Friday, 10 February 2017

Game changer

1. Introduction

Over 2 years ago, back in January 2015 we said in our post “To haste or not to haste” that “the McCann ship as of Wednesday is beyond repair. It took a fatal blow to its hull” and concluded that post with “the McCann ship is beyond repair. Impossible to recover. Impossible to whitewash”.

All this because on that Wednesday January 21 2015, the 1st Instance Court let us all know what it considered were the proven and the not proven facts of the case.

Very damning to the McCanns, particularly facts #27 and #28:

“27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Both articles) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.”

So much so that we considered it impossible for the decision to be anything else but in favour of Mr Amaral.

2. Not mortally wounded

As we all now know, time proved us wrong about said decision and has also, unfortunately, about that ship being mortally wounded.

Not that we were incorrect in our assessment, we just weren’t able, nor could we foresee what was to follow both in the case as in the world itself.

In terms of the case, after reading attentively what the court considered proved and not proved, nothing could have prepared us for having the judge practically set aside the factual evidence of the case – which was whether Mr Amaral caused such damages to the McCanns with his book that that they deserved to be compensated for – and preferred to focus on whether Mr Amaral could or could not write the book because of his duty of secrecy of his profession.

She concluded he couldn’t and because of that sentenced the man to pay half a million euros of indemnity to the couple.

By doing this, the judge put the proven facts on some high shelf where they would be forgotten by all. In fact, now that we are all joyous about seeing that justice has finally prevailed, we have forgotten completely how elated and optimistic we felt when we got to know the list of proven and not proven facts.

The judge, when deciding what grounds to use for her decision helped significantly – and we are not saying willingly – to repair the mortally wounded ship.

3. Maddie, the Fake News

The other reason why the McCann ship was, up till last week, almost fully recovered is the most relevant thing to have hit the world lately: fake news.

When said the ship was mortally wounded, it was based on the illusion that that fact was, well, fact.

Nowadays, we all know fact is what people want fact to be.

Truth today is something that is laboriously worked on by those who seem to be competing in some sort of TV Face Off contest, whereby it only matters what monster the model will end up looking like.

We of all people saw it coming and even tried to warn people about it but even we failed to foresee how really far the fearmongering propaganda we’ve seen lately would take us where we are today.

We say that we saw it coming because we think the Maddie case played a very important part in the way the world is shaped the way it is.

Let us repeat ourselves that we owe loyalty only to the truth in the Maddie case, whatever it may be.

Before the reader gives us a roll of the eyes, we are not giving this much importance to the Maddie case because we write about it. In fact we write about it because we have always seen its importance and its potential consequences in our way of life.

Many have not realised, or stopped to think about it, but Maddie is (still is) the world’s first global fake news. The first global alternative fact.

No, certainly it wasn’t the first time the media lied about something, it has done so quite frequently before.

But what happened in the Maddie case which has never happened in any other was:

- It was a lie that was spread, consolidated and perpetuated not only by the media but by states, actively involving their governments, their police and their justice systems.

- From very early on, everyone – and we really mean everyone – knew it to be a lie, yet worldwide the media, governments, police and the justice systems whenever they spoke of it, addressed it as truth;

- The truth was very quickly and ruthlessly taken hostage by the lie and the fear of persecution by the respective legal system which was very much present to anyone daring to speak of it.

No other case in the history of the civilised so-called democratic western world equals it.

A world before our very eyes where lying became saying the truth and telling the truth, lying.

A lie that was very transparent – a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes – which establishments rubbed in our faces as truth for the last 3,571 days, almost on the 10 year mark.

We were told the most abhorrent lies, we all knew they were lies, even rejected them as lies but because the establishments were set on eternalising the hoax as truth, they did what would become the current school of thought about information: it matters absolutely nothing what the public thinks.

The Maddie case showed the world how once one is able to influence, not to say control, what the media puts out, once able to control what the police has to investigate and once able to control what the justice system has to judge, then one can state anything as fact irrelevant of how evidently fake it is.

There was only one obstacle to overcome and that was the internet.

The information platform to which the public had, supposedly, direct and uncontrolled access to.

We all thought that now we had a powerful tool in our hands which would finally put an end to us being manipulated by them, whoever we thought them would or could be.

A tool we said they were unable to control.

We were totally wrong. Not only did they retain full control as they have used the internet to their full advantage.

To regain that control, they used what could be called as the ‘gold Coca-Cola bottle-top’ tactic.

I’ve always been confused throughout life with people who insist on being on the wrong side of history, absolutely convinced they were on its right side. The Inquisition, the slavery, the Nazism and the apartheid are just a few of the dark periods of humanity, yet perpetrated by people who thought they were the ones who were right and all who opposed them were completely wrong.

One day I asked my father how was South Africa able, with its apartheid – in which Nelson Mandela was sold to us all as a merciless terrorist – to resist the international embargo apparently so well and he answered me that it was because nations continued to do business with it because of the infamous South-African gold Coca-Cola bottle-top.

The reasoning was this: as South Africa had the world’s largest gold reserves, if it felt threatened it would start putting Coca-Cola bottles with gold tops and so devalue the metal in such a way that it would make it worthless and with this make the international markets crash disastrously.

I never got to know if there was any truth behind this and to be honest I only heard it from my father but the logic behind it sounded really quite sound.

And that is what the establishments did with information: they flooded the market – as in the internet – with it. Gave it by the bucket load to the people, all of us, who were unable to handle it even if we were aware of the bait we were all falling for.

That way information was devalued completely to the penniless value it has today.

Within the Maddie case, whenever a whacky theory was initiated, perpetrated and above all, entertained in the sake of fairness it was a relevant contribution to this state of affairs.

To the outsider, tired of being lied to by the official media, when looking for some information about the case found the internet filled with bigger liars than the ones he was running from.

Evidently this wasn’t done solely with the Maddie case but it this case that showed the world the immense possibilities that fake news had: reality could be set aside with the populace looking on, because officially one could lie while unofficially – on the internet – there was so much information, the majority of which bogus, that nothing could be confirmed or denied.

For 10 years, we heard about sightings and thought them ridiculous but they became the integral part of the official version. We had the burglar hiding behind the bedroom door like a suspense movie character, then we had Raymond Hewlett, and then burgundy jersey with feet wrapped in bandages, the paedophile surge in the Algarve that no one ever reported and much less heard of, the Crèche Dad wandering senselessly in the streets at a very convenient time, the Ocean Club driver and his gang made up by him, a homeless and a drug addict and now the European human trafficking gang.

We have probably missed some episodes but just wanted the reader to get the idea of all the outrageous, absurd and ridiculous lies that were shoved down the world’s throat as truths, and they did all this with a serious face.

And did all of the above with the full complicity of national governments. Not only those of the UK and Portugal but truly worldwide. Not a single nation ever attempted to go against this grain, not a single one.

All the blatantly ridiculous stories above were sold and ‘bought’ as genuine by all, in the four corners of the world.

And those who were on the internet found so many theories that if one was to believe in them one would have to question if Maddie even existed at all.

Entire planet Earth played along with what was more than evidently fake news and the entire planet being played with.

Everyone knew it to be absurdly false and privately dismissed it but underestimated the power of suggestion.

Our brains slowly got used to the idea that the media, and indeed entire countries, could sell ridiculous stories for real ones. They wrote it, our countries echoed it and we shook our heads and said to ourselves, look at this, the media cannot be trusted.

And that mistrust for the media, the official media, is the whole base stone for the current malicious plague of fake news. We trust only the information we want to trust even before we read it. The Maddie case showed the way, and the world followed it.

4. Role of the media

But with the devaluation of information please do not be led to think that the MSM have lost importance. What they have lost is only their credibility to those who see it as false because it remains absolutely intact to those who choose it as reliable. The same network is seen by some as fake news and by others as absolutely truthful.

But what is important to retain is that it’s still the right of the MSM to say what is to be taken as true. It still is the MSM that ultimately states what is a fact and what isn’t.

