The McCann trial

1. Introduction

Looking at the picture above, the man with a beard in the centre is holding a pitchfork. The woman a torch and the man behind an axe.  We are trying to be helpful. To let people know which is which.

People may not be aware but the McCann trial in Britain has begun and is taking place and from what we have witnessed, we think it’s best clarify what objects are involved in a lynching mob as we certainly don’t want to see people looking silly trying, for example, to light up a pitchfork.

Last week, we showed how – and why – the McCann complaint against the Supreme Justice Court had been a manoeuvre to regain, even if only temporarily, the ‘innocent-look’ for the McCanns.

To sum up a very long post, it was to have the McCanns continue to be perceived as being declared innocent by the Portuguese when government has to decide about granting or not Operation Grange further funds for the next fiscal year.

That was, or is, a risky move, or one filled with uncertainty.

Uncertainty not about the outcome of the complaint but because it may not convince the government and it may even backfire as the response from the Supreme Justice Court will highlight even further how the McCanns were never cleared.

But there’s one thing that there’s absolutely no uncertainty about: how the McCanns are to look neglectful.

It benefits all scenarios, even truth, or partial truth as we call it.

By concentrating all bad imagery on the McCanns beforehand, it focuses the beam of the spotlight just on them and that leaves all others caught just by a slight twilight or not even no light at all.

Both in the largely undefined, very vague and quite obscure European human trafficking gang scenario and in the archival one, the negligent McCanns are an absolute requirement.


2. Negligence and Maddie’s death

Negligence has had quite the attention lately.

And because it is walloping the McCanns it is getting a lot of support.

We think people should stop for a minute to think before applauding negligence the way they are. Just ask themselves how negligence fits in with Maddie’s death involving her parents.

Negligence and Maddie’s death are olive oil and water, no matter how hard or how long you swirl them together they will never mix up.

The only scenario for both negligence and death to fit together somehow, and please do take note of the somehow, is the sedation one.

To newcomers, the sedation scenario would be the McCanns having overdosed Maddie with sleeping inducing drugs to go on a binge and the whole hoax would be to hide that fact from authorities.

Notwithstanding that if this group was as powerful as some say they are, it would never allow for an autopsy to take place and if it did the results would be stifled.

One has to wonder how blood fits in such a scenario, as the only plausible explanation would involve the unblocking of Maddie’s air ways and for that to have been, the parents or whomever, would have to have been present while she was suffocating, otherwise why unblock the air ways?

If they were present at the time of her death, then negligence wasn’t happening.

Plus, an overdose in sedation, as far as we know, does not cause suffocation.

But even if it did, and please remember that this exercise is to try and join up negligence with death by sedation, then it would mean that they would have gone to dinner negligently and upon their return they would have encountered Maddie suffocating and rushed to help her, only a minute too late.

But for that to have happened, it would mean the dinner – otherwise when did they abandon the kids? – had to be quick and early because for the alarm to be given at around 10 pm, it means returning, seeing an asphyxiating Maddie, trying to help her by freeing up the airways that would justify the blood spatters, realise and come to terms that she was dead, decide on the hoax, clean up the apartment and go back and pretend dining (again?) and raise the alarm to have been done before that time.

Is this minimally realistic? Even if it was, which it isn’t, there’s the problem that Tapas staff said the group was at Tapas as of 20:30 and stayed there until the alarm.

And on the other nights the group is said to have stayed there until around midnight, so why return earlier to apartments on Thursday?

So, when did they neglect the kids that night so the sedation scenario would be possible? It isn’t.

Negligence and sedation seem, on a first look to fit, but upon analysis they don’t. Thus we’re asking readers to note that somehow just now.

In reality, there’s no scenario that makes negligence fit together with the McCanns being involved in her death.

Independent of how the reader thinks Maddie died and of who killed her, by accident or not, the blood in the apartment states that someone, the person or people who killed her, by accident or not, was or were present.

Even if blood came from unblocking the air ways, that means someone was there.

If the reader believes, as we do, that the blood found in the apartment is from Maddie at the time of her death and believes as we do that the McCanns and/or one or more of the remainder T7 were present when she died, then that same blood rules out negligence completely.

The more people pursue the alleged fact that the McCanns were negligent the more they are distancing them from her death.

Very simple, and very straightforward.


3. Death and Maddie

Does the reader remember the good old days when the word ‘death’ was associated with Maddie in the British media?

Oh, wait, it was less than a month ago!

Fascinating how the connection between ‘death’ and the McCanns has almost gone with the wind so quickly.

The reader may think it’s because they are trying to put it behind them.

However if the reader thinks the association of the word death with the McCanns is the end of them please think again.

Maddie’s death is to be an integral part of both the European human trafficking gang scenario and in the archival one.

Only by including that fact, that Maddie is dead, will the dog alerts be ‘explained’, as well as giving reason for Andy Redwood when he said that there was every reason to believe that Maddie never left the apartment alive.

Until recently, and we were even asked that question by a reader, we wouldn’t mind if negligence was the option taken.

We then answered the reader that if that meant having the players sitting at the table and finally playing, the game openly, then we would welcome that or any other option.

We said that based on one simple fact, and that was that we were living in a society where facts were facts. But recently, we have witnessed that it is not so at all. And we’re not even being political.

The Ben Needham case has shown us that fact can be created and used to slap our face with it as the official reality.

It matters not if something happened, what only matters is if the due authorities pronounce it happened, because if they do that, then it has happened even if it hasn’t.

And that has even happened in the Maddie case.

One just has to remember Crèche Dad who is a man authorities say he was there and then, and even though we all know he wasn’t, officially he was and that means that him being there and then was from that moment reality even though it wasn’t.

