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.


  1. MCCANNS suspects? Why?
    Pat has a good eye about this case – Part I

    Because they left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. Is this is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one's children? Hum….

    Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.

    Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were "Today has been the best day of my life." Maddie's last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their "life." "I am having the best time," and "I am having fun" are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie was "very pleased with her life," also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word "life," as though there were a set of parentheses around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.

    The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this.

    If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone's home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for Maddie's return ("Please just drop her off any public location…"). They just did this once. Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive will do this every time they have a chance given by TV. McCanns had many!

    Neither Kate or Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.

  2. MCCANNS suspects? Why?
    Pat has in fact a good eye about this case – Part II

    Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion ("Maddie! We love you, honey! Don't give up! We will find you!" Or "Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!") Usually in a set of parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.

    There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather than support between the couple.

    Gerry McCann commented in one interview: "In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus."

    For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer as they had and to do something in their daughter's name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter's welfare.

    Gerry's blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate's activities. The cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.

  3. MCCANNS suspects? Why?
    Pat had a good feeling about this case except on NEGLIGENCE item - Part III

    Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared. Kate's ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel empathy for others).

    The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually and can't think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.

    Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.

    The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Arguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them. Answering all the questions, making the reconstitution involving the Ocean Club staff. That was terrible wasn’t it?

    Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions.

    It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason – said Pat - I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty. Can we Textusa? Hope so, I’m counting on you!

  4. At the beginning of the investigation, some papers and some rumours in Portugal, said that the OC was a swing holiday destination. They even said that this is what allow the resort to have a clients list with some fidelity (I don't know if that word exist in english). Like a Club. The clients travel around different OC resorts placed around Europe to do the same and the OC offer the warranty of making this confidential.
    A swing scenario will allow British PDL residents to enter the games and become part of the liars to protect their names. Will force also the OC employers easy to lie to protect their jobs. About that, I believe many of the employers, special the cleaners, have a suspicion about what the guests were doing but don't have certainity. The top employers were the ones who know the truth, plus the nannies. The nannies are British and quickly were sent away to avoid answer many questions to the police or slip in very unconvenient journlists. Now it is interesting to know, from the employers, who lost the job... The cleaners I believe, because they know nothing with certainity and were easy to discredit. The employers that know what was going on in the OC keep their jobs and still well controlled.
    The swing scenario explain the easy connection of the Mccann's with expat residents and the priests. The priests are Anglican and married, not single like the catholics and the swing is an activity that involve couples.
    If a swing scenario came out to the Media, the reputation of the OC,of their guests and of all who are connected with Mccann's will end up in a disaster, specially in Portugal. I believe in most countries in the world, including UK, the society is very hypocrit and did not forgive who behave out of the "normal sense". Immediately the journalists will trace the connections of the guests with other people in their own countries ( some in the powerful postions ) destroying the reputation of that people in the public opinion.
    What the Mccann's and other guests were doing in PDL and in other OC resorts is what gave them power and protection, not their doctor activities or their friends in UK. Mas isto nao quer dizer que nao houvesse nos UK, gente com poder a dedicar-se as mesmas actividades. Isto e uma rede como a pedofilia.
    Apesar da sociedade condenar o swing como condena a pedofilia ou a negligencia, os Mccann e o resto do gang preferiram apostar num cenario de negligencia e pedofilos para evitar um outro cenario sexual igualmente condenavel para a grande maioria, o swing.
    Este foi o meu feeling desde as primeiras reportagens e as primeiras entrevistas. Como sempre "Nao ha fumo sem fogo" e proximo do momento e do lugar, as palavras eram mais verdadeiras e a investigacao estava no caminho certo. O decorrer do tempo, manipulou e adulterou a verdade mas nao pode esconde-la para sempre. O efeito da descoberta da verdade sera mais demolidor agora do que se ela tivesse sido contada no dia 4 de Maio de 2007.
    Ja se adivinham saltos e assaltos aos comentarios deste blog, pelos "yawns" que por vezes irrompem por aqui.

