Counter-Attack

1. Facts

Daily Mail Alternative Fact: “These allegations were aired during the 2015 libel case in Portugal and it is important to point out that the blood traces were never identified as human”

FACT: It was considered proven by the 3 Portuguese courts, 1st Instance, Appeal and Supreme Justice that: “6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.”

Daily Mail Alternative Fact: “As for the Irish couple Amaral cites, the man [Martin Smith] who was in his 70s admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time”.

FACT: Martin Smith never of himself not wearing glasses. He twice makes a reference to glasses, when he states that the man he sees carrying the little girl is not wearing a pair and then of when he had seen Murat previously and he remembers that Robert Murat was not wearing glasses when he saw him that time.


2. First impression

As the reader has realised, this post has started in a completely different way. We will explain why we have done so later in the post.

Today, we will be speaking about the Daily Mail article by Neil Tweedie published on Feb 11 2017 “When will the McCanns’ tormentor in chief stop adding to their misery? The Portuguese detective whose book pointed the finger at Maddie's parents is now writing a second volume”.

The only opinion we have given so far about it was in the comment in which we brought the article over to the blog, where we said: “A long but very interesting article, and interesting that it comes from the Mail”.

The first thing we would like to do is ask readers to ask themselves what did they feel when they read it for the first time.

The first time and not the opinion formulated after it was reread. What was their opinion when they were trying to understand whether it was a good or a bad article.

Good as in the pursuit of truth, bad as in trying to perpetuate the hoax.

It’s said that first impressions are the truest ones, the ones that we should trust and count on and that’s why we are asking what we are, as we think it’s important that each one person understand what they felt when reading that particular article for the very first time.

We think we can summarise it in one word: confusing.

When going through it we saw that it contained blatant truths never said before and blatant lies that we all knew to be absurd and when we finished it, unsure of what exactly was its objectives we all asked ourselves what was it all about.

And then we reread it. As many times we thought necessary to come to a conclusion.

First thing to note, only those interested in the case reread the article. All others just read it once and moved on the next piece of news that captured their attention.

Those interested wanted to understand it, they saw the first time they read it that it contained things that were right and things that were wrong, so we went back to try to understand what was the point of it all.

Only the article was not written for those who would reread it but precisely for those who wouldn’t. The all others we spoke of.

We are saying this based on a simple fact: the vast majority of the people read the majority of news articles only once.

People only reread an article on any subject when they have an interest in the subject reported.

So when we say that the article was written for those who wouldn’t reread it, we are saying that it was directed at the majority of people who have read it. That, in itself is very important.

So, if we are right, the majority of people who read the article just felt confused afterwards.

Only we have just misled the reader. The above statement is absolutely false and it’s important that is understood.

Only those who reread the article, a minority, felt confused. To be confused one has to have 2 conflicting ideas to begin with which means one has knowledge which reveals interest. So only those who were looking to see if it was good or bad did reread it, a minority in the broader picture.

So what is really important to understand is to what conclusions someone who doesn’t have a particular interest in the case came to after reading it just once.

Understanding that is to understand the article.


3. The ‘principle of untidying’

As any housewife knows, it’s very easy to untidy anything in a house.

Let’s imagine that one has 3 t-shirts in a laundry basket, one red, one blue and another yellow, which one has to put in a drawer.

One first has iron the first t-shirt, let’s say the red one, then fold it and put it neatly inside the drawer. Next, do the same with the next one, say the blue one, iron it and fold it and then put it inside the drawer neatly on top of the red one that we had just put there.

To finish, repeat the process with the yellow t-shirt, ending by putting the ironed and folded t-shirt neatly on top of the red and blue ones already there.

The above describes succinctly the process of tidying up.

If we were before people who wanted to derail our logic, we would have to detail what we meant by ironing and folding and so forth.

Let’s now look at the process of untidying the above: turn drawer upside down.

That’s it.

In 4 words all of the above was undone. Untidying is not only simpler, as it’s much faster and concise.

It takes a lot to construct but very little to destruct.

We may need 10,000 words to describe how a castle was built and only 100 or less to say it was blown up and in the end, those 10,100 words are about a castle that no longer exists.

Whoever reads them only retains those last 100 words or less because they are those that sealed the fate of the castle.

The first 10,000 words only matter to those who have an interest in the castle. To all others, they were pleasant to read, they made sense, but that castle is gone – gone being the key word here – let’s focus on the next one.


4. The article

The article is confusing, that’s a fact.

