Friday, 20 May 2016

Lions and the Settlement of Truth

1. Introduction

One day it had to happen, one day the British tabloids would publish something like this about the Maddie case:

“But Leanne Baulch, 22, of Birmingham, created the page and wrote the fund was created “as a quest for justice and backed by supporters from all over the globe, in solidarity, friendship and above all, in the interest of furthering the investigation of the case into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.


“There are many who follow Amaral’s dissatisfaction, and whom, like him, urge for the day the truth, or some more of it will emerge.”

Unquestionable and unequivocal support shown for Mr Amaral in a British tabloid.

The same press that smeared him shamelessly and ruthlessly has published, in very explicit terms, words saying that one day the truth will emerge on the Maddie case.

A truth that stems from Mr Amaral’s dissatisfaction or, to say it even more plainly, a truth that is not the one the McCanns say it is.

Those following the case from its beginning can fully understand the magnitude of this. The days when it was easier to call for Satan in Salem than saying anything against the McCanns seem to be over.

2. Then and now

If the reader thinks we’re quoting the article from the Mail of May 13 2016 that is now known either as the “Mail doorstepping” article or the “Honourable Troll” one, we’re not.

We are instead quoting one that preceded that one by more than a year, published by the Express on May 4, 2015, “Online trolls pay Madeleine McCann libel detective’s legal bills on eight year anniversary”.

Then it was said truth would emerge and that supporting Mr Amaral was a quest for justice, as shown above.

Then, the British police was mentioned in the Express article for supporting Mr Amaral in the name of a retired policeman, John Green:

“A British policeman is one of more than 330 people who have donated more than £5,300 towards Goncalo Amaral’s legal bills after he was sued by Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry” and “John Green paid £10 to the fund and wrote: I am a retired police officer and will never understand how criminal proceedings have never been taken against the McCanns.”

A year later on May 13 2016 the Mail published the article “Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese policeman who wrote a book claiming the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine”.

To be more specific 375 days, £47,600 (fund would reach £52,900) and 2,484 people (fund would have 2,814 donors) later.

And in between the 2 articles the British police is supposedly to have donated more £990 than John Green’s £10 – in no way are we minimising Mr Green’s donation, on the contrary, it deserves all the visibility possible, but it shows the progression the fund had, even in donations from police officers, retired or on active duty.

3. Imprecisions

The Mail article fell like a drop of liquid detergent falling in the middle of dark grease in a pan of a TV ad, a sudden patch of clarity in the middle of dirty filth. Filth removed to never return.

The article contains some relevant imprecisions such as stating Mr Amaral accuses the McCanns of killing/murdering Maddie: “a Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents” and “wrote a book accusing them of murdering their three-year-old daughter and then faking her abduction”.

We all know this is not true.

The thesis which Mr Amaral defends in his book – and one we don’t agree with – is that Maddie died in an accident when she fell off the couch while alone in the apartment.

When the book hits the stands in Britain that will be very clear and will work against those now saying that Mr Amaral has accused the McCanns of something which he hasn’t.

The article also wrongly states that “the Portuguese authorities formally closed the inquiry in 2008 and cleared the couple of any wrongdoing”.

Again, we all know this is not true, the McCanns were never cleared, they were not charged.

It was deemed by whomever had the legitimate authority to decide that the existing evidence in the process wasn’t enough to charge the McCanns – an assumption with which we don’t agree with and have proved how wrong it was through many posts in the blog.

To those thinking we’re playing with words, we’re not. There’s a huge difference between the McCanns being cleared and not being charged.

That difference is them being or not being able to be charged today with wrongdoings in the case.

When one is cleared it means the system once having judged about a precise matter of fact and confronted with the fact there exists no evidence to charge (note the difference between not existing or not having been found, one is a certainty, the other something that can be changed any time) it makes a statement which exempts the individual of any accountability before justice about the facts in question.

With this statement the process is over for that individual, as the principle of justice that says that one cannot be judged twice for the same facts is put automatically in place.

The justice system analyses and decides about a matter of fact and cannot do it more than once.

But if one is not cleared but just not charged one can still be charged in relation to the same matter of fact. The justice system is in this instance saying it doesn’t have all the possible facts to decide. The difference of a case closed (cleared) and archived (not charged).

The McCanns can still be charged with the facts relating to Maddie’s disappearance. That’s a fact that alone shows very clearly they were not cleared.

Next time one reads someone saying the McCanns have been cleared, one only has to ask of whoever says so if they think the McCanns can or cannot be charged in the Maddie case.

If they can, as they can, then it’s very clear they weren’t cleared.

We will later return in the post as to why we think the terms killing and murder were used, which we think has the same motive of saying they were cleared.

4. Honourable Trolls

Let’s now look at the content of the article.

