What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a doctor… would the headline then be “PERVERT DOCTOR’S £150 AN HOUR FOR ON-THE-SIDE OPERATIONS”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a renown lawyer… would the headline then be “SHAMELESS LAWYER CHARGES £150 AN HOUR HER “OTHER” CLIENTS”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a big businesswoman… would the headline then be “DISGRACED MILLIONAIRESS CHARGES £150 AN HOUR FOR “BUSINESS” MEETINGS IN BED”?
What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a magistrate… would the headline then be “KINKY JUDGE DISHES OUT “SENTENCES” FOR £150 AN HOUR”?
Within the Maddie Affair context, all these are rhetorical questions, for everyone knows the answer to ALL of them is: “No, because she has the necessary connections to stop that headline from ever appearing”.
This headline, however, shows quite clearly what was, is, and will remain to be for a long time coming, at stake the moment poor Madeleine died, just because both her parents and her parents' “friends” were where they wanted nobody to know they were, and this because they were doing what they couldn’t afford anyone (read, you) to know what they were doing.
None of them could EVER afford a similar headline.
Once this particular child died, they couldn’t do anything about having be known where they were (some were able to), but could, and did, do something about being known what they were doing.
But even the best Chef under pressure spoils a recipe, and in this case, with the haste and the amount of “excuses” to be found, the whole broil was overcooked. But did that spoil the serving? Of course not.
All the "guests" had instructions, to save their own backsides, to say how “delicious” the food was even if it was evident to all that it was over burned, overcooked and looked just like it tasted, but won't describe it as it would need the use of rather unpleasant wording.
“DELICIOUS!!!” did they all unanimously shout out, the loudest manner their lungs allowed, with the biggest grin they could muster. Some even went to the point for asking for seconds and thirds (here do read about the “hamburger theory”), avoiding the grimaces that their taste buds demanded, so much was what was at stake... They shouted out then, and will continue to shout as long as this farce will be allowed to last.
About this particular woman, a school's secretary and apparently also a hooker, let me just ponder a minute with you, if you will, on how she found herself to be such “headline news” and an exclusive at that. It’s something that is very relevant to be understood.
Did she call the tabloid? I don’t think so.
How then did the reporter get to know about this?
Two ways, as far as I can see, either from investigative journalism or from someone who knew her and called the tabloid to denounce the situation.
The first, if true, it would make one wonder what kind of journalism we’re before. Has the reporter gone through a thousand of these adverts in hope of finding similar cases to expose? If so, how many prostitutes did he "visit" before he stumbled on this case? All in the purest “line-of-duty”, of course. Where will he now take his investigative journalism? One is afraid to ask, much less venture an answer…
The second possibility, much more likely, does bring up question as to why didn’t the person who denounced this situation report it FIRST to the proper educational authority, starting, for example, with the school’s principal? That would be the responsible thing to do if one was REALLY worried about the children’s care.
Only after faced with inaction, should this individual pursue further on his or her concerns, and if need be, involve the media.
That doesn’t seem to have been the procedure in this case. The reporting went through the straightest and shortest possible way to a reporter, of a tabloid.
Out of spite, out of greed, or out of whatever reason, but with the exact same objective, to tintillate the populace’s voyeurism, which, as we can witness, is ruthless but fundamentally profitable. A tabloid sells. and not in small numbers...
These kind of "news" quench the mob’s thirst to be judgmental and, through that, feel superior.
I personally feel really sorry for the poor woman who was exposed, as long as all her clients were consenting adults. Both parties, the service provider and its receivers, appear to have engaged in said activity voluntarily. A private issue that should have remained private.
Prostitution clients include pillars of the community, such as magistrates, businessmen and bank managers, to name a few. Many people we would know in positions of authority, politics, business or law…
A heterogenic group, very much like the rag readers one, you know, all those that just love sleaze. Do check what’s the most read story, and related ones, if you doubt it.
Back to the article and its journalistic content, it does make one wonder what some people do for a living, and I’m not talking about the school's secretary/hooker.