Nothing to do with truth. If they say something happened, then it did, if they don’t, then officially it didn’t happen.

As an example of this, many bloggers like ourselves have said for years that the McCanns had not been cleared by the archiving dispatch but only after the media started to report that it is starting to be true. The exact same media who lied to us all about Maddie.

All this is to say that all that was needed to restore the mortally wounded McCann ship was just to say, it was restored. Ignore the damning facts and continue life as if they didn’t exist.

And that was what we think the other side was doing exactly. As we will explain, the idea was to sell again the McCann ship as healthy.

5. The game

As those following us know, we have done our best to describe the game as it prepared to happen. To our new readers let us recap quickly:

Up to 2010 the Maddie lie lived comfortably under the wings of Gordon Brown’s government:

In 2010, the new government decided to end, once and for all a farce that had gone way too long after 3 years. So CEOP was asked for a report about the case and soon after Jim Gamble was convinced to leave.

David Cameron was convinced that all that was needed was to put the McCanns away, so Operation “Let’s Hunt the McCanns II” began. It started by convincing Kate McCann to write a self-incriminatory book, have her request that the UK take action about the case, which it would but only to “discover” that the culprits were the couple. Put them away, close the case. Simple.

All went according to plan and Operation Grange was launched.

Very quickly it was realised that it was impossible to pin it all on the couple. Someone would have to have helped them, and that someone had to take the fall, which was something that obviously no one was willing to do.

Operation Grange went into a true stalemate, with no one knowing exactly what to do next.

Finally, in 2013, it was decided to go for partial truth. Things were scheduled to be done quite quickly. The trial between the McCanns and Amaral was scheduled for September that year and the last session scheduled for the first week of October. Once the trial was over, start pouncing on the McCanns

UK Crimewatch, which would point all fingers in Gerry’s direction was aired in October 2013. In that same month the PJ reopened the process, which remains open to this day.

The Portuguese Justice System with their slow rhythm completely wrecked all plans. Sessions kept being postponed for various reasons. The trial dragged on.

While the trial dragged on, and it did, the McCann image was consistently eroded so as to strip away their protective cloak.

In 2016, with the trial predictably ending soon, the decisive placement of pieces was made: linking Freud to the case, publicly firing Mitchell and ‘bankrupt’ the McCanns.

It is with the pieces set this way the other side had to do its damage control and make it seem like the McCann ship was completely restored.

That’s what they did.

Now, here we must say that we don’t know if this was done with the agreement of government or as independent moves to pressure it into inaction.

In the first instance, it would mean the government would have agreed to silence or patsy, and was playing alongside and the latter that the other side was acting alone.

We cannot say because our source of information on the internet about that has remained strangely silent and as we said in our post “Square One” that makes us unable to determine if Operation Grange remained still because it didn’t know what to do or if it was told to stay put by the establishment.

The tactic played by the other side was simple and followed along the following lines:

- to counter Freud, not speak about him and count on no one would bring him back up again;

- to counter firing Mitchell, simply bring him back shamelessly as could be read in last week’s articles where he appears again as the family spokesman;

- to counter bankruptcy, find means of revenue for the couple and that was what the money allegedly offered TV interviews was about.

These were to be worked together in conjunction with the other three:

- gain popularity for the couple by having the Missing People choir sing for Britain’s Got Talent, thus associating the sympathy for missing people with the popularity these kind of shows always have;

- provide a timeline that will make it very awkward to go for the McCanns before the end of April, when the funding is supposed to end, or in other words, make Operation Grange come to its conclusion when the couple is on a high. This was achieved by both the Britain’s Got Talent participation and with announcing early in February what the anniversary celebrations are going to be.

- react with losing the process with a firm threat of libel, Carter-Ruck guns blazing.

A note about the anniversary celebrations, not even in 2011, when Kate’s book was published did we get a head’s up for this that early in the year. Also, if one is to remember, Gerry McCann said last year that the 9 yr celebrations were the last they were going to do. A rather radical change of mind on this, to say the least.

Please note that when Gerry decided to put an end to celebrations the likelihood of them losing the process was great and it was already given the money they would be spending on legal costs. Indeed, those costs were part of the McCanns being bankrupt. To allege now that the celebrations are to raise money is even further contradicting what was said a year ago.

Also, last year they were snubbed by Lorraine Kelly who is now listed as a favourite to pay a huge amount of money to interview them this year. When she did that, they were fresh out of a ruling against them by the Appeal Court so much more timely than it will be this year, when 4 months will have passed between the sentence and the potential interview. If she was not be interested last year, why is she so eager now and willing to pay significantly for it?

These 6 points above worked together, would, in case the government wanted to make a move, pressure it not to before Brexit and the fiscal year and so prolong the farce as long as it was needed until it lost the will; or if the intention was to go for an Operation Grange Fake News Conclusion, set up the best stage of alleged popularity and sympathy possible for the couple when that happened.

The airing of the Shannon Matthew story, by linking it to the Maddie case, can be taken as an indication that the establishment was not playing along with the other side.

About Shannon Matthew we would like for readers to notice the following passage from the Sun’s article of Feb 7 by John Shammas “I WAS COMPLETELY TAKEN IN”:

“JANET Street-Porter has revealed her shame at being one of Karen Matthews’ biggest supporters in 2008 when her child went missing.

Speaking on Loose Women, the panellist recalled when she wrote in defence of the mum at the time of her daughter Shannon’s kidnapping.

But it turned out that the kidnapping was a set up.

Janet said on the show today: “I completely and utterly believed Karen, I stuck up for her.

“I felt she was picked on because of her appearance and demeanour.

“So when I was wrong, I was gobsmacked.

“I’m a smart, savvy person but I was completely taken in by her.””

All the reader has to do is replace Janet Street Porter of Loose Women with whomever is applicable and Karen Matthew with Kate McCann and the reader will be looking into the future today.

We never underestimated the other side, we knew it would put up a fierce fight and that’s exactly what they did.

For that reason, we wouldn’t be surprised to see the success with which the choir would progress in Britain’s Got Talent. In a show where exceptionality is the norm, a quite normal act such as choir, with all due respect to its singers’ vocal qualities, can be made to be an extraordinary one with just the right amount of tear jerking.

An interesting coincidence that Britain’s Got Talent airs on ITV that was the same channel that brought us the daily updates from Kos about Ben Needham – forgetting to update us all on Saturday and Sunday that the toy car had been found. And that coincidence is even more interesting if one takes into account that ITV was the only media publishing and then pulling out the news about the McCanns not being cleared.

So as can be seen the other side was prepared to lose the case. Yes, Mr Amaral would be given reason, but with a well-orchestrated campaign, the right amount of shamelessness and complete disregard of what truth was, Maddie Fake News would continue, the parents with freshly raised money would continue the search now with much lower profile and visibility, or, to put it in other words, fade away into the background.

The internet would protest but as the MSM would continue to churn out the lie, life would continue exactly as it has for the last 10 years: a farce made real with all knowing what a farce it was.

6. The torpedo

But what no one counted on was the torpedo that the Supreme Justice Court launched against the McCann ship. They didn’t count on it and we didn’t either.

It was a torpedo that went through the hull, came out the other side, turned around, went through the hull again and out the other side again, turned around again and went into the hull, asked a crew member where the explosives of the ship were, looked for them and only there and then exploded.

That’s how serious the damage it caused.

We are obviously referring to the sentence of the Supreme Justice Court. Not the decision, because one favourable to Mr Amaral was expected and it was being countered, but the wording of the sentence.

Remember, we got to know Mr Amaral won on the 31st but the full text of the sentence only on the 7th. Between those 7 days the other side played the game as per expected sentence was as we described.

The expected sentence being that between the two rights in question, the freedom of speech and the right to a good name from presumption of justice, the first would prevail, and so the McCanns wouldn’t win and Mr Amaral wouldn’t lose.