The word “Troll” appears right in the title. But immediately in the bullet points below, it quickly becomes a “Group of Britons” right away.

Inside the article is a very clear and precise explanation as to why “some of whom admit they are internet ‘trolls’”:

“After the donors were accused of being ‘trolls’, some were furious, insisting they were ‘truth-seekers’. Others adopted the term as a badge of honour, with one even using the name ‘Honourable Troll’”

When troll is said in the Maddie case, please read troll-as-in-truth-seeker. And very honoured to be one. “Honourable Troll”, what 2 wonderful, powerful words when talking about Maddie.

Then let’s read what these trolls-as-in-truth-seekers had to say in the article:

- “Met police officers who said they were ‘outraged’ at the way the officer had been treated”;

- “This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations should be conducted, without fear or favour, malice or ill will. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill will are in this case”;

- “I set up the page to help him [Amaral] with his appeal because I felt he had suffered an injustice. His assets had been frozen so he had no way to defend himself”;

- “I’m not anti-Kate and Gerry McCann. I don’t know what happened and I don’t claim to know. But I do believe there are hard questions that need to be answered”;

- “The people who donated are very passionate and are pro-truth and justice, not against the McCanns”;

- “The fund was part of a ‘quest for justice’ backed by supporters ‘in solidarity, friendship and above all, in the interest of furthering the investigation...”;

- “She was delighted to have helped Amaral”;

- “I think it’s a marvellous result that he won his appeal. I think it was an outrage the case was ever brought … We don’t live in the 14th century or under the Stasi”;

- “Said her interest in the case stemmed from taking holidays in Praia da Luz. She said Amaral ‘was a policeman doing his job and was persecuted for giving his opinion”.

Is this article really about trolling? Because it doesn’t seem to, so much so that one is bombarded with such positive messages about trolls that one just grows a fondness for them. Exactly the intention.

Indeed, there’s no question everyone can clearly see where the truth is and where malice and ill will are in this case.

And the Met is mentioned three times in the article:

#1 – “£1,000 claimed to be from a ‘very large’ group of Met police officers”;

#2 – “More than £50,000 was raised by Britons – including an apparent group of police – in support of a Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents”;

#3 – “One of the biggest payments to the detective’s appeal fund was £1,000 claimed to be from a ‘very large’ group of unnamed Met police officers who said they were ‘outraged’ at the way the officer had been treated”.

No matter how much politicians have humiliated the Met with Operation Grange, with the help of some of its members and heads, there are those in the force who won’t allow this shame to shame them. And it is a very large group of Met police officers.

And to wrap it all up, the article is very clear how important this support was for the April 19 court sentence:

“In an online post thanking his supporters after he won his appeal, Amaral said he felt ‘extremely humble’. He added: ‘None of this would have been possible without you.’”

Words mean what they are meant to mean at the moment and context in which they are said. From now on the word Troll used in the context of the Maddie case has become definitely a synonym of truth-seeking. A badge of honour to be worn with the utmost pride.

The word Troll has now been emptied of any derogatory meaning when said about those looking for the truth about Maddie and has instead gained a whole new meaning of altruistic justice seeking.

Even the Sun had to go with the flow on this one and published the article “Web trolls raise £50,000 for Portuguese cop who wrote book claiming Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine McCann... And even 'Brit police donated'” by Guy Birchall on May 14:

- “One of the donations was £1,000 which came from a “very large group of unnamed Metropolitan Police officers” who claimed to be “outraged” by the treatment the cop had received”;

- “This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations should be conducted, without fear or favour, malice or ill will. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill will are in this case”;

- “I set up the page to help him (Amaral) with his appeal because I felt he had suffered an injustice. His assets had been frozen so he had no way to defend himself. I’m not anti-Kate and Gerry McCann. I don’t know what happened and I don’t claim to know.But I do believe there are hard questions that need to be answered”;

- “The people who donated are very passionate and are pro-truth and justice, not against the McCanns”;

- “Some donors were livid after being accused of being “trolls” but others wore the slur as a badge of honour with one adopting the username “Honourable Troll””.

Was this really in the Sun?

Yes, we pinched ourselves and it really was.

Quoting ourselves from our post “The Last Chance Saloon” on April 29:

“As we said above this issue has had, it seems, quite an interesting development. It seems that the Mail is doorstepping, directly or mandating others to do it for them, donors to the GoFund to ask them ask them why they donated.

To the best of our knowledge this has happened to 2 people so far but it seems the intention was to do this to hundreds.

If one really intends to sell the colour blue, then one seeks the weakest link within the sellers of red and then one does the best one can to discredit that colour and those selling it.

If one goes after hundreds of red colour salesmen, then one will know beforehand that what one will get is a bucketful of compliments and reasons to buy red instead of blue.

