Thursday, 5 April 2012

Not Even Alice In Wonderland

The Portuguese have the following peculiar but wise saying “Não se pode meter o Rossio na Rua da Betesga

Translated, without knowing Lisbon, and in particular the Rossio area, it doesn’t make any sense. This is the photo of that part of the city:

On the left, the original, on the right, the Blue rectangle shows the Rossio, one of Lisbon’s big plazas, and the Red the Rua da Betesga, the only street connecting Rossio and one of its neighbouring plazas, the Praça da Figueira.

Now we can translate the saying and you can understand its meaning: “You can’t fit Rossio into Rua da Betesga”.

Simple, accurate and incontrovertible.

And that’s what happened in both the Smith Sighting and TS’s Sighting in the Mockumentary.

In the Smith Sighting, the BHs had a “Rossio”, 3 different avoidable locations, when they desperately needed just a “Rua da Bestega”, more precisely a single and unavoidable location. That’s why in the Mockumentary they changed the area where it did happen, from the beginning of the Rua da Escola Primária to a more convenient location in the same street but a little further uphill, like we showed in our post “Public Misleading of Public”.

With TS’s Sightings, the opposite happened.

They had a “Rua da Bestesga” and they had to fit a whole “Rossio” into it. Impossible as the saying does say.

Whilst you may get away with spreading a “Rua da Betesga” all over a “Rossio”, it’s a completely helpless effort trying to stuff a “Rossio” into a “Rua da Betesga”. But unlike with the Smith Sighting, in this case the location couldn't be changed, as you'll see. The formula applied to "solve" the Smith Sighting problem just wasn't applicable to the TS's Sightings.

Edgar puts TS and her mom on the right side of the street not to make things feasible but because it was for the BH’s as you’ll see and we hope to demonstrate, the lesser evil.

Let’s start from the beginning and start with what really happened.

Firstly, on May 9th 2007, TS did go to the PJ and stated the following:


Thus desires to clarify: On April 30, Monday, by 08:00, and when on the way to the stop of the bus bound for school, which leaves at 08:15, the path she makes every day whenever she has classes, she noticed the presence of a male individual at the back of MADELEINE’s house, in a small pathway that there exists to access the apartments, looking ostensibly at the house’s porch. Such happened when going down the street, descending on the left side; he was right in front of the balcony, being the distance between them the width of the street. That when descending she decided to look at the pathway, as once she had lived there, likes to observe the house and the adjoining garden. She was accompanied by her mother, who she’s confident didn’t view the individual closer, as her mom had two dogs on a leash, who forced them to cross the road, a little further down. At that moment she saw the individual more closely, during the act of crossing, losing him from her vision field she finished doing so.

Questioned, she said that the individual did not see the deponent, because he was staring fixedly at the balcony.

Assumes no one was on MADELEINE’s house’s porch, however can’t state it unquestionably.

After the crossing, took the bus, and went on it with destination the school and her mother went to the beach walk the dogs.


With regard to the individual she describes him as: Caucasian, fair complexion, so he wouldn’t be Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. About 180 cm, slim build, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, closely cropped haircut with 1 cm in height and fair, but doesn’t know if it was blonde, because the Sun was reflecting, hindering perception. Didn’t see his eyes because he was wearing black sunglasses, with a mass structure and thick temples. He had a large forehead. Normal size nose, somewhat pointed and sharp. Big ears but close against the skull. Mouth with thin lips, not having seen the teeth Risen chin, that stood out in a face she describes as pointed. He had no beard, nor moustache, was clean shaved. He had no other personal marks, besides a few small pimples on the face as the result of shaving. He looked ugly, even "disgusting".

The first time she saw him he wearing a black thin leather jacket type windbreaker, with a zipper and several pockets with identical zippers, silver in colour. She saw no logo or inscription on it. As the windbreaker was open, she saw that he wore a white t-shirt with a dark blue logo near the waist, that she doesn’t know how to identify very well. Pants, she deemed them to be blue jeans, worn. Black and gray sports shoes (sneakers), with a wave, maybe the "Nike" logo which’s colour she doesn’t remember.

The second time he was wearing the same windbreaker, this time zipped up as the day was colder than the first, with wind. Didn’t notice the other pieces of clothing. Refers that on this day he had a pen with a clip hanging from one of his pockets.

The first time he was resting on the wall, supported by the palms of his hands, and on the second his hands were in his pockets.

Never saw him with any camera, even with a cell-phone, even though on the second time, he could have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.”

This really happened. No, not what she says that happened, but the fact that she said it. It’s in the PJ Files.

And you know what also really happened? This:

- In (1), TSwhen descending she decided to look at the pathway, as once she had lived there, likes to observe the house and the adjoining garden” having there “noticed the presence of a male individual at the back of MADELEINE’s house” who was looking ostensibly at the house’s porch”.