  5. sometimes I have doubts about Madeleine being in PDL. No any independent witness come forward to clear says that she/he saw Madeleine in PDL during the reported holidays. The Creche list appears to be fake and manipulated. The mobile video with her inside a bus, could be in any bus at any time. The ladder to access the plane could be from another time or even a video manipulation.
    The cleaner allocated to their flat said in an interview that when she cleanned the flat on Wednesday, the childrens were not there, she thinks they were in the creche, but she did not say which children. Could be only the twins. The worker at Cafe Paraiso is the only one, according to what I read that states that Maddie and Gerry were been there on May 1 or 2 (I'm not sure) to buy an ice-cream. Is there a CCTV clear showing that was Maddie and Gerry? From the Cafe Paraiso I just saw the pictures of the tapas 7 on the fatidic day. I don't know if there is more available.
    People from the Baptista supermarket vaguely spoke about Madeleine. But could be Jane's daughter because they are very similar. For me, people from the Baptista Supermarket are also not independent because their business depend of the tourists and due of the proximity with OC, depend of tourists from the OC, then they will never go against them, even if they know or suspect something.
    What about if Madeleine never went to PDL and everything was well planned before? I don't forget the words of Olegario de Sousa, the Spoke man for PJ, saying that the crime was entire British, planned and done by British. Just my nasty mind working, because I believe PJ sort out if she had been in PDL or not. But again, why not forensic evidences of her in the flat? No hair, no touthbrush or hairbrush, etc.

  6. I`ve never gone with the negligence story. I`m probably the only one, but I do not believe medical professionals would do that even if they are a couple of arrogant heartless egotists.

    The children were probably all bedded down in the Payne`s flat (which was bigger) with the baby monitor(s) listening to all of them. Some calpol would have helped them to get off to sleep. If Diane was not babysitting then I do believe they would still have taken turns to check the kids at Payne`s flat when any movement was heard on the monitor. This would have left 3 apartments free to use for other activites. Its unlikely Diane Webster knew about these other activities, although she may well know now.
    Maddie may have been causing night time troubles from day 1, waking up the other children and not settling and I think its in this context that maybe something happened to her that shouldn`t have.
    Emotions run haywire with some people around the full moon and there was a full moon on the 2nd.

  7. That "one particular individual" that is being protected was/is one of the Tapas9 or was/is he someone else who was also in PDL at the time and left quite suddenly and in secrecy in the early hours of the 4thy May...? You know, there was much talk about a Tapas10...
    If we are to go along the initial theory that Textusa posted here in the beggining, then, this person, a man, Gerry's best friend, is the one being protected from facing justice. Yet, that same man was denounced to the Leicester police as a potential paedophile (Gaspar's statements) and in time, it became publicly known and is discussed in forums and blogs and was news in one paper. Oh, and let's not forget, there were also the suspicions of Yvonne Martin, right at the beginning. Amazingly, there was NO reaction at all from that person or from his friends/protectors...complete silence, ignored the whole thing!
    I'm, on one hand, so many went to extreme lenghts to protect that "one individual", creating an imense web of lies, and on the other hand they seem to be ok with that same individual being exposed as a paedo! To this day, the Gaspars were not taken to court for defamation, have they...? Does that "individual" take kindly to being connected with having paedophile behaviors?! Does he not feel the need to clean his reputation?! Apparently not...
    I get more and more convinced that the Gaspar's statements is not what it seems...part of the clutter, is it...?

  8. with the google translator ( better, i suppose than my no english)

    I am guilty! And I'm guilty because I did not think.

    I believe even in neglect: an aspect that I hate.

    And I always rebelled with that.

    In fact, the tapas, the staff of OC, the media contributed to what I always thought of negligence.

    I thought not. I accepted.

    Without doubt, all that is written here makes me feel bad to me.

    I am guilty because I accepted in good faith the perverse game, without question.

    The post seems to me, as ever, steeped in logic.

    It is often said "the discussion comes to light. "

    But reading what you write here makes us really think.

    I must not forget what I read. I can not forget.

    Increasingly I regret that, and here in Uk, impeded the investigation of the case of Madeleine McCann.

  9. I don't buy Gaspar's statement. They are part of the game. After the negligence, the paedo scenario is what the Mccann's wanted to sell. I go with swing scenario and Madeleine being a trouble girl hard to control and keep quite. Remember the complains of Kate on her diary, confessing how hard was for her to deal with 3 childs and the stars on the fridge, as a treat for every good night that Madeleine gave to her parents.

