Friday, 26 February 2016

Tide change

Now, at the end of winter of 2016, it seems that Maddie has suddenly bloomed like a flower in full spring.

If it had happened in the spring then we all would have understood it. But out of the blue in winter?

Last week we spoke of 2 articles in the Sun, the article  “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann as she launches Child Rescue campaign” published on February 15 and the other, published 2 days later the “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'” in the same tabloid.

Then we said each sent its own specific message to ears meant to be targeted.

The message of the first was in our opinion to ask for an end to the suffering and of the other was that the twins were ready for whatever that requested closure meant.

We also said that both articles had the common factor of being absolutely ridiculous by affirming the likelihood of Maddie being alive and near Praia da Luz.

But on February 20 a third article of the same tabloid was published and showed us to be wrong, there was no ridiculousness in the previous 2 ones. The article was called “Kate McCann: 'I physically can't rest without knowing where Maddie is'

Before we say anything about this last article, we would like to note that in  just 5 days (February 15, 17 and 20) there were 3 articles published in the Sun all by Antonella “I’m a McCann groupie” Lazzeri. Impressive? We would rather say it presents a rhythm that discards any coincidence.

As we said, we spoke too soon of ridiculousness in our last post. But our post was published on the 19th and this article only came out on the 20th, so we couldn’t have read it. In our opinion it’s the most important of the 3, and we have called it the “knowledge of what happened to Maddie” article.

It explains why Kate points all her fingers of both her hands towards Praia da Luz. And by explaining that it justifies the “ridiculousness” of having it said Maddie is still alive. She has to use Maddie for her intent and to use Maddie she obviously has to say she’s alive.

To understand all, let’s first recap the snippets from the first 2 articles.

From article #1, the  “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann as she launches Child Rescue campaign”:

“It’s nearly nine years and that’s so ridiculous and so unbelievable”

“Nine years. Time just goes too quickly. It’s the quiet times that are tough”

“I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”

We then said it was Kate begging “King Richard” for a closure. We maintain that was the message.

From article #2, the “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'”:

Starting with the title: “the twins know all about her disappearance”

Continuing inside with:

“KATE McCann and husband Gerry have told their twins "everything" about Maddie's disappearance”

“the couple have strived to keep their other children in the loop”

“Kate explained: The twins are doing really well”

“they are up to date, they know everything, they know if we are meeting police”

“there is nothing kept from them”.

We then said it was the McCanns (not only Kate) saying that the twins were ready for any outcome. We maintain that was the message.

Now let’s look at article #3, the one that takes us full circle.

From the title: “can't rest without knowing where Maddie is”

And inside:

“she can never feel 'at peace' without knowing what happened to her daughter”

“You just can’t rest without knowing”.

What is being said is, in our opinion, that what happened to Maddie is to be known. To be disclosed.

Almost innocent and logical words if it wasn’t for the repeated Praia da Luz soundbites. Let’s recap on them:

From article #1:

“I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann”, KATE McCann yesterday said she is convinced whoever snatched Madeleine from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz never took her far”

“That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there”

“I’ve always said Praia da Luz is the place where I feel closest to her”

“but Kate believes Madeleine probably never left the country”

“she said she and husband Gerry have learned from their years of research that abducted children are generally not taken far”.

Article #2 doesn’t mention Praia da Luz. It is about the twins so understandably unlikely for that town to have been mentioned.

From article #3:

“Kate, from Rothley, Leicester, said she feels Maddie is still in the Algarve as that's the place she feels "closest" to her daughter.”

To sum up the message of the 3 articles: I want closure, the twins are ready and what happened to Maddie in Praia da Luz is to be disclosed.

Very simple, very direct, very straightforward and very objective.

And what happened to Maddie is really all that happened to her. From the death to disposal. Thus the near Praia da Luz and not only Praia da Luz.

All those who are to be implicated will be implicated.

Kate is saying she’s not going down alone.

Why should she be silent when they go after her? If she’s charged what has she got to lose? Nothing. All she had to lose will have been lost.

It’s not like she can serve a prison sentence, however light, and then return to a normal life as if nothing happened and retake her life from April 2007. She can’t. That was taken away from her in May 2007. Then, she was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in a prison without walls.

And that sentence will not be lightened even if she serves one other in a prison with physical walls.

The only thing that will lighten that sentence is truth. It will not lighten the fact that it’s a life sentence and it will continue to be so but it will make the walls much, much thinner.

When she shows she didn’t run away from the responsibility of the accidental death but that she was forced to. Forced to act out a play faking the life of her own daughter. Forced not because she was protecting herself but rather others, important others, who were there in Praia da Luz that week.

That, and only that, will shift some of the guilt from her shoulders.

She may even go from being the devil to become a saint when the public realizes that the hoax was the work of the “powerful” and that the McCanns were just mere puppets.

Even then she will never be able to go back to a normal life but at least a great deal of the stigma she will carry will be taken away.

Could it be that when she appears to be saying that she won’t go down alone, she’s not being submissive and accepting her fate but rather being defiant and is blackmailing?

We don’t think so. The first 2 articles seem to contradict that. If she was defiant, in the first she wouldn’t be seeking an end but rather stating she continued to have the strength to continue. The focus would be on that.

