusiasts to use the terminology of their sport and the onlookers not to do that.

None of the doctors name any of the craft they have purported to sail….why would that be? Quote from ROB. "I went out in the afternoon near to the beach I think possibly me and Matt may have kayaked Then later. I went out in the afternoon to the beach I was with Matt and as far as I can recall we went out kayaking

Kayaking, in the "hesitant" form, is the closest we get to any watersports terminology.

The absence of statements from any of the staff seems incredible. It’s typical that watersports are closely monitored for safety reasons. People cannot take a craft out to sea without filling in forms. Whether booking forms, insurance disclaimers (presuming they have declared watersport activity on the holiday insurance form because it isn’t normally included) or health declarations and experience history.

Every client is assessed for capability and given weather information before they set out.  

We are now presuming that the clients didn’t just turn up on the beach at an indeterminate time on the off chance of a sail with having to accommodate trips to the crèche to collect children. So they will have booked their sail at the Millenium restaurant where the watersports staff congregate each morning to take the daily bookings.

If the doctors have been at sea they would have been monitored, counted out, counted back in and watched during their time at sea so they didn’t go off course. The safety boat would be patrolling the outer perimeter and in radio contact with other staff able to instigate a rescue if things went wrong.

If a device on a craft had failed it would need to be reported to the staff. Repairs would be recorded but we still can’t refer to watersport staff statements….as there are none ….because they didn’t have contact with the group for watersports?  

Mark Warner states: Fully Qualified Staff Not only will our fully qualified watersports instructors give you the very best tuition, they'll also keep a constant watch whilst you are out on the water. Their knowledge, together with the full range of safety equipment available, ensures that you're always in safe hands. Safety First We take every precaution to ensure that you're in safe hands and are supervised at all times whilst out on the water. We provide buoyancy aids and helmets and a full safety briefing on arrival.

So why were our doctors allowed to flounder in the water with no assistance? Can we conclude they were not in the water when they say they are? If not where were they?

None of them mention going back to the apartment, having a shower or changing out of wetsuits, or puting away the wet kit in their statements.

We are very precious about our wetsuits and make sure they don’t get hung up to dry with the ‘club suits’, those cheap suits no-one really wants to wear ….or steal.

Even if showers are available on the beach they are just to rinse off the salt water not to have a change into dry clothing.

They did in fact mention staying on the beach after ‘the incident’ and then going to the beach restaurant. We see them in the Paraiso CCTV footage without any bags they would have used to take dry clothing and toiletries to the beach, and have the wetsuits in to be taken back to the apartments.

ROB….he originally stated that he had windsurfing lessons on Sunday but changed that. "Sunday 29th April 2007 I had booked into water-sports on the Saturday but I don't think they operated on Sunday. I can't recall exactly what I did on what day but I had booked to have windsurfing lessons and to do a bit of sailing."

Why did he not know watersports are available EVERY day of the week, surely he would have been told when he ‘booked’ his Sunday windsurfing lesson if was closed for the day?

Can we conclude that none of them went on the water?
Now look again at the Paraiso CCTV, the group are seated shortly after this purported incident and Russell O Brien has collected his daughter, we see no indication of anyone who has been in the sea let alone had an accident and fallen off the …what was it…Hobie?

Wednesday, 5 January 2011

Death at Praia da Luz

Debunking the McCann “Negligence” Myth
“Death at Praia da Luz”, would really make one great title for an Agatha Christie’s novel. Apparently, it has all the ingredients needed to make up one.

On one hand you have a death happening in a very much police-novel mysterious circumstances, and on the other, the almost impossibility of finding the “who dunnit”.

 Only lacking in this plot is one Mr. Poirot/Miss Marple to come along, ask a few questions around, and to, in the final chapters, gather in the same room all the main characters to, as in all good novels, discard suspect after suspect, boggling the reader’s mind and heightening the suspense until the climax, a pointed finger towards the culprit, or culprits as was the case in “Murder on the Orient Express”.

But the crime of “Death at Praia da Luz”, or Maddie McCann Affair as is known, is NOT one of murder.

 Yes, a death occurred, that of the British citizen Madeleine Beth McCann, but manslaughter, which I believe was involuntary, is far from being murder.

The crime of “Death at Praia da Luz” is that of Obstruction of Justice.

That’s it, simple Obstruction of Justice.

