Real Justice is Real but is it Justice?

We’ve already spoken about this case.

A series of contradictions made by Domingos Duarte Lima during the investigation done by the Brazilian Police, have now resulted in formally charging him with the murder of the Portuguese citizen, Rosalina Ribeiro.

According to the Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha, he's now wanted by Interpol.

But what is interesting about today’s news is the apparent debate on how expectedly very little amount of justice will be effectively applied to this individual. “Legal justice” that is.

Just look at this precious gem, from the picture above: “Fontes contactadas pelo CM (Correio da Manha) garantem que dificilmente Lima seria condenado, tanto mais que conta na sua defesa com alguns dos advogados mais prestigiados.”, which translates into, “Sources contacted by CM ensure that it will be very difficult to condemn Lima, so much so that he has in his defense some of the most prestigious lawyers.”

It seems it will be difficult to condemn this man NOT because the investigation was blotched, or because the accusation may be flawed or even because he may indeed be innocent.

 No. It will be difficult because he has VERY GOOD LAWYERS.

That’s what modern justice has come to.

You get yourself a good lawyer and it’s irrelevant the crime you've committed.

A good lawyer, is assumed, will be able to, no matter what you may REALLY have done, find some legal technicality to keep you away from prison or some legal form of coersion (such as libel threats) to keep at a safe distance all those that may contribute for you to be put in one.

Remember those days when guilt had to do with having committed, or not, a crime or felony?

Please don’t be naïve and do erase that idiotic concept from your personal set of values. That is applicable only of you can’t afford a GOOD lawyer.

But will Duarte Lima ever be off the hook, even if never officially (read as in “Official Judicial System”) convicted and sentenced?

 As I’ve implied many times before, if you treat Justice lousily, then you get lousy justice. So, even assuming that in this case it will be very difficult to condemn as it seems it will be (and reality has proven so, time and time again) a sentence has already been decreed: life-sentence, without any possibility of parole, of misery independent of surrounding riches.

Just like the McCanns & friends: to live the remainder of his days in a prison that, although without physical bars, is made of a permanent claustrophobic nightmare.

If in this case there isn’t a trial, then, like in the McCann one, Justice will have forfeited its role, turned its back on its duty.

But the perversity of perverse justice (or real "justice") is terrible, for, in this manner, it applies a much harsher sentence to those who pay, well, to flee from sentencing.

Who’d the McCanns be today, if they had owned up for what happened on May 3rd, 2007? I don’t know, but I have a hunch that most likely they would be in a much more peaceful state of mind that they’re currently in.  

Duarte Lima has prestigious lawyers? They may be so (I honestly don’t know who they are), but they still have a long way to go to begin to match up with the ones that the McCanns have on their side.

 

The Sp(McC)an(n)ish Arrest

Two children, Jose, two, and Ruth Breton Ortiz, six, disappeared.

The British Media practically ignored the issue.

The father was arrested.

The British tabloids COMPLETELY ignored this:

Daily Star: NOTHING to say…  

Daily Mirror: NOTHING to say…  

The Sun: NOTHING to say…  

The Daily Mail: NOTHING to say…

 Daily Express: NOTHING to say…  

The Independent: NOTHING to say…  

London Evening Standard: NOTHING to say…

What English-speaking media did report this after all? These, to date, as far as we could research:

The Olive Press  
"Jose Breton Gomez, 38, was seized at his home at 3am on Tuesday morning on suspicion of murder. He was the last person to see Jose, two, and Ruth Breton Ortiz, six, alive before they disappeared and has been accused of making ‘false statements’.  
He insisted he lost sight of them for ‘a moment’ and a search has been underway ever since.”

 The Latin American Herald Tribune  
“According to investigators’ remarks on Tuesday, Jose Breton was arrested because of the “numerous contradictions” that had been found in his account of what happened to his children. The two youngsters – Ruth, 6, and Jose, 2 – were last seen in a Cordoba park on the afternoon of Oct. 8 while they were in the care of their father, who then reported their disappearance.
The children live in the nearby city of Huelva with their mother but had been staying in Cordoba with their father on the weekend, since the couple are in the process of separating. Breton’s arrest came after police conducted an intensive search for the two children, both in the park as well as in a nearby river, and raided several residences of members of the father’s family.  
So far, Breton had been cooperating with police and authorities have not reported what the precise motive for his arrest was, other than to note the contradictions they had detected in his account.”

