Friday, 18 July 2014

No Longer Libel So Don't Call It Libel

On Thursday, 10JUL14,  we made the following appeal as a comment in the blog and also on Facebook:

“We urge people to STOP using the terms LIBEL or DEFAMATION when referring to the ongoing trial McCann v Amaral trial in Lisbon.

Yes, it may just seem a question of semantics but it is a very IMPORTANT one.

By calling it LIBEL or DEFAMATION you’re not only helping the McCanns as you are, in our opinion VERY SERIOUSLY, harming Mr Amaral’s defence.

Please call it what it is: a DAMAGES trial. That is what the McCanns are asking for: financial compensation for DAMAGES caused to the searching of Madeleine McCann and for the damages caused to the McCann family.

Note, also IMPORTANT, it is not for damages to the INVESTIGATION but to the SEARCHING.

Very simple:



The difference? HUGE”

This appeal had an enthusiastic and grateful feedback on Facebook, which we appreciate, and many quickly and intuitively understood its importance and promised to stop using the “L-word” when referring to the trial.

But it also met with some scepticism, namely in terms of whether the difference between being a defamation or a damages trial was really that important.

If memory serves us right, the counter-arguments presented against our appeal were that all the Portuguese press called it “processo de difamação” – defamation process – so it must be one and that even if was damages instead of defamation it mattered very little if we, on the internet, called it libel or not as Facebook – and the rest of the internet for that matter – did not qualify as a court-room.

Let’s divide this post into separate parts – defamation v damages, difference between both, implications to the trial and what can we do.

As a foreword we would like to clarify that none of us possess any legal background. The opinions expressed are based solely on common sense, generic understanding of semantics and logic regarding information we have access to. We can and should be corrected when appropriate by those with expertise in the area.

Our only disagreement with the counter-argument made by some that it is a defamation process because the Portuguese press consistently reports it as “processo de difamação” is because it doesn’t include the English press.

We are of the opinion that all mainstream media (MSM) is indeed reporting it as a libel case.

And why shouldn’t MSM report it as libel? It’s enough to spend a couple of minutes on the internet and verify that bloggers and posters (on FB and/or various blogs and forums) are referring to the trial as libel.

If on the internet it is done that way – where people there are supposed to really understand the process in minute detail - why wouldn’t MSM be able to do the exactly same thing?

So one perfectly innocent explanation for the MSM to be referring to it as libel would be that they found the term being commonly used (in fact the only one being used) by “Maddie experts” when doing their researching on the internet.

Where has the idea come from that the current phase is a “libel trial”?

A number of factors but bloggers and posters have significantly contributed to that erroneous idea.

We at Textusa are the first to say mea culpa. Not only have we have used the word libel before as we used the term when naming a blog about the current phase of the trial:

How many of us defied the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral after he published his book? To sue him to prove that he was lying and that they were as innocent as they claimed to be? At Textusa we did.

We demanded repeatedly for the McCanns to go to court if they thought Mr Amaral was being libellous in his book. That it was their moral not right but duty, as allegedly wrongly accused, to prove their innocence. Libel prosecutions exist for that.

We also felt that Mr Amaral was really eager for that fight, to have in a court of law a discussion about whether his claims about Maddie being dead and about the parents’ participation in the concealment of the body were  false or not.

We really wished for that day, didn’t we? The day Mr Amaral would expose the McCanns publicly. In court, to have his day there. We really, really ached for that libel trial between Mr Amaral and the McCanns to happen.

We openly called the McCanns cowards for not suing Mr Amaral.

Then in May 2009 came the process. It started with the banning phase – then we didn’t know that it would have the current follow-up phase, so we just called it the “book trial”.

We immediately noted it did not accuse Mr Amaral of defamation but, or so we thought, it was intended to simply put a stop to the selling of his book.

In the Lisbon Appeals Court Decision on the McCann Couple Injunction we can read that the closest the claim to the 1st Instance Court came to libel was when the plaintiffs requested the following:

“Alleging that the first two applicants are the Mother and Father of the other applicants, who are all underage, being that it is commonly known that little Madeleine disappeared on the 3rd of May, 2007, and her disappearance prompted an extensive police investigation.

The defendant, Gonçalo Amaral, was one of the Judiciary Police (PJ) investigators that was involved in the investigation and later on wrote a book that is titled “Maddie The Truth of the Lie”, in which he defends, inter alia that there is a serious possibility that little Maddie accidentally died in the apartment where she was staying and that her parents did, in some manner, undertake the concealment of her cadaver.

They conclude by requesting:


4. The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants;

5. The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;”

It does not refer anywhere defamation.

Later we would infer that the reasoning behind Team McCann’s claims was that as the book and the documentary contradicted the spirit of the archiving dispatch and as such seriously harmed the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the McCanns, namely the right to a good name.

Remember how disappointed we were? The McCanns only wanted to stop the sale of the book and stop the spreading of its content! We thought what cunning cowards the McCanns were being in avoiding discussing facts, in avoiding discussing in court what really mattered: alleged libel committed by Mr Amaral.

We were eager for a defamation claim. We wanted a “fact-fight” in court. The mob, us included, claimed libel.

The banning phase of the trial ended with the confirmation of the overturning the ban on the book and this process came.

When we heard that the McCanns were suing (the follow-up phase) Mr Amaral for over a million euros it was natural that only one word popped up in our brains: libel! The so much anticipated libel trial.

Were we happy? We were ecstatic. Finally Mr Amaral was to see justice.

So we didn’t hesitate for a minute calling it “the libel trial”.

Even Isabel Duarte helped when she spoke outside the court that Mr Amaral was being sued for infringing the McCanns’ rights, freedoms and guarantees as citizens and for having defamed them.

As we will see the term “defamation” was being used as a consequence of a decision and not as the substantiation of one. A subtle but very important difference.

We were all so ecstatic that there was finally going to be a “libel trial” that we didn’t stop for a minute to think we should be so.

If we had done just that we would have realised 2 things.

The first was that the proceedings we had called the “book trial” should have been called simply “the banning phase of the trial”. The defendants were exactly the same so whatever was to be now claimed by the plaintiffs could only be linked to the decisions made on that first phase.

The second thing is that if one hires the best and most expensive lawyers available then the other side should expect the most brilliant legal games possible. We didn’t. We took things for what they seemed to be. We didn’t wait a second to do as the Portuguese say “quando a esmola é demais, o pobre desconfia” – “when the handout is too great, the poor man suspects”.

We knew the McCanns couldn’t possibly afford going into a libel trial and yet we allowed ourselves to believe that had done so right in front of our eyes.

We momentarily forgot that it was (and is) all about justice and not about having justice. Being about justice is to play legal games while having justice is the naïve desire to expect Lady Justice to be just.

For example we didn’t understand why Team McCann, having as their legal representative a brilliant lawyer such as Rogério Alves, had Isabel Duarte show up in court to represent them but we shrugged this off by thinking that Rogério Alves was reserved for more important processes.

Although it didn’t make sense we didn’t make any effort to understand it.

Was Team McCann really going into this to lose? If so, why do it at all? If Rogério Alves was reserved only for the important legal battles what could be more important, in Portugal, than libel? Nothing.

So why Isabel Duarte?

Let the legal games begin.

In our opinion Isabel Duarte makes her appearance to make it seem that Team McCann didn’t consider it important.

The first covert move to camouflage the importance of what was really at stake. We saw Isabel Duarte and said to ourselves that this showed just how Rogério Alves didn’t consider this banning thing important enough to engage himself in. He had far more important things such as libel.

And this manoeuvre stopped us realising that the banning trial was the closest we will ever get to seeing libel being discussed between Mr Amaral and the McCanns in court.

If Rogério Alves had appeared in court it would have fired red flags among us but as it was only Isabel Duarte we relaxed and sat back and watched.

Isabel Duarte lent her face but the think-tank behind the Team McCann’s legal tactics was further upstream.

To understand fully the trap they sprung on us let us try to explain what in our opinion Team McCanns’s legal tactics were.

They first intended to establish that the contents of book and documentary were legally false and for that reason should be banned. Once that determined they then intended to establish damages caused and ask defendants for heavy financial compensation.

It seems really simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Only it’s not. Not simple as it seems and much less straightforward.

First do note that nowhere is Mr Amaral mentioned, on purpose, in our opinion. We have said defendants and only after the banning determined and damages established. The targets of the first phase were the book and the documentary. To ban their contents.

Also please note that, again on purpose, we have not we referred to the words libel or defamation in our opinion. We have mentioned the word false but attached, intentionally, the word legal to it, or better said “legally false”.

What is the difference between something true/false and something “legally true/false”? The first is something that has been PROVED to be true or to be false and the second is something that the rightful and adequate judicial institutions have been unable to PROVE that it’s either true or false and as it’s neither it takes the best form convenient to the presumption of innocence.

To use the Maddie case as an example, as it was determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute anyone without declaring anyone innocent, to say they were involved in the concealment of Maddie’s body is neither true nor false. But applying the presumption of innocence principle such a statement becomes “legally false”.

To state that the McCanns are innocent is simply untrue but to say that Maddie is dead is, currently legally false.

It’s very important to understand that something legally false may indeed be false but it can also be true. If it is true, it has yet to be proved and so until then it cannot be used against anyone.

For our English speaking readers, it may appear that the word false could be too strong. False in English everyday usage means a lie, as in giving false testimony, so the court when banning the book may have regarded allegations as unproven and not lies.

To state something that has been proved to be unproved and that causes damages to a third party is as offensive as a lie and is legally considered as such.

So the word we intend to use is indeed false. For the book to be banned, as it was by 1st Instance Court, it had to break some law. The only reason for that to happen is because it harmed the McCanns’ rights and that could only be because allegations didn’t respect them. That can only be because they're not true. They're false. Before the legal system these allegations are lies. Lies, or falsities, that can be overlooked – as we will see later – but lies nonetheless.

It goes without saying our opinion about how truthful we consider the contents in question. But our opinion matters little. We’re expressing what we think the legal system looks at the allegations. We are just being the devil’s advocate.

We remind readers that in Portugal it is the plaintiffs who have to prove the content is offensive. So, for the 1st Instance Court to have banned the book and the documentary it can only be that it considered proved the allegations they contained were false. Or, as we explained above “legally false”.

We hope readers now clearly understand the intent of the claim the McCanns made during the banning phase of the trial: as the archiving dispatch stated clearly there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns both book and documentary stated evident legal falsities which harmed the McCanns’ right and for that reason they should be banned.

What Team McCann set out to do was to prove that Mr Amaral’s book legally lied. That what it said was legally false.

The 1st Instance Court gave reason to the McCanns as we all know.

But before we deal with the reasons for this decision to have been overturned let’s first deal with the line of defence always put forward by Mr Amaral’s supporters (us included): the book only says what the PJ Files say.

Plus, PJ Files clearly state that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved in the concealment of the body.

True. Very true. Even legally true. But, unfortunately, only true on PJ Files but legally false – for the reasons explained – in Mr Amaral’s book and in the TVI documentary.