Certainly it is of gigantic proportions and exercised by those least likely to do so, like two known Sovereign States, and their respective Judicial Systems and Police Forces. You can’t get much higher on a scale of justice obstruction than this. In fact, you can’t.

Sure, we also know that there are some powerful names involved in this obstuction, and they, in terms of pure power, overwhelm both the said Sovereign States put together, but the first lack the legitimacy that the latter behold, both by definition, and, most importantly, by the achievement of all those that have sacrificed themselves in their name and on their behalf, for that to be so.

It’s commonly known as History. The betrayal of this legitimacy is what is so serious about this case.

One is not naïve to think that the States behave according human standards, but one DOES expects that the derailing from such conduct to be motivated by higher national interests than those that involve protecting one particular individual from the responsibility of facing Justice for the death of a child, be it by accident or otherwise.

That’s why we fight this fight and will continue to do so, as never in the history of mankind have so little faced so disproportionately such big and great powers as foes.

And we’re proud to be right on the front line, and proud to have held our position up to now. But do not think that ONLY those already referred and known, Tapas or otherwise, PLUS those that we’ve still to uncover, are the ONLY accomplices in the perpetration of this particular crime of obstructing justice.

Today, it is my intention to reveal a new, and hopefully surprising, accomplice: YOU.

Yes, YOU, my true White Hat friend, you also share responsibility for this crime to have taken place.

 Let me explain, or, as always, at least try to.

 As I’ve tried to prove, the “enemy” has, very intelligently, blocked our path to the truth with what I’ve called “clutter”. Fictitious facts constructed objectively to divert and distract.

And, as we know and I’ve been telling you, they’ve been quite effective in doing so.

If a poll was to be taken worldwide, the vast majority of people would state clearly that they believe that Maddie is dead and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, not only are fully aware of that fact as they are also guilty of hiding from public eyes whatever happened on that fateful evening/night.

But also on the same poll, the same vast majority would “explain” the criminal behavior of these parents’, with the same word: NEGLIGENCE.  

NEGLIGENT for having left for we don’t know how many nights, three little children alone in a room in a foreign land, aggravated with the fact that they did so to go out and get drunk, or in the best case, happily tipsy.

This is the perception the general public has of the Maddie McCann Affair.

Even those, like you, who are interested in this case and come to this blog, and others like it, to seek the truth, have the exact same perception: NEGLIGENCE.  

NEGLIGENCE has now become Kate and Gerry’s McCann middle name.

One simply cannot dissociate them from it.

The bottom line is that the world thinks that Maddie has died due to some freak accident that happened as result of the McCanns being reckless and unfit parents, best described in one “magical” word: NEGLIGENT.

But what is, in fact, the basis for the belief, of so many, in the unquestionable existence of this NEGLIGENCE?

 In my opinion, this is the result of various statements from witnesses, whom I categorize as “non-independent”, “semi-independent” and “independent”.

 The “non-independent” witness statements are those from the McCanns and the remainder Tapas. They’ve all basically acknowledged that that the McCanns were NEGLECTFUL, but with the detail that all “non-McCanns” have subtly safeguarded, one way or another, that they’re NOT.

We know that these people have reasons to lie, so nothing further will be said about the INVALIDITY of said statements.

The “semi-independent” statements are from various sources, such as other OC Guests, like Jez Wilkins, and the OC Staff, namely those of the Tapas Bar and all those linked with childcare, such as the Creche and the night nannies.

These people apparently have no reason to lie. The only reason for the existence of such collective behavior, from both the OC Staff and the OC Guests, would be to protect from public knowledge some sort of activity that the Ocean Club as a whole (through some, or most, of its guests) was partaking.

It would have to be an activity which, if revealed to the public, would seriously jeopardize the personal interests of both the tourist complex and of the individuals that were there for that exact reason. That, my friends, is normally the reason for the existence of a collective lie.

What possible activity that may have happened that week is open for discussion, although you already know what I think, and what I think is based solely on the fact that I don’t see any other reason to justify such a collective response in order to keep a person who has killed, in my opinion, accidentally, a child from the hands of justice.

Some have tried to divert us with science-fiction scenarios involving cloning and other equally baseless ideas. Others, honest in intent, have suggested some sort of huge illegal estate or medicinal related gathering that could have been taking place there and then.

