Saturday, 30 June 2012

Pimpleman - Class Review

At a certain point we asked our readers the following questions:

"Hands up all readers that call the 2009 McCann reconstruction a Mockumentary?

Why? Because you don't believe the witness statements it was based on?"

Although it was the common perception that those statements offered little or no credibility, we took the trouble to meticulously dismantle them so that the said perception would become a certainty.

These are the 18 posts we wrote about the Mockumentary and its Pimpleman:, absurd internal written instructions between just two people obviously to be seen by the general public, which set the mood and showed, together with many other things, the intention (and care) with which the Mockumentary was made and what credibility it offered., the appearances of all three witnesses who claim to have seen Pimpleman are detailed and it was highlighted the fact that CFT’s sighting is in Kate’s book and not in the Mockumentary., the Mockumentary debunks TS’s statement by placing her on the opposite side of the street from where she says she was., TS’s credibility as a witness is questioned and the abuse done by the BHs in using a child to serve their purposes is strongly condemned., TS’s statement about her first sighting of Pimpleman is completely debunked., the “Now I see, now you don’t” tactic used both by TS & TS’s MOM and DEREK FLACK & CHRISTINE when it comes to seeing Pimpleman explains, in our opinion, why TS and her MOM are filmed coming from the opposite direction from the one they reside in., TS’s statement about her second sighting of Pimpleman is completely debunked., the inexplicable discrepancy between where DEREK FLACK says he lives in the UK and where is said he’s from in the Mockumentary., based on the PJ Files, contrary to myth, it’s shown that none of the three versions of Pimpleman have been found to date.
It’s absolutely false that TS’s Pimpleman has been ruled out to be MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN. It’s also absolutely false that DEREK FLACK’s Pimpleman is BARRIGTON GODFREY NORTON. About the latter, it’s clearly shown in the files that FLACK himself denies that NORTON is the man he allegedly sees.
There wasn’t any need to use the PJ Files as the fact that all the three witnesses participate voluntarily in the Mockumentary in April/May 2009, long after the case had been archived, shows how the three agree that then their respective Pimpleman hadn’t been identified. He’s still out there., it’s showed the incomprehensible and ridiculous inconsistencies of DEREK FLACK’S statements about when did he exactly see Pimpleman and about what led FLACK to be in that street., making use of the fact that this year the days fell on the same weekdays as in 2007, we showed how ridiculous FLACK’s “lack of memory” really is., DEREK FLACK’s statement about his sighting of Pimpleman is debunked., DEREK FLACK tries subtly to bring BARRINGTON NORTON into the case as a suspect by showing to have, after all, a very selective memory., it’s showed how unfamiliar DEREK FLACK was with the surroundings of Apartment 5A as well as is proved that Pimpleman couldn’t be looking at that apartment when DEREK FLACK crossed with him., a possible explanation for Pimpleman’s unexplainable inhuman behaviour is given: autism., it’s showed how impossibly erratic the weather had to be for Pimpleman to be seen wearing the clothes he was said to be in by the three Mockumentary witnesses., based on his address in PdL it’s showed how highly unlikely it was for DEREK FLACK to be where he is when he says he sees Pimpleman., it’s showed how improbable it was for Pimpleman to have been seen by only three people: one an Ocean Club tourist, another an Ex-Pat and the last one a Brit tourist with his own apartment in PdL. 

I think we made it pretty clear that JW, TS and DEREK FLACK are LYING and we’re not talking about three people looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

Two of them voluntarily showed their face only two years after their initial statements and the other, JW, opted to have an actress represent her and thus maintain a low profile to this day.

All three witnesses are referred to anonymously both in the Mockumentary and in Kate’s book.

We know that the schoolgirl is TS and the couple to be DEREK and CHRISTINE because we’ve read the PJ Files, and we know JW is JW because of Edgar and his whiteboard.

No, these people are not seeking fame. If it wasn’t for blogs like ours they would’ve remained nameless to this day. 

Two of these people, TS and DEREK FLACK, went to the PJ before a week had passed. from Maddie's disappearance. Much before sighting-fever began. Neither of the two would be people of interest to the PJ. Both lived, or resided, at a significant distance from Apartment 5A and the Tapas complex, so it was them who approached the PJ and not the other way around.

We know little of JW’s statement. Basically just what is shown in the Mockumentary. But there’s little doubt that her statement is interlinked with those from the other two witnesses.

Kate does feebly warn us that the different sightings may refer to different men. We know that there are two kinds of sightings: real ones and fictitious ones.

Smith, Carol Tranmer and Tanner belong to the category of the real. All of them saw people of interest to the case. Tranmer saw a blonde man and Smith and Tanner saw Gerry McCann, although the latter lies both about from where she sees him and about what path she saw him walk up to the farthest corner from Apartment 5A between Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva.

But our attention today is focused on the other three sightings. The fictitious ones.

If it’s absurd to think that TS, JW and DEREK FLACK saw a PimpleMAN, it’s a total irrational lunacy to even think that they saw three different PimpleMEN.

That would mean that we had to have abductors attacking in packs in PdL, all choosing the same child and all choosing the same spot from which to observe the apartment she was in.

