Friday, 22 March 2013

Easter Break

It’s Easter time.

A time filled with meaning, both for the pagan and for the religious.

The days of this particular time of the year are exactly what they are independently of the diverse points of view. But it’s exactly each one’s point of view that makes these Easter days unique in meaning.

Above all it’s a time for reflection. And one tends to reflect after life teaches one a lesson.

After, for example, life teaches a media mogul that it wasn’t a wise decision to take under the wing a certain couple to make money out of going with the flow with the government mock-up.

The lesson? Politicians aren’t to be trusted as friendships with them can quickly turn into liability.

After, for example, life teaches a certain politicians that there aren’t such things as free Press rides. To ask one story teller to tell the story the way one wants it to be told basically means that in order to modify it, the story teller gets to know the whole original version and all its sordid details.

The lesson? Moguls aren’t to be trusted as friendships with them can quickly turn into liability.

As my grandmother used to say, one is stuck with the family fate has chosen but friends are ones one chooses and bad choices always have a price. About that you can ask all those that for whatever reason have let themselves to get entangled in the Maddie Affair.
Anyway, it’s Easter time, a time for a break. We'll be hunting Easter Eggs...

During that time we leave you with a recommendation: Barcelona.

Absolutely worth visiting. A city so filled with life. However please do some research before going as it’s so full of intertwining peculiarities, some of which astoundingly surprising.

Post Scriptum:

We "interrupt" our Easter break just to contribute for the publicity of this masterpiece by Rowan Atkinson and have it here archived for all to see and listen:

Insult is always humiliating to the one who insults. What is feared, and indeed it is, is not insult but the accurate description of fact.

Thank you, Rowan!

Friday, 15 March 2013

The Deciders

“Now that you have, hopefully, understood the general guidelines of the concept of “truth” as well as how it can be manipulated to suit agendas we can now speak about the grouping of the various Black Hat cliques.”

“Are there that many?”

“Yes, and many, as you’ll see, are interlinked and intertwined in such ways that they can be allies with each other in certain matters whilst be the fiercest foes on others.

“But let’s start with that one group that couldn’t care less about the truth.”

“What? Didn’t you just say that the way truth was manipulated would define the type of BH?”

“Yes, I did, and maintain what I said. Ignoring the existence of truth is another way of manipulating it. It’s not just cutting off a tip of the "truth block" but cutting the whole block off!

In fact, not only not touching it but keeping it at a very comfortable distance and preferably hidden away. If it’s not possible to hide it, then it is to be ignored. That simple and, what is important, that powerful.”


“History as shown that in conflicts those who are able to remain neutral aren’t those who desire that status but those who have enough power to determine they will be such.

One doesn’t just say one wants to be neutral. One either has enough power to say it, such as Switzerland in WWII, or it is because it is in the interests of the belligerents, or the powerful, for one to be so, as was the case of Portugal in the same conflict.

And one can only brazenly ignore truth if one has enough power to do so.

In the Maddie Affair who is powerful enough to do just that? ”


The Deciders, obviously.

The first and most important group of Black Hats. So important that the fate of the case is in their hands.

But before we get to what they can do let’s first look how it evolved since that fateful evening of May 2007.

The moment Maddie died the Decider Group was confined to the T9. However, the only decision this particular Decider Group made was to introduce the “bully-effect” into the equation.”

“The what?”

“The “bully-effect” or the calling on for external help.

You know, remember back in high school when one had a problem and one called on a bully for help? What one was effectively doing was transferring all the capability of making the crisis management decisions on to him/her.

From then on all decisions on how to solve the problem started to be made by the bully and not by the one with the problem. It continued to be that person’s problem but its solution depended no longer on him/her. S/he asked for a favour and in turn gave up control.

Basically it’s an escalation in importance of who is the Decider.