  10. Finally, somebody with some sense. Enough of all the lies from these people. Textusa, you're my Marple! Please continue, one day Britain will thank you publicly!

  11. J Edgar Poe stated that if you wanted to hide something then the best place is, setting it in full view in front of your very eyes! So as you say, remove or ignore the clutter and the truth hopefully will be sitting pretty.

  12. Swinging is generally defined as established couples (usually married) exchanging partners. Couples need not to be married to get into swinging. But should at least have some history together and familiar with each others' emotion. This is a very important rule when trying to being comfortable when approaching other couples who are in a swinger lifestyle.

    Often couples simply discover that they share an interest in swinging with another couple in their friendship group. This is an easy way to find a partner. Other methods include clubs and classified advertisements.

    Be discrete: although swingers do not consider themselves to be doing anything wrong the lifestyle does still carry a social stigma with it. Because of this, the majority of them are very protective of their privacy. If you are seen to be indiscrete, then you essential blow any chance of any further encounter! You have been warned.

    Swinging is not wrong or immoral in the modern sense of things (Amen to that!!!) but as an lifestyle that still carries something of a social stigma, many rely on the discretion of those who some meet.

    Here comes the hypocritical bit - men can, of course discuss previous experiences, but disclosing names is cardinal!

    Alcohol and Drugs -- Most do not use drugs, although some drink socially. At times, a few drinks are nice to help you "relax". Over-indulging may hamper your physical abilities as well as offend or turn other people off to you. If you have to get high or drunk to swing, you are in the wrong lifestyle.

  13. The 'saga' is as it always has been a convoluted story of woe.

    I totally agree TOO MUCH information, obfuscation.

    I will hilight one part of the Timeline proposed by the group.

    JT see's Madeleine's alleged abduction at 9.10 (ish)

    MO visits the apartment to check the children, notices nothing untoward at 9.30 (ish)

    But, what supports Textusa's stance is the utter and total silence approaching four years of ANYONE connected to this case.

    Except Mr and Mrs McCann and Dr Amaral.

    That in it's self should be enough to set alarm bells rings, and considering for the best part of 18 months Dr Amaral has been silenced by the courts by the McCanns.


  14. To the poster above, who has given a very worthy explanation, might I suggest the Mental Mechanism



  15. Swinging carries a social stigma indeed...and even more for a supposedly devout catholic couple, with irish backgrounds...
    Oh, the burden of guilt( catholicism plays the "guilt card" heavily), the shame if exposed, loosing face in front of the family and society. Remember Kate's reaction when informed she was being taken for a second round of questioning, when she was made "arguida"? "-What will the media say, what will my parents think?"
    "Keeping up appearances" is everything for people like Kate, and they will do whatever it takes to keep their "façade".

  16. And Rothley is a small town in the countryside. Imagine the bombastic news of a couple of doctors that went for a swing holiday and lost one of their childs. No face to face people in the streets and in the hospital.


  18. mc

    Unfortunately we are not able to view the blog as it is private. Maybe you know that and posted the link only for those who are allowed to view?

  19. Lembrei - me que desde logo, em Maio de 2007 um jornalista free lancer, no Algarve, foi perseguido e altamente intimidado quando cobria o caso de Madeleine. Passou por " muitos acidentes inexplicados".

    Não foi só ele. Mais jornalista e Psicólogos Forenses foram também alvo de incidentes e acidentes " estranhos";

    foram " altamente aconselhados " a não comentar o caso de Madeleine e as perseguições a Gonçalo Amaral.

    De " repente" esses elementos são alvo de queixas de um pedófilo , o qual irá a julgamento.

    A imprensa portuguesa só passa notícias de McCasal.

    Se pesquisarmos Gonçalo Amaral.......... só aparecem " notícias promocionais do dito par.

    Autores de blogs são ameaçados de tudo . De morte, inclusive. Além da invasão de computadores........

    Portanto, este caso, o de Madeleine McCann é altamente perigoso para a segurança individual de Jornalistas; de autores de blogs e para Psicólogos Forenses conceituados.