- “A little further down”, in (2), the “two dogs on a leash (…) forced them to cross the road”.

- Between (2) and (3), depicts the “during the act of crossing” and was at (3)that moment she saw the individual more closely”.

- After (3) she losthim from her vision field”, never to see him again… that day.

And you know where this really did happen? I tell you where: inside TS’s 11 yr old mind. That’s where all of the above, and then some, really did happen.

No, I’m not joking. It’s important that you understand that it did happen and where exactly it happened, and the picture above is my best estimate of what went through TS’s mind of what she had to say.

When you have many boats to choose from to cross a river, the one you choose to put in the water is the one whose performance you will have to accept whatever it may be, independent if it serves your purposes or if it doesn’t.

And you have to live with that decision for the rest of your life.

You can’t just put a boat into water, and if it sinks, pull it out, pretend it didn't happen and put another in its place. If it has sunk, it has sunk. And to pretending that it didn’t sink won't get you anywhere.

Also, no matter how much you tell the Captain of the boat you’ve chosen not to touch the ship’s wheel, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it once he’s on his own. If he, against all you’ve said, decides to give it a few turns, making the boat go adrift right into disaster, it’s a problem that you can, or can’t, solve later, but nonetheless it’s a problem that you have to deal with forevermore.

Now, if out of all the boats you have, you decide on one made out of paper, that’s taking an enormous risk. I’d even say a ridiculous risk because the disastrous outcome is perfectly foreseeable.

Add to that choice an 11yr Captain, and I say disaster is not foreseeable but certain.

And that’s what they did when they chose to have TS testify. They chose to cross the river on a paper boat captained by an 11 yr old.

When one tells a tale one adds a detail but when an 11yr old tells a tale the amount of added details fills up any treasure trunk.

Disaster was certain and disaster did happen. The paper ship was destined to sink and it sank.

The only thing is that people haven’t yet understood the seriousness of this disaster.

When I say people, I’m not only referring to those, like us who seek nothing but truth and justice and I’m speculating here also the BH’s.

Had they realized the seriousness they would have never have tried to replicate the TS's Sightings in the Mockumentary.

And they did, didn’t they?

As we've shown, you've seen what really happened in the TS's Sightings, both in the real world and in the mind of an 11 yr old.

The problem with the human mind is that reality can’t ever match imagination. For example, I remember the disappointment I felt when I looked at New York’s skyscraper’s for the first time. I mean, they were enormous and all, but they weren’t as GIGANTIC as I'd imagined them.

This distortion between the real and the imagined is aggravated the younger and more immature the mind is.

Children have a completely fanciful distortion of time, dimension and seriousness with the things that they imagine. They either underestimate what isn’t to be underestimated or exaggerate what isn’t to be exaggerated.

They’re children! They have the absolute right to live in their delicious world of imaginary friends, dimensions and consequences! It’s our most wonderful phase in life isn’t it?

But we’re talking about a very serious thing here, aren’t we? We’re talking about covering-up a death of a child.

Why involve a child in it?

That was a needless, stupid and cruel decision that resulted in having TS blurting out impossibility after impossibility to the PJ.

Notice that I haven’t, in the picture above, put any sort of dimensions, because there aren’t any to be put. In an imagined scenario all is possible and things are tailored in our mind to fit.

But dimensions are of the essence in this case. That’s why you can’t put “Rossio” in “Rua da Betesga” in the first place, because the dimension of one is disproportionate to the other.

Let’s then look at what was then supposed to have happened but didn’t because reality is reality and fiction isn’t reality.

We’ll start by showing where TS says Pimpleman was when she first saw him:

From this we can deduce, with some accuracy, that Pimpleman can only be seen from Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, by someone WITHIN the red triangle below.

TS has to be in the triangle, and we also know that she’s on the left side of the street when she sees Pimpleman, so we have TS’s precise location (blue star) when she first sees Pimpleman (yellow star) as is as shown.

It’s the exact moment she says she sees Pimpleman and it’s the exact same moment Edgar’s problems begin.

You see, when she says, as she does, that “being the distance between them the width of the road” she’s not exactly being exact, is she?

What she really wanted to say is that at that point in time he “was on the other side of the road”, which is much more generic.

What’s the difference?

A width of a road is approximately 6 metres, plus a metre for each on opposing sidewalk, the distance between them would be 8 metres, if that. But it’s not. The distance between TS and Pimpleman at that precise moment is double that, around 16 metres, as can be seen:

Now let’s introduce some movement in this.

As she says, a little further down, the dogs force the change of direction. Now dogs don’t just make 90º turns, do they?

And they apparently turned in such way that although TS’s mother was made to make the crossing she didn’t notice the man in the pathway. A sudden turn to the right would place TS’s mother practically facing the man making it impossible for her not to notice the man TS is confident she didn’t even see.

