Friday, 15 August 2014

Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes

(picture from here)

01 Aug 2014 03:57: “Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details made public yet.”


https://twitter.com/_dandouglas/status/495161266940678145

If this is true, let us congratulate whoever came up this brilliant move on behalf of David Cameron’s interests in the Maddie Affair.

We did think about how Mr Cameron could come out of this a hero and struggled to find a way and out of the blue someone goes and slaps us with a solution not only for him but for Rupert Murdoch as well!

A solution that makes BOTH of them come out as absolute victors! That has to deserve, and does, one huge “well done” from us! If true, we repeat.

And the delicious thing is… we at Textusa are the ONLY ones who can congratulate this!

All those who pretend to be looking the other way cannot have a reasonable explanation as to what is going on. For them, this little car (McCanns) has simply decided to drive against a locomotive (The Times/Rupert Murdoch) with the intent of pushing it back down the line.

If you believe a car can push an incoming train, please do NOT try this at home! If you “believe” in it, well, there’s not much one can do when before self-inflicted “beliefs”, is there?

For all others blogs/forums the McCanns are that almighty powerful couple who because they hold some sort of humongous secret have brought UK to its knees all by themselves. The almighty powerful McCanns can and have achieved all in 7 years. According to them, that is.

And if that is so, then the The Times has to be afraid. Very afraid. Because those who can singlehandedly bring a country to its knees can certainly take on one of its papers. So we cannot understand why these people say that the McCanns stand no chance against Murdoch.

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Mr Murdoch is the one to be afraid, after all, according to them, the McCanns are the ones who control the nation and that includes the courts!

Either the McCanns are powerful, mightily so, and are able to face whomever with the greatest ease, or they aren’t and that makes us right, it was never them holding UK hostage all these years.

We, as you know, say the McCanns are simply a couple of nobodies who found themselves at the centre of a hurricane which they indeed started but never, ever controlled. We have stated very clearly that we think them to be mere pieces on a board. Minor pieces.

We have been exposing the McCanns for the narcissistic little nobodies they always were once decided, not by them, the abduction hoax was the way to go on that early evening of May 3rd 2007.

We have also read that the McCanns must be doing this because the fund is depleted and the absolutely overambitious couple have gone for the biggest source of replenishment possible. That makes as much sense as a hungry hyena deciding to go and get some food right from the lion’s mouth while he’s chewing it!

It may be on the brink of death by starvation but knows that each minute it breathes, it’s a minute it is indeed still breathing. Fools are fools and the crazy are crazy but not even a foolishly crazy hyena would be that lunatic. Unless it wanted to commit suicide. But then it wouldn’t be about the food.

Suicide. Do keep the word in mind, it will come useful later. No, we’re not implying any sort of physical violence or harm, self-inflicted or not, to the McCanns. As you’ll see there’s a context in which we want to use the word.

Like everyone else we also see this trial (McCann v The Times), if true, as little David defying Goliath to a duel under the scorching Sun.

But apparently we are the only ones to be able to see that this time the slingshot does not hold a stone but a raw egg. To make certain no damage is caused in case the David repeats the feat and hits Goliath’s forehead with it. This time, no one wants to see Goliath hurt.

The Times is owned by Mr Murdoch. Who owns The Sun. The Sun where the likes, among others, Lazzeri & Kelly work. Antonella & Lorraine, 2 fierce cats who one got the feeling would throw themselves under a train to protect the couple.

The Sun, we don’t need to remind anyone, lead the campaigns in protecting the McCanns and slandering Amaral. With a little help from NOTW. And Sky News. All owned by Rupert Murdoch.

So this is more than biting the hand that is feeding us but more like the sawing, between us and the tree, of the highest branch of the tallest hyperion on which one is sitting on.

Sheer folly. Not just crazy folly but an absolutely unreasonable and illogical one. Or suicide.

But what do people say when seeing a car heading straight towards an incoming train? They say the car stands no chance.

Really? Talk about stating the obvious.

It’s like me saying if I drop this rock it will most likely fall. It’s not likely, it’s certain. That car will be smashed to smithereens by the train. That is evident. That is obvious. That is certain.

The real question is to ask what THAT car is doing on THAT track driving on purpose towards THAT train and heading straight for THAT more than obvious doom.

Because, just looking at the proposed scenario, THAT car can only be THERE for one of two reasons: a viciously allergic reaction to the slightest sign of sanity or suicide.

We know the McCanns aren’t mad and we don’t think they’re suicidal. So which is it? It has to one or the other but we know it’s neither.

Let’s go back in time a little.

We think Mr Cameron was, and rightfully so, really upset for having been convinced, in our opinion, by Rebekah Brooks, to reopen the case because it would be “slam-dunk”.

Both Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks overlooked that although both were indeed Deciders in 2010/2011 neither of them were back in 2007/2008.

Mr Cameron wasn’t in power then so we imagine he was informed of the affair in its largest chunks and once he reached power he wasn’t adequately briefed on it. After all, it was just one more story of upper-class peccadilloes as so many others going around – and this one didn’t involve paedophilia – and a Prime-Minister has much more important things to worry about.

Mrs Brooks forgot that time and circumstances had made her evolve in this affair from a Monkey to a Decider. In 2007/2008 she was just a Monkey, away from the real decision centres. More than a Monkey she was an Enabler, a Media Enabler. Then, in our opinion, she was simply told to have NOTW back up the McCanns and slander Mr Amaral and PJ and she did a pretty good job.

The result was, as both so bitterly found out, that it wasn’t a “slam dunk” case at all.

So Mr Cameron was upset. Really upset. As we said, justifiably so.

So he lashed out at Rebekah Brooks’s boss, Rupert Murdoch. We think it’s natural for him to have thought he had been played by Mr Murdoch via Mrs Brooks and so acted on it.

The scandal originated by the phone hacking of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone – exposed by Nick Davies of Guardian – presented itself, in our opinion, as the opportunity for that.

Leveson was set up and the McCanns were invited to join the bandwagon as victims of false press stories.

Mr Murdoch was treated like a common delinquent at that Leveson circus where he felt forced to go through the humiliation of showing how badly Alzheimer affects those without Alzheimer.

NOTW had to shut down in a hurry, didn’t it? That’s how upset Mr Cameron was, in our opinion.

We think Mr Cameron realised that Mrs Brooks had no bad intentions. She only wanted to make a bundle of money for News Corp out of Maddie. Even more than it had already made. We do think that her suggestion and Mr Cameron’s acceptance of it were the result of sheer ignorance on both their parts.

The fighting between David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch came to a truce because when two lions fight it’s the pack of hyenas who profit and the lions know that well.

Things between them stopped at having only Coulson take the fall.

Rather little after the expectations created by the self-closing of an entire newspaper but we have grown accustomed to see Lady Justice being very duplicitous: one stern schoolmistress to us common folks and just a smiling red-painted lip easy wench when it comes to you powerful.

Once that “little” quibble was behind them, Mr Cameron had to concentrate on how to get out of the Maddie predicament he had got himself into. He, in our opinion, realised very quickly that he was in a fight with a pack of hyenas who were determined to not concede a single inch without putting up a fight.

And, we must say, if it serves any good, we think whoever was delegated this task has played Mr Cameron’s hand very well. It’s a pity this game had to be played at all as we have said before and are here repeating it. A game that shouldn’t have ever existed. After all Mr Cameron is the Prime-Minister. It just goes to show at what level of power we think the game is taking place.

It amazes us how people feed the ridiculous notion that the McCanns and Clarence are players in it.

The tactic was ruthlessly effective. So simple and so effective. Modesty aside, it’s the one we have been using for the last 6 years and will continue to do so: whatever is known cannot be unknown.

So, so simple. And so, so effective. They haven’t invented the eraser of the mind. Yet.

What is seen cannot be unseen. What is known cannot be unknown. Knowledge always replaces ignorance but ignorance can never, ever replace knowledge. To do that, is to pretend.

A check-mate is much more than a direct and fatal blow to the opponent’s king. And it is only fatal because it has eliminated, in a gradual process, ALL options left to the opponent.

Each player aims to conquer and to keep conquering advantage over his opponent exactly for that reason. The greater the advantage one gets the more one has means to keep eliminating the opponent’s options. One by one until check-mate.

So with each “known” known, one less “unknown” is to be known and as secrecy is this particular pack of hyenas’ manoeuvrability space, with each revelation it is significantly reduced.

The “6-cleaner” episode was the last squirm between Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch on this subject. The latter, in our opinion, showing British government that they also had their hands dirty with Maddie's blood and he had ways of revealing the story. We will discard this episode as we perceive it to have been against Mr Cameron, so not his move.

We will also discard the “195 new leads” episode. A simply ridiculous excuse as to why nothing was being done as no one knew exactly what to do then. The time when the game between Mr Cameron and the pack of hyenas was in a stalemate.

But we saw the following moves – if we miss any we do apologise.

1. The 3,000 phone calls showing that phone records from that night were indeed compromising.

2. The birth of the 3 Burglars, emerging from an “analysis” of those 3,000 phone calls, this was to show that it was a group. No longer only have an individual involved but a group – a collective endeavour in the fulfilment of the task – PRESENT in PdL on the night of the 3rd;

3. Saying that Ocean Club management kept from authorities the occurrence of burglaries in apartments (or was it they had lost keys of apartments?) prior to that week, with the objective to show that the resort was also involved in that collective task;

4. The 3 Ocean Club workers with the objective to further confirm Ocean Club was involved;

5. The UK CW showing that Gerry was Smithman;

6. The assault-spree with 2 episodes and 2 objectives. The first to tell the public Maddie was dead when she was taken from apartment and the second to show the “collectiveness” was not limited to PdL but spread over the Algarve (we also showed that this had a simultaneous objective of blackmailing the PJ into “asking” SY for a liaison officer into their investigation);

7. The June SY Circus in PdL, with the main objective of getting inside the PJ investigation but also to show that deceased Euclides Monteiro is a person of interest, that the water treatment station is a location of interest, to confirm that Maddie is dead, to show UK Police trusts tracking dogs and to give a window of opportunity for SY to find evidence (we will speak of this later);

8. The 4 arguido stunt, whereby Murat is brought back into the picture via Malinka and having the Ocean Club now involved with a driver;

9. The overall exaggerated expenditure of Operation Grange. The Times reported in May this year (after helicopter ride but before invasion), that it was then estimated at 5,350,000£. If the PdL SY Circus cost between 100,000£ and 200,000£, where were the other 26 to 53 similar operations in the past 3 years? And we have read higher estimations than the one referred by The Times. These figures are based on what? Who is providing this information? The 3,5M£ figure represents a daily expenditure of around 5,000£. Every single day. Or of 150,000£ a month. Every single month. Is that realistic? These exaggerated numbers of tax-payers' money being spent on Grange have in our opinion been put out to even further exacerbate the public opinion against the McCanns making their protection much more difficult.

The evident enthusiasm of the all-powerfull McCanns on the day the 
SY Review was launched in May2011 - video here

All these moves had one thing in common, the McCanns' sour face. A country depleting itself of its resources, visibly making a tremendous effort to find Madeleine and what thanks does it get from her parents? Nothing. As if SY were looking for someone they had vaguely heard of and didn't want to be associated with.

Slowly truth was dripped to the general public and there was nothing that the pack of hyenas could do about it.

The public is now convinced that Maddie is dead, that it was a collective doing, that Gerry was seen by the Smiths and that the resort is somehow involved. Where has the word “abduction” gone? Was it abducted as well?