    O que se passa desde 2007 aqui em Portugal ? Só demonstra que tudo isto relacionado com o McCasal é por de mais altamente perigoso para a " saúde " de muitos Portugueses empenhados em descobrir as mentiras daquela parelha.

    A imprensa tem ordens de quem para silenciar ?

    Quem ordena o silêncio sobre tudo isto ?

    Quem está por trás de tudo isto? Que segredos escondem ? Quais os perigos que temem ?

    With google translator:

    I remembered - that I first, in May 2007 a freelance journalist in the Algarve, was chased and highly intimidated while covering Madeleine's case. Went through "many unexplained accidents."

    It was not just him. More journalist and Forensic Psychologists have also been targeted incidents and accidents "strangers";

    were "strongly advised" not to comment on the case of Madeleine and the persecution of Gonçalo Amaral.

    Of "sudden" these elements are the target of complaints by a pedophile, which will go to trial.

    The Portuguese press is only news McCasal.

    If we inquire Gonçalo Amaral .......... appear only "news promotional pair said.

    Bloggers are threatened with everything. Death, inclusive.

    So this case, Madeleine McCann is highly dangerous to personal safety of journalists, the bloggers and renowned for Forensic Psychologists.

    What is happening here in Portugal since 2007? Just shows that everything that is related to the McCasal by more highly dangerous to the "health" of many Portuguese engaged in discovering the lies of that pair.

    The press has orders to silence who?

    Who orders the silence about all this?

    Who is behind all this? What secrets hide? What is the danger that fear?

  20. Quem pode ver este blogue?

    Qualquer pessoa

    O seu blogue está aberto a todos os leitores por predefinição.

    Portanto, nas definições isto já está definido há muito tempo. Até permito que todos comentem. Mas eu coloco ou não, consoante a " delicadeza e verdade do dito " .

    Isto, de não verem, já me tinham avisado há muito.

    Ao percorrer a segurança do computador , já não é a 1ª vez que encontro um nome que começa por r e acaba em n.

    Imagine-se ! Eu !!!!!! EU???????????? alvo de ataques ao PC??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Não sabia que era assim tão " importante "!

  21. Reviewing your theory I have to tell you that you have built a theory based on very strong happenings well justified from statements given by Tapas couples to the police. Some details may be slightly different but I think you are very close to what really has happened on May 3rd.

    I just disagree with you at one point: you say this crime is NOT murder. I say: this crime it is a murder. Whatever has happening in that specific living room, if blood is splattered in the two walls
    means that was an severe aggression and violence against a little three years girl. If the child has just fallen from the sofa I believe the fall did not imply blood splattered in two walls. Perhaps blood might be found in one wall at the floor level and on the floor as well. And then help would be asked. An ambulance would be called. Was an accident.

    The way blood is found in a crime scene tells a lot of what has happened. Without a body is hard to prove. Tapas couples knew that!

    I don't care if the aggressor had no intention to kill her - her death was a consequence of an act of violence. For me it is MURDER. From here we can only discuss murder of what level/degree!!!

    This murder is also a consequence of a wrong lifestyle parents were having since God know when. There was not a reason to act with violence against Madeleine if Kate and Gerry were good parents and acting like decent people with small kids under their responsability.

    If they want to swing they should leave the respective kids at home in UK with caring family.

    As far as we all know parents did not interact much with kids. Kids were left in the creche daily and were given to nannies care during the evening so.... what's the purpose to bring them for an adult swinging holidays... I bet they would do it differently if they could...

    I'll comment about this new post a few minutes later that I found very interesting.

    Thank you

  22. Mas quem e o Pedofilo? Esta ligado a casa Pia?

  23. re:blood spatteres..could be resucitation methods..

  24. E que é o anónimo tão interessado na casa pia ?

  25. Brilliant article Tex, I completely agree with you about the negligence idea to boost the abduction theory, but what puzzles me is why is nothing positive done about Kate and Gerry why are they not questioned further about Madeleine, everyone I speak to thinks the mccanns are guilty, they show no emotion about their daughter and it is hard to believe that no authority has stepped in and taken action against them. Well done Tex you are very, very close to the truth.