Back to death, how will they fit Maddie’s death into their desired narrative?

If one reads our post “Third Option” which is basically a prediction of what the other side is currently trying to pull off, Maddie’s death is a part of it very clearly.

Or, to sum up, the McCanns were negligent and left the kids, along came the evil men who killed Maddie inside the apartment and took her body away.

In that post we debunked it.

Only problem with that debunking is that we used reason. We showed very clearly that there was no time for the cadaver scent to develop and that it would be impossible to explain the scent in the Scenic.

But Ben Needham’s toy car has shown all of us how the impossible is just the possible yet to be invented.

A car found half a mile from the farmhouse, by bulldozers and with no media noticing that it had been found even though they were right there, is sufficient evidence to allow the police to come to the firm conclusion that Ben died by an accident near the farmhouse.

Either the toy car had some sort of tape recording device that we are unaware of, we cannot see how such conclusions could be reached from such an object.

And maybe because we are not alone in questioning this, it explains why South Yorkshire Police has since not detailed how it came to such a conclusion.

They just said it was, and we are all expected to nod our heads, accept it was and move on.

In the Maddie case, Operation Grange can use the exact the same shameless brazenness and just tell us what we said above, that the McCanns were negligent and left the kids, along came the evil men who killed Maddie inside the apartment and took her body away, and then tell us to move on.

We have already seen that the cadaver scent was left out of the Daily Mail article that mentioned only the blood alerts.

And then dismissed said alerts as possibly not being from human blood.

That will be the first tactic to pull off Maddie’s death, just say Maddie is dead and not explain why that conclusion was reached.

Never mention, the cadaver scent.

The blood, as shown, can be easily explained both in apartment and in the vehicle.

About the death scent, any question will be ignored and if this is the option officially taken, no media will dare speak of it.

We on the internet will shout and holler but will be ignored.

It will be left to people like Insane, to justify that all is due to contamination.

That Maddie died in the apartment, killed by the European human trafficking gang and not by the evil McCanns who were drinking their hearts away at Tapas, and by misfortune Kate’s clothes were contaminated and that in turn contaminated the closet, the shrubbery in the backyard and evidently the Renault Scenic.

But, as we said, the idea is to ignore cadaver scent. As per, we will see later, the Jodie Marsh incident.

And to those thinking that is simply not possible, let us remind them that we have already seen the following: blood being non-human blood, Mr Smith not wearing glasses and Ben’s toy car.

When there’s a will there’s a way, and these days when there’s that will, then the way, even if illogical, unreasonable or just a big huge lie, will be truth.

Keela can be made out to be useless and Eddie will ‘only’ serve to confirm that Maddie never left the apartment alive.

Notice, the dogs will be used in the narrative, their findings completely distorted.

Why would any human trafficking gang take a dead child with two live ones to take, is something the narrative will find a solution to, and if it doesn’t, it will be made sure such inconvenient questions are simply not asked in the media and are to be ignored on the internet.


4. The other side’s tactics and objectives

Negligence only significantly benefits the government in the truth scenario but is absolutely essential for the patsy and archival ones, those pursued by the other side.

So negligence is their main effort in pressuring the government into going their way.

But the other side is acting on various fronts, or vectors, and not only on that.

Fortunately, and this went unnoticed, we had someone write the “Other Side’s Manual” and this happened in… Australia.

We think it happened there as if to test the waters far away from the UK.

The author is the first to recognise that she has a connection in the case: “And I speak with more than a passing interest in this case. I was a reporter in London when the story broke and my son was the same age as Maddie”

A journalist in the centre of the 2007 storm as it happened. Storm, as in the media playing games with all of us then.

We are speaking of the article by Louise Roberts published in the Australian paper the Daily Telegraph, on Feb 22: “Maddie McCann’s parents need to move on, for their kids’ sake”.

Let’s then use quotes from this article to exemplify exactly what the other side intends to achieve.


Vector #1 – Promote neglect

“She disappeared and the guilt and the blame game began for them. There is no doubt they were remiss in leaving her alone — even Gerry said it was a mistake.

(…)

The couple are emotionally paralysed not only by her disappearance but by their consciences, never shaking off the sick feeling that they were not there when Maddie needed them. And the public has never let them forget it.

(…)

They left the child alone, a mother who didn’t know them screamed in my face during a round of interviews.

“What did they expect?”, was the frequent, illogical and cruel retort. Any working class parents would be hauled upon child abandonment charges, was the repeat argument.””

We will evidently come back to this but we would like readers to retain for now this last phrase: “Any working class parents would be hauled upon child abandonment charges, was the repeat argument”.

It’s a very important sentence.


Vector #2 – Assume death

“None of it is going to bring Maddie back. Only the perpetrators know where her body is, who took her, where they took her. And why.”

We have already handled this but please note how vague it is by saying it was “perpetrators”, makes it suitable for it to have been the infamous European human trafficking gang and distances death from parents.

Assume death but stay as far as possible away from detailing it in any way.

Anything linking the parents to that is strictly forbidden, as it is to be the European human trafficking gang.


Vector #3 – Make McCanns fade away

“But it’s time for the McCanns to turn off the legal tap and focus on the family life they have left.

(…)

It’s time for Gerry and Kate, trapped on a grief and reputation treadmill, to change focus.

Time to get busy living, ditch the reputation management and let the chips fall where they will.

Time to give Maddie’s siblings Amelie and Sean, now 11, the best of what childhood years they have left before they are adults.

Kate revealed that, despite not growing up with her, these siblings remember their older sister and “want her back”. It is gut-wrenching.