Imagine now that this bully who had been asked to help, and agreed to it, sees that s/he’s unable to provide the adequate solution and decides to call on a bigger bully to help out. This decision, which didn’t involve the initial person with the problem, is directly related with that particular problem so it affects him/her but s/he has no say in it anymore.

And the moment the bigger bully agrees to help the bully that is helping the person, three people are now involved and the importance of the initial person in the decision process is not reduced but completely nullified.

And that is what happened in the Maddie case. The Decider Group very quickly escalated to the second-highest threshold of importance that it could rise up to.”


“Yes, the one short of having officially the direct involvement of the British PM.”


“Well, once you had the UK Ambassador at the time being directly involved, as he was, it meant that the UK Government was also directly involved.

The only thing left to escalate would be to have had the Foreign Secretary at the time, Margaret Beckett, involve herself directly in the affair and if she had done so it would be an official position by the UK Government, which would mean the direct involvement of the PM, Tony Blair.

So what happened, in practical terms, is that all that favour-calling on the night of the 3rd caused that the participants in the Decider Group to change successively and incrementally in importance.

On May 4th, 2007, you had basically the same Decider Group in place up until the "12May2011 Armistice", when the last possible threshold was reached. When David Cameron ordered the SY Review he got himself officially directly involved in the issue and you can’t get more important direct involvement than that.”

“The same Decider Group? You said it changed with time… all that conversation about the monkeys in business…”

“Yes, I did say that. But if you recall, what I said was that the people making the decisions changed, not the Decider Group.”


“You’re confusing people who made decisions with Deciders.

The Deciders have the capability of influencing, decisively, others into doing what is their will, while people who make decisions are just enablers of what the Deciders have ordered.

The power-shift to the “monkeys” was simple and pure delegation. The enablers were "trained" to decide always within the boundaries set by the "pleasure" of their "masters". The important strategic decisions remained with the stakeholders, the Deciders.

In the Maddie case we saw that with time the Deciders delegated to these "monkeys" the necessary decisions to achieve their desired outcome. If you remember I explained extensively why this happened.”

“Yes, you did.”

“And after a certain point in time hardly any Decider decided! They had that “chore” delegated to the “monkeys”!

It’s very easy to mistake a deciding “monkey” for a Decider but all becomes clear once one understands that the difference between them is the “bully-effect” I mentioned just now.”


“Remember me saying that with the involvement of the bigger bully that the decision went higher in importance? I also said that once the bully got himself involved the problem to solve became his/her problem too!

The difference between a Decider and a “monkey” is that the first is a stakeholder while the latter is but a parrot that is told to say “Polly wants a cracker!!” and will say it to perfection.

When the parrot starts to come up with adequate phrases of his own to express that it is but a cracker that it wants, those around tend to overlook the feathers and start to give the enabler more “decision space”.

But the mistake of mistaking the “monkeys” for Deciders was one crucial mistake that happened within the Decider Group.

That’s what happens when you get sloppy in delegating.”

“How did that even happen?”

“Well, I’m referring to the Tabloids of course. Their initial mission was to parrot away what they were told. With time, they became more and more freelance on the subject.

As you know, the Great Maddie War, or GMW, took place on all communications platforms but mainly on two: Tabloids and internet.

So you can easily understand the importance that the tabloids started to gain in the affair. So much so that when the Decider Group “convened” in 2010 to decide the launching of the 2011 version of “The McCann Hunting Party” it was, we think, made up mainly of Tabloid “monkeys”.

Note that they were part of the Decider Group meeting but it was completely overlooked that weren’t Deciders at all but only people who had been just making decisions, and so many of them, up until then!

These people were not stakeholders.

They not only didn’t practically have anything to lose as they weren’t in possession of all the relevant information.

There was one commonality between the Decider Group of 07 and 10 and that was the “master-bully”, which was the British Government.

In 07, the British Government adequately staffed by those in the know took the right decision, for them mind you, to not to prosecute the McCanns while in 10, the same British Government but now staffed with those who weren’t effectively in all the know, took the disastrous decision of ordering a the SY Review, a should-be “piece of cake” that has now grown mould for two years...

