Friday, 8 September 2017

Summer games

(picture from here)

1. Introduction

This Summer has been long. And eventful.

During it, it took us a while to understand the state of the game but once we thought we did we opted for silence.

We think this year was the first one we did not interrupt our Summer Break.

In terms of the game – it really sickens us to call it that but unfortunately in reality that is what it has become – things are really heating up.

Before we left for our break we did 2 posts on Bilton’s BBC Programme marking the 10th anniversary and we promised that we would continue to analyse it.

We didn’t continue before the break because we thought the Grenfell tragedy was more than reason enough not to do it.

But we must say that it was only during our break that we understood the full importance and meaning of Bilton’s programme.

2. Maddie and Brexit

What showed us its importance was not only its content but also what preceded it – almost all of which we have already spoken about in previous posts – and what followed it.

For example, we have already spoken about why after the Acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court, it was important for the other side to guarantee that Operation Grange was funded for another semester and that was because it was needed to show how the British government was distancing itself from that decision of the Portuguese justice system.

We also explained why, once that funding was given, the other side changed their objective in terms of having Operation Grange funded in the exact opposite direction.

Once winds from the hurricane that the Acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court caused had settled and that the British government distanced itself from it by continuing funding Operation Grange, the quicker Operation Grange ends, the better for the other side.

This has to do, in our opinion, for the following 2 reasons:

The first reason is because Theresa May needs to have the British elite on her side to make, at least for the British public, Brexit a success. The British elite are, as our readers know, the ones who are responsible for the Maddie hoax, so determined they were and are in hiding from the public their sexual peccadilloes.

By having it archived in the middle of the Brexit storm, the case would be quickly forgotten and placed upon that curiosity shelf where popular cases like Jack the Ripper, JFK, Jimmy Hoffa and Ben Needham are.

The second reason is that the further in time one goes into the Brexit process the more the stranglehold the UK has over Portugal weakens.

The UK within the EU was a very important ally to Portugal. There, it was an important player and a very convenient ally against Germany and France.

The UK outside the EU, to put it bluntly, matters little to Portugal in terms of pursuing best its interests.

For example, the UK will no longer be able, if it ever did, to help Portugal reinforce its positions when EU quotas on various subjects will be discussed.

For Portugal the post-Brexit UK will be only one of many countries from where tourism originates. Just that, equal to many others.

If, for whatever reasons, such as an anticipated decrease of purchasing power of British consumers – something we think that even Brexiteers agree with as the result of difficulties which will arise during the transition period – there will be a decrease of British tourists, then the less and less important to Portugal the UK will be.

To sum up, the more time we’re into the Brexit process the less “reliable” the Portuguese will be about the Maddie case.

The longer it takes for the UK to archive the Maddie case, the greater there is of the risk of Portugal not being as submissive on this issue as it has been.

Aggravated by the fact that it has been humiliated by it for 10 years.

And being politically incorrect, Portugal being a small country in the EU’s schoolyard, taking an action that would embarrass the UK would significantly please the, shall we say, most popular ‘students’ of that same schoolyard.

If anyone doubts what we are saying, please watch what Pedro do Carmo says in Bilton’s documentary. He’s very clear: in his heart the case is solved.

One can almost sense by looking at his eyes that he’s eager to put an end to it and archiving it would not be it.

3. The handouts

We have also explained that the documentary was very carefully orchestrated and was introduced to the public with 2 pieces of marketing.

The first piece was Colin Sutton, reinforcing the fact that money given to Operation Grange was money wasted and saying that it was a biased investigation in favour of the McCanns from the outset.

As our readers know, we very much doubt the goodness of Sutton’s intentions as we will explain when the time comes when we deal with the very useful information that Jim Gamble had to tell us in the documentary, which we very much appreciated.

We continue to believe that Sutton’s mission was to give the public the false sense that the walls of protecting the McCanns were crumbling.

Just like before him, Hopkins and the Minor Celebrity League had done. Interesting how suddenly some people lost interest in the Maddie case, isn’t it?

The second piece was Bilton himself, coming out of a supposed closet as a naysayer against the McCanns.

Please note that in the documentary, it’s neither the McCanns or anyone from their legal team who attempt to entice him that it’s a “supporter” / “a friend somebody inside the McCann camp, not the family”

Let’s see what Bilton says at 29:09 in the documentary:

“Through their lawyers, the McCanns told us they were not party to any form of intimidation or targeting.

They also say they didn't know anything about a deal that was put to me by one of their supporters.

I was offered exclusive access to any new developments in the case, an inside track on any new breakthrough.

But there was a price.

I was expected to act as a spy within the press pack.

[Speaking to Robert Murat] I said to you before the interview that the thing that I was going to tell you that I hadn't told you before.

During that period, I was offered a deal by somebody inside the McCann camp, not the family.”

For a whistleblower, willing to ‘risk’ all by coming out against the McCanns, he’s very careful not to involve the couple, their family or their legal team, isn’t he?

The Portuguese have a saying “when the handout is too big, the poor man suspects it” (quando a esmola é grande, o pobre desconfia)

Bilton is really giving a big handout. Not only in the printed media on May 3 as he also makes certain he reminds us of that in the documentary.

By the way, if he really wanted to come out of that ‘closet’ then why not jump out of it before May 3rd? Surely the footage of the conversation between him and Murat happened before, didn’t it?

The answer to the above is simple: to create maximum effect when pulling the wool over the public’s eyes.

The premise when one started to watch the documentary was very clear: he, Bilton, is the good guy and they, the McCanns are the villains.

And who doesn’t believe a good guy especially when the villains are very much disliked, to be polite, by the entire society?

If one joins up the Bilton handout with Sutton’s, then it becomes enormous. Way too big. Way too grand. Too much glitter to be gold.

4. The points of decision

We also spoke of another thing that preceded the documentary but didn’t give it the appropriate importance and that was the fact it was a BBC production.

Yes, we said it was taxpayer’s money that was being wasted, or invested, in a hoax.

That we said.

What we didn’t highlight is the fact that a decision to produce it on public television, such is the BBC,  is completely different from a decision to produce it in a private media.

As we have said in another forum, more precisely on Facebook and then speaking about Sutton’s apparent good intentions, we are fascinated by the fact that how people knowing how politically sensitive the Maddie case is, believe that anything that is published in the MSM about the case is genuine and/or innocent.

We are certain that it is filtered, analysed and approved by the higher echelons in the corridors of power.

A story to see the light of day has to serve a purpose, accomplish an objective, that simple.

Anyone speaking against the McCanns in the official MSM should be immediately heard with the same suspicion as is anyone who speaks in their favour.

One thing is to want to speak, another completely different is to be heard. To be heard, officially, about Maddie one has to first pass a green light somewhere.

Should those who appear in the media speaking against the McCanns be ignored?

Of course not.

As said, they serve a purpose. Understanding what that purpose is, is to understand the game.

When one of these characters appear, we advise readers not to say they cannot see a reason why this person would have to say the things he’s saying but rather ask why such a person is saying what he’s saying when apparently there’s no reason for him to be saying them.

But what we want to highlight here is the fact Bilton’s documentary was produced by the BBC, the public television.

That means that somewhere before in time, there was a decision made there in the BBC, to go ahead and produce it.  And taking into account the sophistication of both script and the production itself, we would estimate that such a decision was not made a fortnight before.

A production of something of the greatest political sensitivity so we have to assume that it only got a green light from whomever holds, shall we say, influence over that public network.

We will let readers figure out for themselves who they think we are referring to.

That’s the first decision point we want to highlight.

The second one is something that happened before the documentary that we didn’t speak of in any previous posts: the calling of the snap election. Surprised everyone, didn’t it?