(…)

The McCanns should see that pursuing a legal battle serves no other purpose than to provide notoriety and invaluable publicity to the people they are trying to silence.

Of course I am not saying they should give up hope but maybe the time has come to turn the page on this chapter. There are other children in this family who are victims in their own right.

Surely they have some right to fade into the background and find some kind of a normal life away from the glare of scandal and innuendo.”

The article speaks for itself.


Vector #4 – Discredit Portugal

“This week the former Portuguese detective, who led the initial and highly-criticised probe into the little girl’s disappearance, was back on the controversy gravy train with more sensational claims.

The McCanns faked the abduction, according to Goncalo Amaral, to cover up the death of their eldest daughter in their holiday flat in Praia da Luz in the country’s south.”

Dismisses Mr Amaral’s claims by saying that he’s just on a gravy train.

To the above, please add “The McCanns should see that pursuing a legal battle serves no other purpose than to provide notoriety and invaluable publicity to the people they are trying to silence”

Mr Amaral, says the article, is just a greedy notoriety seeker and the McCanns are helping by giving him free and “invaluable publicity”.

In this vector frivolity is included with which the Supreme Justice Court was accused, as reported by the Daily Mail, by the McCann legal team.

Such an accusation, however groundless it is, makes the Portuguese justice system flawed and biased before the eyes of the British public.

It explicitly claims that a decision from the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court can be frivolous and it implicitly says that it may have done so in the past. Or, in other words, its decisions are not to be trusted, or at least, given with a significant amount of error.

This has 2 objectives.

On one hand, pass the image that the McCanns are being persecuted by an obsessive cop helped by a morally corrupt third world justice system and on the other give a reason, and make it be quite understandable to its citizens, as to why the UK has come to protect 2 of its citizens.

Did the Portuguese say the McCanns were not cleared? Well, it would be expected wouldn’t it? And even, look people, the resentful Portuguese wanting so much to charge the McCanns with anything concerning Maddie’s life, were they able to? No, of course not. Of course they weren’t able because no matter how hard they tried, and they did, they couldn’t undermine the unshakable innocence of the couple could they?

So, they will say, it must be concluded that it’s absolutely ludicrous to even think the McCanns are involved in any way in her death.

About them leaving her and her siblings all alone, well, that’s completely different story… but don’t worry, we are dealing with that.


Vector #5 – Discredit truth-seekers

“There isn’t a single clue as to whether she is alive today but the lucrative whodunit industry dogging her parents Gerry and Kate, who deny any part in her death, rumbles on.

(…)

There was unprecedented vitriol from armchair critics for these two “uppity” middle class GP parents who “thought they knew better than anyone else”, I was told.

(…)

The only “winners” here are lawyers and so-called authors still making a buck from the blonde preschooler with the signature blemish on the blue iris of her right eye.”

This is a very complex vector, the most difficult to understand and the most brilliantly played by the other side, as they are also throwing into the bonfire those they are using to help make neglect sink in.

In this vector, one must include the articles about Apartment 5A, rehashing the Ghoul Tours but now adding that people – we would really love to know who – have offered money to visit the apartment.

a. Apartment 5A and Ghoul Tours

The blog promoting these tours is again named to facilitate it being searched and, as we showed in our post “The messages”, it is to make people go and look and, due to its politeness and apparently good research, find out that the internet (as the blog is then supposed to represent all of us) agrees that there was indeed an abduction and in no way were the parents involved in Maddie’s disappearance.

But the main point of these articles is that those interested in wanting to know what happened are morbid and ghoulish people.

b. Katie Hopkins

Then here we have the current wave of people in the media supposedly promoting truth, or to be clear, really letting the McCanns have it.

We are thinking of the following names and listing them by chronological order: Katie Hopkins, Mark Williams-Thomas, Jodie Marsh and Shannon Mathews

Ms Hopkins after it being called to her attention, doesn’t tweet anything similar to the McCanns being involved in Maddie’s death nor in the following cover-up as per Mr Amaral’s claims.

And, by the way, not a word to recommend his book.

She only likes to perpetuate how badly negligent the McCanns are. And how many people are reading her. As if Maddie had a voice she would say, I’m gone because and just because my evil mummy and daddy abandoned me.

And she has reached millions.

Millions of people who are now, thanks to her, convinced Maddie was left alone and we will never know what happened to her.

Because we think that when she says that we are close to knowing what happened to Maddie, she’s just referring to all are soon to discover is that what happened was that Maddie was left alone and because of that suffered the fate she did.

A supposed reality that has supposedly been hidden from the public until now: officially the parents are indeed responsible because they were, wait for it, neglectful.

That supposed truth, let’s be frank, was never voiced until now. Up until now, the McCanns were said to have been responsible parents who took an understandable decision that turned out to be tragic, so saying now, openly and officially, that instead they were neglectful is quite, officially, the novelty. 

c. Mark Williams-Thomas

Then we had Mark Williams-Thomas selling a theory on ITV – certainly by coincidence, NOT – that isn’t even his, but published by Danny Collins in 2008, before the files were released, in his book “Vanished”.

A theory whereby Maddie, the 4 yr old wonder-girl, who was able to know not only that her parents were in the Tapas esplanade, as to know where that esplanade was and how to get there from the apartment.

At least the original theory, the one from Danny Collins, although ridiculous had the decency to stop at Maddie wandering off into the street looking for her parents without knowing where they were, and was probably taken by gypsies. He even made some inquiries about gypsy camps.

Interesting to know that Mark Williams-Thomas has evolved in thought about what happened to Maddie.

In a CNN article published on Nov 3 2007 “Mom: Madeleine out there somewhere” this is written:

“Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective and child protection expert, said the two most likely scenarios are that Madeleine was killed by accident and her death was covered up or that she was abducted.”

