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 post “Swinging 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 old – not 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.
-FAWKES, SIMON ANDREW
-GORDON, PAUL ANTHONY”
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”?