Textusa

Where Have All The Gentlemen Gone?

2012-01-30T16:43:00.001Z

... at least, in Portugal, Praia da Luz, August 2007... there were none, it seems!

Textusa's Phone Hacking Scandal #1

2012-01-28T08:02:00.010Z

We have something to confess. Besides all we’ve said about what we thought and think about the Leveson Inquiry, we have to tell that it affected us personally.

You see, we hoped we were going to be summoned to the phone hacking hearings. The Levenson Inquiry dashed our hopes. Once this one started, the other circus' matinee was over...

You see, us Sisters, have to confess that we’ve fictionally done some fictional phone hacking of our own.

We had my eldest grandson, who we pretended to be an electronics genius, to come up with a contraption made up of empty cans, a couple of wire coat-hangers, a fan, an old spark plug Fred had in the garage, and an electric cord, with which we made believe that we could tap on any phone conversation. Provided it was fictional, of course.

What we can't understand is why we weren’t summoned to the hearings. The fact that all our hacks are FICTIONAL should have been an added reason for us to be summoned. After all, wasn’t most of what we heard in them total and absolute FICTION?

No we’re not speaking about the Leveson Inquiry. That’s as fictional, if not more, but not hardly the place to discuss fictional phone hackings… just fictional journalistic ethics. Now, THAT is one enormous fictional subject even in the non-fictional world…

Our fictional hacking should have also being subjected to question, no question about it. But it wasn’t. So we’ve decided to share with our readers all our fictional tapes.

Today we publish the first of a number of fictionally hacked fictional phone calls:

PHONE CALL #1:

F: Has he shown up yet?

G: No, not that I know of…

F: The Portuguese cop hasn’t given you any indication that he may have contacted them?

G: No.

F: Our cops know nothing also… Why, in heaven’s sake, did he have to fly out the next day?!? Damn it!!..

G: Are you sure that it’s the Ss?

F: From what you told me, it can only be them! It was a big family, right? The woman was pregnant, right?

G: Yes… just like I told you, it was a big group, a couple in front with a woman, as I said, pregnant, then the older couple with the toddlers, and then by the stairs the youngsters… not exactly sure how many... Let me see… two… then four, and then three or four. That… makes it either nine or ten…

F: There aren't that many big families around here, so they have to be the Ss alright. The man was (description of S), right?

G: Yes and the woman was (description of S’s wife), like I've told you a thousand times… when I stopped at the crossing, one of the older couple said something to me, I'm not exactly sure what or who said it, if it was him or her, I don't remember which... but I do remember that it was clearly Irish, that I'm absolutely sure of. Listen, I practically ran over the man and his entire family!! And talking about that, you know, I'm starting to a worry about something...

F: What is it?

G: What if he recognizes me?

F: Isn't that what we want to happen?

G: No, I mean, what if he recognizes me... as in ME? All this circus is making my face much too familiar to everyone... If he had gone to the cops on Friday, when he should have, he obviously wouldn't be able to tell me apart from anyone else, but he didn't go, did he? As time passes on so are the chances of him going to the cops saying that's ME he saw, and not some abstract abductor, you know... He did get a pretty damn close look at me, I tell you... What do we do if he says that it was me?

F: So? What's wrong if he does? Don't you have all your friends saying that you were with them? And the Tapas people that confirm that? The only problem I see of him saying that, is that most likely the police won't take his statement seriously, and that's a problem, them thinking that he's just another joker with visions, so let's really hope he doesn't say that, ok? If he does, we can only hope the cops do take him seriously and think he's using your, as you say, familiar face to describe the kind of man he saw. I mean, besides your accent, you have no other uncommon feature that makes you any different from any other "normal" man, now do you? With your current popularity plus what your friends and Tapas have said and continue to say, we shouldn't expect any problems. It will never cross anyone's minds that you could be... you. Damn S and his travel plans, by now this all could be done with!!

G: You were pretty happy when I told you the first time who I had bumped into… remember? Remember you said that it had been a pretty darn good stroke of luck, you even said it was a typical case of "luck of the Irish", that I had run into S, who you just happen to know, and not into any of the locals!!

F: Yes, yes… but who could have guessed that they would be flying the next morning?!? I’ve already confirmed that the Ss were here, the whole lot of them, and that they did fly Friday morning back to Ireland. But what on earth’s sake is keeping him from coming?!? It can’t be that he doesn’t know by now about your daughter…

G: What? With this entire circus? He’d be the only living soul in the whole world to miss it… He will come, I’m sure. He has to come!

F: Yes, but until then we can’t just sit still, can we?!? No way can we allow for the PJ to start poking their filthy noses where they shouldn't… You never know what they do if they found out or just happen to stumble on what was going on. I’m starting to get calls from people who are getting very, very nervous, and when these people get nervous they get nervous, if you know what I mean…

G: I understand, I understand… if I couldn’t afford the scandal myself, I can just imagine what would happen to some of those that were on the resort if it what we were all up to was to be known…

F: Yes… we had a pretty good thing going until you lot spoiled it all up. Can you just imagine the amount of time and effort it took us to set up something like this?!? And the money and trust that I'm losing with this thing?!?