But it’s the second article that to us clarifies that there’s acceptance. The twins are not played as victims but as ready. As up to speed on all. The article does not seek sympathy. Does not send the message that if they are arrested the twins will suffer even more. The message is the exact opposite, the twins are ready, they are prepared.

When she appears to say she is not going down alone, she’s simply, in our opinion giving a timely warning to those in Praia da Luz and near it to be ready.

These 3 articles in the Sun told us that the tide was changing.

That things seemed to be definitely heading for closure.

But then we were surprised when the changing tide suddenly became a tsunami.

The tsunami of Katie Hopkins publishing on February 22 an article on her Mail Online column “KATIE HOPKINS: We'll never know what really happened to Maddie but her parents should accept their share of the blame and let her go” bashing the McCanns.

Katie Hopkins is a controversial woman who seeks to be controversial.

She has said unthinkable things in the past. But one thing one has to recognise in Hopkins is that there’s no falsehood. She speaks the language of the not politically correct. Sometimes she says things that we think should never be said. But no one can accuse her of saying things she doesn’t believe in.

That’s why she has a massive audience. Numbers don’t lie. On Twitter, Katie Hopkins has 622,000 followers!

So when Katie Hopkins decides to say what she thinks on the McCanns she has definitely set a milestone in the case. There’s a before Katie Hopkins and there’s an after.

The historic moment was set when UK’s biggest loudmouth – said as a compliment because it is by being one that she earns her living very nicely – said “I have never been allowed to say this before”.

If Katie Hopkins, who in the past has used the media to say the most outrageous things, couldn’t up to now give her honest opinion about the McCanns, then who could? No one.

Or as she describes it, “It’s been a white-out, like the silence of snow” up to now.

So when she does finally give her opinion about the couple – and publicising it beforehand – it was like a large stone door protecting some ancient treasured secret that had been sealed shut was finally opened.

We will get back to that “door opening” later on. Let’s first look at what Katie Hopkins says in her article:

“There is no amount of money the will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.”

“Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations.”

“If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand.”

“Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.”

“Kate was no better. There were 48 police questions Kate McCann refused to answer after Maddie was gone. Surely if you wanted to find your child you would give anything, tell police everything you knew, offer anything you had?”

 “Taking her little bed-time toy, Cuddle Cat, with the last smell of their daughter, and putting it in the wash just five days after she vanished into the night.”

Summing up, libel actions threat, reputation salvage, protection by an invisible force, the explicit use of the words “protection of the state”, 48 questions and washing of cuddle-cat.

If what was to be said in order to denounce the McCanns were gangsters then Katie’s article was certainly Saint Day’s Valentine’s Massacre, when many mobsters of Chicago were gunned down.

But the massacre doesn’t end there. We have saved the most juicy snippet for last:

“Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.

Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.”

Savour it please. Read and enjoy every single word of it.

With this, Katie Hopkins just machine-guns down three really important “McCann mobsters”.

First, the BBC. The state media service. She says very explicitly that the BBC “was in on the act”.

Second, at the end, with “they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy” she clearly is saying that Gerry is Smithman, the man SY says is of interest to the case.

But, it’s the third snippet that is the most relevant one. She says explicitly that the McCanns were “sitting on these pictures [the Smithman e-fits] for nearly five years”.

Wasn’t it for saying that the Times had to issue a public apology? Wasn’t it because of that the Times had to pay £50,000 to the McCanns in a libel suit no one was able to know when or where it happened, even after having issued a public apology?

We would say there was more “blood” spilled by Katie Hopkins’ article than on that fateful night in Chicago.

Only seeing one survivor: the dogs. Katie doesn’t mention the dogs.

The reaction to the article was tremendous. It was only the most read article of the Mail online.

As we write this, the article had 46,000 shares and 1,900 comments, the vast majority of which are against the couple.

Impressive to say the least.

Impossible to be ignored.

We don’t think Katie Hopkins ever had so much support to any of her ideas. Many, many said something on the terms of “I really dislike this woman, but on this one she’s spot on”.

Or as a reader put it in a comment to our last post:

“Opening gambit: “I have never been allowed to say this before”, starts the piece by Katie Hopkins, controversial British television personality and newspaper columnist, who has previously spoken out about obesity in much the same style as her latest piece – without filter and completely open to hatred, or perhaps even more shockingly, agreement.”

No question, like we said, there is from now on a time before Katie Hopkins and a time after.

Now, whenever the McCanns show their faces publicly to say anything, whatever, Katie Hopkins will be looming over them. It’s inevitable.

The alert app, whatever that was supposed to be being promoted by Kate (one has to ask why one has to pay install an app supposed to help missing children) has been utterly ridiculed just because she has lent her face and name to it.

By the way, of the 7 sponsors listed for this app that adds nothing to what Facebook and Twitter already do successfully, 3 are quite unsurprising: CEOP, Missing People and Virgin.

We realise that the content of Katie Hopkins’ article is basically about negligence.

Negligence, or “The Narrative of Negligence”, is something our readers know we think has never happened. No child was left alone in that resort that week either by the T9 or any other. All, when not with their parents, were being taken care of by nannies.

We think Katie Hopkins speaks of negligence not because she was curtailed in any way but because she, like the vast majority of the public, is what she believes happened. And by implying strongly that Gerry is Smithman, her narrative doesn’t seem to support abduction.

We return at this point to the “opening of doors” of the media that allowed this article to see the light of day. And be pre-announced.

