Friday, 28 February 2014

Swinging Evidence

There is one thing that is absolutely consensual among all of us who are familiar with the Maddie case and that is there’s a cover-up.

And it’s also consensual that we all think this cover-up involves the “British hierarchy” up to its government. That it’s a very high-level cover-up (VHLCU).

But what this VHLCU has intended to cover is far from being consensual.

Nor who is involved in it, generally speaking, or why.

It’s been said that the VHLCU was to protect pharmaceutical, scientific, estate or state secrets.

Besides the last, all is justified by very vague, diffuse and conspiracy-magnet “secrets” but none offer an explanation as to what these could be.

And the last, “state secrets”, is the best way to reinforce the vagueness of the word “secret”.

One theory that comes close to a tangible reason is the pre-planned murder: someone for some reason (again always unspecified) decided to kill Maddie and the holiday in Luz was planned with this intention.

We don’t know exactly who that “someone” may be and very honestly cannot see any reason to justify Maddie’s “elimination” to the point of such sophistication.

Most importantly, it doesn’t in any way explain why a planned murder of the daughter of 2 medical doctors on foreign soil would warrant a VHLCU involving not only the highest British authorities as also, locally, guests, ex-Pats and the Ocean Club.

The theory that Maddie died due to a sedation overdose also doesn’t explain the why of a VHLCU involving all those it did.

There’s the paedo theory. Paedophilia with victims of Maddie’s age is very, very secretive as the criminal is fully aware of how repulsive the act committed is.

It’s a known fact that “celebrity” paedos are protected by their non-paedo peers. But this protection is done assuring the protector is not involved with paedo activities of the protected.

Not seeing anyone or any institution risking their own reputation to protect the paedo-murderer of a little girl.

Although not the intention of this post, we will show you later that the paedo thesis was looked into by the PJ.

All scenarios mentioned have 2 things in common: that there’s a VHLCU but that there's no concrete or plausible justification as to why. It was all because of this... “secret”.

None explain the inexplicable power held by a group of middle-class people, eventually upper/middle-class, to be able to bring 2 nations literally to their knees.

The swinging scenario is, apparently, consensually taken as the only one that would explain all.

Quoting Research_Reader, a detractor of the swinging thesis (comment #21 of our Swinging FMS” post):

“If this was a regular thing that the Ocean Club was arranging, and if there were lots of highly-connected people there that May who were indulging in this, AND they knew of even higher-profile swingers back in the UK I can easily imagine the powers-that-be wanting to cover it up. And it also might account for the nursery nurse apparently knowing the group and flying over at the same time, and potentially Murat and Malinka could have been involved.

Whilst swinging isn't illegal, the embarrassment would have been huge and widespread, and in combination with the death of a todler would have left and extremely bad taste in people's mouths.”

The swinging theory explains all but is, according to its detractors, speculation. Pure speculation, they say. Not a shred of evidence.

There are, as far as we have been able to read, only, repeat only, 4 arguments against the swinging thesis:

1. It isn’t illegal so it wouldn’t warrant a cover-up;

2. They wouldn’t take their children with them;

3. They wouldn’t take their mothers with them;

4. There’s no evidence there was swinging, so it’s just speculation…

This is so much so that after even in our postSwinging FMS in which we refuted thoroughly the first 3 arguments, some people simply pretended not to have read it and continued to justify that the swinging theory wasn’t plausible because… swinging isn’t illegal, children wouldn’t be taken and mum wouldn’t come along.

They seem to be stuck in a rut. Only they’re not.

As the swinging scenario encompasses adequately all present (including children and mum) there simply aren’t any other reasons, besides these 4 arguments, to contradict it.

As there aren't any more, they will keep being repeated to exhaustion whenever the issue is inconveniently brought up by its inconvenient subscribers.

The same 4 arguments repeated over and over until lambs become lions.

Even after adequate justification, they will keep being repeated. By those, we must note, accuse the Black Hats of repeating over and over the abduction argument...

The “5th argument” is to be silent. To abide by Mark Twain’s words “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.”

Only it’s not foolishness. It’s avoiding being revealed.

We think we have answered fully in our Swinging FMS post as to why the first 3 arguments (importance, kids and mum) aren’t valid in invalidating the swinging thesis.

Because swinging does warrant a VHLCU because being outed as swingers, in the UK, is despicable enough to completely ruin careers and reputations.

Because children are an integral part of a pretended to be family holidays. Also, not exactly easy to provide an excuse to leave children home while escaping a whole week to an unknown location as PdL.

Because mother could have come along, as a swinger or as a non-swinger. We even think DW didn’t sleep in the same apartment as the Paynes.

We also noted in that post that the children & mum arguments” are used by people who say it couldn't be because they wouldn’t have done it but then go and accuse the McCanns of doing things that supposedly they wouldn’t do.

Also “children & mum arguments” are double-standard, applicable only to swinging when convenient.

We find that many of those who think it absolutely intolerable, despicable and obnoxious for the T9 to have brought their children along to a swinging holiday, find it perfectly acceptable and natural for them to have brought the kids to a bingeing holiday.

Some even find it acceptable, natural and logical having children drugged so they could get drunk.

Drug the kids to get drunk, plausible, let the kids be tended to by professionals while swinging, ludicrous.

Using the exact same reasoning of the detractors of the swinging theory, why didn’t the T9 leave the kids at home with relatives if they knew they were going to get plastered all week? Why bring them along?

To have brought sedation drugs with them, means the T9 would have known beforehand they were going to sedate and leave the kids on their own, so why bring them in the first place?

And also it seems that grandmother wouldn’t hear of swinging but apparently felt fine in having her grandchildren drugged so she and her daughter could drink until they dropped.

Not much coherence in these arguments against swinging is there?

Let’s now deal with the 4th argument: no evidence.

First one must ask exactly what kind of evidence of swinging is one expected to find?

A brochure saying “Welcome to PdL’s Swinging Week - April 28/May05”?

The Ocean Club publicly saying Maddie was abducted because they were distracted while organising sex between the guests?

A “confession” of swinging by some witness without being asked about it?

We would really like to know when people say “there's no evidence” what evidence they were expecting.

We don’t have the brochure , the Ocean Club hasn’t said such a thing and no one has confessed to swinging although a “confession” can be read in someone’s words as you’ll see later in the post.

But is there no evidence of swinging?

We think there are 5 things that indicate strongly that there was swinging in the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz: 

1. Adult Pool

Not the fact that it exists, but because it “doesn’t”. It is absent throughout all the Maddie case.

The Ocean Club has it for some reason. Not saying its sole purpose is for swinging. Just stating that when it comes to the Maddie case it seems that it doesn’t exist.

Ok, so they played tennis. And went and did some watersports. And some jogging. Where did they spend the rest of the time?