On rereading it, one gets the impression that it was written by more than one person as some ideas contradict each other.

As an example of this, it first says “He made that clear in his book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie, written soon after he was hauled off the case in 2008 and took early retirement. He uses evidence garnered in the police investigation to question the kidnap theory and pin suspicion squarely on the McCanns” but later down the post, it is said: “Few will weep tears for Amaral, seeing an angry man locked up in his own bitter and baseless theories.”

It doesn’t make any sense that the same person would write both those snippets.

Before we proceed we would like it to be noticed the order in which the snippets appear in the article. The good, the truth, first, the lie afterwards. The truth is untidied by the lie. Those reading this only once, the target audience of the article, will retain that Mr Amaral has no base for his theories, forgetting they read the exact opposite just before. A lie will be taken as truth.

Also, please note the difference between the vague “evidence garnered in the police investigation” (truth) and the very concise, precise and clearly understood “baseless” (lie).

But back to the authorship. Reading attentively, one gets the idea that it was like someone asked a Mail reporter, Dr Jekyll, to write an article as truthful and as unrestrained as he could about the case.

That done another Mail reporter, Mr Hyde, was commissioned to introduce evil inputs.

That way Jekyll’s words, the good, are there but Hyde, using the principle of untidying, as we will see, made sure that they became meaningless.


5. The truth for the laypeople

We will now ask readers to forget all they know about the case.

We want them to put themselves in the shoes of the majority of the laypeople on the case.

What do these people think about the case?

That the McCanns and friends left the kids in the apartments (negligence) and that Maddie is dead and that the couple is involved in both her death and disposal of body.

We are not, in anyway implying this is true, just saying what the general public thinks. And based on why does it think this?

We would say on 2 things: the dogs and Martin Smith.

It was widely reported in 2007 that the dogs signalled both cadaverine and blood in the apartment and in the car the couple hired long after Maddie had disappeared. Plus cadaverine was also signalled on Kate McCanns clothes.

Also, it was widely reported that Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann as the man he saw, when he saw him going down the stairs off the airplane after fleeing Portugal.

This, the Smith Sighting, was rammed down the public’s throat during the Oct 2013 “UK Crimewatch”. With it, SY showed that this sighting was of great interest to the case.

To the laypeople, the conclusion was a very simple one to reach: the man who Martin Smith saw was Gerry McCann carrying Maddie.

Again, not saying we subscribe this – we don’t, we think it was Gerry with Jane Tanner’s daughter – just stating what we think the general public thinks.


6. Destroying truth, the dogs

Lets’ now see what the article has to say about the dogs and Martin Smith.

About the dogs, the article first says:

“In an interview he [Mr Amaral] claimed the witness statements and depositions of the McCanns ‘reveal a major level of imprecision, of incoherence and contradiction . . . the existence of blood traces behind the sofa in the apartment, which was confirmed by preliminary analyses.

‘One can presume that the little girl fell behind that piece of furniture . . . The same for the finding of odours and traces of blood in the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns, three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance. It was the only vehicle among 11 that retained the dogs’ attention.”

Very good. It confirms the existence of blood detected by Eddie both “behind the sofa in the apartment” and “the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns”, even highlighting the fact that it was rented by the McCanns “three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance”.

No question about it, pretty, pretty damning for the McCanns.

But let’s see what is said next about the blood: “and it is important to point out that the blood traces were never identified as human”.

We know this to be a lie. We will say that it is an outrageous lie that screams falsehood but does the general public know that it is a lie? No, it doesn’t.

And after being told this when reading such an apparently well-researched article, will it question its veracity? No, it will not.

The general public will instead think, oh, that explains why they never charged the McCanns, after all it couldn’t be ruled out that it could be blood from some animal.

No use saying that Keela was trained to detect ONLY human blood nor that all 3 courts in Portugal agreed that it was a proven fact.

The article is destined to those wanting to be spoon-fed rather than go and find out if it is true or not, so by outright lying one is able to destroy truth.

Dismantling truth with an unchecked lie makes truth to be a lie.

It’s unchecked because the whole article is based on the premise, unfortunately real, that the laypeople, the ignorant, will accept these as facts without checking them. Reality tells us that is the case.

With the blood being possibly not human, then it makes sense for the McCanns for not having been charged.

We hope the reader understands how the untidying principle was used, very effectively.

Please note that in article that is unquestionably researched, there’s not a single mention about cadaverine. Eddie, according to this article wasn’t even present, there were only blood signalling dogs there if one is to trust this article, and the general public has every reason to trust it.