So let’s assume this is what happened:

Now let’s place the numbers that we showed in the picture that TS created in her mind, (1) for when she sees him, (2) for when she crosses the road and (3) for when she stops seeing him:

There’s quite a difference between the imagined and the reality, isn’t there?

It means that she has just walked about 6.5 metres, and has simply shortened the distance between herself and Pimpleman in about 2 metres, making the distance where she says she sees him the most closely to be around 14 metres:

So in terms of distance, we can determined that in this particular instance that TS walked about 6,5 metres from the moment she first sees the man, who is about 15 metres away from her, until she loses sight of him.

Now let’s introduce speed.

An average person walking normally does it in a speed around 4 km/h and with a steady fast pace around 6 km/h.

In this situation we have two indications that can tell us what approximate speed TS and her mom were walking in. The first is that, as TS says, the dogs force them to cross the road, which means that it’s the dogs that are basically setting the pace. The second is that they’re going downhill.

So I would say that TS and her mom being pulled downhill by two dogs would be walking at least with a speed of 6 km/h.

You can see for yourself that they were walking pretty fast in reconstruction done in the Mockumentary:

But as we always do, let’s also in this case bring in all possible error margins that favour the “accused” and say that their speed was between 5km/h (83 metres in 1 minute) and 6 km/h (100 metres in 1 minute).

This means that TS observed Pimpleman between 3.9 and 4.7 seconds at an average distance of 15 metres.

Approximately 4.3 seconds was the time between the moment she saw a man she wasn’t expecting to see and has no reason to suspect him of anything (the only odd thing was for him to be in a pathway with both hands on a wall turned towards a house she says she knows) and the moment she stopped seeing him entirely.

4.3 seconds. Take or add half a second.

Try an experiment. Get an adult friend to look at a person you point to in the street. Make sure you have as much detail as you can yourself first. Give them some time to absorb detail, but don't tell them you are going to ask them to describe the person they are asked to look at. Then ask your friend to describe what s/he saw. I'd be surprised if they could remember half as much as TS.

Now do the "TS Test" with an 11 yr old. Same technique as in the test above with your friend, you observe all the details first, and then ask the child “Can you see that man?”

When she looks, count 4 seconds and then call away her attention from the man by saying something like “Don’t stare like that!” This will ensure that she’ll have looked at the man for at least 5 seconds, which is longer than TS looked at Pimpleman.

Now you need to do two things. One is to make sure that she doesn’t look at the man anymore and the other is to take her mind off the subject momentarily. You can do both by having her look at you while you explain how rude it is to stare at people in public.

After that, tell her that you’re in fact doing an experiment and you now want her to describe him without looking at him again. This will ensure that she’ll be responding in an approximate set of conditions which TS did and that is being explicitly asked to recollect with as much detail possible what she casually saw for around 5 seconds.

Your child will have had the advantage over TS of having been able to look exclusively at the person the whole time without any distractions, such as the dogs irreverent behavior or the act of crossing a road and much less with gardens and houses she so much loves to see every day. But we’re not looking for an exact replica set of said conditions, just as approximate was we can make it.

Register the details. Mentally will be enough, because there won’t be that much to remember.

Now compare results with a similar experiment done in PDL late April in 2007. In this experiment the girl was able, in approximately 4.3 seconds, to notice:

- the presence of a male individual in a small pathway that there exists to access the apartments,

- that he was looking ostensibly at the house’s porch, staring fixedly at the balcony;

- that he was resting on the wall, supported by the palms of his hands;

- that he was wearing a black thin leather jacket type windbreaker;

- that the jacket type windbreaker had a zipper, silver in colour;

- that the jacket type windbreaker had several pockets with zippers also silver in colour;

- that the jacket type windbreaker had no logo or inscription on it;

- that the jacket type windbreaker was open;

- that he wore a white t-shirt beneath the jacket type windbreaker;

- that the white t-shirt had a dark blue logo near the waist, although she can’t identify it;

- that he wore blue worn jeans;

- that he wore black and gray sneakers;

- that the black and gray sneakers had a sort of a logo wave on them, maybe the "Nike" logo.

But we also have to take into account the following:

- this first sighting was the one she says she sees him more closely;

- this first sighting is at around 08.00 when the Sun is low possibly hindering perception, while the second sighting is around noon when the Sun is high and is no obstacle to said perception;

- unlike on this first sighting, on the second she can’t remember even the clothing.