As it happened in the BBC with the documentary the same thing happened inside Theresa May’s head: at a certain point in time a decision was made.

And then announced.

We do not believe that Theresa May woke up one day and decided to call these snap-elections and immediately called the media to Nº10 and announced it.

One of 2 scenarios must have happened.

Either she did wake up one day and decided to call the election but then before announcing it she certainly sounded out the people around her about the possible benefits and consequences of such an action and only after that did she announce it publicly or she was influenced by someone over a period of time to call that snap-election and upon reflection decided to go ahead.

What is important to understand is that before she announced the snap-election, other people intervened and possibly influenced her decision.

Up to what degree, or if in any, is only up to Theresa May to know.

The interesting question to ask is if the decision to call the snap election came before or after the decision, by the BBC, to make Bilton’s documentary.

We would say it was before.

The decision to call the election preceded the decision to go ahead with the documentary. However, we are of the opinion that the ideas to generate both walked hand-in-hand during a certain period of time.

We would even go as far as speculating the following timeline: decision to continue funding Operation Grange, process of convincing whoever needed be convinced of snap-election (the documentary would be one of the many arguments put forward during the ‘negotiation’ period), decision of snap-election and decision of documentary.

5. Objectives of the documentary

About the content of the documentary, we have only explored the first 20 minutes in the 2 posts we have done about it.

But before we speak about what we have spoken about and about what we haven’t yet, let’s reveal first what we think were the main purposes of the programme.

Having Bilton establishing that all that would be seen as if from a point-of-view of someone antagonistic to the McCanns were, we think, the objectives to be achieved by the documentary:

#1 – To show how the Portuguese investigation had reason to suspect the McCanns but that on close analysis each one of them would not be valid or reliable. To show that there wasn’t any ‘real or palpable’ evidence against the couple, so although the Supreme Justice Court did say they weren’t proven innocent there was indeed ‘absolutely nothing’ to show they had any guilt (other than negligence, of course);

#2 – To show that Operation Grange was born anew and it only came about as the result of the government feeling pressured than because of having there being anything concrete to pursue. As there was no ‘real’ evidence (as Bilton had just ‘showed’), the Met were just a rudderless boat clueless of where to it’s heading.

#3 – Having shown that the Portuguese investigation really had no accusations and that Operation Grange was void, have people think the case was hopeless and best thing to do would be to archive it.

6. Nullifying the PJ investigation

To reach goal #1, making the PJ Operation null, is the reason why the documentary shows that the cadaver dog did signal cadaver odour but then discredits it by cherry-picking what the dog had signalled (and by showing those picked cherries confirming Mitchell’s words that the dog passed the cuddle cat twice without signalling it).

That’s why to the above the documentary adds:

- on one-hand the statement made by the main suspect that it was scientifically proven that the cadaver dogs were extremely unreliable without providing any sort of basis (nor any effort has been made by any reporter through time, from Sandra Felgueiras to Richard Bilton to research and confirm such a critical statement);

- on the other, have the police expert Jim Gamble (who dismissed Gerry’s possible guilt with a very professional “hmmm”) stating, very speciously (we will explain why ) that cadaver and blood dogs only provide an indication which much be corroborated with other evidence, otherwise these indications are useless.

That’s also why in the documentary Bilton discredits the blood by giving it more importance to it over the cadaver odour signalling, then by making the blood be all about DNA and then again by cherry-picking words out of John Lowe’s FSS shameful report, ‘proves’ that the DNA traces found in Maddie’s case prove nothing after all. One has just to read that report to see that it contradicts Bilton, and for Bilton to have highlighted the words he chose to highlight means that he read that report thoroughly.

And why Bilton discredits the signalling made by the dogs at the Scenic by subtly using DNA to justify it, intentionally disregarding that they don’t signal DNA but blood and cadaver odour.

And why Bilton discredits the use of the Renault Scenic to transport Maddie’s body by falsely claiming that PJ think that it was on the Huelva trip that the body was disposed of (where in the files is this stated?) and then saying it was impossible for that to have happened because the McCanns let a film crew in the car.

As if a more than proven collaborative media (which Bilton shows with this documentary to be clearly a part of) wouldn’t do that.

If the Huelva trip had that objective we don’t believe it to have had.

And, if the Huelva trip did indeed have that sordid objective then couldn’t that footage, filmed by those we now know to be allies, be used later as an alibi? Of course it could.

That’s why Bilton feels he has to ‘remind’ viewers that the McCanns were supposedly permanently followed by the media, making it impossible for them to participate in the disposal of the body – and we remind our readers that the McCanns were only “hounded” in Luz at the times they chose to be – even though the collaborative media that was present there never represented a minimal obstacle to anything pertaining the hoax.

That’s why Bilton discredits the Smith sighting by misplacing it by a significant distance from where it happened and by not being factual when saying dozens of people confirm Gerry was at Tapas at the time (when the files say exactly the opposite) and not being accurate, as far as we know, when saying the Smiths are now convinced they saw someone else.

Adding all of the above, Bilton’s viewers will conclude with him that there simply isn’t any ‘real or palpable’ evidence against the McCanns and all this said by a McCann whistle-blower.

7. Emptying Operation Grange

To reach goal #2, making Operation Grange void, is the reason why Bilton shows very clearly that supposedly Cameron on seeing The Sun’s May 12 2011 front page with the McCann letter asking for an "independent, transparent and comprehensive review of all information", the British PM, in less than 24 hours (on May 13 the media was already reporting his decision) decided to fold, certainly terrified of the consequences (which would be??) of a repetitive front-page in the following days, decided to launch an operation which would cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds.

Not even a 72 or even a 48 hour reflection period. The McCanns asked and the McCanns got it immediately. Wow, is the least it can be said.

And it’s also why Bilton ridicules the SY investigation. Not only we already knew it was ridiculous as he makes the point of making it even more so by showing that the Met considered the poor Mr Ribeiro as a possible suspect (these people have no scruples and have proven to use children to serve their purposes, but using Mr Ribeiro was a needless and disgusting injustice against the poor man done by Bilton).

The more pressured and ridiculous Bilton makes Operation Grange out to be, the more sense it makes for it to be closed.

And that’s why Bilton brings on the scene Mr Vitor Santos at the end of the documentary. If the reader did not understand why, let us explain why we think Bilton included him: to give the viewer the impression that he was the famous “key witness” who has been spoken about by the media and because of whom Operation Grange continued to be funded early this year. And Bilton made sure Mr Santos looked as unimportant to the case as in reality he is.

The bit of the documentary between Jim Gamble and Theresa May regarding his report is a totally different ball game which we will explain in a separate post.

9. Specious Gamble

Just to note why we have said Gamble was being specious when he says that cadaver and blood dogs only provide an indication which much be corroborated with other evidence, that is true but what he intentionally leaves out is in what way those indications are proof.

Dogs prove that the substances they are trained to detect are where they signal they are. With dogs there are false negatives (the substance being there and the dog not picking it up) but there are no false positives.

That means that blood and cadaver odour existed where the respective dogs signalled them to be.

What police then will do is if blood and cadaver odour are or not criminally relevant for the case and not whether the substances were there or not, they are. What may happen, and it didn’t in Maddie’s case, is if the substance signalled has a perfectly innocent reason for it to be where it was detected, then and only then will the dog’s signalling be deemed irrelevant to the investigation on hand.

Saying the way Gambles says it, one cannot say he’s lying, he’s just intentionally distorting the reality in order to minimise how damning the dogs are to the McCanns.