For someone who sells blue to attack one or 2 people selling red, means that someone really wants to sell the colour blue. But to go after hundreds of them is to really want to sell red even if one says one wants to sell blue.

We don’t know what the intentions of the Mail on this are. But let’s be naïve for a minute and allow the possibility of that paper wanting to do a complimentary piece on the so-labelled trolls, showing what good natured and well-intentioned people they are.

To do that the paper would have to contact people directly and the best way to do that is to look up the names of those who opted not to donate anonymously to the fund.”

It’s always nice to be proven right especially when everyone else was banging the Mail left, right and centre for doorstepping people.

When they pick beautiful, polite and intelligent people to doorstep, like they did in this article, they are not stealthily selling red while professing they are blue, they are as brazenly as they can saying they are selling red.

5. The Settlement of the truth

Note that the GoFund was closed on Sept 2015. The appeal court victory was on April 19 this year. So why bring this up now?

We think it was to make the point the McCann supporters most dreaded hearing: the water has now overflowed the dam and is unstoppably running down the valley.

The 2015 Express article was what the Portuguese say to “put a spear in Africa” – the equivalent expression as setting the Thames on fire – as it opened the doors to what could follow.

However an open door is just a meaningless passage if no one walks through it.

The 2016 Mail one proves that a year later many people did. Or better, it reminds us all, at this crucial time that many people did. And that these people mattered.

The 2016 Mail article makes the 2015 Express to not be a Roanoke Colony but a Jamestown Settlement. Not an unsuccessful venture but a settlement with a promising future.

It is saying clearly that resolute people, people who mattered when it was needed to matter, are putting their shoulders together and pushing truth along no matter what resistance they find.

The other side understood how important this article was.

Truth has now disembarked on the Maddie beaches and is out to rescue justice from the claws that are imprisoning it.

This was nothing like what happened with the tragic Brenda Leyland doorstepping, starting with the most important fact that they didn’t control it.

They knew this article would be adverse, but never crossed their minds it would be so much against them.

We believe they thought they would get messages from those supporting Mr Amaral. They hoped it would describe one or two violent reactions to the doorstepping. They never expected an article clearly showing the support, how people stepped up the plate when it mattered and counted, including a very large group of Police officers from the Met.

For some reason the McCann supporters are flying away like pigeons being chased by a border collie.

6. The 2016 press and Maddie

The fact that the Mail – in our opinion engaging in a war for the lead on Maddie with James Murray’s Express – felt it possible to publish such an article speaks loads. First of all it means the MSM is rebelling. They seem to have lost the fear. With Mr Amaral’s victory the libel threats have become whimpers.

The press is just not openly brazen because they need to go through a transition period. Between night and day, dawn must happen.

What is really important to be noted is that it has crossed a line and there’s no possible going back for them.

After what was reported about Mr Amaral’s victory the British MSM closed all archival doors behind them.

In 2007, they backtracked, they first accused the McCanns in August and September and but then sanctified the couple from September onwards.

But in 2007 they had something that allowed them to do that, which they don’t have in 2016: Mr Amaral, the PJ, the Portuguese and Portugal.

They all could be called incompetent to justify the British change of heart about the McCanns.

Now, in 2016, who is there to pin the blame on if they want to backtrack?

The SY, from which a very large group of police officers donated significantly to support Mr Amaral? Don’t think so.

It can easily be seen that it will be ridiculous to try to justify the archival after all that has been published in the British press about Mr Amaral and his British supporters.  

7. The Great Maddie War again

Let’s get back to the use of “murder/killing” and the mention that the McCanns were cleared.

The other side is struggling about who will have to fall. We think very soon, if not already, we are back into “Great Maddie War” mode, or in practical terms, it’s a free-for-all with the McCanns but only with them.

The more attention the McCanns get, the less it will be focused on others and that allows some to escape from getting wet when the thunderstorm hits.

So the flames of hatred for the McCann have to be stoked.

They are the ones who are evil. That has to be made clear.

Note how in the title of the Mail article it’s said very explicitly “the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine”.

Even the good guy, Mr Amaral, they say, has said they killed Maddie, or even worse, they murdered her.

The association of ideas is very simple to make. The court has said Mr Amaral was right to accuse the McCanns and he’s accusing them of killing Maddie, so they did it, the murdering scum.

When the book gets out and people read that Mr Amaral has never said such a thing won’t matter as the message will have travelled its way independent of possible correction afterwards.

The carrot has been placed in front of the donkey and we’ll see if the donkey trots after it.

Saying they were cleared causes an equal and opposite reaction, oh, no they weren’t!

Say the McCanns were cleared and the hatred for them just goes up a notch. Quite simple and effective. The more they are hated the less attention others will get.

We remind all that nailing the McCanns alone is not justice. They are to face justice, no question about that, but not on their own. Same is said about the remainder T7.