So we can also say, with certainty, that within those same 4.3 seconds, BESIDES all of the above she was also able to notice:

- that he was Caucasian;

- that he had a fair complexion;

- that according to her criteria, he wouldn’t be Portuguese, but could be British;

- that he was about 180 cm tall;

- that he was slim build;

- that he was 30/35 years of age;

- that he had short hair, closely cropped haircut with 1 cm in height;

- that he had fair hair, although she doesn’t know if it was blonde, because the Sun was reflecting, hindering perception (confirming she’s describing Pimpleman from the first sighting);

- that he was wearing black sunglasses;

- that the black sunglasses had a mass structure;

- that the black sunglasses had thick temples;

- that he had a large forehead;

- that he had a normal size nose, somewhat pointed and sharp;

- that he had big ears close against the skull;

- that he had a mouth with thin lips;

- that he had his mouth closed so she didn’t see his teeth;

- that he had a risen chin, that stood out in a face she describes as pointed;

- that he had no beard;

- that he had no moustache;

- that he was clean shaved;

- that he had a few small pimples on the face as the result of shaving;

- that he looked ugly, even "disgusting".

Now, how did your child rate against TS? Poor? Terrible? Shameful? Or just even disgracefully?

I won’t tell you the result I got from my granddaughter. She’s still in her room crying.

You’ve got to give it to TS, she’s one observant little girl!

No wonder Kate rates TS’s statement as “CREDIBLE” and “RELIABLE”!

You don’t believe that she could see that much in so little time? You don’t say…

Pity that on the second sighting she wasn’t paying as much attention as she was during the first one.

She can’t remember the clothing but she’s able to notice two interesting things:

- he had a pen with a clip hanging from one of his pockets;

- he could have had a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.

I’ll speak about the hanging pen in a later post, but can’t let the shape in the pocket fly by.

The man is on the other side of the street, as I said, around 8 metres away. She’s walking her dogs. How can she possibly say she can make out any sort of shape of anything from whatever the man may have had in his pocket, if at that distance it’s almost impossible, if not totally impossible, to see if he has anything in his pockets at all?

And when I say almost impossible I’m just safeguarding the possibility of someone wanting specifically to confirm if another person had something or not in one of the pockets. And even then only maybe could one tell but that would mean that one would have to stare.

Remember me saying that he who tells a tale adds a detail?

But let’s be ridiculous. Let’s be totally and absolutely absurd. Let’s say the girl has a photographic memory, and all it took was 2 seconds to gather the information and the remainder two seconds was used to archive correctly everything in her brain so that if the time came that the information was needed, as by coincidence happened, all she had to do was pull it out, as she did, and methodically.

There’s just one minor detail. Nothing relevant, just a thing called impossibility.

As per TS’s description of the first sighting, Pimpleman has both hands on the wall, with an open jacket type windbreaker. Something like this:

I’ve asked you to do an experiment with an adult friend, and another with an 11 yr old child. Now it’s your turn to step up to the plate. I want to do an experiment with you.

Let’s put Pimpleman between you and TS. How? Using the Mockumentary of course:

But I’ll give you two advantages over TS. The first is that the actress playing TS is not where TS says she is. According to TS's words, she’s on the other side of the street, or very near there. The second is that you can look at the picture for as long as you like, while she had less than 5 seconds.

Are you done?

Can you then tell me what colour is the t-shirt he’s wearing?

Yes, you can look again. I'll wait.

Notice that I’m not asking about any logo or any logo’s details. Just asking for what is the colour of his t-shirt.

You can’t tell?

And I can tell you that besides Superman and TS, no one else can.

As we know, this sighting supposedly happened around 08.00 in the morning, so Superman was still in bed resting from having had to serve dinner at Tapas with the speed the T9 require that they be served. He was a total shambles at the end of all those nights for that particular week…

How do I know that? Well, as it happens, the other day on the train to Paris I happened to be sitting, by pure coincidence, next to a friend of a Batman's friend who told me that. And during our conversation she also confided in me that Superman had confessed to Batman that he was the one that had abducted Maddie just to get some rest that week!

What?!? You believe in TS’s statement and you don’t believe me? Go figure.

By the way, did you notice the colour of the “woosh” on Pimpleman’s sneaker’s?

After so many things being wooshed away in the Maddie Affair, I was really glad to finally see a woosh that hadn't been wooshed away... it's there, you just have to look attentively, or is it me that I just want to see what isn't there to be seen?…

Yes, you can look again at the picture. Do take your time.

Please don't forget that we consider TS, as the child she was at the time, to be blameless and unaccountable for any of the actions we've here referred.


The part of TS’s statement to the PJ that we used in our post, in its original Portuguese:


Deseja assim esclarecer: No dia 30 de Abril, segunda-feira, pelas 08H00 e quando se dirigia para a paragem do autocarro com destino à escola, que parte às 08H15, trajecto que faz diariamente quando tem aulas, apercebeu-se da presença de um individuo do sexo masculino, nas traseiras da casa de MADELEINE, num pequeno caminho que aí existe de acesso aos apartamentos, a olhar ostensivamente para a varanda da casa. Tal sucedeu quando descia a rua, do lado esquerdo descendentemente, o qual estava mesmo defronte da varanda, sendo a distância que os mediava, a largura da artéria. Que ao descer decidiu olhar para o caminho, uma vez que tendo aí habitado, gosta de observar a casa e o jardim contíguo. Fazia-se acompanhar da sua mãe, a qual está segura não visualizou o individuo mais de perto, sendo que esta levava dois cães pela trela, que as obrigaram a atravessar a estrada, um pouco mais baixo. Nesse momento viu o indivíduo mais de perto, no acto da travessia, deixando de o ter no campo visual ao concretizar a mesma.