Hearing Gamble one gets the sense that the dogs prove nothing, which indeed is untrue. In this case the dogs proved there was blood and a cadaver odour in both the apartment and the Renault Scenic – as per documentary – and also cadaver odour in the closet, backyard, the toddler’s t-shirt, the key FOB and Kate’s trousers if one wishes to be truthful, which Bilton evidently doesn’t.

 About the reliability of the dogs, yesterday our reader Anne Guedes submitted a link to the article “Rigorous Training of Dogs Leads to High Accuracy in Human Scent Matching-To-Sample Performance” by Sophie Marchal, Olivier Bregeras, Didier Puaux, Rémi Gervais and Barbara Ferry, published February 10, 2016.

An interesting read indeed.

10. Textusa and the documentary

We have done one post on Sutton and 2 on the documentary itself.

What we would like to highlight is those 2 posts show the precision with which Bilton dealt with the information which he was supposed to show.

Everyone knows that there are 2 critical pieces of information that are critical against the McCanns: the blood and the cadaver odour.

In our two posts we covered in the first post the way Bilton did his best to discredit the cadaver odour.

And we finished that post by saying that he stated that the blood found in the apartment (omitting that blood was also found in the Scenic) was more damning to the McCanns than the cadaver odour and said we would explain why later.

So it would be logical for the post to follow the one about the cadaver odour to be one about the blood. Only it is not. Why?

Because it was not of our doing. We followed Bilton.

At that point of the documentary, Bilton instead of explaining why blood is more damning veers off to the Smith sighting.

Why? Because when he later returns to the blood – he doesn’t, he only mentions DNA from then on – the viewer has already been distracted and won’t remember anymore that blood was more damning than the odour but will remember that this same odour was already dismissed by Bilton as irrelevant earlier in the documentary.

Neat, isn’t it? If it wasn’t sick.

Also please note that we wouldn’t have reached the conclusions we have if the documentary had been produced by a network other than the BBC.

11. The ‘afterwards’ of the documentary

What happened afterwards, is that we had the results of the snap-election which displeased, to say the least, Theresa May.

And then that acute sense of displeasure on May’s part was significantly aggravated by the Grenfell fire and the 2 terrorist attacks that highlighted how stretched to the limit the police is in the UK from government cuts.

So July showed how really displeased May really was with the other side.

The May campaign of which Bilton’s documentary was the main feature, prepared things for archival.

If the results of the snap-election had been what May and her advisers (and we’re not speaking about those 2 people who resigned) anticipated, the country would be galvanised around a Tory led Brexit and the archival of Maddie would meet some moans and groans but would quickly pass as people had other much more important matters to be concerned with and engaged about.

Even with the electoral results that did happen, the Grenfell fire and the highlighting of how the British police is stretched to limit after governmental cuts, one can sense that people are tired of the case.

If things had gone according to plan, we would be here protesting the archival and our voices would be hardly heard.

The proof that things have gone sour and that Theresa May is not pleased with some people, is the news that SY are requesting more funds to continue Operation Grange after October.

Again, the same policy that applies to the official MSM applies to the Met: speak only about Maddie to serve a purpose.

We think that if SY requested more funds it was because they were told to request them much like they will do as told when the time comes to either charge whomever or archive the case.

Prolonging Operation Grange benefits only Theresa May, as we’ll explain later and certainly goes against the wanting of the other side if for nothing else, for what we have already mentioned in the post.

Now the reader can understand the ongoing war in the media about the continuing funding of Operation Grange

Anything that comes out in the press saying that Operation Grange should close, that too much money has already been spent on Maddie, that the parents are financially able to continue the search for Maddie (why haven’t people noticed that the depleting legal expenses are no longer mentioned), that some sort of documentary will be made under auspices of Netflix or dissing in any way Operation Grange are from the other side.

Anything saying that SY is requesting funds (now, what possible reason can the government give to refuse such a request after hearing compelling evidence and that there’s a key witness, who seems to continue to prove to be key otherwise SY wouldn’t have requested further funds) is from the government.

12. Ben Needham and Maddie

But what showed that Theresa May is really, really, really displeased with some people was the bringing up, out of nowhere, the update of Ben Needham’s case.

First of all, we would like to remind ours readers that in exactly 40 days it will be the first anniversary that it was officially announced that Ben had died in an accident near the farmhouse. We are still waiting to know any more details about the case.

A sandal with blood appeared out of nowhere. It was said it was found in 2012.

About this sandal, we would like to note that in 2012 the searches were only around the farmhouse. Where, at the time Ben was reported missing only present were grandfather, grandmother, uncle and property owner. As far as we know no one else was present. The other uncle had allegedly left to go buy fuel for the caravan’s generator.

If sandal found in 2012, then why have a replica of Ben’s sandals made in 2016? Were they expecting to find another pair?

And if they do have a sandal with blood and there’s blood on the toy car fascinatingly found in 2016 what does that add or subtract to the official version? Hasn’t SYP already concluded on Oct 18 2016 that Ben was dead? In what way does knowing one or both objects have his blood constitute news?

The determination of someone being dead only matters in cases in which the person in the centre of the investigation hasn’t been officially been determined dead. A case like Maddie McCann, for example.

It would only be news if blood was from another person. But then how would this fit with the OFFICIAL version that he died as the result of an accident? The person who accidentally killed him would have then to cut him or herself with such severity for his or her blood to have been in one or both of those objects! And on top of Ben’s blood as he would have certainly bled after he was the victim of alleged accident.

Ben Needham’s case seems to be taken out of an episode of Twilight Zone. Under this scenario it makes perfect sense. Ben was at that farmhouse with his family. He then wandered off and entered a portal to a parallel universe where at the same time, at that same farmhouse heavy machinery was working on site. As soon as Ben exited the portal he was accidentally run over.

So when family was searching for him, he was right there only in a different universe.

It is still to be explained how the sandal and toy car got back to this reality. Oh, and the missing shorts. Maybe shorts taken by a person of another reality in exchange for bringing the sandal and toy car to this one?

Are we being insensitive about the death of Ben Needham? No, the SYP is.

The whole July Needham media hype was to highlight the importance of blood and cadaver odour in criminal forensics. Know of any other similar case? We do, that of Maddie McCann.

13. The ‘missing’ boy of Luz and Maddie

The message using Ben Needham was getting out of hand so it was needed to be stopped. And so the ‘missing’ boy in Luz was invented.

Anyone who knows Luz minimally, knows that it would take the boy at least 300 hundred yards for the family to lose sight of him where they say it was they lost him.

Then he appears in front of the home of an elderly couple. They soothe him for half an hour instead of one of them running to the beach or anywhere in Luz to find a GNR officer so that the parents of the little boy could be quickly found.

That half an hour would justify the involvement of the Maritime Police, which has very little manning on the beaches compared to the number of GNR agents deployed to them in the summer.

As I wrote in a comment during our break, I happened to be in the Algarve at the time, far from Luz, and decided to go and find a GNR officer to ask him or her about their jurisdictions and functions

I found 4. Two on foot and the other two on bicycles. The four of them were talking with each other and were very helpful. And very surprised to know that a boy had apparently gone missing in Luz that day.

Note that in the ‘missing’ boy story, he never set foot on the beach or was near it when he allegedly disappeared.

So, there’s absolutely no reason for the Maritime Police to have been involved in this case which apparently lasted a little over half an hour. However, in the first reports it looked like it was the Maritime Police that was coordinating the operation to find him.

The couple, after having soothed him, again instead of doing what they should have done immediately like we said which was to look locally for agents of authority (by the way, at this point, the GNR was alerted and was knocking on doors – pity they missed this couple’s residence) they decide to drive all the way to Lagos to hand over the boy to the Lagos PSP.