Or, apparently it has no reason not to trust it as it appears to be researched and balanced.

If the article meant to tell the truth, cadaverine would be mentioned together with blood, as it’s much more damning for the McCanns. We know that besides the cadaverine having been signalled behind the couch and in the car, it was also marked in the bedroom closet and the backyard.

Nothing in the article about this. Why? Because the only lies that have been running about this are ridiculous, Kate McCann having been in contact with corpses before coming to Portugal, the seabass story and Insane’s graveyard in the backyard.

As this piece of truth can’t be destroyed, best be left out as it was.


7. Destroying the truth, Mr Smith

Now let’s look at Martin Smith:

“There is equally the witness statement of an Irish couple that states they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the evening of the events.”

That’s the true bit which is then it’s dismantled with:

“As for the Irish couple Amaral cites, the man who was in his 70s admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time, while dozens of witnesses confirmed Gerry McCann was at the holiday complex at 10pm when the man and his wife ‘thought’ they saw him.”

No glasses? That, the general public will say, explains why they couldn’t charge Gerry!

An article so well researched, which evidently it was, could not have missed the fact that Mr Smith nowhere in the PJ Files say he was visually impaired because he was not using glasses at the time. Mr Smith refers glasses twice, once to say the man, and not him, was not wearing glasses and then when he says Robert Murat wasn’t wearing any when he saw him in a previous occasion.

To say that Mr Smith has admitted he was not wearing glasses is to lie without shame. It’s to go out of the way to lie. It’s to debunk truth with an outrageous lie. Again. And it’s effective.

We won’t even ask for the “dozens” of witnesses who say Gerry is at Tapas at 10 pm. Witnesses account for the presence of a group that night but as we have explained in detail in various posts we have reason to believe the Tapas staff were being very economical with the truth when they gave their statements. But even they, being complicit with all as we think they were, do not place Gerry at Tapas at that hour.

All are very uncompromising, not to say vague about how the alarm was given that it would be very strange not to be able to be precise about it and to be specific about one person within the group at that exact moment.

As for the other guests supposedly present, none has come forward to confirm Gerry’s presence, and the only one we have the statement from, fantasist Stephen Carpenter, says he left Tapas before then.

What matters is that the article dismantles the Smith Sighting with a lie, and if one doesn’t know it to be one, one believes in it.

That’s the reason why we opened this post with the Daily Mail’s Alternative Fact v FACT.

It’s our little contribution against this process. Anyone stumbling on us, and without any further research, will be given right away the information that the Daily Mail has so blatantly lied about this and the blood.


8. Not to mislead but to destroy

The author(s) also bring up Kate’s fingerprint on the shutters:

“Finally, there’s Kate McCann’s fingerprint on the window of Madeleine’s bedroom, which clearly indicates that she opened that window, undoubtedly to make us believe in the abduction theory, while stating that the window was already open when she arrived on the spot at 10pm, the time at which she noticed Madeleine’s disappearance and raised the alarm.”

And the “undoubtedly to make us believe” is immediately dismantled in the following paragraph with “nor are fingerprints on a window evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Kate McCann.”

So, to sum up, according to the author(s) there are 3 things that are damning for the McCanns: blood, Mr Smith and Kate’s fingerprints.

Nothing else, apparently, is damning otherwise such a well-researched article would mention it.

All 3 are detailed TRUTHFULLY and then their truths debunked with what we, who are familiar with case, know to be lies but those who are not, don’t.

The fact that the general public doesn’t is the whole point. Only a minority can call them out and where can they do that? On the internet where their protest, our protest, has to be searched for it to be seen.

Note that this debunking of the truth is not done to mislead.

It goes much further than that, it is done to destroy, cripple and maim truth.

The truth is there for people to see, that cannot be denied but its presence serves only for its demise to be witnessed.

Very, very effective.

And all is done in accordance with the fact that the McCanns were not cleared BUT they were not charged either.

Basically explaining why by fooling people who on reading such a well-researched and balanced piece have no reason not to trust it.


9. Lets’ mystify, international antagonism

One must also pay attention to the nationality slant that is brought into the article:

“The ruling also raises questions about the impartiality of the Portuguese courts in a highly politicised case that saw prime ministers from Tony Blair onwards intervening at one level or another to assist in the investigation.

There is continuing widespread and bitter resentment towards the McCanns in Portugal because of the case’s impact on tourism in the Algarve.