A question of timing.

The PJ investigation was the window of opportunity to prove or disprove all and any thesis.

Including the ones in question. PJ clearly states in the interim report (and no final report changes this) it believed that Maddie was dead and the parents had a part in the concealment of her body.

But that window of opportunity closed with the archiving dispatch. It’s very important to understand this.

That dispatch stated that with ALL the facts known up to moment it was written there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

We’re not at this moment questioning the circumstances under which we believe said dispatch was written up nor providing an opinion on whether we agree or not with its content. You know our opinion.

But, again, our opinion matters not for the point we’re trying to make: that dispatch represents the adequate and rightful legal experts stating that with ALL the known facts up to that moment there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

To put it bluntly, legally, whatever PJ says inside the files that dispatch is dispatching matters not from that moment on. The dispatch is about the ALL its content and it says clearly and that analysing ALL there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute.

The fact that PJ thought Maddie was dead and that her parents were involved in the concealement of her body became that moment, legally, just one of other unproven theories. A theory to be taken into account, legally, in exactly the same way as the other unproven theory that she was abducted.

To use an analogy. Inside, the entire process may say that black is black but if the dispatch says it has been proved that black is blue then, legally, black is blue. And if the dispatch says that it isn’t proved that black is black, then black cannot be, legally, black. Ridiculous but that’s the way it is. And while the dispatch remains valid so all will everything else we said be valid.

And as far as we know, the archiving dispatch remains valid. The reopening didn’t change anything about decisions made based on ALL the facts known up to that moment.

So what PJ has said in the process was absolutely true within the timeframe it was said. But in terms of content it represents nil. It has been legally superseded by the archiving dispatch. In fact, due to the dispatch, it is now legally false.

That’s why the McCanns cannot not sue the Portuguese state for saying the same thing as Mr Amaral and TVI have said because when it was said by PJ it didn’t constitute any infringement at the time it was said.

Back to the banning phase of the trial. What was so important about establishing that the content of the book and of the documentary were legally false?

Because Team McCann wanted to concentrate the focus only on the book and the documentary and not on Mr Amaral.

This would allow the plaintiffs to circumvent the discussion libel/defamation to be about any facts. Being about the book and the documentary made it become just a discussion around legal terminologies and interpretations of law. What mattered wasn’t what they said but if what they said was or wasn’t false in legal terms only.

From the archiving dispatch the plaintiffs assumed all material facts as unproved and so there was no reason to dedicate any discussion about them.

Once proved that the allegations were legally false then the plaintiffs could consider them legally libellous irrelevant of content. They would be able to prove defamation in court without discussing any material facts. Simply brilliant.

Legal games at its finest because of the popular misconception about libel – and the populat marrying it with the word sue – that it always brings along financial punishment. It doesn’t need to. The punishment can be a banning as was the case.

People forget that libel seeks only to prove that what another has said about us is false. To prove only that. Nothing else. Only once libel proven can any sort of punishment be applied to the one who proffered the false statements. And the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be financial. It can be a banning, for example.

Now place the word “legal” behind every “false” and you fully understood Team McCann’s tactics when demanding the book and the documentary to be banned. By proving that both had legally false content they proved they were legally false and so were legally libellous.

As before the law there is no such thing as legally false but simply false (even with the possibility of being true) that would mean the plaintiffs would be able to prove defamation without discussing facts.

But the brilliance didn’t stop there. We were thrown more misleading bait which we swallowed with apparent pride: the number of defendants.

By not isolating claims against Mr Amaral, Team McCann ensured that we didn’t shift the focus towards defamation. So they also brought into court the TVI documentary.

Courts are not about saving time and money. If Mr Amaral’s book and the TVI documentary had both separately defamed the McCanns as they did then they should have been brought to trial separately. Logic dictated it.

If person A is hurt by person B with a stick and same person A is hurt by person C with a rock in a totally different time and location then persons B and C are prosecuted separately by person A. Certainly they will not to be prosecuted together just because they hurt the same person in the case, person A.

So we were led to think that it was all about freedom of speech and not about libel. If that was the case, we thought naively, then the McCanns would have sued Mr Amaral and TVI separately. But the defendants were put together on the same process, weren’t they?

Because of it we were certain that it was all only about free speech because it couldn’t be about defamation as one happened in 2008 (book) and the other in 2009 (documentary). Each used different means and they defamed differently – in the documentary Mr Amaral ventures an hypothesis for Maddie’s death (the falling off couch while hearing dad thesis) which he abstained from stating in the book.

We didn’t stop to think and see why the defendants were in the same process. For the book and documentary to have been brought to trial together could only have been if they had both committed the exact same crime.

The crime of breaching the presumption of innocence IMPLIED by the archiving dispatch. That doesn’t need to have been committed at the same time and location. It needed only to affront the same thing: the archiving dispatch.

By joining defendants Team McCann circled like sharks around defamation without ever getting their hands dirty with it.

We had libel discussed right in front of our eyes and we failed to see it. What we called “book trial” was indeed much more than that.

If you remember, during the banning phase panic filled the McCann ranks when they found themselves seeing facts being discussed in court. Gerry bolted home and Fiona Payne appeared out of the blue to “support” her dear friend Kate.

The tactic used to get off this path of doom path was to distract the court by alleging the PJ investigation was a blunder. That it was still incomplete and so they claimed that any discussion of fact was pointless. And the court paid attention to them.

Isabel Duarte spoke of many leads that weren’t followed without specifying which. According to defendants more evidence was needed. The investigation needed to reopen.

And wasn’t that, once again, just music to our ears? It was. We were drawn to it like sailors enchanted by a mermaid’s singing.

They were able to divert the attention to having Gerry squirming to the question “Mr McCann will you request the reopening of the process?”

They threw out the bait and we swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Who didn’t gloat at the McCann’s evident discomfort that day outside the court? We did, we must confess.

Instead of telling the McCanns to go back into court and discuss ALL known facts up to the moment of that dispatch on which they were basing their accusation we entertained ourselves in exploiting what was already known: how hypocritical the McCanns were in saying they were willing to reopen the case when we all knew they had no intention whatsoever in doing so.

They just wanted to get out of the predicament they were in at that moment and by stepping into the line of fire they were able to do just that. They fought to avoid discussion of fact in court and succeed doing it.

The book got banned. We were shocked. We protested vehemently for free speech. The book got released and we exulted in victory.

We all, including us, missed what had really happened before our eyes and much less its real significance: that the fate of defamation had been sealed with the banning phase of the trial.

No longer can defamation ever be discussed while the archiving dispatch is valid. The discussion about if it's true or false Maddie is dead or if it's true or false that the parents participated in the concealment of her body has already happened. For the time the archiving dispatch is valid it can't be discussed again.

The reopening of the process has not nullified the dispatch. The current PJ investigation is now looking for new evidence. Nothing about the content of “old” process has been altered. ALL the facts contained in the “old” process continue not to add up to a prosecution. Investigation is working to change that but until it does all theories put forward by “old” process remain unproven.

Only through a new and superseding dispatch can facts within “old” process have new interpretation and be able to be considered proven. Until then archiving dispatch remains valid about ALL facts of “old” process.

Reopening is not a continuance but a picking up to see what new can be found about the case. It's not a review. All has obviously been reviewed but with the intent to help determine the best lines of investigation to find NEW evidence. If it was a continuance then the McCanns would have been automatically renamed arguidos because they stopped being ones only because of archiving of process and not because they were declared innocent.

The 1st Instance Court decided that the content of both was legally false. That it was offensive to the McCanns.

The Appeals Court overturned this decision by stating that the book’s legal falsity should be overlooked as it was outweighed by Mr Amaral’s right to fight for his good name.

The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the Appeals Court decision that it was more important to preserve Mr Amaral’s right to a good name than to punish the illegality he was committing.

But the illegality of the book’s content was there. Only the preservation of higher rights made it possible for the book to go back to the shelves.

The courts, in our opinion, found that the allegations made by the book – and TVI documentary – were illegal but that the generalised knowledge of said case was sufficient for the public to understand the content of the book were only allegations and not statements of fact. The opinion of this singular citizen did not in any way alter the presumption of innocence the couple was entitled to.

Note that TVI did not appeal to uplift the decision to ban its documentary. Any exhibition of said documentary is illegal. If it’s illegal it’s because a rightful court of law found its content illegal. And it can only be illegal because it’s defamatory.

So, as far as we know, what the 1st Instance Court decided about the documentary is still valid today:

“4. The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, any parts of the (…) video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two Applicants.”

The book can be sold but the documentary is banned. One can be sold and the other cannot be exhibited although both contain legally false allegations as explained above.

Team McCann achieved with the TVI documentary all it intended to achieve with the book: prove it defamatory without discussing whether its content was true or not but based solely on the fact that it conflicted with the implied presumption of innocence of the archiving dispatch.

If that isn’t brilliant legal games then we don’t know what is.

And now we are at the follow-up process. We heard that over a million euros were at stake in this “suing” and we heard the word “damages” and what did we “respond” with? The L-word. Libel.

But that is, as shown, a ship that sailed a long time ago.

With the banning decision – remember that the documentary remains banned today – Team McCann were able to prove that there was a legal truth, although far from proved as factual truth: Maddie is not dead and the parents had nothing to do with the concealment of any body.

With that decision the McCanns were able to now claim that anyone who states, implies or just suggests that Maddie is dead is committing an illegality although simultaneously determining that what Mr Amaral said in his book – because of the circumstances in which he said it – could be said by him and him alone.

Note that when Mr Amaral says those things today – that Maddie is dead and that the parents concealed the body – he is committing libel. The McCanns won’t sue but he is committing libel. The exact same amount of libel isn’t being sued for but committed in the CdM interview that Isabel Duarte has brought to court.

But most important about the decisions of the banning phase is that they allow the McCanns to take the “moral high ground” and now claim damages to their reputation. And that is exactly what they’re doing.

Note that they’re asking for compensation for damages not because of damages caused by what was said both in the book and documentary but because of the subsequent effects of what was said. A subtle difference but one that allowed, as we witnessed, to exclude from any debate the discussion of fact in court.

The judge has said so herself when addressing Gerry on the last hearing session:

“We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.”

Whatever is related about content of book or documentary is in the past. Together with the discussion – that never existed – about them being libellous. To the legal system they are, end of discussion. Now it’s only about damages. Damages to the McCann family and to the searching of a live Maddie.

Is it damaging for the McCanns’ reputation that the public perceives that Maddie is dead and that they had something to do with the disposal of her body?

Unquestionably, yes.

In our opinion what the court is currently being asked to determine is how much of this damage are Mr Amaral and TVI accountable for within the one the couple is suffering.

Please don’t confuse damage with personal affliction.

From what we can perceive, the plaintiffs are going for the damages caused by widely spread “campaign” that has infected the public against them.

Once the existence of that “widespread campaign” is determined they then intend to establish the relevance of Mr Amaral as an instigator in it.