We just have to go back a year and a half and if anyone had said this then this would be the public status of the case today and there would be an outcry for an immediate residence in a mental institution.

Things did go somewhat awry at the end of last year.

As agreed, the Portuguese did reopen the files but surprisingly refused to open their doors to SY. As the Portuguese say “gato escaldado até da água fria tem medo” (“scalded cat even of cold water is afraid”), PJ isn’t taking any risks whatsoever this time round.

But we think check-mate was planned for last winter and things had to be postponed because Mr Amaral was too idealistic to accept the deal in January 2013 and so forced the Lisbon trial to effectively take place later that year.

But because of PJ’s “surprising” attitude things had to be speeded up. Now there was the real possibility of PJ’s outcome being close to or spot on to the truth. It would be desirable for closure to be reached after the legal battle in Portugal ended but this and the coming elections left no space for polite deference. Things must move forward.

And this is where Britain’s most powerful man, Rupert Murdoch, makes his entrance. In support of Mr Cameron.

Mr Murdoch is the man who has Britain’s brains on the palm of his hands. We would say his unholy trinity “The Times - Sky News - The Sun” is indeed itself a religion in UK.

BBC, or Best Before Civilisation, when compared with its private competitor, Sky News, looks like it’s only a mere regional TV channel that happens to cover the whole territory.

The Times and The Sun dominate their respective market.

Someone may be richer – we doubt that – but we are certain no one is as powerful as he is in the UK.

On a scale of 1 to 10 in supporting the McCanns, the public would say Rupert Murdoch is a 12, pushing a 13.

So why would a huge McCann supporter help Mr Cameron hang dry the McCanns? Well, because he is exactly a huge McCann supporter, that’s why. Let us explain.

He had the most popular tabloid The Sun (plus NOTW) spinning stories defending them and even had a “serious” reporter, Martin Brunt, fully dedicated to churning out news in favour of the couple. If one can say the British press is largely responsible for this sad farce, Murdoch’s media empire holds one big chunk of responsibility.

No one can be taken to be more pro-McCann than Rupert Murdoch. This fact has bothered him little or nothing until now but with the closure of the subject it will. And it will mean a lot.

If up to now it was completely indifferent to Mr Murdoch to be seen as a McCann supporter, once there’s was the decision to put closure on the subject that stopped being so.

Now, it’s very important for him to drop the act of being pro-McCann.

The McCanns are destined to join the gallery of the all-time most infamous criminals of Britain. With the likes of Jack the Ripper, the Yorkshire ripper and Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.

The McCanns will be infamous not because they were ever gruesome like the ones just named but because of the scale and scope of their crime. Much like Ronnie Biggs. Only bigger. Their crime was the first global one.

Ronnie Biggs had the affection of the populace. Who doesn’t love the audacious even if secretly? Robin Hood, Dick Turpin and Sir Harry Morgan come to mind. They’re infamous but they’re popular.

The McCann will be infamous and unpopular. Very unpopular. To lie about and profit from one’s daughter’s demise is beyond despicable. To be arrogant celebrities because of it is simply sickening.

No one will want to be associated with them. Or with those involved in Maddie’s death and disposal.

The McCanns will be the only personalities to go from sainthood (grieving parents of abducted girl) to demons (they killed her and disposed her body), then back to sainthood (wrongly persecuted by “bungling” police) and finally to demons again (outing of truth).

This time to stay permanently as demons.

The same “church” (justice) that canonised them will forget all about what it did to contribute to that when it will open the gates of the arena where the lions wait.

No one will want to be associated with them. No one. Now is the time to jump off the McCann ship.

So it’s in the full interest of duplicitous Murdoch – as any successful multimillionaire is – to go from a (very significant) McCann supporter to a (very significant) McCann persecutor.

The Sun going back to these good ol' days? We think so.

From the McCann-defender Murdoch a righteous Rupert is to emerge.

Only the opposite of being a pro-McCann serves Mr Murdoch. To sit on the side-lines is to allow unpleasant memories to be recalled. He has visibly to take side against the McCanns.

Alliances are independent of friendships. They serve mutual interests and last as long as that remains valid. The one between Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch was not only logical but necessary. It is mutualism at its best: they both benefit from it and both of them come out as absolute victors from the case.

What is the ONLY way that Murdoch can go from pro to anti? It’s to become “one of us”. To become a “mortal” enemy of the McCanns. Ensure his name comes right after Mr Amaral’s when history counts the heads of all those who significantly contributed to the McCanns’s downfall.

Taking into account that The Times article from October had a public retraction, it seems most likely that if this trial is real then it's probably because the The Times 19MAY14 article: “The Met has 37 officers and staff investigating her [Maddie] murder in Portugal in 2007. The Home Office has met costs to date of £5.35 million”.

Keyword here is MURDER. As in “murder they wrote”. The Times wrote it in an article and the McCanns apparently in their claim.

As it has been widely debated, in UK it’s up to the defendant to prove that the accusation isn’t libel. In this case that The Times is to PROVE it had reasons to write the word MURDER pertaining Maddie.

And how can The Times prove that? Only one legal document allows that to happen in court: the PJ Files.

That means PJ Files are to be discussed in a British court of law. Discussion about fact. Not about legal interpretations or semantics. The discussion has to be around if there’s sufficient information in files to say MURDER. That and only that is what The Times needs to prove in court.

Is the outcome predicable? If you can answer correctly the question “a rock when dropped falls to the ground or soars to the sky?”, then we think you can predict with some ease the outcome.

And in the midst of this, “Sir” Andy Redwood will appear out of the mist mounted on his white stallion holding in one hand the crucifix to fight demons and on the other the damning evidence that will forever condemn the McCanns.

We wonder if a blue sports bag will make a sudden appearance at some stage. Full of CONCLUSIVE forensic evidence.

Completely speculating, SY could say they are only revealing it then because it was how long it took to get the results back when they found it – and didn’t tell a soul – in Praia da Luz in June.

The FSS report? All that is needed to be said is that it was inconclusive. Samples were too small to reach a definite conclusion. After all, that report doesn’t say results weren’t definitely linked to the McCanns, it just said that in the opinion of Lowe there wasn’t enough “evidence-matter” to come to a definite conclusion.

The plot is simple and how effective it is! Or shall we say will be? If the trial is real, that is.

The Times (wearing Mr Murdoch’s colours) pinning the McCanns down in court and SY (wearing Mr Cameron’s colours) delivering the final and fatal blow. Both lend the necessary realism to the other’s performance. That’s why they need each other.

Chess pieces have no will of their own. They are moved and simply go where the hand that controls them tells them to go.

In chess often a piece is sacrificed for the greater objective. Sent on a suicidal mission. Only it’s not suicide it didn’t have any say in the decision. More like non-volunteer kamikazes.

McCanns are ordered to sue Mr Murdoch in an evident kamikaze move to allow him to be able to boast how it was only because that now disgraced couple – who fooled him for so long and only now were revealing their true nature – had turned on him that truth had finally emerged.

He can even allege that it was the analysis of the files he was forced to do by the McCanns that was the real cause for his change of heart. A moment of revelation, he can say. If the McCanns hadn’t sued him he would have continued a believer to this day!

Brilliant isn’t it?

The first “turn-coat” shot was fired by Mr Murdoch back in October with the The Times reporting the McCanns had withheld the e-fits. In December came a lame retraction, which basically rectracted absolutely nothing of importance.

The mighty Times is not the Daily Express. The Times won't roll over like the Express or like other papers did. It cannot back down before the little and the McCanns are little.

This is why this is a check-mate move. Rupert Murdoch cannot be seen to cower before the McCanns and the McCanns stand no chance against Murdoch. It’s a make or break move for both sides, one made of stainless steel and the other of fine, fragile crystal.

If he wishes to do so, Mr Murdoch can spend in less than an hour the same amount of money as the sum that Team McCann has spent on all direct or indirect legal expenditures including this The Times libel process. This is how asymmetric this conflict is.

So when people see that little fragile car driving straight towards the train, as they do, what they fail to see is that the McCanns have their hands tied to the wheel and the car being controlled remotely.

The McCanns are simply doomed pieces being sent to their doom. They are not doomed pieces wanting to take as many others with them as they can. On the contrary, this move is all about damage control. To take out as few pieces as possible. To sacrifice only those that absolutely need to be sacrificed.

This will open the whole case to the public. The dam and the flood gates will open up for the rest of the media. The truth – or partial truth as is to be expected– will come literally gushing out.

Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch will come out of this as heroes.

Everyone achieves their goal and everyone is happy. Well, almost everyone.

We think we have shown we’re not naive. We know that as Nadine Gordimer said “facts are always less than what really happened.”

But she also said “The truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is”. If not for anything else, for that reason alone we will be accompanying the whole thing closely.

We will obviously be paying special attention as to what will be determined happened to the body. It has to have been disposed of. So you'd better get it absolutely nailed tight, that part of the plot.

That part is the one that will determine who will accompany the McCanns to the inquisitional fire which is intended to appease the mob.

The 27JUL14 Daily Mail article by Leon Waltson in which Mr Amaral was not insulted was the cannon shot. It gave time for the hyenas to realistically negotiate who is to be sacrificed. Please note the word “realistically”.

We hope that whoever is responsible does not fall into the temptation of only sending the T9 alone to the lions.

The final version has to be the closest to truth as is possible. History is not kind with mistakes and this is the making of history.

For all others whitewashing is not having the McCanns charged but for us whitewashing is having only them and the other T7 take the blame.

A suggestion if we may, instead of choosing who really is going to take the fall, we think it would be better to choose who really, really needs to be left out. Without any sort of generosity free-passes. This is a one-time only opportunity.

All of the above still depends on the confirmation that there is such a thing as the McCann v The Times libel trial.

No other press is reporting it. We see only 2 reasons why UK press aren't reporting it: it's not true or it's true but there are reporting restrictions.

Is it subject to an injunction? That would stop short any and all papers from even daring to report it.

(https://twitter.com/_dandouglas/status/495209031330701312)

The journalist later tweeted the case reference: “Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate, Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet. #mccann”

Ref number appears to be genuine. HQ14, we think means it was filed this year. If we are right, then it would mean that there has to be a decision sometime 2015. Or during current year.

What we seem to be seeing is a reporter, Daniel Douglas, putting out 2 tweets on the subject. The first one exposing the issue and then following it with a second containing the process ref number, validating the content of the first.

And then silence, from him and all media. Strange for an issue involving Rupert Murdoch and the McCanns.

Daniel Douglas is definitely not a court reporter. He's not even an experienced reporter.

We found him at “Inside Housing – news, views and jobs in social housing”. This is not a man with extensive reporting experience.


“Daniel is a reporter and covers Northern Ireland, Midlands, Wales, councils, Legal, planning, ASB, thinktanks, trade unions and allocations."

He could have stumbled on McCann v The Times libel trial information by accident, as he does cover legal issues, or he was doing some serious reporting on the issue and his tweets were the gold nugget he was looking for.

Either way his silence after the 2 tweets is very strange.

If it was him stumbling on the information, then his second tweet appears to be some sort of reaction to the attention caused by the first one. Something in the style of “Listen, I wasn’t kidding. To prove this here is the ref number.”

But then why the silence that followed? His “no details yet” leads us to believe that he’s going to continue. Instead there’s silence.

If the attention bothered him so, why not just say “Hey, don’t shoot messenger! This is where I got the information.”? And provide a link to the source so everyone could check the credibility of what he had said. Instead, we repeat, he has only offered silence.