The excuse they went to Lagos was because there’s no GNR facility in Luz does not stick.

All officers have radios on them and can quickly communicate with their higher echelon.

The boy went missing under the GNR’s jurisdiction so they would know how to handle such a critical situation and the boy would have been returned immediately to the family in Luz without having to take his father all the way to Lagos.

Are we saying a boy wasn’t driven into the PSP station in Lagos? Of course he was. As we also believe the GNR and the Maritime Police were warned of his alleged disappearance.

What we are saying is that in our opinion, this little boy was as just used. These people have no scruples to use children to perpetuate or defend the hoax.

This missing boy hoax just goes to show how not innocent is Praia da Luz. Some of their citizens are still willing to collaborate with the Maddie hoax.

What matters is that it stopped the Ben Needham stories in the media. Ben has gone again to be resurfaced when required.

14. The state of the game

The state of the game can be summed up in one name: Theresa May.

It has always been but now more than ever as we hoped to have shown.

The more the other side’s position is weakened the more its opposing side on this matter, the government, is strengthened. We even believe that with the passing of time the Maddie case gives her more and more leverage and letting the truth out will certainly not damage her reputation with the general public.

The Maely’s case, the little girl who disappeared in France and in which a man has been charged without a body having yet to be found, based on the fact that the child’s DNA being found after car having been washed – isn’t one immediately reminded of the cuddle cat? – does not play in favour of the McCanns.

So we think she will continue funding for another semester and if anything, what Sky News has said in the article published yesterday Sept 07, 2017 by Martin Brunt “Search for Madeleine McCann set to be extended as police ask for more funds

It has the following as the sub-headline “Ministers are likely to approve more funding as long as they are satisfied there is a realistic chance of discovering her fate.”

If one remembers, last year they were shown there was compelling evidence and this year that there was a key-witness who would break the case.

Then the article ends with, as our reader Bampots also spotted, “Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory.”

First it contradicts the half of Bilton’s documentary where he states quite clearly that SY was exclusively focused on the “burglary gone wrong”. Apparently it has “largely dismissed” even “both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory”.

Then it states quite clearly that “latest theory” is NOT sex predators NOR child traffickers, what are we left with?

Join this dot with the July blood and cadaver odour one put out by the media in July about Ben Needham, and one cannot but feel optimistic.

15. Tapas Area

As said, I happened to go to the Algarve during the break and couldn’t obviously pass by the opportunity to see for myself the inside of the Tapas area.

Yes, it does clearly state on the reception glass pane door that it is only for guests (one has to wonder who in the heck uses a gym so nearby a reception).

It was a very interesting and very useful visit.

Silly, silly Ocean Club and that table of yours. So, so silly. But thank you for proving our point as we will show in a later post. If it’s any consolation, you made me smile there and then.

Feeling things personally makes a whole difference.

Everything is much tinier than expected. I tried my best to figure out where the crèche for the twins was. Was it in the white tent? One can only imagine the heat and not very practical trip to and from the kid’s area.

By the way, was the playhouses and other kid stuff and pool to be used by crèche as a priority? Just asking because I’m imagining being a parent of children with whom I wanted to share my holidays with (and not put them in a store, sorry, crèche) and see their space and pool being taken up by the children of parents who didn’t have the patience to put up with them.

Oh, and the kid’s pool… so tiny! Knee high water (as it should be) but had to stop myself from laughing out loud just thinking how some people really are making a fool of themselves in accepting (or should we say “accepting”?) that it would cause a vertical reflection on Gerry’s sunglasses.

We will now wait to see if Theresa May does indeed continue to fund Operation Grange before we publish again.

If she decides before next Friday, we warn our readers that there will be no post next week due to personal reasons.


  1. Thanks for the long awaited post.

    There is a lot to take in but if I could ask two things.

    1, You did take a photo of someone wearing sunglasses in a similar position at the kids pool, right!?

    2, Richard Bilton. If what you have said about him here is true can I ask what is his motive for doing this? What would make him sell out on this particular story for the BBC and/or Government? The same could be asked about a number of other non Government/Police people to be fair.

    I just don't understand why he would be manipulating the public like this? Is the same happening with other journalists on other cases?

    1. Anonymous 8 Sep 2017, 09:49:00,

      Answering your questions:

      1. No. That would make my presence much too obvious. However, there was a little girl, about 6 or 7, playing inside it when the pool was photographed, so the size of the pool can be estimated.

      2. For the same reasons all other MSM reporters have done the same for over 10 years now.

    2. Right. I assumed you took your summer holiday there! Didn't realise it was a incognito visit.

      Sorry to be naive, but what same reasons as all other MSM reporters? I mean I can and do buy that a select few high ups are determined to cover this case up for whatever number of reasons but can't allow myself to believe that every MSM reporter is directly involved like this or as blatant as you say RB is said to be?

      What specifically is his motive?

    3. Anonymous 8 Sep 2017, 11:04:00,

      Think the best answer to your question is to say that it's to survive and thrive in their profession.

      They are bound by the editorial guidelines of those who write their pay-checks and who also determine the maintenance and possible progression in their careers.

    4. Which are in effect the owners,the Desmonds and Murdochs etc.

    5. Thanks. I have a thousand questions about this but will just say this.

      It is hard for me to believe that this case uniquely has highlighted so clearly that all (worldwide) journalists are sheep/lemmings/robots and even more so if it is only for this case.

      Are there any journalists you do trust that comment/have commented on this case?

    6. At this point in time one exception must be pointed out and that is Natasha Donn from the Portugal Resident.

      We have many disagreements with her on many issues but have to recognise her moral honesty on the articles she has written about this case.


      "Bell, who has also represented clients including the News UK chief Rebekah Brooks ..."

  2. Welcome back,but just to let you know she's in Greece,look over there not here.

    1. LOL

      That's from August 28... that's considered old news at the moment :)

  3. Just a tiny point, so you can't be accused of inaccuracy: you say a couple of times 'brother' in relation to Ben Needham, but you mean 'uncle' (Kerry's brother).

    1. Anonymous 8 Sep 2017, 11:22:00,

      You're absolutely right!

      Post has been corrected accordingly.

      Thank you for correcting us, our apologies to our readers.

  4. “anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Summer games":

    What a (censored) of absolute (censored) but still people lap this stuff up.
    Any evidence yet of the orgies/wife swapping/dogging/whatever that was going on ? No ? thought not. Funnily enough , I've been in corres with two people with connections to PdL - they were singing the same song. Neither of them has anything of any value to add to this nonsense other than vague allegations. None of them will ay anything about where this was all supposed to have happened - all I gis the usual "we know, y'know" response. The stuff about Bilton is risible.

    Posted by anonymous to Textusa at 8 Sep 2017, 11:55:00”

    1. Anonymous at 8 Sep 2017, 11:55:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      When one asks a question and then answers it himself then they just show they are not really seeking an answer, just creating noise.

      We have never said that dogging took place in Praia da Luz during the time Maddie disappeared. You either don’t read the blog or you have read it but simply like to make things up.

      Knowing that you do read the blog, we think the last applies.

      So we will rephrase your question, taking the dogging bit out of it. It then becomes “Any evidence yet of the orgies/wife swapping whatever that was going on ?”.

      A very pertinent question. Could please tell us as to what to you would constitute “evidence of the orgies/wife swapping”?

      Please be specific. If we find the language too strong, don’t worry, we will censor it just like the TV networks bleep the expletives.

      We will wait for your answer.

      About what being risible what we said about Bilton, could you please point out exactly what we said that made you laugh. Please note that answering “all” is not pointing anything out.

