Friday, 12 September 2014

Losing v Not Winning


The McCanns will not lose in the damages trial in Lisbon. In fact, they cannot lose it.

Please read on – it's not what you are thinking.

Before you think we have turned our coats on the issue, we haven’t. Please read again what we have written.

Those words do not state a personal opinion. We’re stating a fact: the McCanns cannot lose as much as Mr Amaral cannot win.

The outcome for the McCann, as they are the plaintiffs, is only one of two: they either win or they don’t win.

The outcome for Mr Amaral, as he’s the defendant, is only one of the two: he either loses or he doesn’t lose.

For the McCanns there’s no losing, for Mr Amaral, no winning. For the first, the worst case scenario is them not winning, for the latter, the best case one is not to lose.

The action of a person swinging a hockey stick at another with the intent to cause damage has only one of two possible outcomes: the hockey stick makes physical contact or it doesn’t.

But each of either outcome represents different things to each of the participants: the one who swings, either hits the other or he doesn’t, and the other either gets hit or he doesn’t.

A miss, one of the 2 possible outcomes of the described action, means to one not hitting and to the other not getting hit.

The difference being that the hitter never runs the risk of getting hurt. Only the other person will or not feel the pain caused by that hockey stick. Only he runs the risk of getting hurt.

In the damages trial, the McCanns are the ones swinging the stick at GA. He is trying not to get hit with it. If he gets hit then the McCanns have won the process. If he doesn’t they have simply not won.  For Mr Amaral it’s only a question of losing, getting hit with the stick, or not losing, if the McCanns are unable to hit him with it.

It may seem only a question of being semantically precise but in this case it isn’t.

We have, like everyone else, made the mistake of frequently associating “to lose” with a possible outcome for the McCanns. For example, we have said that Team McCann has done all it can to assure that the McCanns to lose in Lisbon. We shouldn’t have said that but that they did all that was possible to do and all was done to assure that they didn’t win and that Mr Amaral didn’t lose.

This difference can be noted when saying “the McCanns are doing all they can to mitigate the damages from not winning their case in the trial in Lisbon” instead of “the McCanns are doing all they can to mitigate the damages from not winning their case in the trial in Lisbon”.

To mitigate damages from losing is logical while doing so for not winning sounds like pampering egos of spoiled children.

To heal a bruise from a hockey stick makes sense, to heal the ego of the one who strikes for having missed, doesn’t.


Those saying that the 01SEPT14 Sky News Report (SKR) is nothing but the McCanns in a Damage Control Process are stating they’re mitigating possible damages for not winning, for not having had their way, in the trial in Lisbon.

Let’s only look at this Damage Control Process under the assumption that it is what the McCanns are doing.

In this Damage Control Process the McCanns have apparently been able to muster at their convenience Sky News, The Telegraph, The Sun, a Pulitzer Prize Finalist, Anthony Bruce Summers, author of eight best-selling non-fiction books along with his working partner for more than twenty years, the author, investigative reporter and researcher Robbyn Swan and a former head of CEOP (Child Exploitation & Online Protection) Mr Jim Gamble, all to say that there was an overall British incompetency that significantly hampered Maddie’s Portuguese investigation.

A pretty serious accusation.

To convey this message the McCanns have simply gone and slandered – by involving them in this alleged incompetence – the UK Prime Minister, the Home Office, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Metropolitan Police, Leiscestershire Police, SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency), CEOP, the NPIA (National Policing Improving Agency), ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and Crimestoppers.

And it appears that all of the above, by their silence, seem to have acquiesced to having been incompetent. Not saying by not commenting on an unpublished report always leaves a cloak of suspicion as whenever one is wrongly accused of something one tends to react defensively. In this case, all opted for silence. We call it concurrence by silence.

So, according to the Damage Control Process defenders all of the above seem to have accepted being publicly humiliated simply to minimise possible damages that a Brit couple may suffer because they won’t have their way.

Please read again the relevance in society of those listed and ask yourself if it makes sense.