To best explain what really happened, let us quote a question put to us by one of our readers yesterday

“Anonymous 9 Feb 2017, 00:02:00

Textusa, you showed very convincingly in a previous post that the dispatch report from 2009 did not clear the McCanns in any way - being in line with Amaral's thesis, if not more hurtful. What makes you think that the new sentence is such a game changer?”

First, let us correct the certainly well-intentioned reader as we are certain that the report s/he is referring to is the archiving one from 2008 and not from 2009.

There are 2 major differences between what we said and both are indeed game changers. One is technical the other in the way the game is being played.

Let’s start with the technical bit.

It was once said that if law was straightforward there would be no need for lawyers and judges would simply be clerks receiving forms as to what law was broken and looking up the table to see how much time in prison or money in fines the guilty was due.

Law is complex and subject to many interpretations, although always within the desired boundaries of logic and reason.

What we said was that because the process had been archived and because no one was charged as well as it was clearly said that it could be opened at any time if new evidence should arise, the McCanns were neither guilty nor innocent.

Up to here, we continue to be right.

Where we were wrong was in saying that such a situation meant that the McCanns should enjoy the benefit of presumption of innocence.

The Supreme Justice Court has come to contradict this.

Before anyone calls us ignorant, which we are in matters of law and will always stand to be corrected, this was an argument used by the appellants when they claimed that because of the archival dispatch they were innocent and clear.

The appellants’ legal team, unlike us, are subject matter experts, and If they thought that such a conclusion could be reached from the archival dispatch, then it is because they thought it a valid argument.

The Supreme Justice Court has now said that it means no such thing, and even went as far as to say that it didn’t take into any account for their decision this alleged presumption of justice, for them it was a case of freedom of speech against the right to a good name in which the first prevailed.

Having thought about it, it makes absolute sense. First, only with the end of a trial are the declarations of innocence and/or guilt are made, reason why the Supreme Justice Court saying that “In this way, not being the alluded archival dispatch a written decision on a strict sense, nor assuming definitive aspect”.

The McCanns by trying to claim they had the right of presumption of innocence were trying to say they had been declared as innocent in a process that is not closed and that is not legally possible.

Much more so in a process which, as far as we know, is currently running its terms as an open investigation and in which there is nothing stopping the PJ from making the McCanns arguidos again, and that alone says they were never cleared.

In terms of how the game is being played let us quote ourselves on what we have said above:“The Maddie case showed the world how once one is able to influence, not to say control what the media puts out, once able to control what the police has to investigate and once able to control what the justice system has to judge, then one can state anything as fact irrelevant of how evidently fake it is”

Fake news, official Fake News like Maddie, need for the politicians, media, police and justice system to vouch for it. They all have to be in synch, singing from the same sheet of music.

Only then it cannot be questioned by the commoners. Like it has been with the Maddie case all these years.

With the proven and unproven facts list, it was ‘only’ said that the book stated what was in the official files. But those official files had been dispatched for archival without charging the McCanns and taking into account that this was before the clarification of the presumption of innocence, it could be said, as it was, that the Portuguese justice system with what Mr Amaral claimed found there was not enough evidence to charge the couple, so they should be considered innocent.

Saying this would not be lying, simply being untrue and that would be sufficient to consider the Portuguese justice system was on board.

What was the 31st January torpedo did, was that it was the fact, the undeniable fact that the Portuguese justice system broke from the needed quartet: politics, media, police and justice.

One link, an official one, has broken off the chain and that makes the lie unsustainable.

Plus the Supreme Justice Court goes as far as saying “in truth, the alluded dispatch wasn’t pronounced because the Public Ministry gained the conviction that the appellants did not commit any crime. (…) Such archival, in the case, was determined because it wasn’t possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough legally admissible indicia of the practice of a crime by the appellants”

All there in black and white. One is even tempted to say that one gets the feeling that the spirit of the whole thing was to tell the McCanns we didn’t get you but that is far from meaning that we won’t. Please be careful and not misinterpret our words, they’re ours and only ours. What the Supreme Justice Court said was “and let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process” very clearly.

And what the Supreme Justice Court has said cannot be unsaid and most importantly cannot be unseen, or pretended to have been unseen.

The evidence that this torpedo caught all by surprise was the Correio da Manhã. On Feb 07, it had as its main story on its front page one with the title “Maddie’s parents sell accounts of pain – Exclusive interviews could earn up to half a million”

CMTV ran a piece with the very visible title on the screen “Pais falam a troco de dinheiro – Parents speak in exchange for money”. And then it had below these various subtitles all with the same theme:

“Exclusives could earn up to 500 thousand euros”

“Kate and Gerry have 40 proposals”

“Couple wants fortune to invest in investigation”

“McCann couple is evaluating millionaire proposals”

The tone is very derogatory but note that the whole thing is about how the McCanns are about to make a bundle of money. As per script.

As if to report to whoever is deciding, look, we’re not doing the McCanns any favour, we are really dissing them, and so if you let them go they won’t go unscathed as their reputation continues to be shattered.

Then that same CMTV piece ends with the participation of the Missing People choir on Britain’s Got Talent in which is said every member of the choir had someone from their family missing and that that Kate would be singing sing in it, although in the images of the choir that were shown she doesn’t appear.

That Tuesday the sentence was known.

We published on that day the bombshell and the Portugal Resident did also, giving us a very nice mention which we thank very much.

The day after, Wednesday, Correio da Manhã, that had done a nice paint job for the other side even though it appeared to be otherwise, decides to break the torpedo into the MSM waters.

Note that only on Tuesday was it known that the Supreme Justice Court had broken the link. On Wednesday the Portuguese MSM started to break as well and on Thursday all hell broke loose.

The Sun began the hostilities, and then others followed, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Metro, the Leicester Mercury and the Telegraph.

The Leicester Mercury running the story must be McCanns worst nightmare, for papers to print this information in the local area, it will make their lives a misery.

Everyone around them won’t be able to ignore what is now being said about them. The wolves are circling!

If they stay silent then they look guilty but if they speak out they will open up a challenge to prove their innocence. Rock and a hard place is an expression that comes to mind.

Then we have this from the Portugal Resident: “Media sources in touch with the Resident warn: “The tide is turning in UK. Did you know that Panorama was in Luz last week? Tell your readers to batten down, they’re all coming”.”

After the judicial system breaking the link, the MSM is also starting to do so.

7. Status of the game

A very positive sign is that it was the Sun to first break the story in the UK.

Not only because it was the tabloid that most supported the McCanns throughout these years but because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch who the Guardian says “Rupert Murdoch accused of enjoying ‘astounding access’ to Downing Street”.

We are certain that to run this such sensitive story the Sun had to have the green light from him.

However, we would recommend that our readers not be too optimistic. The game is at its early stages and it’s natural that punches will be flying and some of which we won’t even notice happened.

If all seems to be going the way of the flood gates opening once and for all, one must pay attention to the signs that may indicate otherwise.

We had the Daily Mail changing the headline from “Portuguese court says Madeleine McCann’s parents HAVEN’T been cleared” to “Fresh anguish for Madeleine McCann's parents as Portugal's Supreme Court insists they haven't been proved innocent over their daughter's death”.

This we hesitate to say if the change is good or bad but we would lean more towards being good as the though the caps of the word haven’t got lost, the word death gets added.

Thank you M!

We have the fact that ITV published a page with this story and then withdrew it. This clearly tells us the other side is not giving up.

By the way, they were a bit clumsy about this as they forgot to pull out the STV page with the story…

And then, most important of all, the story hasn’t echoed in the likes of the Times or the Guardian and on TV, neither Sky News nor BBC have mentioned it.

If and when they break it, then we think we can sigh in relief. The fact that it has already made it to the Telegraph is significant.

Also, lest we forget, the McCanns were roasted in August/September 2007 and then did a spectacular U-turn we all witnessed- However it must be said that then they could blame an investigation that was ongoing and no one knew, at that moment in time, what it was investigating.