Last year, Rui Pereira, a former Portuguese minister of internal affairs, condemned his own police force for not making Kate and Gerry McCann suspects for child abandonment.

He accused his countrymen of a sense of inferiority to the British that allowed the latter to push the kidnap hypothesis at the expense of something nearer to home.

‘At the beginning, there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory that said the English have very peculiar cultural customs,’ said Pereira. ‘And, therefore, it was natural for them to leave the [children] alone in a bedroom for the parents to go out a few hundred metres away to socialise with their friends.’”

The idea is to explain to the general public that things weren’t done correctly because there was animosity between the 2 countries, either because the UK intervened or because Portuguese had an inferiority complex to overcome and was resentful.

The article raises, outrageously, questions about the impartiality of the Portuguese justice system, without explaining from where that idea has originated. But it is there, baseless but to be retained by the reader.

The resentment that is spoken of, is evidently false. Everyone knows that Maddie was never kidnapped so it has had absolutely no effects on the region’s tourism numbers which, by the way, have grown yearly afterwards.

By reading the above, one senses there were decisions taken in Portugal on what to do and on what not to do that were based on external pressures – which is true – and that resulted in a resentment that drove the PJ to charge the McCanns at all costs, which we know is false.

Reading the above, the general public gets the idea that even wanting to desperately charge the McCanns, they weren’t able to, which is a point in favour of the McCanns’ innocence, irrelevant of what the Portuguese court said about them not having been cleared.

After all, the blood, Mr Smith and Kate’s fingerprints were useless pieces of evidence, weren’t they?


10. Let’s mystify, evil Mr Amaral

This is followed up with the destruction of Mr Amaral´s character:

“He is said to have made some £300,000 from his book and an accompanying documentary, but the money appears to be long gone and, now 57, he attempts to make a living writing books from his father’s home in Lisbon. Counter-suing the McCanns, as he has threatened, may be the only way to restore his finances.

That, and writing a second book on the case — which is just what he is planning.

Few will weep tears for Amaral, seeing an angry man locked up in his own bitter and baseless theories. He continues to insist the long-running, high-profile campaign to find Madeleine, the vast fund accumulated for that purpose, the marathon inquiries into her disappearance conducted by first Portuguese police and then Scotland Yard are constructed on nothing but a lie.

(…)

Goncalo Amaral insists he is not obsessed by the case but frustrated that lines of inquiry were not properly followed through because of what he claims were political pressures emanating from Lisbon via the British government.

An associate of Amaral’s said this week the detective has been motivated in his legal battles purely by a desire to ensure evidence relevant to the case is available to the public, and not locked away in official archives.

‘He is a man with a strong feeling of justice,’ says the source. And that is the enduring theme of his personality. He has the right to have an opinion about what happened to Madeleine McCann, and the right to justice.’ But his many critics believe Amaral’s fury at his own treatment, both in Portugal and by the media worldwide, is a more likely driving force in his apparent refusal to allow the McCanns some sort of peace.

He was singled out for criticism — many would say justifiably — from the start over the faltering investigation and had his career and private life raked over.

In a recent interview, Amaral said he wrote this book partly to answer criticism against him in the British media.

‘They called me — the British press — 418 times “shameful”, 440 times “outrageous”, 140 times “torturer”, 45 times “disabled”, 37 times ‘incompetent’, 23 times “libertine cop”, 20 times “sacked”.’

For their part, the McCanns have made their frustration at the court’s decision clear in comments made to the media last week by ‘friends’. ‘It was never about winning big libel damages, but all about them silencing him to stop him spouting his untruthful and malicious lies,’ said one. ‘Any award made would have gone into Madeleine’s Fund to help find their daughter, and would never have been used for Kate and Gerry’s own use.’

Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie appears destined to remain on the shelves, in Portugal at least, for years to come. And despite fresh legal warnings from the McCann camp, Amaral is hoping to have his second tome published in English and possibly by a British publisher.

One book could be interpreted as a genuine attempt to air one’s views on aspects of the investigation, but a second looks like cashing in.”

To sum up, Mr Amaral has blown £300,000 away. He’s desperate for money. The only way to get some is to sue the McCanns or write a new book.

It’s said “he continues to insist” after having said “an angry man locked up in his own bitter and baseless theories” making his insistence not to be a quest for truth but one out of bitterness and implied bankruptcy.

By saying “Goncalo Amaral insists he is not obsessed by the case but frustrated”, provokes in the general public after having read how obsessed he was to be the words of someone who is indeed obsessed would say to deny it.