That’s why Isabel Duarte brought into the trial that libellous CdM interview when CdM wasn’t even a defendant. This interview was on July 22, 2007, the day after the archiving dispatch.

What Team McCann in our opinion intends is to show a pattern of behaviour on the part of Amaral that depicts him as a person relentlessly obsessed with denigrating the McCanns.

First the CdM interview, then the legally libellous book and then his active participation in the legally libellous TVI documentary. A man with a mission of propaganda against the McCanns.

That’s why the accusation is not concentrating on the direct effects of the book and documentary on the family but rather on the generalised campaign against the couple. In this case hearsay is evidence. Hearsay is the proof there’s indeed the said widespread “campaign” that Mr Amaral has so diligently instigated.

Team McCann, in our opinion, intended to show that this widespread “campaign” may not have had Mr Amaral’s hand at the beginning but he played a relevant part in its dissemination. That he is a major cause of their distress and he is the major cause for the general public to think that Maddie is dead.

So what is the importance of saying the “L-word” when referring to the ongoing trial?

There are many differences between the current phase of the trial to be about damages as it is and to be about libel which it isn’t.

The first one is that if it was libel facts would be discussed and they weren’t. The court wouldn’t hear of it giving us reason to our analysis.

The second is that it being a damages case and not a libel one there’s a real possibility that Mr Amaral may lose, at least at 1st Instance Court. If the discussion of fact had been possible we are confident that Mr Amaral would not lose the case. As it’s about damages there’s the possibility he may lose.

We’re not being pessimistic but simply realistic.

There are 2 reasons for us to think Mr Amaral may lose.

The first is that Mr Amaral has indeed been a relevant part of that widespread campaign. Team McCann calls it smearing, we call it the quest for material truth. Taking into account what is legally true/false and not what is materially true/false, we think the court will side with the Black Hats.

The second is the tendency of the 1st Instance Courts in Portugal have to side with the plaintiffs. It’s like an unwritten rule of having all sides show their game on this first level (1st Instance Court) and then really playing it on the second (Appeals Court).

It’s as if the 1st Instance Court level exists only so that all parties have the opportunity to show their arguments and for the system to explain exactly what legal framework is applicable. Then all sides get to go home and, within that legal framework, go back to the drawing board and refine their tactics for where the fight is really fought, on the Appeals Court.

A strange system but as we have explained it was exactly what happened in the banning phase of the trial. The book and documentary got banned because 1st Instance Court forced to the extreme the application of the principle of presumption of innocence and then the decision was overturned by a more realistic analysis done by the Appeals Court.

The irony is that Team McCann wants to lose but may be betrayed in its intent by a peculiar justice system of a very peculiar country. Yes, you read it well, Team McCann wants to lose the case. We will get back to this.

But the biggest problem we see there being about this phase of the trial being damages instead of libel is the fact people are calling it libel.

It starts with the fact that by doing so one is clearly implying that the McCanns are honourable people.

Libel was created to correct injustices. Unfortunately libel befalls most of the times – not to say exclusively – where expensive lawyers gather their earnings. In the hands of those with enough means to pay expensive lawyers it’s nothing but menacing and threatening. It stops being protective and it becomes an extremely useful tool of aggression. In the modern world it’s the ultimate bullying. The principle of if I have the money to afford the legal expenses I have the means, legal ones, to shut you up. Using justice to bully justice from being applied. An obnoxious, disgusting and confusing world but one that we are all very well aware of as being the reality. Life is what life is so best get used to it.

But libel is underlined by honour. The right that one has to defend one’s reputation from wrongful allegation. By calling it a libel trial when it isn’t, it’s conveying to the public the idea the McCanns are defending their honour. Conveying the idea that even though all odds are stacked up against them, they are indeed honourable people willing to fight for their reputation. That they have no fear in facing in court the man who has publicly accused them of such horrible things.

For the general public, hearing consistently from all over that it’s a libel trial, the McCanns are indeed facing their nemesis. If they win, they can boast a feat they never even tried and if they lose the perception is that they tried to fight for their reputation. This implies they aren’t afraid of the truth which we all know is not true.

So every time you say it’s a libel trial you are collaborating in this deception. You are doing an enormous a favour to people who have no honour, who are cowards about really discussing libel and who hide behind legal games.

Every time you say it’s a libel trial you are helping the McCanns hide their true colours.

Also by calling it libel we are helping them divert attention from the true purpose of the trial. Like we did with the banning phase by calling it the “book trial”. With the same harmful effect.

It’s about damages so let’s focus on damages. Bring the attention back to what matters: damages.

Let’s emphasise publicly that Mr Amaral’s fight is our fight but that our fight is much more than his fight. It’s also his fight but it’s much, much more than that.

Let’s show that our opinion is not formulated from his book nor from the documentary but from the “bible” on the issue: the PJ Files.

The PJ Files are the most quoted documents about the case and not Mr Amaral’s book.

Let’s remind everyone that before the PJ Files were made public, the general public already thought that Maddie was dead. The dogs in July 2007 were the ones that confirmed their suspicion. And when PJ named the McCanns as arguidos it was only a confirmation and not a revelation.

Robert Murat had been named arguido in May 2007 but then no one thought he was really involved as they did about the McCanns when they were named. Why? Because we knew then that the McCanns had something to do with Maddie’s physical disappearance and it wasn’t due to an abduction.

They cannot claim it was their arguido status that made people think they were guilty. People thought that with the dogs. A year before Mr Amaral published his book.

Let’s demonstrate that Mr Amaral’s book did not harm the McCanns in any way. If it harmed anyone, or anything, then it would have been the Portuguese state. His book showed how ridiculous the abduction thesis was and how big a favour the country was doing to the couple by not prosecuting them.

Everyone knew that Maddie was dead and no one needed a book to know the parents were involved in the concealment of the body.

When they landed in the UK in September 2007 after fleeing Portugal under the heaviest possible cloud of worldwide suspicion, Mr Amaral didn’t envisage writing the book. He was working on the case and the whole wide world knew intuitively the McCanns were guilty of what was then PJ’s assessment.

Let’s expose that it was the tabloid press that called the attention of the masses to Mr Amaral’s book with their demeaning and denigrating campaign against him.

To those who think that public opinion isn’t decisive in this case, are completely wrong. The court is analysing exactly what the public is thinking. What’s the perception of the public about the McCanns and in what way has Mr Amaral influenced its opinion.

To the court we say that although we consider Mr Amaral an outstanding role model in the case but it was not his book that moved us to fight to find the truth about what happened to Maddie.

It was, and is, the arrogance of the establishment in calling us all dim-witted when said establishment allowed the McCanns to fly home when they should have been charged in Portugal for participating in whatever caused Maddie to disappear. We don’t consider Mr Amaral as part of said establishment.

In 08FEB2010, with our “Gonçalo Amaral is a Liar” post, we did our best to drive the spotlight away from Mr Amaral. As we said in then “the intent of this post is take some of the burden off the back of this man. It’s a big, big one that he is carrying. We’re all falling into the trap that the McCanns have laid out for us: making Gonçalo Amaral our Centre of Gravity (CoG).”

Time, 4 and a half years later, has given us total reason.

Now is not the time to discuss whether the book says the obvious truth according to the PJ Files. That is discussing libel and that has already happened. Forget the book. It’s not relevant at this time.

Now is the time to concentrate on what the judge may consider damages and its reasons.

Now is the time to concentrate the discussion around highlighting that Mr Amaral is far from being the only, or even the main reason, why we public think Maddie is dead and why we think her parents are involved in concealing her body.

Now is the time that our support for Mr Amaral is because of the gravest injustice he’s being subjected to. That we support Mr Amaral because we can see with our own eyes that he is being ruthlessly persecuted by Team McCann and this 5 year process is blatant evidence of this.

People ask what they can do to help Mr Amaral. For starters, stop using the word libel. It only distracts discussion from what is relevant and only helps the McCanns.

Re-centre the discussion on damages and its real origins.

That way you will be doing your share in showing the judge that public’s perception of the couple has very little to do with Mr Amaral and was formed before he published the book.

This way you will be doing your share in helping Mr Amaral’s lawyer prepare his closing arguments.

Getting back to what we said about Team McCann wanting to lose the case.

One has to understand that Team McCann does not represent the McCanns. Team McCann represents the interests of those interested in protecting, or not, the McCanns.

In our opinion the interest in protecting the McCanns has been completely lost since the opening of the review in 2011.

As we have explained, we think the couple was meant to be hung up and dried when the review was opened.

They weren’t only because Maddie’s body doesn’t exist as of June/July 2007. Without it there’s no way to demonstrate the couple acted alone and finding those “available” to say they helped has proven to be quite a difficult, if not impossible, task.

So, as of May 2011, the couple remains patiently waiting while their fate is being decided upstream.

Did Team McCann gamble when it filed the suit in 2009? No, and it was certain it would win.

Time betrayed them. Or better said, the amazing working rhythm of the Portuguese judicial system betrayed them.

If the process had been with the usual timings processes done in UK by winter 2009, or latest by spring 2010, the banning phase would have been over and the second half of 2010 would have been dedicated to claiming damages.

In 2009/2010 the McCanns were establishment top celebrities.

We are certain if things had gone according to plan, in that summer of 2010 we would have continuous headlines blaring the idea Mr Amaral was the one and the only one responsible for the malignant widespread smearing campaign which afflicted the poor and distressed McCanns.

Mr Amaral, if things had gone according to British planning, would have stood no chance.

But the trial was, as it could only have been, in Portugal. It dragged on and on.

As of summer 2011 the McCanns became a liability for all.

We think that after an uncomfortable stalemate the British government finally decided to make a move to find closure for this subject as of March 2012 when it launched the “6-cleaner episode”.

From then on, as we have done our best to explain to readers what we think is happening, a fierce battle has been fought between the British government and those whose interests will be jeopardised with the revelation of who helped the couple dispose the body.

But to find this closure another one was needed to happen first and that was to see the end of the Lisbon trial between the McCanns and Mr Amaral.

It’s our opinion that the attempt to reach an agreement with Mr Amaral wasn’t a McCann initiative but rather one from those who wanted to put a full stop to the trial. Mr Amaral didn’t accept whatever he was offered and so the trial had to happen.

We saw various indications that the idea was to start the “Offensive on the McCanns & Others” immediately after the sentence of the trial. This sentence was scheduled to happen for the first days of October 2013. Thus UK Crimewatch on 14OCT13.

The only way to ensure defeat was to bring in the lamest possible group of witnesses.

Ones who would just go through the motions and say yes, there was damage to the McCanns reputation but they couldn’t really say it was Mr Amaral who caused it.

And the McCanns continued in that line of testimony: the damage wasn’t really that serious and family was only affected based on a sole hearsay episode in which Sean heard something on the radio on a school bus. So in school and at home the family is basically immune to the campaign. And oh, yes, we lost some sleep but really not that much. Depressed? Well, not exactly. Sure, in the dumps here and there but depressed, really depressed, can’t say we ever were.