For their own sake. the Decider Group of 07 would have never allowed the SY Review to go forward. They would have staffed David Cameron correctly and he wouldn’t have made such a disastrous decision for himself and all Black Hats.

And that’s why they’re where they are now, isolated and blocked.”

“Isolated, how?”

“Well, as I’ve said, the Guests at PdL weren’t your common Joe. I’m sure that with the SY Review decision David Cameron lost some “friends”. He clearly promoted the Tabloids to a “teacher’s pet” status that most likely didn’t go down well with many.

Then, having realized that he had driven into a sort of narrow “cul-de-sac” in a car without a reverse gear, mind you with no ill-intent from anyone as I’ve explained, he turned on to those he felt had “betrayed” him, those who had convinced him to make decision: the Tabloids

So no more “we’re friends” with them too. Thus the Leveson Inquiry.

So now we have this completely surreal situation which unfortunately is too real for everyone. Without the former “friends” and without the new “friends” the UK Government is “isolated” on this issue.

And as the British Government has since then become as much a stakeholder as anyone else involved, it can’t make a move without implicating itself so is blocked.

Isolated and blocked.

It’s rather pitiful to see the Government of a Nation “subdued” by a situation that it thought would be easy to control but fate and time proved to be the exact opposite.”

“So you’re saying the British Government is powerless?”

“What? How could I say that the powerful were powerless? That would be a contradiction in terms!

No, just because they can’t have it their way, because of self-interest, doesn’t mean that they can’t act. They have done so and will continue to do so.

Let’s first see what they have done.”

“What have they done then?”

“They have done the one thing that only Deciders can.”

“And what is that?”

“They’ve created truth.”

“What?!? Have you lost your wits, woman?!?”

“The Deciders are the ones who say what the Official Truth is and what it's not. Irrelevant and independently of what Factual Truth is.

Official Truth and Factual Truth may even be coincident but when that happens it's because it's in the Deciders interests for that to be so and not because truth is... truth.

They are sufficiently powerful to just look at the real truth block, the Factual Truth, and simply ignore it.”

“Ignore it?!?”

“Yes, and not only pretend it doesn’t exist but replace it, not in part but on the whole, with something that has nothing to do with Factual Truth.

In the Maddie case the only similarity between the Factual Truth and the Official Truth is that this child, Madeleine Beth McCann, disappeared.

Absolutely nothing else is common between the two.

“That’s impossible.”

“I’ll show you. Let’s take the Archiving Dispatch as example.”


“I’ll even use Black Hat wording so that there’s no possible misunderstandings about it or be accused of being gibberish:

bb1 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:34 pm

Isn't it amazing the difference a PROPER, PROFESSIONAL, translation makes?

Amateur version of a key section of the Archiving Dispatch as translated for the Morais site:

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Proper, professional translation as used in court:

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…

None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless

Which led to:

b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

Subtly different, aren't they - and they are far from the worst examples. Does Bennett really feel like taking his chances on the Dodgy Translations With Bits Left Out?”

As far as I can see both say basically the same and stating otherwise is just childish distracting wordplay.

But what is relevant is that both versions show how the Deciders were able to make official Judicial institutions blatantly lie about their own conclusions.


“Yes. Lie. Don’t you see it?”

“Must confess I’m not…”

“In both versions, and I’ll tell you that the original Portuguese one confirms it, it is said that one of the main reasons for not prosecuting the parents is because they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance”.

Well, that, according to the abduction theory is false and so to state it is to tell an absolute lie in terms of the Official Truth.”

“It’s false?!? They created a version that doesn’t exempt the parents?!?”

“No, at least not when it says that the parents weren’t at the apartment at the time of events. Let’s for a moment assume that the whole abduction baloney is true, as that is the Official Truth.

So to what “events” is it referring to?”

“The… abduction?”