 The Reader.es  
“Police have arrested José Bretón, the dad of the two children, aged 2 and 6, who allegedly went missing from a Córdoba park on October 8th, whilst supposedly in their father's care. Officers from the National Police are still searching the property in "Las Quemadillas" owned by the paternal grandparents of the two children.  
Sources close to the case say that many of officers with sniffer dogs are combing different parts of the farm for clues to the children's disappearance, going over the same area searched by forensic agents eight days ago when the children went missing.”
  It seems that there are British children… and then there are other children.

Children of a lesser god, it seems.

Pity that when it came to raise funds and attention, internationality was so desperately sought. Important is that the Jose and Ruth’s father’s bluff was called and he was arrested.
 
Maybe the Spanish Police could teach Scotland Yard on how to handle cases like this. No, NOT of missing children, but of parents lying about their child(ren)'s disappearance.

The Eye of the Storm

by May I

On June 9th 2008, Trevor Francis from Worthing, Sussex made a witness statement concerning a sighting of a child he believed to be Madeleine. He saw the girl on the island of Margharita in the Caribbean on May 16th 2007.
The report was made to Sussex Police and sent to Leicester Police.

The Portuguese police files, best known as PJ Files, were released publicly on August 4th 2008 and press reports describing reported sightings began to appear. On the 10th of August, this story appears in an article written by Ross Hall in the News of the World, practically quoting the statement made to the police.
The same story about this sighting appears on the same day in the Sunday Mirror, written by Lori Campbell. (*)

Other newspapers also covered the story, but I mention these two stories in particular, as Lori Campbell was the person who first ran the story on Robert Murat, claiming that his behaviour was reminiscent of Ian Huntley in the Soham murders. Like Martin Brunt from Sky News, Lori Campbell had also been a reporter at Soham.

“I saw Madeleine, I know it was her” Francis is quoted as saying, adding he was too afraid to grab her as he was afraid to cause a scene. He noted that the girl had a blemish in her right eye - a little FLECK, as he described it. According to Hall, “Fresh witness Trevor is the first to get a clear view of the unique blemish in Madeleine’s eye.”  
Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying: “The eye makes it potentially more serious than other sightings.”  

Hall then elaborates about “The Mark of Madeleine.”, which is a key part of the campaign, writing that it is “actually what doctors call a coloboma.” One person who appears to have noticed an eye defect predates Trevor Francis’ sighting by almost 4 months. Student Melissa Fiering describes seeing a girl in France with “a dark smudge in her right iris" in February 2008.
On this previous occasion, Clarence Mitchell had declared this “more worthy than most (sightings) because of the eye defect.” No mention of a coloboma here either.

What about sightings in 2007? Before the coloboma story grew legs. There is another sighting where the eye defect is mentioned on June 10th which must have been significant because Gerry McCann is keen for it to be reported to Karen Eaton and Bob Small at Leicester police.
The memo concerning a sighting by a pensioner by the name of Antonio Sousa is signed “Talk soon, Clarence”
On this occasion, a person of Muslim appearance was seen with a child in Porto, Portugal and the eyes of the child were mentioned. Again, no mention of coloboma.

Another traumatic sighting at close quarters is by Janet Anderson of Wilmington, Kent, who saw a girl she thought was Madeleine in Dubrovnik on June 18th 2007. The girl was screaming as she was hustled into a taxi.
Janet Anderson even put her head into the cab and asked what was wrong with the girl. Unfortunately, the report ends abruptly.
There is no mention of an eye defect in her report to Maidstone Police, made on her return to England on June 23rd. As the report is incomplete, we don’t know whether she reported this to the local police at the time, but in the same situation, I know what I would have done.

 As we have already pointed out, there is no mention of a coloboma in Kate’s book, which seems to have come as a surprise to many readers. There is no photograph of her on holiday wearing sunglasses, which would have been needed to protect her eye if she had such a condition and the PJ files do not mention such a defect.

What Goncalo Amaral has to say in his book is particularly relevant. “The parents have always insisted that Madeleine was in good health. The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been the deciding factors. Why didn’t we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It’s deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative. In the course of this investigation, a doctor pointed out to us that Madeleine had a mark in her eye, described by some as a coloboma of the iris, which can be associated with cardiac insufficiency. In spite of repeated requests to the British Medical Association, we were never able to confirm that hypothesis, a simple photo not being sufficient to establish a medical diagnosis.“
Quite! So why were posters produced showing a coloboma if Madeleine did not have this condition?