Plus, do remember that we’re speaking of possible damages. We have explained why we think there’s a possibility for the McCanns to win in the first instance court. Those assuming there’s no way Mr Amaral will lose – we hope sincerely they are right – should avoid counting chicks before the chicken has hatched the eggs.

If the McCanns win the case, what was the purpose of this slandering exercise? Shouldn’t they have waited for the unfavourable outcome first, and then put this up while they were appealing the decision?

But what are the damages exactly that are allegedly being mitigated by the McCanns in this Damage Control Process?

All those arising from the not being able to prove that Mr Amaral was responsible, directly or indirectly, for damages they claim they suffered from him.

Have we missed something? We welcome any correction.

If the decision says there wasn’t any damage caused to the couple then the mistake was to have taken the action in the first place and that means Mr Amaral has as much to do with this result as we do.

If the decision says that there was damage but Mr Amaral is not the one responsible for it, it’s all about the right of Mr Amaral expressing his opinion. A right already granted to him with the lifting of the banning of the book.

Will disgrace befall on the McCanns just because they took a swing at Mr Amaral and missed? It proves nothing against them and only proves that Mr Amaral is entitled to express his opinion and, like all opinions, it doesn’t necessarily represent truth. It may or it may not. It’s just an opinion. His opinion.

And the court will be simply saying he can voice it, independent of being ridiculous or not. It will be saying this and only this. Nothing else.

Any other reading about the court’s decision will be the sole responsibility of the subjective interpretation of each but, we repeat, is not that of the court.

However, whatever reading one makes of that decision one has to agree that to control the damages referred to, the mustering of the “forces” listed above is quite disproportional for the threat it represents. Like using WMD to kill a mouse in the pantry.

We remind readers that in case they don’t win, it won’t be the first time that has happened.

They have asked for the book to stop being commercialised and it is still on the stands. They did not win then. They won on 1st instance but later that victory would be taken away from them by the overturning of the decision by the Appeal Court.

So, as a relevant side note, whatever damage there may result, it can be nullified completely by the McCanns appealing. Mr Amaral did that against them, they can now do it against him. In case they don’t win, that is. The Damage Control Process can simply be an appeal with no need to slander British institutions and organisations.

This would conveniently delay any decision. Any decision from the Appeal Court would be somewhere late in 2015. And if it continues unfavourably for the McCanns they still have the Supreme Justice Court to use – which they did with the unfavourable decision regarding the book. So, all in all, without any slandering circus the McCanns are able to push the definite decision up until 2016 or later simply by following transparent legal procedures.

The fact is that the McCanns didn’t win the banning GA’s book brought evident damages to them. There was this physical object, available to all, stating that Maddie was dead and that her parents were active participants in the concealment of her body. That is pretty damaging for the McCanns.

In January 2010, there were UK headlines very damning for the McCanns. The 12JAN10 Telegraph said “Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears” and 13JAN10 Express wasn’t any kinder “Maddie 'died' in apartment, court hears”


Very damning headlines in a process that culminated in a very hurtful decision for the McCanns.

It seems to us that the damages suffered by the McCanns were far greater then than any they are to suffer now.

Then it was about an opinion, now it’s only about if the right given to voice it is superseded by the suffering to the parents it causes.

Then it was about a book that said their daughter was dead and they hid her body, now it’s only about realising that Mr Amaral is not the only person responsible for their pain.

They survived 2010. Confronted with very damning accusations, the damage control they did then was effective. Why not apply now the same formula to damages of a lesser degree? Plus, we don’t remember then any slandering campaign against UK institutions and organisations to distract and mitigate.

Then they simply used a very friendly media.

Not many, even among the case dwellers, remember the final decision about the banning of the book came in 2011. Most people think the Appeals Court’s decision late 2010 was the final one but it wasn’t. The final one came from the Supreme Justice Court to which the McCanns appealed after the unfavourable decision from the Appeal Court. The Supreme Justice Court upheld the lower court’s decision in allowing the book to be sold.

Why don’t people know this? Because both unfavourable decisions weren’t news. At least not in UK. The McCanns had the media fully on their side and they used it.

The UK MSM practically ignored the Appeal Court decision. The Supreme Justice Court’s decision was simply not reported at all in UK.