“Exactly, the action of kidnapping. In a murder it’s quite easy to identify the beginning and the end of such an act but in kidnapping those limits aren’t as clear.

Help me out here. When do you think the act of "abduction" started and when did it end?”

“It would have started when the abductor went inside the apartment and would have ended when he, or she, got out of it with the child.”

“Right. So you agree with me that according to the Official Truth, the Tanner sighting is after the events, right?”


Tanner sees the man as she’s passing by Gerry and Jez although neither of them realize it, right?”


“And according to the Official Truth, Gerry had just walked out of the apartment and had just started a short conversation with Jez right after he walked out of the gate.

That means that in order for Tanner to see what she says she does, Gerry had to have been inside the apartment with the abductor!

It’s impossible for Gerry to have left the apartment, engage in a short talk, and only then the abductor enter the apartment, pick up Maddie, fly out the window, walk around the parking lot and be seen by Tanner when she states she sees him.

In fact, it’s a quite accepted fact, in the Official Truth, that there was a 5 minute window of opportunity for the abductor

That time window when the abductor was supposedly surprised by Gerry’s entrance and hid behind the bedroom door, wait for Gerry to finish his business in the toilet and leave the apartment and only then, supposedly again, pick up Maddie and be seen by Tanner in accordance with her statement.

So there’s no doubt that one of the parents, the father, was, according to the Official Truth, inside the apartment at the time of the events.

There’s absolutely no question about that, in the Official Truth, that is.

Do read the dispatch again.”

“Oh… I see what you mean… it wasn't either "the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared" or "the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance" was it?”

“And what "analysis" of what "telephone communications"? I guess they "forgot" to add that the analysis of the credit card reports also confirmed the absence of any foul play...

That dispatch is the result of the Deciders brazenly telling an official Judicial institution to act like a parrot and to obediently just say “Polly wants a cracker!!” and that official Judicial institution obeying by acting to perfection like the parrot it was told to be and dutifully just saying “Polly wants a cracker!!” independently of what was written in the process.

Is that brazen or what?

It's the Deciders not calling us all stupid but telling us all that when it comes to their personal interests your interests just don't matter and like the bullies they are things "were" the way they, the Deciders, said they were simply because they said they were, irrelevant of logic or reason, so it's not open for debate. They know we're not stupid so they resort to shameless and arrogant brazenness. 

And if that crucial fact is a lie in the Archiving Dispatch then one can only assume the rest of the following blabber "there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless" was written with the same seriousness. 

Now you have to have power to be able to do this, don’t you?”

“You sure have…”

It wasn't written with seriousness but it was serious. That's how powerful and brazen the powerful can be. A simple ideal such as Justice should never be an obstacle to their interests.

And you know what power then they also have?”


“To do this:

To let the SY Review to disappear into thin air…”

What? How? What and how?”

“By simply by not letting the Review come to any sort of conclusion. Make it be a permanently “cold case” review waiting for “new evidence”… much like the Portuguese did, just without the brazen dispatch.

Make “time return” to the Summer of 2010 and oursurprise attack with our LastCall post, you know, when they had the GMW practically won and almost threw that all away.

Now they will have to retrace their steps, which will basically be to stop talking about the issue. Once the last obstacles are overcome they only have victory ahead of them, or almost that is…”

“What last obstacles?”

“The legal issues. Both with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Amaral.

About Mr. Bennett we won’t voice our opinion as we aren’t aware of the final decisions made by both parties involved as we most definitely don’t want to influence in any way whatever is being decided.

 With Mr. Amaral we know that the BHs can’t afford for things to go to Court.

In our opinion, they either buy out Mr. Amaral or drop the case and I’m not seeing Mr. Amaral being for sale.

Yes, it will be embarrassing but with enough image management and shameless brazenness the Official Truth about the McCanns dropping the case will certainly be due to their magnanimous mercifulness, which as we know, has nothing to do with the Factual Truth.