Besides, we don’t even have to say that the statements from JW, TS and DEREK FLACK are interrelated because that’s the conclusion reached by all Mockumentary participants, in front and behind cameras, by using a single actor to play the part.

These three characters refer to one, and only one character and a fictitious one at that.

As we’ve shown, both TS’s and DEREK FLACK’s statements are so much filled with detail that it means they the subject of intricate planning. The intentionality is clear and the message was carefully delineated by its authors, pity the messengers failed.

Not only are they lying individually, as their statements are so clearly interlinked and intertwined, that it shows that they’re also lying “collectively”. That's what is most significant about the statements from these three witnesses

There's absolutely no apparent connection relating the three witnesses, JW, TS and DEREK FLACK,  between themselves. There's also no apparent connection relating TS and DEREK FLACK with the McCanns or with the remainder T7

If JW is JENI WEINBERGER as we think she is, then there's a link, albeit weak, between her and the McCanns and that's the Tapas tennis. However we don't believe that the sport would create, in less than a week, such a bond that would be strong enough to make one make up stories about a stalker in which the disappearance of a child was at stake.

It’s quite clear that JW, TS and DEREK FLACK are LYING, in a scheme greater than themselves, in their statements concerning Pimpleman made to the PJ with the clear intent to obstruct justice.

Anyone think otherwise? Please do raise your hands.

Sunday, 24 June 2012


What is the most outstanding feature of Pimpleman?

His nose? His pimples? His sheer ugliness?

No, none of the above.

His most outstanding feature is the fact that he’s outstanding.

Really. He really stands out. He stands out like a sore, throbbing thumb.

A lonely man standing on a deserted street staring obsessively at an apartment from which a 4 yr old girl would be allegedly abducted from, stands out like a peacock on the front yard of one's small house.

And that’s "our" Pimpleman.

Seen three times by three independent witnesses in the exact same place and thrice observed looking fixedly at apartment 5A. So say JW, TS and Derek Flack.

He’s also seen twice at the same time of day, 08.00, although on different days and different places. So say JW and TS, two of the three people mentioned above.

In total, he’s seen by three people. The question is why.

Why do only three people see him?

Let’s start with the place where he’s seen by the three: Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins on the opposite side of the Tapas Bar, Pool & Tennis Courts entrance.

He was seen there on May 2nd at 12.30 (TS) and 15.00 (JW), and also possibly on that same day at 11.00 (DF). Derek Flack raises the possibility of the 11.00 encounter having been on May 3rd.

We know, according to the Ocean Club computer lists in the PJ Files that there were registered as staying in the resort the following amount of people:

- Pg 618: 258 people, 248 adults, 10 children

- Pg 622: 263 people, 253 adults, 10 children

- Pg 626: 288 people, 277 adults, 11 children

- Pg 630: 292 people, 280 adults, 12 children

- Pg 634: 275 people, 265 adults, 10 children

That averages a day, 275 people, 265 adults and 10 children.

We know that many children were registered as adults, so shall we say that there were 230 adults staying in the resort a day on that particular week. We know that there are 3 pools in the resort. Let's also throw in the beach. We can then estimate that about a quarter of those people used the Tapas pool & tennis courts. Around 60 adults

So out of over 60 Ocean Club tourists, only one, I repeat one, sees a peacock in the front yard of their house: JW.

Lest we forget TS is an Ex-pat and Derek Flack a Brit on holiday on his own apartment.

Add to that number the people hired in overstaffed Ocean Club, both British and Portuguese. As far as we’re told, we had the following activities going on inside the Tapas complex: Bar, Restaurant, Crèche, Tennis. and Pool.

Shall we add 20 people to our 60 adult tourists? That makes it 80 people just linked to the resort. And no one sees Pimpleman besides JW.

Pimpleman is said, by the three witnesses to have been standing on the other side of the ONLY entrance to that complex:

Nobody stakes out a house for just a minute or two. One arrives, sets oneself up to watch, watches and gathers up information. It’s a process that takes time, otherwise what’s the use? So we must assume that each time he was seen, it means that he was where he's said to be for a significant amount of time.

For example, on May 2nd, one must assume that between 12.30 and 15.00 he stood there for long periods of time. Long periods of time to be noticed and if you add DF’s 11:00, then extend that time even longer.

I would say that any of the referred times to be of significant movement at that entrance. People going in and out to the pool, people coming for their children for lunch and coming back to leave them at the crèche, people going to lunch, people going to tennis, people going to the bar...

Pimpleman was standing just on the other side of the road during “rush hour” and one, and only one person, JW, out of all the resort’s tourists and staff, notices the lonesome man staring at what is now the most famous apartment in Praia da Luz.

If you happened to have been one of the two men walking in the picture below that a day or two before Maddie disappeared saw a lonesome man staring at the apartment she was staying at wouldn’t you’ve reported the odd character to the PJ at once? I certainly would have.

JW, our OC tourist apparently notices the man only because he had unnerved her for some unexplained reason 3 days before, proving to have a much better memory than Derek Flack that in the same time span seems to forget so much...