And instead of having stumbled on all this but was the result of intentional digging for something and finding it, wouldn’t he then  gloat about it? One would expect something of the sort “I'm good, aren't I? This is where I found it.”

He simply writes one tweet and then another with a ref number and goes off radar. A reporter with a giant scoop on his lap and shying away from it. That’s more than strange.

There's got to be a reason for so little conversation. Does he want it known, or doesn't he? Distances himself from it or backs it up? He does neither.

We can only speculate. We won’t even go into the possibility of there having been someone – remembering for example a keen student of a journalism course – searching for some little fish off the grid “known” for searching legal matters who would be naive enough to tweet this without realising how the Black Hat machine chews up opponents and so make this finding seem part of his job, of his everyday expedient, by him referencing it.

We all know the reporting profession is not exactly seen well in terms of ethics. Its reputation is far from desirable. The perception most people have of this particular profession is that their professionals are either bought, sold, or the middle-man in doing either.

But we have no reason to denigrate Mr Douglas so we won’t. We're just finding his silence strange but we'e sure he must have a reason.

However, we cannot help noticing a coincidence. This is the second time someone speaks twice and then “stops” speaking. Remember Martin Smith? Mr Smith speaks once in May07, speaks a second time in September that year and then “stops” speaking.

So we wouldn’t put behind us the possibility of Mr Douglas having tweeted once, then tweeted twice and then feel, or made to feel, “motivated” to stop tweeting again about the subject.

Only Mr Douglas can confirm or deny any of this. In fact, he’s the only one who can say for certain why he’s gone “silent”. We welcome any and all clarifications if Mr Douglas would be so kind.

Our reading of this is that it is genuine but was not supposed to be known. A dormant “bomb” waiting to be activated.

Court proceedings take time. One does not file an action today and heard in court tomorrow. And this action requires swiftness.

A sort of headline like “McCanns sue The Times. First court hearings next week”.

For that to happen, the action has to have been submitted months before.

The ref number seems consistent with Royal Courts of Justice reference system. The lists are published online daily and can be checked. Nothing so far, which may mean the case has only got as far as being registered.

A time-bomb waiting to be armed. We think the tug of war between the swinger BH and the government BH is at its decisive stage.

The heavy silence (no one is confirming it and no one is denying it) that surrounds this tells us the decision to put the car on the track and send it forward towards the train has yet to be made. One thing is certain: once that car is put on that track and seen heading towards that train there is no turning back.

(sent in by by Anonymous 14 Aug 2014 16:55:00)
Rolf Harris and Sir Cliff Richard (under full presumption of innocence) certainly are an evident show of force on the part of government BH that swinger BH should pay close attention to. No longer is anyone popular enough to confront sucessfully “national" interests” – as in whatever government deems they may be at a certain point in time.

And it's also showing that UK has had enough of being riddled with scandals. It needs to do some deep cleaning in a closet with too many skeletons. To clean up one the size of the Maddie affair is something the country needs desperately to save its image. Internally and externally.

But we could be wrong. Absolutely off-mark. Reading between the lines where there’s no space between them. All, we repeat, needs confirmation and time will tell.

After all, humanity lived from Pythagoras to Galileo Galilei for about 2400 years deluded with the idea that it was the Sun that was going in circles around us. Truth has only been known for a mere 400 years.

You know us. We’re delusional. We let our imagination get the best of us sometimes. So if you wish to do so please ignore all we have said.

Isaac Newton was branded heretic essentially because of what he knew to be true.

117 comments:

  1. Absolutely agree UK cannot afford more scandals!
    Chief Constable of Manchester, Peter Fahy now facing criminal investigation.
    One of 4 CCs facing inquiries and a decision pending on a fifth.
    Of 43 CCs in England and Wales.
    SY can't afford its reputation to continue to slide into oblivion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brilliant! Thank you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another brilliant piece Textusa. Very interesting. To see the puppets and the strings being pulled and the pieces finally slotting into the complex jigsaw is quite illuminating.
    I hope the British public can cope with the revelations when they do finally arrive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliant Textusa. Absolutely brilliant. So glad you didn't wait till September to let them all know that you are, as ever, ahead of their game.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This blog kicks ass! Definitely one of your best. too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brilliant.The only thing that I don't understand is WHY have the parents been aided in a cover up? The cover up obviously started at once and as time has gone on and so many high profile people involved I have felt that there must be someone or something big involved in some way that caused a cover up,something much bigger and more important than the parents? How will that be explained if the parents ever face Justice,surely that would have to come out in the end? Let us not forget that the Blair's and,Gordon Brown were more that helpful and Brown behind taking Goncalo Amaral off the case no doubt.All the high profile people who have sung their praises for so long.Clarence Mitchell would surely be charged with something like perverting the course of justice,along with some or all of the tapas friends and others? That is why I feel the parents may never be charged. There is no way that Clarence Mitchell doesn't know the truth of Madeleine's demise.And what about the two retired British policemen who were hired as Private detectives,they must have been aware of the truth in part but kept the abduction story going? Everyone the parents have sued would be able to claim their money back.Sorry this is such a long post but if you are right,and I hope you are,then they may take a lot of people down with them,and rightly so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that's the sort of thing I also find a bit puzzling to fit in with the above admirably-stated theory

      Delete
    2. Anon Anonymous15 Aug 2014 23:32:00 and Sephen Brody,

      Because the parents have NOT been aided in the cover-up.

      Those present in PdL were the one's aided. The "aiding" of the parents is part of the cover-up to protect others that no one was to know what they were up to there.

      Also this "aiding" helped conquer one of the main objectives of the deceit: draw attention to the parents in oder to have it away from other guests.

      We wouldn't wish anyone the type of friendship shown to the McCanns by these "friends".

      Delete
  8. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7975-wendy-murphy-on-fox-news-former-prosecutor-speaks-her-mind-re-mccanns
    Let's not forget this from Fox news- also a Murdoch channel. Also October when CW was shown.
    http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/transcript-of-interview-with-wendyy.html?m=1
    The interviewer was trying to stop her, but Wendy wouldn't shut up.
    She must have felt confident nothing would happen to her and it seems nothing did.
    The Mcs never publicly threatened to sue her.
    She also wrote this article in 2009.
    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10136.html
    The 2009 article shows Wendy was suspicious of Mcs. The TV researcher surely knew this when she was invited to speak in 2013.
    Maybe Wendy said more than they had expected, but they must have known she wasn't going to be a Mc defender.
    You choose your guests BECAUSE you know their views before you invite them!
    Shows what you said. Murdoch - Fox News, no longer on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-blair-wendi-deng-affair-2848426
    Murdoch must have known all this in October 2013. his friendship with Blair over, his support of Mcs too??

    ReplyDelete
  10. If this was to show how powerful the Mcs were then they would have used BBC to settle and not Murdoch/The Times
    You're spot on again

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10171p30-met-chief-vows-no-let-up-in-search-for-madeleine
    Cranking up the machine for Seotember court case?

    ReplyDelete
  12. For some reason I only follow you and Joana.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just a thought. If the Mcs are short of cash to move against Murdoch is a really very stupid thing to do. Even if they win, say a million pounds, how long will that last for? A year? Two years? And then what? Why buy a war with someone who if he loses can then start a campaign against you? This is lose-lose situation for the Mcs!! IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  14. After reading your posts, especially this one, everything always seems so clear and simple. Have great faith that you are either spot on, or incredibly close t the truth.
    Thanks once again for your insight

    ReplyDelete
  15. First time in days I,ve had the chance to catch up with you Textusa.This,if ,as you say is"true",in regard to a court case against Mr Murdoch,then we may well be ,finally seeing a lot of scum,finally ,getting their just desserts,how sweet will that be for all of us,who have never given up on seeking Justice for little Madeleine.Brilliant,just brilliant !! Made my day,thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Textusa feel this is wrote as much for the BHs as it is for readers. That sayung the BHs are no doubt also your readers. People not farmilar with your work will find this absolutly amazing not to mention unbelievable. For me its brillant, a good summary of all your work to date and to me it the only explanation for all the crazy goings on in the investigate. Cant wait till it all comes to pass

    ReplyDelete
  17. Textusa - I have been watching your blog over the weekend. No insane comments, no attempts to discredit anything you say, no requests for clarification .......just silence. Maybe its just a case of them not realising you have returned...as if!!!!!! I think you have shocked them with your perception of what the facts point to. Must be very close to the truth

    ReplyDelete
  18. What tells me this is true is there's no reaction from the pros. If this held no water they would be ridiculing you and all speculation made out of it on other blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You,Team Text, you are very important and ,again, i want to thank to You all!

    Your´s Blog is the "special one" because Your work is a truthfull investigation and that´s a honest work . Is unique in a very good sense.

    ( without translation.... I hope You all can understand what i wish to mean)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fantastic Tex the truth will out. Where money is concerned the Mccanns know no bounds greedy couple. Karma will happen when they least expect it!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 Aug 2014 20:22:00,

      Thank you for your compliment but you must disagree with you.

      Post shows that it's not about the McCanns greed. Or about the McCanns. Or about greed.

      It's about them not having any say about what happens in their life since that night.

      Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify that once again.

      Delete
    2. I.ve always wondered why Murdochs son in law inviteded the Macs for a meal,surely the Freuds had better things to do?? anyway,Kate enjoyed the evening very much ,at least by the end of the evening everyone "knew their place" in the scheme of things!!! IMO that meeting was very important for a lot of like minded people,but at my age,74, sometimes one can "read"more than is actually written on the page,sorry Tex,just had to say this as it has been bugging me for a long time.Won,t be offended if you chose not to print,just something I keep questioning,thanks anyway,Lynn.

      Delete
    3. I still "question" Murdochs son in law,(MathewFreud,s.)"reasoning"in inviting the devastated parents of a missing child ,for,in what was,for Kate ,a very enjoyable meal!!!How bizarre."enjoyment"should have been at the very bottom of their priorities ,IMO .I know i,m going "way back",BUT it still bugs me! Why .

      Delete
  21. A very good point Lynn. I'd always assumed that it was about stitching up reporting rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynn was just going to echo anon at 10.18, I thought that it was about the SUN/NOW getting the inside story. I could understand how Freud would be quickly into trying to get this but the McCanns acceptance of them into their lives at such a distressing and intimate time for them beggars belief. I remenber at a time when I believed their story I thought maybe its the "English" way but I thought I couldn't have all these people about me, I couldn't share the loss of my baby with people I didn't know. There was one incident outside the church where GM kissed a wee baby. I was shocked and seen that as them becoming as Textusa puts it "arrogant celebrities" but still couldn't get my head around it. Now that i'm better informed thanks to Textusa, it makes sense it was a carefully planned script they were following. True their narcissistic personalities made it easier than most for them to follow the script but really all the shock moments where straight out of a carefully managed PR event that was designed to focus the world on them. These people know how to sell a product and the product was the McCanns so they cant come out of the house looking tired and haggered, they have to be stylish down to your earrings and nail vanish.