Apparently inside the resort as PdL offers very little at that time of the year. We haven’t been told with precision but we all seem to think that all gravitated around Tapas.

So, we have these guests who take the trouble to take their own children to crèche to enjoy a kid-free day but then head to Tapas pool area where they have to put up with other guests’ children.

Why didn’t they simply use a facility that would give them a kids-free time - the adult pool? Simply leave the Tapas area for all those idiots who opted for not depositing their kids in the crèche.

This shroud of silence around the adult pool is very strange.

Linking it to swinging is speculation, saying it has been left out of the Maddie case is a fact. 

2. DNA from Kid’s Room

The DNA found in this room was too little when compared with what was expected to be collected. A “crowd” had supposedly contaminated the scene. That’s what we were told.

A distraught Kate, a friendly Fiona and a “soothing couple”, plus GNR and PJ on that night alone

Then we had Maddie and the twins using that room for some days.

3 children slept in that apartment for days. They dressed and undressed there. 2 adults regularly went in and out of that room on those same days.

Contamination means ADDING forensic evidence, not subtracting it.

It would be expected that there would be huge amounts of DNA collected, much of which one would expect would have to be discarded as it was from “contamination”.

In terms of what was expected to be found versus what was collected one could say that room was “forensically aseptic”. The room was subject to an exaggerated cleaning.

The forensic evidence collected was way too scarce and that’s a fact.

This can only mean the room was cleaned up, like we showed in our post, "Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon”.

 It’s evident that forensic evidence was in fact subtracted from the (alleged) scene of the crime for no apparent reason.

If it was to be determined that the origin of the collected DNA would have come from the most diverse but explainable sources, it would be the EXPECTED so no reason whatsoever to clean up that room.

So why was it cleaned? We think to eliminate the presence of those who were not supposed have ever been there during the time the kids were away at crèche, day or night.

People who probably used that room for adult fun. 

3. Semen Stain

A stain was found on the bedcover of the bed nearest to the window.

A semen stain. Who says so? John Lowe from the FSS in his final report:

“The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.”

“Suspected semen”, interesting. But what is really interesting is what he says 2 paragraphs later:

“I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with C****** Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that C****** Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.”

We have alerted our readers as to the very specious style used by Lowe, and have explained why he has, in our opinion used it intentionally.

Let’s break down what he's said so we can understand it clearly:

1. 'crime stain 1' and stain #9 belong to C****** Gordon (bar code 51156964)

2. C****** Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, so he was 2 yrs and 3 months old.

3. If he was born on that date, then the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket

Note the absolute speciousness of that last sentence. Remember he knows he’s writing a report about the highest profile case of the XXI century. Every word matters.

We won’t say that he never clearly states that 'crime stain 1' is not semen, which he doesn’t. We will just stick with what he has said.

He appears to say that if the individual in question is indeed 2 yrs old then the stain is not semen.

We say he appears to say because we think he does make a much more affirmative statement than that about it being semen but will refrain from saying so for now.

So, apparently the condition is not about the nature of the stain but of the age of the individual: if 2 yr oldnot semen. So if, say, 18 yr old, semen?

If he wanted to say that 'crime stain 1' wasn’t semen, then he should have written “then the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' found on the blanket is not the result of semen.”

This simple and this clear. But Lowe decides, for some reason, to write like a non-native.

What he does say, very speciously, is that ‘crime stain 1’ is not from semen found but from somewhere else. He doesn’t explain from where ‘crime stain 1’ is from, but confirms that it is semen.

If you don't agree with us, you have to agree that he puts the conditional, as we said, on the age of individual and not on what the stain consists of.

So if you don't agree with us, you're basically saying that a British scientist didn’t find it necessary to confirm any further if the human matter present before him was semen or not. In the highest profile case that Britain has ever faced.

Knowing, as we have demonstrated (in our post, Super-Kid), that C****** Gordon (CG) could not possibly make stain #9 one can only assume that the DNA sample “labelled CG” is not from CG.

Whoever it is, has left a stain 1,50 m high in a wall in an inaccessible corner of the living room  and has left a semen stain on the bedcover (like we showed in our post, The Mystery of Profile L). 

Not a 2 yr old, certainly.

But it’s not only Lowe who states that semen was found on that bedcover.

Although there is no date on the following correspondence, signed by Paulo Rebelo, from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML, it clearly states the presence of semen:

“During that stage of the investigation, the apartment was searched by members of the Crime Scene Team from the Laboratorio de Policia Cientifica [Police Forensic Science Laboratory] of the Portuguese Criminal Police, and samples were collected. Those samples, namely hair and a sperm stain, were sent to the National Institute of Legal Medicine (INML) to be analysed taking into account the DNA profile of the missing child-that had been provided-, as well as one of her parents and the ones of friends who belonged to a common group, and who went to the above mentioned tourist resort following previous arrangements among them.”

“On the other hand, it was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom from where the child went missing taking into account the DNA profile of the missing child-that had been provided-, as well as one of her parents and the ones of friends who belonged to a common group, and who went to the above mentioned tourist resort following previous arrangements among them.”

“We further request the DNA profile comparison concerning the English citizens that stayed in the apartment throughout 2007, where the above-referred sperm stain was found.




Rebelo doesn’t come up with the terminology from the top of his head. He’s referring to evidence collected by “members of the Crime Scene Team from the Laboratorio de Policia Cientifica [Police Forensic Science Laboratory]”.

Professional forensic experts.

“A sperm stain”, “sperm stain detected” and “sperm stain was found” couldn’t be clearer.

If this sperm was not from Gerry, then who is it from and what was it doing there?

To ask, as was asked, if there is any relationship between a male stain and a female child (Maddie) is to evidently confirm or rule out a possible paedo occurrence involving that semen. 

4. The Blond Man.

Mrs Fenn’s niece, Carol Tranmer-Fenn, on April 22nd, 2008, in her rogatory statement says that she sees a blond man exiting, via the back gate, the Oldfield’s apartment on the afternoon of May 3.

This visit isn’t mentioned by any of the T9, including the Oldfields. No burglary was reported.

Matt Oldfield was supposedly sailing, wasn’t he? Saving Rob’s life, if we’re recollecting correctly.

If this visit was innocent, it would have been spoken about.

Carol first stated that she saw this man on May 8th 2007 to Leicester Police. She even did an e-fit of the man.

Both that first statement and the e-fit are not part of the PJ Files and still have to see the light of day as we showed in our Nov 25th 2010 post, My Thanksgiving Turkey to ALL of You”.

This is a visit of an adult male in the middle of the afternoon to an apartment that was not his. Very much like the visit of David Payne to Kate McCann. 

5. The Visit

We’re referring to David Payne’s visit to Kate McCann on May 3. All points towards “over-friendliness” between the 2.