But once Mr. Amaral is “out of the way” then all that has to be done is what I’ve already stated. Shut down gradually the information tap about the subject. Let it dwindle away.

Note that when I say that Mr. Amaral is put "out of the way" I'm speaking purely from a Black Hat perspective. It was their doing in putting him "in the way" in the first place so I'm speaking as to how they will try to undo what they've done.

What Mr. Amaral does, or doesn't, do on own initiative afterwards is a decision that belongs to the man alone and there's absolutely nothing the Deciders can do about it. For example, if the case is to be dropped, albeit the message of McCann magnanimous kindness that the BH will most certainly make an effort to push, there's nothing that may stop Mr Amaral from speaking publicly about the case if he so desires.

Bloggers will start to “lose interest” or feel “tired” or deem their efforts “pointless” while meanwhile an extra effort is made, as is being made by the way, to intensify clutter spreading in forums so that current readers are driven away tired of reading the most lunatic theories about simple facts and that the most resistant ones faced with such persistent ridiculousness will start also to abandon both blog readership and forum participation by accepting fate as inconclusive.

How many good posters have we lost already? People who just got fed-up of trying to express with reason their reasonable ideas against relentless brick walls one after the other. With each good, caring and interested  poster gone the "brick walls" get to get a huge pat on the back as it indeed is a victory that they can, and should, rightfully claim for themselves.

However it all boils down to what extent the “Savile-effect” will affect the issue.”

Savile-effect? What is that? A cover-up scandal that will shock the world? But that then means that truth will be known and then that will mean they will have lost!”

“No dear. You’re reading the Savile scandal the way the majority does, which I’m afraid, is the absolutely wrong way of reading it.”


“Tell me dear just one name, one name only, of someone being accused of helping cover-up Mr Savile’s evil deeds.”

“The BBC?”

“I said a name, not a non-personalized entity. We hear that it was 40 years of cover-up and we’ve heard what organizations were involved in that cover-up. 40 years means a lot of people certainly looked the other way when it came to Savile.

Where are they? Where are the names of the people who indeed covered-up for Mr. Savile? Are they being made accountable for what they did?”

Err… no…

“Exactly! And that is the Savile-effect: it compensated to cover-up for Savile, didn't it

How many people turned their face and got away with it? Many and none made accountable

The question now is to know when one day the McCann scandal is to break, those who helped in the cover-up will remain as anonymous as the Savile-helpers or on the contrary, their names and faces will be known to the world and they will be accountable for their actions.

It all depends on that one factor that differentiates both cover-ups.”

“And that is?”

“The internet. Unlike with Mr Savile, with the Maddie case all is documented on the internet. Both all the clutter and all the facts

And if we were able to sift through the clutter, others certainly will be able to do the same.

The question is what, once they “discover” what Factual Truth indeed is, they will be able to do with it. Will they be able to overcome the power of the Deciders?

History has shown that righteousness is a luxury exclusive to the powerful but maybe, just maybe, the internet will change all that

That’s why from the first moment I set eyes on the Maddie Affair I quickly understood it to be historic.

Post Scriptum:

The news originated in Murdoch’s The Sun about the “cleaning team” is apparently so obviously made up in content that it can only mean one thing: it isn’t fake.

Between the Deciders things aren’t pretty. In fact they’re very, very ugly. This article reflects exactly that.

We imagine that many a VIBH (Very Important Black Hat) wasn’t at all happy with this Murdoch’s indiscretion when showing Cameron his teeth to pressure him on what the PM intends to do with the conclusions from his Leveson Inquiry.

At least we now have, in our opinion, seen answered one of the biggest mysteries of the Maddie Affair: who cleaned so well Apartment 5A.

We always knew that it was too professional a job to be done by some doctors.

Pity to see SY used like a common harlot again.

Friday, 8 March 2013

Truth as Clue

“Are we going to speak about the Black Hat Gangs?”