This time, they can only question a Supreme Justice Court of a nation on a decision that is now known to all.

Can the result of an investigation be said that Maddie was abducted by a human trafficking gang when up creek the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court says, explicitly that the parents have never been cleared? We don’t think so, but then again we are in the land of Fake News or alternative fact, we remind our readers once again.

8. Public opinion

To note is that the comments to the online articles are not only overwhelmingly against the McCanns but rather unanimous.

I have a particular friend who knows I write about Maddie. However, among the many things we talk about, Maddie is not one of them. I don’t even remember under what circumstance I told her but as far as I can remember, the theme has only come up twice and it was her calling me.

The first time was when Mr Amaral was sentenced to pay that huge indemnity to the McCanns. The friend called me to ask if that had any implication in my life and when I said that it didn’t she asked me to be careful.

On Tuesday was the second time.

This was the mail exchange:

She: On the cm channel they were talking about Maddie

Me: I know, as you are “lay” on the issue, I would like to know your opinion.

She: I think something happened in that apartment.

It wasn’t any kidnap, nor do I believe in a sexual crime

I think, I may be wrong

It could have been, and I believe it was, that it was an accident

Or by excess of sleeping medicine

Or a fall or some more violent slap

I think the group, or some should know what happened

And I agree with what is being said, that it’s still likely that the truth will be known

I have no idea what may have happened with the body

How it disappeared like that

I always had the idea that it would be in the church, but I think it was investigated.

Yes, they should know, yes

And if they don’t speak it’s probably because they received [money] for that, for the silence

I believe one day, someone will speak

I also think that’s incredible and absolutely shameful, the fact of receiving money to give interviews.

In this case, a lot of things are strange.

I have brought this over here to show an untainted opinion of a ‘civilian’, of someone I know does not follow the case and yet, as can be seen is quite familiar with it.

The opinion of someone who is very unlikely to express an opinion either here or in a comment in an online article. That’s what makes it so genuine.

And shows what the general public thinks

9. Conclusion

The game, as expected has started and it is going at full throttle.

At this point in time we have no reason to change the conclusion to before the fiscal year, or end of April.

The torpedo launched by the Supreme Justice Court, has literally taken the rug from under the feet of the libel threat. The McCanns cannot claim innocence with documentation from Portugal and they cannot claim without it.

Even though Operation Grange’s position is unclear, we also see no reason to say that we should change the opinion that all is down to one person, Theresa May.

The other side is clearly fighting back and is fighting for survival and it should never be underestimated.

We consider ourselves part of this game, as observers of it.

We want the other players to play freely, so for that reason we will go back to our observation post and only return when we think we should.


  1. Do you think that if the truth is revealed......the McCanns could escape sentence??

  2. I'm sure I've also read that the judgement of the court also stated that at the time there were very sound reasons or making the parents arguido. That too is a damning statement.

  3. Sorry that should read "for making"


    Currently £95K per annum worth of jobs available. The total salary bill must be more than they 'earn'! Just think what the top people are earning. The whole thing is a sham like most charities including Oxfam which has recently been exposed. I have a fiend who gave £10K to a charity that is supposed to build wells and the money vanished and she even went to the alleged village where the well was supposed to be built and met with with a gun which scared her. I'd love to know if there are any genuine charities out there. Each year I receive unsolicited gifts of xmas cards, pens, poppies etc and raffle tickets to sell on behalf of charities, I can't begin to imagine how much these things cost for little return but I suppose it keeps the suppliers in profit.

    Charities should be transparent and made to post in the media each year how much money they receive and how much actually reaches the people in need.

    1. Avoid these charities and put any spare cash to the Salvation Army whose CO earns less than than the average wage or your local homeless charities or Trussell Trust food banks. All donated monies go to those in need.

  5. Text
    Again, a thoroughly brilliant post. My hope is that the game will now be played out without further hinderence and you will have not much need for your perch. Thank you for your time, energy and knowledge that you freely share.

  6. It seems the Sun has tried to delete this editorial but it has been captured:
    Interesting read after SJC decision.

    1. From link above:

      Unfair Cop

      Sun Editorial
      Published: 23 Jul 2008

      AT long last, Kate and Gerry McCann are officially cleared of any role in daughter Madeleine's kidnapping.
      Nobody with any sense ever thought otherwise.

      But the couple's torment is only made worse by Portuguese ex-cop Goncarlo Amaral, who is claiming Madeleine died in their holiday flat.

      The implication that they were responsible, accidentally or otherwise, is utterly groundless. Otherwise, this inquiry would never have been shelved.

      Amaral may hope his heartless libel will divert attention from his own clod-hopping police work.

      But in trying to make a few seedy bucks, he feeds the cruel conspiracy theories that will haunt the McCanns all their lives.


    1. As swinging is mentioned, we thought best to bring Joana’s post it over to the blog:

      Short debate on the Portuguese Supreme Court ruling and the Maddie case. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV, presented by Sara Carrilho, where criminal and current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ Chief Inspector. The first two minutes are basically the same as the article published by Correio da Manhã "Judges demolish McCanns' innocence".

      Sara Carrilho - Manuel Rodrigues, there isn't another way to say it, the Supreme Court of Justice was implacable (scathing, adamant) with the McCann couple.

      Manuel Rodrigues - I have no idea what to call it, if implacable if something else. What I think, is that probably for the very first time in many years, the Supreme Court treated an issue that is a recurrent problem in criminal processes, in a remarkably clear manner and also educational. In other words, we have several people going around, freely, involved in criminal processes, in respect to the parents it wasn't possible, despite the numerous indications that were gathered, extremely varied of all sorts, to substantiate the evidence. And then there is the principle of in dubio pro reo (Lat. when in doubt, for the accused), so in those situations the Courts cannot convict, as such the criminal processes are archived. So we have, excuse my expression, plenty "caramelo" (cocky, brazen-faced), claiming they are innocent, knowing full well that they committed crimes, that they have stolen thousands if not millions, in short, committed crimes all types...

      Carlos Anjos - Of all types, we all know they have committed those crimes.

      Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, everyone knows and they themselves know it too, but Justice doesn't work with assumptions. Justice works with substantiations of evidence and sometimes that is not possible. And it's not possible not because the investigation was poorly done, inadequately performed, defectively investigated, no! At times the complexities of criminal matters are to a such degree that despite the evidence, it's just not possible.

      Sara Carrilho - In this particular case for example, there wasn't a reconstruction of the crime because there were no witnesses.


    2. (cont.)

      Manuel Rodrigues - That's where I wanted to go. Besides the Supreme Court very clear message when saying "Hold your horses. Just because the process was archived, no one said that you are innocent!", and this was said for the first time by someone with authority in Justice, clarifying and bringing this argument to a closure. In addition, they went beyond by saying that many of these problems would have been resolved, possibly the process (criminal case) would have had a conclusion, if only the lack of attendance of the witnesses hadn't scuppered an investigative step that was crucial and was never possible to do, and that was the reconstruction of the crime. That whole group involved in this situation, some of which who might eventually not be good characters, they all disappeared, they all got a ticket and got away. And when it was asked for them to comeback, because they were needed to do the reconstruction, no one came back. Now, everything has turned into a soap opera, but with few stars, with those that are not worthy of being followed, there are very unsavoury games in the midst of all this, there are protections that have never been explained. The media, in my opinion, never did a good job, or rather, failed in what was likely the most important thing to do during all this time, that was to verify the past of the group, understand the connections and the reasons behind the protections, the media has never got to the bottom of those issues. I do not want to go on for very much longer, except to say this: for me, this ruling by the Supreme Court is a piece that should be framed and should be displayed to the general populace.

      Sara Carrilho - Wasn't that work made by the police? Of finding the background information of this group?