When Mr Amaral was told he could no longer sell his book it was headlines in UK but when the McCanns were told that this was no longer so, the same media simply ignored this.

And in the modern world, damages are only damages if the media says they are damages. Unreported damages aren’t damages at all.

So it would be sufficient as damage control for the UK MSM to ignore an unfavourable decision against the McCanns. It would be shameless but it would be something they have already done.

And if they must report it, then the couple shouldn’t have anything to worry about from a friendly media.

They would put headlines like:

COURT ALLOWS BLUNDERING COP TO SLANDER McCANNS

HAVEN’T THEY HAD ENOUGH? COURT SAYS COP CAN CONTINUE TO LIE

PILING NEEDLESS PAIN ON THE McCANNS

COPPER’S OPINION WORTH MORE THAN PARENTS’ PAIN SAYS COURT

“I JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND!” CRIES KATE

Want more possibilities? Nothing we haven’t read in these past 7 years. Not so much so for the past year and a half. But we will get to that later.

Another argument to demonstrate that it makes no sense to say the SKR is not the McCanns in damage control is the fact they always had the possibility to stop things at any moment in time.

Once the book ban was lifted, logic indicated that it emptied out all arguments in which damage to the McCanns by Mr Amaral should be punished even if he was the only person responsible for their suffering. If the system allowed Mr Amaral to freely express his opinion, the same system can’t punish the consequences of that opinion being expressed. Simple straightforward logic.

It makes no sense for a justice system to allow an opinion and then punish one for having it.

Once the book ban was lifted, the McCanns lost their damages claim. Team McCann has brilliant lawyers on their payroll but there’s only so much that a brilliant lawyer can do. Even brilliant lawyer Pinto de Abreu advised the McCanns to come clean because he knew it was the only way out of this.

We are convinced Team McCann realised the moment the Supreme Justice Court confirmed the Appeal Court’s decision that they were fighting a battle they couldn’t possibly win. Yet they continued. We have explained our opinion about this and that is that of May 2011 the McCanns are being agonisingly slowly being taken like lambs to slaughter.

In January 2013, Team McCann offered Mr Amaral an agreement. Mr Amaral refused. That moment would have been the appropriate one to drop the case, if they really wanted to really do any damage control. To do it by anticipation.

A friendly MSM would spin things favourably for the McCanns. And yet they continued. Apparently not afraid of damage even faced with the possibility for success would be little or nil.

Let’s recap what we have said up to now:

- The McCanns will only not win process, not lose it.

- We can’t see any relevant damages coming from an unfavourable decision.

- If they do face an unfavourable decision they have legal procedures to “empty out” damages of said decision

- They have already overcome a much more serious “not winning” situation against the same opponent and about the same issue.

- A friendly media assures no damage to the McCanns even if there is any.

- They had the opportunity to drop the case or not even have started it.

Based on this one has to ask if there really is a need to do any damage control at the moment and the answer is clearly that there isn’t.

But even if the answer was they do, then one must ask if the damage at stake are such that it requires involving – in a very negative way – the UK Prime Minister, the Home Office, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Metropolitan Police, Leiscestershire Police, SOCA, CEOP (and Jim Gamble), NPIA, ACPO, Crimestoppers, Anthony Bruce Summers and Robbyn Swan to control them.

The answer seems very clear to us, unless one thinks it’s appropriate to swat a fly with an aircraft carrier, the damage to be expected isn’t.

But the beauty of all this is that by saying that the SKR is the McCanns on a Damage Control Process it only helps to prove our point: the McCanns are weak.

To resort to the SKR as damage control is because they fear damage. Something they apparently didn’t when the situation was much more adverse than it is now. If one reads all of the above the McCanns should feel more than comfortable with a negative decision by the court but even to those defending SKR to be a McCann manoeuvre it’s evident they are far from feeling that way.

Even those who think this is a McCann initiative have to recognise that the McCanns have never been this fragile.

Why? What has happened that has changed the McCanns from the almighty ones of 2010 to the 2014 fearful ones?