No way the Mail online would allow itself to be surprised by such the content in an article.

Especially when the article contained the exact same thing that supposedly brought the mighty Times to its knees.

And it was pre-announced. This had to have approval by the Editor.

It’s possible that the Editor to approve, he went to get approval all the way up the food chain, all the way King Richard.

However, Paul Dacre, the Mail editor, has exposed the killers of Stephen Lawrence in a very bold move, making a front page accusation of his killers, which reflected badly on police handling of the case.

We don’t know whether he had to have the nod from King Richard or whether he has just made another bold move.

If boldness was the case, we here congratulate him.

But in whatever case, something happened that changed the rule set in iron that has ruled the UK media from September 2007: what is against the McCanns simply isn’t.

Even if a bold move, only now in these tide changing times could he sense he could be this bold. That the iron of that rule has rusted suddenly and it has eroded away.

Whatever, what was before Katie Hopkins, stopped being so after her. Before sensing he could publish an article like the one she wrote about the McCanns all the boldness wasn’t bold enough.

The tide has changed and there is an undercurrent of expectation.

Are we implying that Katie Hopkins is in on the plot? No, we aren’t. If we thought she was we would say so but we don’t think she is.

She’s too big, loves too much controversy and has a much too wide a audience for anyone to propose her to play any games.

But someone could have suggested something like “Hey Katie, what about you writing one on the McCanns? Think you can do that? Limits? No, no limits… let them have it! We assume any and all legal risks, so write away.”

And away she wrote.

And it seems she will continue to write on the subject.

Another thing the public support to Katie Hopkins’ article showed was that Maddie’s fate interests much more people than those who daily populate “Maddie’s internet world” .

Unfortunately, some places of this “Maddie’s internet world” have, with time, become platforms not to seek the truth but only to provide self-gratification to the egos of some.

We see them pushing theories based on the most fragile of conjectures from which they take highly convenient conclusions while discarding or ignoring blatant evidence because it’s inconvenient for them to include it.

All just to prove a point, the point that they are right. Even if they know perfectly well they aren’t anywhere near being so.

As the Portuguese say, rather break than bend. Rather be caught dead than wrong. They have committed themselves to a certain theory and nothing, not even truth, will stand between them and them being the only ones who are right.

We have never seen truth be proven when parts of its story has been hidden.

But there are countless episodes in history in which what was supposed to have been the truth, is found out not to be when parts of its history that were hidden are revealed.

And in these cases, these inevitably these falsities became truths because someone thought that proving their point was much more important than proving the truth.

Very few things are more loathsome than to lie just to prove one is telling the truth when one knows one isn’t.

Especially about the death of little girl. Disrespecting her memory and disrespecting also Mr Amaral, his wife and the two biggest living victims of all this, Mr Amaral’s young daughters.

And it’s becoming boring. We have had quite significant feedback of people telling us they are only waiting for the court verdict to abandon the case.

It’s a shame to see it happen but they are tired of people enforcing their rather stupid and baseless theories. Theories that are filled only with lots of imagination, usually spectacular, but have little or no substance but only cherry picked information about what is used and what is not.

One is reminded of the words of General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord:

“I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”

Once stupidity and diligence join forces, only disaster flourishes.

The concept of “mine is better than yours” is really quite stupid but it seems to be what motivates some very diligent people.

It’s up to the reader to reach the conclusion if this blog falls under the shadow of this shameful behaviour.

But, as we said, the reaction to Katie Hopkins’ article showed us that there is a number of common citizens interested in knowing about the little girl outside “Maddie’s internet world”.

The reaction from the public to her article but also to the 3 Lazzeri articles from the Sun have made the “archival” option very difficult. We would even say impossible.

The Evening Standard echoed Katie Hopkins’ article with their “Katie Hopkins sparks Twitter frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents”, published on February 22. The Standard article has at the moment we write 9,000 shares.

The interest in the subject from the general public is clear.

In this article, readers can vote in a poll. 87% agree that Katie Hopkins is right that the McCanns should take more blame for Maddie’s disappearance.

The public is speaking with crystal clear clarity.
There was a surge of people going online to find out about Maddie. That article has educated a lot of people about Maddie. For example, many have stumbled on the dog videos for the first time.

The reaction from the other side appears to be feeble, not to say pathetic:

In today’s article from the Sun, again from Lazzeri, “Kate McCann and Coral Jones receive award for dedication to missing kids”, in a story that links Kate McCann to Coral Jones but leaves Coral out of the pictures, Kate McCann has received an award, “the Stephen Wynard Award from the Charity Missing People at a gala event attended by Bob Geldof at London's BT Tower this week” for people who “despite having been affected themselves, volunteer their time for free to make a difference for all missing children and their families”.

Receiving an award from Missing People is like receiving an award from Metodo 3 for best investigative services.

And we are supposing that the sponsor of this award is Stephen Winyard and not Stephen Wynard, a misspelling by Lazzeri, who we spoke about in our “A Triumph of Tycoons” about the private forensic tests done on the Renault Scenic in John Geraghty’s property.

Stephen Winyard, owner of Stobo Castle health spa in Scotland and resident of Monaco, was the first tycoon to be named as a financial supporter of the McCanns. By May 10th 2007, Mr Winyard was reported to have made the offer of a million pound reward for information leading to the return of Madeleine. The offer was made earlier in the week through The Times.