We would really like to know what was it that has made him change his mind from his “two most likely scenarios.”

People called out Mark Williams-Thomas’ bluff on his theory, thinking that they had accomplished their mission, not realising that it was never about making that theory credible but to further ingrain the premise in which it is based on: negligence.

Out came the McCanns allegedly baffled with this 9 year old new astonishing theory, which Kate already has commented on her book and Clarence Mitchell has acknowledged the McCanns were given manuscripts of Collins book (interesting they forgot to mention now they had read this theory somewhere before) contradicting the theory but not denying they left the children alone, thus confirming the neglect. Yes, we left the kids alone but in no way could Maddie wander off as there were 2 gates…

d. Jodie Marsh

Jodie Marsh followed, supporting Katie Hopkins.

“Jodie Marsh‏ @JodieMarsh
@BonStine I'm not bullying anyone. I'm entitled to an opinion & the FACTS are there. Even if you think they're innocent;they LEFT kids ALONE
6:34 pm 24 Feb 2017”

We think Jodie Marsh was a typical case in which a friend of a friend is not necessarily a friend.

We think she came into the picture because she picked up from Katie Hopkins and so was welcomed and given visibility by the other side.

We say this because she wasn’t properly indoctrinated, it seems. At 6:34 pm she was one of the team but at 6:36 stopped being because she wandered off into cadaver odour territory and she shouldn’t have:

“Jodie Marsh‏ @JodieMarsh
@BonStine and I’m not name calling. I’m simply saying do the research. The cadaver dogs found traces of corpses apartment etc… #weird
6:36 pm 24 Feb 2017”

“Jodie Marsh‏ @JodieMarsh
@happyhammer74@BonStine to my knowledge, cadaver alerted in apartment, in Boot of car and on kate’s clothes
8:11 pm 24 Feb 2017”

Once she stepped over the line, by referring to cadaver odour while dissing the McCanns she not only was immediately dropped as they brought in a heavyweight to counter-attack: Kerry Needham.

This was in the article by Mel Fallowfield and Siam Goorwich, “Why are Madeleine McCann's parents Kate and Gerry under fire again?”, published Feb 28 2017.

“Kerry Needham, 44, whose son Ben went missing in 1991, hit back at Jodie explaining why she believes the McCanns’ are right to clear their names.”

The article in the paper edition of the magazine:

“Kerry Needham, 44, whose son Ben went missing in 1991 backs the McCanns’ bid to clear their names. She says: 

“Jodie Marsh has no idea how she would react to this situation - she’s not the mother of a missing child.

Nobody has a clue what they’d do until they’re thrown into a situation where they’re living daily with the nightmare of having a child go missing.

Of course, anyone - including myself - would  be digging the dirt with our bare hands if we thought it would find our child, but I’d also be fighting to clear my name against any false accusations.

Gerry and Kate have every right to ensure they keep their reputations intact.

Their other kids will read these reports and may very well ask why their parents don’t defend themselves if they didn’t do so. I’ve been very lucky with the support I’ve had and only receive the odd negative comments, but even those few remarks devastated me.

The McCanns have had to fight to beat off critics from every direction, which is horrific.

They’re in a no-win situation-if they ignore such accusations, people will say they aren’t fighting them because it’s true. On the flip side, when they fight back some people say it’s because they have something to hide.

I know what it’s like living with the pain of wondering whether you will see your child again-every day is a battle. Jodie doesn’t have the right to judge.””

Do note that the right clearance of name comes in the sub-heading. In bold.

One has to wonder where Maddie and Ben are in all this as it all seems to be only about the adults.

This article isn’t about missing children but reputational damage.

Kerry Needham comes in defense of the McCanns against Jodie Marsh but lets Katie Hopkins boast about the millions she has reached dissing them.

Jodie has no right to judge but apparently for Kerry Needham Katie Hopkins does.

The difference? One, Jodie, speaks about cadaver odour and the other, Katie, doesn’t.

One, Jodie, reaches via Twitter hundreds of thousands but is less threatening than the other, Katie, who reaches millions via Twitter, Daily Mail and radio show

One, Jodie, had to be stopped, the other, Katie, is allowed to continue uncontested.

We have told readers that we think that the Ben Needham case is interlinked with the Maddie one, and this seems to be evident.

e. Karen Matthews

Lastly we had Karen Mathews.

This seems to be a good thing as it seems to compromise the McCanns.

What people are not, in our opinion, realising is that by using the Shannon Matthews case the other side is turning the spotlight on the McCanns with a slight nuance, also to their friends, the other T7. And by containing things to this group, leaving all others out.

First, let’s be very clear. Between the 2 cases, there’s only 1 thing in common: abduction. That’s it.

Saying they share ‘staged abduction’ is false.

It’s like comparing Inspector Calls with Hamlet just because they are both plays. The only thing both these plays share is they are performed on a stage, all else is different.

Just like between Shannon Matthews and Maddie McCann all outside the word abduction is different.

One was planned, a conspiracy, the other was a reaction, a cover-up. That alone separates totally the waters between the two cases.

But the other bigger difference is the social status of those involved.

When one refers to ‘others’ being involved in the Shannon case, can it be minimally compared with the ‘others’ involved in the Maddie case?

We don’t think it can. We don’t know who the ‘others’ may be in the Shannon case but we are willing to bet anything that they aren’t staff of a tourist resort, a staff of a tour operator, a community of local ex-pats nor the police, government, media and judicial system of a nation.

The ‘others’ in the Shannon case, are more than likely to be her pals.