JW is with her little daughter at 8.00 in Rua do Ramalhete. By the direction she’s walking we assume that both are heading for The Mill for breakfast, because nothing else is of interest for a tourist to see in that side of PdL.

But if she wasn’t, I would say that at that time the daily “Breakfast Pilgrimage” to The Mill would be taking place. That was the exact same route taken by the T9 for their first dinner, remember?

I would expected that at that hour Rua do Ramalhete would have been somewhat busy with all the tourists that had to use that road to head to and from The Mill for breakfast. At least not the deserted street that is portrayed in the Mockumentary.

But here one has to be serious and not blame all those who passed there at that hour. First, because the man doesn't exist, and even if he did there was no reason to find a man in any way suspicious just because he’s standing on a sidewalk.

Even with all the hysteria that quickly developed it would absolutely comprehensible that if a 1000 people saw him then and there, none would have reported it because he would've just been but one of many others who were seen and not noticed standing alone on a sidewalk for the most diverse of reasons in PdL that week.

A different scenario altogether is for him be standing alone in a pathway with both hands up on the wall staring at an apartment at 08.00, like TS states she sees Pimpleman. Although a walking pathway, only a limited amount of people do use it. Basically those from the two building blocks.

Yes, he could be waiting for a friend, or some other explainable reason, but the fact remains that he would be noticed. And when news broke out that it was in that apartment that Maddie had been abducted from then all those on their way to or from breakfast or to the creches who would've certainly noticed him would have flocked to the PJ to tell.

For much less did CFT, Mrs Fenn’s niece go to the Police. Unfortunately not the PJ as we know by now.

And talking about CFT, it’s also very strange that from all those apartments in Apartment 5A’s building block and also from the block next to it, that no one happened to see a lonesome man in the pathway leaning on a wall looking at the apartment.

I mean, when I'm on holiday I do have the habit in the morning of looking out the window to see what the weather is like, and if I have a view, to come to the window and appreciate it. And those two apartment buildings do have a wonderful view overlooking Tapas... and the pathway.

But no, no one sees a man looking very suspiciously at the apartment from where a little girl would disappear from, only a 11yr old girl who happens to be going to school. Or so she says.

And what about the McCanns?

With all the tennis, jogging, going to pick up Maddie and the twins to and from the crèches, going to Baptista… certainly they would have noticed Pimpleman every time they went in and out the house to get and to leave the equipment for the sport they were about to practice or just did do. Or the supermarket shoppings. Or the children for lunch...

Gerry remembers a guitar player on the beach but fails to notice a man staring at his apartment. 

The picture above, from the Mockumentary, filmed from Apartment 5A shows how suspicious Pimpleman would have appeared to be to the McCanns whenever they left the apartment...

Whether it was Gerry or Kate, who went to pick up Maddie for lunch on May2nd surely must have  literally bumped into the man and must have crossed ways with him as close as Derek Flack did!

Lastly, but not least, something our readers have pointed out, where is the Portuguese community of PdL? The last time I looked, PdL hadn’t gained yet the Gibraltar status, and if that were to happen, I think Albufeira would come first on the list.

No Portuguese see Pimpleman. In fact, in all the Maddie Affair, the only Portuguese we hear about are either linked to the Justice system or to the OC. A ghost town filled with people.

Nor do any other tourists from all the many buildings surrounding the Tapas Entrance or overlooking Rua Dr. Francisco Martins. Nor tourists nor Ex-pats. Only one tourist but from the other side of town who happens to be on that particular street although he doesn’t remember exactly why and, as said, an Ex-pat going to school.

So many people and only three see the man. Mind you, it could have been five, but two other people that were with them, Christine and TS’s mom, just, like the rest of PdL... didn’t.

I’m trying to remember what’s the term to qualify these five people… Oh yes, now I remember, it’s cobblers.

Sunday, 17 June 2012

Number 1 Is Always The First

The Portuguese have the following “diz-me com quem andas e eu dir-te-ei quem és” which means “tell me who you hang out with and I’ll tell you who you are”.

I’ll adapt that expression to our friend Derek Flack by saying “tell me where's your apartment in PdL is and I’ll tell you that you’re a liar.” 

No, I'm not implying that he's lying about his address in PdL because that is, as said before, one of the few things that we’re certain he was truthful about

But Flack is so unfortunate that when he lies he hinders his cause and when he speak truthfully he goes and does the exact same. And that's what happens when he says where his apartment is: Rua do Ramalhete, Lote 1, Apartment XXX.

It shows clearly something that is totally inconvenient for a “convenientwitness to “conveniently” have seen Pimpleman where he was “convenientlystanding, in the top third of Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins.

Rua do Ramalhete, Lote 1, Apartment XXX” means clearly that Flack’s apartment block, in PdL, in which he says his is, is at the beginning of the Rua do Ramalhete. There’s no lower number than 1, is there?

#1 is always the first house in any street. Lote 1 is the first block apartment of Rua do Ramalhete.

It’s either in the area of the blue or of the red circle. Fred’s GPS says that it’s in the red, near The Mill, but as always, we’ll consider both hypotheses.

Anyone living in PdL has basically three walking destinations: heading for beach or the church area and doing so for commercial reasons, such as going to a supermarket or to the pharmacy.