Put these 5 things together with the 24 factors we listed in our post Swinging FMS in response to comment #11.

As Payne’s visit is repeated, it makes 28 things for now that, as we say in that post, makes us conclude that swinging is the “only unifying factor that could bind all together and the only thing that could plausibly explain the motivation and involvement of so many present in PdL”

Acceptance of swinging is increasing.

Readers realise that it’s the only scenario that makes all pieces of the puzzle snap together. All pieces. Including importance, kids, mum and evidence.

They are also starting to understand the discomfort it causes to discuss it.

It makes us feel we are doing our job well.

We’re also pleased to see that the discussions are finally detaching from the T9 and towards what really matters being analysed.

What? The “confession”?

Oh, as we said, it’s not exactly a confession, but knowing what we now know, reading Bridget O’Donnell’s (Jez Wilkins’s partner) words’ to The Guardian on December 14 2007, take a whole new meaning:

“Throughout all this, I have always believed that Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent. When they were made suspects, when they were booed at, when one woman told me she was "glad" they had "done it" because it meant that her child was safe, I began to write this article - because I was there, and I believe that woman is wrong. There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday; instead, there was a bunch of ordinary parents wearing Berghaus and worrying about sleep patterns.”

Don’t the words “there were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday” sound just like those of a toddler saying “I didn’t steal the cookies in the jar with blue butterflies behind the box of cereals on the top left cabinet”?


  1. Whatever my views on the McCanns, I don't believe they went to Portugal with a premeditated plan. The flurry of phone calls and deletions in previous days doesn't lead me to think death occurred before the 3rd either.
    I think the calls related to whatever else was happening and were deleted to keep this private.
    When G used the word disaster, I believe it was. A strange choice of word, but it it may relate more to the impact M's death would have on their lives, as much as the accident itself.
    From the outset, the need to protect themselves was at the forefront of their minds. That's why some of us, so called antis, found their behaviour then and since as beyond the realms of comprehension.

  2. All the evidence is certainly there Textusa, and as you say it offers explanations for so much. However, to my mind, there is more than one elephant in the room. Yes the VHCU obscures the participation of goodness knows who in these activities, and the CU itself became self generating and gained wide ranging, indeed unbelievable momentum, so much so that all that has passed, and the current situation beggars belief. But please look again at a second elephant by the table wearing a fund hat. The speed with which all that was organised implies that Madeleine's death may have been anticipated. I choose the word carefully. What was the health of this poor little girl? I am not proposing a thesis, but state the facts that she was not conceived naturally, she was made a ward of court so health records were restricted and there is evidence that her mother found her behaviour hard to handle; difficult behaviour can result from health issues. The parents may have known that Madeleine's life would be short. That could have assisted them in handling what happened to her in apartment 5A, and the family in rallying round to put into practice the pre conceived fund.

    1. Anonymous 28 Feb 2014 10:51:00,

      You cannot have something slightly premeditated. Either is or isn’t. For us, it is very clear that it wasn’t. It was, in our opinion, an accident.

      What is there to support the fact that Maddie was a difficult child, or even an unhealthy one?

      One magazine interview, Mail Sept 2007: “My struggle to contain a very difficult Madeleine”, refers to interview she gave with Portugal's Flash magazine.

      Her diary extracts. And some comments from family we think

      Kate’s book talks about Maddie’s early days with colic.

      The McCanns apparently had a wall chart to reward her for not coming into their bed and staying in her own. But that's a very common thing for a household to have a star reward chart.

      They sound very jumpy parents, overreacting. We've all had to deal with problems with babies. For narcissists, a demanding baby is an unreasonable demand.

      There are no FACTS that substantiate that Maddie was an unhealthy child. Not saying she wasn’t, just stating there’s nothing saying she was.

      About her health records being restricted, it was just one of many things that suddenly became restricted that involved the McCanns.

      About the WoC, it is of such a dubious nature and like with anything related with the McCanns, one is tempted to ascertain that whatever reason given to justify such a procedure surely is the only one we’re sure it isn’t.

      We’re not seeing a difficult child that after allegedly crying for 75 minutes simply goes quiet on the arrival of her parents and then decides to wait until next morning to ask a very pertinent question to her parents.

      And if it was the reason for Maddie’s demise, why bring the issue up?

      However, the PJ did ask an unanswered question to Mcs about whether they had considered handing the care of Maddie to a relative. There must have been something to make them ask this.

      Everything we read about relatives and friend indicates Kate had almost constant support. I think the ordinary demands of Maddie were a lot for her and after the twins, with Gerry helping very little in the home was too much?

      Why would Kate feed the idea that she found Maddie difficult to control to a magazine? It was a way of saying - I had a reason to lose control.

      As we have said, we think that Maddie’s death was an accident in the presence fo David Payne and Kate McCann. We don’t attribute the unfortunate act to ANY of the 2, nor do we rule EITHER out.

      About the Fund. Maddie was a a blonde little girl with a captivating expression in the photo they produced, her parents visually handsome people. Very quickly people fell in love with the issue. Very quickly people wanted to help, to contribute.

      We believe that fund was set up fundamentally to compensate financially the McCanns for “taking the heat”. They even thought it was theirs to the point of paying their house mortgages out of it.

  3. I really enjoyed reading this post, because whilst I already subscribed to the theory that swinging was behind the cover up (as it made all the other jigsaw pieces fit) it has reassured me that there are valid reasons for me believing in the theory. It has even verbalised my thoughts and feelings about the absurd 'Bridget' article. I seemed to get the impression that she wrote to appease herself. 'I feel dirty, people think swinging is dirty business but hey, I'm not ... it's not doing any harm . we're not drugged up to the eyeballs - just simply having good old fashioned romping fun'.
    When you consider the people who were taking part - they were all fairly glamorous high achievers whether in the business world / professional / film. They need to get their kicks and I imagine its fairly addictive in the same way as gambling. Its not illegal but we in the UK have not properly got our heads around it yet. In my small rural town, as I was growing up there were a group of adults who were thought to be swingers - all middle class high achievers in business etc. Even now, they are all in their 70s even 80's - they are still pointed out as the 'swingers'...

  4. What I find strange is the missing word - golf. In an area surrounded by golf courses. All those wealthy company directors, bankers, doctors, business people with children in the crèche. Yet no parent gives their location on the crèche sheets as golf.
    There must have been something even more appealing to do? The pool seems a popular venue.

  5. Why did Bridget refer to parents worrying about sleep patterns? Did she discuss this with the McCanns?
    I suppose Jez may have talked about this, given he was wandering around for a long time, getting his child to sleep before he met Gerry. But he didn't notice any lurkers.

  6. "Because swinging does warrant a VHLCU because being outed as swingers, in the UK, is despicable enough to completely ruin careers and reputations"

    Nonsense! Provide one example of a career ruined by swinging

    Even if it were true that swinging ruins careers, it doesn't give the establishment a reason to close ranks to protect a couple of low-level doctors.

