Friday, 13 October 2017


This week we were not going to post but as we have been asked more than once how much does the accusation made against José Socrates by the Public Ministry will have in the Maddie case.

Straight away we will say that it will have little. But even if little it may have some.

The game has only one name and that is Theresa May.

The Prime-Minister many said a coughing fit in a speech had put an end to her career once and for all. A week has passed and it must be said she does seem to have very strong fingertips.

We do think the fact Socrates has been accused by the Public Ministry of 31 crimes (3 charges of passive corruption of holder of a political position, 16 charges of money laundering, 3 charges of falsification of documents and 3 charges of premeditated tax fraud) may have some implications for the Maddie case.

Not decisive, just politically embarrassing for the UK in case it decides for archival in the Maddie case. 

Let’s first put in context the accusation against Sócrates and the other 27 accused.

Nothing has been proved against Socrates nor any of the other 18 individuals and 9 collective entities.

The Public Ministry after a long investigation has come to the conclusion that there is, according to it, solid evidence against these people that merited an accusation.

To prove that this proves nothing, we remind people that the McCanns thought that they had solid evidence against Mr Amaral that merited an accusation against him, which in the end proved not to be real.

It will now be up to the various defense teams to dismantle each accusation. If they aren’t able to do it in a convincing way the case will proceed to court. If they are able to, the case ends.

In this the Socrates process differs significantly with the McCann v Amaral one. In the latter, it was 2 private parties which could at any point in time come to an agreement and so put a stop to the process.

With these 28 accused, there is no possibility of agreement between the parties.

The process may be stopped only for technical reasons – which we are not  seeing that possibility being possible as all throughout the investigation Socrates’ defense has attacked legally every which way the process and has lost all their appeals with the exception of one, which was to be able to access the majority of the investigation files.

We think Socrates’ legal team has lost all other appeals. And they were many.

Once, if that will be the case, the process goes to court, we don’t think we have to explain to our readers what happens. The McCann v Amaral case has given all the entire spectrum a legal process can undergo once into court.

A political analyst, a highly reputed lawyer himself, José Miguel Judice, has on TV reminded rightfully all that if at the end of the of it all no one is found guilty, LEGALLY, the Portuguese Justice System will come out of it as unscathed as if every single accusation is deemed as proven and a respective sentence handed out.

LEGALLY, what matters is that the Public Ministry has done its job the best way it thought it could do and has passed it to the next level.

SOCIALLY, he said, the issue will make a big difference to the system on whether there will be convictions or not.

But what we want to highlight at this point in time is that the presumption of innocence of all accused remains untouched.

However, it’s the right of every citizen to form an opinion and there are indicia about how strong the Public Ministry thinks it has made its case.

We won’t get into the ‘popular’ details of Socrates’ peculiar friendship with the other of the accused Carlos Santos Silva. It matters little to what we want to say at this moment and we will leave it for the appropriate entities within the Portuguese Justice System to analyse it.

What we would like to highlight are the following names that have been accused:

- José Socrates, former Prime-Minister;

- Ricardo Salgado, former President of the extinct Banco Espírito Santo, the biggest private bank in the country when it was dissolved 3 years ago;

- Armando Vara, former minister, former executive director of the Banco Comercial Português (a private bank) and executive director of the Caixa Geral de Depósitos, the State Bank;

- Zeinal Bava, former executive president of the PT/Telecom, once Portugal’s public communication company;

- Henrique Granadeiro, former CEO of the PT/Telecom.

From the above one can see that these people truly represented the backbone of the country, politically, financially and economically.

Just to give an example, about Ricardo Salgado – then called the ‘Owner of All This’ (Dono Disto Tudo) – in the book “The Last Banker” by Maria João Babo and Maria João Gago there’s this passage:

“José Guilherme and the president of BES know each other for tens of year. The builder consulted frequently with the banker. When he decided to expand his businesses to East Europe, Ricardo Salgado advised him against it. As an alternative, he recommended Angola. And even would have indicated with whom to contact in Luanda.

A few years later, before how the success of the investment had been, Guilherme made the point of showing the BES leader how he was grateful.

And it was because of this that he gave him a present. Of 14 million euros.”

A common problem everyone has when wanting to offer a present to someone who already has everything. It’s always the best solution to give them the money so that they can buy whatever they wish to buy with it.

We are using this example just to show what established powers against which the accusation was made on last Wednesday.