“To understand the idiosyncrasies of the various BH Gangs you must first understand the mechanics and complexities of Factual Truth.”

“Is that a trick question?”

“No, and soon I hope you’ll be chewing on those very words...”

“Knowing you, I should go get a napkin...”

“Imagine truth as a block. A solid stone block. Like this:

Now don’t confuse this block with Maddie’s Cube. That Cube is much, much more complex. The truth block is but a part of it.

The Factual Truth which is immutable. It’s a series of objective events and circumstances that did happen and produced an outcome. Nothing can change that.

What is mutable are the various interpretations one can make out of Factual Truth

If one is not with ill-intent, these interpretations are based on logic, coherence and feasibility

If one intends to mislead then one can say that rock is made out of water. But by claiming that, however repeatedly, it doesn’t change the rock from being a rock nor does it change water into being rock, does it?”


“And no matter how much they claim that water is rock, water will never be rock.

There’s only one reason, and one reason alone, for one to manipulate truth and that is because there’s a reason that makes one do that

To those who have no said reason then truth is the most exquisite object to contemplate as it’s the only fountain able to genuinely quench curiosity’s thirst.

Basically there are two forms to manipulate truth and that is either by distortion or by omission.

One can distort either by addition or by replacement.

Distorting by addition is to add events to the truth that have nothing to do with it. That way the observer loses sight of the dimensions and contours of truth and so make the wrong assumptions when drawing conclusions from it.

Freemasonry and paedophilia are the two most common distortion themes by addition.”

“Right. And by replacement?”

“Distorting by replacement would be for one to chip off one of the corners and replace that part of the block with some sort of “replica”.

For example, in Maddie's case, we believe that dinners took place downtown at Chaplin’s. That reality has been replaced with the fictitious Tapas dinners.

Why? Because dinners at Chaplin’s would mean that the children were being taken care of by OC Staff which would make abduction impossible.

When one resorts to distortion, one wants to divert the attention away from something as one not only doesn’t want that specific part of the block to be seen but also intends to deceive by showing a “complete” block when in fact a part of it has nothing to do with the original.

It has the inconvenience of being able to be spotted and seen for the lie it really is. And once the suspicion of falsehood sets in it will forever hover over the block even if the fake corner is removed and the rightful one returned.

To manipulate truth by omission is just to chip away that corner and present the block without it. This achieves a very interesting effect and that is to lie by saying only the truth.


“Look at the block with the chopped off corner. All that one sees is true. There’s not a shred of lie about it.

It only isn’t the whole block, the whole truth but, by omission, one can speak about the subject with full conscience that one isn’t lying about it!

One is just not basing the argument on the whole truth, that's it. The part left out is what is not to be known.

That missing bit may, or may not, be relevant but will always alter the dimensions of the block which basically means that one is looking at a part of it thinking that one is looking at the whole thing.

That’s the difference between omission and distortion. In distortion one introduces falsehood while in omission one simply prays that whatever one is hiding is not found.

Knowing this, we can now define what is a Black Hat.”

“And what is then a Black Hat?”

A Black Hat is someone who has consciously manipulated truth, by distortion or omission, with the intent of having Factual Truth remain unknown.”

“Shouldn’t you have the word “voluntarily” in that definition?”

“No, many BHs were dragged into the mess and had no say about it. Either by the events or for having to follow orders. But once in the mess, they had no choice but to go with the flow to save their reputation.”

“That then makes it to be a lot of people, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, unfortunately you’re right. If it’s hard to have a kid confess to stealing a cookie imagine how difficult it will be to have hundreds of them to do that about a much worse crime.

Because we’re no longer talking about just the T9, Ocean Club, Guests and their friends and relatives. We’re also talking about diplomatic personnel, police and justice personnel, media personnel, church personnel and government personnel of two countries.”

“That is one big crowd!”

“But let’s get back to the truth block. It’s important with what set of eyes one is looking at it.”

“How is that?”