Indagada disse que o indivíduo não viu a depoente, pois tinha o olhar fixo na varanda.

Presume que ninguém se encontrava na varanda da casa da MADELEINE, no entanto não pode afirmar indubitavelmente.

Depois da travessia, apanhou o autocarro, e seguiu com destino à escola e a sua Mãe foi para a praia passear os canídeos.


No atinente ao indivíduo descreve-o como sendo: raça caucasiana, tez clara, pelo que não seria português, mas poderia ser britânico, segundo os seus critérios. Cerca de 180 cm de altura, compleição magra, 30/35 anos de idade. Cabelo curto, tipo rapado com 1 cm de altura e claro, mas não sabe se era louro, porque o sol reflectia, prejudicando a percepção. Não viu os olhos porque estava de óculos escuros de cor negra, com estrutura em massa de haste grossa. Tinha uma testa grande. Nariz de tamanho normal, algo pontiagudo e afiado. Orelhas grandes mas encostadas ao crânio. Boca com lábios finos, não tendo visto os dentes. Queixo subido, que se notava numa cara que descreve como afiada. Não tinha baraba, nem bigode, estando escanhoado. Não tinha outros sinais particulares, além de algumas borbulhas pequenas no rosto em resulatdo do barbear. Tinha um aspecto feio, atémesmo “nojento”.

Na primeira vez que o viu vestia um casaco tipo blusão em pele fina de cor negra, com fecho de correr e vários bolsos com fechos idênticos, de cor prateada. Não viu qualquer marca ou inscrição. Estando o blusão aberto, viu que vestia uma t-shirt branca, com uma marca azul escura junto à cintura, que não sabe identificar muito bem. Calça, ao que julga, eram de ganga de cor azul, gasta. Sapatos desportivos (ténis) de cor negra e cinzenta, com uma onda, talvez da marca “Nike” cuja cor não se recorda.

Da segunda vez vestia o mesmo blusão, desta feita fechado, pois o dia estava mais frio que o primeiro, com vento. Não reparou nas outras peças de roupa. Refere que neste dia ele tinha uma caneta com presilha pendurada num dos bolsos.

Da primeira vez ele estava encostado ao muro, apoiado nas palmas da mãos, e na segunda com as mãos nos bolsos.

Nunca o viu com qualquer máquina fotográfica, nem com um telemóvel, ainda que da segunda vez, pudesse ter um aparelho no bolso, o que detectou pela forma."


  1. I thank You a lot and i wish to You all also.

  2. Wow!

    Happy Easter to you too Tex.

  3. TS has less than 4 seconds to see Pimpleman, looking at the diagram she would have already passed him before she would see him and have to turn her head sideways or even over her shoulder and look back to see him. He was hidden by the wall before she was on a level with him and she would only see his back from the position he was standing with his hands on the wall.

    There is no way it would have been possible to see his face and certainly not his T shirt or the zippers on the front of his jacket. For this scenario to have a shred of credibilty Pimpleman would need to turn his whole body round to face TS. Does someone observing a property for nefarious purposes give potential witnesses a full on view of himself.....unless provide a witness with a full description? No, this is how a child would imagine it to be!

    Even less credible is a potential abductor leaning on the wall and staring into the property of his potential crime scene in broad daylight.

    Far too convenient and contrived so not surprising the PJ didn't put out an APB (as used to be said in old US TV cop shows).

    I can only guess TS's mother took her to the police station to make this statement but why did she not make one as well? She was with her daughter at the 1st sighting....wasn't she? Even if only to say she didn't see the person that her daughter pointed out she had seen.

    Poor girl, I feel very uncomfortable she has been used like this.

  4. Anon 11:27 pointed an important detail, TS had "to turn her head sideways or even over her shoulder and look back to see him". Can you imagine de discomfort of doing that while you are going down a road at a certain speed? Practical impossible to keep you looking or paying attention to anything.
    It is absolutely amazing the stupidity of this group who put the abductor carrying a child under a very uncomfortable position and some witnesses following the same pattern.
    They were desperate trying to create evidences to contradict the absence of evidences faced by the police. When you are in a rush and you are desperate, the result is what can be seen. And after creating a nonsense, they know, there is no u-turn, they keep going with the all nonsenses, believing from the top of their narcissism that the public and the police has to believe them just because they said what they said or they corroborate what others said. That is acting like an ostrich, hiding the head and think the all body was hide. Ostriches is what this group it is and using the innocence of an 11 years old, just add more suspicions to what happened to Madeleine. TS was a parrot reproducing to the police what they teach her to do. Wonder if in court she will be able to tell the judges the same story.
    Now she is 15/ 16 years old. A most mature girl. How can she sleep and wake up every morning to enjoy her days knowing she help some criminals to cover up the death of a fragile 4 years old? I can't imagine myself living like that. What a nightmare for the rest of her life if she has no courage to break the chain and report to the police how and who get her involved on that.