      Again, be specific. We want to correct anything we said that was wrong.

      Interesting to note that you say “two people with connections to PdL” also say there was swinging.

    2. Anonymous at 8 Sep 2017, 11:55:00

      Since it seems that you have some difficulties in submitting a reply, maybe this, that was taken from the PJ Files, will be sufficient proof that there was swinging in the Praia da Luz area?

      We will continue to wait for your reply.

      By the way, we may be providing further proof in a forthcoming post.


    Sutton mentioned.
    He says it's not a full inquiry. Shut it down.

    1. Anonymous 8 Sep 2017, 15:51:00,

      Thank you.

      "Former ‘top cop’ Colin Sutton - already renowned for claiming Grange has its hands tied with regard to what police can investigate - has told the Resident that from what he has “been able to establish” the probe is “neither a review or a re-investigation but a thematic, restricted investigation into one (the abduction) hypothesis.

      “If that is still its aim - and I have no reason to suspect it is not - then I do not think it should be funded further”, he added."

      For those still supporting Colin Sutton as one of the good guys, here it's very clear what he pursues: archive the case without any conclusion.


    1. The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing,this ECHR thing was launched in July,the very same month we had the story of them giving up.

    2. Anonymous 9 Sep 2017, 09:37:00,

      Disagree. The right hand knows exactly what the left one is doing.

      As modern politics have shown, it matters not what one has said before, what one will say afterwards nor what consequences will arise from what one is saying right now.

      What matters is what one is saying right now. At this very moment. Only that.

      Those who support us won't stop supporting us because of our past contradictions or because our future ones.

      Same with those opposing us.

      About the McCanns and the ECHR, then that was what mattered to be said then. Now it matters saying this now.

  7. e McCanns have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter


    By Nick Pisa

    9th September 2017, 2:57 am

    Updated: 9th September 2017, 3:24 am

    MADDIE McCann’s parents have made a last ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after a Portuguese judge ruled against them in their battle against a shameless ex police chief.

    Kate and Gerry McCann, both 49, have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the abduction and ‘’death’’ of their daughter in 2007.

    The case has been in and out of court in Portugal with Amaral initially being ordered to pay £360,000 damaged in 2015 for the outrageous slurs in ‘The Truth of the Lie’.

    But his legal team overturned that order and Kate and Gerry took out their own appeal against him in Portugal’s Supreme Court and earlier this year they were left devastated after judges again ruled in his favour.

    In their 76 page ruling judges said Kate and Gerry had not ‘’successfully proved their innocence’’ - which left the couple from Rothley, Leicestershire ‘shattered’, according to a source close to the couple.

    Initially they had considered dropping the whole case against Amaral they are more determined than ever that he should not get away with his vile allegations against them.

    So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    The appeal was lodged in July by their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and they are now waiting for a date to be confirmed.

    A source close to the couple said: "They discussed the situation with their legal team and they decided that ultimately it was worth fighting the decision of the Portuguese court.

    "They are upset that the court made this ruling but are also desperately upset at Amaral’s claims which are ludicrous and hurtful.’’

    Last night the European Court of Human Rights confirmed an appeal had been lodged and officials were investigating its "admissibility’’ before deciding what to do next.

    Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told The Sun: "I can confirm that Kate and Gerry have lodged an appeal application at the European Court of Human Rights and the application is being considered.

    "As such they will not be making any comment until a decision has been made. The case is being handled by their legal team in Portugal.

    Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made.

    Maddie, three, disappeared in May 2007 from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on Portugal’s popular

    Algarve coast while her younger twin siblings Amelie and Sean, now aged 12, were in the same room.

    Earlier this week British detectives investigating her disappearance asked the Home Office for more cash so they could "pursue one final lead

  8. About the Sun article “maddie 'lie' battle: Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry make final appeal in battle against shameless ex-police chief” already linked here by Anonymous 9 Sep 2017, 08:42:00, let’s just say it’s enough to say that it was written by Nick Pisa.

    Who is Nick Pisa? An actor or a journalist?

    Well, he’s someone who says “A murder always gets people going . . . [a body is found] semi-naked, blood everywhere. What more do you want? All that’s missing is the Pope!”

    And also:

    “Pisa explains his thoughts at the time:

    "A murder always gets people going; bit of intrigue, bit of mystery, a whodunit. And we have here this beautiful picturesque hilltop town in the middle of Italy. It was a particularly gruesome murder: throat slit, semi-naked, blood everywhere. I mean [chuckles], what more do you want in a story?"”

    And even the McCann supporting Liverpool Echo had to say this in their article “Amanda Knox documentary on Nexflix is out and Scousers hate the Daily Mail journalist”:

    “People in Merseyside have taken to Twitter to brand Nick Pisa an 'ego maniac', a 'monster' and 'vile'.”

    To note that he’s a freelance journalist for the Daily Mail.

    The same Daily Mail that has published today that “Madeleine McCann's parents make final appeal to European court in battle to silence Portuguese ex-police chief's 'lies'”.

    It's really funny (the correct expression should be shameless) to see the Daily Mail supporting an eventual decision by a EUROPEAN court.

    And no, the ECHR does not alter in any way the Acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court, so saying it is to sllence Mr Amaral is not absurd but intentionally false.

    We hope that by now readers understand why we wrote on latest post (our caps):

    “Anything that comes out in the press saying that Operation Grange should close, that too much money has already been spent on Maddie, that the parents are financially able to continue the search for Maddie (why haven’t people noticed that the depleting legal expenses are no longer mentioned), THAT SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTARY WILL BE MADE UNDER AUSPICES OF NETFLIX or dissing in any way Operation Grange are from the other side.”

    1. I don't think that "saying it is to silence GA is not absurd but intentionally false", I think it is just ignorance about the function of the ECHR.

    2. Textusa can I ask please that when you put in caps THAT SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTARY WILL BE MADE UNDER AUSPICES OF NETFLIX do you think this will be a similar to the panarama programme and is likely to be a distortion of the facts.

  9. Smoke and mirrors perchance? How can the McCanns persue Amaral through the ECHR.....surely the Portugese courts made this decision and therefore it would be the technicalities of how the outcome was reached and not Amaral they go after? Can they ignore that which has already been decided by Portugal?


    Increasing focus on parents as well as suspect.


    Colin Sutton saying he wants it re-investigated.

    But after £12 million, who would go back to zero with a new re-investigation?

    He can say this easily, knowing it's not going to happen and looking really good saying it.

    Let's suppose Mr Sutton's absurd proposal to start from scratch would be accepted. Who would he think should run it?

    Scotland Yard? But isn't it what it's doing?

    So what Sutton is proposing is throw away £12 million and using the same institution, let's start spending more.

    Is this minimally reasonable? Would like to know his opinion.

    Let's just be serious, Operation Grange either is allowed to come up with the truth or it isn't.

    1. After conceding more or less directly that they took for granted the MCs' innocence supposedly established by the Portuguese and sanctioned in the filing order, OG has, to save face, no alternative to going on for ever or until people get old, deaf and dumb and forget.


  13. Textusa if I understand what you said correctly then Theresa May authorised the panarama program in return for the support of certain individuals connected to the PDL swinging event for her snap general election. The election didn't give her the mandate she required to deliver The Brexit the brexiteers have hoped for. Brexit would be difficult enough to deliver with the support of the people of Britian never mind when the country is so devided.

    Anyway it didn't work out as planned and now Theresa May is hoping mad at the people who supported her in her snap election and the greenfield tower fire and the terrorist attacks has put pressure on the her over the money spent on operation grange.