Below, the various logical routes from both ends of Rua do Ramalhete (red and blue) to the any of the three referred destinations, with the exception of one: the Baptista supermarket.

But to that supermarket, logic dictates that the detour be the light blue if coming from the blue route, or be the orange if coming from the red.

The only destination that could make Flack use any other route would be if he would be going to Tapas. However the pool is for the resort’s clients only and for dinner we all know how hard it was to get a booking even if you were staying there, which was not Flack's case.

Besides we already know that all the action in PdL was concentrated in the “PdL Red Triangle” which is near the church.

The fact that there's no logical route between Flack's holiday residence and the Tapas Entrance explains why he changes, on the same day, the motive for his stroll from going to Baptista’s (which doesn’t make any sense even for him) to a leisure walk. 

And also why he seems not to be familiar with the space near apartment 5A and made the mistake he made about the parking lot being in front of walking pathway behind that apartment:

Even in small towns there are roads that we never enter. For no other reason than it isn't convenient or logical.

There’s no reason for Flack to be walking in Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins when he says he allegedly sees Pimpleman:

Friday, 15 June 2012

Great Readers Make Posts Great

When we wrote the post “New Career Opportunities” we were aware that we were writing an “eye-bleeding” post (as per BHs). If, by itself, the Maddie Affair is complex in terms of dot connecting, we had, to pass the message we wanted to in that post, to bring in Portuguese business and political issues apparently totally disconnected from Maddie, the blog’s “cover-page”.

It proved to be quite a challenge but you, our readers, proved fully the point of the post: why social-network readers are so worrisome to some to the point of them creating a business made up of people just to target them.

Your response was simply outstanding. The post we were worried about making eyes bleed was very successful and generated a great response. It has hit a chord.

From all the wonderful comments we think that three deserved to be a post by themselves:

"Anonymous said...

The press have been responsible for most of the misinformation that the Mccanns have wanted published. Rebecca Brooks of The Sun said they would print the photograph of the Home Secretary everyday in their newspapers until the Government requested a review into Madeleine’s ‘abduction’ bearing in mind The Sun also published on its front pages the open letter to David Cameron from the McCanns. The McCanns have proven to be a gold mine for News International selling newspapers Madeleine has been splashed across its front pages. Kate’s book was serialised only in The Sun, ‘heartbreaking’ photographs of the parents ‘grieving’, going to Church, jogging, taking part in fund runs along with the details of how the public could send donations in support of the parents sold newspapers it didn’t matter if the stories were true or false the main aim was to sell papers with ridiculous photo fits of pimple man and blanket man and countless other ‘non’ stories. Whatever happened to investigative journalism, do these journalists not have any pride in their work?

Financially the McCanns have come a long way since 2007 when they shared a budget holiday package with a bunch of friends, and their family had to provide monetary support so they could pay their mortgage, since then Gerry has jetted around Europe been photographed standing outside the White House, meeting the Pope, rubbing shoulders with celebrities, standing ovations at conferences, very expensive PR and litigation Companies employed by McCanns, does he actually work these days, financially how do they manage? It’s been 5 years since Madeleine vanished but the real searching never started. Money spent on litigation and trying to restore their reputations all those rather awkward questions remained unanswered Carter Ruck and Co are not working for free their monthly fees must be astronomical nobody can afford to sustain bills like that indefinitely and of course Gerry’s comment ‘that there is no evidence to prove Madeleine is dead’ ( so keep sending your money to us) but then there is no evidence to prove that she is alive either, in fact when one considers the sniffer dogs findings, the dubious company the McCanns kept on holiday, their downright arrogance towards the PJ why is nothing proper being done about solving this mystery and putting an end to the fraudulent fund and searches once and for all. There should be transparency with this fund after all it’s public money that has afforded the McCanns this lavish lifestyle.

If News International or indeed the media do have the power to make or break individuals, influence voters then this country has become a frightening place to live. A little pressure put in the right place ensures that criminals can remain free. This has to be wrong. David Cameron wrote to the McCanns as a ‘family man’, but recently the Cameron’s left their daughter in a pub each parent thought the child was with the other parent. How close is their relationship, did neither parent say goodbye to their partner, have we become nothing more than a country of celebrity worship, smiling for the camera (or news International) for those all important newspaper inches, ensuring good publicity a vote puller and not worrying about family life. David Cameron is definitely not a family man. He could have been a great man and requested a proper investigation and brought this ugly matter to a close, but instead he chose the easy option, the vote pleaser.

Jun 13, 2012 2:48:00 PM"

"Anonymous said...

Anon.Jun 13, 2012 2:48:00 PM

Unfortunately those of us who are not influenced by the media (especially the papers) are seeing what those who run our country (UK) are interested in - their Bank Accounts. For too long the people who work and pay taxes have been under the illusion that we have power because we vote.

Not at all!

Even the Leveson Inquiry although going some way to expose the corruption will do nothing to address this because we are led by propaganda and the majority of people will be led by the nose. When Forums started everyone discussed things and information regarding Madeleine was freely available. Now we see the effect of the "disrupters" exposed. This was bound to happen because we cannot be allowed to see what or who is really in charge of not only the truth but also the government.