Either would certainly represent motive for cover-ups, but looking through the list of those we know were present, some fit one scenario, others the other, but altogether they fit neither.

But the protection of LEGAL realty interests, in PdL or elsewhere, certainly does make sense, as we hope to show you one of these days. But LEGAL is supposedly something that one shouldn’t have to keep away from the public eye, or is it?

Well, the scenario I do raise, is NOT ILLEGAL, however it would be unrealistic to say that its public disclosure wouldn’t have very realistically unpleasant consequences to all those involved.

That’s society for you, and society sometimes is very hypocritical. That’s why I’ve labeled these statements as “semi-independent”, as they appear to be completely detached from the subject, but on a closer look, have almost as much to lose, if not more in some cases, as those I’ve just described as “non-independent”.

But let’s look at what these “semi-independent” witnesses have to say, or better said, have tried to say.

We’ll start by the infamous “Tanner’s Round Table” a physical impossibility, completely unnoticed by all, even if, by contradicting this pivotal witness, the table was one single physical item.

Jez Wilkins, for example, on the night all happens, does go to the Tapas Bar's toilet, and upon returning, does notice a man with rasta hairstyle, but never says a word about any enormous round table that would stand out like an elephant sitting in one’s family room.

Let me remind you that the same Jez Wilkins, by sheer coincidence has a VERY convenient conversation with a Tapas just night before about the Tapas Child-Checking System, a conversation that apparently happens when he’s finishing dinner and the Tapas are beginning theirs.

We don’t know exactly how and where this conversation takes place. Do the Wilkins also sit at the famous round table, making it even bigger than I’ve said it to be, or do they force those that are sitting at that table to turn around, away from their plates in order to be able to converse?

Also it could be that the Wilkins were standing up, speaking to those sitting down around that round table. But then, would the Child Checking System be an opportune, relevant or adequate subject to talk about in such circumstances? We don’t know, as, we know, Wilkins makes no mention of said table, so all is conjecture.

Then you have the waiter, a Mr. Salcedas, who cannot be precise, on May 4th, the day after he has served five straight nights the same 9 people, about the exact number of people he had served just the night before.  

Mr. Salcedas later proceeds to justify his employment and the fact that it was he who HAD to serve the Tapas because he was the only one who was able to speak English.

If you look at the reservation sheets, and the entire guest list, you cannot see ONE non-English speaking tourist. Not ONE. But one could, from Mr. Salcedas' statement, that he not only served the T9, but he HAD to serve everybody else, and that on his nights off the Tapas Bar would have to close.

And talking about the reservation sheets, as we’ll later show, any child can easily see they’re forged. They do not portray any reality other than the fictional one that has been made up to replace what really happened, or in the case of the Tapas Bar, simply didn’t.

If anything, they’re the physical proof that the Tapas never had dinner at Tapas, with the exception of May 3rd, of course.

By joining all the above said, one can easily conclude that the OC Staff of the Tapas Bar are not being truthful when they say the McCanns & Friends were where they say they see them to be.

But their statements, IF true, would in fact reinforce the idea that the couple left their kids in the Apartment while they boozed away before the eyes of these people, wouldn’t they? A really NEGLIGENT lot.

But IF what they say is a lie, as is easily demonstrated, then they don’t contribute in any way to prove that the McCanns were NEGLECTFUL. Rather they would contribute to the exact opposite which would be for us to think that there was NO NEGLECT after all.

Also, in this matter, we must be disregarded all statements from the OC Guests who claim to have seen the Tapas at Tapas, because, as you’ve understood by now, there was nobody there to be seen.

Neither “non-independent” witnesses nor “semi-independent” witnesses prove that the McCanns were NEGLECTFUL.

We’re down to the “independent” witnesses.

Of those, and remember that we’re on the subject of NEGLIGENCE, we have only one: Mrs Fenn.

Need I say anything further about this witness? But if you join her, a PdL resident, with the Creche/Tapas Bar OC Staff and some of the OC Guests, and check that they’re collectively LYING then you’ll start to understand that you are before but one of many “Circle of lies” existent in this whole affair.

It will also then start to become clear what “clutter” has been placed in front of you, and much more important, it will become simpler to understand why it has been placed there.