By pointing the finger at these ‘others’ while accusing the McCanns of neglect, it’s just being made clear that it’s intended that things are to go no further than the T7, the McCann peers in neglect.

f. Discrediting Hopkins, Williams-Thomas, Marsh and Matthews

But what we want to point out is the calibre of the people involved in pushing the message of neglect.

They are being used but one of their use is their ‘unpleasantness’, in the lack of a better word.

Katie Hopkins is like using a gnarling Rottweiler to convince people that dogs are cuddly, Mark Williams-Thomas is as laughable as is theory and Karen Matthews a convicted woman of a crime against her own daughter.

As we said, we think Jodie got involved by accident but with all due respect to the woman, her followers are more interested in seeing either parts of her body or what clothes she’s wearing to cover it.

To counter-balance this, we have Kerry Needham, an altruistic Kate McCann in the Missing People Choir and helping a Missing People marathon runner and Gerry McCann wanting to save £60 million in the struggling NHS.

It’s like comparing sweet, sweet oranges with rotten apples, isn’t it?

The idea being to accept that the McCanns were indeed neglectful but one has to look at the kind of people who seem to be bothered with a mistake made by the couple.

Yes, they say, it was a huge mistake with very and unquestionably serious consequences but it was just a mistake. Nothing we haven’t heard before all these years.


5. Legal threat

There are two vectors not mentioned in Louise Roberts’ article

The first, the 6th one, is the resurfacing of the legal threat.

Up until the Katie Hopkins article on her Mail Online column “KATIE HOPKINS: We'll never know what really happened to Maddie but her parents should accept their share of the blame and let her go” bashing the McCanns, it was absolutely forbidden to say anything bad about the McCanns in the British media.

By then ‘allowing it’, we now realise, the Daily Mail seized the leadership in what appears to be an anti-McCann campaign that we now know to be something other than that.

If until that article things had to be said by reading between the lines, since then thrashing the McCanns became more overt.

But with the Supreme Justice Court ruling, the time to read between the lines is definitely over as it took carpet from right under the feet of the ‘innocent-look’.

It’s a reality that the issue is still under contest but as we have explained, it’s not only flimsy but is as useful as jumping off a plane tied to an anchor instead of a parachute.

But legally, the Supreme Justice Court decision was halted and the McCanns retain, for now, their ‘innocent-look’ and as we have seen, Kerry Needham has come out to defend that what the McCanns are doing is rightfully clearing their name.

So in theory, the McCanns retain their legal basis of having been cleared to sue, even though even they know it won’t last long.

The other side started this vector by immediately ‘warning’ that anyone publishing Mr Amaral’s book would be sued and making sure that we all knew that they had the vicious Carter-Ruck on a short leash.

That was before the content of the Supreme Justice Court was known.

Since then we have seen death and covering-up of her death associated with the McCanns without them reacting.

We know that death serves the narrative pursued and the cover-up thing can be dealt with, outside the courts by discrediting Mr Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court and the entire Portuguese judicial system.

So, to allege, that one is afraid to speak because of legal implications is one big red-flag because to speak badly about the McCanns is exactly what is intended, short of providing any sort of evidence that links the McCanns to Maddie’s death.

Associating death with the McCanns only on the internet if you please, where that has already happened for years and where for years it has been duly ignored.

And there’s no better way to convey that this fear is real than by stating that one has been a victim of this threat:

Another way to make people feel real this fear is to have Mark Williams-Thomas and ITV's This Morning hosts repeatedly say that they all are bound legally to not speak any further.

Another way to make people feel real this fear of legal threat is to have Mark Williams-Thomas and ITV’s This Morning hosts repeatedly say that they all are bound legally to not speak any further.

Slightly off-topic but still within legalities, we hope the reader has noticed that in the Closer article, the one where Kerry Needham appears to defend the McCanns specifically against Jodie Marsh and no other, that the magazine does not say a word about having, we imagine, exercised censorship against Jodie Marsh

We say we imagine because we are deducing the national magazine that Jodie says that has pulled unexpectedly her intended article to be the magazine Closer as it’s there she writes.

She probably thought that anything she would say would be published and probably decided to  refer to the cadaver odour in the article she wrote thinking it would, and we know it would, further bash the McCanns, and it got, evidently pulled by the magazine.

If the article had been pulled for reasons of external pressure, we would expect that the magazine would say something like, our legal department advised us not to publish latest article by Jodie, but says nothing.

That’s self-censorship, the most hypocritical kind of censorship, the complicit kind, especially when it involves justice for a little British girl.


6. Upstanding citizens

The other vector the article Louise Roberts’ article doesn’t mention, is of course, the regaining of the ‘innocent –look’.

We have spoken extensively on how this was done on our post last week “The complaint”.

But we are not listing it here only because we have listed all others but because this week there was a slight nuance, the making of the McCanns examples of citizenship.

We had Kate and her Missing People Choir participation in Britain’s Got Talent, and her helping raise the staggering amount of £2,000 for an unknown marathon runner for Missing People as well.

We said, and do maintain, that this was to make Kate seem busy with worthy popular causes until when the next fiscal year starts in May.

But now they have come up with the Professor McCann, the NHS wonder-doctor.

This was in the Daily Mail – the ever fascinating Daily Mail – article by Stephen Matthews, published Feb 27 2017 10:29, updated that day at 10:52 “Madeleine McCann's father warns thousands of heart patients are undergoing needless surgery, which is costing the NHS £60m a year, due to an inaccurate test”

“Thousands of patients could unnecessarily be having surgery due to an inaccurate test, a heart doctor has warned.

And needless operations performed because of the exam may be costing the NHS £60 million a year, says Professor Gerry McCann.