We do say this almost nonchalantly as we know it will be impossible for that to happen but will say it anyway as a warning for people not to fall in such an appetising trap and avoid contributing actively  to such a primal campaign.

8. Walking with the lions

The fact that one walks with the lions doesn’t mean at all one is a lion.

When one is not a lion and walks with them, one is but a walking meal that the lions don’t even have the trouble of carrying and is just there for them to consume when they feel like it.

Even if one is a lion among lions one has to be on permanent alert, not being one is just stupid to walk with them because of their protection.

Yes, other predators may be dissuaded but the biggest threat is right there, a breath away.

When the lions feel the time has come to eat, they will mercilessly rip the flesh right off the bone before one can even utter a whimper.

We don’t think Lorraine Kelly is a lioness but she has clearly shown that the McCanns’ flesh has now become really appetising for the lions, and is taking a step aside to avoid getting blood spatters on her blouse when the predatory teeth sink into the couples’ flesh.

The McCanns were not the only ones who walked with the lions and Lorraine is just trying to make sure she isn’t part of the menu when McCanns a-la-carte is served.

Lorraine Kelly is just doing what many who walked with the lions in the Maddie journey are doing, trying put to the McCanns between herself and the lions.

She first clarified that she never invited the McCanns this year for the “anniversary celebrations” and now is using Ben Needham with the same intention.

We do not wish to get into the Ben Needham case as we don’t know enough about it to give our opinion, however we cannot have avoided noticing how Lorraine Kelly uses Ben in the article from the Sun on May 14 “Lorraine Kelly: Shameful cops must know the hell Ben’s mum has suffered”:

“Mum’s agony as search for Maddy McCann receives millions, while Ben is forgotten”.

Really? Only realised that after hosting the McCanns for eight years and so contribute to the big differential between both cases?

“Kerry had to watch as the campaign to find Madeleine McCann went global and raised millions of pounds.”

“In stark contrast, she received virtually no help or money from the authorities and while full of sympathy for Kate and Gerry McCann, Kerry understandably found this unfair and frustrating.”

No doubt she has. We think she should speak out against those who did all they could to shamelessly spread that “sympathy campaign” for the McCanns. Really shame of them, especially those hosting TV shows.

Lorraine Kelly abandoning ship is very symptomatic. The truth smiles while watching this spectacle.

To Ms Kelly, please do not play the naïve virgin now, you’re fooling no one. Accept that your name will be placed in history where it was put by your own doing.

9. Conclusion

Things are in a way that only massive doses of shamelessness can stop any conclusion other than charging the McCanns for something.

After Hillsborough we’re not seeing Operation Grange being archived.

The scandal would be huge and the people who mattered and showed they could be counted on, will not be silent.

The media would either have to backtrack on all that has been said lately or save face and fight the archival. Again, Hillsborough as a reminder.

It seems to us that it’s no longer a question of IF the McCanns will be charged but of WHEN.

We will now go back to the case. Mr Amaral has challenged the UK to do a reconstruction. We think it would be nice if we gave the UK a hand.


  1. Hi Textusa,thanks for another well written post,it surely will be interesting to see DCI Andy Redwoods,"Creche Dad" Revelation moment re-enacted to simulate the Irish Family seeing a person carrying a child over their shoulder around 22.00 hrs 3 May 2007 on a long journey back to their apartment/hotel complex from the evening "Creche"?
    As your article clearly states,it is not to demonize certain persons,but to expose the collusion process of the "Establishment" becoming involved and for what reason they did become involved to cover something up?

  2. Both the Daily Mail and The Indy have changed their headlines now from the previously libelous:

    Daily Mail (13th May 2016, 22.01)

    ‘Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese detective who wrote a book claiming the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine's death - and even British police donated’


    ‘Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese detective who wrote a book claiming the McCanns covered up Madeleine's death - and even British police donated’

    The Independent (14th May 2016, 16.00)

    ‘Thousands raised for police officer who claimed Mccanns killed Maddie’


    ‘Thousands raised for Portuguese police officer who wrote book claiming McCanns faked abduction’

    The Daily Mail didn’t have the nouse to change the title in the link though.

    A bit late in the day perhaps, but The Sun however, clearly even slower on the uptake still go with the ‘killed’ headline.

    Doug D

    1. Doug D,

      Thank you for that!

      As far as we know, and we don't know much about computer stuff, the URL can't be changed once published. To "redo it" is to be an entire new page, even if content the same.

      It would be easy to do just that, but then the publication date would change, and, we suppose, all comments would be lost.

      So, we think the links will always show the true titles. Again, we repeat, our computer knowledge goes as far as CTRL C + CTRL V and have just learned that CTRL P makes the printer work.

      If links can be changed, you have just kept that registry for history in your comment!