It will also help you understand why Kate McCann, a supposedly occasional tourist in PdL, is provided, apparently upon request, with the spiritual support of the local Anglican Priest, as explained by May I so brilliantly, even though she had only her friends around her, occasional tourists like herself, and the Portuguese Police.

No, there’s no such thing as a Priest’s telephone number under “useful numbers” in any hotel anywhere around the world, so the attempt to explain Rev Heal’s presence in Apartment 5A that night through the OC Reception is so ridiculous that it cannot even be considered “clutter”.

But Rev Heal’s appearance that night is easily understandable if you just link up the three essential elements, which I call the “Pdl Triangle”: OC Complex, OC Guests (Tapas included) and some ex-pats, PdL Residents.

And not only will that be understandable, as many other apparently lost pieces will suddenly fall into place, and the plot of “Death at Praia da Luz” becomes simpler and simpler: the collective protection of ONE individual from facing justice, not to protect this person, but to hide what many others were really doing during that week..

The growth in size, complexity and importance of this “collectiveness” is better explained by a good friend of ours, who has said the following: “Most crimes are not complicated, most crimes are simple and the MO is simple, but one thing people seem to forget is that once you tell one lie (no matter how small) you have to tell 10 more to cover it and then 10 more to cover each one of them.... snowball effect. That could simply be the most simplest answer in all of this.”

This “lies-to-cover-up-a-lie” process implicates the use of one’s available connections and usually requires the follow-up by one’s available connections use of their own available connections, and so on, in a scale-up of proportions that the point of no return is quickly surpassed.

Remember, that you don’t need to be powerful to be powerful. It seems a contradiction in terms, but is not. The fact that you are the beholder of a relevant political position does make you a powerful person, and if you own a huge wealthy estate might make you one also, but those are not absolute requirements.

To be powerful all you need is the capability to influence the powerful, and one way is through embarrassment.

Taking all this into account, you now start to understand the involvement of CEOP in a case of an alleged abducted girl in a foreign country, as well as understand why in the UK, although before an crime of international proportions, the investigation was centered in a "local police force", the Leicestershire Constabulary.

But there remains one unanswered question, say you, and that is if the McCanns were NOT NEGLECTFUL, as you’re trying so hard to explain, then with whom did the children spend the nights while the parents were having a blast?

Elementary, my dear reader, they were taken care of, and quite adequately so, by the OC night nannies.

Do you remember who says that the Tapas/McCanns DID NOT use the night nanny services? Let me help you: the T9 and the OC Staff. Liars saying they didn't do something is like hearing them admitting they did. Like hearing a child saying that she didn't steal the cookie...

Do you understand now why the McCanns are NOT NEGLECTFUL?

And I also hope that by now you do understand why the Black Hats so much want you to believe that the McCanns are NEGLECTFUL, and have so hard and diligently done their best to convey this idea.

It’s of VITAL importance for the McCanns to be branded as NEGLECTFUL.

Without NEGLIGENCE there’s no abduction, we’ve said it many times, but also, without NEGLIGENCE, the whole web of lies will reveal implications involving much more people than only the T9.

Without NEGLIGENCE, their whole deck of cards falls, and that’s why they so desperately need that that particular “status”.

It’s their last line of defense. Maybe there are too many a Poirot and a Marple in “Death at Praia da Luz”, as we all think we’re the one predestined to break this murder case.

The thing is, as I said, this is NOT a murder case.

Notice, in the picture above, I’ve intentionally left out Maddie. The poor little girl has long lost any relevance in this case.

Most likely, she never had any, especially to those that she was supposed to represent something to. I'm including her parents but not limiting myself to them.

A golden rule of business, states that if you DON’T want a job to be done, then just nominate a group to do it.

As any project manager knows, to make a valid collective process, like brainstorming, into a totally useless chaos is one of the easiest thing to do in the world. All you need to do is just to allow the confusion that usually results allowing the most vocally dominant people in the group to... dominate the conversation.

You don’t even have to tell them your intent, you just have to allow them to speak freely, as they will not only quiet down all others with valid ideas, as pretty soon will make everybody else around will quickly lose sight of the purpose of the whole thing.

This technique has been used from the very beginning by many a Black Hat, impersonating to be White, who have worked diligent and tirelessly in forcing the message of NEGLECT into our collective brain.

And they’ve been brilliant haven’t they? They’ve even convinced you to help them out.