      Manuel Rodrigues - We're making an error of appreciation on this issue. The police has to investigate this crime, and prove this crime. Obviously there were background checks of this group, evidently some conclusions were reached, conclusions which have already been widely mentioned, also in this program, the most diverse: that the group eventually engaged in swinging, others in cha-cha-chá, or another type of music, it doesn't matter. All these are parallel processes to the crime itself. It was also said that in that group there were people that were paedophiles, that had connections to...


    3. (Cont.)

      Carlos Anjos - Secret Services.

      Manuel Rodrigues - (nods affirmatively) So, all this should have been thoroughly scrutinized, instead of saying that Gonçalo Amaral ate grilled sardines or...

      Carlos Anjos - That he drunk whisky, or whatever.

      Manuel Rodrigues - This are fait divers (anecdotes) to cause noise and disturb the investigation, and sadly we have reached this point now where there is a child missing since 2007, and we still don't know precisely what happened to her.

      Sara Carrilho - This year marks the ten years since her disappearance. In relation to this ruling, Carlos Anjos, the message that has been sent out is that the lack of evidence can never be equated to innocence.

      Carlos Anjos - Of course, that happens in all processes, like Manuel said, there are many 'fine' people that think that when a process is archived because the crime wasn't proved... One thing is when the judges rule "the defendant is acquitted because he did not commit the crime", this is an exoneration but when they aren't convicted because the indicia didn't develop into sufficient proof for an accusation that doesn't mean an absolution. This is the reason why I agree with Manuel, this ruling is sublime, it's without any doubts one of the best legal pieces that I have read recently in terms of quality. Also in the way that presents the problems and explains them in a clear and easily understandable way. We have a case where a man was constituted as an arguido and didn't provide a statement, any man that has his child missing wouldn't care about giving statements (to the police), if my son disappeared I wouldn't care if they suspected me, they could even arrest me as long as they would find my child, it wouldn't be because they had suspicions that I would refuse to give a statement. There is one thing that we know by reading the statements of the whole group, is that they all lied, lied through their teeth, because there isn't a single statement between those 7 or 8 people that were there that night that matches with one another.

      Sara Carrilho - And the only reconstruction done so far, was by CMTV that reveals those exact incongruences.

      Carlos Anjos - Yes, when they went back to England they were questioned and again they had conflicting versions. When invited to come back, with paid expenses, none of them came back, not even the McCanns, the parents of the child. This reconstruction would have solved, one way or another, those questions. On top of that, they accused Gonçalo Amaral of breaching the professional secrecy, what breach of professional secrecy? When Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book the process was already in the public domain, it was no longer under judicial secrecy, and the CD's (containing a digital copy of the process) had already be given to numerous people.


    4. (Cont.)

      Sara Carrilho - They themselves talked several times, the door had already been open.

      Carlos Anjos - That is also another point, they accused Amaral of writing the book for profit, I am absolutely certain that Amaral would swap the earnings from his book for a single interview the McCanns gave throughout the world, namely when they went to Oprah. I'm sure he would swap it, and that would have solved all the problems of a life time. If there was someone in this case that profited, it's disputable to understand who that was, but if you ask me I think that Gonçalo Amaral when he wrote the book, he retired from the police to write the book, while we are still to this day talking about the money the McCanns will earn from the 10th anniversary interviews, because we are talking about their daughter, we are not talking about the daughter of Gonçalo Amaral. Therefore, there is a plan, which from an ethical standpoint, concerning the way they have used the child's disappearance is difficult to understand. Another thing, the McCanns have spoken substantially more about their daughter's disappearance without saying anything significant, they should have explained where they have spent the funds, everyone contributed the Maddie fund. Or even the English government - the protection Manuel was talking about earlier, why did they give 15 million euros to a single investigation, that is almost the operational budget of the Judiciary Police for one year. And England is the European country where more children go missing, children that don't have a tenth of what the English government has invested on this case. Despite everything, for the very first time in this process someone dotted the i's and crossed the t's, because what the McCanns wanted was a certificate that they were innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the case. This ruling tell us that the abduction theory is far-fetched.

      Sara Carrilho - Ten years later what is certain is that we still don't know...

      Carlos Anjos - Ten years later, at least some Justice was done, it was proved that the abduction of the child is highly unlikely.

      Sara Carrilho - In relation to the whereabouts of the child, we still don't know where she is and ten years have passed.

      Broadcast by CMTV, Rua Segura Se.17 EP.28 February 9, 2017

    5. "This ruling by the Supreme Court is a piece that should be framed and should be displayed to the general populace."

      People should read it, yes, it's quite a remarkable piece and even a touching one because obviously it wasn't that easy for a Portuguese magistrate to write it. There's no mixing up of ethics and justice, the trouble with the first instance judge is that morals crossed the building of her decision.

    6. Textusa and Anne do both of you think that the first judge was persuaded to find something to find against Goncalo

    7. Anonymous 11 Feb 2017, 08:45:00,

      No we don't think there was any outside interference to her decision.

      Speculating, we think, as she keeps the indemnity values as asked and justifies her decision using an argument that was not used by the plaintiffs, that she was overwhelmed the potential relevance of her decision and decided to pass the 'hot potato' intact as possible to the higher courts.

      We don't think the Portuguese justice system is permeable to corruption, and with this we are not saying it's perfect because it's not.

      We dealt with this in our post "Dura Lex Sed Lex"

      I think that post answers totally your question.

    8. Thank you Textusa it certainly clarifies it. From previous things you wrote I would have taken it that you thought she was overwhelmed and besides removing the 2 twins portion of the claim generally left it intact for the higher court. Sometimes I read things into it that is not there but like to clarify it rather than let it vester

    9. Anonymous, as I attended all the hearings, I have no doubt at all about the deep integrity of the first instance judge. She was certainly sorry for the MCs to have lost their daughter and sorry for GA to have no access to assets that would have allowed him to start a new activity, but she obviously had no sympathy for either the first or the latter. She perhaps thought that the MC didn't say all the truth and that GA took the success of his best (but short) seller book for granted. She was above all these trivialities, hence she sanctionned GA for not having been at the level (according to her criteria at least) of his charge in the Justice department.
      I don't think she ever dreamt that GA would not lodge an appeal. She knew that the Appeal Court wouldn't grant the MCs the ridiculous amount they were resquesting.


    From East Coast Radio Ireland

  9. From New Zealand:

  10. Merci, Textusa. Fantastique post, comme d'habitude.
    From the beginning I said to myself what you write today : all this..."with complicity of national governments not only UK and Potug....but worldwide". I encourage them all. Specially Theresa MAY. Yes, this "case" has have and still have a great implication in my life. Justice, Truth, righteousness are at stake. It is impossible to live, to work in a corrupted world. The majority of us do his best, if not all. Come on politicians and establishment! Textusa,thank you very much. Impatiente de vous lire.



      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?

      By Katie Hopkins for MailOnline
      Published: 15:40 GMT, 10 February 2017 | Updated: 16:42 GMT, 10 February 2017

      It was only to be expected, I suppose.

      Following the BBC dramatisation of the fake kidnap of Shannon Matthews, inevitably the first couple out of the gates for comment were the McCanns.

      A source close to the family is said to have told the press the drama is appalling and insensitive.

      Well here’s a new idea for the McCanns: this time it’s not all about you. This is not your story to tell.

      This is about the tragic life of another little girl: Shannon.

      A little girl born into nothing, treated as nothing and finally freed to be something after her own mother was arrested.

      This is the sort of neglect we associate with mums who cash in kids for benefits, like coupons in a store.

      And here’s another new idea for Gerry and Kate: this coverage does not smell slightly strangely of roses. This is unsanitised, and it pongs a bit.

      And that seems to be at the heart of the issue: the McCanns resent them and their parenting being spoken about in the same conversation as Karen Matthews.

      Detectives think Matthews settled on the idea of kidnap after seeing how much money poured into the McCann fund and the amount of press attention Kate and Gerry received.

      She even used a random teddy taken from Shannon’s bed to mimic the Maddie Cuddle Cat that Kate used to carry around with her.