It’s not innocent the use of “he was singled out for criticism — many would say justifiably”.

Nor the “one book could be interpreted as a genuine attempt to air one’s views on aspects of the investigation, but a second looks like cashing in”.

Note that it COULD be interpreted, meaning other interpretations are valid, while when referring to the second book the article does not say it COULD be looking like cashing in but that it DOES looks like it. Oh, how greedy Mr Amaral is!

Yes, the words above are populated with truths, but just like with the blood, Mr Smith and Kate’s fingerprints, the truth is there only to be destroyed and ensured that its obliteration is witnessed.


11. The objective of the article

And what is it all for?

It is for this:

“After the fruitless pursuit of numerous theories and leads, the team is now investigating just one: that Madeleine was abducted by a European human trafficking ring.

No one is holding their breath after so many false dawns.

What happened to Madeleine Beth McCann appears destined to remain one of the great unanswered questions in the annals of crime.”

The reasoning is pretty clear: we have shown there is no real proof against the couple, reason why the McCanns weren’t charged, the investigation was tainted by an obsessed investigator and hampered by problems of animosity between the 2 countries involved, so it’s natural that because of all of this, this case does not stand a chance of ever being solved. Best get used to it.

To the general public, a well-researched and balanced article that comes to the conclusion that there will be no conclusion to the case.

That is what the general public reader will retain from reading this article the only time it does.

The article is unusually lengthy and that is done to convince the uninterested reader not to go over it again.

Our posts are lengthy, but we write for people who are interested in the case and not by people who read the issue on a let’s see what’s happening now mood.

We are fully aware our posts are reread, they are filled with detail which makes a single reading difficult. This article on the other hand is lengthy to avoid being reread.

Note that the quotes above are not the last words of the article, the readers will after reading them continue to run their eyes over words after that further demotivating them from going back and rereading it all again when finished.

The final words are to confirm that Mr Amaral is the bad guy.

After having read somewhere in the middle of the article that “the McCanns, who have endured so much already” the reader is left with a “That is something Goncalo Amaral will not allow”, with that something being “Paul Luckman, a British resident of the Algarve and editor of the English-language Portugal News. ‘Their home has been tarnished for years by this. They just wish it would all go away.’”

People of Luz want peace and Mr Amaral won’t let them have it. What a terrible man.

If first impressions are the ones to be trusted, what we remember last is what we end up retaining.

Not by coincidence, Portugal News has always been a staunch supporter of the McCanns and the abduction theory.

We call this a surf article. Riding the wave against the McCanns to push that it will end with an unsolved abduction.


12. Katie Hopkins

As we said in our comment, we thought it was “interesting that it comes from the Mail”.

One reason for that is that on the previous day, Feb 10, Katie Hopkins published on that paper an article comparing the Matthews and the McCann case “KATIE HOPKINS: The McCanns hate Maddie being named in the same breath as Shannon Matthews. But were the two little girls really so very different?”

It was published at 15:40 and updated at 16:42.

We, once we took notice of it reacted with the following comments in the blog:

“Textusa 10 Feb 2017, 19:16:00,

People are elated with this article but we are quite worried.

This is quite worrying.

We keep on repeating that because a tune is pleasing to our ears, doesn’t mean it is meant to please. Isn’t that the whole principle behind the story of Pied Piper of Hamelin? To play the music the victim loves so much that it is willing to follow it to, literally, death?

The article has one main focus: let’s really beat the McCanns to a pulp. And isn’t that so Pied Piper?

As Pied Piper it is to use Karen Matthews to do it.

However, the key phrase is this: “If someone took my lovely baby away, I would put Cuddle Cat under my pillow every night to be close to the baby I lost. Not wash its memories away.”

Again, Pied Piper in action. Bringing up how incomprehensible it was to wash that cuddle cat.

What people are failing to see is that the entire premise is Maddie having been abducted.

The evil, neglectful McCanns BUT with an abducted Maddie.

Where have you heard this before? We told you so in our post “Third Option”.
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2016/03/third-option.html

Exactly what the other side wants to be conveyed.

And before someone says we are being unfair to Ms Hopkins, we don’t think we are.

We accept that many still buy the negligence story, but we don’t believe for a single second that anyone in the entire world believes that Maddie was abducted and if Ms Hopkins truly believes that then she truly is exceptional and not in a good way.

With her position and connections we find very hard to believe in such ignorance.