The cardiologist, father of Madeleine who has been missing since May 2007, led a team of researchers from the University of Leicester.

(…)

Professor McCann plans to search for a more accurate way of deciding which patients with AS should undergo surgery.”

We placed as a comment in our last week’s post a Facebook post from Marian Greaves about this subject in which she says:

“So delving even deeper, I did eventually find the research paper which was published 13th Feb 2017. However it threw up lots of interesting facts, it was based on a two year study as part of his fellowship. Now fellowships are post-doctoral research grants to become a professor, you undertake research supervised by other eminent academics and then present it in a lecture to gain a professor post. This is exactly what this piece of work was for, he didn’t lead it, he was tagged on the end of 21 other leading academics in the field to assist with the research for experience. There was no remit in the abstract or the study or conclusion to look at costings to the NHS of doing unnecessary surgery. Those permutations came from Gerry on his blog on the Uni site where he did two statements as press release on the study.”

Gerry doesn’t exactly have a leading role in this, does he?

We can only imagine how happy fellow academics felt when they saw his name all over national news as being the leader and future reference for this research.

When we went to school these people had a name but will refrain from saying it here.

This obviously puts pressure on the government to not make a move against the McCanns in times in which the NHS is struggling financially.

What should be understood is that this is also done to contrast with the likes of Katie Hopkins, Mark Williams-Thomas, Jodie Marsh and Karen Matthews.

Repeating ourselves, the idea being to accept that the McCanns were indeed neglectful but one has to look at the kind of people who seem to be bothered with a mistake made by otherwise upstanding citizens.

This allows for the McCanns, in their faded away life, to not be social pariahs.


7. Verb ‘to take’

If one really wants to point the finger at the McCanns there are many ways to go about that without having to say explicitly that Maddie was not abducted, one just has, for example, to quote Mr Amaral.

Or use the ‘vanished’ or ‘disappeared’ used by the MSM even before the Katie Hopkins article of a year ago.

And never, under any circumstance and for obvious reasons, imply there was an abduction.

The verb taken is to be used only when used together with the word body, as in where was the body taken, or in who took the body. And evidently, in this last instance, when not implying it was by a European human trafficking gang who did it.

To stop the lie that there was an abduction is the reason why Mr Amaral has suffered all these years, so to support that lie is then to totally disrespect the man and all he went through.

One must not forget that whatever is written is not for those who are familiar with the case but for those who will fall for the blood not being human and that Mr Smith was not wearing glasses.

These people do not have any capability to read between lines. When Kate Hopkins says that we will never know what happened to Maddie they will take her for her word.

Now is the time to expect people to read all literally.


8. The history of negligence

We have explained in detail all there is to know about negligence in the Maddie case in our post “The Narrative of Negligence”.

We strongly recommend new readers read it and those who have, to do it again.

But to understand the true importance, and brilliance, of the move now being made by the other side, one has to understand how they are using the PJ Files against us.

It may now seem that we are going to do a “we-told-you-so” moment or that we’re claiming glory for being the first in something but we are not.

What we are doing, and it’s important that readers fully understand that is a “we-said-it-and-look-at-what happened” moment.

We were the first to debunk negligence. We did it in our post “THE CHARGE WILL BE :::::SIMULATED NEGLECT TO PROVE ABDUCTION”

We then said “What is it ? holding a group of Doctors who have let themselves be villified for neglect when in fact neglect did not take place.”

Few will remember the criticism we suffered for making such a statement.

The McCanns could not have been not neglectful because the Tapas staff said they had been there, and as they were part of the good guys they could not be questioned. The McCanns had been neglectful, full stop.

By the way, in that post we only involved Dianne Webster and Russel O’Brien, so well contained within the T9 as then, not even we suspected that anyone present outside the T9 could have been involved.

But people ridiculed us because even though we may have been right about that night, there were all the other nights when the T9 had been neglectful, so what we said was to be ignored.

But the real heavy fire upon us came when 9 months later, and still completely alone on the negligence debunking front we wrote the post “In an Emergency call 112, when in a HOAX call 211” in which we questioned and debunked the existence of the Big Round Table.

By showing that such a table never existed, we were clearly saying that there had been no Tapas dinners, which meant the staff was complicit (or, to be precise, others besides the T9 were involved in the hoax) and so there had been no negligence, at least by them abandoning the kids while at Tapas.

Then, the possibility was raised of them having abandoned the kids at the apartment (false) while they had dined at Chaplin’s near the Church (true).

This meant over-egging negligence as such gross felony could not be passed as being within ‘responsible parenting’.

Just to clarify, we, in the blog believe that the T9 did have dinner at Chaplin’s and other restaurants that week and that the kids were looked after in one of the building 5 apartments. But, as we will stress later that now is not the time to push personal theories, we fully accept that others disagree totally with us.

What we want to highlight is that in 2010, when we implied that the McCanns had not been negligent, all hell descended upon us.

We got hit really hard, and I, Textusa, in particular, saw myself immediately ostracised and made to feel like a pariah within the “Maddie world”.

And that was done by the people claiming to know the PJ Files extensively. And they did know them.

Between March 2011 and October 2011 we wrote 12 posts where we debunked as phoney the documents known as the Tapas Booking Sheets, showing, quite clearly, we think, that the Tapas dinners were as much a hoax as the abduction. And that clearly showed there had been no negligence.

As the pariahs we were considered, we continued alone on the non-negligence front.

4 years had passed since Maddie was abducted, and the sole voice debunking negligence was smothered by those saying they were pursuing the truth.

We are not playing the victim and we are not calling these people hypocrites. The negligence was so well ingrained that they resisted anything that went against it.