      Is that teddy her favourite? Probably, Karen said. Not quite ringing true.

      Kate’s Cuddle Cat never quite rang true for me either. 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.

      Kate put it in the washing machine just days after Maddie vanished into the night

      Karen Matthews copied Kate McCann’s appeal almost word for word when she shed her crocodile tears for the press: 'I need her home. If anyone's got my beautiful princess, bring her home.’

      Kate’s sentiments coming out of Karen’s mouth. Kate’s Cuddle Cat, Karen’s brown teddy. Kate and Karen. Matthews and McCann. Clear parallels being drawn.

      It’s possible Karen was also influenced by an episode of Shameless, which featured a fake kidnap and aired a few weeks before Shannon was stuffed away, drugged, under a bed.

      Karen Matthews had no shame. A complete absence of the stuff.

      Her own sister says she taped plastic bags to her babies’ bottoms to save buying nappies.


    2. (cont)

      Detectives say she had so many different relationships with so many different men that when the police built up a family tree it had more branches than Tescos, with 300 names on it.

      This same absence of shame allowed her to sacrifice a daughter into the ‘keeping’ of a man whose own daughters had been taken into care after he allegedly made them watch him have sex with a prostitute.

      However, I’m not sure the McCanns can so easily set themselves apart.

      Would you choose to leave your children in the hands of the monster you know — or all alone and take your chance with the devil you don’t?

      Which mother was more desperate: the one with nothing and no hope of ever having anything, or the one with friends waiting at the tapas bar by the pool?

      What is clear is that in both cases the public has paid a price for these decisions. The search for Maddie cost around £12 million. The hunt for Matthews around £3.2 million.

      Karen Matthews is clearly guilty of this huge waste. And has paid for it, to some extent, with four years in prison and a pretty uncertain future.

      We are told she is now receiving death threats as a whole new generation has been appalled by this monster of a mother.

      You might say, for Karen, justice has been served.But the matter of guilt or innocence is never far from the front door of the McCanns.

      This week the Portuguese Supreme Court judges made clear that the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie’s disappearance did not mean Kate and Gerry were innocent. There is a significant and not merely a semantic difference, they said.

      What does justice look like for the McCanns?

      Perhaps we can agree Karen Matthews is a monster. But some kind of monsters came for Maddie at night. She was lost because she was left to be found. Shannon Matthews was born lost, and desperately needed to be found.

      Shameless or desperate? The monster you know or the devil you don’t? Rich or poor? Better or worse? Justice or just deserts? These are hard calls to make.

      Two very different families.

      Two very different children yet, strangely, uncomfortably connected.

    3. 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”.

      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.

    4. I don't disagree with what your saying Textusa but I read the key phrase about washing cuddle cat as wanting the audience to consider why she washed cuddle cat i.e to wash evidence of a crime.

    5. 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.

    6. Most people think that "it" happened when the parents were having dinner at the Tapas. What can "it" be if not some kind of abduction, eventually outside of the flat, the little one meeting her fate when trying to find her parents... ?
      Even DCI Redwood likely reflected that his idea of death in the flat by burglars wasn't compatible with Eddie the EVRD.

  12. Thank you for your thoughts on Hopkins it pissed me off tbh with so much doubt cast from supreme court I thought she'd go further.
    Great post though ladies xx

  13. On Twitter before her latest McCann article was published, Katie Hopkins tweeted: 'My column. Kate and Kerry. McCann's (sic) and Matthews.' And then went on to talk about how the two girls are connected (Shannon, Maddie). Clearly Hopkins made an error using 'Kerry' instead of 'Karen'. Kerry Needham, as we all know, is linked to a different case, a different 'abducted' child.

    This suggests to me a) Hopkins is not particularly well researched on these cases, especially Karen Matthews. She may well be jumping on the case recently because of the BBC Drama 'The Moorside' and the McCann fallout from that. b) in confusing Karen with Kerry she is unwittingly linking the McCanns to the Needhams. Again, it suggests she is only just vaguely aware there are all these abduction cases and is not particularly well-researched in any of them. c) Katie is not writing the articles and is putting her name to ghostwritten text, therefore tweeted the wrong thing because she is not very sure of the content of the article. She herself thinks the article she has put her name to is about the Needhams, perhaps.

    Judging by Katie's Twitter, the sound bites she is tweeting from the article are those that suggest the McCanns' innocence is in question. By linking their case to Karen Matthews' one, there is suggestion of a cover-up of an abduction. I also thought the reference to 'pong' was a covert reference to the sniffer dogs and smell of cadaver. The whole article is laced with suspicion of the McCanns, but I still don't believe these articles are coming from Katie herself.

    1. 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.

    2. The so called 'abduction' has never been proved, only shouted out loud by Ms. McCann. In my opinion it's a Karen Matthews story avant la lettre. Far too many discrepancies, too much money grabbing, too much selfmarketing ... The first book of Mr. Amaral is based on the official files. His conclusion is a more than valid theory. And ... it's not about a 'poor couple', but about a 'poor child' and her 'poor siblings'. The last ones didn't deserve all that fuzz created by the parents themselves and their 'friends' and 'spokesmen' and on and on ... Encore une fois: my opinion, but a strong one. Sincere regards, from Belgium.


    1. A long but very interesting article, and interesting that it comes from the Mail:

      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

      By Neil Tweedie for the Daily Mail
      Published: 00:09 GMT, 11 February 2017 | Updated: 01:19 GMT, 11 February 2017

      Goncalo Amaral is relaxing with an old friend at a brasserie in the Portuguese town of Portimao around midnight when he takes the call.

      A three-year-old British girl is missing from a holiday apartment in the quiet resort of Praia da Luz, a short drive westward along the coast of the Algarve, and Amaral, a senior police detective, is being asked to issue instructions.

      ‘All precautions [must be] taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence,’ he tells the caller. ‘I demand to be informed of developments regularly.’

      An inspector, and a forensics man are dispatched to Praia da Luz, and a watch put in place at Faro airport and at the border crossings between Portugal and Spain.

      ‘That evening, on arriving home, I see Ines, my younger daughter, who is sleeping close to my wife, Sofia,’ remembers Amaral. ‘In silence, in the dim light of the bedroom, I sit on the edge of the bed. Outside, far from her mother’s warmth, a child of the same age is lost.’

      Aged 47, Goncalo Amaral is a veteran of Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria, the country’s serious crimes agency, with the rank of coordinator — equivalent to superintendent. During his quarter century on the force, this man from a working-class background in Lisbon has dealt with everything from drug trafficking to child murder. But this case will eclipse all others in notoriety — and in its impact on his life

      It is the night of May 3, 2007, and Madeleine McCann has just vanished from Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, snatched from her bed by person or persons unknown as her younger twin siblings sleep within feet of her and while her parents, Kate, a general practitioner, and Gerry, a cardiologist, from Leicester, dine with friends at a nearby poolside tapas restaurant. For Goncalo Amaral, the mystery of Madeleine McCann — one that continues to fascinate and appal as it approaches its tenth anniversary — is no mystery at all.

      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.

      He alleged that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and the McCanns had faked the abduction. He was sued by Gerry and Kate McCann who told the trial of their ‘devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain’ at being accused by Amaral of hiding their daughter’s body.

      Last week, after a nine-year legal battle, the McCanns finally failed in their attempt to have the book banned from sale in Portugal. They have always maintained that their aim was to stop Amaral spreading wicked and false lies which they felt hampered the search for Madeleine.

      The Portuguese supreme court decision upholds the finding of a lower court last year, which overturned a previous libel win by the McCanns against Amaral when he was ordered to pay them £385,000 in damages.

      Their initial victory in 2015 allowed them to block formal publication of the book, but could not stop its circulation on the internet. Now the supreme court has concluded that freedom of expression, in the shape of the Amaral book, must trump the right to protect the reputation of individuals (the McCanns).