Where is the friendly press on which the McCanns could always rely on? We have a certainty and that is Sky News and The Times have defected.

Why is everyone so sure that the McCanns have anything to fear from the court’s decision? Back in 2010, the McCanns confirmed all their above-the-law status they had gained back in 2007/2008 after surviving incomprehensibly the arguido status.


Where are the 2010 McCanns now in 2014?

Some say that they know they are going down and are trying to drag as many as they can with them. The question that has to be asked is why are they going down? Where and when did the tide turn against them? Because things just don’t happen because they happen. They happen for a reason.

We will be waiting for someone to tell us when and what made the Establishment turn against the couple to the point of them feeling the need to come up with something like the SKR.

If they are doing damage control it is because they fear damage.

We say the SKR was a finger pointed in the direction of the powerless McCanns showing them with absolute clarity that things have taken a turn for the worse for them, we think we have explained ourselves quite adequately with our post “Sky News – The Clarifying Report”.

To those thinking that SKR is part of a whitewashing then one must ask Anthony Summers to return the cheque because it seems he has paid a very poor service to that cause with his book.


About Summers & Swan latest piece of literature - which we won't buy - it seems to confirm our suspicions: a Streisand effect move, only in this case intentional. Not on the part of Summers obviously but by whoever commissioned this piece of...

The literary treasure on Maddie
However, we must say that this piece of... is proving to be much more useful than we ever antecipated.

44 comments:

  1. https://mobile.twitter.com/LHLNews?p=s

    Book reviews.
    Seems it isn't helping Mcs case

    ReplyDelete
  2. S&S have stated their belief it was a charity collector with a sexual motive!

    Now SY have to prove one of 3 burglars posed as a collector
    Not the 16 year old, too young to fit descriptions
    Not the one seen by Cooper who wasn't Portuguese and whose evidence altered, rendering it useless to the Pj who state she wasn't credible
    The one who was over 6 foot tall? Are any of the 3 tall?
    Poor Paul Gordon, who felt like a pawn in a chess game. He will have to be interviewed again, about his orphanage collector sighting.
    The father of the only child to leave a DNA sample on the floor, bed and wall of 5A.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Summer time :


    http://www.charterhouse.org.uk/mainfolder/news/cultural_features/freud_and_fairytales.pdf


    And Little Red Riding Hood story with M.


    Is a case to Sigmund F., I think


    About the post Sorry but yet no time to read

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the McCanns, so actually the Appeal Court decision became final.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 12 Sep 2014 23:34:00,

      That decision, the formal one of not wanting to hear, was the last decision.

      Until it was taken, the possibility of an appeal was possible and only after the refusal did the Appeal Court decision become final.

      Delete
    2. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html

      McCanns Appeal To The Supreme Court

      The McCanns travel to Lisbon as their lawyer, Isabel Duarte, announces that the couple have appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice over the Appellate Court decision to overtrun the ban on Gonçalo Amaral's book: "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie".

      However, on 18 March 2011, the Supreme Court rejects the appeal and authorises the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book about Madeleine McCann. The former PJ co-ordinator describes it as a "victory for democracy".

      Delete
  5. Textusa i know you said the SKR was part of the road to murdochs becoming the hero who finally exposed the mcs but do you detect that the silence from these main players in not defending their position to think there is also an alternative motive. Prehaps to show the pj they can now be trusted with a joint investigation because look we admitted the mistakes of the past and it wont happen again so it won,t

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love Textusa to be right, but unfortunately I think they (SY/UK Government) are desperate for a joint investigation and have changed tactics and admitted mistakes to appease the Portuguese because (if they are to close this case down and exonerate the McCanns) they need the PJ on board. This is their ultimate aim, in my opinion .