    1. Max Clifford thought The Krankies' careers could be promoted by their admissions of being swingers. But I can't imagine the career of a British Prime Minister would last five minutes if such an allegation was made. Not suggesting any PM has indulged, just using it as an example.
      And it's not just careers, but what family members might think that would matter most.

    2. AndyB,

      It wasn't to protect a couple of low-level doctors. In fact, we do question why "a couple of low-level doctors" earned such protection. It doesn't make sense and you seem to agree with us.

      We say it was protect the reputation of others present as well as the resort's for promoting such an alternate lifestyle activities.

      Before we go back to the relevance of one’s reputation and career in being outed as a swinger the question one must never forget is the timings and pressure of when the decision to go for an abduction scenario.

      There are 2 things that no one in those critical couple of hours could possibly anticipate: the dimensions to which things would snowball into and the effective power that would really be mustered.

      In our opinion, decision was taken and then favours called in and not the other way around.

      Even if swinging was taken as a minor transgression the choice was one being risked being outed swinger or let those idiots who killed the girl to find a way out of the problem in which they got themselves into without one being involved.

      At that moment no one thought that the engagement required by the cover-up would be humongous, mainly due to the stupidity, arrogance of the T9 and the unstable condition Kate was in, which was the cause for the premature alarm.

      If the alarm had been set at the rightful time after the apartment been “effectively” broken into and all calmly rehearsed beforehand plus the help of Martin Smith coming forward as planned saying seeing a man with a child half a mile from the apartment, then the abduction choice would have been the correct one.

      No one today, except all those present in PdL then, would know what really had happened.

      Even with all the evidence pointing towards death, we’re still, 7 years later fighting for the truth, imagine where we would be today if things were done just half better than they were then.


    3. (continuing)

      About swinging v reputation, just one phrase... are you kidding?

      Answering your question, a case, we will give you an example: Tommy Sheridan, a Scottish Labour politician.

      He was very upset to be accused of being a swinger.


      On Wikipedia, under “Defamation action” one can read:

      “The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited a swingers clubs in Manchester and engaged in adulterous affairs with two women. Sheridan, who claims to be a teetotaller, reportedly drank champagne and consumed cocaine during an extramarital liaison. Sheridan denies drinking the champagne and the claim of substance abuse. Eleven members of the SSP's executive committee testified that he admitted in an Executive committee meeting to attending a swingers club with women, but another four members of the SSP who were present at that Executive meeting backed Sheridan's claim that he made no such admission at that meeting.”

      Why defamation if swinging is accepted as you imply?

      Also “Perjury conviction”, it can be read:

      “In May 2007, it was reported that staff at Cupid's Swingers Club in Manchester had told police they had been offered bribes not to co-operate with the inquiry”

      Why accept bribes to lie about such an accepted thing as you imply?

      Swinging is a theme throughout his Wikipedia page. Quite a stigma, we would say.

      But it’s not only swinging that is very frowned upon and scandal-exploited.

      Immediately the Profumo case comes to mind… and when was that? In 1961.


      Currently, one just has to see how “sex-laundry” is being washed in a court-room between Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.

      As far as we know, being unfaithful isn’t illegal.

      But we will return the question to you: name one high-profile name who has survived unscathed a sex scandal of which they were a part of.

    4. Agree Textusa. The situation was so hot and difficult to handle that a business man, who claimed to have been in the Tapas dinner, left PDL before the sunrise of May 4, to Switzerland. Suddenly and without any valid explanation, he ended his holidays.
      How, we know that? Because Mr. TB bothered the man and he replied with an email defending himself and claiming that he had a picture of his 2 sons taken on May 3 2007, where Madeleine appears at the background. That picture never raised the day light, but the investigation of Mr TB was so dangerous to all involved that they start to persecute him via the Mccann's and their lawyers.
      If there was no swing involving most of the guests and people of high social classes, and what happenned was just an accident involving a child from a restrict group, why that guy runaway from PDL, before journalists and PJ arrived to scene and start questionning inexplicable presences? Having that guy holidaying in such place is very odd. His economical condition suites more a 5 star hotel, then a cheaper resort in a fish village. He must be in Vilajoia or in any other 5 star hotels with wonderful packs involving golf, pool and what Portugal is largely known - WONDERFUL FOOD. instead, he choose a poor resort with bad food, no pool and no Golf. Then, what else was left to attract that guy? I think, It's clear the answer.

  7. Insane has submitted a comment in his usual uncalled-for rude style at 28 Feb 2014 14:18:00. We won’t obviously publish it.

    However, in it, he does make, supposedly at least, a valid point that deserves attention and so we will publish that part of his comment:

    “John Lowe clearly states that the stain from the blanket was not semen and in the same report, which you have omitted to mention, gives the result of a test on the same sample, specific for saliva, which gave a positive result.”

    We invite Insane to please quote John Lowe, in the same report (or wherever), saying that ‘crime stain 1’ (or whatever other possible designation) is positively saliva.

    We’re sure that Insane refers to 2 Expert Reports by INML (not FSS) on 09Jul07 and 31Mar08.

    On the 09Jul07 one it’s said:

    “2-Nature of the sample

    Acid Phosphatase Test to detect SEMEN on the small spot on the cloth fragment in envelope no. 5 recovered from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Weakly positive.”

    This sample, was not tested for saliva at this instance.

    On the 31Mar08 one it’s said:

    “2- Nature of the sample

    Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of SALIVA on the fragment of cloth corresponding to trace n'. 5 collected from the bedspread of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Positive.”

    This sample was not tested for semen at this instance.

    Sample either contains semen and saliva or the suggestion made in the post Profile L, where the test carried out was compromised by the testing method used.


    In case sample contained both semen and saliva, any adult can easily understand how these 2 body fluids can appear together in the same sample.

    Not that we believe in what John Lowe says about the Maddie case, but we're really curious about where in the report did he say that ‘crime stain 1’ was positively saliva as Insane so adamantly says he does.

  8. Rebelo asks: "At last, we request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from NEIL BERRY and RAJINDER RAJ SING BALU, as well as their DNA profiles comparisons with the results obtained in that laboratory, and also the comparison with the mitochondrial DNA profiles already submitted."

    Why single out Berry and Balu?

  9. Hi Textusa

    Longish-time reader, first-time commenter - thanks for yet another great article.

    One thing jumps to mind though - wouldn't a few previous swingers have come clean about their holidays there in PdL ? They could have sold their stories to the tabloids, at least in the earlier days, or just blogged about their experiences anonymously. Has there been any mention anywhere about swinging activities from previous visitors ?