Jun 13, 2012 5:36:00 PM"

"Anonymous said...

The Sun put pressure on Cameron to push for the review from the Home Office. In 2007 there was the media frenzy which the McCanns encouraged it is possible that The Sun or News International was putting pressure on the government back then for PR support for Kate and Gerry and Clarence who was known to the media gave up his job with the government to work for McCanns with the blessing of the government in return for favourable political news stories.

It kept Madeleine on the front pages and sold newspapers and the stories printed were only ever about the mysterious abductor nothing discriminating about Kate and Gerry. At that time the McCanns did have a lot of public support one of my friends purchased the rubber wristband and would become very argumentative if any of us questioned the McCanns innocence, but now she says she was a fool and was taken in by the spin and I can honestly say I do not know of one person who supports the McCanns or believes their abductor theory.

Public opinion has changed we have all seen through the lies, it can only be a matter of time before those protecting the McCanns accept the reality of this case.

Kate in her book graphically detailing Madeleine's body parts, Kate knows full well Madeleine will never read that book such references were totally unnecessary. She also made reference to the abductor sedating three children, calling the PJ a F***Tosser and discussing her and Gerry's sex life. These are not the writings of a distraught mother but those of someone desperate to sell a book and make even more money.

Jun 13, 2012 6:43:00 PM"

We’re left with an impossible task: to find a way to truly express our gratitude. The day someone invents such an expression, we’ll come back here and post it!

Meanwhile let us do what we can and condense it all into three heartfelt words: thank you all!

Saturday, 9 June 2012

New Career Opportunities

(June 9th, 2012)

 On Saturday, June 2nd, 2012, Correio da Manhã (CM) published a piece of news that I think to be of the greatest importance, if not of an historic one.

Unfortunately it went unnoticed by most if not all bloggers.

This was particularly sad to have done so, especially by all those involved in the Maddie Affair. They should’ve picked up the importance immediately because they were the first to witness, or be victims of, the novelty referred in the article.

Let me quote the article:

"Ongoing does virtual war
CM had access to the report from the Setestrelas company

Setestrelas, the private company that has produced several "reputational analysis" reports for Jorge Silva Carvalho, fought, on the Internet, Francisco Balsemao’s Impresa. The CM had access to the Setestrelas’ report that reveals the modus operandi used to fight the enemies and competitors of Nuno Vasconcellos’, chairman of Ongoing.

In this document, that evaluates two news from last year - "Balsemao vetoes Manuela Moura Guedes’ move to SIC" and "Impresa is laying-off by mutual agreement and cutting salaries” – it’s done a "permanent reputation monitoring by a daily evaluation of sites, blogs, forums and social networks " on "the news published on 30.06.2011 and replicas until 04.07.2011"

Regarding the news “Balsemao vetoes Manuela Moura Guedes’ move to SIC", it says in Setestrelas’ report: "This intervention has successfully allowed to put into the background some less positive reviews about the Customer", Ongoing, "as well as influencing other users to follow with the initial message passed, which was aimed to weaken Balsemao’s position, seen as responsible for an injustice, moved only by personal issues. " it’s then added that "this work required a permanent action and in a large-scale, given the enormous volume of comments from other internet users."

In this sense, continues the document, "our intervention was shown to be important, both to divert the attention of users from the RTP’s privatization case, driven by some Internet users, as well as to create a contagious effect in the message to be passed, which happened". It’s explained that it was done "a monitoring of news regarding the Balsemao’s veto to Manuela Moura Guedes’ move to SIC, with the aim of weakening Balsemão’s position, instilling in the regular comment readers, the idea that the owner of SIC had acted out of ill-faith."

And it concludes: "It also detected an opinion article from John Lemes Esteves, in the 'Expresso' - 'Is Manuela Moura Guedes the boss of Passos Coelho?' - In which an active intervention was required, so that our comments stayed on the front page of the news, with the aim of discrediting it”.

That is what you can see online but there are other interesting snippets from the paper edition.

On its front page but not main title:

Ongoing is doing a virtual war against Balsemão
Nuno Vasconcellos attacks on the net his company’s enemies. PAGS 8 AND 9
Seteestrelas Company was contracted to fight the company’s enemies on social networks, websites and blogs

And on the inside pages, besides what appears in the online edition, the following “attention callers”:

In the Setestrelas Report it’s written that in one of its interventions on the Internet it was able to "influence the perception of Internet users towards Pinto Balsemao’s disastrous management in front of the Impresa group"“

The Setestrelas describes, among the main guidelines of the comments that it introduces in sites, the "contestation of the measures announced by Impresa," by giving "a highlight to the fact that Balsemao’s children work in the group and not been affected" by the cuts done.“

The private company accounts to Ongoing that in one of its interventions "there were inserted approximately 15,000 comments. This is to avoid some negative comments that could harm the media reputation of the Client." “

Setestrelas has a monthly retainer service with Ongoing of 10 thousand euros, the CM found.”

In one of the reports Setesetrelas advances as an objective the elimination of negative comments from "the comments first page" of a site.“

A lot of mumble jumble of Portuguese politics and business personalities.