That’s what we want to highlight. It is very hard to take away negligence once it has settled in.

And we also want to highlight how the PJ Files help promote and perpetuate the negligence hoax.

Because the people we have mentioned above, were both familiar with the files and we think genuinely wanted to find the truth about what happened to Maddie.

For one to understand that there was no negligence one has to read attentively the PJ Files.

Lose time with them. Cross-reference statements with statements, documents with documents and statements with documents.

That is something that a layperson will not do. Nor is it reasonable to expect they will.

To a beginner, who will evidently go first to the statements of the T9, negligence is there.

The T9 in their statements confess to negligence and the Ocean Club staff confirm it.

Hope reader now understands how they have turned the files against us.

Yes, the dogs are in the files and are damning to the McCanns but to find that out means reading the files.


9. The McCann trial

And all this takes us to the McCann trial. The one that is going on.

If one is to ask anyone if they think the McCanns are guilty, they will say, hell yes!

Of what? Of abandoning their children every night to go out and get drunk, they will say without hesitation.

Ask the same everyone what is it that angers them the most about the McCann case, and they will say, the fact that the parents got away with it.

Got away with what? With abandoning their children every night to go out and get drunk, with again, not the slightest hesitation.

It is sad, but true to say, that people are not looking for justice, they just want the McCanns to be punished and be punished for neglect.

They do think that the parents are involved in Maddie’s death but they won’t provide an opinion about that because they feel they don’t know enough it.

However, there’s one thing they are certain of, there’s one thing they do feel they know enough about and are not afraid to express their opinion on, and that is the McCanns were negligent and should be punished.

So, why not punish them? Why not take them to court and satisfy the public on that and only on that?

So we are now having a popular court, in which the public is judge, jury and executioner.

For the prosecution, Katie Hopkins, Mark Williams-Thomas, Jodie Marsh (taken off the list due to ‘personal problems’ as in problems because her mouth went too far) and Karen Matthews.

For the defense, Drs Kate McCann the choir singer and marathon fund-raiser and Gerry McCann the NHS money saver.

Kerry Needham is a defense witness for another trial, that’s ongoing in real courts, about whether the McCanns were formally cleared or not by the Portuguese justice system.

A completely separate process and not to be confused with this popular tribunal.

The popular court is now assembled. The crowd jeers the pair in the dock.

Charges?

a) Were the McCanns neglectful on the night of May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz?

b) If proven guilty of neglect, is that the main reason for the minor Madeleine Beth McCann to have been taken from the apartment?

Guilty, chants the crowd! Guilty! Guilty!

No one wants to hear that one should at least hear the defendants… they’re guilty, they’re guilty, shouts the mob.

That’s what we are reading in the comments on newspaper articles and on the various Facebook groups and forums.

The pitchforks have been handed out, the gallows are getting the final hammering as we speak and even the refreshment stands are struggling to supply the ever increasing demand.

We will ignore the more vitriolic comments but would like to highlight those like “I dislike profoundly the woman but agree 100% with her”, “Who would have thought I would ever agree with her, but I do, she’s absolutely spot on” and “Finally, someone who has the courage to speaking the truth!”.

Only it’s not the truth.

To associate courage to the spreading of untruths, seems to us hardly appropriate.

And we, of all people, know how hard it is to unconvince someone who has been convinced of neglect and is now filled with satisfaction on witnessing the McCanns finally getting it.

To expect people who believe that the blood signalled by Keela is not human and that Mr Smith wasn’t wearing glasses to not take neglect at face value, is unrealistic.

But to believe they will do is very much being a realist. And the whole point of this exercise.

This way, the other side can turn to the government and say, see, the people are now quenching their thirst in seeing the McCanns punished, so now is the ideal time to blame it all on them to have given a window of opportunity for Maddie to have been killed in apartment and her body taken by that infamous but illusive European human trafficking gang.

In their defense they will say that if one looks at things properly, the McCanns and the T9 will have been punished and the British elite will remain protected and unharmed.

The only victims will be Mr Amaral, who is Portuguese and nowhere near being part of its elite, so is an understandable and acceptable casualty and Brenda Leyland who can be considered a collateral victim.


10. The government

One must recognise that to react to the Supreme Justice Court ruling with discrediting Mr Amaral, with discrediting the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court, with discrediting all those that seek the truth by calling them greedy and/or morbid, with discrediting to their own benefit those who they are using to promote neglect, with reinstating legal fear, with ensuring that the McCanns stop being in the public’s eye, with promoting neglect not only by turning the PJ Files against us but fundamentally by creating a mob and have it release all their vitriol and anger against the couple and so create a false sensation of achievement of justice while safeguarding that the McCanns continue socially protected and with accepting death to allow for a Ben Needham finish by pinning it on an European human trafficking gang is pretty remarkable and outstanding.

And all in under a month.

If it wasn’t for the Jodie Marsh incident, without a glitch.

Add to this, the “Elvis & Operation Grange fan-club” corner of the internet has finally spoken.

Not from the usual perch but like a cuckoo by using another bird’s nest:

“As I've said many times before there is no such evidence in the public domain and therefore no paper or broadcaster will lay themselves open to damages and costs.”

The evidence in question was about someone trying to claim “that the McCanns were involved in some way with the death of the child then obviously they will have to provide evidence that they are speaking the truth”.

The person seems to say that the PJ Files, that are in the public domain, have no evidence proving that the McCanns were involved in some way with Maddie’s death.

We disagree. The majority of our posts are based on those PJ Files.

And, we would say, so does Mr Amaral disagree, as he wrote a book based on those files to claim that indeed the McCanns were involved in disposing of Maddie’s body.