      Textusa - There is only one thing I would query about what your saying bearing in mind that you say that Cammeron and Brooks are deciders now when they weren't in 2007. Do you feel now that after 7 years that a lot of the powerful people who were at the resort then have put a lot of blue sky between themselves and the ocean club. they feel now that after 7 years the press and others will not be able to connect them to the case. Is that what you mean by "better to choose who really, really needs to be left out". Can at this stage 7 years later, can SY or whoever leave out some powerful people who where there but played no pary in the babys fate. Personnally I find that fair enough

      Delete
    2. I should have added to the above that I find it fair enough that people who played no part in the babys fate could be left out providing that they were not responsible for preverting the course of justice. Which in itself is probably nonsense because those preverting the course of justice where working for the powerful people. what you probably will have is an Andy Coulson type justice where some of the "working Ants" will be sacficed to protect the deciders.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 21 Aug 2014 14:13:00 / 21 Aug 2014 15:11:00

      We agree fully with you. We would divide the swingers present in PdL into 3 groups:

      Group 1 (the group you mention) – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up and have been absolutely passive about this whole affair. We see no reason for them to be outed. Never was blog’s objective to “persecute” the swinging per se – an activity we neither subscribe to nor condemn but accept it as it’s engaged by consensual adults – but in what it pertains in the obstruction of justice. If our next door neighbour was there swinging and enjoyed herself, good for her and her husband, and if she was there and didn’t, then they shouldn’t have gone. In either case it’s none of our business and we don’t want to know. Nor see any necessity for anyone else to know.

      Group 2 – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up there or elsewhere but have through these years participated actively in the disinformation campaigns to ensure the attention remained centred on the couple. Even if we thought these people should be accountable for their share in obstructing justice, we are fully aware that will not happen. We do solely rely on the justice provided by only incorruptible system that we know of: the individual conscience.

      Group 3 – those there who were swinging and volunteered to help in the cover-up. These have to accountable for their acts.

      Delete
    4. Regarding your swinging theory there must have been some mighty big people involved in the first 2 groups (not just your local GP and other doctors) to get the Prime Minister of England involved and all that followed from Clarence Mitchell and messages from Prince Charles.

      Is this resort in Portugal known to be a swingers haven?

      Regarding Group 3, on those other shared holidays with the Tapas group where they swinging holidays too?

      Delete
  22. I'm so slow - i was wondering why the Murdoch support from the beginning... didnt realise Freud was his 'in - law'. Now it all makes sense - thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We think we should clarify our point of view about the relationship between Mr Murdoch and the McCanns.

      According to Kate’s book, Clement Freud, now dead, invited them for drinks at his place in PdL.

      Matthew Freud married to Murdoch's daughter Elizabeth. Clement was Matthew's father.

      We believe that prior that week in 2007 there wasn’t any relationship whatsoever between Mr Murdoch or any of his close relatives and the McCanns. They’re from completely different sets of society and we fail to see even the minimal possible overlap.

      After abduction theory set-off and adopted by the media, Maddie and the McCanns became sellable products to be used by Media Corp. To put it bluntly, whatever interest was shown by Mr Murdoch, direct or indirectly, for the McCanns had only one reason: profit.

      As per our post “Club of 4”, News Corp was a main Media Enabler.
      (http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-club-of-4.html)

      It supported, in our opinion, the cover-up for 2 reasons: closing ranks as the powerful always do to protect their own and pure and simple profit.

      Then, to “cherish” the McCanns was profitable to News Corp. It remained so up until 2011.

      Delete
    2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud_family

      Delete
  23. When people finally grasp there was no neglect, no dining and leaving children unattended, they will realise why there are so many discrepancies in the statements of the T9 and some of the OC staff.
    They are describing something that didn't happen. The T9 were at the tapas, but they weren't dining and they hadn't left the children on previous nights either.
    The crying incidents were introduced to reinforce the neglect alibi, without which, no " abduction" was possible.
    But the penny will drop eventually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes I agree completely with you. I always thought it odd Kate said Maddie asked 'why did you not come last night when we were crying' considering their situation why would she admit something like that? and she mentioned it several times just to reinforce the idea that they went out and left the children alone. It was to give the impression that they left the children when in fact they never did. Neglect gave them the opportunity to introduce the abductor, it had all been well planned out why Kate said what she did. Another one of her odd statements was when she said Gerry and her came across someone who had had too much to drink and they gave him their assistance he had collapsed in the road or something like that on their way home from the airport after gerry had been to UK there was something not quite right about that statement, and of course his 'stolen' wallet (that never was) its all lies but now we come to expect such lies from these two manipulators of the truth. People are right when they say more powerful people are being protected because they obviously are otherwise by now the Tapas friends would have broke their pact of silence and stated what really happened but are they are too afraid of the consequences if they spoke the truth?

      Delete
  24. Not sure who Lynn is but why is she allowed to post that Matthew Freud, son in law of Murdoch, invited the McCanns for a meal? This did not happen. Kate McCann fully describes a meal at the Portuguese home of a different Mr Freud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa has corrected Lynn so why ask why she was allowed to post?

      Delete
    2. Re Anonymous 19.57.You are quite right I posted IMO the MaCanns accepted an invitation to dine with a Freud,and in my disgust of them even accepting such an invite to "wine and dine",when their whole world would (should imo) have been collapsing around them ,they still behaved unlike any other parent of a missing little girl,who, in their words had been TAKEN by a paedophile,so yes I in my disgust with this whole debacle I should have said that it was Clement Freud who invited the MaCanns ,apologies Textusa for the mistake.

      Delete
    3. That meal at Freud's house DID happen! Kate even raved about the great mushroom and chicken risotto! And it was going to happen again, but that "unhelpful f****** t****" Inspector Ricardo Paiva called them in for questioning and, in Kate's own words, diner at the Freud's "went out the window"...

      Delete
    4. Sorry,I'm such a potato head! Forgot to add to my comment (the one that says the meals at the Freud's DID happen) that the meal in a portuguese house mentioned in comment by Anonymous21 Aug 2014 19:57:00, was
      at Ricardo Paiva's house.

      Still on the meal(s) at Freud's:
      http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3117-freud-family-tree

      "In July 2007, Clement Freud, who had a villa on the Algarve, invited the McCanns to lunch (Dr Kate McCann's book, pp. 193-4, 229 and 233-4. The McCanns accepted.

      On arrival, says Dr Kate, Clement offered her a strawberry vodka.

      According to Dr Kate:

      "I hesitated for a split second, rapidly trying to work out if he was joking. His expression, as always, was deadpan. Not wanting to appear unsociable, I said: 'Er, O.K. then. That would be nice'...the lunch he prepared for us was bloody marvellous: watercress and egg salad followed by a chicken and mushroom risotto - the best risotto we've ever tested before or since..."

      Delete
    5. Just a few months after Maddie was 'abducted' we get a description of a 'bloody marvellous' lunch at Freud's villa in the Algarve. (July 2007) One's stomach turns over, thinking about the callousness of these two...

      Delete
  25. Just read your piece Textusa and its absolutely brilliant, I hope the flood gates are about to open and the truth gushes out, its about time. Congratulations you are almost at the 1 million mark for visitors - it would be interesting to know how many times the McCann's visit they know they cannot fool Textusa x

    ReplyDelete
  26. Humm...if you take the time to look into the Murdoch and Freud clan and their "circle" of friends and political connections your head will be spinning! What a tangled web! They're all connected (deeply, in most cases) all "swimming in the same pool", one cannot be blamed for starting to believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories...
    It all looks and smells ROTTEN!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Textusa - you mention that there are those who were in PDL at the time and manipulating the McCanns for their own ends, to keep hidden what they were up to at that time. Who do you think they might be - apart from, and alongside, some (if not all) of the McCanns Tapas 'friends' ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 23 Aug 2014 19:16:00,

      You seem to have misread our words. There was no manipulation as, per our theory, the McCanns were swingers themselves and also interested parties in having the swinging be left unknown.

      As we said, the “abduction” decision wasn’t theirs to make but we cannot disregard being them to propose it to the adequate decision “echelons”.

      In fact, taking into account that they, the T9, were the ones who messed things up, we think the initial meeting to access what to do next, consisted in very few people besides the T9. In that meeting we imagine suggestions that became scenarios which in turn became the proposed solution.

      Once the decision made by whoever could make it, the T9 became simple pieces of a game way above themselves. But they weren’t manipulated. They were moved pieces. The first implies having a will - and being fooled - while the latter only implies obedience.

      As to who we think was there, as we have no privileged information we can only refer those stated in the PJ Files and those who have publicly recognised in the media having been there.

      Delete
  28. Gerry has often said that a Paedophile took Madeleine, and adds that there is no evidence that she has come to any harm. Obviously he feels that the actions of a Paedophile would not be 'harmful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You see...in Kate's own words:

      "Whoever Madeleine's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth."

      No harm done then! Madeleine, according to her own mother, was completely able to make the abductor, presumed paedophile, stand to attention and "treat her like a
      little princess"...

      Delete
  29. Correio da Manhã, 24AUG14  paper edition, pg 17

    Top of page - Maddie: British want to return to Algarve in September

    Title - English ask more diligences

    Subtitle - SY sent fifth rogatory letter asking to hear more suspect people

    - Rui Pando Gomes

    Two months after having escavated in three locations in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, looking for Madeleine McCann's body, the English investigators want to return to Algarve in September.
    SY, as CdM found, sent a fifth rogatory letter to PGR asking for more diligences. Within the requests are more interrogations of people the British consider suspects, after having reviewed the whole process of the Portuguese police. The English want also to interrogate again some of the people who were already heard in June, among which former workers of Ocean Club, from where Maddie disappeared in 3 May 2007.
    Although the rogatory letter has already arrived in Portugal, CdM knows the authorisation for the undertaking of the diligences has not arrived at the Public Ministry or Faro's PJ, the police force that will execute them.
    During the next month new encounters between Faro's PJ, that has been providing support to the English police, should happen.  During tbe course of operation 'Grange', the British authorities have already spent 7,5 million euros.

    Inset - Authorisation for new diligences hasn't yet arrived at PJ

    Photo caption - English police returns to the Algarve for more diligences related with Maddie's disappearance in May 2007. They already escavated in three locations in Praia da Luz.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://news.sky.com/story/1324326/mikaeel-kulars-mother-jailed-for-his-killing

    Rosdeep Adekoya "lost her temper" and beat her son after he was sick - he died two days later and she hid his body in a suitcase.

    Rosdeep Adekoya has been jailed for 11 years for killing her three-year-old son Mikaeel Kular in Edinburgh in January.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/13/madeleine-mccann-police-review-cost-millions?CMP=twt_fd

    "MPs criticise PM's ordering of lengthy and costly Scotland Yard review of police investigation into child's disappearance"

    This is from 2011. Immediately after the setting up of the review.
    How did MPs know it was going to be lengthy and costly??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous26 Aug 2014 15:46:00

      Indeed!

      How could anybody know it would take years? Like Gerry planning fund raising for the following year.

      Delete
    2. yes Tex and I also recall Gerry mentioned about fund raising events planned for the future when Madeleine first disappeared so he knew at the beginning that it was going to go on for some time. Read your post and its spot on 'wheels within wheels'. Very well done Textusa xx

      Delete
    3. ...and Gerry's "wider agenda"...whatever that might be...

      http://www.mccannfiles.com/id1.html

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 26 Aug 2014 22:11:00,

      We believe McCann's "wider agenda" would be to be accepted as regulars in future events in PdL with the benefits the connections made there would bring.

      Any other "wider agenda", for us, is clutter.

      Delete
  32. Why was Jenny Murat allowed to set up a stall, assisted by Dave Shelton according to the Northern Echo, to gather information from people who weren't prepared to give to the police.
    Why would they be prevented from telling the police what they knew? What did they have to hide?
    What if someone told her - I knew who did it. Was she going to pass this on to the police? If she wasn't, what was the point of being there?
    Seems to me it was interference in a police investigation and should have been stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/504070/British-Maddy-police-new-Portuguese-plea

    British police investigating Madeleine McCann disappearance want to quiz more suspects

    BRITISH police probing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have formally asked Portuguese authorities for more help, it was revealed yesterday.