      Delete
  6. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/147221160X/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_n7Reub12K61D7

    This item: Looking For Madeleine by Anthony Summers Hardcover £9.00
    Madeleine: Our daughter's disappearance and the continuing search for her by Kate McCann Paperback £3.86
    Vanished: The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann by Danny Collins Paperback £6.39

    Price For All Three: £19.25

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon 20:16:00, I agree with you.
    We know for a fact that the UK 'establishment' was complicit in this from the start. They will not be able to perform a U turn as we would like as it poses much more than a simple embarrassment for them. Redwood is due to retire, he was the lead on the Dando murder which failed to convict the right person. Hogan-Howe is another puppet (in fact that should be muppet) he's not going to be around soon because of his involvement in Hillsborough. If the UK were really serious about investigating this case properly, they would have appointed police who were reputable and competent from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510625/Police-told-conman-tried-to-take-girl-weeks-before-Maddie

    Who told S and S? SY?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mother was British. But she chatted to man. In which language?
      Rented villa. But her child attending primary school, so a resident presumably.
      If a resident, she was aware of the search yet said nothing?!! Even though she thought the man intended to kidnap her daughter.
      She assumed the legs belonged to the man she chatted to the day before.

      Robbyn Swan says it's the single most important piece of information in the book.
      I rest my case Your Honour.

      Delete
    2. “SCOTLAND Yard detectives have interviewed a British woman..”
      “The authors did not speak directly to the British woman, who has since returned to live in the UK.”
      So is SY leaking info to Summers and Swan about an ongoing investigation? Wouldn’t this harm seriously it? SY haven’t released this information publicly before for some reason we assume. Why hasn’t SY reacted to the book?

      Delete
    3. Definitely a ‘revelation’ moment for S&S as they say it’s the most important new ‘fact’ that they have exposed. I suppose the more things revealed from the book the more it will be ridiculed. They must have been paid generously to allow their literary work to kill off any further books they write.

      IF.....there had been such an incident the woman would never have kept quiet and for so long. She would by lynched!!!!!

      Delete
    4. I think the book is trailing behind with the news. SY have moved on to burglary gone wrong, and 3 men including an OC employee are the men they are still focused on, and the phone calls they made. There seems to be little connection between the alleged orphanage collectors and the 3 suspects still referred to in the 5th LOR, action which has yet to be decided upon by the Portuguese.
      S and S haven't commented on the 3 suspects? I haven't read the book, but maybe someone who has can confirm.

      Delete
    5. Yes, as she didn't go to the police and she didn't come forward when M disappeared. And no description of his face, just a pair of legs on the last sighting.
      Blogs could run foaf stories - a friend of a friend saw the McCanns doing... But they don't!

      Delete
  9. Summers is, it seems,fast becomming a laughing stock as an "serious authur"!
    He attempted this before,with his "writings" on Marilyn Monroe,saying on tv how whilst at a party,with Sinatra and his "friends",that she was photographed in a sexually demeaning way with a well known Mobster,and yep,those photographs were convienentley "Gotten rid of"!!
    Again,great writings from textusa!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. From Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan FB page:
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218?fref=ts

    "As quoted in our new book about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann LOOKING FOR MADELEINE, both the PORTUGUESE and British reviews of the 2007 Portuguese police inquiry concluded that investigative opportunities had been missed. Both invesitigations have ruled out Madeleine's parents as suspects and are pursuing the theory of an abduction.

    "A statement sent to The Portugal News explained: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office has determined the re-opening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a proposal by the Polícia Judiciária and due to the presentation of new elements which justify the continuation of the investigation.”

    "It is believed the PJ team in Oporto uncovered shortcomings in the initial investigation conducted by their counterparts in the Algarve and were now actively pursuing the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz."

    "It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance."

    Portugal News, October 24, 2013"

    They claim that both investigations, UK and PRT have excluded the McCanns as suspects. Shuoldn't they have quoted each police force instead of an article from a newspaper that's only for ex-pat readers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Portugal News, which gave the spun version, is apparently a free advertising paper with few pages.
      No new review will have anything from the Portuguese state which confirms who are or are not suspects.
      The book has quoted from a little local advertising rag as a source.
      Authors had a long interview with top man- can't remember his name now, so why not ask for quote from him?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 14 Sep 2014 12:31:00,

      This is what PJ had to say about the reopening of the case:
      http://www.policiajudiciaria.pt/PortalWeb/page/%7B45D0C3D5-89C2-4966-BE04-0C7A6C1146B5%7D

      “Madeleine McCann

      As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

      It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

      The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

      Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. “

      From the source itself and not from any newspaper. It doesn’t take much researching, only a couple of minutes and honesty of purpose.