So let me do at this point in time a brief character check and provide you with a little background information so that you understand the context.

Let’s start with the characters:

Pinto Balsemao [PB] and Nuno Vasconcellos [NV]

PB is the owner of the IMPRESA Group, which owns SIC and the most relevant weekly newspaper published in Portugal O Expresso. I refer only to these two because they’ve been mentioned here in the blog  before for the poor service they provided to the community about the Maddie Affair.
NV is the owner of ONGOING.
PB was the best man at NV’s wedding, so it’s apparent that they once were quite close friends.
ONGOING owns 23% of IMPRESA and it seems that NV tried, without success, to reinforce his position within this group.
Probably it was because of this failed attempt that they’ve now become enemies, at least in the public’s eye, but we have no way of knowing ot for sure.

Manuela Moura Guedes [MMG] and José Eduardo Moniz [JEM]

During the Socrates government, on Friday evenings, the TVI’s news was presented by MMG.
On that particular day of the week, Socrates and his government suffered fierce attacks and the program quickly gained momentum and popularity much to the PM’s distress.
MMG was, and is, married to JEM who was then TVI’s Information Director. Many were the rumours that government moved all its influence to silence MMG but wasn’t able to.
In August 2009 JEM leaves TVI to go to work for ONGOING.
Soon after his departure, as expected, MMG’s services were apparently no longer required from the referred TV Station and she stopped appearing.

Silva Carvalho [SC]

Portugal’s Intelligence services are concentrated into one Agency, SIRP.
SIRP is then subdivided into two other agencies, SIS and SIED The first is the equivalent of MI5, the UK's domestic security agency and the latter the equivalent of MI6, the foreign intelligence service.
SC was the director of SIED. He answered only to the PM, Jose Socrates and to Julio Pereira, the head of SIRP.
In December 2010, SC leaves SIED and is employed by ONGOING.
In July 2011, the O Expresso reports that SC handed classified information from SIED to ONGOING. SC denies ever having done such.

Silva Carvalho [SC] and Miguel Relvas [MR]

MR is the Portuguese Government’s most powerful Minister, right after the PM, Passos Coelho. In terms of influence, he’s the equivalent of Gordon Brown when Tony Blair was PM.
Lately it has been reported that MR and SC had two meetings and cell-phone texting exchange, making MR the most recent and the most prominent individuality to become involved in the scandal.

In terms of background, as said when speaking of SC, there’s currently a huge political scandal in Portugal about a possible misuse of SIED’s services when he headed that Intelligence Agency.

It’s known in Portugal as the Escandalo das Secretas, which roughly translates into “Secret Services Scandal” and SC is its pivotal character.

Personally I think this whole thing is but an episode among many others in the fierce war between two media moguls in Portugal, PB and NV. A power struggle saga that now has some time.

Let me clarify that this post is not about these two gentlemen, nor about their businesses, nor even about the way they go about doing it.

I don’t quite understand, nor do I want to, the exact details of this feud but the fight between the two just happened to have brought a new profession out into the light.

This post is about what is referred in CM's news article above and that is the birth of that profession: the disrupter.

Someone whose job is to hover like a vulture over the internet, looking over social networks, websites and blogs so they can, thorough spam-commenting, alter the readers’ opinion and undermine the credibility of both content and authorship.

In the Maddie Affair we’ve all always suspected that there were people being paid by the Black Hats to disrupt the various Maddie Affair sites.

Many blogs, including ourselves, have written about the strangely illogical quantity of “Pros”. Those people that apparently are supportive of the McCanns and who used a mixture, in huge amounts, of stubbornness, absurdity and aggressiveness to put down all those who dare lift a finger against the couple.

Don’t call them Black Hats, because the BH’s have many shapes and forms. The “Pros” are just a slice of the whole BH cake. But it is about the “Pros” that this post is about.

We took them to be mercenaries, hired freelancers with little or no moral values or scruples.

Bur the CM article proves that reality is totally and completely different.

We’re not talking about a heterogenic pack of wild dogs that run after a bone thrown at them regardless of it having come from an ostrich or from a human leg.

Setestrelas is a fully set-up legal commercial company.

It has a mission, clients to satisfy, objectives to achieve, profits to make.

As we can see, it does self-evaluation and provides assessment reports to its clients describing methodologies and results.

I’m not making any sort of connection between Setestrelas and the Maddie Affair as there isn’t apparently one. But we’re saying that some British “Setestrelas” types of company are certainly involved in it.

However, one can’t discard the possibility of Setestrelas itself having been hired by the Black Hats to disrupt in Portugal. It would certainly help to explain the inexplicable “Pro” comments in Portuguese that appear from time to time.

After all it is a business and anyone can hire them.

Whoever came up with the “Pro” term (I’m excluding the blog from this because we particularly disliked the Anti/Pro terminology) was inadvertently correct. They weren’t Pros as in “Pro-McCanns” but they were very well named as the “Professionals” they indeed are.

We, back in 2008, were absolutely right when we called them employees.

Their work environment is the various social-networks on the internet.