The money these people moved and had is in the multiple billions (or in Portuguese, thousands of millions) a completely ball park figure than the millions mentioned in the process. Not judging their richness, power or influence, which certainly is not our place, just putting in context the numbers involved in the accusation.

Sócrates, when Prime-Minister, was evidently powerful.

Then, he was a decisive piece on the board. But as it happens to all Prime-Ministers or equivalent all over the world without exception, once he left the job he became simply an ex-PM.

Those who tried to suck up to him when he was the PM, then simply started to trying to suck up to whoever was in that position next. It’s like that everywhere in the world and will continue to be so in the future: in politics what matters is the position one holds and not who one is.

Sócrates the ex-PM in material terms is just a little fish in comparison with some of the names which accompany him in this accusation.

The public ministry could have decided to move against José Sócrates on his own but instead decided to go against a group of very, very powerful people.

This tells us that the Public Ministry thinks the accusation it has formulated against all of them is indeed solid.

The courts will decide if it is or not.

The day before the accusation, Socrates’ assets (just like it happened with Mr Amaral) were seized.

The more optimistic have said that this will last for at least 7 to 8 years. We think it will last a while longer. A long while longer.

But where this has implications with the Maddie case is that whatever the outcome, there is no question that the Portuguese Justice System has shown that it is not scared to move against established powers and the powerful. The very powerful.

We are reminded of Jim Gambles’s words on May 9 2010 (3 days before Theresa May became Home Secretary) about the Maddie case:

“Senior child protection officer Jim Gamble has asked Scotland Yard to take a fresh look at the three-year investigation.

He blasted Portuguese cops for their handling of the hunt for Maddie - who vanished aged three from her family's Algarve holiday apartment in 2007. Now the Met Police are set to review all leads in the case, using technology and standards expected in a UK homicide or kidnap.”

We are now waiting for the “standards expected in a UK” investigation can be brought up to match the standards now shown by the Portuguese Justice System under the penalty of being internationally shamed by it.

Lastly, we will leave for the reader to read the transcript of José Socrates’ participation in Bilton’s documentary:

At 00:23:31:

Richard Bilton [voice off/over]: The theory was falling apart. Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case. He blamed political interference from London. Mr Amaral’s supporters claim that he was taken off the case after an ultimatum from Gordon Brown to the Portuguese PM at a European summit.

Bilton: Did Gordon Brown take time out of the negotiations for the Lisbon Treaty to talk to you about Madeleine McCann?

José Socrates: No!! No, of course not [laughs].

Bilton: That has been suggested.

Socrates: [laughs] But it's not true. It's not true!

Bilton: The lead investigator on the McCann case, Goncalo Amaral, he has claimed – he may have been joking – that his job was the price of Britain signing the Lisbon Treaty. What do you make of that?

Socrates: Pfff… Well, I think he considers himself in a high level. But it's not [laughs] true. The Lisbon Treaty [laughs] with Goncalo Amaral, [laughs] the head of Goncalo, no, no. Well, sometimes people like to make some characters of a drama [laughs] they never lived.


  1. Thank you for todays article, I don't pretend to understand Portugal's politics but what I do find interesting is what you have pointed out that Portugal is not scared of building a case against powerful people.

  2. In the UK, on the contrary ...

    1. The blighters are usually dead then its oh! we might have charged them.

  3. I'm very grateful for this article, Textusa. Although I'm not Portuguese, speaking daily its language has turned this country mine. I basically feel some compassion for the MCs, but I can't forgive them to have let the media treat Portugal, its institutions and its people the shameful way they did. At least they behaved like lurkers. One word of them would have been enough to stop this.

  4. CM on Lorraine

    1. Anonymous 13 Oct 2017, 13:30:00,

      One thing we have been proud of lately is to have finally having got rid of Michell's importance in the case by establishibg at what real level the game has always happened.

      He's just a pathetic paid clown with the same importance to the case as a Mark Williams-Thomas just to use as an example. People who have prostituted their names and faces to perpetuate a hoax that disgustingly disrespects the death of a little girl, Maddie McCann and of a woman, Brenda Leyland.

      Please don't give this disgusting human being any sort of oxygen. Not on this blog.

    2. Hi textusa,the Uk are to appoint Sir Bernard Hogan Howe into the House of Lords,jim gamble must be pissing himself with laughter at how thick the people within the Uk must be to have this former Metropolitan Police chief,now sit in judgement on leglislation on how to govern the UK,especially as we now know that Jim gamble pushed for a review for the Metropolitan Police force,fuck me what a corrupt United kingdom,please turnout the fucking lights,there is no justice in this world,end of period?
      PS sorry for the expleitives but it is what it is?