Did those present in PDL REALLY have something to fear if word got out about what they were up to?
You tell me. A hint, could it be something like this?
I agree with everything You writes about the hypocrisy of many members of society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the many privileges, surrounded by others full of influence, about more intimate activities and do not come to the attention of the tabloids.
Perhaps for this, beyond the influence and knowledge, the inquiry by the L.L. is to help also about.
As for the Lady will likely be exposed by the tabloid can be an excellent professional in the context of profession or in his hobby.
How much more hypocrisy: it is a parent of a student's school who discovers and complaint. He can to see erotic sites, and perhaps be a customer but... she can not be free.
The couple and the Woman belong to I. Catholic. And I say no more ..... about hypocrisy.
****
Concordo com tudo o que escreve sobre a hipocrisia de muitos membros da sociedade.
Concordo Consigo quanto aos privilégios de muitos , rodeados de outros cheios de influência, quanto às actividades mais íntimas e que não chegam ao conhecimento dos tablóides.
Talvez para isso, além das influências e conhecimentos, esteja a contribuir o inquérito
L .L.
Quanto à Senhora exposta pelo tablóide provavelmente será excelente profissional, quer no âmbito da Profissão, quer no Seu hobby.
Quanto a mais hipocrisia: é um progenitor de um aluno da Escola que a descobre e a denuncia. Ele pode andar a ver sites eróticos e , talvez, ser cliente mas ela não pode ser livre.
O casal Mc e Ela pertencem à I. Católica. E, mais não digo..... acerca de hipocrisias.
Anon, your comment to test if we would received it or not, was received, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this, as is obvious. Will delete this comment tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteTextusa, the problem is that I wrote several comments here but at the moment that I tried to post them, I could not see the complete code letters, only the half, the part above.That's why I warned you.Yeah, my theories don't please the McCanns. You know, I wrote to the Portuguese police with a couple of suggestions in case they interrogate the couple again.If they follow my suggestion, they can prove that McCanns were lying in one of their very well known stories.I hope they will do it.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing: can you explain me what Kate meant with the tea stain on Maddie's pijamas?
Was the abductor serving tea to the children the night before? What a lot of work, going to the kitchen, making tea, putting it in a cup, sugar, milk, walking back to the children's room, waking Madeleine up...
The British public did a lot for the Mccanns, not only money but also putting pressure on the British government in order help finding Madeleine. They finally listened to those desperate parents and to the population by sending the Met.
ReplyDeleteWe all would love to read Theresa May's letter to them last May.Why didn't they publish it in order to show us our appeal was not in vain?
We did everything we could, don't we have any rights?
We can give them money, we can write the government, why not giving something back?
"A tense situation", a wonderful article by Dr. Martin Roberts at Mccannfiles.
ReplyDeleteKate McCann with her accounts( omissions) of the truth.
Anon Jan 21, 2012 2:13:00 AM
ReplyDeleteI haven't looked attentively to the tea-stain episode, but it seems that there are evident discrepancies in what the "best-actress nominee" has to say on the subject. First there's the question of her bathing the kids and then dressing them in jams for breakfast when logic would say to dress them to be ready for the day... then there's, I think, the speed with which the jams dried-up after being handwashed...
There are some who say such stain didn't exist, and is just clutter to corroborate the possibility for the fictional abductor having used drugs the previous night... but that would, at least on a first impression, down a the ridiculous path of him having dry-runs, or dress-rehearsals...
Other say that she's trying to find an excuse for a semen stain on the little girl's pajamas. That would raise the paedophilia question up, which, I think is nothing but clutter. There was no paedo activity in PdL. There may have been paedo's amongst the big group, but that's a question of probabilities and statistics. There could be there paedos, as freemasons, as addicted gamblers... you see, all these three types of people (not comparing any with the others with anything else but their exterior appearance) look just like you and me or anyone else.