      It doesn’t mention the McCanns. To say they are suspects to PJ is to distort as much as saying they aren’t. Only PJ knows who it’s considering suspects and who it has cleared of suspicion.

      It's distorting the facts to suggest it's known that the PJ do not consider the McCanns suspects.

      My mother always told me that condemning prostitutes was condemnable. They sell their bodies and not their souls as they honestly trade a service for money and don’t pretend that they don’t and do like so many respectable people.

      But when one doesn't have a talent to make a living then one must find other ways to do so even if one's dignity is completely set aside, doesn't one?

      Delete

  11. Gamble criticises CEOP and LP as well as PJ. But not harshly.

    No mention of programme where Exton complains Oakley e fits withheld, which is what Times article was about.
    A MAJOR item to leave out, particularly when book describes Exton as an honourable man!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pity Summers didn't interview Wendy "I'm not buying it" Murphy, in the interests of balance.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Where is the responsibility of the publisher in this book? They don't publish GA's book because of libel but for them it's fine to publish garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://algarvedailynews.com/news/3416-bestselling-book-challenges-english-superiority-versus-portuguese-inferiority

    Bestselling book challenges 'English superiority versus Portuguese inferiority'

    Created: 14 September 2014

    So much for the 1386 Treaty of Windsor and any semblance of respect for one’s hosts, the culture of alcoholic excess and sexual promiscuity in England’s ‘rotten society’ has been exposed in the latest bestseller to sweep Portugal’s literate classes.

    ‘Bifes Mal Passados’ is a personal account written by a Portuguese professor based in London who portrays the English as ‘violent animals’ and accuses them of being drunk, dirty and sexually promiscuous.

    Joao Magueijo is a 47-year old physics professor at Imperial College London and spent seven years as a fellow at Cambridge taking advantage of the right to work within the European Community and the literary freedoms found in Portugal since the end of dictatorship in 1974.

    Magueijo claims that England has “one of the most rotten societies in Europe, possibly the world,” in his frank personal assessment of English life covering eating habits to personal hygiene and sex.

    “I never met such a group of animals. English culture is pathologically violent. The English are unrestrained wild beasts and totally out of control.”

    “It is not unusual to drink 12 pints, or two huge buckets of beer per person, even a horse would get drunk but in England it is standard practice.”

    Reserving his most acerbic comments for his host country’s cuisine, the sensitive professor claims that the English diet is “deplorable” with fish and chips consisting of a thin layer of fish covered in inches of batter which is so oily “it makes you want to wash it with detergent before eating.”

    Magueijo's description of the social mores surrounding oral sex should further increase the exodus of young Portuguese males searching for job satisfaction in England.

    In an interview Magueijo said he wanted to destroy the myth of English superiority versus Portuguese inferiority. “The English have spent the past 200 years making fun of us, it now is our turn to make fun of them.”

    “I am thankful to England for the working climate I was offered. But then there is all the rest.”

    The book so far has sold over 20,000 copies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 15 Sep 2014 19:37:00,

      Judging a country by the behaviour of a minority is not something we promote on this blog.

      Xenophobia adds nothing to our understanding of this case.

      Delete
    2. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1459179.ece
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11095057/Top-Portuguese-academic-decries-filthy-English.html

      Delete
  15. Just watched programme tonight about the Real Pistorius
    Reeva's parents were dignified, forgiving and totally lacking in self-pity but neither believed his story.
    They expressed disappointment at the verdict and felt that justice wasn't done.
    We did not get the truth, said her mother.
    Their grief was hard to watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 15 Sep 2014 22:57:00,

      Our heart goes out to Reeva's parents.

      They, like all of us, have to understand that real justice was indeed served: public opinion knows he's guilty.

      Public opinion DURING and AFTER trial.

      Whenever a guilty person brags about their innocence after a "not-guilty verdict" makes one simply think "You wish..."