Ms Hopkins seems to overlook the fact that the dogs’ evidence accepted as proven fact by the Supreme Justice Court. And their noses did not sniff abduction.

What they sniffed is what made them all refuse to participate in the reconstruction.

Let’s not also forget that this is the Mail, considered so unreliable Wikipedia are no longer prepared to use it as a source.”

And:

“Textusa 10 Feb 2017, 23:33:00

Anonymous 10 Feb 2017, 20:26:00,

Even the media protecting the McCanns have long ago lost the use of 'abducted' and 'taken' when speaking about Maddie, replacing them with the more truthful 'vanished' and 'disappeared'.

Ms Hopkins chose to say "If someone took my lovely baby away" which clearly implies abduction.”

This was not the first time we mentioned Katie Hopkins in our blog. We first mentioned her, in a quite complimentary manner in our post of a year ago “Tide change”

This what we said then:

“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”.”

The change of the tide that we highlighted then was not about the content of the message but about the fact that it had been possible for it to see the light of day:

“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 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.”

In fact, no one had until then written in a public British paper an article questioning the McCanns. That’s why we ‘forgave’ her for defending negligence then:

“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.”

But that was a year ago. Since then Katie Hopkins has had enough time to educate herself. And it seems she hasn’t.

She seems to say that she was simply being cautious in her tweet about the article published last Friday:

“Katie Hopkins‏ @KTHopkins

I apologise for the delay. Currently playing dolphin noises to the legal team to calm them down. (link: https://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/830062232683814912) twitter.com/kthopkins/stat… #maddiematthews”

So, from this tweet one can be led to deduce that she chose to insist on abduction for legal reasons.

We happen to have answered that question when replying to an Anonymous who was accusing Katie Hopkins of using a ghost writer:

“Textusa 11 Feb 2017, 11:58:00

Anonymous 11 Feb 2017, 05:17:00,

Thank you for your comment.

You provide your opinion, which like ours when out of deduction and not fact, is subjective. And like ours, others can or cannot agree with it.

Katie Hopkins does not come across to us as someone who would have someone write things for her.

We have never argued against the 2 cases, McCann and Matthews, being compared.

In fact by saying it is music to our ears, we not only think they can as we think they should. And even in the exact terms Ms Hopkins has done.

What we are saying very clearly is that such a comparison should not be made under the background of abduction, and that was what she did in our opinion.

In times when the media is widely reporting that the parents continue to be suspect of her disappearance (and the Mail, the same Mail, goes as far as calling it death - were the Mail lawyers distracted then??) and so a general recognition that there was no abduction, we see no reason at this point in time, to have to use the abduction in any way if one wants to question their innocence.”

In fact the Daily Mail, had published the day before, Feb 9, an article called “Fresh anguish for Madeleine McCann's parents as Portugal's supreme court insists they haven't been proved innocent over their daughter's death” by Alisha Rouse.

This article was initially published with the title “Portuguese court says Madeleine McCann’s parents HAVEN’T been cleared”, which is visible in its URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html.

We know that it was published at 01:10 of that day and then updated at 02:10.

We don’t know if these times reflect the changes in the title but we do know that the word ‘death’ when referring clearly to Maddie was introduced in the title, after the article has in caps the word ‘HAVEN’T’.

By saying, explicitly, that Maddie was dead, the Mail was clearly ruling out the possibility of abduction, of Maddie having been taken.

From this, we can deduce that whatever legal issues about the article Katie Hopkins had it was to do with something other than with abduction being implied, as the paper had made a much more serious allegation just the day before.

And as we said in the comment, having used disappeared or vanished, would not represent any legal issue with the McCann lawyers as they have been widely used by the media for quite a long while now.

In fact, the media outlets don’t refer to Maddie have been taken or kidnapped anymore, with very few exceptions, and not innocently.

This, gives a whole new meaning to Katie Hopkins’s words “we’ll never know what really happened to Maddie” in the title of her article on February 22 2016 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.


13. Almost all quiet on all fronts

It is interesting to note that on Thursday the 9th, the Mail publishes an article quite damning for the other side (in synch with other media outlets) and on Friday 10th (Katie Hopkins) and February 11th (Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) they publish counter-attacks.

Our modesty stops us from thinking that this was done knowing that we publish on Fridays and by publishing the counter-attacks on those days we wouldn’t be able to respond. Even if it was so, this post proves the contrary.

What this tells us is that that the Mail has now become the real voice-piece for the other side.