  5. With thanks to Michael Shaw on Facebook:

    "Gordon Brown did say he was going to discuss the Madeleine case with Socrates."

    1. The transcript of the video:

      José Rodrigues dos Santos [RTP anchor]: Outside the summit, the British Prime-Minister has revealed that he will discuss the Madeleine case with José Sócrates, the encounter will happen still today.

      Gordon Brown: I am meeting the Portuguese Prime-Minister later, later… and we will discuss this issue, I have discussed it with him before, just to assure myself that the police authorities are, are, are taking the action that are, that are necessary and that and there’s proper cooperation between the British and the Portuguese police but I haven’t had the one to one meeting with the Prime-Minister that I’m going to have later this evening…

  6. We have to assume this was another deliberate misinformation in Biltons programme. A big effort to dis Goncalo and make him look foolish by being economical with the actualite. Oh what a tangled web they weave....


    1. Bampots,

      The question one must ask is why wasn't Gordon Brown interviewed by Bilton - he doesn't say that Mr Brown did not have availability or didn't want to comment on the case.

      We would find perfectly natural if Mr Brown denied such a request to comment, as, in theory, an ex-PM we think has 'better' things to do than to comment on an ongoing police investigation.

      So we find rather strange for Richard Bilton to have asked José Sócrates to comment and not Gordon Brown, as well as to the fact that the Portuguese former PM made time available to not say nothing relevant to the truth but only to make a significant effort to ridicule Mr Amaral.

    2. I get what you are saying but who controls the bbc enough to control its reporters,Home Secretary? the bbc is supposed to be impartial it is any thing but.

  7. As you rightly write PMs have better things to do than commenting on the relationships between their respective police forces on what was just a fait-divers. Wasn't the Foreign Office doing the job ?

  8. Talk about taking a hammer to squash a pea. Why was an ex PM used to gave credibility to the theory that GA was unhinged and delusional. Regardless of whether it was true or not would somebody in his position really stoop to the level of piffing and laughing as if he was sitting in a pub with a couple of mates. Wouldn't a dignified comment ( if anything at all) be more consistent with somebody in his position................the man is accused of 31 crimes wouldn't you have thought that With the knowledge that anything he says now will be scrutinised to assess his credibility as an honourable man that he would have maintained some sort of dignified silence. Not haven't followed the Socrates case when I seen him on panarama I assumed that all accusations against him must have been dropped otherwise he wouldn't have piffed and laughed in a case which regardless of anything else involved the death of a wee girl. I mean is it appropriate for anybody to piff and laugh in such circumstances.let alone an ex PM.

    You correct Textusa this game is played a lot further up the food chain than creepy Clarence somebody who could pursuade a an ex PM to appear piffing and laughing on that program holds significantly power. It is kinda akin to putting David Cammeron into I'm a celebrity.

    I also kinda hate to miss the opportunity to piff and laugh at Jim Gambles comment of bringing to the case the standards you would expect in a uk investigation. Really from the head of SB

    1. Portuguese have a deep inferiority complex, which doesn't exclude a certain boasting. José Socrates thought that laughing and mocking he would put himself at the level of a European PM in charge of crucial issues. He did, you're right, exactly the contrary.
      Isabel Duarte likely thought that attacking police officers of her country and defending the MCs against winds and tides would dignify her as a kind of heroine. Not only it didn't, but meanwhile she put the MCs in a real mess.

  9. For those still giving Sutton any credit. This is from April this year. 9 days later the hero comes out to say Operation Grange is biased in favour of the McCanns (and one must assume he’s suggesting Grange should look at them first). Go figure:

    Maddie kidnapped to order for wealthy buyer in the Middle East says ex-cop

    MADELEINE McCann may have been kidnapped-to-order for a wealthy buyer, an ex-Scotland Yard detective claims.

    By Michael Havis / Published 24th April 2017

    It’s feared the tot, who disappeared from Portugal in 2007, was smuggled into north Africa via Spain.

    One witness told Daily Star Online about her Madeleine McCann sighting in Marrakech, Morocco.

    She said the child was distressed and asked her alleged captor “can we go see mummy now?”

    Now an ex-cop has called the region “an obvious route” for kidnappers based in Mauritania, West Africa.