“It changes with the objectives in mind when looking at it. Whether one is looking at it as the police or if as the public.”

Public? I thought, after you said the police, that you were going to say the criminals.”

“Oh no, the criminals are the only ones who know exactly what the truth block looks like, after all they’re the ones that “built” it.

All others, police and public, have their views of the block in some way or another blocked. If by nothing else, it’s blocked by their own ignorance of the general facts or of just certain parts of them.

It’s the job of the police to do away with their ignorance and that’s why they do their investigative work. They work to replace their ignorance with knowledge about Factual Truth.

So little by little they “peel” away all obstacles that prevent them to see the whole truth with the objective of having, at the end of the process, the whole Factual Truth uncovered so that the rightful judicial entities that will follow them on the subject are able to make the right decisions based on the right facts.

It’s the job of the police to discover the truth, to clean and polish that block the best way possible.”

“And the general public?”

“The public can only see what is shown, and it assumes that the police is doing its job.

But each individual by absorbing the information available formulates his/hers opinion on the subject. 

Both about of the truth block as well as the work being done by the whole judicial system.

And when one realizes that the judicial system isn’t exactly doing the job it’s supposed to be doing, as the citizen that one is, one is compelled to do something about it.

Imagine that one day you head for the bank and when you get to the teller, instead of being asked “Good morning, do you wish to make a deposit?” the teller reaches for a gun and says “Hands up, this is a robbery! Hand over all your the money!” and after taking it sends you on your way with a “Thank you, goodbye. Next!”.”


“Was the bank doing its job? No. And wouldn’t be a fact that it was your duty to alert others that the bank not only wasn’t doing its job as it was taking advantage of being a bank to attract other naive victims?”

It certainly would!”

“And that’s the role of the true WH blogs. To alert others that those supposed to manage justice within society are far from doing their job when it comes to Maddie's case.

But as we don’t have authority or legitimacy to manage justice in any way, what we can do is provide our opinion and by doing so, show how some who have been entrusted with responsibility, misuse it and even abuse it.

And even if those entrusted with responsibility don’t misuse or abuse it they should always be ready and available to be closely scrutinized by those who entrusted them with said responsibility: the citizens.

It’s like the Portuguese say, "when one owes no one, one isn’t afraid to face anyone", so the judicial system should never be afraid of being questioned

If it is indeed transparent then all questions will have a clear and straightforward answer. If it isn’t, then the “bank” is pointing a “gun” at all of us and should be denounced.

Unlike the police, we don’t possess their resources to access information but we do have the greatest resource of all and that is the human brain. Nothing stops us from thinking with logic.

So it’s not our mission, or quest, to find truth, but to make all efforts to understand what truth is from the available facts. And when we can’t understand something to be true, we have not the right, but the duty to voice it.

What we do is make the truth block more and more clear and that is achieved by making transparent all the obstacles between us and it.

By doing so, we hope to, as an end-result, to show what we understand the truth is. It’s our thought, thus is but supposition. But if our thought process was logic, coherent and above all feasible, then our suppositions will also be logical, coherent and feasible, which makes it very close to the truth.”

“Understand that. But what has this to do with the Black Hat Gangs?”

“Well, it first helps you identify if the person you’re communicating with, directly or indirectly, is a BH.

Normally, the exact size and shape of the truth block is only known by those who intervened directly in the events. This is so because, as I said, although the truth block is immutable, afterwards each one tends to manipulate its events to in accordance with one’s convenience.

But the “Maddie truth block” is different.”

“Well, if everything else has been different about this case, not seeing any reason for this not to be so…”

“You see, not only those present, or the T9, know exactly how Maddie died. Many people know exactly what happened, under which circumstances and in which general and particular surroundings it occurred.

That means that many, maybe too many, people know exactly what “Maddie’s truth block” looks like.”

“And that means?”

“It means that there are too many people with an interest in manipulating truth, and that’s why you have so many, many different “truths” being propagated out there.