    What I don't understand is why having agreed to the panarama programme she has now done a u turn and is determined to continue with operation grange. Does she blame these people for the poor election result

    1. That's a good synopsis,OG seems inextricably linked to May some how, she being home secretary when it was set up,six more months and its likely that May will be toast(as prime minister at least)so once she's gone will that be it for Grange.

    2. Anonymous9 Sep 2017, 22:23:00

      We didn't say the elites concerned with May were directly involved in events in PdL but are covering for others who were.

      The reputations of people at high levels who were involved are at stake and the government are aware of the potential damage to UK's reputation if those concerned have participated in assisting the McCanns.

      So your statement that “Theresa May authorised the panarama program in return for the support of certain individuals connected to the PDL swinging event for her snap general election” is incorrect because it makes it seems like the snap elections were called because of the Maddie case.

      That is not our opinion, far from it.

      Let’s speculate a bit.

      Let’s suppose that somewhere in the March/April timeline (or maybe even earlier) some people around Theresa May showed her how then current polls showed clearly that if she called a snap-election she would simply obliterate Corbyn and the Labour Party out of the political skies.

      And that the void left by them could only be filled by the Conservatives.

      That would legitimise her Premiership and give her an unequivocal support and strength to lead the UK into a true and glorious British Brexit in which she could do all she pleased.

      That, was the reason behind May’s decision: to seize, democratically, absolute power.

      She called the snap-elections on April 18, so these talks obviously happened before.

      What we are saying is that those who convinced her to call the elections, must have also shown the various benefits on various issues of having that amount of power stemmed from a perfectly legitimate democratic process.

      As said, those benefits would be on multiple issues addressed. Certainly each one was addressed about how they should or would be addressed.

      Among those multiples issues, the Maddie case was one of them, an all-round inconvenient issue and much more so to the concerned elites.

      We think that on that particular issue (remember, one among many), she was assured that the public would be realistically convinced that the PJ had no real evidence to prosecute the McCanns – who would continue to be seen as the villains of the saga and so appropriately punished – and that Operation Grange had been from the start a huge “nothing-burger” to use a currently political popular expression and so the logical thing would be to archive it.

      At that stage, and again only on this particular issue – most likely other agreements were made on many other issues – May agreed for it to happen and so giving the green light for the BBC programme to go ahead and be aired.

      This agreement, not to be mistaken as a concession, would please those who she counted to be by her side for the great and glorious Brexit that she would lead after destroying Labour and humiliating Corbyn.

      Once she gave the green light on this issue, those who assured her they could convince the general public, mandated the person who has coordinated all that concerns the Maddie case from day 1, to go ahead with what we shall call “Operation BBC”.

      Answering specifically your question, one has only to imagine what one would feel after having been convinced that heaven was only at an arm’s distance and so ordered it and then see hell being delivered.

      And what one would feel about those who made her believe in such heavenly promises.

    3. Hi Textusa 16.19 post,forgive me if I am wrong.
      but David Cameron sanctioned the Operation Grange Review on behalf of the McCann's after Fragrant Rebekah had"Persuaded"him by threatening to put out Stories Theresa May,Home Secretary on the front page of the Scum,did Theresa want a Review?
      The Elites from within the UK,therefore must either continue with the charade(funding) of Operation Grange until they can usurp their influences within the ECHR to overturn the Portugal Supreme Courts decision?
      This would apparently be a "First"in that a civil action Usurps the process of the State sanctions,Tail wagging the Dog?

    4. Anonymous 10 Sep 2017, 21:41:00

      You are wrong (and forgiven).

      The Supreme Justice Court covered ECHR rulings in their summary, recognising they do have to consider their rulings.

      The Acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court is sovereign and final. CANNOT be overturned.

      The ECHR can't overturn the decision but it can rule on whether that persons rights were disregarded in any way and make future rulings.

      This action, if it exists, can't be against Mr Amaral. If it exists, it's against Portugal itself.

    5. Textusa thank you for your reply regarding the purpose of the snap general election. I may not have expressed myself clearly but I did understand that it's purpose was for May (as you put it so well ) to seize democratically absolute power. The aragonce of the woman and her party never fail to astound me. Your reply makes a lot of sense in that imo there was clear indications that she wasn't going to get the landslide she anticipated and if a poor mortal like myself could see it surely her trusted advisers could.

      One of the clearest signs was the people of Britian voting for Bretix in the first place. People have put across a number of reasons for this , a key one imo was to vote against David Cameron whose only reason for calling the referendum was to show the sceptics that he was a winner. He has no need to investigate the implications of Brexit because he was so arragont and elitist he thought it would never happen. May took the same attitude as Cameron and her arragonce and elitism has her where she is.

  14. Thanks for this post, I've missed this blog during the summer months. You're so right about both sides playing out in the media, once it has been pointed out by yourself it is clear to see.

    I wonder whether the results of OG will become public when TM needs to bury some Tory bad news.


    Their application should show on ECHR website if it succeeds.
    No money has yet been paid, but appeal should make no difference.
    The court costs are still due.



    More press lies
    It is not a showdown between parties - GA will not be asked to appear - it isn't a re-run of case
    It will not halt any decision made by SCJ and costs will still have to be paid

    1. Anonymous 11 Sep 2017, 10:44:00,

      They are with the ECHR doing what they did with complaint.

      Desperately grasping at straws to convey the idea that the Mcs may be seen legally as innocent working with the fact it could take more than 4 years to be decided, even if accepted after a year, works in their favour.

      Interesting to note that only the Sun and the Daily Mail have picked up this story, which compared with the media coverage the complaint against the Supreme Justice Court got must be very disappointing for the people running this shameless campaign.

      We for one do not believe that there was even a submission of anything to the court. We will wait for someone to provide a proof of this.

  18. To clarify our readers about the ECHR, we have decided to bring over in full the following document from this court.

    For the sake of clarity, the numbering is ours:

    Questions & Answers

    European Court of Human Rights

    These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court.

    The document does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court works.

    For more detailed information, reference is made to documents issued by the Registry (available on the Court’s website: and in particular to the Rules of Court

    1. What is the European Court of Human Rights?

    These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court works.For more detailed information, reference is made to documents issued by the Registry (available on the Court’s website: and in particular to the Rules of Court. The European Court of Human Rights is an international court based in Strasbourg, France. It consists of a number of judges equal to the number of member States of the Council of Europe that have ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – currently 47 (*). The Court’s judges sit in their individual capacity and do not represent any State. In dealing with applications, the Court is assisted by a Registry consisting mainly of lawyers from all the member States (who are also known as legal secretaries). They are entirely independent of their country of origin and do not represent either applicants or States.

    (*) Not all member States have ratified all the Protocols to the Convention (instruments creating additional rights). Information on the subject can be found on our website.

    2. What is the European Convention on Human Rights?

    The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which only member States of the Council of Europe may sign. The Convention, which established the Court and lays down how it is to function, contains a list of the rights and guarantees which the States have undertaken to respect.

    3. What does the European Court of Human Rights do?

    The Court applies the European Convention on Human Rights. Its task is to ensure that States respect the rights and guarantees set out in the Convention. It does this by examining complaints (known as “applications”) lodged by individuals or, sometimes, by States. Where it concludes that a member State has breached one or more of these rights and guarantees, the Court delivers a judgment finding a violation. Judgments are binding: the countries concerned are under an obligation to comply with them.