      What is perhaps worse for the McCanns, who have endured so much already, is that in its full judgment published this week the supreme court, though not a criminal law body, has signally refused to clear them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.


    2. (Cont.)

      The court states that the decision in July 2008 to shelve — ‘archive’ — the initial police investigation and remove the couple’s ‘arguido’ (formal suspect) status does not mean they are innocent.

      ‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (the McCanns),’ says the ruling. ‘It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.’

      It also ruled that there were ‘serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped’.

      Now, the McCanns face a huge legal bill — as well as the agony caused by the book’s continued availability. Their feud with Amaral has become a running sore that may yet empty the much-depleted Madeleine’s Fund.

      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.’

      For Amaral, however, the judgment represents a rare success following a decade of vilification by those who accuse him of cashing in on an innocent family’s suffering. The past nine years have seen his reputation as an investigator trashed, his career terminated, his assets frozen, his finances ruined and his marriage to Sofia, mother to two of his three daughters, dissolved.

      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.

      Amaral points in his book to what he claims are inconsistencies in the McCanns’ account of events that night, when the meal at the tapas bar was interrupted by a distraught Kate returning from a check on her sleeping children to announce that Madeleine was missing.

      In an interview he 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. 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.


    3. (Cont.)

      ‘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.’

      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, nor are fingerprints on a window evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Kate McCann.

      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.

      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.

      Meanwhile, the McCanns — now both 48 — must assess the damage inflicted on the Madeleine Fund. Some £4.2 million has been raised since 2007, be it donations from celebrities and ordinary well-wishers, earnings from Kate’s book Madeleine, or in the form of libel settlements by British newspapers that questioned the couple’s innocence.

      Only a fraction remains, the rest consumed by private detectives, campaign material and travel. Now, that dwindling rump sum, £700,000 or less, may be threatened by yet more legal bills not to mention the possibility of a counter lawsuit from Amaral.

      Whether donors are happy that some of their money has been used to fight libel actions in foreign jurisdictions is unknown, but accounts show the fund has always allowed this kind of expenditure.


    4. (Cont.)

      ‘Goncalo can argue that he is entitled to sue Mr and Mrs McCann for both material and emotional loss as the result of their campaign to stop his book,’ a close associate told the Mail this week.

      ‘There is material loss because publication of his book was suspended for a prolonged period, and emotional loss because of the stress he endured . . .’

      As Madeleine’s Fund declines, so too does the Home Office grant sustaining Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance launched in 2011. Once occupying 30 full-time detectives, it has now dwindled to just four, its budget due to run out in April.

      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.

      Two hundred miles south of Lisbon, Praia da Luz is in semi-hibernation. The annual influx of families who still favour this small resort despite its notoriety is months away.

      This place is dead — except for the cameramen scouting locations. Television journalists have been spotted again in the resort after years of absence. Crews from Britain, the U.S. and Australia are preparing items for that sad tenth anniversary in May.

      The Ocean Club is now called the Garden Club, but its layout is the same. Apartment 5A is shuttered and empty, like most of the holiday lets in this white-painted ghost resort. It looks unloved, the small back garden slightly overgrown, history lending it a brooding, melancholy air.

      Come May 3, the people who own homes and businesses in Praia da Luz will grit their teeth and wait for the media hurricane to abate. Why endlessly rake over a case beyond solution, they argue?

      ‘People feel they are victims of this case,’ says 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.’

      That is something Goncalo Amaral will not allow.


    1. We have to correct something that is said on this post:

      "Interesting detail: it were the McCann who requested for the British police to bring the dogs to Praia da Luz, after they heard about their amazing capacities."

      Indeed, the Guardian did say this on September 23 2007:

      However, when the files were released, we can see that the dogs were brought in on the advice of Mark Harrison and nothing to do with McCanns.

  16. The Supreme Court statement also leaves egg on the face of Operation Grange in my opinion. It states clearly that the case was archived for lack of hard evidence which would stand up in court, but that there was sound reasoning behind the decision to make the parents arguido. Surely Grange should have started at the very beginning and recalled the tapas 9 to take part in a reconstruction which they had refused to do for the P.J. Then they should have explored the deleted phone calls and texts. As I understand it some were unable to be traced at the time. They should then have handed to the P.J. Maddie's medical records and solved the mystery of the credit cards which the McCanns did/ didn't have. Instead they began the investigation from the premise that the McCanns had been totally absolved of suspicion and had no questions to answer. They must have had information that this was not so. As a result millions have been wasted tracking down pimply men, burglars who steal dead bodies, smelly men who like to sit on little girls beds, and are now examining paedophile rings which the P.J. already had checked and discarded as an option.Basically they are back where the P.J were almost a decade ago! How on earth will those who oversaw Grange justify this bungling waste of money and resources?

    1. Operation Grange are caught between the rock and hard place,with a seemingly winding down all that is left is the wording,its clear that the McCann were not exonerated of any involvement in the archiving process,it'll be interesting to see where OG go.A statement along the lines of the Needham case won't satisfy many but how many demonstrations have there been because of their finding's in that.A simple ending with the words along the lines of persons or persons unknown removed Madeleine from apartment 5a leaving no clue as to her whereabouts,whilst this in no way apportions blame nor will it rule any one out of any involvement,yep rock and a hard place imo.

    2. RE your last question anon 13.00

      Simple..THEY WONT !!!

  17. I read a write up in The Times 'Saturday Review' today about 'The Moorside' programme on BBC 1. It includes this sentence:" When one neighbour tells another that the police ripped up her floorboards because a dog " caught the scent of death" but it " turned out to be a dead mouse", you briefly think it might be tipping over the edge.

    So did the programme intend to portray that a 'cadaver' dog will alert to a dead mouse ? It is concerning to me, as it reflects something that does not happen with these highly trained dogs.

    1. What I meant is that indirectly it is saying that Eddie may have been mistaken... BUT we know that the training of these dogs ensures that sort of mistake cannot happen.

      So we have Moorside and Katy Hopkins...possibly all part of the games

    2. Those police dogs have to be certified on a regular basis. False negative are forgivable, false positive are eliminatory.



    Translation of Supreme Justice Court complete.

    A huge thank you to all who collaborated in this!!

  20. Page 66 really drives home how important they thought the reconstruction was......

    Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.

    This speaks volumes imo!!


    It is a real slog reading that ......


    Interesting to see that this Wikipedia page, which has been updated very recently fails to mention that the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court confirmed that the McCanns were never cleared, just saying "the decision was overturned in 2016; the McCanns' appeal to Portugal's Supreme Court failed in 2017"

    The age progression picture does not fit with the fact that the Portuguese justice system considered as PROVEN FACT that the dogs detected human blood.

    Also, we think Brenda Leyland deserved a mention by name and not this: "and the following year a Twitter user was found dead from a helium asphyxiation after Sky News confronted her about her McCann tweets."


    The comments from general public under this article:
    No body believes the McCanns anymore too many people have learned the truth about the case. When will the media report the fact that the general majority of the public don't believe them!

    The McCanns need to stop this sham now and come clean, too many people have read the police files and know that Madeleine is dead, many more will find out when Goncalo Amaral's book goes on sale and then what? people are already angry at the injustice and angry at how our corrupt governments and msm have helped and supported these two all down the line. It's utterly despicable as is the waste of 12 million pounds spent on pretending to look for a child who is dead. How can spending such a huge amount of money on a scam be justified? I really hope that the McCanns and all those who helped them cover up a crime are punished and that dear little Madeleine finally gets justice, she deserves that

    You tube search
    Madeleine McCann - Sniffer Dogs Eddie and Keela

    Has this article been written 'again' to incite anti-McCann feeling?


    It's on tonight, hence timing of this article.

    "They were even prepared to beg officials controlling their own public fund to find their daughter to amend strict rules and release some money to aid the search of another missing girl"

    Who are officials controlling Fund? And why did McCanns need to beg them to give money? To excuse their refusal to help?