  5. Anon Apr 6, 2012 1:38:00 AM

    Understand what you’re saying but disagree wholeheartedly with your words. Exactly because we imagine TS might today be led to feel what you describe, we want assure her that she should sleep and wake up in total peace of mind and conscience. Those who should have the feel “courage to break the chain and report to the police” are those “who get her involved on that”. No one else. They're the ones that should be asked how can they sleep and wake up every morning to enjoy their days knowing they helped some criminals to cover up the death of a fragile 4 year old by using, and abusing, an 11 year old? She’s totally and absolutely blameless.

  6. The problem that they have with the TS sighting is that they created a monster that they can’t get rid of.
    If a man was where they say he was, then he’s linked with Maddie.
    They can’t say TS saw a man that was waiting for a bus, or waiting for a friend or doing something else. He was observing the apartment from where Maddie would disappear.
    It was a rather childish way of placing the suspect.
    They might as well put this individual supporting himself on the window ledge of Maddie’s window because he would look as conspicuous as he was in the place they put him.
    They thought the Portuguese and the British publics were children but now it’s coming back on them.

  7. Textusa your observations leave no room for argument.

  8. Those who put TS up to this have to look into her eyes every day. What a life!

  9. Thanks Textusa for your reply to my comment. I maintain my feeling and my intention was not to blame TS because obviously due to her age she was blameless and who used her knows very well that judicially she was not accountable for what she was doing, if for any reason, things don't worked so well with police. But now, she is a teenager, able to think by herself and Achieve many conclusions. If at the beginning she was fooled in a rush to help a friend, probably dragged on that by her own mother, since she played the moccmentary with her mother, now she knows the dimension of her lie and delaying the assumption of that behavior just increases her responsibilities on it and cause more problems to her and to her mother if she is the one to blame. At 18 years old she will be old enough to be charged with lies she delivered to the police to disturb the investigation. No way, she can excuse herself that she was 11 when everything happened. The case is not closed, is not solved and is waiting more evidences to be reopened. Somewhere, somebody could break the chain and expose her and her mother. Better, if she goes ahead and save at least big charges to her and her family.
    Off course if her mother is who put her in such situation, she have to evaluate all her skills as a mother, because this is so serious, not only because on the other side there is a little girl who was prevented to achieve justice, but because her own daughter was condemned to live with a very disturbing secret.
    Personally, I don't believe the chain will broken trough her mother because that person must be scared and well controlled by the Mccann's and their lawyers. For some reason, Kate keeps coming to PDL to visit old friends( to frame them) . Then that girl, if she is an intelligent person, which I believe she is, must contact the police and tell the truth. She can relief many problems to her mother and pass that problem without many troubles to both. Witnesses who change their minds and decide to collaborate with investigation, have less charges and are most welcomed by the investigation. She needs to be brave and take the correct decision.
    I can't imagine her life with her friends digging information about Madeleine and arriving to the conclusion that she helped the cover up. When she was 11, she lived inside a protected world. While she grows up, the world becomes global and in a global world it is impossible to pass without being accountable for what we do. Better to assume and correct it, with or without the support of who dragged her into the case.

  10. "He had no other personal marks, besides a few small pimples on the face as the result of shaving."

    Isn't this a bit of an odd remark for such a young child?! How would she know the pimples were caused by shaving, and not just bad skin, acne for instance? How experienced the girl must have been on male shaving to immediately atribute the pimples to a shave! This little detail is
    a bit too much, it would be reasonable coming from someone older, or a male, but from an eleven year old girl?! And, she really would have to be very close to the man to spot those SMALL pimples, I doubt she would have been able to see them so clearly from the distance she was and in that small time frame...

    I wish everyone a Happy Easter!
    (happy egg-hunting, lol!)

  11. Anon 10:05,

    Nice post. That proves an adult write her statement. Careful enough to not forget small physical descriptions but a very bad teacher because did not alert the girl for the risks of adding too much details then what was need. The girl just open her imagination and let it flew.
    What is interesting is that her statement in some point touch the statements of two other witnesses, mrs Cooper with her pimple man and the previous guest on Mccann's flat with a man knocking on his door asking money for an orphanage. Maybe, the statements were written more or less at the same time, by the same author but delivered to the media and the police by different characters, with a certain pace, according to the convenience.