    4. When can I apply to the European Court of Human Rights?

    You may lodge an application with the Court if you consider that you have personally and directly been the victim of a violation of the rights and guarantees set out in the Convention or its Protocols. The alleged violation must have been committed by one of the States bound by the Convention


  19. (Cont)

    4.1. What rights are protected by the Convention and its Protocols?

    The following rights, in particular, are protected:

    4.1.1. - the right to life;

    4.1.2. - the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;

    4.1.3. - the right to respect for private and family life;

    4.1.4. - freedom of expression;

    4.1.5. - freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

    4.1.6. - the right to an effective remedy;

    4.1.7. - the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and

    4.1.8. - the right to vote and to stand for election.

    4.2. What do the Convention and its Protocols prohibit?

    The following, in particular, are prohibited:

    4.2.1. - torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

    4.2.2. arbitrary and unlawful detention;

    4.2.3. discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention;

    4.2.4. expulsion or denial of entry by a State in respect of its own nationals;

    4.2.5. the death penalty; and

    4.2.6. the collective expulsion of aliens.

    5. What conditions do I have to satisfy to lodge an application?

    5.1. What are the conditions relating to me personally?

    5.1.1. You do not need to be a national of one of the States bound by the Convention. The violation you are complaining of must simply have been committed by one of those States against a person within its “jurisdiction”, which usually means on its territory.

    5.1.2. You can be a private individual or a legal entity such as a company or association.

    5.1.3 You must have directly and personally been the victim of the violation you are alleging. You cannot make a general complaint about a law or a measure, for example because it seems unfair; nor can you complain on behalf of other people (unless they are clearly identified and you are their official representative).

    5.2. Are there any procedures that must be followed beforehand in the national courts?

    5.2.1. Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or constitutional court, if there is one).

    5.2.2. It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).

    5.2.3. You have only six months from the date of the final decision at domestic level (generally speaking, the judgment of the highest court) to lodge an application. After that period your application cannot be accepted by the Court.


  20. (Cont)

    5.3. Against whom can I lodge an application?

    5.3.1. Against one or more of the States bound by the Convention which, in your opinion, has/have (through one or more acts or omissions directly affecting you) violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

    5.3.2. The act or omission complained of must be attributed to one or more public authorities in the State(s) concerned (for example, a court or an administrative authority).

    5.3.3 The Court cannot deal with complaints against individuals or private institutions, such as commercial companies.

    5.4. What can my application be about?

    5.4.1. Your application must relate to one of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Alleged violations may cover a wide range of issues, such as: torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; lawfulness of detention; shortcomings in civil hearings or criminal trials; discrimination in the exercise of a Convention right; parental rights; respect for private life, family life, the home and correspondence; restrictions on expressing an opinion or on imparting or receiving information; freedom to take part in an assembly or demonstration; expulsion and extradition; confiscation of property; and expropriation.

    5.4.2. You cannot complain of a violation of any legal instrument other than the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    6. How should I apply to the Court if I consider myself to be the victim of a violation of the Convention?

    6.1. By sending a completed and signed application form (*) to the Court. The form, together with any relevant accompanying documents, must be sent by post to the following address:

    The Registrar
    European Court of Human Rights
    Council of Europe
    F-67075 Strasbourg cedex

    6.1.1. You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

    6.1.2. No purpose is served by sending the application form by fax since this will not interrupt the running of the period laid down in the Convention for applying to the Court. Only the original application form sent by post will be considered by the Court.

    6.1.3. Do not come to Strasbourg in person to state your case orally. Your case will not be examined any quicker and you will not receive legal advice.

    6.1.4. The Registry may ask you for additional documents, information or explanations relating to your complaints.

    6.1.5. You should download the application form from the Court’s website, fill it in carefully and legibly, sign it and return it to the Court as quickly as possible. The form must include: - a brief summary of the facts and your complaints; - an indication of the Convention rights you think have been violated; - the remedies you have already used; - copies of the decisions given in your case by all the public authorities concerned (these documents will not be returned to you, so only copies should be sent); and - your signature as the applicant, and also your representative’s signature (if you have one).

    6.1.6. If you do not wish your identity to be disclosed, you must inform the Court immediately, giving reasons. The President will determine whether your request is justified.

    6.1.7. At this stage of the proceedings you do not have to be represented by a lawyer. If, however, you wish to apply to the Court through a representative, you must complete the appropriate part of the application form.


  21. (Cont)

    6.2. What are the main features of the proceedings?

    6.2.1. Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.

    6.2.2. Your case will be dealt with free of charge.

    6.2.3. Although you do not need to be represented by a lawyer in the first stages of the proceedings, you will need a lawyer once your application has been notified to the Government. The great majority of applications are, however, declared inadmissible without being notified to the Government.

    6.2.4. You will only have to bear your own costs (such as lawyers’ fees or expenses relating to research and correspondence).

    6.2.5. After your application has been lodged, you may apply for legal aid. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and awards are not made immediately but only at a later stage of the proceedings.

    6.3. What are the main stages in the process?

    6.3.1. The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

    6.3.2. If your application or one of your complaints is declared inadmissible, that decision is final and cannot be reversed.

    6.3.3. If your application or one of your complaints is declared admissible, the Court will encourage the parties (you and the State concerned) to reach a friendly settlement. If no settlement is reached, the Court will consider the application “on the merits” – that is, it will determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention

    6.4. How long will I have to wait?
    In view of the current backlog of cases, you may have to wait a year before the Court can proceed with its initial examination of your application. Some applications may be treated as urgent and dealt with as a matter of priority, particularly where the applicant is said to be in imminent physical danger.

    7. What can I hope to obtain?
    7.1 If the Court finds that there has been a violation, it may award you “just satisfaction”, a sum of money in compensation for certain forms of damage. The Court may also require the State concerned to refund the expenses you have incurred in presenting your case. If the Court finds that there has been no violation, you will not have to pay any additional costs (such as those incurred by the respondent State)

    7.2. Please note:

    7.2.1. The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws.

    7.2.2. The Court is not responsible for the execution of its judgments. As soon as it has given judgment, responsibility passes to the Committee of Ministers (**) of the Council of Europe, which has the task of supervising execution and ensuring that any compensation is paid.

    (**) The Committee of Ministers comprise the member States’ministers for foreign affairs or their representatives


  22. (Cont)

    8. What is the European Court of Human Rights
    not able to do for me?

    8.1. The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

    8.2. The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

    8.3. The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

    8.4 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.

    1. It says proceedings are conducted in writing.

      If, after a year, their application was accepted, they would not appear in person and the proceedings would be in relation to Portugal, not Mr Amaral personally.

      The journalists are either liars, ignorant or both.

  23. The only thing that the McCanns can be justifidedly upset over is the implication that they have not been cleared or found innocent in Madelienes disappearance. The fact this was stated in summing up and in a way points without conviction is the only thing i can see them going with. The fact they never helped in the reconstruction will probably not bother them in the slightest.

    1. The filing order is clear : the criminal investigation couldn't but stop if the TP7 refused to collaborate in the reconstitution, leaving consequently the crime undetermined. The MCs therefore can't be neither guilty nor innocent, an unbearable situation (for innocent people) as the MP suggested with regret. Things remain suspended, as the MP warned the TP9 they would. They were advised, nevertheless they chose to escape the reconstitution with all kinds of bad faith, extraordinary arguments.

  24. This really does come across as a post designed to test the gullibility of stupid followers to the limit. I do congratulate you if you pull it off.

    1. This seems to be the best our opposition can do.

      We're still waiting for Anonymous at 8 Sep 2017, 11:55:00 to tell us what in his/her opinion would constitute proof of swinging and s/he would expect to have been found so it would be crystal clear to all that it would have happened there.

    2. This seems to be the best our opposition can do.

      We're still waiting for Anonymous at 8 Sep 2017, 11:55:00 to tell us what in his/her opinion would constitute proof of swinging and s/he would expect to have been found so it would be crystal clear to all that it would have happened there.