If you want my opinion, and, I repeat, haven't done any anylisis on the subject, the story told seems more of an excuse to justify semen on that cloth. How did it get there? Well, one simple way would have been that some adult activity took place in a bed where Maddie's pajamas was laying, and it was used at some point in time as a "cleaning" cloth... But, as I said, these are just thoughts on the subject. To pronounce a definite opinion, I would have to raise other possibilities and discard them. Thank you for your comment and hope your PC doesn't give you any more problmes.
Textusa,
ReplyDeleteThis post is a nice follow up to your.
http://www.textusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-would-they-do-if-they-could.html
The semen:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.textusa.blogspot.com/2011/11/mystery-of-profile-l.html
The bed:
http://www.textusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/mistaken-identities.html
Textusa, it’s a case to say, SPOT ON!
Being a doctor, Kate would have recognised the stain came from drugs.About semen, the abductor leaving his DNA behind? I'm surprised Kate did not say she did not feel sorry she kept it for her next in vitro fertilisation.
ReplyDeleteShe is concentrate on sex, isn't she? How can Kate associate her dead child to sex this much, also publicly speaking about her perfect genitals.Lack of respect.
Anon Jan 21, 2012 1:16:00 PM,
ReplyDeleteWe, in this blog, refuse adamantly to pronounce any sort of judgment on anyone about their private behaviour. However odd or strange it may appear to any of us.
If it’s an activity engaged between consenting adults, it’s their business and their business alone.
We do not share your opinion about Kate having any sort of sexual obsession. Even if that was the case, we wouldn’t point a finger in her direction because of it, because as we said, and will never tire ourselves in repeating, we’re not here to judge personal behaviours. Maybe that's the reason that we have such a wonderful readership. Our readers know we'll never abdicate reason.
What we think we’re witnessing, is an attempt to hide any sort of sexual activity whatsoever in that apartment. Semen stains are perfectly natural in any normal household where couple’s express physical intimacy.
The hiding of any possible sexual activity in that apartment is part, in our opinion, of a wider effort to hide adult activities on a wider scale than that practiced by just a couple. Again, we’re not judging, merely stating, because, all those that were in PDL were, are and should always be free to have fun the way they intend to, as long as it is done with like minded adult individuals.
What we condemn, and that we do condemn, is that hiding of something that shouldn’t ever have to be hidden, but that society unfortunately dictates it should, hides the occurrence of a death.
The way this death was concealed, besides being wrong from the start, was done in an arrogant, abusive and insulting manner to many. To top it all, profit was made out of this death.
So Anon, it’s not whatever eventual sexual perversion may have happened that we condemn here, it’s the utter human perversion that we know that happened.
Anons Jan 21, 2012 1:07:00 PM and Jan 21, 2012 1:07:00 PM, it's so gratifying to find that that our readers know our blog inside out! Thank you, it makes all worthwhile!
ReplyDeletecould it be that the stain story never happened and Kate made it up because there was a piece of Madeleine's clothes with such a stain and they forgot it in her closet? Or was there a stain on Maddie's sheet? And now they have to explain the police? "Erm, erm, the abductor came every nigth...Jane saw him...erm erm".
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think of the pink blanket Kate "gave"to the police man.
Is the stain the issue Amaral said"the McCanns will not be pleased with"?
I can't wait.
I don't remember Kate having told about any stain, the years before.This strange story has a purpose, there is something behind it. Short after the McCanns were made arguidos, the police added one extra detective to the team, a detective specialised in sex crimes.This happened before the Gaspars'statements were sent to Algarve.At that moment, I suspected that it had to do with the fact that the cadaver dog barked at the Pyjama's T-shirt and not at its trousers.But now I think of the possibility of the existence of a stain somewhere or perhaps only the existence of fear in the McCanns.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:40, could you please back up your statement that "the police added one extra detective to the team, a detective specialised in sex crimes"?
ReplyDeleteI read or watched a video about this in 2007 and now I'm not sure if it happened before or after Amaral left. I think before.
ReplyDeleteAnyway it was before the Gaspars were known. At the time I was shocked because the PJ files were not yet published, and I was not prepared to learn that.