Everyone now wants the McCanns to lose. Including the Black Hats. The McCanns have become a big liability and it serves everyone’s purpose that they stay closed up in Rothley away from everyone’s sight while their fate is being decided. For them is not a question of if but of when.

Unfortunately we at the blog think the idiosyncrasies of the Portuguese justice system may pay all a surprise and force UK’s move on “McCanns & Others” while the trial is still ongoing in the appeal’s court. It’s no longer about being popular in catching the McCanns but because it’s the only way UK has to minimise whatever surprises may come from the PJ investigation.

We hope we are wrong. About the sentence of the trial being against Mr Amaral. Team McCann has done all it can to avoid that.

Meanwhile, do not call it a libel trial. Call it the “Trial against Mr Amaral”. That’s how the Portuguese really do call it, “o processo dos McCann contra Gonçalo Amaral”. It's true and includes all possible legal games.

Post Scriptum: 

We are fully aware that every time the blog says that Maddie is dead or that her parents were involved in the concealment of her body, it is making a legally false statement.

History is filled with examples of people being illegal when doing the right things. Besides the obvious, illegality has always an expiration date.

We would like to warn readers that we may be slow in responding to comments because we are on our holiday break expecting only to return in September.

We hope that some readers may be able to see where a good lawyer can exploit the weaknesses on the McCann's side.


  1. ''Plus, PJ Files clearly state that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved in the concealment of the body.''

    They state no such thing. Please do not mislead your readers with such nonsense. Tavares de Alemeida made an interim report which accused them, but it was rubbished by the prosecutors report.

    1. If "Tavares de Almeida made an interim report which accused them" and as the interim report is part of the PJ Files then it is clearly stated in them " that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved in the concealment of the body" as we say it is.

      We wouldn't say rubbished. If it was rubbished then prosecutors dispatch (not a report as all reports are part of files and the archiving dispatch, although attached to it, isn't) would have cleared the McCanns. It doesn't.

      We prefer to say, using your own words, it "rubbished" the interim report. It said it wasn't black nor white. It just said there wasn't enough to prosecute.

    2. It wasn't rubbished. Final report says they missed opportunity to prove innocence, or similar wording. Can't remember exact words.
      The rug was pulled from under the feet of Portuguese by FSS report. And by then, Mcs had fled with no intention of returning for re-enactment.

    3. HaHaTextusa do these Eejits still think they can take you on. Do they think 7years of exposure of the truth can be set aside by "fluffy words"

  2. Textusa your articles are brilliant. What you say makes perfect sense and looking forward to seeing what happens next.

  3. Very insightful post...

    Not sure I understand why it is (or was) important for the British government to wait until the end of the Lisbon trial to go after the McCanns. Thanks in advance for clarifying this but, most importantly, enjoy your holidays!

  4. Thank you, Textusa team ! Enjoy the Summer days.


    Textusa, you're getting strange support from a Nostradamus at Joana's. This is what this poster says:
    "I am inclined to believe in Textusa earlier theory"
    "I say it is possible. With all the news coming out about pedophilia in Westminster and other high places, Textusa's "frankfurter-bockwurst" scenario is nothing but plausible. "
    What's he on about?

  6. Anonymous19 Jul 2014 10:17:00

    Thank you for the heads up.

    Anyone linking paedophilia to our name is poisoned support which we have becone accustomed to see in other places to denigrate our name.

    Fortunately readers have also grow accustomed to seeing this and can spot as easily as we can a phoney Textusa supporter quite easily. Your comment is proof of that.

    As we say, a friend of the blog is not always a friend of the truth but a friend of the truth is always a friend of the blog.

    At Joana's we have asked him to justify the use of our name. We will wait for the reply.

    1. It seems he/she has only read half of what he calls Textusa's "sausage" theory...he missed the part where/with whom the "sausage" was being used...NOT with, NOT paedophilia! Unless...maybe Kate McCann is still a child at heart...never really grew up?!

  7. I didn't need GAs book to convince me. After my initial response of sympathy for the parents, having heard John Hill say there was no evidence of a break-in and watched the mcCann's first interview, my opinion changed.
    K's lack of reaction of any kind was stunning. I know she was alleged to have been advised to show no emotion, but her face said it all.
    No red eyes, swollen face, agonised expression.. As if she was merely a spokesperson for the parents.
    She was perfectly turned-out, whereas any parent on the morning after their child had been taken would have shown the signs of extreme strain.
    I've worked with offenders for many years, and this was enough to press my scepticism button.
    I then read the PJ files on release and being familiar with reading statements, I was stunned by the incoherence and inconsistencies of the T9.
    Then we had UK press reports, some of which made ridiculous claims, even questioning M's paternity. (presumably because the police only sought to establish that as a matter of routine)
    GA's book only confirmed what I had read and seen already. I haven't met anybody in the UK who has read it, apart from my relatives as I passed my downloaded translation to them.

    1. ...Kate McCann must have been the only parent EVER to be told NOT to show emotion before the cameras!!! Whenever I have seen such kind of appeals (from parents of missing children) they are always full of emotion, tears, broken voices, heartbreak! The McCanns seem to be always the exception, on this and in everything else!

    2. i want to add my comments to this. No way was it GA book that convinced me. I was spectical about the issue and as anon 12.17 says i found that it was their own demenour and the fact that thete was no progress in finding out what happenedv to the baby which made me suspicious but it was the pj making them suspects that switched on a light in my head. I thought of course thats what happened. I didn,t bother much with the case after that and only regursed my interest after coming accross pat browns blog and then the brillant textusa. I know GA book exists in english but in my opinion english speaking blogs like pat brown and textusa with up to date discussion about the case are more effective in spreading the truth

    3. Anonymous 19 Jul 2014 10:42:00,

      Your "GA's book only confirmed what I had read and seen already. I haven't met anybody in the UK who has read it, apart from my relatives as I passed my downloaded translation to them" raises not only a very interesting point but a very RELEVANT one.

      As we are speaking on strictly legal terms, it is a FACT that legally there is no English version of Mr Amaral’s book.

      That has been a matter discussed in court. Various editions in various languages but none in English.

      The internet version is not a legal one and as far as we know, is not endorsed by Mr Amaral.

      If his book has had any relevance to the idea people may feel convinced that Maddie is dead and her parents concealed her body, then it comes mainly from this illegal version of Mr Amaral’s book.

      The internet audience that is interested in this case is vastly English speaking - and with this I’m not minimising the importance of other audiences). And within this audience the UK one constitutes its majority.

      Legally Mr Amaral has nothing to do with the success this illegal version of his book had.

      The TVI documentary did not air in any other country outside Portugal.

      The access to the internet version of the book as well as the visioning of the documentary requires a series of consciously made steps which means that only an insignificant number of people can claim they stumbled on it by accident.

      On the internet the version that Maddie is dead and that her parents helped conceal her body has the same likelihood of being accessed as those versions that defend abduction.

      It’s a personal choice. And Mr Amaral has nothing to do with my personal choices.

  8. OK. After reading the above, I have only one question. Since the McScums cowardly avoided a libel suit, and instead played their legal games to escape having the facts examined in court, why does Mr. Amaral not sue the McScums for every penny they have and every penny in the fund, given that the McScums are on record numerous times accusing Amaral of lying, of distorting the facts, and of publishing the book solely for profit? Isn't this libel? And if the McScums don't agree it's libel, well they'll just have to prove that in court where ALL the facts would then be examined. Am I not right?

    1. Because unfortunately Mr. Amaral cannot afford the "price of the law" what happens with Mr. Bennett in the UK, both have no millionaire fund to sue people left and right, and do not qualify for social services legal assistance. Both in the UK and Portugal, justice is only for those who can afford it...


    2. Nelly (and Anonymous 19 Jul 2014 22:05:00)

      Unfortunately you’re not right.

      Please don’t forget that we’re not speaking what is right but about what is legal. Strictly legal.

      As we have explained in the post, if the McCanns say he’s lying, we all know they’re absolutely wrong but, unfortunately for the truth, they’re legally correct.

      If they say he’s distorting the facts, again, unfortunately, although we know they’re wrong, they’re legally correct. If dispatch says known facts do not allow prosecution then when he says they do, and we all know they do, he’s distorting “legal fact”.

      Add to all this that most what is said the McCanns have said, they haven’t. It’s usually a very convenient and anonymous source close to the family that says them.

      Lastly, Mr Amaral cannot sue McCanns to force them to discuss fact. One cannot be offended by the other part not being offended by our offenses. The discussion of fact has always to be the initiative of the McCanns.

      He has done his share in provoking the discussion and they have avoided as explained in post.

  9. Does Horrocks works for SY review team?

    1. Anonymous 19 Jul 2014 23:07:00,

      We don't think he is.

      Recommend the reading of this post:

    2. The childless couple is just a stupid recycled story.

  10. GA causing damages to search?
    K said recently they needed help from Portugal in the search. So why was Portugal denied rights to screen Crimewatch. The Mcs appeared in the programme and if they had asked for it to be screened in Portugal, who would have refused their request? So who damaged the search by failing to screen CW? Not GA.

    Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral

    Lendo as notícias acerca da última sessão do julgamento fico com a certeza que a grande maioria dos jornalistas desconhece o que ali se está a discutir, e não informaram de forma correta.
    Sejamos claros. O que está em causa é saber:
    - Se a escrita do meu livro “Maddie: A verdade da Mentira” constituiu um acto lícito ou ilícito;
    - Se os autores sofreram danos e se existem factos que os provem;
    - Se é possível estabelecer um nexo de causalidade entre o livro e tais danos.
    È isto que está em causa.
    Quanto à licitude do livro, sugiro a quem tenha dúvidas que leia o acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa no âmbito da providência cautelar que precedeu a acção em causa. Na verdade, para os Ex.mos Senhores Desembargadores, como se pode concluir dessa decisão, a licitude da publicação do livro é incontestável.
    Quero com isto dizer que, com esta comprovada licitude, o assunto deverá ficar por aqui, sem necessidade de se averiguar mais nada, nomeadamente no que respeita aos danos de que os autores se queixam.
    Mas, note-se, mesmo que tal licitude ainda possa estar em causa, haverá, ainda, que estabelecer um nexo de causalidade entre a publicação e os danos de que os autores se queixam, tais como depressões profundas, isolamento social, etc…E, claro está, provar que tais danos, seja qual for a sua origem, existem de facto.
    Quanto à parte social, parece-me óbvio, se atentarmos aos inúmeros eventos sociais em que os autores têm participado, incluindo, pasme-se, discursos no próprio Parlamento Britânico, entrevistas em programas como o Ophra Winfrey, jantares de gala como as mais ilustres personalidades, nomeadamente britânicas, entre muitos outros, o dito afastamento social é totalmente falso.