    People in the 'scene' - whatever that may be - who may have never visited PdL but may have been aware that it was a 'friendly' destination for that sort of thing - surely someone would have spoken up ?

    Even if the whole thing was effectively shut down after Maddie disappeared, surely there would be some mention somewhere that the Ocean Club was a good off-season, family-friendly swingers destination ? I guess there must be discussion boards and members-only forums for this sort of thing, even if everyone there does use a pseudonym and veiled lingo.

    Just back from a quick google - these 2 are the best I can do, but not entirely relevant (and apologies for the Daily Mail link) -

    (1) Several Portuguese lawyers and journalists, along with a uniformed police officer from the National Republican Guard I spoke to outside the Ocean Club apartment, told me solemnly not only that the McCanns and their friends were "swingers" who had taken their holiday together to indulge in group sex (an assertion made repeatedly by the Portuguese Press), but that "everyone knows" that its tolerance of orgies is the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort's main selling point.
    One afternoon I decided to test this proposition, approaching two holiday reps there, dressed in their red Mark Warner sweatshirts. "Er, is this a good place for swingers, then?" I asked.
    They looked at me in total bafflement. "Swingers?" one replied.
    "Look around you, sir. Most of our guests are retired, or families with children."

    (2) Jane Tanner, brought by fate into the bleak surroundings of the Leicester Police interview room, watched by both a video camera and, behind a two way mirror, the Portuguese police, had had her fill of “theories.”
    “There’s a lot been said but, you know, we’re not a bunch of swingers that went out there for a swinging holiday,” she protested, adding the fascinating aside that, “I can’t think of anything worse, to be honest.” Her questioner, possibly intrigued by this insight into her personal tastes, let her proceed. “We didn’t go out there on a swingers’ holiday to dump our kids in the kids club while we got pissed and shagged each other, you know. That’s not what we did. One week a year,” she added bitterly, “there’s, there’s one week a year, the other fifty one weeks of the year with the kids all the time! In terms of our family, you know every spare moment’s with the kids: Russell doesn’t go off playing golf or go to the football’s spent with the kids. I just think the Portuguese police have obviously got this idea of us and it’s completely, completely wrong in terms of the way we are and what, you know, our motives for being on holiday there were.” She added, as Jane Tanner often did, “I’m telling the truth.”


    1. Marty,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Swingers, as far as we've been able to tell, aren't boasters. They are normal people simply expressing in a different way from norm their desires.

      They are also fully aware that their optional lifestyle is socially reprehensible, reason why we find perfectly natural for them to have had a defensive and self-protective reaction to Maddie's death, to which, we will repeat time and time again, had nothing to do with.

      Being a swinger and having participated in swinging in PdL it would be of one's best interest that the issue would never surface so why be the one to bring it up even anonymously?

    2. Put together DEVOUT catholicism, publicly and ostensively self-proclaimed devout catholicism and sleeping around with partners other than your husband/wife...I suppose that this is ADULTERY in the eyes of the catholic faith...and I suppose it is the same for anglicans too...

    3. 13:32, I'm a catholic and I don't care about other people's adultery. I care if I am or not. True religion is about oneself and not about others. We should forgive others for their trespasses and it's not up to us to condemn.
      I have known many atheists bigots.

    4. 14:22:00,
      I'm afraid the Vatican does not share you liberality... I was referring to the dogmas of the catholic faith imposed/fabricated by the Church (Vatican), not the individual interpretations of you or me. For the Vatican, catholic faith is not a equivalent to a self-service restaurant where you pick and choose what pleases you and discard what does either take it as a whole or you're not a "true" catholic!
      I might say I am a catholic, because I was baptized in the faith as a baby (no choice there....something that repulses me, the fear instigated on parents that their infants will not go to heaven if they die without the sacrament of baptism), but in truth I cannot say I am a catholic, I prefer to think I'm a christian, because I cannot agree and accept many things in the catholic faith, like the forced celibacy of priests, the discrimination on women and on divorced people, and a lot more!
      I think it is an hypocrisy to proclaim oneself "catholic" while living one's life breaking a number of paramount rules of the faith!

    5. Anonymous 1 Mar 2014 14:22:00 and Anonymous 1 Mar 2014 15:44:00,

      Thank you both for your observations, but we try to keep religious stances on the blog to a minimum. 

      We are not theologians and don't offer opinions on religious views.

      Thank you for understanding.

  10. I think that before asking if a grandmother would have her daughter swinging next to her or her kids, someone should ask if a grandmother would have her daughter cover-up her grandaughter's death? It seems grandparents, uncles and aunts and cousins have done just that, haven't they?
    Wasn't one of Kate's cousin that got all agitated in court defending the McCanns position Maddie was still alive? Wasn't he under oath?

  11. AndyB28 Feb 2014 13:00:00

    "Because swinging does warrant a VHLCU because being outed as swingers, in the UK, is despicable enough to completely ruin careers and reputations"

    Nonsense! Provide one example of a career ruined by swinging

    Even if it were true that swinging ruins careers, it doesn't give the establishment a reason to close ranks to protect a couple of low-level doctors.

    I agree. Rampant pedophiles get away with it - swinging is no big deal. Not going to bring anyone down at all.

    1. Anonymous, 1 Mar 2014 07:25:00

      There is no comparison between the two. Paedophilia is illegal and vile.

      As to whether swinging ruins careers and reputations we see you disagree totally with Tommy Sheridan as to why he fought so fiercely to save both.

      According to you he shouldn't have. According to you he just went through a harsh legal battle for no reason whatsoever.

      In that case, a pretty stupid thing to do.

    2. That reminded me of another "situation" that although not illegal still is hidden as a shameful thing: homosexuality. Lots of people in high places (politicians) go to great lenghts to hide they're gay, to the point oh having façade marriages, a family, the perfect front of an irreprehensible "normal" life...
      It's not illegal, but for some reason they're embarassed by it and feel they will loose much if it is out in the open...(and it seems it is so, because whenever such cases have been exposed in the media it never ended well...), otherwise why cover it up...?

      One of many examples is american New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevey.
      And for all those who non-chalantly proclaim they don't care about other people's private lifes/lifestyles and that Textusa is wrong about the absolute need for a cover-up of swinging activities, check out this:'s+50+Most+Scandalous+Political+Scandals

      Public opinion DOES care! Public opinion counts! Whether it is swinging, homosexuality, adultery, paedophilia, it is always the END, if it comes out!
      If it is not important and well accepted, then why is it that the best way to destroy people's reputations is to spread rumours/accusations of the above mentioned practices...?

    3. "As to whether swinging ruins careers and reputations we see you disagree totally with Tommy Sheridan as to why he fought so fiercely to save both.

      According to you he shouldn't have. According to you he just went through a harsh legal battle for no reason whatsoever.

      In that case, a pretty stupid thing to do."