    By: John Chapman
    Published: Thu, August 28, 2014

    ReplyDelete
  34. Textusa what do you make of the expresses claim that "one of them, Russian-born Sergey Malinka, has been told he is no longer under suspicion" surely if they had enough evidence to make him a suspect that one round of questioning wouldn't result in him being cleared. Is this a BH attempt to devert away from Murat?. Though they have still kept Euclides Monteiro in the picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 28 Aug 2014 13:24:00,

      No spectator can get inside the mind of any player in a chess game. One can only assess the reasons moves were made and estimate the following ones. But only each player knows what piece he intends to move and where and when it will move it.

      Our math says 8 original suspects minus Malinka – make up SY’s 7 current suspects.

      Which is now 3 previous burglar suspects and 4 new suspects

      We think Monteiro is probably not one of 4, because they are yet to be interviewed and he is dead but he remains a suspect who hasn't been ruled out.

      What we are curious about is if SY will keep playing the game at the same level they played it back in June or will they take it up a notch or two. If this is to be the case, then we wouldn’t be surprised if an ex-Pat or two be now involved.

      SY seem to be keeping very quiet about the new 4 suspects whereas the 3 bungling burglars got a lot of advance publicity before they went to Portugal in May and then in June.

      Please don’t forget that in our opinion, SY’s game is being played on 2 boards simultaneously: in the UK and in Portugal.

      In the UK with the objective of diminishing opponent’s fierce and stubborn resistance. These people never negotiate. Negotiations with them are always damage control between parties.

      In Portugal, to get into the PJ investigation. The only way they can do that is to gain PJ’s trust. Showing how much they’re indeed playing the same game.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 28 Aug 2014 13:24:00,

      About Malinka we think he was made arguido only as a show to implicate Murat. That having been done no need to maintain him as such.

      By the way, people may think that Malinka is totally exempt in this and so shouldn’t have been given the arguido status.

      We disagree.

      We think he obstructed justice when he deleted (we think it was him) information pertaining swinging from the computers that were seized by PJ in May 2007.

      The 2 pages on computer with references to swinger searches were obviously not seen as relevant by the PJ . There was no illegal activity involved in the searches and no evidence of an interest in paedophilia or violence.

      However, with the benefit of hindsight, the relevance of these searches with the term swingers, which occurred over 2 days, were more important than they seemed at the time.

      Delete
  35. Textusa,

    Do you believe that the PJ knew in 2007 about the swinging going on in OC? I would imagine that such activities, which seemed to involve many locals, could hardly be kept top secret, especially in such a small town as PdL where rumors easily spread out. Also, swinging events might have occurred several times at OC prior to May 2007, and were legal anyway so did not need to be hidden from the Police at all cost - before Maddie’s disappearance. But they then became even more difficult to hide when OC was under investigation.

    The fact that Gonçalo Amaral never mentioned swinging publicly does not mean that he ignored about it and/or that he failed to see a connection with the case. His silence on this topic could also be motivated by his understanding that the level of retaliation would escalate by orders of magnitude if he spoke out in public.

    Just an educated guess. Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.

    Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex,

      Your “swinging events (...) were legal anyway so did not need to be hidden from the Police at all cost” fails on two accounts.

      First, as we have repeatedly said and is accepted, something legal is not necessarily something that we would want others to know about. Swinging is legal, no question about that. But is socially condemned, no question about that either. That is the reality. Saying it over and over again that because swinging is legal, swingers won’t mind being outed is a falsity that will continue to remain false no matter how many times it’s repeated.

      The way the T9 describe their holiday, it seems that there was a surge in the interest in tennis and some for sailing. One could then extrapolate – certainly with a pretty high degree of error – that many of the guests there were tennis players and sailors.

      But we are sure – with no degree of error whatsoever – that no one of them would mind if we said in the blog that they were tennis or sailing aficionados. Why? Because even if they aren’t it isn’t in any way offensive to be perceived to be.

      Who minds to be mistaken for a tennis player or a leisure sailor? No one.

      To like tennis or sailing does not carry a social stigma. Swinging does. That’s why no one wants their name associated publicly with swinging however legal it may be.

      If swingers wouldn’t mind then why are people so bothered with the swinging theory? Because it's socially reprehensible and being outed as one harms seriously one's life.

      Secondly, swinging wasn’t hidden from police. Swinging was hidden from the people swingers back in the UK who they didn’t want to know they were there swinging.

      Also in your comment you seem to confuse swinging with exhibitionism. Swingers do not engage is this activity in the middle of the street. Nor put on a spectacle. Yes, there may be many people in the room where it is engaged but all present are swingers. If swingers put on a show it’s for other swingers and other swingers only.

      The gardener at the Ocean Club might not ever have noticed there was swinging going on. Why would he? Same goes with all personnel in the resort not involved in organising the event. To say because there was swinging in the resort means that every Ocean Club worker knew about it is a wrong assumption. And we have never said such. What we have said and repeat is that the staff was instructed to speak in accordance with the neglect theory.

      We cannot respond for PJ. No reference has been made publicly to swinging by the police. However, they did search keywords which included swinging when the seized computers were examined. They wouldn't simply pluck words from the air. There had to be a rationale for this search.

      We think you will find the following posts useful:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/why-swing.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-fms.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-evidence.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/02/pleasuring-posh-people.html

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your reply. Well, I don’t think I went as far as saying that PdL swingers were showing off. The gardener might not have been aware, but is it possible that no one among the OC staff never had even a slight suspicion? I would find it very surprising… but, yes, I am speculating here.

      However, I should correct what I said about Mr Amaral never mentioning swinging publicly. In fact, he clearly associated Murat with swinging in his book (Chap. 7) when mentioning his open relationship with a married woman living with her spouse.

      Alex

      Delete
  36. Excellent Textusa!
    I too agree with the swinging theroy!Although,could i ask what is your opionion on some bloggers who have written about IVF,and that they,the "Tapas group",were there for an annual "meet up"?? Thank you again!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 Aug 2014 06:10:00,

      We think the possibility of there having been a gathering of people for "IVF annual meet up" to be a STINK BOMB similar to other STINK BOMBS we have listed:
      STINK BOMBS #1 – The Big Secret
      STINK BOMBS #3 – Maddie, the Clone
      STINK BOMBS #6 – The Sick Maddie
      STINK BOMBS #7 – The Chipping
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/03/stink-bombs.html

      Efectively, the majority of the T9 is made up of doctors. 6 out of 9. Gerry, Kate, David, Fiona, Rob and Matt. But if one looks at the occupations of other guests present in the resort at the time, one does not find that many doctors. One finds what would be expected statistically. Other occupations - banker, real estate, hospitality, IT, law, media... to name but a few

      If the supposed medical meeting went around the T9, then it doesn't seem to us to unite the kind of people that would warrant the cover-up of the size and scope of the one we have witnessed. For that supposed medical meeting to have happened then T9 would have been "minor guests" in it and names of relevant people in the area would have popped up and they haven't.

      Like May I says "But, none of these factors seems to explain the number and varied occupations of the people involved in covering up for the McCanns, outside their circle of 7 friends. What unites them?"
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/01/open-letter-to-textusa.html

      Fortunately with time all these theories have died down (reason tends to wear lies down) and we are presently only down to one:
      STINK BOMBS #9 – The Paedo Ring

      Delete
    2. There is no evidence that swinging was going on, there never was. People should be very suspicious of your agenda which seems to be to suggest that Mr Amaral was a complete idiot, who ''missed'' this and also ''missed'' the ''fact'' that, according to you there were no Tapas dinners either.
      Well, I don't think he was an idiot, and I don't know why you are constantly trying to portray him as such. You talk about clutter, but you seem to be the one scattering it about. No-one with any real knowledge of the case agrees with you, and doubtless at some point we will discover you are just another shill, here to distract and discredit Mr Amaral.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 30 Aug 2014 18:06:00,

      “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” – Mahatma Gandhi

      We will let readers decide on whether we have presented enough evidence of there having been a swinging event at PdL at the time of Maddie's death.

      We think we are more than a minority of 3 at this point.

      Interesting to see that the swinging theory gets a reaction and a negative focus that no other theory gets.

      Substitute child, premeditated murder or that McCann part of paedophile ring seem to be free to “spread” their word without “offending” anyone.

      Surely if you want the truth you debunk all theories that you regard as wrong (and we sure would like to know which one you think is the right one).

      One can only assume it’s alright for them to circulate. They are a good distraction, chosen carefully.

      About Mr Amaral, we don’t know your age – nor do we want to know it – but if you were a child we would tell you to go and wash your mouth whenever you speak about him.

      As we hope to show soon, it isn’t the McCanns, nor the T9, the ones responsible for the hardships the man and his family have gone through as of 2007.

      Delete
    4. "About Mr Amaral, we don’t know your age – nor do we want to know it – but if you were a child we would tell you to go and wash your mouth whenever you speak about him."
      What???
      I'm not the one telling the world that he got it wrong, and that I know better than him - you are. What gives you the right to speak to me that way when I am the one who agrees with him and you are the one constantly telling the world he got it wrong? I haven't seen you present any evidence of swinging AT ALL, just the same theory you keep on repeating, and a theory isn't evidence.
      I hope they are paying you well, because you have certainly earned it with the demolition job you have done on him. Doesn't it bother you, what that man has been put through? You are not fit to say his name, the way you have claimed you are right and he was so incompetent he missed it all. Shame on you.

      Delete
    5. "As we hope to show soon, it isn’t the McCanns, nor the T9, the ones responsible for the hardships the man and his family have gone through as of 2007."
      Oh here we go - not the McCann's fault? I must have imagined that they are suing him and have had his accounts frozen for years. I wasn't sure what your agenda was, but it's clear now.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 30 Aug 2014 19:47:00 / 30 Aug 2014 20:04:00,

      Again we will let readers judge if we are saying that Mr Amaral wasn't allowed to do his job as soon as it was clear that the path towards which he was taking the investigation would start unravelling things very inconveniently for the swingers or if we are saying he missed it all.

      We do wonder who came up with the idea, within the PJ, to search the word "swing" within seized computers.

      For one to show that one is against the McCanns doesn't exactly mean one is really against the McCanns and in the same way, saying that one is in favour of Mr Amaral doesn't mean one really is his friend.

      As we just said, we will show how many who now voice their loyalty for him hold a share of responsibility for all he and his family have gone through.

      Delete
    7. Mr Amaral was not removed from the case until October, so what you are claiming is that he and every officer he coordinated completely missed this massive conspiracy of swingers you claim went on right under his nose, for five months, and has continued to miss it ever since. He was there, with access to the witnesses, you weren't. Police officers on the ground always know what is going on in their patch, so you are dissing every other officer who, according to you missed the fact that the entire resort was a big knocking shop. And as for your idea that some guests volunteered to take part in a cover up, well that's just completely ridiculous. I am very suspicious that you are now claiming the McCanns haven't hurt Mr Amaral at the same time as Tony Bennett seems determined to claim that the Smith's lied and it couldn't have been Gerry he saw. At least we know whose pocket the fund money is ending up in.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 30 Aug 2014 20:29:00,

      Let us clarify. It wasn't JUST the McCanns who were responsible for his hardships. It was also their rich backers and every single person, powerful or not, who pulled the rug from beneath Mr Amaral’s feet when he got too near the truth. On both sides - the UK and Portugal.