  12. cont

    Já quanto às depressões, embora, de forma alguma se encontrem provadas no processo, a meu ver, a verdade é que muito estranho seria se não existissem. O desaparecimento de uma filha, esteja morta ou viva, tenha sido ou não raptada, não pode deixar de originar enormes sequelas desse tipo. Muito estranho seria se tal não acontecesse! Mas a este respeito já não digo nada, na medida em que os autores parecem querer imputar-me a mim e ao meu livro todas as suas dores, como se o referido desaparecimento, acrescido da sua constituição como arguidos e demais circunstâncias que rodeiam o caso, só por si, não tivesse qualquer importância, ou não fossem mais do que suficientes!
    Infelizmente, devido a manobras claramente dilatórias da parte dos autores, que obrigaram, mais uma vez, ao adiamento da audiência, receio que o processo se arraste – como eles claramente pretendem -, e não tenhamos sentença proximamente, como eu gostaria e pela qual anseio. Ainda para mais quando se iniciaram já as férias judiciais e, como a Sr.a Juiz bem explicou, com a entrada em vigor do novo mapa judiciário, em 1 de Setembro, a morosidade processual irá agravar-se consideravelmente.
    Da minha parte, porém, mantém-se inabalável a confiança na justiça portuguesa.
    Resta-me agradecer e reconhecer todo o apoio que tenho recebido, por parte de todos aqueles que acreditam na justiça e na verdade, sem o qual não me teria sido possível fazer face ao processo. Nem tampouco, levar-me a ponderar, como estou, intentar um processo contra o casal Mccan e outros, com vista a ser ressarcido dos enormes prejuízos que já me causaram a todos os níveis, tais como morais, profissionais e financeiros.
    Vai sendo tempo de reagir judicialmente contra todos aqueles que têm colocado em causa a minha, privacidade, intimidade, liberdade de expressão, opinião e condições de subsistência.
    Tentaram assassinar-me civilmente, mas, graças ao apoio e solidariedade de todos vós, não conseguiram.
    Muito Obrigado,
    Lisboa 21 de Julho de 2014
    Gonçalo Amaral

    Consultar o acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa:

  13. The translation of Mr Amaral's message:

    Dear friends,

    Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists doesn’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not informed correctly.

    Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:

    - Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;

    - Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;

    - Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.

    This is what is at stake.

    Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

    With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.

    Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.

    Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.


  14. cont

    Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!

    Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish -, and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.

    However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.

    All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.

    The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.

    They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.

    Thank you very much,

    Lisboa July 21st, 2014

    Gonçalo Amaral

  15. Nostradamus has replied in Joana's blog:

    "19/07/2014 09:41

    Hi Textusa! What a pleasant surprise! It is an honour (and a challenge) to explain things to such a distinguished thinker - particularly since, you do it so much better.

    "At some point, she started to jump up and down on the couch, shouting with the control and conviction that a child that age throws a tantrum or defies an adult.

    David Payne must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter."

    Full details at:

    At the time I had at the time difficulty in imagining Payne inflicting pain to Maddie right in front of the mother but... when dealing with the British "nouveau riche" everything is possible.

    I was more inclined to think Gerry had done it afterwards e.g. when little Maddie went on about it and refused to forget Payne's sausage and Mommy's odd behaviour vis a vis the popular item of Greys' Anatomy but of course this was an earlier theory. Full kudos to you, anyway.

    In my humble opinion, the point to remember was Gerry is the one with the butch looks even if bespectacled David may look the more deranged of the two but of course this is all mere speculation. May God bless them both for their table manners at the Mallorca's mansion! AaaaMEN!

    Now concerning my other statement about "paedophilia in Westminster and other high places". I made no allegations, the "Daily Telegraph" did. Please read on:

    Keep up the good work and stay loose!


    1. This is our reply:


      Stop playing with words. This case is filled with the specious use of them. Just like you do.

      You said “With all the news coming out about pedophilia in Westminster and other high places, Textusa's "frankfurter-bockwurst" scenario is nothing but plausible.”

      I’m supposing that the "frankfurter-bockwurst-scenario” refers to my hypothesis of Maddie having interrupted a sex act being performed by her mother and then with all the innocence of her age voicing out in her own words what she must have understood to be just a playful act between adults.

      Nowhere in the theory is it said or implied in any way any act of paedophilia. In your response you confirm that. The alleged act described was exclusively between adults.

      The article you refer to shows “more than 10 current and former politicians are on a list of alleged child abusers held by police investigating claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

      MPs or peers from all three main political parties are on the list, which includes former ministers and household names.”

      Your initial comment links clearly my "frankfurter-bockwurst-scenario”, an act between adults to “paedophilia in Westminster and other high places”

      We fail see any and whatsoever linkage (besides the intentional misleading on your part) that you try to make between high ranking paedophilia and a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking and which is what we think caused Maddie’s death.

      What happened is nothing to do with class. The only thing to do with class is the refusal of some people to contemplate professional people could be involved in such a cover-up.

      If in on my initial theory I did say that I believed that it was DP the one who had that a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking, further analysis have made me, or our team, to not rule out K as a possibility.

      It’s our firm belief that it was one of the 2, DP or K, who had that a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking and only a confession, which we foresee as very unlikely, will solve this uncertainty.

      Lastly, do take into account that although the existence of intimacy does allow an easier flux of humour between parties the forcing of intimacy via patronising humour is always very counter-productive to the forcing party.

      Attempts at humour, multiple aliases, silly rhymes, putting words into mouths, unnecessary academic references... We are familiar with.

    2. Nostradamus has replied at Joana:

      " 22/07/2014 21:48
      Anonymous said... 84

      Textusa said... 81

      "Stop playing with words. This case is filled with the specious use of them. Just like you do."

      If that is what "the investigator" thinks...

      My dear! You sound too tense! I must admit I was bemused by your ex-cathedra comments on my persona but hey! That's what freedom of expression is all about! Well done!

      David Payne happens to be associated with certain comments (Gaspars') which suggest a certain mind-set (paedophilia). This is where my associative process took over and left yours lagging behind - I am sorry about that!

      "Textusa Theory" is so hilarious and memorable exactly because of the stratospheric flight of imagination you made. Unfortunately this is an area where you do not retain the exclusive (far from it) but I will see what I can do.

      In the last analysis, it is Joana's prerogative to publish or not to publish my comments which is one reason I do not comment on your blog - the level of allegiance and censorship there reminds me of Portugal before April 1974.

      So my dear, you go on with your brilliant analytical games and I stick to my counter-reputation management strategies - if you don't mind.

      No animosity implied.


  16. Textusa, am I right in concluding from Gonçalo Amaral's message yesterday on Facebook that he is very confident in winning the case, although he seems desperate about how slow the trial is?

    Maybe it's me misreading his words and being overoptimistic but, from a naive perspective like mine (as I am no legal expert at all), it would indeed seem that the Lisbon Appeals Court decision back in October 2010 practically rules out the question of damages as it clearly states that "The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights" (source: This seems to settle the question, doesn't it? Or is it that the Appeals Court ruling can still be overturned?

    Is it unrealistic to assume that the McCann team have known since October 2010 that they cannot possibly win this case, and have just been playing tactics ever since to avoid the public humiliation of withdrawing the injunction? And to keep sticking in people's minds that the McCanns are being persecuted by the "disgraced policeman" whenever the case reappears in the media?

    Anyway, my best wishes to Gonçalo Amaral. I just hope that he will be remembered worldwide as the admirable man he is. Best wishes to this blog too - definitely the most intelligent and enlightening source about the Maddie case.


    1. Alex,

      Your question is a very complex one.

      We would divide it into 2 parts, which I think you agree with:

      1. Has GA reasons to be confident as he seems to be in his FB message?

      2. Hasn’t the Appeals Court clearly cleared Mr Amaral’s book of any possible damage charges as it decided it didn’t offend the rights of the McCanns and the Supreme Justice Court ratified this decision?

      The first question is relatively easy to answer. Yes, he has every reason to feel confident in victory. The biggest reasons are that he has truth and reason on his side.

      Our pessimism lies only in that Jiminy Cricket’s voice on our shoulder warning us to be wary of the idiosyncrasies of a system that in our opinion only guarantees it can’t be relied upon.

      Add to this something we didn’t mention in the post and that is the peculiar characteristic of the Portuguese to strive to show they are smarter than any other Portuguese. Not more intelligent but smarter. The Portuguese will always find a way to show how differentiated their capability of thought is from their peers. Note, we’re not implying invention but the wanting to show the ability to see what others have failed to see but is indeed there depending on the perspective and angle of sight.

      In decreasing order of logic, to every problem there’s a logical solution, an illogical one, one that wouldn’t even occur to the devil himself and then there’s the Portuguese one. We’re simply afraid that we’re going to get “Portuguese” answers to the questions put to the court that appear have simple and logic answers to them.

      We obviously wish that what we hear is not Jiminy – who is always right – but static from those tin-foiled hats of ours and whenever there’s that sentence from the 1st Instance Court, it will be in favour of Mr Amaral.

      One should always hope for the best (win), expect the expected (win) and never be unprepared for the worst (lose).

      The second question is much more complex. When we read those words we thought the same as you did. However, the claim made by Team McCann MUST have a legal sustainability, however remote, to support it. If that was not the case, then the claim would have been outright rejected, or in the least deemed invalid by the court. If that had been the case there wouldn’t have been any court sessions and, as we know, they did take place.

      Note, the Appeals Court accepts that facts within files are unproven. The novelty is that it also says that they CAN have (not are to have) a different INTERPRETATION which the court thinks legitimate:

      “We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that WERE DEEMED TO BE INSUFFICIENT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, but they CAN BE APPRECIATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, IN AN INTERPRETATION THAT IS LEGITIMATE TO BE PUBLISHED as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.”

      Because of this, the court finds that “the contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights” having before noted that the book “has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour”.

      The Appeals Court is clearly on “fighting-between-rights” grounds. It considered, in our opinion, that taking into account that if the book remained banned in Portugal there were still many other versions, commercial and internet, so that particular object, so to speak, couldn’t by itself be held accountable for offending the rights of the plaintiffs.


    2. (cont.)

      Note that as far as we can see the decision to revoke the injunction is only applicable to the book. Throughout the text of the decision one can read that the documentary is referred to in a differentiated manner but in the decision it is not mentioned at all.

      We assume that the documentary is included in “the other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660, number 2, of the Civil Process Code” reason why in the post we have explicitly said the contents of documentary remain banned.

      Logic would say if Appeals Court considered without any reservations contents of book absolutely and totally offense-free, such considerations should be extended to the documentary.

      The documentary differs, in our opinion, from the book in terms of the latter being a personalised and individual project in quest for reposition of honour and the first can be seen as a mere profit seeking product from a commercial entity, TVI.

      But the words proffered by the Appeals Court are relative to the banning – or defamation – stage of the trial.

      Now, as said, we are at damages (finally we see people have come to realise the importance of the difference).

      Qualify and quantify them and allocate responsibility for them.

      First determine if there are damages to the defendants.

      Second, if there are damages to the defendants, specify which and in what manner they affected the couple and attribute a value of compensation.