      We see this as a good step. Backtracking towards seriousness. When judgement comes, the media will obviously be in the front row of criticism, so best present a "clean record" at least as of when tide changed.

    2. Doug D,

      It seems you wrote to the press and it seems you got a positive result of headline changes about murder allegation by Mr Amaral.

      Well done!


  3. So the black hats are losing the battle.
    Their hold and reign of power over the media is weakened.
    So they print some of the truth but cleverly intersperse with some pretty hectic lies.
    Why would that be?
    Maybe to declare an unfit trial. Just a way out for them.

  4. Textusa ,I think ,seeking Justice for Madeleine all these years,has ,without doubt,become an obsession I just could not "let go", but seeing the MSM ,s reporting since Mr Amaral,s "victory" is quite mind blowing.Those who helped in this despicable cover up will surely rue the day for the rest of their lives.I wonder if any of them will "break" now the floodgates are about to open? Their absence from the annual gatherings ,re Madeleine ,were certainly a huge indication that,all is not well!!! Thank you again Tex xxx Lynn or in the words of someone who also donated towards the fantastic fund,I also claim that I too am proud to be called a troll!!!!

  5. Thank you Textusa for yet another wonderful, enlightening and uplifting post in the quest for justice for Madeleine.
    It has brightened my weekend.
    Superb analysis of what the MSM are really trying to tell us and at the same time warning the Black Hats that:

    "Yes, we have the measure of you, we know, we are waiting, we are watching!"

    Thank you Textusa for striking the heart of this elaborate, malicious hoax and for stripping it down to the bare bones by exposing the huge part the Mainstream Media has played in this sick charade.

    I find it fascinating.

    There is no doubt that the media has been suppressed, gagged and D Noticed.
    Surely, even the Fool of Fools or the Clown of Clowns can see through the transparency of the hoax and know that if THEY have the ability to
    see through all the inconsistencies, the lies, the corrections, the change of statements of the 'Abduction without an Abduction, the 'jemmied shutters, with no evidence of jemmied shutters or the fingerprint found on the inside of the window, Kate's fingerprint then so can the media.
    The media is not blind, gagged but not blind.
    Whilst many so called investigative journalists have colluded in the hoax, they no doubt feel that their time will come and then revenge will be sweet.
    To think the media is blind and stupid is to give it no respect, to give it a gross disservice.
    Some of us may despise it for innumerable reasons but to charge it with being blind or stupid is a " no no"
    It is not stupid or blind, simply suppressed, spied upon and watched within an inch of its life by the litigious Team McCann.
    Not everyone has the skill to read between the lines of what the MSM print, for skill it is.
    This is the cunning of the media.
    The MSM, for all its current backtracking cannot escape criticism for its part in protecting and nurturing the lie.
    Many should hang their head in shame.
    Antonelli and Lorraine in particular are now like rats deserting the sinking ship but there is no place to hide.
    Ms Kelly would have to have beenliving on another planet to be unaware of the hoax.
    But, are they not all complicit?
    Justice appears to be approaching at the speed of a Diesel train.
    A Diesel that will keep on running, no matter what, never tiring.
    A Diesel hurtling towards truth and justice.
    It can't come soon enough.

  6. I see the media in a slightly different light regarding the McCann case, in my view they were aware the case was heading to archival in Portugal & had to legally pull out of attack mode leading up to April 08, they have always known where the blame lies & they know legally that section 9 murder/manslaughter abroad can see the case be seen in the highest court in the UK, the famous Old Bailey...hence why they have never asked them the questions that need asking

    Fast forward to the present & the media know the end is in sight & have been throwing the public little teasers & stoking the fire in preparation for their big feast. wont be pretty

    btw I'm not a fan of the way the UK msm go about their business but their business is to sell papers & that's the only thing i understand why


    1. Interesting Matt.
      Selling papers and awaiting the opportunity to make an enormous amount of money.
      They are no better than those whom they seek to expose.

    2. Matt,

      Thank you for bringing up the section 9 murder/manslaughter abroad.

      In our opinion it will never be applied to the Maddie case. Notwithstanding that it is not a murder case, even if it were murder, section 9 would never me used.

      Not because of legal issues but of diplomatic ones.

      One must understand the spirit with which section 9 was created: to tell Britons they don’t have safe havens anywhere in the world. If they commit a crime, they will be accountable to the UK justice system.

      If the nation where said crime was committed doesn’t do anything about it, Britons, rest assured the UK will.

      This means that when applying section 9, the UK is saying that the nation where crime was committed is one with a useless justice system, a lawless country.

      To charge the McCanns based on section 9 would be an intolerable insult to Portugal and to its justice system.