  26. @5:55 "re:blood spatteres..could be resucitation methods..."

    No way Jose.. blood splattered in two halls doesn't means a resuscitation technique. Blood splattered in two halls means aggression!

    Was a living room not a Emergency room with ventilation tools around!

  27. First, my heartfelt thanks for such interesting and interested comments. You make it worth it.

    I cannot answer you all, so I’ll just say a few words for some, and as you’ve grown to know me, I’ve by now, hopefully, understood the patience you are with me, and you know that my silence most of the times means that you’ve made me think, my most preferred perverse activity.

    Jan 6, 2011 9:00:00 AM
    The non-existence of Maddie either as a person or not having been in PdL is not consistent with the evidence we have, albeit all the inconsistencies that the McCs & Pals have thrown at us.

    Jan 6, 2011 2:45:00 PM
    You describe what I initially thought. But very quickly understood that the wrongdoing was not restricted to these 9 people, and one tell-tale sign of swinging clubs that hold “conventions” that require the travel of its guests it’s the nocturnal care taking of children. It has nothing perverse about it, and only reveals that swingers are responsible people. About DW, do not underestimate the libido of the “elderly”. I would tell you to ask Fred, but I won’t. I’m too jealous and cautious.

    Jan 7, 2011 10:49:00 PM
    Thank you for such quite apt description of the subject.

    Jan 8, 2011 9:42:00 AM
    Precious words those that you used in your comment “Swinging carries a social stigma indeed”. Yes it does, and Britain is RUTHLESS when dealing with a juicy sex-scandal.

    Jan 9, 2011 12:43:00 PM
    Agree to disagree, not disagreeing with you. For me “Death at Praia da Luz” means one BIG bench of people sitting next to each other, responding to the crime of obstruction of justice, which, in my opinion, is the most relevant crime that took place in that village.

    The murder/manslaughter will only involve 2/3 people on the accused’s bench. Unfortunately crimes like that are by the dozen, which does NOT mean that the culprits should escape punishment. Certainly NOT!

    Jan 9, 2011 2:29:00 PM
    The paedophile in question is David Payne. He’s been branded as such mainly due to the Gaspars statement. Those particular statements are currently undergoing adequate analysis. Their subject and subsequent implications are not to be treated lightly.

    Jan 9, 2011 9:42:00 PM
    I was told, quite a long time ago, that there was proof that this blood was not from Maddie. Who told me was reliable. However, much water has passed under the bridge since, and what we took for certain, certainly was not. Certainly is not from a shaving “accident”, and is one topic that we must revisit.

    To all, thank you!!!

  28. Interesting your comments Textusa. The blood was not from Maddie? Long ago, when the samples went to the UK lab, a British paper came out with the blood belonging to a man. Then, later was dismissed. After some time, Levy was exposed and it come out that he fabricate some news, including that one. Now I'm confused.
    If the blood was not from Maddie why the Mccann's gave the excuse for that blood with Madeleine nose bleeding? Was the blood from their sexual activities (swing)? Was from Payne?
    I believe, the Kids spent their nights in another flat under the supervising of the Nannies and the days in the creche. That can explain the lack of forensic evidences of Madeleine in the 5A. Mccann's flat could be the one used only by adults, or not used at all, this is why they choose it to be the crime scene and bring the twins there before raising the alarm. Very little is known about the forensic evidences in another flats. The dogs search all the flats and just signalise the 5A for death and blood. Was the 5A used to hide the body for some time to avoid the other childs to see it and because it was close to the street and the parking? That can explain the death scent picked by the dogs. If so, then where died Madeleine, how and under the hands of who? This contradict what is in Amaral book and I'm getting confused. Waiting to see if I can understand better.

  29. Anon
    Jan 10, 2011 5:10:00 AM

    I didn't say it was NOT Maddie's blood, I just said I was told, once, by a credible person, that it was NOT. That certainly doesn't mean that I believe it isn't. I try, as far as I may, always to justify my statements in the blog.

    By the way, at that time, Levy was thought to be a credible person, so, yes, it's possible that the "NOT being Maddie's blood" couls have originated from him.