      So we are being paid by Team McCann to say that Kate and David Payne were involved in the accidental death of Maddie and that they and the T7 were involved in a cover-up and setting up a fraudulent fund?

      They ought to ask for their money back if this is the case. We obviously took it under false pretences! They should sue us for breach of contract!

      By the way, you know our opinion about what happened. Could you tell us and our readers what is yours?

      Delete
    9. That's not what you said earlier. You said ''As we hope to show soon, it isn’t the McCanns, nor the T9, the ones responsible for the hardships the man and his family have gone through as of 2007.'', now you are saying it wasn't JUST them. Sounds like you are making it up as you go. Stop attempting to twist what I said, I said you were suggesting Mr Amaral was stupid or incompetent because he does not agree with any of this swingers nonsense you have made up, and I can only assume that you are doing it precisely to discredit him - why you are doing it is a matter for your own conscience, but you seem determined to create this impression that he didn't know what he was doing. The theory you refer to above about Payne and Kate McCann is also made up, isn't it? There is no basis for it at all or any evidence that it happened like that.
      So why are you so determined that Mr Amaral got it so wrong? You already know what my opinion is, I told you I thought he was mostly right. What is very suspicious is why you are so adamant that he was wrong and why you were caught out claiming that it wasn't the McCanns who were to blame.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous31 Aug 2014 00:40:00,

      Your words: "So why are you so determined that Mr Amaral got it so wrong? You already know what my opinion is, I told you I thought he was mostly right."

      So according to you he was MOSTLY right. Could you please tell us where he was wrong?

      Delete
    11. No, how about you stop ducking the question and being abusive and explain why you continue to insist they were all swingers, even though no-one actually involved with the case agrees with you, and how and why some of them ''volunteered'' to be involved in a cover up, seeing as you haven't given any answers whatsoever to that.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous 31 Aug 2014 10:31:00,

      Your refusal to answer a straighforward question speaks for itself.

      Delete
  37. Estranho o comentário de anon das 20:29.

    Parecem as histórias no Txxxxr

    ReplyDelete
  38. Poor anonymous...you're sadly mistaken...
    Of course Mr. Amaral was well AWARE of the swinging in O: Club! He was clever to keep silent about it, not to as we say in Portugal, "levantar a lebre", to bring up the hare, meaning, to bring to light a sensitive and unsavory subject, even with more reason , when he realized that powerful and influential people were involved. The presence of swinging events in the resort must have been known to the investigation because, although Mr. Amaral and his team never mentioned it, another ex-PJ inspector did, and did it in public, in the media! Mr. Barra da Costa made the mistake of speaking up and got in trouble for it...where do you think his knowledge of this came from? Did he dream about it one night, or did he decide to go to the media with a fantasy, a figment of his imagination? Where do you think he got his information from? It could only have come from sources close to the investigation.
    Google for it, Barra da Costa-swinging-McCann case,if you're interested in details...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a load of rubbish. One individual mentioned it, and didn't it later transpire he got the idea from a Maddie forum?!

      You are not seriously suggesting Mr Amaral knew all about this, as did every other officer, yet they all kept quiet, are you? Because that is absolutely ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. By the way, you are wrong. The incident you are talking about came during a tv show about ten days after Maddie disappeared, and this is the transcript
      '' JOSE BARRA da COSTA
      Former Policia Judiciaria
      ''There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...''

      *presenter interrupts* ''When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....''

      DA COSTA: ''People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.''

      The PJ later disowned the claim. So what Barra de Costa actually said was that there were people who were claiming they were swingers - that is not the same as either evidence or proof, is it? Some unnamed source? The fact that the PJ later denied this was the case you conveniently ignore.

      Delete
    3. Related to Barra da Costa we would like to direct readers to the following comment to our “DNA is… DNA” post:


      “• Anonymous9 Sep 2013 15:46:00
      Swinging, part 1:

      Why the PJ and G. Amaral never came up with the hypothesis of the presence of swinging activities inside the O. club...no one knows if they didn't, I'm pretty sure they did, they suspected/knew of thst practice, but, as Textusa answered, the investigation was swiftly smothered/indered/limited by heavy political and diplomatic pressure. However, what I do know, is that an ex-PJ inspector, a Mr. Barra da Costa, dared to mention it point-blank on a tv news (he has done some commenting on tv shows, namelly in TVI)and to a newspaper, Diário de Notícias, and got himself in big trouble. He made his allegation on RTP (portuguese public tv) and was forced to apologize live on the same tv channel, but note that he DID NOT retract the swinging allegations, he only apologized to the McCanns for offending them with his suggestion.
      There were, "once upon a time" videos available on Youtube with the RTP Telejornal of the 15th May 2007, when B.da Costa first came up with the swinging thing, but have been whooshed at some point...surprise, surprise!

      This is what Barra da Costa said:

      "Uma relação de swing é, por natureza, promíscua e atípica, e pode haver um envolvimento e cruzamento de relações, e daí levar a uma vingança que se poderia substanciar no próprio desaparecimento da criança”.

      ( a swinging relationship is by nature promiscuous and attipical, and there can be an envolvement and crossing of relationships, which could lead to vengeance in the form of the disappearance of the child)

      Há quem discuta ainda porque é que, às 19 horas, as crianças já estão a dormir, quando o sol ainda raia e há muito tempo para brincar com os filhos

      (some argue why, at 7pm the children were already asleep, when the sun still shines and there's still plenty of time to play with one's children)

      Poderiam as crianças, porque são filhas de médicos, estar sob o efeito de alguma substância que poderia reforçar o sono?"

      (could the children, because they're doctors' children, be under the effect of some substance which could facilitate/reinforce sleep?)


      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/7nov7/STAR-05-11-07.htm
      (snippet):
      "MADDIE MUM ORGY FURY'MADELEINE
      McCanns’ parents were seething last night after a top criminologist called for a probe into claims they were swingers.
      Former police inspector Jose Barra da Costa urged detectives to investigate rumours that the couple indulged in wife-swapping."

      ReplyDelete”

      Delete
    4. Still related to Barra da Costa we would like to direct readers to the following comment to our “DNA is… DNA” post:


      “Anonymous9 Sep 2013 15:48:00
      Swinging, part 2:

      A reply to the controversy from Mr. Barra da Costa himself in Facebook:


      https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=279900155452205&id=139149589527263
      September 20, 2012 at 1:15pm'

      "SWING
      Meu Caro João Manuel e companheiros, esta questão está completamente explicada no meu livro «Maddie, Joana e Investigação Criminal», editado pela Leya, Dom Quixote, já lá vão uns tempos. Por isso vou falar ao de leve sobre ela, o que não significa com menos cuidado.
      A questão causou celeuma depois de eu ter sido abordado enquanto comentador, numa telejornal da RTP1, nos dias seguintes ao desaparecimento da menina inglesa.
      Umas horas antes tinha recebido informação, que reputei de segura, de Inglaterra, que dava conta dessa possibilidade. Mas, mais importante ainda, o mesmo assunto tinha-me sido garantido de uma forma que achei muito credível, por um funcionário da investigação criminal, então a trabalhar no caso no Algarve.
      Até hoje nunca referi esta «origem nacional» da questão de swing e mantive-me à espera que o seu autor, então meu amigo, viesse dar a cara pela sua autoria. Ele não o fez e eu não tenho essa «arte» de me livrar dos amigos, muito menos enforcá-los profissionalmente, na praça pública. As posições ficam com quem as toma e essa coisa chama-se carácter.
      Trata-se de alguém que já o podia ter feito, é verdade, até porque não lhe faltaram «amigos» que se aproveitaram dele e o atiraram para certos canais televisivos, para se aproveitarem dele, concedendo-lhe alguma visibilidade em programas de entretenimento da parte da manhã e da parte da tarde. E não foi caso único.
      Tal aparecimento fez-lhe mal, como depois se veio a verificar quando o mesmo não foi capaz de ultrapassar a velha questão do «provou, gostou» e transformou esse problema num caso «caso de psiquiatria», que, como sabem, quase o levou à cadeia.
      Vamos ser directos: há escutas telefónicas onde essa conversa aparece, e embora sejam ilegais, essas escutas podem aparecer se se justificar tal.
      Quanto ao meu pedido de desculpas na RTP1, ele foi quase tratado em directo com o muito humano jornalista que continuou a tratar dessa matéria no Telejornal. Ele foi, aliás, contra esse pedido de desculpas. Mas eu acabei por fazê-lo, de uma forma que depois foi desvirtuada pelos «invejosos» inimigos de estimação que fui cultivando. O que eu disse foi mais ou menos isto (também há vídeos sobre este assunto): “parece que atirei aqui um murro ao estômago de algumas pessoas quando falei sobre a hipótese de swing; ora, não me caem os parentes na lama se aqui deixar um pedido de desculpas que ajudar a repor o estado de normalidade entre os intervenientes atingidos”. Não disse que era mentira, nem que era verdade.

      (cont.)

      Delete
    5. (cont.)

      Mais tarde, um jornal onde tive uma página durante dois anos, o 24horas, escreveu uma pequena notícia através da qual quiseram voltar a ganhar dinheiro à minha custa, pois para além de sensacionalista era mentirosa, em especial no título, que é o que, no máximo, a maior parte das pessoas lêem. Como é meu timbre, não mandei dizer por ninguém e interpelei ainda nesse dia um dos autores da notícia de uma maneira que ele nunca mais teve vontade de se aproximar de mim a menos de 10 quilómetros.
      Cheguei também mais tarde a encontrar-me em local secreto com a mãe da menina, aquando de uma sua re-visita a Portugal, e tudo se esclareceu, porque concordamos que não se confunde comentário televisivo com invenção, ainda por cima grave. Fui também convidado diversas vezes para ir às TVs falar sobre este assunto, mas como teria de «queimar» o tal verdadeiro autor da insinuação, optei sempre por o preservar. Não se trata mais do que uma posição de princípio. Teria sido mais fácil sacudir a água do capote. Mas não é o meu jeito de fazer as coisas..
      Depois disso nunca ninguém me ouviu dizer mais nada, como outros desbocados que garantiram que os pais mataram a menina, ou que ela foi morta naquele quarto do aldeamento. Também nunca defendi que o abanar do rabo de um cão é mais esclarecedor que a ciência criminológica., etc, etc. Ou que foi bom arregimentar um intérprete quando havia e há dezenas desses profissionais na Polícia e até no consulado inglês em Portimão, intérprete esse que depois, vejam bem, foi o primeiro suspeito; o mesmo que agora até é suspeito de ter enterrado a menina no jardim da vivenda…, depois de ter recebido um grossa indemnização de vários jornais ingleses que o difamaram.
      E ficaria aqui a falar de um chorrilho de asneiras em termos de investigação criminal que já fora ensaiado no «caso Joana» e depois se prolongou pelo «caso Casa Pia», até chegar ao Rei Gob e outros mais. Porque é que isso sucedeu a partir de certa altura?! Era mais um livro. Continuamos um dia destes. Boa noite. Barra da Costa
      See Translation"


      (sorry for not translating this, it's too long and I do not have the time to do it, but it seems that if you're registered with Facebook, which I'm not, you have access to a translation)

      ReplyDelete"

      Delete
    6. Textusa10 Sep 2013 10:07:00

      The blog's tranlation of the posted by Anon at Sep 9, 2013, 3:48:00 PM (Swinging, part 2 and Swinging, part 3):

      "My Dear Joao Manuel and companions, this issue is fully explained in my book "Maddie, Joana and Criminal Investigation», edited by Leya, Don Quixote, for some time now. So I won’t get too deep into the subject about her, which does not with mean less care.
      The issue caused a stir after I was approached as a commentator on a RTP1 Newscast (Telejornal), in the days that followed the disappearance of the English girl.
      A few hours before I had received information, which I judged as secure, from England, which spoke of that possibility. But more importantly, the same subject had been assured to me in a way that I found very credible, by an element of the criminal investigation, then working on the case in the Algarve.
      Until today I have never mentioned this "national origin" to the swinging question and kept myself waiting that the author, then my friend, would give his face to the authorship. He did not and I do not have that «art» of getting rid of friends, much less hang them professionally, in the public square. The attitudes remain with those who take them and that thing is called character.
      This is someone who could have done it already, it is true, because there was no lack of «friends» who took advantage of him and threw him into certain TV channels, to take advantage of him, giving him some visibility in morning and afternoon entertainment programs. And he wasn’t the only case.
      This appearance harmed him, as it turned out later when he wasn’t able to overcome the old question of «proved, liked» and transformed this problem into a 'psychiatric case', which, as you know, almost led him to jail.
      Let's be direct: there are phone-tapping recordings where this conversation is, and although they are illegal, these recordings may appear if such is justified.
      As for my apology on BBC1, it was treated almost live by the very human journalist who continued to address this issue in the Newscast. He was, moreover, against this apology. But I ended up doing it in a way that was distorted by «jealous» pet enemies that I cultivated. What I said was something like this (there are videos on this subject): "it seems that I threw here a punch into some people’s stomach when I spoke about the possibility of swing; now, it brings me no shame if I leave here an apology to help restore the state of normality among the affected participants". I didn’t say it was a lie, nor that it was true.