By social-networks we’re including, besides the various profitless blogs and forums, also the online newspapers where popular comments are allowed.

The disrupter targets only wherever the common citizen may provide his/her opinion.

With the advent of the computer, the hacker was born. With the social networking, we have the disrupter.

It would be deeply insulting to hackers to make any sort of analogy between both. One requires brains, creativity and excellence, the other just the ability to write.

We don’t know any professional hacking company, mainly because they would be illegal but we’re not naïve to the point of thinking that the big companies don’t have these people on their payroll.

Who doesn’t envy the intellect and the knowledge of a hacker? Look at all latest TV Series and you see that there’s always “the hacker character”, the one with the brains, who dominates all technology and is able to penetrate any computer and reveal its secrets while explaining it all in a language equivalent to a neurosurgeon speaking about the details of his most recent surgery.

Who envies a disrupter? No one, not even whoever is paying. The clients may be genuinely grateful for the services provided but one only envies one who one wishes one could be, and no one wishes to be a disrupter.

Unless one has a really low self-esteem… and one wishes to be vindictive on society that in one's sick mind one think has wronged one.

But although we can’t make any sort of analogy between a hacker and a disrupter, we can, and should compare them. There are two objects we can use to do that: a gun and a cigarette, two objects that I particularly dislike.

A gun involves a lot of intelligence both in its conception as in its making.

The delicate mechanical engineering involved in assuring the complete compatibility between all its parts so they work in a perfect unity in that split-second process that generates gigantic amounts of energy is simply awesome.

A cigarette basically involves convincing you to do something that you don’t need to ever have done.

Making a gun involves intelligence, to sell a cigarette, deceit.

Both are said to kill, but neither of them do. Both only kill when used. It’s the user that makes either object lethal, and here lies the most significant difference between them.

While one is able to imagine some usefulness for a gun, such as being a deterrent against a threat or for hunting in remote locations (to acquire food not as a sport), there simply isn’t anyway one can imagine a “good” use for a cigarette.

A cigarette once lit causes only harm, to the smoker and to all those around him/her.

Before being a gun user, which he is, a hacker is first of all a gun maker. He masters its secrets, its strengths and its weaknesses and knows how just how and when to exploit them all for his own benefit or profit.

A disrupter is nothing but a gun totting idiot, with a cigarette gripped between the teeth, only seeking havoc.

A hacker invents, introduces and spreads a computer virus, while the disrupter is the virus himself.

The other novelty from this piece of news is the need for such a business to have been created.

The business world reacts and adapts itself very quickly to the random tides of the various new requirements that keep surfacing and demand satisfaction. Where there’s a need, very quickly someone is profiting by satisfying it.

So there was a need felt for the existence of disrupters so that such a business was set up.

Why? I see the need for the creation of this new business for the following two reasons:

Firstly because the internet turned everyone’s PC into a personal limitless library.

Yesterday, yesterday’s paper was literally paper that 24 hours later became literally litter. Today, today’s online paper will, as of today, always just be a mouse click away.

It can be retrieved and shown as quickly and as opportunistically as any other news, which maintains one always updated but mainly it enables the enhancement of contradictions of what was said in the past.

The Maddie Affair has proven this point quite well countless times.

In those days, who would have remembered, today, what was published last Saturday? Today, today’s post is based on what was last Saturday’s news, isn’t it?

Up to now, the “opinion makers” owned the "opinion" and because they owned it, they owned the "truth". That stopped being so from the moment you, the common citizen, were able to intervene in real time.

As they then stopped being able to mould the “truth” unhindered they reacted with the only thing they could do and that was to act on the convictions with which you believe the truth to be, thus the need for a professional disrupter.

Someone paid to make you turn away from your own convictions. If these aren’t yet cemented in, they’ll go about it by simple persuasion, but if these are already deeply set in they’ll resort to the only thing they can which is to bully you away from other readers before you contaminate them.

If they see that you can’t be bullied away then they’ll turn their viciousness on to all others they can to isolate you from them, something Textusa’s readers are well familiarized with.

Each reader a blog loses has double value. He’s one less to be accounted for in the numbers of truth believers in the truth and one more they can say believe in what their “truth” may be.

Secondly, the literacy of the average blog reader is usually higher than average. They’re intelligent people who go out of their way to seek information. That’s the most dangerous sort of citizen for any “truth owner”. One who thinks for him or herself and cannot simply be told what is “correct” to be thought is completely unacceptable and must be "removed" as quickly as possible.

We are a few in numbers, yet we’re obliging the other side to a significant use of resources. If you take into account the ratio in question then their expenses are irrationally unbalanced.

But they aren't. Each penny that is spent is stamped with a reason as these people are cold-bloodedly rational.   

They spend what they spend because they fear you and they fear you because they understand your importance.

You are the one that most likely haven't yet understood your own importance. You know what it is? It’s the fact that you’re “the opinion”.

Most people fail to realize this importance they have. They can easily understand that the powerful are “opinion-makers” but overlook that it’s only through them that the “opinion” flows.

A fish can only swim if there’s water, take that away from him and it will flap agonizingly to death.