We have said before that the biggest constraint Theresa May has to go for the truth is her need for the help and support of the British elite in the Brexit process, independent if they voted for it or not.

She has to come to a decision based on how much she perceives the truth about the McCann case will antagonise the British elite.

She has to ponder this against the benefits in coming clean which would show the international community that the UK, a Brexit UK, was determined to put their money where their mouth was when it came to credibility.

The drawback of coming clean is that it would show that all was indeed a high level pantomime but we think that wouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

To concede to possible antagonism of the elites, she has to realise that there will always be an elephant in every room in which a British delegation will be in as it is not up to the UK to stop the comparison between Maddie and every single child that goes missing. As we have seen, whenever one goes missing the immediate reaction is for the press of that country to call it “our Maddie”.

And whenever Maddie’s name is mentioned, inevitably everyone present will do a roll of the eyes dance. That’s how credible everyone thinks the abduction story is.

It must not be forgotten that a decision to go for an unsolved abduction after wasting years and millions of pounds without questioning the couple, has as background a ruling from the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court which states very explicitly that in no time were the McCanns considered innocent and it does raise serious questions about the veracity of the abduction theory. 

In terms of media outlets we would say the Mail represents Brexit while the Guardian, Remain.

Only elites can control media output. These Mail articles seem to indicate that the Brexit elite seems to be pushing for the hoax.

We would like to make it very clear that we are not linking in any way the Brexit/Remain vote to wanting or not to perpetuate the hoax.

The Maddie case is transversal to all, and from what we have been able to read on social media, wanting to out the truth about Maddie is something that is unifying across the board.

We are speaking only about the elite.

And we are not even pointing the finger at the Brexit one. The Mail published the article about the Supreme Justice Court Decision while the Guardian has remained completely silenced about it.

So, in much the same way, we can say that the Remain elite is not showing signs of wanting to put an end to the hoax.

Add to this, the deafening silence from the “Operation Grange Groupie Website” tells us that outside this Mail attempt, the battlefront is completely silent.

And this attempt has not been echoed anywhere outside the Mail.

In fact, we have had 3 articles that were not pleasant for the other side.

The first was the Daily Star article of Feb 16 2017 by Jerry Lawton “Maddie McCann parents considering legal action as TV show appears online in English”

“MADELEINE McCann’s parents were last night considering legal action over a TV show about their missing daughter.

The programme appeared on the internet in English after the couple spent nine years trying to ban it.”

As if the UK was North Korea or other similar countries in which only state controlled internet providers exist, thus limiting the access of their population to the worldwide web.

The article is evidently a reporter stirring the pot and calling out for people to go on the internet:

“Now the TV show has appeared on YouTube with an English voice-over”, so please go and search for it, it’s what is being said.

A video that has been uploaded in 2009 and as far as we know under the new U.K. Libel law one has to take action within a year of publication.

And to use ‘may’ and ‘are considering’ does not exactly imply determination, does it?

The McCanns cannot sue anyone.

We remind readers they never did, they claimed damages and never, in court, have said that Mr Amaral was lying, just stated that he couldn’t, legally, say what he said even if it was true and they didn’t deny there, in court, that it wasn’t.

The only legal foothold they had to go into battle without discussing facts was the presumption of innocence and that has been thrown out the window by the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court.

With that Court’s ruling they’re left to fight for their innocence with fact and fact is not a McCann ally.

This article was echoed by the following articles, Lawton’s stirring seems to have produced something:

- In the Sun by Ellie Flynn and Tracey Kandohla published on Feb 16 “'IT'S ALL NONSENSE' Kate and Gerry McCann may sue over ‘lunatic conspiracy theory’ video blaming them for Maddie’s disappearance”

- In the Mirror by Steve Robson published on Feb 16 “Madeleine McCann's parents 'considering legal action after controversial Portuguese documentary appears on YouTube'”

- In the Mail by Keiligh Baker and Tracey Kandohla published Feb 16 17:04 GMT, updated today Feb 17 02:12 GMT “Kate and Gerry McCann may sue over Portuguese detective's 'nonsense' YouTube conspiracy video blaming them for Madeleine's disappearance”

The Mail article even goes as far as to help the search:

“Mr Amaral's controversial documentary can be viewed on the web around the world.

'It is based on the former Portuguese police chief's best-selling book The Truth of the Lie, which the McCanns complained was libellous but which Portugal's Supreme Court ruled on appeal was not.

For viewers in Britain is has been dubbed in English with a tribute saying 'Many thanks to Joana Morias in Portugal for translation.'