    Let«s also understand that there are two different locations of the blood, the wall and the floor tiles. The wall, from the pattern, it seems the result of an agression, while the on the floor, it's more of a seeping effect.

    Also due to the nearness of both locations it seems likely to be of the same person. So, I would say I'm 99% with you on this one, but will state any certainty after I revisit the subject.

    Please remember that to contradict what is said in Amaral's book is hardly to contradict the man. As I've said, the book is full of the fact that most of the witnesses lied in the majority of their statements. Does that constitute perjury? Yes, it does, and they knew that when they did it.

    We here use GA's book as evidence, as all other evidence presented to us. If it makes sense, it's true, if it doesn't, we try to understand the why. And only when we're certain, do we move foward.

    Hope things are clearer.

  30. Hi Textusa - thanks for your thoughts. Hey, I wouldn`t call DW `elderly` and agree its not unlikely she would partake, BUT not within knowledge of her own daughter - surely not? Maybe I`m old fashioned. Where can I find Fred?
    Louise (btw - there seem to be 2 of us posters called Louise, so I think I`ll add an `e` in future, both here and on Joana`s site).

  31. Thanks Textusa,

    From what I read and I read almost everything about that case, from books to papers and the Internet, I believe the blood was from Madeleine, even if only 15 alleles in 17 match her ADN. That is more then 50%, with or without contamination. Enough to be used as evidence. On top of that I add the excuses/explanations the Mccann's gave for the forensic evidences: Epistaxis for Madeleine blood in the flat, Pizza or meet in putrefaction for what was find in the car and the amazing 6 cadavers that Kate meet on the week before. Just a small detail- when the twins went to PDL they were less then 2 years old. The maternity leave in UK is more then 2 years, then when Kate went to PDL she must be under maternity leave for more then a year. Where is the place for the 6 cadavers under that circumstances? The absolut need of the Mccann's to quick find an explanation for the forensic evidences speak volumes and was just part of their incrimination. I believe, a judge in a Court will not let this evidences go away without trashing them with many questions.

  32. Reading through the comments I find the first three very interesting the writer touches on many valid points - I too often wondered if Maddie had ever been in pdl because there is simply not one piece of CCTV or genuine photographic evidence to prove she was ever there.Also the dutch connection and Gerry visiting other apartments does make one wonder what really went on.

  33. Anon,
    Jan 10, 2011 8:08:00 PM

    One of things I find most incredible in the absolute arrogance with which the McCanns (in an ample sense) is the dogs.

    They’ve slandered these animals (can a dog sue?) to an extent that should be reported to the SPCA, and have rendered, according to them, useless the olfactory capabilities of the specialized in cadeverine detecting animal, but, almost in the same sentence compliment the exact same olfactory sense of the exact same animal in being able to detect the cadeverine left behind by SIX people that happened to die in the arms of a GP.

    Lest we forget, cadeverine does take time to develop, so Kate must really dedicate herself to her patients, clinging to them for a rather large amount of time after they left our world. Amd wearing the same clothes, and forgetting to wear the usual whites, or scrubs, in which we usually see doctors wear while doing their job.

    So, shamelessly the dogs cannot smell when it’s not convenient, but do a wonderful job when it is. Go figure.

    Jan 10, 2011 8:44:00 PM

    I cannot read anywhere on the first 3 comments the questioning of Maddies’ presence in PdL. I read, and I thank the Anon who made them, a very matured questioning of the abduction thesis by the analysis of the McCann behavior.

    I just went back to those comments and now realize that I’ve been quite rude. S/he has asked me a questions and I did not reply. Let me do that now.

    The question “It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason – said Pat - I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty. Can we Textusa?”

    My answer is, on theoretical terms, no, we’re not the adequate forum nor do we wish to replace it. But fully understanding your question, they’re not to be labeled guilty, but be found as such. The obstacle is not about evidence, which is overwhelming against them, it’s to overcome eyes that firstly opted for not seeing, and after having deliberately not seen so much are now unable, due to shame, to assume that there never was nothing wrong with their eyesight. I’ll respond, hopefully better in a post that I intend to call “From Black to White, Who’s to Say What is Grey?"