The more clear and unpolluted the water is the fish able to swim stronger and faster. In this case, pollution is illiteracy. Stupid people are poor messenger bearers. They lack credibility. It’s the literate that are best to spread a message.

But you must abide by the rules; otherwise you have to be curtailed.

So if they can’t silence you by reason, they will tire you out methodically, relentlessly and most of all efficiently.

And if that fails then they will tire out methodically, relentlessly and most of all efficiently all those around you away from you, thus the need for a professional disrupter.

The two reasons seem to be identical. After all they have three common factors: you, the others (as in readers) and the truth.

The difference between them is that in the first instance the objective is to separate you and the others from the truth so that their truth prevails; and in the second, for the exact same reason, they want to separate you from the others and the truth.

It seems to a little complex but just like with the Maddie Affair is quite easy to understand.

But although we loath the kind, we must recognize that in the Maddie Affair the disrupters have done a brilliant job so far.

One just has to look at how the attention and dedication to the Maddie Affair is waning.

Do you remember the days when thousands came daily to discuss the issue, demanding justice and showing how guilty the McCanns obviously were?

And do you remember how much time you wasted discussing neglect, discussing the sole guilt of the T9, assuming for certain the Tapas dinners? Freemasonry, scientific experimentaition... All the brilliant work of extremely well directed spam-commenting and spam blogging. We discussed and discussed and then discussed some more, and the issue lost novelty, attentions got distracted and people left...

It’s certain that in a fight between me holding a baseball bat and dressed in an armoured suit like Joan of Arc and you barehanded, the likelihood of me winning is great, and the disrupters had, and have, the full support of all possible governmental agencies of two countries including the governments of both, but we all must agree that they did do a pretty good job...

Numbers started to fall because people got tired of the impotence felt by the absolute perversity of justice and the shamelessness of those from which we expected the exact opposite.

Are we before a lost war?

How many times have each of us thought “Enough is enough, I’ve no more patience for the issue...” or “What’s the use? They’ll never be brought to Justice anyway so why continue banging the head against the wall?”

I say we’re very far from defeat.

Firstly because the creation of companies like Setestrelas is the recognition by the establishment of the importance of blogs and other social networks. If they feel there’s a need to defend themselves that’s because they feel that they’re really threatened.

In 2008 we wrote here about the strategic importance of blogs.

Secondly, because the Maddie Affair may fall into "a silence" but it won't go away, it will always be there, dormant. Permanently lurking the BHs, never allowing a day's rest on that side of the fence.

And in between them, there will always be that look into each others eyes, a constant reminder of favours done and favours owed. Names have been forever blemished. The names of those who thought they were just providing a "little help" but now find out that what they really agreed to was to be pushed into a blazing fire and no one likes to be burned for no reason. Those looks are each tagging a price on the other. Trust is something that was lost with innocence and with Maddie's life.

Thirdly, about the Maddie Affair in particular, we have for us a surprisingly factor that feeds our hope and give reason to our actions: passion. Yours and ours.

Our blog is basically made up of long and complex posts. Like this one.

They’re “meaty” and do take some time to assimilate. They’re full of details and linkages with what has been written before and they do mention many, many characters as well reference many documents, all public, mind you.

As the BHs like to say, Textusa´s posts make the eyes bleed and not many are able to get past the first paragraph (see now and understand the technique?)...

Add to that, we’re not exactly predictable of when we post next. The three of us have somewhat busy lives and the blog is but minor part of it. So we write when we write, and publish only after the issue at hand has been filtered by all of us. Besides, as you know, we tend to be a little too crabby sometimes...

It also has very little “publicity”. We're scarce on the use of tag words and very few are those that tweet our blog. I would like to take this opportunity to tell them how much we appreciate them and are grateful for all their effort and faithfulness.

So, on all counts Textusa is, understandably, a "tedious" blog.

Our readership numbers should diminish much like we’ve seen happen with other blogs much less “tedious” about the Maddie Affair.

Yet our readership remains stable in the hundreds daily.

Modesty aside, I would say that Textusa and Joana Morais have proven to be exceptional in this aspect.

This tells us that although the “warfare” that we’ve been fighting is immensely asymmetrical and not in our favour, it is producing results because our “opinion-followers” seem to be steadfastly defending their ground.

And even though Textusa is hardly mentioned outside “these walls”, today, among the various fora discussing this issue there’s a common agreement that there was no neglect and that the T9 dined at Tapas as many times as the rest of us.

And slowly the message spreads because you are as clear and unpolluted as any “water” could ever be.

That’s why we together are able to tie up the hands of a (former) prestigious institution like the SY and show how it is as permeable to “instructions” as any police from any poor third-world country.

About the companies like Setestrelas that we’ve long become accustomed to their "fire", let me just say the following: we can’t control our opponent’s actions, all we can do is to anticipate them and prepare ourselves for them. The better we understand the adversary, the better we can do that. Today we got to know our opponent a little better.

They’re not amateurs, they’re professionals, and thus much well organized than we thought them to be.

Now, we either waste time analyzing each and every comment we receive, or we continue to concentrate on what matters and go on writing.

I think you know what our option will always be.

We still have so much to write about. All of which is out there, right before your eyes.