These are the first comments from the public to the article that have come in:

rachel davies 13 minutes ago
Congratulations to Coral Jones. My heart bleeds for both children. The only thing Kate Mccann should be getting is a.... life sentence, for making up a story of leaving her daughter to cover up what really happened to her the day before they declared her missing. Our government will eat humble pie when the truth is told.

Fobie Wobie 1 hour ago
What an utter disgrace that this liar is given an award for being negligent in the care of her own child.

Steve Freeman 1 hour ago
This women has had her child abducted for goodness sake. Say what you like about the circumstances just imagine how she feels for a minute.
I'm sure the knowitall's commenting on this thread are perfect parents and deserve their own reward, but when she goes to sleep tonight her child will still be missing. Our children will be fine tonight, but I hope you guys will sleep better in the knowledge you've made a smug comment towards someone who's hurting, and her child will still not be there in the morning.

Fobie Wobie 1 hour ago
@Steve Freeman The evidence points to the child NOT being abducted.

chiangmai1 1 hour ago
an award for lying and not answer questions about what she done.something wrong here

Matt mould 2 hours ago
So she gets an award for going out on the lash whilst her kids getting abducted ? the whole sorry story is all wrong! dodgy dodgy couple

rachel davies 8 minutes ago
She didn't go on the lash they pretended too so as An alibi for her so called dissapearance this child was never left alone x

robw71 2 hours ago
Is this a f## p###take

Mary Donohoe 2 hours ago
This is a hideous joke, getting an award after leaving children alone, just to go out with pals, sooooo wrong...

jbird65 3 hours ago
That vile McCann woman should be behind bars, not getting an award of any sort. Pity she wan't as dedicated to her kid while she had the chance.

The clarity from the public continues.

Has anyone heard of this award? Was anyone aware that this gala took place?

It seems this award was created in 2015, as announced in the Peeblesshire News on July 21 2015, in their article “Child Rescue Alert at Stobo”:

“A COUPLE who launched a worldwide search for their missing daughter visited Peeblesshire to promote a new child rescue alert system.

Kate and Gerry McCann were among a group of 30 guests and supporters of UK charity Missing People at Stobo Castle for the first Child Rescue Alert dinner in Scotland.

Their daughter Madeleine went missing on a family holiday in Portugal eight years ago.

The local event was hosted by Stobo owner Stephen Winyard who is also a patron of the Child Rescue Alert system which is managed by the charity.

The Child Rescue Alert system, which is a partnership between CEOP, a command of the National Crime Agency, the charity Missing People and Groupcall, offers vital, rapid public outreach when a child is known to have been abducted or their life is believed to be at immediate risk.

If this award is the best reaction the other side has to offer then someone on that camp should rethink their current strategy.

Or maybe the strength of their ammo is indeed running out.

To spend millions and 5 years to end up saying we don’t know what happened to Maddie seems to us something King Richard cannot afford to say anymore.

Post Scriptum 27Feb16:

One of our readers, Anonymous at 27 Feb 2016, 09:03:00, has submitted a comment that just said “Look at what I found!” and a link.

The link took us to a swinger website.

As experience as shown us, we have against us people who are without any scruples or sense of decency, so to protect the private details of those appearing in that swinger website we thought best not to publish the link provided by the reader.

Instead we opted to use a screengrab:

A swinger, saying the following “Hi we are staying at stobo castle 19th feb looking for some company. Anyone around or can point us in the right direction? Cheers”

Stobo Castle is owned by Stephen Winyard, assumed patron of the McCanns and as of this past week a permanent presence in their Rothley household via a Missing People award with his name given to Kate McCann.

We have been accused in the current post by a commenter that we just “point to the files and go 'what do you make of this'”. We assumed that was exactly what we did. We showed readers things on the files and elsewhere and then allowed the readers to make up their own minds about what we showed.

Exactly as we will do with the above statement in the website from the swinger.

Reader, what do you make of this?

We would like it to make it very clear that the hotel owner may be unaware of such events and is in no way responsible for the individual private behaviour of the guests, so we are making no allegation against Stephen Winyard.

Also, as we have said, we have done our best to protect the private details of the people in that website. However, we are aware that if someone is dead set on finding this website and this webpage will eventually be able to do so.

That is not of our doing or responsibility and whoever does it is the only one responsible for the use of the information found.


  1. I look forward to your articles every Friday. Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Kate McCann. To not be able to grieve for your daughter and keep the lies going is a sentence in itself. I can imagine being seduced in a situation of panic to make the wrong decision. Once they started lying how could they stop. With all the spin doctors, media and govt support they must have convinced themselves that this was best for their remaining children. But maybe now she can see this lie will never go away. I believe they loved their daughter and their fear of loss of reputation, career and status made them easy puppets for whoever wanted a cover up.

  2. “Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
    At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
    When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death,
    And when he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

  3. Great piece today, lets hope the Tsunami gathers pace!! Also, I expect Nottextusa to be back here in full force soon, having been kicked of Cristobells blog and all his/her comments removed.

  4. I really do hope this charade is coming to an end. The traffic on the Mccann Files hopefully means that people are checking facts and statements and will no longer buy into the staged abduction and perceived negligence, which most enlightened readers know never happened. Maybe this year Maddie gets the justice she deserves.