My dear reader, please do understand that whenever YOU say that the McCanns have been NEGLECTFUL, you’re helping solidify the McCann “clutter”, keeping YOURSELF further from the truth, and also making YOURSELF, unwillingly, an accomplice of the crime depicted in the “Death at Praia da Luz”: Obstruction of Justice.

Please, just stop doing it.

Call them for what they are, and not what they want you to call them.

Call them LIARS, call them DECEITFUL, call them DISRESPECTFUL, but please do stop calling them NEGLIGENT.

Post Scriptum: 
A reader has just informed me that I was wrong about the size of the table, as per O'Donnel statement:

"They booked a large table every night in the Tapas. We called them "the Doctors". Sometimes we would sit out on our balcony and their laughter would float up around us

One man was the joker. He had a loud Glaswegian accent. He was Gerry McCann. He played tennis with Jes

We had booked a table for two at Tapas and were placed next to the Doctors' regular table. One by one, they started to arrive. The men came first. Gerry McCann started chatting across to Jes about tennis. 
Gerry was outgoing, a wisecracker, but considerate and kind, and he invited us to join them. We discussed the children." 

So now we know where the subject of the Children Checking System was discussed: around the table, when the Wilkins, having dined, gleefully watched "The Doctors" fill up their tummies. 

But now we also know that the table was big enough to accomadate, comfortably, ELEVEN people. 

And I'm not counting the infamous elusive 10th Tapas, because, it would make it be an exact replica of the tables of 12 that I sat on a, as I said, rather posh and pompous wedding. 

And one cannot help but not wonder how did she know it was their REGULAR table? 

Had the laughter travelled that far to their apartment every night? A laughter can be heard, but the desperate cries of a desperate lonely child for one hour and fifteen minutes go unnoticed by everyone, except one elderly, so attentive lady.

Tuesday, 4 January 2011

Back Home

Just to say that we’re back. Holiday season is over.

Hope yours was as deliciously sinful as mine. This time of year to is usually spent in tying up the knots of the loose ends from the old one, and to throw out brand new fishing nets into that sea of opportunity that life has always to be.

So time is as scarce a resource as it has always been. As you might imagine, blogging was far from my mind all these days, so, if you expected me to open 2011 with a real eye-opener, I’m afraid I’ll disappoint you.

After all I’m only human, and only now will I start to realign my brain to think of these things also.

Same with with the other Bronte-Cohen sisters.

I also hope that you, like me, took an instant during this Christmas to think, for just a moment or two, about what we written here. As I said, my mind was OFF this issue, but, on Christmas Night, I did confirm that you just don’t seat 9 people around any table.

On ours, we had 11 people, on a rather long table, round at both ends. Only two more people than those at Tapas.

What a remarkable table it would be if this was a repeated feat five nights straight, I thought to myself.

Remarkable indeed. If it was round, then it would be UNFORGETTABLE.

Then came the New Year, and this time we were 12 people, eight adults, two teenagers and two youngsters.

At around about 10/10:30, after dinner and a good round of drinks, and on the pinnacle of joking (that point of a drunken evening when anything said is just absolutely hilarious and laughter is unshamefully abused of) I found myself, just for a moment again, noticing how rowdy can be a party of eight, especially when they’re partying.

Now, if we had people around us, then we would be THE GROUP.

And, if by any chance we would be sitting around an enormous ROUND table, then we would THE TABLE.

And if we did it for five nights in a row, then guess what we would then be? You've nailed it: UNFORGETTABLE.

These were the two moments I let my mind wonder back here.

I do hope that you found such similar moments, and if you didn't, you may now look back and understand how right I am.

Even if only that meant that you, like me, were fortunate enough to spend these special moments with a group of people you love and you feel loved by.

We're now in 2011. We shall now go back to our “writing” boards. With no hurry, as we have one certainty: Maddie won’t be found before May 12th.

Not even if they START to follow up the leads Isabel Duarte so enthusiastically referred to about a year ago, and have yet to be fruitful, in any way, shape or form.

Imagine how unprofitable it would be for Kate if Edgar was to FINALLY find the PdL Lair, where Maddie has allegedly held for the past one thousand, three hundred and forty-two days, so he’s best left doing what he’s apparently been doing: harassing the inhabitants of a quaint little fishing village that one day had the misfortune to be right in the middle of a man-made tornado.