      (cont.)

      Delete
    7. Textusa10 Sep 2013 10:09:00

      (cont.)

      Later, a newspaper in which I had a page for two years, the 24Horas, wrote a snippet through which it again wanted to earn money at my expense, as besides being sensationalistic it was a lie, especially the title, which is what, at most, most people read. As is usual in me, I didn’t send a message by anyone and approached on that same day one of the authors of the piece of news in such a way that he never again wants to get closer to me than less than 10 kilometres.
      I also met later in a secret location with the girl's mother, during one of her re-visits to Portugal, and everything was clarified, because we agreed that television commentary is not to be confused with invention, moreover serious one. I have also been invited various times to go on TV to talk about this, but as I would have to «burn» the real author of this insinuation, I opted always to preserve him. It is not more than a position of principle. It would have been easier to shake it off away. But that is not my way of doing things…
      After that no one has ever heard me say anything more, like other big-mouths that have assured that the parents killed the girl, or that she was killed in that room of the resort. I have also never advocated that the wagging tail of a dog is more clarifying than criminal science, etc., etc... Or that it was good to enlist an interpreter when there were and are dozens of these professionals in the Police and even in the British Consulate in Portimão, interpreter who then, do notice this, was the first suspect; the same one that is suspect of having buried the girl in the Villa’s garden ... after having received a big compensation from several British newspapers that defamed him.
      And I would be here talking about lot of nonsense in terms of criminal investigation that had already been rehearsed in the «Joana case» and then prolonged in the «Casa Pia case», up until Rei Gob [Francisco Leitao or Rei Ghob (King Ghob) a convicted Potuguese criminal sentenced for killing 3 teenagers in his house which he built to look like a small castle] and others more. Why did this happen after a certain point in time?! That would be one more book. We will continue one of these days. Good night. Barra da Costa"

      https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=279900155452205&id=139149589527263
      September 20, 2012 at 1:15pm
      ReplyDelete

      Delete
  39. So you persist with the same - the opinion of someone who was retired and had nothing to do with the investigation, as against the opinion of the head of the investigation and all his officers?

    Then you claim there were meetings and holidaymakers who 'volunteered' to take part in a cover up - again, completely ridiculous.

    Every time you repeat rubbish like this, and you seem to be inventing more outlandish stuff all the time, you disrespect Mr Amaral, and portray him as someone who couldn't see all this going on under his nose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 Aug 2014 10:46:00,

      Mr Amaral didn't say anything about swinging. That doesn't mean he believes it or not.

      We are still waiting for you to tell us where you think he was wrong.

      Delete
  40. Have you even read that translation? Barra da Costa says that he got it wrong and that he apologised! You have based your entire theory on someone who has apologised for getting it wrong.

    ''What I said was something like this (there are videos on this subject): "it seems that I threw here a punch into some people’s stomach when I spoke about the possibility of swing; now, it brings me no shame if I leave here an apology to help restore the state of normality among the affected participants".

    Mr Amaral says that the child died in the apartment, probably in an accident, and the parents covered it up. So he doesn't agree with you either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 Aug 2014 11:26:00,

      Next time we promise to read more adequately the translations of what we have translated ourselves.

      Barra da Costa apologised for the impact but he didn't say whether the story was right or wrong.

      He wasn't prepared to out his informant.

      With the litigatious McCanns, we see little else he would do in the circumstances so we fully understand why he did it.

      But he does say there are recordings!

      Mr Amaral could not refer to contents of recordings after the court had forbidden it. But he must have listened to them and, in our opinion, regarded them as relevant to ask for them to be part of the investigation. That would explain the searches for the term swingers on the seized computers – a result of listening to some of these recordings.

      Mr Amaral has said he knows more that he has said. He can't say anything whilst a court case for damages is in process, particularly revealing what has been forbidden, but Barra da Costa hints that although illegally obtained – not according to the adequate legal – the contents could still be made public in the right circumstances. What those circumstances might be, we don't know.

      Could you please tell us which Maddie forum you allege put forward the suggestion that McCanns were swingers? You know, the one the one you say Barra Da Costa read and decided to accept as the truth before making his remarks in the media?
      To us, it seems very unlikely that an experienced ex- PJ officer would read a blog and use it as a source of his statement but we are very curious which forum it was.

      Noticed that you continue to not answer – what is the expression you use? Duck? – the very simple and straightforward question we have repeatedly put: you say that Mr Amaral is mostly right so could you please tell us where is he wrong?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - say your right and textusa and the ex PJ officer has got it wrong and there was no swinging what else do you think caused such a cover up. MR Amaral believed there was a cover up but his public revelations was that it was confined to the tapas 9. Now we have the SY investigation which is quite clearly indicating that the cover up is not restricted to the tapas 9. Sometimes i struggle with the swinging theory also but i cant for the life of me think of any other reason. I mean if it has to be something that doesnt harm children or threaten peace between nations otherwise i think it would have been well exposed by now.

      Delete
  41. Met Police commissioner BH-H has stated that the investigation will not be scaled back and Redwood is still in charge. Both these individuals have questionable reputations and are also 'patsies' along with the chosen 'arguidos'. The scale of the cover-up is huge and must remain so, why else would they be spending millions of GBP's and Euros on this? Even if they have evidence to implicate the Mc's they will think twice about using it as unless they come up with a deal the Mc's being the narcs they are will bite the hand that feeds them. There are many references to this kind of event, the Jimmy Saville case is one, where the authorities were fully aware of the truth but did nothing or steered those away from it in order to save themselves. In the heady heights of power life is cheap and Madeleine is a stark reminder of just that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://news.sky.com/story/1328374/madeleine-mccann-secret-report-on-police-probe

    Madeleine McCann: Secret Report On Police Probe

    So many UK agencies got involved in the hunt for the missing girl it damaged relations with Portuguese police, Sky News learns.

    By Martin Brunt, Crime Correspondent

    The competition between British police forces to be seen to be helping in the search for Madeleine McCann hampered the investigation into her disappearance and has had negative effects ever since, according to the author of a secret Home Office report.

    The unpublished report - commissioned by former Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 - concluded that so many UK agencies got involved it damaged relations with Portuguese police, Sky News has learnt.

    Jim Gamble, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) who wrote the report, said the intervention of competing police chiefs has had a long-term negative effect on the investigation.

    Sky News has been briefed on the contents of the hitherto unseen document - delivered in 2010 - which eventually led to the Metropolitan Police re-opening the investigation.

    It concluded that:

    The intervention of multiple UK police forces and agencies created "frustration" and "resentment" among Portuguese police.

    The decision by the Association of Chief Police Officers to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation was a mistake because the force was ill-equipped to deal with such a big investigation.

    Challenges to the Portuguese police's approach to the investigation led to warnings that Britain should not try to act as a "colonial power".

    Speaking to Sky News, Mr Gamble said that within the first few weeks of Madeleine going missing in Praia da Luz in May 2007 the Portuguese were given advice by CEOP, the Metropolitan Police, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Police Improvement Agency.

    He said: "All of us… your first gut reaction is you want to help…so everyone came with best intention, that created a sense of chaos and a sense of competition…and in many instances in my opinion wanting to be seen to help.

    "It was unhelpful…I've no doubt relationships from the outset with the Portuguese were impacted by it and I think that had a long-term negative effect on the investigation."

    Mr Gamble - who refuses to release the detail of his findings - said the initial Portuguese police response to Madeleine's disappearance was "haphazard" and that potentially crucial information had not been followed up.

    One of Mr Gamble's recommendations was the establishment of a national centre for missing children. However, this has not been set up.

    As a result, Mr Gamble does not believe that the response of British authorities to a similar situation would be any better.

    Author Anthony Summers, whose book Looking For Madeleine is out next week and contains further revelations about the case, said: "It was a case of too many cooks… spoiling the broth of the initial investigation."

    Co-author Robbyn Swan added: "The problems that grew out of the race to help …those things have not been fundamentally addressed."

    The Home Office - which declined to release the report under Freedom of Information laws - declined to comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have they been reading us?

      "The intervention of multiple UK police forces and agencies created "frustration" and "resentment" among Portuguese police.

      The decision by the Association of Chief Police Officers to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation was a mistake because the force was ill-equipped to deal with such a big investigation.

      Challenges to the Portuguese police's approach to the investigation led to warnings that Britain should not try to act as a "colonial power"."

      It would seem so but the report is from 2010. Allegedly.

      Do recommend the reading of the following:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/10/english-stove.html (22OCT2010)
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/06/very-last-campaign-of-british-empire.html (21JUN2011)

      Delete
  43. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report

    'Competing British police forces' harmed Madeleine McCann search
    Relations with Portuguese authorities damaged as agencies fought to join investigation, says secret Home Office report

    Martin Williams
    The Guardian, Monday 1 September 2014 21.08 BST

    The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was hampered because British police forces competed against one another, according to the author of a secret Home Office report.

    Relations with Portuguese authorities were damaged as UK agencies clamoured to get involved in the high-profile case, leading to warnings that Britain should not act as a "colonial power".

    The unpublished report, which was commissioned by former home secretary Alan Johnson in 2009, also said the decision to put the McCanns' local force, Leicestershire constabulary, in charge of the operation was a mistake because it was ill-equipped to deal with such a wide-ranging investigation.

    Although the report was never made public, it led to the reopening of the investigation in 2011 by the Metropolitan police, according to Sky News, which has been briefed on the contents of the document.

    Jim Gamble, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), who wrote the report, said that competition between police chiefs had had a long-term negative effect on the McCann case.

    He told Sky News: "Everyone came with best intentions. That created a sense of chaos and a sense of competition, people putting their hand up and wanting to help, and in many instances, in my opinion, wanting to be seen to help.

    "If we look at it honestly, there were some in leadership roles who wanted to represent their organisation, to be seen to take a lead role and to be seen to provide critical input in this – and that made it difficult for a small, regional force like Leicestershire."