  5. Pot,kettle, black when talking about theories in the 'internet world' yours is one of the most nonsensical.

    1. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 11:05:00,

      Please feel free to tell us what fact (or facts) or something (or things) that is out there or that others have shown to be that we have ignored or pretended that it doesn't exist.

      Please do not take this opportunity to rant away and keep the content of your reply, if there is to be one, to objective fact.

      For example, use sentences like "you ignore this that is on the PJ Files" or "you pretended not have read this that X person has claimed happened".

  6. We've been trying to locate venue as it does not look right for BT tower. Also there appears to be a very limited audience,as if its more of a photo opportunity than an event.
    No end to these award stories you would think they were created with one person in mind!!

  7. A wonderful, uplifting piece, the smoke screen is clearing. You have given us some hope, thank you sisters.

    @11.05 - I do find you somewhat very rude and tedious but no matter, your opinion does not count among the more intelligent who are avid readers of this blog.

  8. Ok an example, you state that the crèche records have been altered / manipulated. Dr Amaral etc. did not come to this conclusion. So you're much the same as the lasts photo theorists no......

    1. About crèche records:

      Can you explain the typed letters?

      About last photo theory:

    2. To our readers, Anon has replied.

      It starts with a "I don't need to explain anything". So it doesn't get published.

    3. You specifically asked for items from the files swinging and altered crèche record claims are both not in the files.

    4. About swinging:

      Altered crèche records:

      They're there in the files, for all to see with their own eyes they're altered.

    5. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 12:08:00,

      And you seem to have failed to understand what was asked of you.

      We asked you to give examples of what we HAVEN'T published, or in other words, of what we have avoided to speak about and not about what he have published and you disagree with.

      However, we do thank you for allowing us to show new readers some of our posts.

    6. You point to another of your own blogs as evidence of swinging...

      Your challenge is to show where in the files it states the crèche records were altered etc. not just point to the files and go 'what do you make of this'. There is no statement in the files that days the records were altered or swinging occurred.

    7. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 14:25:00,

      Yes, that's exactly what we do.

      We show readers things and then ask them 'what do you make of this'?

      It's up to them to make up their on minds.

      And we will continue to do exactly that.

      Now, can you please say what we have avoided?

    8. I actally never claimed you avoided anything I claimed your overall theory is nonsensical and you are no better than the 'internet world' you were having a go at. So what you are now saying is that you point things out and make suggestions (kind of like theorising) and this is only your interpretation of what is in the files, therefore carries no more credence than any other internet blogger or forum participant


    9. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 14:50:00,

      Your words: “Pot,kettle, black”

      We deduce (kind of like theorising) that you meant “The pot calling the kettle black” which, says Wikipedia used to claim that a person is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another.

      What are we accusing others of?

      Of cherry-picking information using only the ones that are convenient to their stories. We are indeed accusing them of avoiding the use of some information, more specifically all the information that contradicts their theories.

      So, by saying “Pot,kettle, black”, you are claiming that we are avoiding information.

      Note, we reasoned and came to a conclusion without the help of the PJ Files. So please do not ask where in the PJ Files it states you have claimed or not we have avoided anything.

      When we suggest things, we use the word “suggest”.

      We say, not suggest that the crèche records were tampered with.

      We say, not suggest that PJ searched for the word “swing” in the computers.

      We say, not suggest that the booking sheets were tampered with.

      We say, not suggest that John Geraghty was taken to be physically another man.

      We say, not suggest that that when one nanny says the woman who informs the nannies allegedly on duty of Maddie’s disappearance that she was there to pick up the last child and another nanny says that after being informed by the same woman a colleague stays behind in the same crèche to take care of the remainder children, then one of these nannies is lying.

      We say, not suggest that when a nanny says that she goes from the beach to the Mirage by the road that ends there, she’s lying.

      Just to name a few examples.

      Now, back up your claim that we avoid information, otherwise no more of your comments will be published

  9. Textusa I have only read the first part of your blog and have had to stop for a while. That is the saddest one of your blogs to date and I can feel the saddest from yourself in writing it. I know we have been here for 9 years looking Justice for Maddie but I pray even after all the things Kate has done that she too gets some peace and justice.

    1. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 12:24:00,

      No question that justice must come before any peace is granted.

  10. Hi Textusa,another good article and what sticks out from your post is,"Nannies looking after all the children" whilst adults had time together,evening meals,wine etc?
    not wishing to assume,"So if there was an accident" and this determined on a person's demise,the Company or Employer would become Liable for any claim!
    So if this Company/owners(Symington family) have since been taken over, would the new owners of the complex become liable for any claim from a number of years ago?
    If there has been such a huge colossal attempt to cover up what has happened to Madeleine McCann, just think of how many people have become involved and the costs of any Trail on top of what has already been spent,Searches in Portugal,Crime Watch 2007-2016,Operation Grange £12-15 Million pounds?

    I know this site is dedicated to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann and most of your articles dismiss Paedophilia activity in this case.