      Third, once determined the above, determine in which way each of the 4 defendants are in what way responsible for the proved damages.

      Fourth and last, sentence each defendant with the appropriate compensation penalty.

      If there aren’t any damages the process stops at the first stage. If there are damages but there can’t be done an allocation of responsibility to any of the defendants (for example court finding that there are damages but these originate from others than the defendants) then the process stops at the second stage.

      That is what is in question at the moment.

      Remember one does not have to utter a falsity to cause damages. The truth can damage as well. Take the example of a thief who has done all the time in jail society has sentenced him for his crimes. After having paid his debt to society, insisting on calling him a thief – a proven truth – may indeed cause damages for which he can claim compensations for.

      We consider a victory only if none of the 4 defendants are found guilty. That encompasses not only Mr Amaral and his book but also TVI and the documentary.

      Mr Amaral’s fight, we repeat is NOT the only fight that is relevant. His fight is part of much greater one which we are all part of.

    3. Thank you very much for your thorough reply. At this point of complexity, let us keep our fingers crossed.


  17. Textusa you are brilliant the amount of work you and your team do to uncover the truth is fantastic - we read your new articles here we never miss. You say it how it is. Now the Mccanns have admitted that they have people that check the internet they must live in fear of your articles unravelling their lies and seeking the truth. Thanks x

  18. Unpublished Anonymous at 24 Jul 2014 15:30:00 and at 24 Jul 2014 15:46:00

    We are not publishing your “fairy tale” (per your own words) because it may mislead readers on 2 subjects which the public have been intoxicated with:

    - Mrs Fenn Maddie’s crying episode

    - children left alone in apartment

    Neither happened.

    The blog has been fighting an uphill battle to correct the misinformation caused by these 2 pieces of clutter and we will not concede a single inch of ground conquered.

    However, your story would be of great interest if it had the title “SY’s new version – after the 3 Burglar one melted down”.

    With that title we will be happy to publish it.

    1. Yes, I can see your point here. Maybe the title you suggest should have been the header, so the reader knows they are dealing with a 'fairy tale' until waiting for the punch line at the end.

      It was just my own idea of ridiculing, as you say, the Mrs Fenn account, neglected children, and the 'soothing couple.'

      If you would write that suggested title at the beginning, I hope you will publish it.

      I was going to have the soothing couple carrying her away wrapped in a pink blanket tucked inside a blue tennis bag ....

    2. Anonymous 25 Jul 2014 21:09:00

      Thank you so for understanding.

      Will publish your story in the following comment.

      Just added a “SY’s” in the last sentence. We are sure you will understand.

      Thank you for your participation. Who knows if you don’t have yourself a scoop here?

      By Anonymous 25 Jul 2014 21:09:00

      “One evening in Praia da Luz in early May 2007, a lovely childless couple happened to stroll down the street past an apartment block. The only audible sounds were emanating from a nearby Tapas bar as a group of adults laughed, joked and appeared to be answering quiz question in loud, alcohol-fuelled voices.

      Suddenly, the lady with the barren womb, grabbed her husband’s arm. 'Hey, do you hear that?'
      'Yes, I can hear some loud-mouth Scotsman shouting for football questions,' he answered.
      'No, not that. I can hear a child crying.'
      They stood silently for a few seconds. Then the woman's concerns were realized as what sounded like a young child cried and sobbed.
      'Oh, honey. She's in there,' she said, pointing to a darkened end apartment.

      The husband shrugged. 'Her parents are probably in bed and will go to her soon enough.' They stood listening for at least another five minutes. The child's crying was showing no signs of abating.
      The woman, by now close to tears said, 'I think the child is in their all alone.'
      'Don't be daft, her husband said, 'who'd leave a baby all alone at night?' As he spoke, he faced the Tapas bar area and wondered whether he should go over and ask the loud people if it happened to be their apartment ... 'Hey, what you doing?' he shouted to his wife who had climbed the stairs leading to the patio door of the apartment and was peering into the dark apartment.

      By the time the husband had joined her she had slid the door open. 'I don't believe it. It's unlocked,' she said, he voice breaking.
      Now the door was open, the child's crying sounded twice as loud. The woman grasped her husband's hand and pulled him through into the apartment and slid the door closed behind her.

      Deciding against switching a light on, they made their way to the room containing the crying child. The quick-thinking man filled a glass with water and dampened a tea towel then followed his wife into the bedroom.

      To say they were shocked and appalled at the sight of THREE children in the bedroom would be an understatement.

      'Oh dear. Come on, little girl,' the woman said in a soothing voice. 'Where's your mummy.'
      'Probably out on the piss,' her husband said under his breath.

      The woman picked the child up and cuddled her, using the damp tea towel to dry her eyes and mop her brow. The little girl gulped the glass of water.
      The woman asked her where her parents were.
      In her child-like way, she told them that they were supposed to be checking on them every half-hour but they hadn't been in for at least two hours.

      'Oh dear. That's awful,' the woman lamented. 'If you were my little girl, I'd NEVER leave you.'
      The girl sniffed and put her head on the lady's shoulder.
      'Hey honey. These other two haven't stirred once since we've been here. It's as if they've been drugged or something.'

      By now, the child had fallen back to sleep and the soothing woman gently placed her back in bed and covered her up.
      They crept back out of the apartment and hung around just outside the Tapas bar entrance for at least ten minutes in the hope of seeing someone, maybe the child's parents coming back to check on them ... nobody came.

      Two days later, the soothing couple, having mused over the situation every waking hour came to a joint decision. They decided to walk past the apartment again, and if they heard the child crying, they were going to enter the apartment and whisk her away to a better life where she would be loved and cherished, and would never be left on her own again ...

      ... and you know what, class? That's exactly what happened. They nipped in the apartment, picked her up, and took her home to their huge mansion in Switzerland where they lived ... happily ... ever .... after.

      And so ends today's SY’s fairy tale.”

    4. We would also like to take this opportunity to also say we don't agree she was taken off in a tennis bag. We think she left the apartment in the arms of her father just as described by Jane Tanner with the following two exceptions:

      - first, is that according to her “official version” she says she sees Bundleman cross the top of street while we say she saw Gerry leaving, in the exact same direction, via back gate;

      - second, in her “official version” she says she’s walking up the road when she sees Bundleman while we say she sees Gerry carrying Maddie from inside apartment 5A.

    5. Then the missing blue bag must have had been used to take away any compromising materials, like cleaning products, cloths, etc. It disappeared (and laterits existence even denied by Clarence Mitchell, if I recall correctly) for some reason...

    6. And we agree with you, Anonymous 25 Jul 2014 23:01:00.

      We only say it disappeared from crime scene but hasn't disappeared at all. We believe it is being kept somewhere for future use.

      I don't normally swear in writing but this is shite.

    8. I think the caring couple is the only scenario left for SY to consider.
      But it's just too ridiculous.

    After a search by the public

  20. Hi Textusa
    You suggest the blue bag is being kept somewhere for future use..
    That really intrigues me.. would you mind expanding on that at sometime in the future? Being kept by Team McCann?

    1. Anonymous 26 Jul 2014 19:04:00,

      The blue bag we’re referring to is the one that was photographed by PJ on the night of the crime and then disappeared that same night in another photograph.

      Present in one photograph and missing in another, like the beige fabric, which we suppose are trousers, that was lying on the parent’s bed.

      That night Gerry’s showed twice an exaggerated show of emotion by kneeling down into a muslim-prayer like position sobbing – completely out of character as later – which could only have been, in our opinion, to call for attention in a distractive manoeuvre to allow someone else to sneak out the apartment what was there and shouldn’t have been: the tennis bag and the beige pants.

      Why wasn’t the bag supposed to be in apartment? Because, in our opinion, it contained material soiled with Maddie’s blood.

      As we don’t think anything was destroyed that evening, we are sure the bag was kept for future use, if needed. Unlike the body, it does exists so can always be conveniently be dug up and found to everyone’s “surprise” with its overwhelming evidence against the T9.

    2. I don't understand. If the bag was taken by one of T9 why/how would it be used later as overwhelming convenient evidence against T9? If it's been buried by that lot, couldn't it be used as covenient evidence of abductor/murderer?

    3. Anonymous 28 Jul 2014 19:31:00,

      The bag, in our opinion, was indeed taken out of the apartment by one of the T9. It wasn't buried by anyone. It most likely, not to say for sure, joined the body that night.

      After that it was most likely wooshed to UK and where it is currently stored, in our opinion.

      The digging scenario we have put forward would be theatrics. It would be brought over from UK, buried somewhere near the apartment and then be "accidentally" found (because someone would have denounced or confessed).

      As we think it contains clothes belonging to the T9 as well as rags used to clean the blood, it can only incriminate the T9.

      T9 have abductor with some sort of superpower and SY burglar with nonsensical human behaviour but neither have ventured to the possibility of abductor/burglar cleaning up apartment.

    4. Thank you, but sorry still don't get it. If someone confesses, why the need for theatrics? Surely the game's up on confesssion. Also why would T9 store such incriminating evidence? Surely it would have been destryoed asap.

    5. Anonymous 28 Jul 2014 20:15:00,

      It wouldn't because that bag is the only piece of hard evidence against the T9 the establishment has to accuse them beyond any reasonable doubt.

    6. Hi Textusa - thanks for giving your thoughts regarding the blue bag. So from what you say, if I understand correctly, the bag is now probably in the hands of the establishment, to be used when and if required..
      Thanks again

    7. Let's see if i've got this right.
      Tapas 9 take bag.
      Bag taken back to Blighty.
      Establishment apprehend bag.
      Bag kept by establishment.
      Establishment await right moment to take back to Portugal to bury and 'dicover'.
      Bag and contents used as evidence to nail T9.
      Why not use the evidence right now?

    8. Anonymous 29 Jul 2014 11:53:00,

      We think you have answered your own question when you say "Establishment await right moment to..."

    9. I haven’t come to any conclusions about the blue tennis bag. The dogs alerted to the wardrobe where the blue bag was shown in a photo so can we assume the dogs didn’t alert to the bag or it would have been taken for DNA testing by PJ?
      DP says something very strange in his statement about G’s bag not being big enough to HIDE a tennis racket in so he obviously had the bag in mind for holding a body but didn’t manage to stop himself starting the sentence. Even if it had been used before cadarverine developed the blood dog would have picked up the smell of blood?
      Do we know for certain the PJ didn’t take it after it was photographed?

    10. Anonymous 29 Jul 2014 12:28:00,

      Dog alerted for cadaverine in area of closet nearest to wall. Bag was photographed in closet nearest to door.

      We believe that blood dog did not pick up any scent in parents’ bedroom, only cadaverine one.

      Also, we find difficult for closet to be contaminated if body was inside tennis bag. Just an amateur guess that there would be too many layers of different types of fabric between body and wood. And if cadaverine had seeped through so would have blood.

      We believe that body was laid down in closet, already cleaned and ready for transportation. To be transported, as we think it was, like Tanner describes Bundleman.