    Colin Sutton, formerly of the Met Police, told the Mirror: "The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at.

    "If someone wanted to get a three-year-old child into Africa it’s the obvious route. The infrastructure and contacts for people smuggling are clearly there."

    In June 2007, spooks at GCHQ intercepted messages in Arabic referring to "the little blonde girl" and a ferry crossing from Tarifa in Spain.

    The port is just a few hours’ drive from Praia Da Luz, where Maddie disappeared a month earlier, and has regular services to Morocco.

    A 2015 report from the US State Department warned that Mauritania, which borders Morocco, was a hotbed for people trafficking.

    It said: "Mauritania is a source country for women, men and children subjected to forced labour and sex trafficking.

    "Women and girls are subjected to sex trafficking in the country or the Middle East," the report added.

    1. One wonders what sort of people we are dealing with that even 10 years later the memory of a dead child isn't allowed to RIP. Such utter garbage

    2. Hi textusa,in April 2008,Scotland Yard/Interpol confirmed they could find No connection to a Paedophile Gang thought to have taken Madeleine McCann?
      Nichola,has booked the flight for her small Team to explore the possibility of Colin Sutton's theory,they have now organised a trip to the middle East,to pick up any loose leads?

    3. Anonymous 14 Oct 2017, 23:43:00,

      We thought Sutton doesn't have a theory. He has said it himself that even though he has read a lot about the case, he hadn't come to any sort of conclusion.

      All he says he he knows is that he was told OG was just to clear the McCanns but then it turned out it was only an advise not to accept the case to then say that the bit about clearing the McCanns was just an assumption on his part.

      So it is quite strange to follow the theory of someone who doesn't have a theory and is quite imaginative about the things he hears from friends (at least Gamble didn't have any doubt that Sutton would be leading the review that he proposed but then it wasn't by him but by the McCanns, or was it by Rebekah Brooks and the Sun?

      All so clearly confusing.

      Could we have the link for the Nicola trip you speak of, please?


    Two articles which are definately floccinaucinihilipilification as far as them being news is concerened.....


    1. No surprise the snubbing appears at the same time of Pisa article this weekend
      Trying to drum up publicity for another crap doc - like Panorama but probably even worse.


    Kandohla is getting in on the act now....


  12. Did Mr Sócrates ever commented on the sending of “British Police liaison officers” to Portugal in the hours following Maddie’s disappearance? I always puzzled why he was never publicly questioned about that (if I am not mistaken).

    Maybe, again, he never discussed the issue with Tony Blair at the time, and therefore has nothing to do with that decision.

    That would make him a puppet PM back in 2007. Or, maybe, just a liar. Either way, possibly not the most influential character in this whole saga, but certainly one of the most pathetic ones, who fully deserved this humble tribute paid by Textusa.

    1. I don't know if I would call him pathetic. I don't know enough about him but I think a lot of decisions were made politically by both countries as a result of pressure. When these decisions are recognised as errors then people try to protect themselves or their position which led to the mess the case is in. At that stage its needs political will (I think those are GA words) to sort it out

    2. You must be talking about the political pressure that UK put on Portugal from the very beginning of this case.

      Besides, I don't see what kind of political pressure can arise from the disappearance of a child, however tragic, sad and revolting it is. Let's not confuse media pressure with political pressure (in this case, I believe that the former was used to increase the latter).

      We might never get to know why Mr Sócrates bowed so easily to that pressure. He might have thought at the time that it was a small diplomatic favor which would go almost unnoticed. But he will be remembered as the Portuguese PM who enabled political interference in the Maddie case and indirectly hindered the course of justice.

    3. I said that the media pressure was used to increase the political pressure, but it might be more correct to say that the media pressure was used to HIDE the political pressure.

    4. As Carlos Anjos said,Clarence Mitchell,"He Lies with As Many teeth as He has In his Head"So the smooth operators were believed ahead of the Truth,the PR machine bluffed and bull shitted it's way for over Ten Years?
      The MSM are still doing it to you today?
      I Just watched last Night in the UK a Documentary on Mr George Michael,now whether you like George Michael or not I'm not questioning,but he was a gifted Pop song Writer artist.
      What stood out most was the Way he Refused to be Held to "Ransom"by his Sony contract,that he had signed as a Younger Pop musician? That is the difference which was lost on a hell of a lot of people,George Michael was No longer a"POP" muscician he had become an Artist.
      Sony Only wanted him to supply a certain type of music,where the artist wished to further his understanding of Music to a wider audience of which they wanted to suppress?
      where Sony had won their case in a court on a "Contract" issue but had ultimately to concede the musician had a right to freedom of expression as an artist but with another Producer.
      They wanted to"control Him" and his music,that was the issue,which Sony couldn't recognise or where too big for their Boots to back down on an artist having rights to their Own music?
      this is what happens in most peoples lives, they are controlled by outside influences,the person is never allowed to develop or only in the controlled environment produced in a mechanical robotic processed way of life,De Ja Veaux?