    He went on: "I've no doubt relationships from the outset with the Portuguese were impacted by it and I think that had a long-term negative effect on the investigation. I think to this very day the Met investigation team that's engaged now are still having to manage and massage that relationship and perhaps, to be fair to the Portuguese, mend some fences that were trodden on in the early days."

    Within weeks of Madeleine's disappearance in May 2007, Scotland Yard, the National Police Improvement Agency and CEOP had all given advice to Portuguese police. The Crimestoppers charity published a separate appeal hotline and No 10, the Home Office and the Foreign Office were all demanding briefings from the various agencies.

    Gamble explained that the Portuguese police's initial response to the case was chaotic and haphazard. He said this was "alien to the more structured police you would expect here in the UK. There was not a sense of order".

    "In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects," he told Sky. "In most cases, in the first few golden hours, as you collect evidence, you can then rule them in or out. And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  44. cont

    "When I carried out the scoping review there was no evidence that some of the critical information and the analysis of which could have led to intelligence and to leads had been followed up."

    However, despite the secret report, Gamble says he is "not confident" that the response of British authorities to similar situations in the future would be any better because Theresa May has failed to implement one of his key recommendations. The report suggested establishing a national centre for missing children, combining the resources of top experts and the best technology, but this has not been set up.

    But Gamble believes that the McCann investigation will eventually be solved, despite the setbacks. "Someone knows," he said.

    "I genuinely believe in my lifetime we will find out what happened. Relationships, loyalties change, and at some stage some person will come forward."Gamble has refused to release the full details of the report's findings. The Home Office, which declined to release the report under Freedom of Information laws, declined to comment on the report, but said: "We remain committed to supporting the search for Madeleine McCann."

    ReplyDelete
  45. First HISTORIC moment:

    “Brunt: The report says that a regional police force such as Leicestershire simply wasn’t up to the job But it never questioned its appointed role as UK’s Madeleine coordinator. But the force and other agencies did frequently question the way the Portuguese authorities went about their investigation and that, says the report, led to accusations that the UK was acting as a colonial power.

    Voice-off: That early bad feeling led to the sacking of the original Portuguese Detective-Chief Gonçalo Amaral. He was fired after suggesting in an interview that the British police were not independent and appeared to be working for the McCanns.”

    ReplyDelete
  46. Second HISTORIC moment:

    “Sky News: “We approached all the agencies named in the report. Including the Home Office, all said they would not comment on an unpublished report.

    (…)

    Also here is of course our current correspondent Martin Brunt. Martin, I’m going to ask you first of all, you found out what’s in this report, hasn’t been published, hasn’t been put on record, it wasn’t an official report, why don’t we know about it officially?

    Brunt: Well. I asked Home Office about a month ago if they would let me see it and they said no. And they said very broadly that it was sensitive. Now, I haven’t seen the fine detail but it’s difficult to see anything in it, from my knowledge, that is terribly sensitive. I think the answer is simply, Adam, is that it’s embarrassing…”

    ReplyDelete
  47. How very timely for Gamble,Brunt,and the authors of the latest book of bull,that the libel trial is due to end very soon.All complicit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 2 Sep 2014 06:31:00,

      Just a correction, it's not a libel trial but a damages one:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/07/no-longer-libel-so-dont-call-it-libel.html

      Delete
  48. How can Mcs go back to court this month with headlines like this.....

    'Competing British police forces' harmed Madeleine McCann search
    Relations with Portuguese authorities damaged as agencies fought to join investigation, says secret Home Office report'

    Nothing to do with GA and TVI!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gamble said parents should be considered as suspects at the outset. They were, but in his book GA says how he was obstructed from taking their clothing. He should have told him - ambassador? - to butt out.
    And what about medical records and credit cards?
    McCanns say he was too quick to blame them. Now Gamble claims opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What happened to the photographs Gamble asked members of the public to send to CEOP? That was May 2007. What right did he have to do that? And why did the PJ never receive them?
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/21/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

    ReplyDelete
  51. We wouldn’t be surprised if Summers upcoming book will not be pointing to McCann innocence – or them not being guilty - but to... ready for the surprise? The BLUNDERING BRITISH police cops!!!!

    Because there were too many cooks, the broth was spoiled sounds to us something like “the Brits blundered the investigation and because of that the conclusions that were reached are INCONCLUSIVE or MISLEADING, even FALSE here and there. That’s what you get when everyone is stepping on everybody else’s toes! That said, let’s now wait for the NEW conclusions of this REAL cooperative effort between the police of the 2 countries…”

    See where this is going?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Article in The Times this morning too - same sort of thing obviously. It seems to me that the ship is being steered around to face another direction. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to be changing course as hinted at by Textusa a few weeks ago. If that's the case I'm feeling a little happy today.

      Delete
  52. What do you think, Textusa, that Sky News once again supports the McCann lies ? Will Mr Murdoch eventually show his disdain for the couple ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 2 Sep 2014 10:11:00,

      We seem to see things differently.

      We did not see any support for the McCanns. On the contrary, we saw a program in which they were shown to be the reason for the embarrassment of a nation and where it was shown that the reason for Mr Amaral having been sacked was the fact that UK police force was biased in their favour (thus the 2 historic moments).

      We see no reason to see this program in any way in favour of the McCanns.

      It was very interesting to watch Mr Gambles position. Very revealing and very telling. If he’s reading this, we would like to thank him for confirming many things.

      Mr Murdoch doesn’t disdain the couple. Much the same way he never liked or disliked them. Those are feelings one has for the people one relates with. The McCanns are not in Mr Murdochs league. He, in our opinion, doesn’t have any empathy or antipathy for them. For him they only represent money and status.

      Money as in profit.

      Status as in it was, up to 2011, good to be on the McCanns side fo the fence, from 2011 to 2013 to be silent about them and from now on, as we have explained in this post, to be against them.

      If we are reading this correctly, this Sky News program was a piece that fits our puzzle to perfection. We hope Anthony Summers book ‘Looking for Madeleine’ to be out next week does too. What he and Robbyn Swan say in the program seem to indicate that:

      Summers: “It was a case of too many cooks, all well-intentioned, and spoiling the broth of the initial investigation. And then the mistakes, or should I say, missteps, began to pile one upon another.”
      Swan: “The problems that grew out of the race to help in the initial phase of the Madeleine investigation, the problems of the lack of co-ordination between the Portuguese and the British police, the bad feeling, the lack of translation ability, those things have not been fundamentally addressed.”

      Delete
    2. Refer 10:11 post and reply. Thank you, Textusa. Appreciate your sober thinking and your reply as you are adding depth and solidity :) Why I can also now predict really bad times for these parents and their supporters.

      Delete
  53. Recommend the reading of our 05OCT2010 post:
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/10/gamble-is-gone-beginning-of-end.html

    Before the Review. When things appeared to be easy and straightforward. Only they weren't.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Guardian today:

    Gamble says Teresa May, Home Secretary changed CEOP as an act of political vandalism and didn't understand what she was doing.

    I don't understand what CEOP were doing either. Nothing whatsoever about the Rotheram abuse scandal, where young girls were abused for over 16 years. Just one example of where they failed to act. Maybe because it was taxi drivers and not men using computers, CEOP wasn't interested.

    But Gamble also says something worth hearing.
    "Relationships change, loyalties change and at some stage some person will come forward."
    In his lifetime - could be another 40 years?

    Doesn't seem he expects SY to make any progress.

    My wish is that Gamble's prediction will come true sooner than he expects.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If the McCanns are so powerful as many say why did they allow this to air??

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/british-agencies-hampered-madeleine-search/32624

    British agencies hampered Madeleine search
    in News · 02-09-2014 14:08:00 · 0 Comments

    The competition between British police forces seen to be helping in the search for Madeleine McCann hampered the investigation into her disappearance and has had negative effects ever since, according to the author of a secret Home Office report.

    According to a Sky News, the unpublished report - commissioned by former Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 - concluded that so many UK agencies got involved that it damaged relations with Portuguese police.

    Sky News added that the release of this report was the driving force behind the Metropolitan Police re-opening the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So they are finally rebutting the notion that the SY investigation came about as a result of pressure from the McCanns. Right again Textusa

      Delete
  57. http://portugalresident.com/madeleine-british-media-publicises-new-book-as-%E2%80%9Crevelation%E2%80%9D

    ReplyDelete
  58. Textusa,
    Just picked this up from JH
    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9755p180-why-i-believe-smithman-is-real-and-likely-to-be-gerry-by-pat-brown

    "Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

    Post tigger on Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:20 pm
    Afaik there was no CCTV on that particular route where the Smith's saw the man. Textusa has done a long piece on it.

    The CCTV at the apartment block would have shown the Smith family returning to the apartment which Smith co-owned with (according to his statement on 26/5/07 L........O.......).

    According to Textusa the only CCTV on a direct route from 5a to the beach was near the church.

    Which wasn't the route taken by Smithman."

    What CCTV is this? Could you please give the link to the post where you speak of this CCTV by the church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa3 Sep 2014 12:22:00

      Anonymous 3 Sep 2014 12:16:00,

      The only CCTV images we are aware of are the Paraiso ones and some from a gas station.

      We have heard Mr Amaral refer to a CCTV on the building where the Smiths have the apartment and which he was unable to get their recordings.

      We have no post about any CCTV in Luz. We have used images of Paraiso's CCTV in the following post:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/12/in-emergency-call-112-when-in-hoax-call.html

      Delete
  59. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/procurador_novo_atrasa_ingleses.html

    03.09.2014 10:20
    Procurador novo atrasa ingleses
    Novo magistrado nomeado tem de despachar carta rogatória da Scotland Yard para que diligências possam retomar-se.

    Por Miguel Curado

    A chegada de inspetores ingleses ao Algarve, para mais diligências na investigação em torno de Madeleine McCann, prevista para o corrente mês, está atrasada. A nomeação de um novo procurador do Ministério Público (MP) em Portimão, que herdou o processo, deverá atrasar o despacho da carta rogatória da Scotland Yard a solicitar as diligências.

    O novo magistrado do MP de Portimão entrou em funções esta semana. Está agora em fase de familiarização como os processos e a prioridade irá para os casos com arguidos detidos, considerados urgentes. Assim, a quinta carta rogatória enviada para a Procuradoria-Geral da República, pelos ingleses, só depois será analisada pelo MP. A decisão será, em seguida, remetida para a PJ e apenas nessa altura poderão ser iniciadas as diligências pedidas pelos britânicos, que incluem mais alguns interrogatórios.

    Entretanto, um relatório do Home Office (Ministério do Interior) inglês ontem divulgado, censura o envolvimento de inúmeras agências governamentais britânicas na investigação que se seguiu ao desaparecimento de Maddie McCann, em maio de 2007, do Ocean Club, na praia da Luz. Segundo o Home Office, os investigadores ingleses "atropelaram-se", criando em Portugal e nas polícias portuguesas, "um sentimento de que estavam a ser colonizados".

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sky News 7pm - Exclusive new report on Madeleine McCann investigation tonight - 1 Sept 2014
    jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10227p70-sky-news-7pm-exclusive-new-report-on-madeleine-mccann-investigation-tonight-1-sept-2014

    (video on page 8)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hi Had a couple of hours spare today and went back to 'Maddie's Cube post:
    http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/maddies-cube.html

    For any relative new comer to this site it is well worth reading this post and then subsequent posts to get a very good overview of what has been going on. Everything starts to make very good sense. Having this understanding relieves some of the frustration. Highly recommended and very interesting..

    ReplyDelete

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.

Textusa