  12. Happy Easter to all.


    Another character who had his brain reshaped during the time he spent in Uk . I never understand why he chooses UK to get protection from an extradition.
    Thanks that I didn't buy his book.
    With many examples, why choosing the Mccann's who remain suspects in the investigation of the disappearance of their daughter? Somebody ask mr Assange to do a little favor to the Mccann's. I believe wikileaks has some good information regarding Madeleine disappearance which was stored on the
    chest mr Assange as to swollen the key, to stay away from Sweden justice.


    Adolescente inglesa que se veste como uma boneca. Chocante, ver como ela ja vende os seus videos no YouTube e a mae acha toda a situacao normal. Ha maes para tudo... Nem o potencial bullying as assusta?

  15. Hi Textusa,
    What I can't grasp is WHY so many would be drawn into the web of deceit.I know your theory and I love your blog but is the swingers thing so big that it would account for such an enormous,complicated cover up?

  16. Anon Apr 7, 2012 2:40:00 AM

    Yes it does. It all depends on the importance (please don't make any confusion between importance and popularity) of Master-Guests and VIP-Guests present.

  17. What a shame if SY did not look into the statements of this witnesses.
    How long will be that review? They are taking more time to review then the time spent on the real investigation. Poor skills, or another bunch of opportunists living under our taxes and delaying everything to justify some more months with special salaries?

  18. Belated Happy Easter Textusa to you and yours.

    Anon. @Apr 6, 2012 10:05:00 PM

    I am puzzled now by the description as Anon. above has brought to notice the details of "pimples". It seems unreasonable to accept TS could possibly have not seen these "pimples" but as said that it was possibly shaving.

    I also agree she could not have had time to gather so much information within the seconds it took to pass the back lane.

    Are we sure that it was an 11 year old who gave this statement. That it was TS for sure.Thinking back to being 11 years I am sure I could not have held all such information in my head without tripping up - could it have been an older girl passing herself off as TS?

    And if so, why?

  19. I agree with anon from 12:32 !

    To me ( very probably to many) :

    For here have warned that the review does not have time to finish ..... It should be for us to forget the existence of the review team.

    Blind Justice program either MFlores ( i like him)) or MP (no....i don´t...) both stated that a review is to pretend, to cover their eyes and mouths shut.

    On the other hand, ID walk to tie all the processes: the GA / MAC,
    the couple's / GA
    and delivery of books to the publisher. If the books were not burned.

    These delays and pretenses to try to serve us to forget this case.

    They are wrong.

  20. About TS the social care services failed about.....

    TS was and can be a case to them.

  21. Anon Apr 7, 2012 4:39:00 PM

    By "It seems unreasonable to accept TS could possibly have not seen these "pimples" but as said that it was possibly shaving." are you implying that it's obvious she would see small pimples on a face she's never seen before at a distance of 15 metres?

    We have no reason to think it wasn't her, and we have reasons to believe she was. Participating in the Mockumentary, for example.

    We don't want to entertain clutter myths. There are already too many already out there.

  22. Another excellent article Textusa.

  23. A new shameful campaign is on the way to sell another booklet made by Kate Mccann. A " new version" they said. Like if the disappearance of a person could accommodate versions after versions. How many since the open window with the shutters raised up? I forgot the number.... But this seems irrelevant for that mother who want the world to believe she is searching something else then a good reason to enlarge her bank account and her good life. Now without the support of "the Sun" but with a good help from "the Mirror". After all, the business seems good enough to be shared by many papers, or has the Sun jumped out of the wagon because was sinking and smells really bad? The phone hacking lead to some arrests and if Maddie follows an impartial investigation, arrests will be reserved for who helped with one of the biggest crimes against a child, in our days. The Sun is already jumping out to avoid more troubles.

    From Jill forum:
    ...."Kate’s new paperback version of the book, simply titled Madeleine, will be released on May 10, seven days after the fifth anniversary of her daughter’s disappearance.

    The source said: “Kate has spent several months writing the epilogue and it will bring the tragic story up to date with the police review which Scotland Yard has been carrying out since the fourth anniversary.

    “The new version will reflect Kate and Gerry’s optimism that the involvement of the Met and the review in Portugal is giving them renewed hope.

    “In the epilogue Kate talks about her gratitude towards the Met because she realises the significance of the review in moving forward towards the case being reopened. She thanks the police and talks about her hope for the future."

    Is it normal to have a suspect writing a book and claming what she is writing has a source on the police police review of the investigation? It is not jeopardizing the all SY work? She mocks the police and D. Cameron, who seems to let the caravan pass without being bothered by all the insults coming from that group, specially because who is paying that review are the British and Portuguese taxes. Some of the taxes, come from families which relatives disappeared and still missing without the governments moving a single coin to know where are this missing persons. We taxpayers, and specially the parents of other missing children, deserve more respect from who is playing with a very disgraceful and very badly told story. Somebody died inside the 5a and from who use to be in the flat, Maddie is the only one missing and fitting that condition. A fact SY, Cameron and Passos Coelho, couldn't dismiss.