      Tommy Sheridan raised a libel action against the News of the World which claimed that he had visited a swingers club where he drank champagne and took coke. The libel action was in respect of the claims of champagne drinking (he's doesn't drink) and cocaine taking. He admitted visiting the swingers club and therefore to swinging. He won his case and was awarded £200,000. That maybe stupid, we'll have to agree to disagree on that, but its certainly very lucrative.

      You still haven't explained why the full weight of the establishment would be brought to bear to prevent the fact that a couple of doctors were involved in swinging becoming public knowledge. It certainly didn't happen in Tommy Sheridan's case and he's one of their own; a politician.

    4. We think this is very good example of "purple-blindness":

      We will let readers read Tommy Sheridan's Wikipedia entry and make up their minds.

  12. Unpublished Anonymous at 28 Feb 2014 23:54:00

    Your response to the comment about the missing word GOLF was very informative and helps to complete a jigsaw So thanks for that.

    We won't publish, because we can't be totally certain the doctor AF you refer to is the same person in the group you refer to. We also don't publish names unless the person has made a statement to the police or media.

    Hope you understand.

    1. Fully understand you not publishing my previous comment.
      There are overlaps between the directors of Rothley Park Golf Course Company and Vigia Group/Parque da Floresta. Company details in public domain.
      Nancy Burridge, who handed in a bag of clothes to the PJ, unless there is more than one NB in the area, is married to a director of Vigia Group UK.

    2. F S of Vigia also director of Trafalgar Scientific based in Leicester. Jane Tanner worked for Fisher Scientific, a similar company. In my opinion, the  holiday wasn't arranged because it was the only suitable venue. I bet these people already knew each other.

    3. Textusa,
      Can you make it clear the bag of clothes found by Nancy Burridge is not the bag found near Faro airport with jeans etc?
      There is no record of this in PJ files, other than Inspector Teresa Almeida saying it was a media invention.
      Nancy Burridge's bag finding is reported in PJ files.
      Thank you.

  13. We recommend the reading of the following posts: (05Feb11) (02Sept11)

  14. and obviously: (19Jan11)

  15. Textusa, about your suspicion that Dianne Webster did not sleep in the Paynes apartm., I believe you're right on the money! I've always found weird what she said in her rogatory interview about the sleeping arrangements in their apartment, that she slept in the living room, on the coach, because she did not want to sleep in the same bedroom with her grand-daughter:

    "We were the only ones on the first floor, we had the, we had a bigger apartment than the others, err which is what Dave, Dave had originally err asked for anyway because he wanted to have err a separate bedroom I think for the girls, although they were in cots, and err I, I just slept on the err there was a folding bed in the liv, the sort of living room area, and that’s where I slept, although there were two beds in one of the bedrooms, that’s also where Lily was sleeping in her cot so I didn’t err didn’t want to sleep in the same room as her.”

    Which grand-mother would choose to sleep in a folding bed, in the living area, very exposed and no-privacy, instead of sleeping in a proper bed in a room, with a lot more privacy? She wouldn't be sharing a bed with the child, there were two beds! From the way she speaks one would think the child had the plague, or something! It's her own grand-daughter she's speaking about! Which grand-mother wouldn't want to sleep close to her grand-child, watch over her?!
    Folding beds are known to be quite uncomfortable, and DW is no "spring chicken", folding beds and elderly people...not a good match...
    Did she not want to sleep there or she could not sleep there because the room was not "available"?

  16. Forgot to add in my comment on Dianne Webster and the sleeping arrangements, that what also makes me suspect that the second bedroom was reserved for "other uses" is when she said :
    "Dave had originally err asked for anyway because he wanted to have err a separate bedroom I think for the girls, although they were in cots,"

    She slipped and let it out that the girls were sleeping in cots! Cots, not beds! I bet the girls were sleeping in the parents' bedroom!
    Why would Payne ask for a BIGGER apartment if the girls were in cots? And why have a bigger apartment and have your mother-in-law sleeping in the living-room? To me that says "SMALL apartment", not " a bigger apartment"!

  17. Hi Textusa
    Ive been investigating... no need to print this but here quickly are my results.

    Nancy Burridge found bag of clothes.
    Andy Burridge works for consultancy company which advises Vigia Group which was originally a Leicester based company with 4 UK shareholders - now 6. Most of them now live in Algarve.

    See description of what Andy's firm does...particularly the last line -my findings are in the forum. This may help or not..

    OwnerShare Hotel

    The Fractional Ownership Consultancy has developed a model for fractionalising resort hotels.

    Consider the advantages over conventional funding:

    • The hotel room can be sold off-plan to investors or lifestyle purchasers.
    • Sales therefore fund the build and upfront capitalisation is kept to a minimum.
    • Hotel operating profits are maximised because the cost of funding is minimised.
    • Owners/investors utilise the property, creating livelier off-peak operations.

    1. HelenMeg,

      We would like to express our thanks to you and your great work at JH which we are obviously following.

  18. Sorry the OC PDL is just a lovely holiday complex & resort,nothing to do with swinging,the cover up of Madeleine's undoubted death by the McCanns is for another yet unknown reason,swinging is embarrassing for those involved if found out,but being found out would hardly be a sufficient reason to cover up the death of one's own child.

    1. Anonymous 1 Mar 2014 18:21:00

      We think we have responded to the "importance" argument quite adequately.

      About the Ocean Club being an innocent player in all this, we think we have provided enough proof that it wasn't.


    Maddie. PJ avisa ingleses que não quer ver investigação nos jornais | iOnline
    Os inspectores da PJ salientam que na "cooperação internacional não há espaço para estados de espírito"

    As diferentes estratégias de comunicação entre as autoridades portuguesa e britânicas no caso Maddie estão a incomodar a PJ. O desconforto chegou ao ponto de a Judiciária avisar a Metropolitan Police que se recusa a fazer a investigação através dos jornais. Desde que a polícia inglesa decidiu investigar por conta própria o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann que a imprensa inglesa passou a divulgar com frequência informações sobre as diligências em curso. Boa parte destas notícias acabou por se revelar infundada, afastando cada vez mais a possibilidade de uma cooperação com a PJ. Em causa está o facto de as duas polícias terem linhas de investigação diferentes e também as políticas de comunicação serem opostas, confirmaram ao i alguns inspectores, que preferiram não se identificar.

    Segundo fontes conhecedoras do processo, a PJ terá já informado as congéneres britânicas que "quer continuar a fazer a sua investigação no processo e não nos jornais". Uma chamada de atenção para deixar claro que não querem que as fontes da polícia inglesa se pronunciem sobre supostos factos da investigação portuguesa. Até porque, segundo dizem, é algo que os britânicos não conhecem. Em Portugal está em curso uma investigação conduzida por uma equipa do Porto, mas são elementos da PJ de Portimão que têm respondido às cartas rogatórias enviadas pelos ingleses, ou seja, os pedidos de auxílio à investigação de Londres.