      All objects collected for forensic evidence are listed in the files. It includes the garage couches which we don’t know to who they belonged to – recently taken to have belonged to Sergey Malinka but that as far as we know may be true but is nonetheless speculation.

      No ref to sports bag or beige trousers. As far as we could see, only cloth taken for analysis from apartment is from living room curtains (stain 16).

      Also a tennis racquet officially has the max length of 29”. The average length of one used by an adult is of 26”. A 4yr old child is on average 38-41”. The difference is of 11-15”. To bend the legs to fit presents a volumetric problem for which the bag is not prepared for.

      If the body was carried in that blue bag that would mean authorities had been called with body inside apartment. And that it was still there on arrival of PJ. Remember that first on scene was GNR and only then PJ.

    11. Other suggestion about Gerry's performance is that it was distraction whilst twins moved back into apartment.

      We don’t believe this to be so. If any agent of authority saw empty cots and later see babies in them it would be an oddity that would have been reported. Like Gerry’s performances were.

      To sneak the twins behind the authorities back would have been not only risk but an reasonable assumption agent wouldn’t have noticed empty cots in a room from where a child had been abducted from.

    12. sorry textusa, but I don't think I've answered my own question.

      I'm assuming you are saying that the police have confiscated the bag from T9 and 'kept for future use'.

      If such a thing happened he police would not wait a second the evidence , together with ather evidence such as the dogs, and McCann's denial of athe existence of a blue bag, would be air-tight, I'd have thought. T9 would be toast.
      There'd be no need for 'theatrics'. If you mean something else then wer're obviously not on the same wave length.

    13. Anonymous 29 Jul 2014 21:15:00,

      Please do not confuse "establishment" with "police". The "police" are pieces on the board. The establishment moves pieces, not only the police ones.

      What we're saying is that establishment is awaiting for the right moment to tell police to "find" the bag.

  21. Textusa - I see the JH forum is discussing an upcoming release of Anthony Summers book on the case. What are your views on it. Surely books like the trash books wrote by collins and the like had a sell by date when the McCanns and were running high in the popularity stakes. Is this a final attenpt by the BHs to save the day or do you expect a more objective overview of the facts

    1. Anonymous 28 Jul 2014 12:16:00,

      Any truthful account of the events of May 3rd 2007 are welcomed by us. Be it from Anthony Summers or from anybody else.

      Truth, as it is indeed true, resists all analysis, withstands all questions and most importantly provides all answers.

      If ever we are to find ourselves in a situation where truth denies what we have deemed to have been what really happened that night – accidental death not related to but within a context of a swinging event – it will because it will have shown us where we were wrong. Clearly and objectively.

      If and when that day happens, due to both the intellectual and moral honesty we struggle never to betray and the respect we have for our readers, we will explain, clearly and objectively, where we were wrong and why we were wrong.

      Truth never offends. Truth never defeats those truly seeking it without secret interests or hidden agendas.

      Not talking about the forthcoming Summers’ version but about any version. Including his if it reveals to be truthful.

      However the phrase, taken from Amazon, about his book “speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded” just about says it all.

      Apparently Mr Summers appears to have some credentials. So has JK Rawlings who has openly supported the McCanns and until public retraction and apologies will forever have her name linked to them. Like many other “serious” celebrities/personalities.

      Credentials or not, we believe it won’t take more than 5 minutes to be taken apart.

      We think it’s rather dim-witted to side with the McCanns at the moment but who is to stop someone from being utterly stupid?

      To answer your question directly, we think this is another character wanting to make a buck out of Maddie thinking the case will forever be a never ending story and hasn’t understood what currently is exactly at stake nor of what is really going on.

      Even if it is a move by the BH to counter-attack what seems to be an unstoppable offensive against the McCanns, it’s a rather weak card to play at the stage the game is at, so equally stupid if that is the case.

      We think of greater relevance and of more literately importance than Anthony Summers’ book the insult-free articles published by the Sun and Daily Mail regarding Mr Amaral going to sue the McCanns.

      These 2 very important articles show how the establishment, with the help of the media, is showing the BH very clearly that the tide has indeed changed and the dam will not hold much longer, so better let go of the McCann sooner than later as consequences with passing of time will only aggravate, instead of diminishing as they have expected up to now.

      Mr Amaral has shown resilience and determination. He has demonstrated he will keep fighting even if he wins the courts decision this fall (or winter?).

      Also, Portugal, as the June fiasco has shown painfully clear, is no longer controllable. Whatever happens there, happens there.

      What is now a huge embarrassment will soon become an unsustainable and unjustifiable one.

      It is now time to choose those who will have to step forward and face public fury together with the McCanns.

      From the silence we have witnessed from DP-gang, suggests this lot has resigned to their fate. They, like the rest of the T9 and the PdL ex-Pat clique will have to wait to know what their fate is to be. All of them are small fish in this pond. The decision centre is way upstream.

    2. Summers rubbished
      Seems his former colleague not impressed.

    3. Summers says he obtained info from bloggers claiming he was a journalist. Asked disingenuous questions, when the book seems to have already been written. Obtained views of McCann's or their family, so must have assured them it would contain nothing negative about them before it was completed.
      M is a lucrative source of revenue it seems.
      I exclude GA from that, as he has been financially ruined and his book was written to defend his reputation.
      Summers does not seem to let facts get in the way of a good story, according to Tom Mangold.
      But are the public still interested in the search, after the SY fiasco? Only a book which claimed to solve the mystery would be a best seller.


    To all those who demonised this man, we recommend a minute of reflection.

    To all those in the media who helped society demonise this man, who exploited (and continue to exploit) the sufferance of the families of the victims with empty hopes, who vehemently condemned an activity (praxis) – however stupid it may be – practiced by and between consenting adults, we won’t recommend anything. We know you will do it again. And again. And again.

    When watching the re-enactment made by TVI (based on what, as we’re sure the lone survivor didn’t speak to the) and watching those volunteers lined up by the sea we remember thinking what if, by a huge fluke, a wave surprised all and engulfed them all to death, would TVI be accused of silly, dangerous, cruel and unthinkable praxis?

    So why accuse the man the way they did?

    Time for reflection. Time for reflection.

    “Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details made public yet.”


    If this is true, and we feel it is (will wait for confirmation) then it is VERY IMPORTANT! So VERY IMPORTANT! Of CRUCIAL and DECISIVE IMPORTANCE.

    Thank you Zora McCartney at FB:

  24. Do you think they know the games up and this is a last ditch attempt , in fact an open threat, to expose others? Are they hoping Murdoch will pay as it may be an easier option than going to court? Like you, I was very positive last night, but corruption in this establishment is such that I'm not at all confident today.

    1. Same here - echo your thoughts

    2. Anonymous 2 Aug 2014 08:47:00,

      Please do not confuse relevance with optimism. Not that we’re not, we are. But we are also very aware that this is a game and for some reason it’s in its fourth year.

      Look at it this way. If this is true, it’s like looking at the chess column on the Sunday paper.

      Week after week we have been reading only things like “White is two pieces up, his queen is hanging while Black also threatens to capture on h1 and to give discovered check with the knight on f2. Which move keeps White’s advantage?”

      Yesterday we read: “Kh8 saves Black from mate in 3 - mate in 5.”

      That’s how important we think the news were. If they are true.

      But, never forget, it isn’t over until the big beautiful woman sings.

    3. Also, Murdoch has money to burn, unlike poor Dr Amaral. All he has is his honour, dignity and our total respect. I sincerely hope he will finally be successful against this pair of utterly dispicable people.

    4. I see your point. Most astute, Textusa.

    5. Textusa - Don't understand chess but have being googling your references. Am I correct in saying "Doomed peices, know they are doomed and want to take as many as possible with them"

    6. Anonymous 5 Aug 2014 13:42:00,

      Sorry, but have to say you're not correct. In our opinion, that is.

      Hope to provide a complete answer to your question soon. As you know, currently team is split up and some are quite hard to contact which makes coordination a hard thing to do.

    7. Thanks Textusa - Can't wait ....all sounds good

    Shows suing was on their mind BEFORE GA book?
    He should see this!

  26. David Cameron and family on holidays in the Algarve! And two years in a row!
    NOT an unsafe holiday destination for families, then...? NOT a place crawling with paedophiles, thieves, child snatchers?!

  27. Another defence for GA hindering investigation is Ks refusal to answer questions, in spite of being warned it could hinder the investigation and her reply of yes, if that's what PJ think

  28. We think we need to clarify about the term "sub-child" as some twitters are using it to describe child carried by Smithman.

    We ask those who subscribe our theories to use term "decoy-child" when referring to Jane Tanner's child being carried by Gerry to distinguish it from ridiculous story of a substitute child used to cover murder of Maddie.

    Thank you.

  29. Richard Hall's Buried by Mainstream Media has to be viewed and everyone has to see this, particularly Andy Redwood. For people new to the case, a real eye opener. And no clutter, Textusa.

  30. Twitter is alive with this. Why has noone watched or commented here?

    1. Anonymous 9 Aug 2014 18:10:00,

      Cannot speak on behalf of readers but as for us when we see a serious challenge to the dining/neglect scenario, we will really sit up and take notice.

    2. I don't understand your comment/attitude. You debunked neglect, rightly so. Hall doesn't mention it because it is irrelevant. I think these four programmes are excellent. They set out the facts. Yes, there are some inconsistencies (BRT) omitted, but there are so many included I think it is a real step forward. We have been immersed in this for seven years. Hall's programmes are a real wake up call for people who haven't. I also have always believed that what is being covered up is a lot more significant than a member of the establishment involved in a swinging scenario. I was persuaded by these programmes that Payne's visit may not have taken place at all. Think about it Text.

    3. Anonymous 9 Aug 2014 21:24:00,

      "I was persuaded by these programmes that Payne's visit may not have taken place at all."

      Is it possible for you to please explain why it persuaded you that the visit didn't place?

      Thank you

    4. The visit, or rather the account of the visit, given by Payne, G and K McCann is full of the usual inconsistencies as we all know. However, the most important reason for stating that it did take place is simply to persuade that Madeleine was still alive at this time. I am saying that. Richard Hall didn't. I was persuaded listening to Payne's hesitant account of it being read. Together with the photoshopped "last picture" and the cleaning of 5a, I am persuaded that death came earlier than that evening. The programme didn't convince me of that, it just fell into place in my mind watching it. Also, as I have said before, I believe the key to all this lies in Madeleine's medical records. I hope you have found time to watch all four programmes by now. Teddy Shephard has now posted them all on his Only in America blog, so it's easy for everyone to access them there. I watched them on blip tv where there was no buffering problem, as there sometimes is on You Tube. The most important thing about these programmes is that they set out the facts clearly so anyone still of the mind to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt can see how mistaken they were.

    5. P.S. They are now also available on the McCann Files. Nigel has posted them late last night or this morning.

    6. Anonymous 10 Aug 2014 08:48:00,

      The fact that one lies about how one has stolen a cookie doesn’t mean one hasn’t stolen one. Inconsistencies do not invalidate events.