      An arrogance that even those wearing a T-shirt saying “I may live in Portugal but I was made in Britain” (a real T-shirt by the way) wouldn’t dare having for the diplomatic repercussions that would mean.

      About what happened in 2007 in Praia da Luz, whoever is charged will have to be charged in Portugal, under, obviously, Portuguese law.

      Much the same way, about the fund and about what certain citizens (British or other) did in Britain to obstruct British justice in this case, are charges to be brought about in Britain only, nothing to do with Portuguese justice system.

  7. Just something to throw in on top of section 9...the UK has reportedly paid for all operations in Portugal, at least as far as the digs were concerned, the Portuguese military helicopter etc also if you noticed it was reported the UK police would just direct their Portuguese counterparts but as we seen the UK police were directly involved with pitchforks etc
    Who knows what has been ironed out in the 'close collaborations' between the two judiciaries...would it be better to have all cases dealt with in one Judiciary?
    I know we shouldn't mind which country houses criminals but they have parents, siblings & children? could also be a case of which country has the best possibility of a successful prosecution?

    btw Kingsley & Napley would be as useful as a chocolate fireguard if the case does reach the Old Bailey.


  8. Ms Kelly, please do not play the naïve virgin now, you’re fooling no one. Accept that your name will be placed in history where it was put by your own doing.

    Well said Textusa her contribution to the hoax was immense. As you said there was a time whenit was easier to call satanin Salem than accuse the mccanns and she helped create that fear, she lied and manipulated information about the case and her appeal to women of a certain age with her daytime slot meant she was free to abuse her power. Not that I'm criticising all women off a certain age I'm one of them myself but sometime they can be guided by the likes of Kelly and it's often their views in households on family matters that is trusted. They would have helped spread the blind belief in everything McCann. I suppose she just hide away when the truth is revealed and hope nobody notices. Looking forward to your reconstruction

  9. Now even Sharon Osbourne is having a pop at the McCanns...

    1. Why do Mcs respond to this? Answer is because it's just what they want to hear - neglect - making abduction possible, as Sharon also believes that. However, she appears in a negative light rather than the Mcs for her heartless remark.

    2. Wake up and smell the coffee folks!
      The Mc supporting Mirror headline Sharon's "rant" (opinion to other people) is an attack on Sharon (2 million plus followers on twitter) and a plug for neglect scenario!

    3. Ms Kelly has a UK programme about rescuing Penquins how much of a coincidence is that,Ms Kelly sanctified the parents on the settee on many occasions and now that millions of people may have been duped with regard to missing Madeleine could be coming clear!

  10. We have been asked privately what our thoughts are on the recent Sharon Osbourne v McCanns, as published by the Mirror in its article from late last night: “Sharon Osbourne blasted by missing Madeleine McCann's parents after she brands them "insane" for leaving girl alone”

    Isn’t it just a wonderful and juicy carrot put in front of the donkey and watch it go gleefully towards McCann Hateland?

    We would like to ask a question: why did we get to know about this AFTER the McCanns reacted to it?

    Shouldn’t we have first hear Sharon say it, and then AFTERWARDS, we hear the couple’s reaction?

    Because, we’re almost tempted to say that if it wasn’t for them, this wouldn’t be news.

    It seems they’re the ones wanting us to pay attention!

    Either that, or someone is really making an effort so the public really sees how neglectful the couple was, and how that same evil, evil (or should we say insane?) neglect led to – and this is quite important – to Maddie being abducted.

    Please read our posts “The Narrative of Negligence” and “Third Option”.


    I WOULD hate to be Kate and Gerry McCann. Having to live with the guilt every day that if they had made different choices, Madeleine would still be with them must make their lives almost not worth living.

    Although it is nine years since Maddie disappeared as Mum and Dad dined with friends nearby (although not with sight access to their villa), the issue remains burning hot.

    Take Sharon Osbourne (please). On her own talk show on the US network CBS, she described the McCanns as “insane” for leaving their children behind as they enjoyed themselves at the Praia da Luz resort in the Algarve. Ms Osbourne said that on a Mumsnet online thread, 50 per cent of mothers who responded to one post claimed they would never leave their babies unattended in the house.

    Correctly, she added: “So many things happen in a second. If you leave a candle on and a curtain blows on it and caught on fire . . . there is no way in a million years you would ever do that.”

    What I didn’t enjoy was the McCanns’ response to Ms Osbourne.

    They accused her of being “ignorant” and “ill-informed”. In what way?

    She was just giving a view — and there are much harsher and more hostile ones if they care to go online.

    Further, this anonymous spokesman for the couple said Sharon should have considered the effect on Maddie’s brother and sister and kept her opinions to herself.

    Really? Perhaps the McCanns should have thought first about the effect leaving the children alone on that fateful night might have.

    The reality is that because the McCanns are medical professionals, they have had a comparatively easy ride.