Any sighting of a child without such an eye defect could have resulted in the sighting being ignored. The McCann’s could have corrected any inaccurate reporting of Madeleine’s supposed eye defect, but instead, they seem to have been happy to use it as a “marketing opportunity.”
Why not say Madeleine has different coloured eyes, which is the information given to the PJ - Blue left eye, greenish right eye with a brown fleck - No mention of a coloboma here. Francis saw her 4-5 feet away and his description of a fleck in her right eye is consistent with the PJ file, as is Melissa Fiering’s

In subsequent TV appearances - Oprah Winfrey and Piers Morgan- the eye defect has been played down. The information to the press about a coloboma seems to have been given by proxies, never directly from the McCanns themselves?
Or did Gerry once make an error when he described the marketing opportunity offered?  

(*) Ross Hall has been arrested in connection with the News International phone hacking scandal. It is alleged that he transcribed hacked voice mails for other journalists. He is married to Lori Campbell. For the record, Kate in front of a "colobomaless" Maddie:
 

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #12/?

Question: Was “Mission Impossible” Team at PdL around the time Maddie disappeared? 
Answer: Yes, it does seem that they were indeed there, however, it can’t be determined if Tom Cruise was part, or not, of that particular crew.

We’ve already seen that the IRWINs, to appear as they do on May 3rd’s “reservation sheet”, had to make their reservation BEFORE that day.  

THREE days before, to be exact, if it was Rachael who did the T9 reservation, or FOUR days, if it was Russ.
 
We’ve also seen that when the T9 reserved (either Russ or Rachael), the “tennis Mark Warner” MUST have already been reserved, as it’s the only justification for the T9's surnames NOT to appear on Friday’s May 4th “reservation sheet”, as they do on the ones dated before.

The T9 arrived on Saturday 28th, had dinner that evening at The Mill, and say that they booked for the the rest of the week to have dinner at Tapas.

Please disregard the above as this alone does contradict the possibility of Rachael having done the booking on the morning of Monday 30th, as “her” reservation wouldn't have been possible to include the Sunday 29th dinner, and we would be then left without knowing who in fact booked that particular meal, or if anyone did book it at all.

Sorry, I forgot, no walk-ins at Tapas, so SOMEONE must have booked it.

We know it was an absolute requirement, due to customer demand, to stand in line to get a meal, so if Rachael was the one who booked, on Monday 30th, then one other T9 must’ve had to wake up early to get a booking just for Sunday 29th.

It could've been Russ, and that would certainly clarify this whole booking issue, but unfortunately he does speaks about a block booking, which isn’t exactly the concept for a single meal, which is what is at stake.

But, as I said, do disregard all that.

What we have to remember is that the "tennis Mark Warner" booking was done before the T9 one. So either from Sunday 29th or from Monday 30th, this "collective" reservation was there for all to see.

Just before it was also left, for all to see, that now famous enigmatic note (or annotation ?), on that same reservation book, that clearly stated the reason why the T9 had asked reserved (not to be too far from the children they LEFT in the apartments).

Another odd "reservation" procedure only done in this really odd restaurant,

Fortunately, for sanity's sake, nobody has seen it but Kate McCann.

The BERRYs and the HYNDs booked before the “tennis Mark Warner”, as the sequence on Friday 4th’s “reservation sheet” clearly shows, so they also must’ve booked their meal either on Sunday 29th or Monday 30th.

Nothing we haven't already shown on Tapas Quiz Night Question #11.

Sorry to be repetitive, but we have to be crystal clear. We saw that meant that the PAYNEs, the OLDFIELDs, the O’BRIENs, the McCANNs, the IRWINs, the BERRYs and the HYNDs were allowed by Tapas to book in advance.

But were these people the only ones to be able to do that?

Of course not.

Remember our "Slide & Splash sheet", that we’ve concluded that it was but an inexplicable handwritten copy of Monday 07th'’s “reservation sheet”?:

It’s an important document because it clarifies that the HYNDs did book for that day, at 19:30 to be exact.

This particular reservation was crossed out for reasons we don't know.

One has to wonder about the criteria used by the person making the reservations.

About the "tennis Mark Warner" dinner cancellation a "CANCELADO" is written, but with the HYNDs he feels the need to cross out the name intirely...