      As we have said in the blog, one doesn't walk into a court guilty and walks out innocent.

      One walks in guilty or not guilty and one walks out convicted or not.

      Guilty and convicted: justice.

      Not guilty and convicted and guilty and not convicted: legal games.

      Courts have become a art performing stage for lawyers but what the public hears and makes of it is what matters. Public have their own ears and their own minds.

      However sceptical we are about them, courts are the appropriate institutions to judge. All we can and should do is to ensure that those accountable sit in them and allow us all watch all the legal games that follow. That is what is important.

      We may not concur with courts but will always respect them and their decisions.

      Delete
  16. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10255p30-crimewatch-30th-anniversary-mccanns-are-guests-16-09-2014#280173

    Murder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://mobile.twitter.com/PORTUGALONLINE/status/511752622731042816/photo/1
      They appear on CW with parents of murdered children.
      They appear at Leveson with hacking victims
      Yet claim to be neither

      Delete
    2. Just watched CW trailer with Mcs.....and only Mcs and AR!
      Mcs and AR were not together in trailer. K looked really haggard. Why only this group in the BBC news trailer?????

      Delete
  17. Oddly enough I've just seen a TV prog in Portugal where Gonçalo Amaral cites one person by the name of TextUsa. He doesn't know where you come from, or whether you are even male or female, but you have being going out live here.

    However, on your theory, I reckon the McCann's will get awarded a shedload of cash, whilst the new book sounds like defining a zero out of 10 for16.99a pop.

    I'd love to say it is shininginluz at the moment, but actually, we've just had another thunderstorm. Life is like that, shit happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment.

      It wasn't Mr Amaral who referred Textusa. It was Paulo Sargento and he was talking about a specific post written in 26MAY09 "Even Geographically, the Abduction Theory is ABSURD"
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2009/05/even-geographically-abduction-theory-is.html

      The exact same absurdity made by Creche Dad as we pointed out in Discrepancy 11 - The Direction, in our post "UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies II" (25OCT3).
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/10/crimewatch-discrepancies-ii.html

      It seems in that crossing people who were supposed to be going from right to left (or not be seen at all as they would be behind building) are, conveniently, seen going from left to right. A very strange but pinpointed phenomenon of recurring human disorientation.

      Failing to see where we have ever said or implied "the McCann's will get awarded a shedload of cash", so we don't know what theory you're referring to. Ours it isn't, certainly.

      Sorry to hear about the bad weather you seem to be going through.

      Delete
  18. Wow. So, I just learned about this case two days ago. I usually don't follow things like this, but there was something about this story that pulled me in. So, I kept reading -- and then found a few videos...and...and...and.

    Everyone here knows a whole lot more about this terrible story than I do, but I just have to get my theory out. Do you ever feel like that? Like, you just have to get something off your chest? So, here is where my head is at, at this point. (And again, be kind, I only learned about this case two days ago -- I still have a lot of catching up to do! I'd love for people to point me in some more directions, if I am missing info. Thanks in advance.)

    First of all, I definitley think they're all swingers. I know the police say that's false, but I think the denial (on the PJ's part) just has to do with protecting the "Mark Warner" tourist dollars. Also, everyone else there, at the hotel, would have had to deal with that, so it was easier for authorities to say it wasn't true. But, nobody can convince me otherwise. I mean, Gerry went to 3 tennis lessons on that day (Panorama report)? No. No way. And everyone from the group was sick at least one night and then fine the next? No. They were just in other people's rooms, etc. Kate, in one interview, went on some ramble about how she slept in the kids room the night before the incident? Then there was that report that she got all upset because Payne made some joke about "Kate's not that bad" -- or something -- when Gerry got up to leave a dinner. And then the lecerous story that that other couple told about Gerry and David Payne talking about Maddie!? Just......no. Not acceptable. Gerry asking the "quiz master" to the table? The pact? IMO, it's obvious that they're all swingers.

    As far as what happened, my gut is telling me that they all sedated the kids -- and had been doing so. One night, Maddie awoke -- in a sedation haze -- fell and.....