    Internet sites from around the world have put together information connecting leaders from World Governments in the long term control of people they could "Manipulate/Blackmail"supposedly having abused young children,prostituted girls for their delectations, Church of England,Roman Catholic faith,Marc Dutroui,CIA in the USA,Jimmy Saville,Memebers of Parliament UK, House of Lords,cover up by previous Governments,so if this is a "World wide Phenonmenon"for the Elite to subjugate the people of different Countries and they have managed to suppress it for years until now?
    The Internet has allowed the public to digest this new information and form their own opinions,than for years we have been hoodwinked by the main controllers of information,the Establishment,BBC £6.5 Million,Saville investigation and less than£800,000 compensation to the victims including the legal costs?
    Maybe this is the "Genie"they cannot put back in the bottle and if it were to be exposed World Wide, would the States of the effected Countries be able to control the situations created by this information?

    1. We believe Maddie's death happened in the early evening of May 3. In the period of the day when children were being taken care by their respective parents, so no Childcare organisation was involved.

      The period that the public thinks negligence happened is late evening/night. It's in that period we think that nannies took care of children in designated apartments. Although the number of nannies was significant there weren't enough to have one in each apartment.

      It would not be practical to use an apartment people used to sleep to gather children from different families, because the guests using that apartment would have to stay up until the last parent came to get their child/children.

      This means that we don't think Apartment 5A was used to take care of children by the nannies. And death clearly happened in Apartment 5A. So again, no nannies involved.

      Even if there was an accident, accident happens. For a company to lose its licence in Portugal, only when a very, very serious crime has happened.

      A company is responsible for its employees to have the right skills. Not responsible for individual acts of their employees when they decide not to abide by company rules. If a nanny knows it's not supposed to hit a child and does, the company is only liable if proved that it knew that employee did that and too no disciplinary action.

      Plus, it would be just a childcare company to lose its licence. Reason for the involvement of the entire UK, when all would be needed was to form a new company with a different name on the next day, with the same people and just continue business.

      If you knew how many times that is done in the wide spectrum of businesses in Portugal you would be amazed.

  11. So she died in the apartment and nobody (not one other holiday maker who was there) says anything to doubt the official party line and this is all because of a swinging cover up?

    1. It's nice to know that this post is really bothering you.

    2. Your post bothers me not other than a blogger claiming their theory is more relevant than anyone else's.You may or may not be correct but to have a go at the 'internet world' when you yourself are guessing along with the rest of us.For the record the rest of the post was God IMO. I obviously don't subscribe to the winging theory however something large scale is being covered up (again IMO)

    3. Anonymous 26 Feb 2016, 15:59:00,

      Please quote us where have we ever said something to the effect of "a blogger claiming their theory is more relevant than anyone else's".

      What we have said and maintained is that if others hide part of truth to make their theories appear plausible, then their theories are wrong and they know that.

      If they don't do that and have different opinions from us, we respect that completely.

      On our part, we do our best not to avoid anything. We have challenged a reader to tell us what we have avoided and he's not come up with anything.

      Does that make us better than others? No, it just makes us equal to all others who don't avoid anything too.


    Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins 4h4 hours ago

    Thank you to @MailOnline for backing their MOST SHARED article on site ever....... …

    And she now has 624K following her!

  13. Katie speaks of Brenda

    Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins
    @catherinehall20 @MailOnline sadly that fell to poor Brenda Leyland

  14. Was Winyard misspelled deliberately to hide previous link to Mcs?

  15. Textusa,wow,Katie really did light the fuse with her piece on the untouchable MaCaans !!The comments were a joy to read after all the years of not being able to say anything against them,for fear of being sued,and as someone who actually went to support Tony Bennett at his court case,I now hope more people will have had their eyes opened to just how big a cover-up this IS !! I never miss your very welcome insights,Naula is also a very astute contributor ,thank you.

  16. I have noticed that a lot of male football supporters are tweeting their incredulity about K's award. It's moving from mainly women taking an interest in the case.
    It's all rebounding in a spectacular fashion on the Mcs.

    1. SunderlandNow ‏@SunderlandNow
      If it was April 1, you'd say we were joking: Kate McCann receives award for dedication to missing kids...

      This account has 10,5K followers!

  17. Katie also retweeted link to PJ files

  18. Wouldn't it be really ironic if Stephen Winyard was the first Mc friend and 9 years later become the last?

  19. Please read the comments in the Sun article, the last one
    Even some no neglect - it was alibi
    This mantra is gaining ground

    1. Thank you for this excellent blog, Textusa. And great to see the indignant responses from the public to the news of Kate's "award" and Katy Hopkins. The McCann Campaign has shot itself in the foot without a doubt. Interesting days ahead x

  20. Unpublished Anonymous at 09:03:00

    That is quite a find indeed!

    We haven't published your comment because we don't want to publish the link as in our opinion it has privacy implications.

    We are trying to figure out how we can put this information up, most likely as Post Scriptum with a screengrab.

  21. Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins
    McCann wanted 1 million to sign up to Child Rescue Alert with @TheSun. Still 965,000 off target. Brits will not back the face of negligence

    1. Anonymous27 Feb 2016, 11:42:00

      See that she's determined not to let go of the subject.

      Why should she? As we said in post, we doubt that she ever had such support for one of her opinions.

      Her life, like that of any celebrity, is based literally on popularity and she has found a subject that is a gold-mine for that.

      Maybe other celebrities take notice?

      About the Child Rescue Alert "fund-raising", we think that all those people wha have been giving so generously ALL these years to the Find Madeleine Fund, or as we all it the Fraudulent Fund, could divert their giving to this.

      After all it is Kate's face doing the asking, isn't it?