The HYNDs, as we've seen, booked in advance, either on Sunday 29th or on Monday 30th, for their meal for Friday, then it would have been on the same occasion that they also booked this meal.

So either, just like the T9, on Sunday 29th, or on Monday 30th, the HYNDs booked for Friday 4th and Monday 7th.

You could say that he booked the Friday 4th meal on THAT occasion, BUT booked the the Monday 7th meal on ANOTHER date.

After all, we have NO statement from any of the HYNDs, do we?

Well for that to happen, on any other date but of Monday 7th itself, the HYND surname would appear first on that reservation sheet. By looking at the Monday 7th’s “reservation sheet”, by the sequence in which the names appear, we can then conclude that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs (misspelled as NEWAN) booked before the HYNDs:

So the only other possibility is for the HYNDs not to have booked in advance would have to be that they stood in the line, on Monday 7th, to book for that day's dinner.

How credible is that?

We now know that the HYNDs don't require to stand in line to book at Tapas. So is there any reason for them to decide to stand in a line they don't need to be in, early morning, to book a meal they're not certain they're having, as they later cancel it?

The fact they appear THIRD on that list, means they either stood in that line, which, I repeat, they didn't need to, or that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs were also able to book in advance.  

No one stands in a line for fun.

So, if the HYNDs booked BEFORE the “tennis Mark Warner”, which they did, that means that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs ALSO booked before the T9, on Sunday 30th or on Monday 1st.

So basically we just have to add up these two names to all those others that were able to “jump the queue”: the PAYNEs, the OLDFIELDS, the O’BRIENs, the McCANNs, the IRWINs, the BERRYs and the HYNDs; and now the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs.

That said, all we’d be saying new would be just to further confirm the naughtiness and disrespect with which the OC supposedly treated the majority of its clients, by granting inexplicable booking privileges to just a few of them.

But this is where “Mission Impossible” Team comes in.

Thanks to our friend, Insane, who adamantly and vehemently has shown the world, both here and on other sites, both real (Joana’s Morais' blog, comment #87) and imaginary (his blog), both the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs ONLY checked in on Friday, May 5th.

Here is what this character had to say, commenting our Tapas Quiz Night question #4:  
“None of those people listed on that reservation sheet - or the impromptu copy made on the slide and splash notepaper - arrived in PdL until AFTER Madeleine had disappeared. Go and check for yourselves, their names are all listed in the PJ files, together with the dates they stayed. 
You are being lied to, by Textusa and her sidekicks, for reasons best known to themselves. These are all the details and references where they can be found  
Savage, apartment G30, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg  
Newman (Misspelled as Newan ), apartment fp08, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_637.jpg  
Hynd, apartment 0011, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg  
Harrison, apartment dp03, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg  
Mullard, apartment gp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_637.jpg  
Burdekin (misspelled as Budekin) apartment gp01, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_635.jpg  
Stinton-Heeley, apartment 0207, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg  
Mackeson, apartment 0025, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07  
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg  
Vincent, apartment cp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07  
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg 
Stop lying to people. These guests ALL arrived after Madeleine went. Do your research properly, you are a total laughing stock” 

He later corrects his statement, which he's absolutely entitled to do so: "Oh incidentally. I know Alistair Hyde was there the previous week - but he seems to be there on a rolling basis."

He doesn't correct anything about the SAVAGEs or the NEWMANs, does he?

hese people only arrive on the 5th. So there you have it. Both the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs booked dinners BEFORE they even arrived.

THAT is only POSSIBLE if done by the “Mission Impossible” Team.

Unfortunately, from the available data, we aren’t able to determine which of their members were at PdL under those identities, so we cannot confirm if Tom Cruise was there or not, although the choice of “SAVAGE” might be an indication that it could’ve been him.

As we don’t want TANNER to do another one of her Tanners, and before we see published in The Sun that she’s pointed Cruise as "the abductor" she allegedly saw, let us clarify that we’re not suggesting anything of the sort.

We’re only stating that there was an IMPOSSIBILITY that did happen at PdL.

No, we’re not talking, this time, about abduction. We’re talking about ANOTHER IMPOSSIBILITY.

The IMPOSSIBILITY of being able to book dinners in an OPTIONAL restaurant at a foreign country BEFORE even arriving there.

Maybe Tapas, with all its marvelous unknown wonders did take bookings online.

Oh, and it’s useless to ask the "Mission Impossible" Team if they were there because "As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions." As you know, we honestly believe that nothing of the above happened.