I had always the feeling that the stain story was made up by Kate to bake her hipothesis of having an abductor inside the flat on the night before, who tried to sedate the children without success.
ReplyDeleteThe time the story was delivered, the circumstances and the desperation regarding a public opinion that was running on a direction they don't wanted to on top of a sceptical police who don't buy their statements, forced her to do something.
She is a Dr. surrounded by other Drs. They know, a tea stain could never be mistaken by semen or other body fluid. Believing the public or worse, the police will mistake that, is calling herself an idiot.
She wanted to pass the idea of a syrup that dropped on the girl pyjama. Some syrups when dried look like a tea stain.
For some reason, the police don,t find any medicine on Mccann's flat. Something very strange for a couple who travelled with 3 toddlers.
I think it was Paulo Rebelo who asked an extra detective, specialized in sex crimes.
ReplyDeleteTrying to sedate with a syrup, waking Madeleine up?
ReplyDeleteI believe now that the abductor was Mary Poppins.
Poor Met, how tiring it will be to read all of the McCanns' lies specially Kate's. But I'm sure they will enjoy them.Textusa, I think you live in Portugal. Can't you find a way to find out what is happening at the police in Algarve?
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is that they will be ready by around May and England or the PJ will reopen the process. I know that if a Public prosecuter orders for a reconstruction, the witnesses are obliged to take part in it. This time no arguidos but witnesses who have to answer the questions.I have the feeling that at least Oldfield is willing to tell what he knows.Why helping hiding a crime if he is not guilty of anything? Textusa, there is an article from 2007, the Maddie Case Files, I think Daily Mail, where a lawyer tells about the pressure 1 or 2 Tapas were suffering and were not daring to tell the truth.
Perhaps you could re-publish it here and it could encourage those 2 victims to come forward.
Anon 10:40 - I agree completely with your post, I found it odd Kate made reference to the stain, obviously it is part of something she is distancing herself from, also Kate said she could not bear to use the camera after Maddie disappeared but as Dr Roberts in his brilliant post states this clearly was not the case and she did use the camera.
ReplyDeleteKate is being caught out by her own lies and by putting too much emphasise on things she knows she is involved in, if she was innocent she would not even mention these things.
Thank you Textusa you have an analitical mind and have pointed out many discrepancies that others appear to have overlooked.
Sorry Anon Jan 22, 2012 11:32:00 AM, I thought I'd already told you that I live right here. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteanon@ 10:54,
ReplyDeleteWhy not? A syrup is much easier then anything else. Remember mrs Fenn was teached by somebody to deliver the story of Madeleine crying on the same night. It is a simple equation adding the two situations to get the answer the Mccann's were looking for.
What were they doing in the church and when they were not jogging, playing tennis or giving press conferences, if they don't physically searched Madeleine? They were having meetings, planning the steps ahead, trying to invent the evidences that could fit an abduction scenary. On their brains, anything was better then nothing. They had to do something to try to invert the logical way the investigation was following.
Mrs. Fenn heard Maddie crying on May the 1st. On May the 3rd she did not hear any noise from 5a.She phoned her friend on the 1st, telling about the cry, and it is possible the PJ interviewed her too and we don't know.The friend's reply to Mrs Fenn on the 1st seems to have been she was not surprised with the cry(I forgot what she said). That friend knew who the McCanns were or she could have heard about them short before because she lives also in Praia da Luz. I suspect it was a comment of Mrs. Fenn's during that week. It is possible Mrs. Fenn got scared of the political power of the McCanns at that time and she did not dare to tell much.She is now dead, Brown is gone, Murdoch idem, who knows Mrs. Fenn told a lot more to her son and he is willing to help the police.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine did not cry the same night as far as I know. If I'm not mistaken Mrs. Fenn stated that she didn't hear any noise at all that fatal night, till 10.30pm.
ReplyDeleteAnons Jan 22, 2012 10:46:00 PM & Jan 23, 2012 12:16:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Portuguese have a saying “agua mole em pedra dura tanto bate ate que fura”, which roughly means that “the soft water's persistent hitting on hard rock, is able, in the end, to break it”.