  22. We would like to inform our readers that we have published a Post Scriptum, with thanks to Unpublished Anonymous at 09:03:00.

    1. How news travels "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when.." maybe Stobo then :))))) rocking with laughter.

  23. Hi Textusa

    To your Post Script.

    It really is nothing. No different than if a trainspotter happened to be staying at Stobo Castle. Just because I or you wouldn't partake in swinging (or trainspotting for that matter!) doesn't preclude a minority of others doing so.

    And it would be none of Stebo Castle's business what their guests do while around the area. All this tells me is that swinging goes on more than people think, from casual to highly organised and from working class to the elite.

    1. I agree, you could probably trawl through and find reference to lots of hotels. I don't think it's significant in any way, and it's hardly a surprise to find a mention of swinging on a swingers site, is it?

    2. Ah sure it is all one big coincidence. I think not

    3. If it was something on the Stobo Castle website it might be something to get excited about, but its not its on a swinging site. Im more interested in how someone just 'happened' to find it, lol!

    4. It's quite amusing to watch those trying to downplay the swinging trying to get in the last word. A really softly, softly denial tactic to your Post Script. It really is nothing.

    5. Don't be ridiculous what hotel is going to advertise that. As Textusa said it might not be illegal but there are reason why people would want to cover it up. The fact is S and S. Castle are now linked either by an actual event taking place or somebody wants to link them

    6. There is , of course, a connection between Stobo Castle and Stephen Winyard (swinging at the castle) and swinging in PDL, is there not? Or is it just yet another bizarre coincidence? It's also curious that Gerry McCann approached, and/or knew/didn't know Winyard to such an extent that Winyard 'donated' £100,000 to Gerry and Kate 'for the search'. Was it a donation, or was Winyard compromised? Was the money to hush something up or, as Stephen Winyard likes to portray it, a donation from the heart? There are too many links and and shades to my liking. Those who say "what's the fuss - it's only swinging" are missing the point. If it's 'only' swinging, why so much secrecy and, in the case of PDL and Maddie McCann, why the cover up?

    7. E*2012 doesn't say "I'm a swinger I'm staying at Stobo on the 19th, looking for swingers in the area on that day, anyone?" which would mean he would be betting on a chance to find people to do swinging with that weekend. Instead he says "I'm staying at Stobo on the 19th, how can I get more precise directions on how to get to the swinging there?".

    8. Anonymous 29 Feb 2016, 12:54:00

      The swinger does say "looking for some company. Anyone around [?]" which would indicate your "betting on a chance to find people to do swinging with that weekend".

      Going for you is that he does follow the above with a "or can point us in the right direction?" which seems to indicate that he knows that in Stobo castle or nearby area there is someone who is kind of a "swinging FAQ provider" who may be able to answer his query.

  24. The Mccanns knew Mr Winyard alright! This was before he gave them £100k towards their legal costs when they were made arguidos

  25. I don't think the Met can afford any scandals erupting in the future.
    As you say, it's truth or archival.
    My bet, it will be sent to PJ, without revealing findings publicly and the matter will be handed like a hot potato for Portugal to handle.
    It was said from the outset that the findings might not be made public.

    If it's full truth, I'd expect a joint announcement. Then I'd faint with surprise and joy.

  26. Bringing this over from "The Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY" FB group, with thanks to Zora McCartney.

    Scots tycoon attacks 'scurrilous allegations' as he comes out as McCanns' secret funder

    Published 08 December 2007

    ONE of Scotland's most wealthy businessmen can today be revealed as the mystery donor helping fund the fight to clear the names of Madeleine McCann's parents.

    Stephen Winyard, who owns the luxury Stobo Castle spa in Peebleshire, has spoken publicly for the first time since pledging 100,000 to help meet the escalating legal costs of Gerry and Kate McCann.

    In an exclusive interview with The Scotsman, Mr Winyard revealed he has already paid for DNA tests carried out on the Renault Scenic hire car used by the McCanns nearly four weeks after Madeleine's disappearance.

    The 58-year-old father-of-three has remained in the shadows since offering a 1million reward for four-year-old Madeleine's return in May. But he said he could no longer remain silent as "scurrilous allegations" continue to be directed towards Mr and Mrs McCann.

    He said he wanted to highlight the results of the tests on DNA recovered from the car, and on hair samples from Kate McCann and Madeleine's brother and sister.

    Portugese police believe that DNA recovered from the boot of the car suggest Madeleine's body was carried inside the vehicle.

    Meanwhile, Portuguese newspapers have alleged that hair samples from Kate and Gerry McCann's children show the couple sedated the two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, and Madeleine on the night she disappeared.

    Mr Winyard stated that the findings of their own tests, by Home Office-approved forensic scientists, refuted these claims.

    "The reason I am breaking cover is to highlight the findings of that report," he said. "The conclusion of the report was that no DNA was found that in any way implicated Gerry and Kate in Madeleine's disappearance.

    "The further test that was commissioned, basically a hair drug test, also refuted the fairly scurrilous accusation that the twins were sedated or that Kate took sedatives herself."

    Mr Winyard, who splits his time between Stobo Castle and his home in Monaco, was approached by Gerry McCann for financial help in September.

    The businessman agreed to offer an initial sum of 100,000 - a figure matched by Virgin tycoon Sir Richard Branson.

    Double-glazing magnate Brian Kennedy is also donating money to help the McCanns clear their name.