Now you know that if anyone tends to “overlook” this or that detail that person is manipulating the truth by distorting it by omission, or if they’re bringing clutter into the picture they’re distorting it by addition.

But what really is important is that they’re distorting the truth, and as we saw, only those with some guilt do that as others accept truth for what it is.”

“That’s true, but in what way is this helpful?”

“Because it’s the only way that you can differentiate the various kinds of BHs

And once you can do that, you can understand the groupings, the gangs, the cliques.”


“You can work from front to back. If one manipulates truth it is because one feels one has to. Understand the manipulation and you’ll understand the reason why it’s being done. Find a group of people with similar manipulations and you’ll see that they have the same reasons for doing it and so you have found yourself a group of BHs. Very simple.

All cliques have their opposition, dissent within their own ranks but we can look back and see how the got their clique story underway and developed. The story that exonerates their clique and puts the guilt on another.

Albeit with their differences, they all share a commonality…”

“Which is?”

“All of them are trying to sell water as rock. The only possible way that you can do that is by freezing the water although ice is far from being as hard as rock.

Ice has one major problem, though…”

“That is?”

Maintenance. Unless you live at one of the poles, to have ice remain as ice you have to maintain it, and maintenance can be costly…”

“Especially if you can’t possibly allow it to melt...”

“Exactly! Very, very costly.”

Post Scriptum:

In this post we make the following statement:

“For example, in Maddie's case, we believe that dinners took place downtown at Chaplin’s. That reality has been replaced with the fictitious Tapas dinners.”

We’ve also said:

“What we do is make the truth block more and more clear and that is achieved by making transparent all the obstacles between us and it.

By doing so, we hope to, as an end-result, to show what we understand the truth is. It’s our thought, thus is but supposition. But if our thought process was logic, coherent and above all feasible, then our suppositions will also be logical, coherent and feasible, which makes it very close to the truth.”

So what makes us believe that the T9 had dinner at Chaplin’s?

It’s a supposition based on 4 things:

First, if they didn’t have dinner at Tapas, they had to have it somewhere else. All the "proof" needed that they didn’t eat at Tapas are in the 12 Tapas Quiz Night posts on the blog’s front page;

Second, we have Ms Najoua, Chaplin’s Quiz Mistress to be, by coincidence, also Tapas' Quiz Mistress. We know that at Tapas there were no Quiz Nights, so from where does Ms Najoua know the T9? We would say that it was from where she indeed worked: Chaplin’s.

Third, Mrs Fenn’s hairdresser. We know that the whole sketch was phony and only done to compromise the McCanns during "The McCann Hunting Party 07". Taking into account the context and intent with which it was made we deduce the “accusation” that they dined at Chaplin’s to be true, as we’re sure, would be easily provable by magically making the T9 credit cards statements see the light of day.

Fourth, the Kelly’s Irish Bar manager. From her words her husband or ex-husband worked at Chaplin’s and she seems to establish close ties between the bar and the restaurant: 

Kelly's Irish Bar, three minutes' walk from the Mark Warner Complex where the McCanns stayed, is -- allegedly -- one of the places visited by Gerry and Kate McCann during their brief stay on the peninsula.

The manager, Mary, is a friendly native of Donegal who has lived in Portugal for the past 20 years. She describes how badly affected the town -- which relies on tourism -- was by Madeleine's disappearance.

"People just packed up and left. They cancelled their holidays and they will never come back. This was always considered to be a very, very safe place for children. I used to let my own boy -- now eight -- walk from here down the road to where his father worked at Chaplin's restaurant. Now, I'm terrified of letting him go anywhere on his own.”

This is all but supposition but hopefully a logical, coherent and feasible one, thus in our opinion very close to the truth.

About the statement "children were being taken care of by OC Staff " we're supposing that the event's organizers guaranteed that the children were adequately taken care of at all times, explaining the unusually high number of nannies present at the resort at the end of April / beginning of May.