    A estratégia dos portugueses - de não tornar públicas informações sobre a sua investigação - era já do conhecimento dos britânicos, mas algumas notícias citando fontes anónimas da Metropolitan Police terão forçado este aviso. "A PJ vai continuar com a necessária discrição, o que é do conhecimento da sua congénere britânica. A comunicação social está fora da nossa equação durante a investigação. E se nunca foi dito que há suspeitos é porque não há nada suficientemente forte", esclareceu fonte policial.

    Ainda na última semana foi publicada uma notícia em Portugal dando conta de que os ingleses tinham recebido da Judiciária um dossiê secreto sobre assaltantes que viviam no Algarve e que poderiam até já ter cometido crimes contra crianças. Ao i, a mesma fonte garante que essa informação é falsa: "Não foi entregue qualquer dossiê secreto à Metropolitan Police." Outro elemento próximo do processo explicou, porém, que aquilo a que os britânicos chamaram dossiê secreto pode não passar da lista de pessoas com cadastro que residiam próximo da Praia da Luz e que a PJ enviou no âmbito do cumprimento de uma carta rogatória.

    Nos últimos meses, os media ingleses noticiaram cada suspeito da Scotland Yard, publicaram os retratos robô da polícia - que o i revelou terem sido feitos afinal por detectives pagos pelos pais da criança - e trouxeram a público o envio das três cartas rogatórias dos investigadores ingleses antes de as autoridades portuguesas tomarem conhecimento desses pedidos de auxílio internacional.

    Foi feita uma reconstituição da noite do crime - que não foi filmada em Portugal - e transmitida em Inglaterra, Alemanha e Holanda. Após as "milhares de pistas" que a Metropolitan Police disse aos media ter recebido na sequência da emissão dos programas de televisão, a estratégia continua a ser o rastreamento de telemóveis dos que estavam perto do aldeamento Ocean Club na noite de 3 de Maio de 2007, dia em que a criança desapareceu.

    Para os elementos da PJ contactados pelo i, estes comportamentos não vão afectar a cooperação entre as duas polícias. "As rogatórias serão cumpridas da forma mais empenhada possível, porque na cooperação internacional não há espaço para estados de espírito", rematou fonte da PJ.

  20. Swinging could well have been the reason for the ‘pact of silence’ if the tapas group were not involved in some ‘all together activity’ then they would have cooperated with the investigation as they have had nothing to hide but their refusal to take part in an important and necessary reconstruction, would suggest there were other activities going on that they were involved with and didn’t want disclosed they all gave unbelievable rogatory statements which were contradictory and confusing to one another and needed further clarification. Clarence Mitchell stated tapas group had met up in a hotel back in UK to go over events! But they refused to assist the PJ Payne’s recollection of his last meeting with Kate is inconsistent with her version; these are just a few of the anomalies without the many made by Kate and Gerry. For some reason it was important for the cover-up and the entire group cooperated with the fake time lines and identifying Murat. The fund has always needed investigating as it appears to have been misused paying thousands for the services of dubious characters, litigation cases, Carter Ruck and slick PR. Another aspect of the oddities of this case is why the McCanns needed to speak to a priest in the middle of the night; one could assume that the urgency of requiring a priest at that time of night would suggest a passing or attending a death bed giving the last rites, something that could not wait until the morning. If the child had been abducted as the parents state they would have fully cooperated with the PJ and spent the night searching for her, as they did not leave their apartment by their own admission because it was ‘too dark’ one can only suspect that they already knew the fate of Madeleine.
    Sadly there is much corruption in the British justice system this case has proved it, and so will the Rebecca Brooks phone hacking trial if they are all acquitted. Blair and Murdoch have much to answer for at present there is one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us. Thankfully we know better than to believe the lies printed by fawning journalists.



    Following endless sensationalist stories in the British press - all claiming inside knowledge of the ongoing Madeleine investigations both here and in the UK - Portugal’s Polícia Judiciária appear to have drawn a line in the sand.

    A report by ionline says Portuguese detectives have “advised” the Metropolitan Police that they “refuse to carry out an investigation via newspapers”, particularly as the PJ’s theories are very different to those of British investigators.

    “Since the English police decided to set up their own investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English press has been reporting, with frequency, information on police activities underway,” writes ionline.

    “A good part of these news reports ends up being unfounded, which increasingly compromises the possibility of cooperation” between the two forces.

    One of the major issues the PJ has with the British media circus is that “the two police forces have different lines of investigation, and their policies over communication are also contradictory,” two PJ inspectors who prefer to remain anonymous told ionline. Thus the warning to stop “pronouncing on supposed facts of the Portuguese investigation ... as it is something that the British do not know about”.

    The warning echoes words of former Madeleine investigator Gonçalo Amaral - no stranger to sensationalist stories in the British press.

    According to Amaral, Portuguese justice “works in silence” - the inference being it should be allowed to do so.

    ionline adds that the latest revelations in the British media - picked up by news services all over the world - centred on a ‘secret dossier’ sent to the Met by Portuguese investigators.

    “No secret dossier was ever delivered to the Metropolitan Police,” writes the news service, suggesting it was very probably the list of people known to police in the area that had been requested in one of the standard letters of request sent by the Met to the PJ.

    As ionline points out, “over the past few months” British newspapers have had a field day, publishing ancient identikit photos drawn up years ago by private investigators and reporting on “thousands of leads” when, in reality, “police are still working on the very basic job of trying to identify mobile phone activity that took place in and around the Ocean Club on the night of May 3 2007”.

  23. Just one thing re the blanket: I worked in hotels in Europe in my student vacation and although bed linen was changed every week, blankets, when they were used, were not.

    So the stain could have been from a previous occupant.

  24. For this blog, there's a certain irony using a photo of a big round table with 9 people sat around it, with the caption "If we pretend it isn't here it just might go away".

  25. No one here is pretending not to see "the" BRT...there really never was one, not in the Tapas bar!
    Why does it bother "you all" so much that Textusa and others say there was NO BRT...? Doesn't it bother "you" that Jane Tanner claimed they sat at a BRT...made of the joining together of other tables! Hoe on earth do you manage to create a round table by joining several tables together? Which shape of table(s) would manage such a prodigy? Without leaving dangerous gaps/holes for the tableware to sink in/through?!


    Mãe de Rui Pedro escreve carta emotiva ao filho

    «Carta de uma mãe ao filho desaparecido.» É este o título dado por Filomena Teixeira à carta que escreveu para Rui Pedro, desaparecido a 4 de março de 1998, em Lousada.