  34. Trough the words of C. Mitchell in his last 2 interviews with BBC:

    - "The Public know nothing..." You are wrong Mr. The Public read the PJ files, Amaral book and many other information that was delivered by informed people in the Internet.

    - "who criticise Kate and Gerry is a small minority". Again you are wrong Mr. Just do a small search and you will find out that the amount of blogs and people posting comments in blogs and papers, against the Mccann's, demanding a full investigation, seeking for the truth is the big majority.

    - "There is no evidences that Madeleine was not alive, if so what was the point to carry on?". Again wrong. There is small evidences that she is dead, weak because not full investigated. Ask the dogs. Per contrary there is not a single evidence that she is alive. I can tell you why they carry on... to foolish honest people that deliver donations used not on any campaign to search Madeleine, but to Pay you and other useless characters.

    - "Kate and Gerry had an assumption that Madeleine was abducted". WAW MR. You admiting in a radio interview that this is an assumption, then a Theory like many of us classified their fantasist story and not a fact, like what the Mccann's tried to sell in many papers across the world.

    - "The abduction was a plan, planned weeks/months before". By who Mr? Who plan weeks/months before to snatch a child in PDL ( a remote small town in Algarve) during the cheapest season of the year? An abductor knowing the prey and when she is going to travell to the right place. Then the abductor travelled with her and must be part of her relationships.

    - "The location of the flat(5A) make it easy for an abduction". Can we read trough your words that this is why the Mccann's and Payne choose that flat? was the most convennient to set their plan? Close to the street, close to a car parking, etc.

    - " There is 1, 2 or 3 people knowing what hapenned to Madeleine". Amazing, if just one person(Jane) said that she saw one man, from where did you bring that idea of 3 people knowing what hapenned/where she is? Due to the circumstances can we say: Gerry, O'Brien and Tanner or Gerry, Payne and Kate?

    The rat Methodes of using the Media(BBC now) to ask money and send messages to threat and intimidate people from blogs, is a shame and show how desperate the all team is with possibility of somebody exposing the truth and lead the case to be reopenned( a issue that Kate, Gerry and all characters involved in the cover up, want to avoid).


  36. Poster @ 8.09

    Excellent comment! Would you mind if I quote your words elsewhere?

    You have said everything I would say and I would only be copying your words and sentiments anyway but maybe not as well you have.

  37. Now what a coincidence

  38. Please also read comments below link sent

    Jan 11, 2011 8:48:00 AM

  39. Hello, some good points were mentioned here. I also was wondering before how come that NO other witnesses - guests in the OC back then - have ever mentioned anything vis a vis the press or police. With that amount of public attention this case got you would think some hundred ppl will speak about how they used to see the ,doctors' at a huge table in the Tapas Bar or have met them during their many alleged activities at day time or in the/on the way to the creche... but there is absolute silence about it. No such statements were ever made. Also, the nannies were sent back to the UK and all their statements regarding seeing Madeleine are pretty vague. The Oldfield's had the youngest kid of them all I think and I highly doubt they let it all alone at nights. That the Oldfields have used a baby monitor was never mentioned either. Makes you think why ppl with toddlers book a holiday in a club that offers day and night nannies for children and then do not use that service at all...?
    Regarding the blood: I have read on the 3Arguidos forum some of the Interpol files. A blood sample was sent to Frankfurt, Germany and the answer was that the blood was of an elder guy not a child. Do not know to which blood sample this referred to, tho. Blood found in the hire car or the one on the wall. Because later a blood sample is clearly? or almost identified as blood of Maddie and the McCanns were quick to explain this, too, namely nose bleeding.
    They were also quick with excuses for any cadaver odeur, ridiculous excuses in my book.
    Also that there might have been illegal real estate activities or swinging is new to me. The statements of the nannies have always been highly suspicious to me because they are to vague. Also the creche reports presented. Could have been faked easily.

  40. Observer Rothley

    1.The Mcanns went home with one less child than they took

    2. There is no evidence of an abduction

    3. The Mcanns have been and continue to lie about the circumstances of points 1 and 2.

    4. The rest of their friends have remained in inordinately quite , almost as if they had a pact

    5 Dr Amaral and the Portuguese people did their best but political influence condemned them to failure, so far


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.