    Mr Winyard said the three were sharing the costs between them. "I think the McCanns are entitled to the best legal defence they can muster to refute these scurrilous allegations.

    "I remain absolutely confident there is totally insufficient evidence to link them to Madel-eine's disappearance and I'm absolutely confident that in the fullness of time they will be fully exonerated," he said.

    Mr Winyard "simply could not stand by and watch" as the couple endured the worst possible hell. "I think you have to be a parent to fully understand, to some degree, what they're going through, to understand their loss," he said.

    Mr Winyard, who has met Gerry twice and Kate once, said the couple "deeply resented" the allegations made against them in the Portugese press.

    "Their main concern is to get their suspect status lifted so that the search for Madeleine can continue.


  27. (cont.)

    "Some of the reporting in the British press has been less than fair. The blanket coverage of every aspect of their lives, the littlest things that they do, creates, I think, the impression in people's minds that they are somehow responsible for what happened to Madeleine."

    "This is all to do with getting the focus back on finding Madeleine. Both Gerry and Kate have been through an absolute nightmare over the last seven months and they're facing some very difficult weeks with Christmas coming up."Mr Winyard criticised the lack of public support offered to the McCanns by the Prime Minister. Gordon Brown initially spoke to the McCanns several times on the phone. But since they were declared suspects by the Portugese authorities, lines of communication had come to a halt.

    "This government was elected to look after its citizens," said Mr Winyard, "and it's fair to say it's a fundamental principle of our legal system that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    "With that in mind, I would really strongly urge that Gordon Brown, who has previously been really supportive, accede to our request for a meeting at ministerial level."

    He acknowledged that the McCanns' decision to leave their children in their apartment at Praia da Luz while they dined had "divided opinion".

    "It is something the McCanns will have to live with," he said.

    A Downing Street spokesman said: "We do not comment on ongoing cases.

  28. One thing that stands out like a sore thumb in the "Stephen Wynard Award" (quoting Lazzeri) is where is Stephen Winyard?

    Googling “Stephen Wynard Award" or "Stephen Winyard Award" only the Lazzeri article shows up. We are supposing this is the first time this award is being handed out.

    Wouldn't it be expected for the patron of the award to be standing proudly next to it the first time it was awarded?

    Also, it would be expected in the article some sort of quote from Mr Winyard explaining his reasons for having lent his name to this award or why he created it in the first place.

    But what we have witnessed up to now is a very strange, for us at least, silence and absence from the award's patron.

    We also find strange that the Sun has not corrected his name, with due apology, in the text of the article. It would be an error as big as having an article today saying that Lionardo de Capreo won the Oskar for best actor last night.

    Interesting review

  30. Missing PEOPLE not Missing CHILDREN web site yet it seems to be promoted as K and missing children.

    Looking at the site there are hardly any missing children and the picture of M is the one on K’s book when aged about 2! Not even the age progression photo! People are expected to look at all 2 year
    There are a few teenage boys so out of the hundreds of people listed very few are children.
    Missing children are always highlighted in the news if genuinely missing so I would think some of the young children on this site will be because of parental disputes.


    The comments are as much against the parents as in UK!


  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Anonymous 2 Mar 2016, 18:30:00,

      We have decided to delete your comment because we don't want to publish the link as we carefully redacted information which has been exposed here.

      Hope you understand.

  34. Each day Katie Hopkins continues to tweet about her article about the McCanns.It seems she is not letting go of this.I wouldn't be surprised if she does another one soon especially since it has become the most read ever on Mail online.

  35. Bravo to Katie Hopkins keep them tweets coming! It never fails to amaze me how some of the public have been blinded by the McCanns PR machine through the MSM.There are many people having their eyes opened to the many aspects of this Circus surrounding Madelienes disappearance.For those of us who have spent time researching the case it becomes easy to forget ,how others have been duped by only reading newspaper headlines .

  36. "This changes everything".Textusa I think you are spot on.The past week has shown there has a huge reaction to it all.Certainly not in the McCanns favour.I was expecting that Katie Hopkins would be demonised in every tabloid and newspaper without haste.There has only been a half hearted mention In the Daily Star .Plus a few newspapers factually recounting her article and the response.This signifies the tide has already taken a turn.

  37. Incidentally ... I wonder if this newsflash from Paraguay (bordering Brazil...) has anything to do with The McCanns' Global Network - referring here to "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell's Department of Reputation Management.

    "Hey! Portuguese appeal judges on duty! Are you reading!? The girl is alive in Paraguay! There was no accident! No negligence! The man is crazy!" or words to that effect!

    To me, it sounds like a subliminal implant but I could be wrong - and "Mickey Mouse" right. Draw your own inferences.

    Like you, I am expecting a lot more of this non-sense as the appeal court proceedings drags on - and Madame D. passes on - to the relevant department - any sniff she might pick on. As usual.

    1. Anonymous 8 Mar 2016, 19:26:00,

      Please do not give Clarence Mitchell an importance he doesn't have not ever had.

      There's no such thing as a "Mitchell's Department of Reputation Management" although we are certain there is indeed somewhere in the high corridors of power a Department of Reputation Management concerning Maddie.

      If Mitchell was so powerful, why wasn't he able to get a circle in which he would be easily elected?

      A man who supposedly has 2 nations on their knees cannot get elected?


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.