    Had Kate McCann been a single mum from Rochdale, I am sure she would have been charged in Portugal with neglect.

    The McCanns would be wise not to be drawn into public spats like this.

    A lot of public money is being spent by the Met on hunting for Maddie and on that basis the public are entitled to their view.

    That may be painful for the McCanns, but it wasn’t the public that left Maddie alone.

    1. Kelvin Mackenzie,he of the "drunken Liverpool fans,who robbed the dying at Hillsborough and Urinated on the Police story in the Scum Newspaper,owned by Rupert Murdoch,who employed Rebekah Brooks to exert pressure on Theresa May via David Cameron,Operation Grange,"to help the McCann family,Remit Abduction and almost forgot Martin **nt,"Well her Identity@sweepyface isn't a secret any more"Sky News Corporation scandalous 15 minute broadcasts of Mrs Brenda Leyland,RIP, this is one big cesspit of depravity with all the above named cohorts?
      Not forgetting the unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987 and the Metro Poloton Police cover up of Sid Fillery,Jonathon Rees,Daniel Morgan's business partner, with links to the one and only Rupert Murdoch?

  12. Just as I thought Textusa.
    I've been reading these newspaper links re Sharon Osbourne's comments and I too was thinking the same.
    Of course her comments are McCann approved!
    Interesting that she doesn't mention the two other children!
    They want and need us to focus on the neglect.
    No neglect, no abduction.
    One even wonders whether or not they are currently liaising with other A celebrities, so as to push the neglect and therefore the hoax of the 'Abduction '
    Disgusting, utterly repellant, the lot of them.

  13. Horrible Columnist .
    Interesting to read his change of heart.
    Like a rat deserting a sinking ship.


    There is a lot of Anti Mc Cann feeling being generated from these articles in which the neglect narrative is being reinforced. A minority understand that Team Mc Cann push neglect to 'enable abduction'. Many members of the public believe neglect actually occurred. Its frustrating to see neglect being widely accepted -does Textusa feel it is damaging the likelihood of the truth finally emerging? OK, we are seeing widespread feeling against the Mc Canns but I'm not sure if it s a good thing or not - for those of us in pursuit of the whole truth emerging..

    1. Anonymous 23 May 2016, 18:00:00

      Apologies for the late reply.

      There’s no question that the BH are forcing for a “Third Option” solution to the case. Really, really pressuring that the McCanns are found guilty of neglect and that it was this which enabled Maddie to be killed and/or abducted by some mysterious person.

      Reinforcing what we have said in our comment of 22 May 2016, 22:16:00 , it has been noted to us that Sharon Osbourne only mention the subject in response to a question. The spontaneity of the answer tells us 2 things: it wasn’t rehearsed and Maddie is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, a cultural happening ingrained in humanity’s brain.

      A child went missing? Remember Maddie. A child was left alone? Remember Maddie.

      Sharon doesn’t even mention their names. This would have gone completely unnoticed if it hadn’t, as we said, the BH forced it down our throats.

      What we have seen in terms of the escalation of the issue is that it really interests the other side that the public perceive the McCanns as neglectful.

      In our current post we have given one reason why: focus the attention on the McCanns.

      In our post “Third Option” we have given the other: close the case with neglect, no one is charged but the McCanns – and only the McCanns – get “punished” for the rest of their lives for having been neglectful.

      In that post we have given the reasons as to why we think it would be a really stupid thing to go for the Third Option.

      You ask if we feel that neglect being widely accepted as it seems to be will be damaging the likelihood of the truth finally emerging.

      Very good question.

      Let us answer by proposing that you compare the BH as someone who has been sold to us as a brilliant poker player but that we know he isn’t – please note that we’re just making an analogy and not, in any way, passing any sort of judgement about the capabilities of the people of the other side.

      To call this player’s bluff there’s only one way: have him sit at a poker table and play.

      You have to sit him there. No other way to disprove him.

      Only at that table will he prove what kind of a player he is.

      Outside that table and before playing he can be anything. You can waste a million words with factual information of what a bluff he is and he will just respond with words saying that what you say is not true no matter how much fact put before him.

      Sitting and holding his cards and winning or losing money is the proof of the pudding. The only proof.

      So do let them push the Third Option as much as they want. If that is what will get them sitting at that poker table, then good.

      Once there, all they have to do is answer the questions we put in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box”.

      If they can, then they are holding 4 aces and we were wrong.

      If they can’t, if they are just bluffs, then the truth will emerge by itself.

      Now, why do we think we live in positive times? Well, they haven’t sat at that table yet but they are showing signs that they haven’t been given any other option but to do so.

      The despair and intensity with which they are pushing the neglect tells us clearly that.