It opens with a bold statement: 'The documentary the McCanns don't want you to watch! Huge red letters than flash onto screen: 'BANNED'- emphasising: 'Banned by the McCanns in September 2009' followed by: 'Decision: Overturned on October 19th 2011 by a High Court judge.'”

It seems that someone really, really wants the general public to go look up on the internet and search for this video!

And what about this dare from Lawton: “He is said to be seeking a British publisher to release his book in the UK for the first time”?

Isn’t that just calling all British publishers cowards if they don’t publish?

The second is the article from the Sun by By ELLIE FLYNN and TRACEY KANDOHLA also on Feb 16 2017 “'UTTER RUBBISH' Kate and Gerry McCann slam claims they are plotting to make hundreds of thousands out of 10th anniversary of Maddie’s disappearance”

“The couple say they 'want to make it clear they are not making any money out of Madeleine's disappearance'

(…)

The couple are considering two pooled interviews in Britain, one for print through the country’s national agency Press Association and one for broadcasters.

Both are being organised through Scotland Yard, Mitchell explained. He said: “There will be no fee.””

Or, in other words, backtracking as in no, the couple won’t have the financial conditions to continue the investigation about Maddie on their own.

Although, it seems, they have enough money to re-hire their spokesman and pay one of the most expensive law firms around, Carter-Ruck to issue idle threats of libel.

If it wasn’t so sad and pathetic, it would be comical.

The third one is the article from the Sun by by Hannah Crouch, published Feb 16 “MCCANN COURT BATTLE Who is Goncalo Amaral? Ex-Madeleine McCann cop whose claimed Gerry and Kate faked her abduction”

It is quite a short article but look at how many times a very clear finger is pointed towards the McCanns:

“Madeleine McCann cop whose claimed Gerry and Kate faked her abduction”“Amaral claimed Maddie had died in the McCann's holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy

“to silence an ex-cop who claims they covered up their daughter’s death”

“Goncarlo Amaral claimed Kate and Gerry McCann faked the abduction of their daughter”

“In July 2008, Amaral released a book called “The Truth of the Lie” which claims the McCanns faked the abduction.”

“In the book, it is claimed that Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.” 

Could it be clearer that no abduction took place? And not a single bad word about Mr Amaral. It even explains why he was taken off the investigation.

“Amaral is an ex-police officer who led the initial hunt when three-year-old Maddie went missing from the Algarve in 2007.

The now retired detective was removed as head of the investigation after criticising British detectives.”

Note it’s detective and officer and not cop in the above.

Also note that all contradiction and all nonsense calling comes directly from the McCanns and their legal team. There is no negative opinion against Mr Amaral from the paper itself.

All this from the Sun of all rags.

And of course, we couldn’t stop mentioning this from the Portugal Resident in the article “McCann spokesman admits parents “sufficiently realistic” to admit Maddie “probably dead”” published on Feb 16:

“A source working for a several tabloids has been in touch with the Resident to find out if the clause was highlighted by Portuguese papers.

He reiterated his opinion that “the tide in UK is changing”.”

One can certainly feel the pressure on the dam wall.



14. Conclusion

When a lion is dying, even the most cowardly and vegetarian rabbit comes to take a bite of its rump.

To point the finger at the McCanns, after the Supreme Justice Court ruling is non-news.

It’s now a given that in whatever scenario, the McCanns are to be made to look really bad.

Even in the partial truth scenario – we believe full truth will never be known as we will never see confirmed the names of those with a social status above Freud – the worse the McCanns are made to look the less light is thrown on all others.

In the patsy scenario (the vague European human trafficking gang) or archival, having the McCanns portrayed as the evil, arrogant negligent couple will be the only thing that will mitigate the public outrage for the lack of results after a scandalous waste of public money all these years.

We urge those deciding to resist temptation and read our “Third Option” post again.

Fact is, the McCanns, whatever scenario, are to be thrown under the bus, which is followed by a bulldozer, then by a caterpillar and a roller steamer. That is very clear.

So to see an article badmouthing the McCanns doesn’t exactly mean good news.

With the same logic, reading one in their favour, is not exactly bad. Usually these are just to intensify our hostility against them.

What one has to pay attention to is neglect. Only with neglect can there be an abduction and only with an abduction can there be an unsolved one.

If an article supports the McCanns being neglectful, thus abduction possible, then it’s from the other side.

If on the other hand it speaks the truth without manipulation, then, evidently, it’s ‘one of ours’.