    Or are they controlled by officials?

    1. I find the whole thing obscene and very hard to believe. 'Begging' their own fund for money to help another cause is, in my view, a cock-and-bull story. The McCanns' would do anything - say anything - harm anyone - to stay in the limelight. How THEY are perceived is all that's important. Not a word of a continuing search since when: possibly 8 years ago?


      Gerry was happy for their name to be associated with Shannon's family when it suited them!

    3. Yes, indeed. It's just that I don't believe they ever begged for money from their fund to help another cause...

    4. On one of the morning programmes a neighbour of Karen Mathews was ask when she first suspected her involvement and she replied that it was when she went against police advice and gave the interview to the press. She went on to question who would do such a thing when they had been warned that giving interviews would potentially harm their child. Both presenters enthusiastically confirm that that was indeed a Big red flag that she knew more than she was saying.........the hyprocrisy of the British media never ceases to amaze


    Isn't it time for Hogan Howe to be leaving?
    Going out on a low? As opposed to a high.
    Still no news on who will replace him.


    La Justicia de Portugal da la razón a un policía frente a la familia McCann
    14 FEB 2017 - 16:25 CET

    El 3 de mayo de 2007, el matrimonio McCann se fue a cenar con unos amigos en el restaurante del Resort Playa de la Luz, en el Algarve, Portugal. En su apartamento de la planta baja, a 50 metros del restaurante, dejaron durmiendo a Maddie, su hija de cuatro años. Cuando regresaron de la cena, 90 minutos después, Maddie había desaparecido. Nunca más se ha sabido de ella.

    En la investigación estuvieron envueltos policías de Portugal y de la británica Scotland Yard, sin resultados positivos. En 2008, en el libro Maddie, la verdad de la mentira, su autor, el policía judicial Gonçalo Amaral, acusaba a los padres de la niña de ocultar información y de estar implicados en la desaparición de su hija. Los tribunales habían archivado cualquier implicación de los padres en la desaparición de su hija, pero tres días después el policía publicó el libro en el que les acusaba de nuevo.

    Hace dos años, el Tribunal de Justicia de Lisboa condenó al policía a pagar medio millón de euros a los padres de Maddie por los daños causados, además de prohibir la reedición del libro, la difusión del DVD y el reparto de los derechos de autor.

    Tras una sentencia del Tribunal de Segunda Instancia en sentido contrario, ahora el Tribunal Supremo zanja la cuestión a favor del policía y en contra de la familia McCann.

    En la sentencia, hecha pública el pasado martes, el Supremo señala que en una situación de conflicto de derechos, entre el honor y la libertad de expresión, “el criterio de ponderación de intereses, actuando según el principio de proporcionalidad y la especificidad del caso, apunta en el sentido de estar la libertad de expresión del reo (Gonçalo Amaral) necesitada de mayor protección”.

    Según el Tribunal, el ejercicio de libertad de expresión del policía no fue abusivo. “Está dentro de los límites admisibles de una sociedad democrática y abierta, lo que excluye la ilicitud de una eventual lesión del honor de los McCann”.

  26. Judges DESTROY McCanns - They should NOT be considered innocent! - YouTube

  27. I wish I could remember where I saw this today. But there was an image of Clarence Mitchell (black and white makes it easier on the eye) and the headlines were Kate and Gerry accept that Madeleine could be dead.
    I found this interesting in the light of the case results that they are changing their story.
    It is almost as if when they claimed that they believed so vehemently that she was still alive and yet using the funds to find her for costly legal battles - that this was a game changer and suddenly they can accept her death.
    Any thoughts?

  28. Reply to Su,is this the article

    1. Quite extraordinary!

      "It’s the elephant in the room that media sources, up until now, have been carefully avoiding.

      Page 38, clause 75 of the Supreme Court ruling that blew a massive hole in the plans of Madeleine McCann’s parents to block the book by former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral - that suggests they essentially invented their daughter’s abduction - states that as early as October 2007 (only five months after the little girl went missing), the couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell “affirmed” that Kate and Gerry McCann “were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead”.

      In other words, nine months before Amaral even wrote the book that the couple claim “hampered the search” for their missing daughter, they were already “sufficiently realistic” to admit that the search would not bring her back to them."

    2. Content of article:

      Posted by portugalpress on February 16, 2017
      McCann spokesman admits parents “sufficiently realistic” to admit Maddie “probably dead”

      It’s the elephant in the room that media sources, up until now, have been carefully avoiding.

      Page 38, clause 75 of the Supreme Court ruling that blew a massive hole in the plans of Madeleine McCann’s parents to block the book by former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral - that suggests they essentially invented their daughter’s abduction - states that as early as October 2007 (only five months after the little girl went missing), the couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell “affirmed” that Kate and Gerry McCann “were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead”.

      In other words, nine months before Amaral even wrote the book that the couple claim “hampered the search” for their missing daughter, they were already “sufficiently realistic” to admit that the search would not bring her back to them.

      This is another slow-burning stick of dynamite hidden in the lengthy court ruling that also highlighted the panel of judges’ conclusion that the McCanns “have not been proved innocent” in their daughter’s disappearance (click here).

      It is not that the UK media has ‘missed’ the damning clause - the Daily Mail did in 2007 reveal that Madeleine’s father did not agree with it - but rather that it appears for now to be choosing to ignore it.

      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”.

      But it hasn’t stopped the rehashing of some very old stories as if they were new.

      The Daily Star’s this (Thursday) morning reports that the TVI documentary in which Amaral expounds his ‘theory’ that Madeleine died in a tragic accident in the holiday apartment has “appeared on the Internet in English after the couple spent nine years trying to ban it”.

      The story claims Madeleine’s parents are “considering legal action”.

      But what it fails to make clear is that the documentary has been online for the last eight years. It was uploaded on April 30, 2009 - and well over a million people in UK appear to have seen it.

      What will happen next is what everyone following this mystery is wondering.

      Our source continues to predict a media onslaught in Praia da Luz for the 10th year ‘anniversary’ of Madeleine’s disappearance, claiming most news services will “just rehash old stuff” but there are plans afoot to “present all the victims in this story who have since died”, including witnesses and former suspects.

      Meantime, Clarence Mitchell has been talking to the Sun online, saying that the McCann couple: “want to make it clear that they are not making any money out of Madeleine’s disappearance”.

      Any claims that they are, he said are “spurious nonsense” that “fits in with the Portuguese agenda”.

    3. I wonder if there are shades of the Ben Needham "result" afoot ie. "We've established that Ben is probably dead, and left it at that." I watched "The Moorside" second episode and was interested to note that the first charge the jury returned a verdict on was that of reckless abandonment, placing a child in a position wherein harm could have befallen it. Karen Matthews was found guilty on that count in the program.I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the red tops which reported on the program and public reactions to it,including the McCanns' "fury" etc. Hmmmm! New to commenting here Textusa but have been following your excellent work for a long time. Final point, I watched the interview where Gerry takes off his mic and refuses to participate futher (He's too ot) with a deaf friend lately.I could never fully make out what was being said but my lip- reading friend assures me that it went like this. When asked how they felt about the blood found in 5G he replies " You know what? THIS is all investigation and we're just being suspects". He then removes the mic and begins to protest that he was being asked questions about the POLICE investigation which he was not permitted to answer. However, my friend assures me that his word "THIS" was referring to the interview itself. Not important maybe, but it opened my eyes to how swiftly and convincingly he could dissemble. Hopefully Grange after its massive waste of tax-payers money and police resources will be compelled to account for itself without any wishy washy conclusions.

    4. Anonymous 16 Feb 2017, 18:04:00,

      Just noticed now that you seem to imply that the Supreme Justice Court came up with a new proven fact that was damaging to the McCanns.

      Let us remind readers that all the points numbered in the ruling (acórdão) are already from the first instance under proved and not proved facts.

      Then, even when they had won, they had lost.


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.