    2. Thanks Textusa, for this response!

  15. Oh My Goodness!!!Neglect = abduction !!! and we now have Katie Price no less spouting off her opinions re Sharon Osborne,s opinions!!! the MaCanns must be rubbing their sweaty hands together big time,especially Gerry,as we all know how he likes attractive women with "the big boobies"and so does Kate,hence her huffing off back to the apartment on her own, when he invited a certain attractive lady to join them at their table for a wee drink!! Sorry to be so flippant Tex,but it,ll stop me blowing a fuse!!

    1. Lynn,

      If by "attractive women with "the big boobies" you mean the Quiz Mistress, for that story to be true, it would mean not only a table for 9 but 10 - even a larger object than the one we have never seen - plus the Tapas dinners having taken place, which they didn't.

  16. Look at who is supporting Sharon:

    Your BFF Insane!!

    1. Anonymous 24 May 2016, 10:46:00,

      Not surprised and a rather positive sign :)

    2. It's almost as if the McCanns are welcoming a verdict of 'neglectful parents' their saga of the Tapas Bar and 'keeping an eye on the kids' and the enormous table that Gerry, in the Channel 4 documentary, couldn't remember where it was situated, because the place, in reality, was too small to accommodate it. I hope the next stage is for the MSM and their commentators is to go beyond this repugnant tale to ask the harder questions. Like what caused the sniffer dogs to signal death and blood in 5a?

    3. Hi Textusa,do you suppose someone from within the UK will have the Temerity to ask Sir Bernard Hogan Howe about Eddie and Keela alerting to the fresh Beef Reisdue or Seans liking for Sea Bass, in the Hire car and apartment 5a,oh and the washed Cuddle Cat that had become covered in Sun cream,not to mention Pants?


    The McCanns have filed the appeal. We had put the deadline for Jun 1, so a week earlier.

    Next step will be to find out if Supreme Justice Court accepts appeal. We put that decision to be around Jul 4, now most likely during last week of June or maybe even earlier.

    We remind people that the decision to accept us based solely on if it obeys all rules to which appeals to this court must abide and not about on what grounds the appeal was made.

    The decision on those grounds is the sentence, in the case appeal is accepted by this court as per above said.

    If it accepts, then Mr Amaral has the time determined by law to counter-appeal and only after that will the contents be analysed by the court.

    Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port.
    Wednesday, May 25, 2016
    McCanns appealing to Supreme Court

    - Privacy versus freedom of expression -

    The lawyer for Kate and Gerry McCann has filed an appeal in Portugal’s Supreme Court following last month’s Appellate Court decision in favour of Gonçalo Amaral.
    This is the latest move in the long-running civil action over the former lead detective’s controversial book about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in 2007.
    The court last month overturned an earlier decision to award half a million euros in damages to the McCanns. The Supreme Court review is expected to focus mainly on legal aspects of the case rather than material issues.
    The lifting of both the damages ruling and the ban on further publication of the book was seen as a highly significant decision within traditional areas of conflict: the right to honour and privacy on the one hand, and to freedom of expression and opinion on the other
    Freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the Portuguese constitution that applies to every citizen, but it comes with certain constraints.
    While everyone has a right to express and to publicise their thoughts in words, image or by any other means, the constitution also states that everyone has a right to a good name and reputation and to the protection of the intimacy of private and family life.
    The media have the right - indeed it is their social function - to spread news and give critical or non-critical opinions. It is important that they do so with respect for the truth and for the intangible rights of others, said the three appeal judges in this case last month.
    Amaral in his book, The Truth of the Lie, not only included facts that were evidence in the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but aired his opinion that Madeleine was not abducted. He suggested that she died accidentally and that her parents covered this up by concealing her body and making up a false story.
    The facts of the case in the form of evidence in police files had already been widely published in newspapers and on the Internet as a result of an initiative by the office of Portugal’s prosecutor general. Amaral had the legitimate right to describe and interpret these facts.
    The allegation expressed in his book that the McCanns were involved in a cover-up was not new either. It was already in the public domain as it was contained in the police files and was the basis upon which the couple had been declared official suspects, arguidos, in the original investigation.
    The judges indicated that the McCanns had voluntarily limited their rights to privacy by making themselves available to the national and international media to which they had easy access. In effect they opened the way for anyone to debate and express opinions about the case, including opinions that contradicted their own.
    In essence, the appeal judges ruled that the McCanns rights had not been infringed and that Amaral’s book was a lawful example of freedom of expression.
    Many observers would argue that the lawsuit instigated by the McCanns seven years ago is turning out to be more harmful and costly to them than the defendants. It has inadvertently generated publicity of a kind they least wanted and boosted book sales, but they have instructed their Lisbon lawyer, Isabel Duarte, to continue to the highest level.
    Even that may not be the end of this dispute. Amaral is considering turning tables and suing the McCanns for damages.


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.