    5. If you mean "impression of reliving something"and wish to be understood, better write "déjà vu".


    A big fat lie!
    The alleged appeal to ECHR cannot stop the Portuguese Supreme Court enforcing its decision.
    The press know it but persist in their lies.

    1. "It is understood that the result of the appeal will not be known for at least four years."
      Before any outcome, the appeal has to be accepted... Unfortunately rejections are not published on the CEDH website (appelants are informed by mail).
      Thanks to this article of the Daily Mail the MCs capitalize on time (4 years).


    "Chimps and Crayons", a wonderful phrase to describe majority of journalists in Mc case!


    BBC reporting on case in 2007. Protecting them from outset.

    Crimewatch no longer a TV show
    It passed it's sell-by date after Mc programme


    There seems to be something we have said that is quickly becoming na internet myth of something that Kate has said (very much like the existing one saying that Gerry said “show me the body” when he never said such a thing).

    In this case it’s the phrase “All those who are to be implicated will be implicated” that some allege Kate has said it. She hasn’t. We did. In our post “Tide change”.

    This is what we said in that post:

    “From article #1:

    “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann”, KATE McCann yesterday said she is convinced whoever snatched Madeleine from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz never took her far”

    “That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there”

    “I’ve always said Praia da Luz is the place where I feel closest to her”

    “but Kate believes Madeleine probably never left the country”

    “she said she and husband Gerry have learned from their years of research that abducted children are generally not taken far”.

    Article #2 doesn’t mention Praia da Luz. It is about the twins so understandably unlikely for that town to have been mentioned.

    From article #3:

    “Kate, from Rothley, Leicester, said she feels Maddie is still in the Algarve as that's the place she feels "closest" to her daughter.”

    To sum up the message of the 3 articles: I want closure, the twins are ready and what happened to Maddie in Praia da Luz is to be disclosed.

    Very simple, very direct, very straightforward and very objective.

    And what happened to Maddie is really all that happened to her. From the death to disposal. Thus the near Praia da Luz and not only Praia da Luz.


    Kate is saying she’s not going down alone.”

    The caps are ours.

    We said it, not Kate. And it was our interpretation of her words.

    We want to make that very clear.

    1. Hi Textusa
      Re: What Gerry McCann has said

      I quote you stating the following "like the existing one saying that Gerry said “show me the body” when he never said such a thing"

      Oh Yes, he has, though he expressed exactly the same thing by just using a different verb for "show", namely "find" and it's documented on YouTube. I've seen it so many times, and I can look it up later. "Find the/her body and prove (that) we killed her", he said and I've always found it very queer that he associated his and Kate's guilt with Madeleine's dead body, as anybody, if she were dead, could have killed/murdered her.

    2. Bjorn,

      Could you please provide the link to that video?

      Meanwhile we suggest you read our post "Debunking A Myth: "Show Me The Body And Prove...""

    3. Hi Textusa
      Gerry answered a journalist outside Lisbon Court and was very irritated. I couldn't believe my ears. I only pay attention to what the McCanns and their friends say, not to what the papers allege he say. I'll find a link to it somewhere and give it to you. At the time I thought I didn't have to download it, because I took for granted that millions of people must have heard it and at least a few having downloaded it. Obviously not? Of course I'll also read the post about "Debunking A Myth", to see your view on it. Anyway, I haven't dreamt, misunderstood or made up what I claim to have heard.

  18. Hi again Re; Gerry's "Find the body etc...

    I've found one video clip, seems to come from a non-professional filmer. It's short labelled "Gerry McCann gets annoyed outside Lisbon Court. I'm pretty sure that in the extension of this interview Gerry very furious challenged the journalist with this phrase. The clip seems to be cut down. If anyone could help me in trying to place this video in time and in context it would help a lot in proving what Gerry really said before the interview was finished.


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.