Taking into account that the last time we heard from this corner of the internet, this pigeon had his chest all filled up with air taunting the McCanns and saying all was going fine with Operation Grange, this would be worrying, as it would reveal that the government seemed to be walking the path laid out by the other side.

Fortunately, as far as we could ascertain,  this character has long been cut off from the inner circle of those in-the-know.

We believe his silence and his words above reflect the position of someone who is waiting to see where the ball falls so he can say I told you so, rather than someone in possession of true knowledge.

Like we said last week, we think the government and the other side haven’t reached an agreement.

We say this based on thinking that if the government was on board with the other side, there would be no need for the desperate move that was the complaint, provoking a second and even clearer decision from the Supreme Justice Court about the fact that the McCanns had never been cleared.

What we think is happening is at this point in time is the government playing like the PJ did when the Met was literally on its hands and knees in Luz in 2015.

This time, the other side is SY, trying to convince the government.

It has indeed paved the way for the government to decide on the European human trafficking gang, as we hope to have shown clearly in this post, but the decision, like it happened in Luz in 2015 with the PJ, is up to the government to make.

Please, please note we are not saying we think government is on our side.

We are saying that we think government is, like the PJ in Luz did with SY, watching the other side on their hands and knees doing all the hard work, arms crossed and with quite a tedious look.

We do hope, that the government will do the same as the PJ did back in 2015 and that was to tell SY to, as the Portuguese say, go comb monkeys.

We do have to say that bringing in the NHS and its financial difficulties into this issue seems to us quite a desperate move and quite an antagonising one. Not seeing this generating any sympathy from the government.


11. What can we do?

First thing is to understand what is going on and we hope to have helped with that with current post.

If we are correct in our assessment, it means that a major effort is being made to convince the government to decide for the “Third Option”, Ben Needham style.

If it needs convincing, then it’s because it’s not convinced.

If it’s not convinced what we can do is present our arguments, in a civil manner, as to why it’s in the best interest of all to go for truth.

The first and most obvious is that only truth will put an end to this farce.

We remind government that we lived between 2008 and 2011 without Operation Grange. Government must realise that ending it on a farce will hardly mean we all go home and call it a day.

Then we would like to say one word to the government: Hillsborough. It’s self-explanatory.

We would also like to ask government if they have ever heard of the Emperors who came before or after the Emperor made famous with the tale “Emperor’s New Clothes”?

No, because no one has. Only that Emperor is ridiculed and will forever be the one to be ridiculed.

And with Maddie if government insists in perpetuating the farce, a little boy, somewhere, sometime will point to the Emperor and say “Look, he’s naked!”.

Then, the media will rush back to look at all pictures and find, hypocritically appearing surprised, to ‘discover’ that the Emperor was always naked and the ridiculing campaign will begin, and government, you will be that targeted Emperor.

And food for thought and establishing a parallel with the current situation, one has to ask, was it the Emperor who decided to walk around naked pretending he had clothes on, or was he advised by others that doing so was the best option? And who ended up being ridiculed, the Emperor or his advisors?

Also, in case the Supreme Justice Court does not arrive in time, it will arrive and it will confirm that the McCanns were never cleared.

About smearing the Portuguese justice system, let us remind you that the smearing campaign against the PJ – by repeatedly to the point of nausea calling them blundering cops – did not work well in the past, did it?

Lastly, if we are calling it a farce it is because it is a farce.

If one takes into account the following definition of farce “a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations” then it only isn’t because it’s not comical.

And talking of credibility we do think that if the Maddie case continues to be ‘farced up’, it will make worse the already existing credibility crisis British policing is facing.

It’s not us saying it, it’s Sky News in the article by Enda Brady, published Marc 02 2017 “'Red flag' warning from watchdog over 'national crisis' in policing”, where it’s said “The police watchdog says victims are being let down and criminal cases shelved as forces fail to carry out basic functions”.

And ITV ranks the various forces in the article published March 02 2017 “Police 'crisis': Find out how your force is performing”

It shows that the Met requires improvement. We don’t consider humiliating it publicly before the entire globe as helping it in that.

And evidently we are not the only ones calling it that, the entire world knows it’s a farce.

It’s cringing making to speak about Maddie anywhere in the globe because of that and it’s up to the British government decide whether this situation that shames the country continues or if a full stop is put to it.

On a personal level, what we must do is show that we are not a mob.

That we do not want the McCanns responsible for anything more, or less, than what they are accountable for, and neglect is not a part of it.

That we are not falling for the public crucifying of the couple and the other side can take their rotten tomatoes back to where they got them.

We have the advantage of knowing the files with details, so let’s use that knowledge.

We would like to point out, again, that this is not the time to propagate personal theories.

As the reader will see, we are not proposing that swinging is the reason for the hoax. The time now is to unite around the fact that there was no neglect.

Without neglect the truth that there was no abduction is outed.

So when one reads people writing mob-style comments, one should respond.

But always with reason and never emotionally. Leave aside and condemn personal comments about the couple. This is not about whether we like them or not but about justice.

One should bring up the dogs, especially Eddie.

With neglect, in this alternative fact world we live in, the dogs can be ignored but take away neglect and there’s no way that can happen.

Readers can leave suggestions in comments which will be welcomed.

This way we can show government that we are here and not falling for the trap the other side has put in front of us.


12. Media

A very long post, so just a very short paragraph to the media.

We see you continue to publish evident fake news. We will refrain, due to decorum, to tell you where we last saw your credibility.

Your doing.


13. Conclusion

Again, very short.

Negligence is their last line of defense.

It’s up to all of us to do our part with reason, logic and patience.