It basically describes your attempt to discuss here Mrs. Fenn.
I cannot be clearer than saying that Mrs Fenn heard or said nothing. Mts Fenn did not hear Maddie cry the night she said she did, or in any other night, for that matter.
I’m not pleading for you to understand, just repeating myself in a last attempt to make myself clear.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please take it somewhere else. There are many sites where all the BHs clutter and “fictional” fact are discussed, Do go there.
Your comments were published not out of politeness, but for our readers to understand that it’s not only through Insane’s aggressive language, that we face the obstacles we face in our quest for truth.
Sometimes it’s self-evident like the Anon who wants me to tell him where I live… but most of the times it’s persistent and soft spoken.
Well said Textusa. On May the third, Mrs Fenn didn't heard any noise because she was quite kind to keep herself out of her flat during the most crucial time ( between 6 O' clock and 10:30). What a coincidence, or at best, A CONVENIENCE kindle teached by who could afford a lot of profits from having her eyes and ears out of the crime scene and the magical street.
ReplyDeleteI anon 10:54 am and 10:46pm, I'm the reader who post @ 8:10 pm. I reinforce my comment. Doesn't matter which day Mrs. Fenn reported the cry because the cry never happened, otherwise other guests and workers will had heard it. On her attempt to make the crying situation a concerning and important subject, she exaggerated regarding the volume and the length. That exaggeration killed the strategy to transform that in an important issue for the investigation. Off course when Kate bring to the public attention the stain story, she didn't think some of the public already had analyzed Mrs Fenn statement with a magnifier and dismissed it. Kate played all her tricks on the idea she wanted the public to retain- the girl crying on a previous night, when she and her husband were not there. Then the motive for such cry could only be a strange with a strange situation ( in other words, the abductor).
Amaral payed no attention to what Mrs Fenn stated. If the lady was a reliable source of information as a witness, the police will concentrate a lot of work and effort on that lady because again with some kindness she make it clear, SHE USUALLY SPENT HER TIME ON HER FLAT. The only exception was May 3, on the gap of time the police consider to be the time where lies the key to solve the
mystery.... What Kate says about coincidences? (cont)
Cont:
ReplyDeleteWe are not stupid, and more then 5 years looking in all the crap information the Mccann's and their partners delivered to the police to help them not finding Madeleine, just can tell us Mrs Fenns Son has nothing to deliver to the police that could help locate Madeleine, because as many others he will be struggled by Carter- ruck letters teaching him which behavior is more convenient (also for him). Unless he become blessed of some courage and decide to tell the truth and the truth can only be: THE CRYING STORY WAS AN INVENTION AND FOR ME THE STAIN BELONGS TO THE SAME CATEGORY.
Madeleine mystery was filled with many parallel stories to distract the police from the main route. A "deja vue" well known by the police, but on that particular case, the police could not trow some statements direct on the bin because from the kingdom of his majesty a choir of BH will be screaming what they do at best. Police was blessed with patience to deal with such kind of witnesses.
Anon Jan 23, 2012 7:12:00 AM, Fenn's statement is crucial for the BHs.
ReplyDeleteMore than confirm the neglect, it's in its credibility that resides the whole independence of the "independent" witnesses.
To descredit her statement as Textusa and her team have so well done MEANS that ALL other statements ARE questionable. This elderly lady had no other reason to lie, except if she was told/asked to do so. Descrediting her, is proving that this telling/asking happened. Proved the action, there has to be an author... and so on.
This is why, no matter how much you say that Fenn's statement is phony, the BHs have no other option but to ask question after question as if Fenn's words are credible.
It's not shamelessness, nor ignorance. It's because they have no other option.
Unfortunately for the BHs, what a read around the net, Mrs Fenn is no longer taken very seriously. We have Textusa to thank for this. I remember when she first questioned Fenn how hard she was ridiculed by BOTH WH and BH alike.