    Another reason for the pact? They all were sedating, and they knew they "couldn't" let that get out.

    As for the Tapas 9 or 7 or whatever.....what a bunch of terrible turds. I'm sorry, but, yikes! First of all, David and Fiona Payne give me the UTTER heebeejeebees!?!? I look at their pictures, and all I can see is evil. There is just something really freaky about those two.

    And Gerry!? What. A. DICK! So controlling. So gross. So arrogant. And Kate begs for his approval. It's gross. They're gross. And Kate saying she thought she got a raw deal from the questioner because she didn't "look" like a mom!? What an arrogant piece of shite.

    And whoa. Looked at a pic today that showed Rachael Manpilly Oldfield in 2007, juxtaposed to a 2011 photo.....holy smokes she looks like she aged 20 years in that time! I mean, wow she looks different. Weathered. Tired. Stressed. Dorian Gray's painting.

    What gets me is the arrogance of all these jerks. They just about ruined an entire region's tourism economy, just to save their own butts. And continue to do so! Do they have NO GUILT reflex for anything!? I mean, just cold, cold, cold people.

    Just terrible. And what gets me, is that they are still free. HOW is that possible!? HOW!? Sorry, I'm getting excitable...but, man, this case is heart-wrenching on so many levels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 18 Sep 2014 08:24:00,

      Let us tell you upfront that we disagree with attacks on appearances and making judgements from appearances.

      Expressing opinions based on highly subjective personal ones and using gratuitously insulting and inelegant wording is something we strongly object to.

      For a supposed newcomer, we made some allowance, but please be aware that any further comments which contain personalised attacks will not be published.

      You seem to be quite assertive for someone claiming to have had only 2 days since first becoming interested in this case, which, apparently was only on Monday.

      We suggest you read a lot more before coming to certain conclusions.

      Delete
    2. Wow. Assertive? I wasn't judging what they looked like, but how they behaved. As far as Rachael's appearance, I'm sorry, but visibly aging that much in a 4-year span is telling. She's a beautiful woman, but that IS telling. Someone doesn't go through that much physical change in such a short period without carrying around a massive amount of stress, or a huge secret. I've been on this planet long enough to know that. And then you accuse/imply that I am lying about only hearing of this case 2 days ago? I DID just learn about it. So, it's ok for you to make assumptions about me, but I can't draw my own conclusions about them based on behavior and such? Hypocrite much? Don't worry, I'll find someplace else to post.

      Delete
    3. Also, since you took it upon to say used "gratuitously insulting and inelegant wording", let me respond. First of all, Dick and shite are not "gratuitously insulting." Just because you know big words, doesn't mean you know how to use them properly. Using two colorful words is not gratuitous. And shite is not even a curse. It's obvious from your writing that you think you're a wonderful writer. You're not. You're just one of those people who likes to use 50-cent words when possible. You also try to be clever with your wording, but it just results in sentences one must read two or three times because they don't "read well." Also, just for a little lesson: read the quote from Buddha, on your site, over and over, again; hopefully you'll realize how hypocritical your reply to me was.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 18 Sep 2014 08:24:00, 15:45:00 and 16:01:00,

      We will leave to our readers to read your comment, our reply and your reactions and make their judgements.

      Suggest you set up your own blog.

      Best of luck to your new postings elsewhere.

      Delete
    5. Anon 8.24 was a setting up to make bloggers fit the category of haters like Summers says in his book.

      Delete
  19. Substitute 'Pedoes' for 'Swingers' and you may see the picture more clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think if you substitute 'Paedos' for 'Swingers' you might see the picture more clearly!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not BOTH?!

      Delete
    2. Substitute paedos for swingers where? Not seeing... sorry

      Delete
  21. Anonymous,8.24.Welcome ,if you feel like this at the "begining" of your reading of the MaCaan debacle,I look forward to hearing your reactions when you get even deeper into the "crime of the century",which IMO it is.How ever,until the people supposedly investgating STOP looking for an abductor,we are all ,just going to get angrier and angrier at the obvious "cover up".I,ve been here from day one,and Textusa "keeps me sane"!!!

    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