    Sem nunca perder a esperança de voltar a encontrar o filho, Filomena Teixeira pede-lhe para «jurar» que lhe responde à carta, quando a ler. A carta foi publicada, esta segunda-feira, no Facebook.

    «Pedro, meu filho, hoje faz 16 anos que desapareceste! Ironicamente é Carnaval! As pessoas divertem-se ou dormem depois de uma noite de folia, é normal. Mas eu não consigo deixar de pensar em ti... e que hoje é 4 de março.. A ironia da vida uns tristes outros contentes! Quero que saibas que estou aqui à tua espera. Estarei sempre!», escreveu ainda a mãe de Rui Pedro no Facebook, esta terça-feira de manhã.

    «Meu filho, faz amanhã 16 anos que não te vejo, e depois deste tempo todo ainda espero por ti! Espero e esperarei até que me digam algo de ti! Este tempo todo imagino-te crescendo, tornando-te um homem,e eu aqui parada no tempo, á tua espera! Nunca deixarei de te esperar!!! De uma forma ou de outra, os dias sucedem-se, muitos Já partiram, outros nasceram e cresceram enquanto estiveste fora...outros vão nascer breve, sabias? Há tanta coisa para te dizer, tantas promessas a cumprir que não vão chegar o resto dos meus dias para os realizar...volta, estamos aqui todos á tua espera...tal como naquele fatídico dia 4/03/1998...Se não quiseres falar basta um abraço, tu sabes dar tão bem abraços! e beijos pequeninos...bem sei que estás crescido, mas a mim não vais negar?! Tenho tentado tudo para suportar a tua ausência...tudo mesmo!!! Ás vezes digo a mim própria que é um pesadelo e que vou acordar a qualquer momento e tu estás aqui...depois abro os olhos e a realidade atordoa-me os sentidos! NÃO ESTÁS! e não posso fazer nada!!!!
    Sabes, já nem rezo, olho para o vazio e mentalmente pergunto por ti?! Já nem sei quem sou, ou no que me tornei!!!Um fardo para uns...uma lunática para outros! Dizem que sou forte?! Quando eu sou tão frágil...imagina a tua irmã o que tem de suportar?! E ser a filha mais maravilhosa que alguém poderia ter! Porque é nisso que ela se tornou Pedro, num ser humano espantoso! Tens de ter orgulho nela!Vês filho, o que tenho para te dizer não chega uma carta...Como faço para comunicar contigo? A tua irmã está á distancia de um telefonema, basta-me saber que está bem! contigo faria igual, só quero que sejam felizes! É pedir muito filho?
    Quando puderes juras que me respondes? Eu continuo aqui à espera..
    Um Abraço do tamanho do mundo, da tua mãe que te adora e não sabe o que fazer sem ti?!
    P.s. Estou a escrever-te do teu quarto, o pai acabou de entrar, ele trabalha muito, e sente muito também a tua falta, só não sabemos como te dizer!? Daí a carta, desculpa se é muito longa, mas juro que se tu vieres eu não te canso! Eu calo-me e basta-me o teu olhar no meu.
    Adoro-te! Mãe.

    1. Heartbreaking! I bet everyone here who reads these sad and yet beautiful words from a grieving mother is thinking about and making comparisons with "you know who"...I am thinking it too, exactly what you all are thinking, and it's not nice thoughts at all...I am not even going to mention that "someone's" name, it would make everything dirty, and this is about Filomena, a true "mother courage", and she deserves the respect of not having "that person's" name in this message.
      Please pray for this mother and all mothers who truly suffer(ed) the agony of not knowing what became of their beloved children. May God have mercy on them and give them the answers they desperately need, either good or bad, because not knowing is the worst of the worst, it must be living in a limbo, death in life!
      God bless all who suffer!

      Thank you

  27. Anon Mar 4, 18:47

    Regarding the blanket, that's why they tested it for different DNA and PJ attested "was Semen" With British expert ( supposedly one of the top) claiming that was " FROM A 2 years Old BOY" who have been previously in the flat.
    Now is about the prodigious British Scientist to explain how a 2years old get sexually active.
    Better the British journalists pick that fact ( since was produced by a British scientist) and start debunking the story of that poor boy, who must have a very difficult life with such sexual disorder (??????). Instead, they are persecuting death people or blonde gypsies.....
    That's why we know, Manipulation started very early and from high pisition. Something that could never be explained by the "absolute low importance of a group of middle class doctors". Other reason must be behind that decision- Swing, was the only one that suits.

  28. Teresa May, Home Secretary to introduce new criminal offence of police corruption. Surprising it has never been a crime before!
    Also calling a judge led inquiry into undercover police and corruption in the Stephen Lawrence murder case
    I hope the same happens in the case of Daniel Morgan.
    SY will have to tread carefully now.
    So far, £ 7 million pounds and almost 3 years later and all that's happened are 3 rogatory letters and a request for names of offenders in PdL locality.
    Plus a load of misinformation about burglars and lurkers.

  29. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 6 Mar 2014 18:34:00.

    Acknowledging receiving information and thanking you very much for sending it.

  30. We now have a crisis of confidence in the Met Police, with reference to the Stephen Lawrence case and police corruption.
    Payne his rogatory said he didn't know who he rang in London, but when confronted, had to accept it was the Specialist Crime Directorate ( SY)
    If it was above board, why didn't he just tell his interviewer?  Who took this call and what was it about? Is the Review Team investigating?

  31. "You can't trust police"
    All other major papers covering this story
    Former Met boss Sir John Stevens asked what he knew about pulping papers in the Lawrence case
    Jack Straw former Home Secretary says venality in the upper ranks of police.
    If SY attempt a whitewash in this climate, in the future, members of the team could face a criminal offence of police corruption.

    1. The Ellison Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and police corruption also mentions the Daniel Morgan murder and that officer under suspicion of corruption in the Lawrence case were also involved in the Morgan case.

  32. Actually I changed my mine on my last comment on the one who fled early morning...
    I cant decide if this first dinner was a rehersal for next night performance, or if the alarm was just raised an hour too early.

    Any comment to help me thru this one? I struggle with the alarm time as I cannot tie in what time is should have been raised.

    I think this blog is amazing by the way.

  33. I feel Kate's line "They've taken her!" relates to Kate not knowing the body would be moved at that time. Her words are more of someone who was not expecting this to happen YET. I feel the T9 assumed this was the official alarm and all scrambled into action. This haste is the cause of the loose ends and perhaps the anger the BH feel at the group (in addition to their smug love of the attention, that surprised all I believe.)

    I do subscribe to the theory presented on this blog.
    It makes sense of the chaos others try to analyze. I believe others try to fit this story timeline in the T9 and witness statements and that where the err begins. I also feel the PJ know a lot more than GA spoke. They have showed us everything in the files. They just cannot speak it publicly due to politics.

    All my personal opinion of course.


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.