  24. Textsa

    Apr 7, 2012 7:52:00 PM
    By "It seems unreasonable to accept TS could possibly have not seen these "pimples" but as said that it was possibly shaving." are you implying that it's obvious she would see small pimples on a face she's never seen before at a distance of 15 metres?"

    Sorry that was my mistake the word " not" should not have been included.

  25. I must say, as a British taxpayer I am shocked to the core at the thought that Scotland Yard have been keeping the prime suspects informed of their progress on this tragic case, and that the chief suspect is about to make even more money from publishing that information in an update to her "account of the truth". If this is true, then Cameron and May must be actively colluding with this despicable pair. I have never known anything like this and it confirms that everything about politics and the law, at least in "Great" Britain, is totally and utterly corrupt. Poor Maddie - denied the life she should have had and robbed of dignity even in death. What will her brother and sister think when they are old enough to surf the web - or are the parents counting on total success before then by their contemptible supporters Carter Ruck and Burson Marsteller?

  26. Express headline today Yard-
    We can solve M mystery
    Also mentions K attending reception at Downing St on may 23!!
    This can only mean a cover up as you wouldn't invite a suspect to Downing St!
    I feel thoroughly depressed

  27. Anon Apr 8, 2012 12:12:00 PM

    Let's wait and see what "new leads" SY has found in the PJ Files that we haven't. Anything outside them is not exactly a "review" is it? That would be acknowledging that there are other documentation besides the PJ Files, and that seems, at least in my opinion, incomprehensible.

    I'm rather curious. Not holding my breath though. We have many things to show to be distracted by such things.

  28. I too, believe all that news regarding Kate new booklet and the supposed up to date by SY, is a strategy from Mccann's team to distract the public from the main and really important actions in Portugal. They are loosing all the legal batles against GA and they will loose all after these.
    There is no way for Sy to come with a different version then that from a huge team of polices which PJ is just one part of it. Was a Pj/British joint investigation which in important moments enlarged to spanish, french and Europol and Interpol. How can SY come 5 years later and say all this polices were wrong? that will cause more damages inside Britain then assuming the government tried to help a bunch of swingers to protect their reputation and the reputation of the british in general, since the behaviour and the accident happen out of UK doors.

  29. "SCOTLAND Yard detectives are confident they can solve the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance."
    James M- Express

    Se esta noticia fosse verdadeira, alguem teria um serio e continuo desarranjo intestinal em Rothley. Esgotava-se o stock de " mottillium" e hidratentes orais.
    Nao me parece que tenha havido um " Easter hunting" especial, portanto o que quer que saibam esta nas files e se os caes especialistas nao foram convidados a visitar Rothley, talvez a SY tenha la ido perguntar o que faziam umas luvas de latex entre os pertences dos McCann descobertos na Villa que alugaram. Se eram para limpezas porque nao fazem parte dos mesmos pertences o " clorox" o "Ajax" ou o " Cif".
    Terao Sido analisadas de certeza estas luvas e por algum motivo " forte" o resultado dessas analises nao faz parte das files disponibilizadas pela Pj.
    Um motivo muito forte, estara tambem por tras do interesse que os McCann tem em aceder a parte da investigacao que permanence em segredo de justica. Nao foi so o nariz dos caes que levou a policia a concluir que Madeleine tera morrido dentro do 5A.

  30. "Quote of the day Sky News

    "Once you have started with one lie you have to make up 1,000 lies to cover that one. Once I had started there was no turning back," he said.

    - Tariq Jahan, who broke a stranger's jaw for "staring at my missus" and then lied to police about his involvement in the incident to protect his family."

    Source: Mccannfiles

  31. 'O juiz ( Carlos Alexandre) afirmou ainda não se deixar "deslumbrar" com o mediatismo que tem fruto dos processos que acompanha no Tribunal Central de Instrução Criminal. "No contexto de uma diligência que se procurava tomar contacto com documentação, foi-nos dito por uma pessoa com importância na praça que estava ali a mando de alguém para acompanhar aquele ato, porque quando o dinheiro falava, a verdade calava" - revelou ainda Carlos Alexandre. "Comigo a verdade falará sempre mais alto", terminou.'
    in entrevista no DN.

    Era bom que fosse sempre servida assim, a justica. Aqui esta um juiz que os Mccann nunca quererao ver por perto. Com eles, o dinheiro nao para de falar.

  32. The Mccann's are sharing the front page of the Sunday Express with a free easter egg and free hot cross buns.
    How much did they pay for that front page filled with rubbish?

    Any doubts, that this is nothing else then publicity payed by the Fund 'Madeleine leaving all stones unturned'?


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.