      Not seeing how one can extrapolate from Hall’s videos why the visit didn’t exist. It’s enough to read that one says it lasted 30 seconds and the other 30 minutes to see an immediate inconsistency. It only means both aren’t telling the truth about how things happened and not that they didn’t happen.

      However discrepancies do help to find truth once one understands the reasons for them to have been made.

      You seem to subscribe death before the 3rd. We would like to know if you believe that Philip Edmonds lied when he said he saw Maddie in the afternoon of the 3rd? And the crèche workers?

      About the cleaning. We believe a general cleaning was done between TOD (18.15-18.30, May 3) up until somewhere around 20.30. This was done by the T9. Nothing too fancy. Like cleaning spilt milk before visits arrive and not notice there was ever milk on the floor. Afterwards, the “6-cleaner” team came and cleansed apartment free of DNA. Or almost.

      We debunked neglect, but it's irrelevant? Hmm. Take away the mythical neglect and checking routine and what do you have left? Think about it.

      The “last picture”, which we agree was photoshoped, in our opinion has only the intent of showing a family time that didn’t exist. Maddie spent her time on that holiday “stored” away at crèche. It has little importance to the case but we’re finding very interesting the interest it has generated. Will return to it one of these days.

      As for Hall, the thorough investigator, can anyone tell us what he’s trying to show at exactly 36:45 of video 1?

      We did note the very, very specious use of Clarence Mtichell’s quote “My job was to… control what comes out of the media”. Does Media Control Centre have daily meetings at, say 03.00 am, with all papers so they are able to get the green light from government before hitting the presses?

      MCC does an errand for the Prime-Minister. It filters for him what are the most important news of the day. A necessary errand but nonetheless just an errand. To attribute any sort of power to someone who ran daily the risk getting his ears clipped for missing something the Prime-Minister would find important, is ridiculous.

      We have watched the videos but are not prepared to promote Hall, as his views on other subjects remind us of Icke, who we also declined to promote.

    7. If anyone asks what we mean about not promoting Hall after giving a link, we wanted to show what he believes about other issues is not something we want to promote. If readers believe the same things as he does, there are other blogs where they can comment.

      The videos are now promoted by other blogs and people can make their own judgements about them. As far as we can see, they assemble known information without any new facts.

      In that respect, the McCanns won't be happy that a condensed and simplified version of what is alleged to have happened is now easy to access.

      Which is what they complained about with GA's book.

      For that reason alone, we won't condemn the videos.

    8. Of course inconsistencies do not invalidate events. As I have already stated, I did not "extrapolate" from these videos that Payne's visit did not exist. And as I also already said, I believe the reason for this lie was to establish that Madeleine was seen alive at that time. I agree with you about Hall's other interests, which, as will be the case with most people, I was unaware of until after I watched these yesterday. You have, however, now highlighted this. This does not detract from the importance of these videos in giving many people a clearer picture of this case. Not everyone knows enough about this case. If I have got the correct point in film 1 that you refer to, Hall is again highlighting inconsistences - was it warm or was it cold, was she in bed under the covers or lying on top of them? Whether or not Payne visited may be irrelevant just as whether or not the tapas group were involved in swinging activities. I believe only the McCanns - one or both of them - were present when or shortly after Madeleine died. I have thought that since the early interview Gerry gave where he said that nothing was as bad as when they found her .....then quickly corrects it to add missing (or gone).
      As for Mitchell's reference to "control what comes out of the media", surely everyone in the UK is now aware that the msm has always been used to influence and control the public's opinions? I'm unsure what you are trying to say in the penultimate paragraph so can't comment on that. As I have said, I think the key lies in the medical records that noone has access to.
      Anyway, let's hope for more news soon about the McCanns' proposed action against the Times, and also for a good outcome for Goncalo Amaral in September. Whether or not the McCanns are ever brought to court, at least for fraud, what they have done condemns them for the rest of their lives.

    9. I took from video 2 that DP spent so much time fixating on the children and the kids that it was almost like he was trying to convince that not only where the kids there but they were content and happy. Like there is no way that kate would have harmed them because they were such beautiful well behaved children. So i think not that the visit didnt happen but that he has it so etched in his memory that something happened to the child in his presence that he has to over compensate in his assertion that this was a happy loving environment. Me thinks you protest too much. Agree that videos bring a lot of information together in a cohestive way .

    10. Listening to the words being spoken on video 2 from the interview by DP with regards his visit was astonishing from an intelligent man. I know that being a doctor his academic ability is unquestionable but really it was like listening to my 6 year old grandson explaining in a long rambling story that a broken plate flew out of the cupboard on its own. I’m just at a loss to explain it. I mean I’m certain he would know that any police officer worth his salt would have seen straight through what he was trying to convey, if he had prepared what he was going to say. Do you think Textusa that he was so traumatised by the memory of what happened that he has been reduced to a bumbling eejit just talking about it?
      If the purpose of DP and KM interviews was to convince everyone that the child was alive at that time I do not feel that the KM story that he stuck his head around the door for 30 seconds would have fulfilled that purpose, DP in that scenario would not have possibly provided enough certainty that she was there. I have always thought that they were all caught up in trying to cover every scenario that they bungled a lot of what was said. I think that the McCanns at least would have avoided saying the visit happened at all but perhaps they knew somebody had seen them. Maybe somebody like the Smiths who they thought would come forward but didn’t

    11. Anonymous 11 Aug 2014 11:20:00,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Dr Payne does not seem to be a man who traumatises easily but I may be wrong. He didn't seem traumatised to anyone in the days following when shock would have been expected.

      One has to love him not remembering whether he to the visit before or after going all the way to his apartment and change for tennis while remembering distinctly how everyone was dressed and how happy they were.

      It happens to me all the time. I can never remember if I have breakfast before or after I wake up.

      As they say, the weight of a conscience is so heavy that sometimes it squashes all reason out of a person.

  31. Lost energy to watch anything after first Hall video

    1. I cannot see the point of your comment or why you would choose to post this. I hope you had a good night's sleep and find the time and energy to watch these excellent programmes soon.

    2. Anon
      Sorry I was a bit unfair to Hall about losing energy to watch his other videos, but I was expecting some revelations. It's useful to have some known facts assembled about inconsistencies. I will look at the other videos but I haven't seen any reports that note new revelations, but have read there are a few errors.

    3. Anonymous 10 Aug 2014 08:29:00,

      If you are also Anonymous 9 Aug 2014 21:24:00, we really would like to know in what way Hall makes you think encounter didn't exist.

    4. I submitted my reply to that earlier, Text. My PS that you published was submitted about ten minutes after it

    5. Apologies,

      The comment went into spam comment in Blogger folder. Thank you for the heads up. It is now published (Anonymous 10 Aug 2014 08:48:00)


    Sir Cliff Richard's home searched by police

    Police are searching a Berkshire property belonging to Sir Cliff Richard in relation to an alleged historical sex offence.

    A number of items were removed from the property in the Sunningdale area for further investigation, but no arrests have been made.

    A police spokesman said the allegation involved a boy under 16 and dated from the 1980s in the South Yorkshire area.

    The search is not connected to Operation Yewtree, police said.

    But officers from that operation have been notified, a South Yorkshire Police spokesman added.

    Sir Cliff, born Harry Webb, is one of the most successful British musicians of all time.

    He has sold 21.5 million singles - more than any other male British artist - and is the only performer to have had at least one UK top five album in each of the last seven decades.

    He has represented the UK in the Eurovision song contest twice and in 2013 released the 100th album of his career.

    He was knighted in 1995 and performed at the Queen's Diamond Jubilee concert at Buckingham Palace in 2012.

    1. Wondering when his name would appear.
      And he has a place in Portugal. Didn't he open the Batista supermarket as a celeb?


      Cliff Richard's home searched by police investigating sexual abuse claim

      Singer says allegation, which dates back to 1980s and involves boy aged under 16, is 'completely false'

      Vikram Dodd, Thursday 14 August 2014 13.22 BST

      Detectives investigating a claim of a "sexual nature" have searched a property belonging to Sir Cliff Richard.

      The home in Sunningdale in Berkshire was searched after police gained a warrant.

      The allegation dates back to the 1980s and involves a boy who was aged under 16 at the time. Richard said the claim was "completely false".

      The claim is that the alleged abuse took place on the child in the South Yorkshire area in the 1980s, a police spokesperson said. Because of where the alleged incident took place, the investigation is being carried out by South Yorkshire police.

      In a statement South Yorkshire police said: "South Yorkshire police has gained entry to a property in the Sunningdale area of Berkshire. Officers are currently searching the property.

      "A search warrant was granted after police received an allegation of a sexual nature dating back to the 1980s involving a boy who was under the age of 16 at the time.

      "No one has been arrested and the owner of the property was not present."

      Richard said in a statement: "For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online. The allegations are completely false.

      "Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

      "However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

      "I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will co-operate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

      "Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."

      The execution of the search warrant was assisted by officers from the Thames Valley force, within whose area Sunningdale falls.

      South Yorkshire's inquiry is being led by Det Supt Matt Fenwick.

      Police were unable to say immediately why a property belonging to Richard was being searched, whether he would be interviewed, or whether he was a witness or a suspect or uninvolved.

      Richard, 73, is one of the most successful British recording artists and has enjoyed a career that has spanned several decades.

      Police say the search is not connected to Operation Yewtree, established after revelations over the Jimmy Savile scandal, which is being run by the Metropolitan police.

      No representative for Richard was available to comment immediately. The star is reported to be at a holiday home in Portugal.


      Aug 14, 2014 14:20

      AS police search a property belonging to Sir Cliff Richard in relation to the alleged sexual assault of a boy in the 1980s, the star has released a statement.

      HERE is the statement by Sir Cliff Richard in full:

      "For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online. The allegations are completely false.

      "Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

      However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

      "I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will co-operate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

      "Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."

    4. Anon 15.12

      “7. Re: Rua Sir Cliff Richard
      28 August 2012, 18:39
      He does a lot of bottle signings for both Apolonia and recently was up at Baptista in Praia da Luz.”

    5. This made me laugh:
      With presumption of innocence at this stage.

    6. Anonymous 14 Aug 2014 16:55:00

      Thank you! Will use image very soon!!

      Cliff missing from Missing People!

  33. Textusa what do you make of Martin Smith commenting on Richard Halls site saying he only knew murat by sight . Do you think its genuine. I know people from his home town and they dont know him.They know people that know him and they say he keeps a low profile and would never discuss. All of a sudden he isending e mails to a public forum. !!!!!!!!. Also surely if he is the main witness in the case SY would have asked him not to discuss.

    1. Anonymous 14 Aug 2014 22:08:00,

      Only Richard Hall is in a position to decide if this is the genuine Martin Smith.

      We don't know how well he knew Robert Murat.

      If he is the genuine Martin Smith, he has made his position clear very publicly. If he isn't, then the genuine Martin Smith could take legal action if someone is purporting to be him.


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.