  25. Michael Havis / Published 13th September 2017

    Is this REALLY the man who took Maddie? There's a BIG problem with this sighting

    IT’S the Maddie sighting that’s supposed to hold the key to the case, but what do we really know about the mysterious man in this notorious e-fit?

    Enlarge this image

    KEY TO THE CASE: The man pictured left has been thought of as vital to the investigation
    Within an hour of Madeleine McCann disappearing in 2007, a child matching her description was seen in the arms of an unknown man.

    He was heading towards the coast just 500 yards from where Maddie vanished in the Portuguese resort town of Praia da Luz.

    So intriguing was the sighting that likenesses of the man were pulled together and later broadcast on Crimewatch.

    MICHAEL HAVIS OBSCURED: The man's face would have been hidden by shadow, like this model's face

    “I happen to believe he is Portuguese and innocent, but that’s not how he's depicted”

    Yet while the world thinks of the man as a key piece of the puzzle, some say the sighting is a dead end.

    Daily Star Online visited Praia da Luz and recreated the sighting 10 years after Maddie vanished.

    At the same time of night and with similar lighting, we discovered how hard it was to get a good look at a face.

    The street, Rua da Escola Primaria, is lit dimly lit by just a few street lamps, a sign from a nearby clinic and moonlight.

    MICHAEL HAVIS CLOAKED IN SHADOW: The model's face was difficult to see from every angle

    Photos of a model, which were taken at the scene and brightened afterwards to better simulate the view, show a face shrouded in shadow.

    It’s also worth noting that e-fits are usually produced by an operator under the direction of a witness, in accordance with strict police guidelines.

    The e-fits created from this sighting were assembled in 2008, several months after Madeleine disappeared, when witnesses were likelier to misremember.

    On the other hand, if they were made without the direction of witnesses – but rather from their statements – the operator is likelier to have influenced the end result.

    MICHAEL HAVIS MYSTERY MAN: The person (not pictured) has never been identified by investigators

    Given these factors, some have concluded that the man – who was spotted and described by the Smith family from Ireland – is just an innocent bystander.

    One local man with knowledge of the case said that, whether the man is innocent or not, "the e-fits almost certainly look nothing like him"

    He told Daily Star Online: "I happen to believe he is Portuguese and innocent, but that’s not how he's depicted in Portuguese media.

    "They showed the e-fits, but called him Scotland Yard’s chief suspect. They did not include that he might be totally innocent."

    1. Anonymous 13 Sep 2017, 06:40:00,

      Thank you. The link to the article.

      Fascinating the effort made to dicredit "key-witness"!

      Unlike article suggests, the street is well lit, especially the 2 sightings (one of which by Mr Smith) that took place at the T-junction.

      Is the article suggesting there was another person present at the sighting? If so, where was he? Certainly the PJ questioned all nearby residents about if they had seen anything that night.

      We have been there and haven't the faintest idea where last picture was taken.

      We know this is the Star (Michael Havis also works for the Mirror) but this article shows how reporters, when it comes to the Maddie case, go out of their way to distort truth.

      Fits very nicely with current post.

    2. Please note:

      Photo #1 (with caption "OBSCURED: The man's face would have been hidden by shadow, like this model's face"): the photographer is where Peter Smith says he crossed with the man. According to Peter Smith, he and his wife are in the middle of the street and man is on the sidewalk on his right. Picture makes it seem like it's the other way around.

      Photo #2 (with caption "CLOAKED IN SHADOW: The model's face was difficult to see from every angle"): The man is standing between where Peter Smith says he's crossed with him and where Martin Smith says he did.
      Please note how bright the building on the left is. A couple of metres TOWARDS the photographer is where the Marti Smith crossing happened.
      BTW, man with child would have walked exactly where man is, as he crosses the street from one side to the other when coming down between Peter and Martin.
      Out of curiosity, 3 lights can be seen. Counting from right to left, light #2 is where Richard Bilton says is where sighting happened and light #3 is approximately where the McCanns said it was in the 2009 Mockumentary.

      Photo #3 (with caption "MYSTERY MAN: The person (not pictured) has never been identified by investigators"): As we said we don't know where this picture was taken. Nor what it is meant to represent.
      If it wasn't disgusting it would be funny the fact that in same caption of a photo with a man somewhere we don't know, says "mystery man" and "not pictured".

      Isn't it interesting how some people do go the extra mile to keep truth from surfacing?

    3. One has to wonder who these people are trying to convince. Us who are familiar with the case know what they say is a load of nonsense, those not familiar don't care. Why don't they just archive the case and treat us with the same contempt that they have always have. At least spare us the nonsense

  26. Yes, they are working hard aren't they? It must be a full time job. For the rest of their lives, if necessary...

    It's not only shameful but so pathetic really and life with a sole aim of preventing the truth from emerging.

  27. Re: Photo #3 it is just the opposing corner to 'Luzdoc' medical centre:,-8.7317239,3a,90y,7.3h,74.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s14A-xFpViS3d-KMha2oTMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


    1. HTH,

      Thank you.

      Now that you mentioned, picture is taken from where Aoife crossed with Smithman. The Rua da Escola Primaria is on the left of picture.

      Understand this, it makes the picture even more bizarre because Smithman did not walk dow Rua 25 de Abril (man in picture facing East in the direction of the PdL Church area) so it's just impossible to figure out what is tried to be proved with it.

      After all it's a picture of a man with his back to the place supposed to be the focus on entire article.

    2. HTH,

      Thank you.

      Now that you mentioned, picture is taken from where Aoife crossed with Smithman. The Rua da Escola Primaria is on the left of picture.

      Understand this, it makes the picture even more bizarre because Smithman did not walk dow Rua 25 de Abril (man in picture facing East in the direction of the PdL Church area) so it's just impossible to figure out what is tried to be proved with it.

      After all it's a picture of a man with his back to the place supposed to be the focus on entire article.

    3. I'm not sure what game the Star are playing, Textusa but based on this picture you posted in your Reconstruction for May 3rd 2007, it looks like the Star are sticking to SY/OG/Crimewatch route?


      'HTH' just means Hope This Helps!


    4. David,

      Our apologies. As can be easily deduced, we mistook HTH for a personal acronym.

      And yes, your input was highly helpful, so we thank you again.

      We would say this was, or is an effort to minimise the importance of the key-witness (showed to Whitehall by SY which were very impressed of his/her importance) as well as discredit him/her.

  28. funny they haven't used the other picture, which just happens to resemble Gerry Mcann!!

  29. Unpublished Anonymous at 14 Sep 2017, 13:32:00,

    We are not publishing your comment because we don't want that subject polluting our blog even if written with intentional irony.

    We don't want any word linked with that issue to be associated in any shape or form with our blog in any search engine.

    Hope you understand.

    1. Hi textusa,the delightful BBC is to Broad cast a production of the Abduction/disappearance of a Three year old girl from a Super market Trolley in Broad Daylight?
      The Three year old girl is shown in attirement similar to pictures of Madeleine McCann,Fairy outfit?
      The girls Mother,has visions of seeing her daughter,named as Kate,much like what has been described from Ricardo Palva,in Portugal?
      Bare this in an open mind with regard to a so called Police investigation,Operation Grange,Remit-Abduction,just what is the BBC playing at,after Four Crime Watch Productions,Two Richard Bilton specials on Madeleine McCann,would the last person to leave the building please turn off the lights,Thank You,what a corrupt world we live in?

  30. Seems that it is taking a while for the Police to confirm that they have been given the additional funding from the Home office . I was sure it happened quite quickly last time...


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.