G: He’s already said he was sorry…

F: And?!? You know what I feel like doing with him and his sorrow?!? Do you have the faintest idea of the size of the scandal this would be back home if we weren’t we were and knew who we know?!?…

G: Calm down, calm down… you did say that on our side all was taken care of?

F: Yes, yes… our Government has guaranteed that they won’t ever allow for this ever to be known, and the Portuguese Government is being dealt with, if it hasn’t happened that already…

G: So that means that the PJ is also up to speed, right?

F: As I told you, I don’t know what has been done, nor do I know what kind of control they have over the PJ or any, but from what I’ve followed with the Freeport and the Casa Pia, the cops on the field are not that controllable... in this Country the control seems to be made more on an upper level...

G: Meaning?

F: Meaning we can’t run any sort of risk. Our cops are our cops, their cops are theirs, and the less they know, and, very important, the less they discover, the better. No one has guaranteed us that the PJ will remain silent if they discover what was going on here…

G: But we weren’t doing anything illegal…

F: No, we were NOT, were we? But you did agree to lie about your own daughter’s death, didn’t you? And it didn’t take a lot pushing as I remember…

G: We would all be jobless in the bat of an eye… and our house…

F: Listen, I’ve been thinking, until S finally decides to speak, we have to keep the abduction story alive. We just have to maintain the pressure in that direction without letting go so the PJ isn't able to go in any other direction but abduction! Absolutely no other direction, understand?

G: From the first minute I’ve understood that!! I did my bit, didn't I? Walked until I was seen, didn't I? J has said she saw a guy passing with a girl in his arms, didn't she? And the rest of our group has confirmed that we were on the binge down the road… there’s not much more we can do, is there?

F: No, that's why we'll need to create another S, won’t we?

G: How’s that?

F: You go and see what your friend J told the police what she saw, you know, clothes, general description of the man…

G: That’s easy… she described me.

F: What? She’s an idiot?!?

G: No, no… she had to… from the apartment to M’s, somebody could have seen me, and things would have matched, right? Pity nobody did see me then, otherwise we wouldn’t be needing S right now would we? And I point out that now that we have S speaking also, hopefully soon, J's and S's description of the abductor do match, don't they?

F: Right And no, we wouldn't be needing S if someone saw you going to Ms... You’re right, you’re right… Anyhow, what we have to do is find someone else that has also seen you. Whoever it is can’t be from Luz or anywhere too near this town…

G: Why?

F: Are you daft? How many nights have there been? Three? Four? Wouldn’t the abductor have gained the most distance from here by now?!?

G: I don’t see why the abductor couldn't have seen me around here, I mean S did see me here didn’t he?

F: Yes he did, but that was on the night she was supposed to be taken, right?

G: And?

F: And?!? Don’t forget that S DID see you. He can show up any minute, right? And we DO want him to show up, don’t we?

G: Sure do!

F: So where would we have this new sighting now here in Luz? We already have two different places where he was seen, the one where your friend J says she sees you and the other where S sees you too. When S shows up, don’t you think that having a third location in such a small town is kind of pushing it a bit too far??! The abductor is an abductor, not a grasshopper jumping around with a little girl on his back…

G: But couldn’t it be someone also coming out of Kelly’s just like the Ss?...

F: Do you think so??!? First, that would mean that Kelly did have a life when the idea is for this whole town, which includes that place, to be as lifeless as a desert; or isn't that the supposed reason why you people kept yourselves in the resort all this time? Then this new witness would have to have left Kelly's precisely between not being noticed leaving by the Ss, because if they’re asked about that, they'll have to say that they saw no one leaving with them, because they really didn't see, did they?; and be able to still follow the Ss in time to reach the stairs to see the abductor, right? right? But that's not all, and this would be what would set all alarm bells ringing from here to where you're from, you'd also have the fact that is this new witness would come only now forward. You see what would happen? When S does show up, then we have both witnesses that have seen the abductor, here, in the exact same place and on the exact same night, taking both exactly an "eternity" to come forward and speak!! What do you think the cops would think about that with all the exposure we’ve been able to get around your daughter?!? That Luz is filled with retards?!? It would obviously look rigged! You know what they say, one coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.

G: I like that phrase.

F: What phrase?

G: That one about coincidences…

F: What?! You like the phrase, do you? Well do feel free to use it that I won’t charge royalties, ok? I’m talking serious here and you’re paying attention to a catch phrase?!? I’m beginning to think that you’re beginning to like the role you’re playing... that you think that you’re some kind of a funny joker or something of the sort, aren’t you? Do I have to remind you that we’re talking about your dead daughter?!?

G: Sorry…

F: Let me think, will you? We have to have someone seeing your daughter being moved from one hideout to another… don’t worry I’ll find someone. Beige trousers, right?

G: What? Ah… yes, the trousers were beige, yes. But if want be sure, you can always go check, in the tennis bag, what trousers I wore that night... the jeans are J's, the others are mine.

F: The tennis bag has already been dispatched back home, to keep it safe from prying eyes...

G: Oh, of course, of course... we can't take any chances now, can we? It was already enough for us to have called the cops with the bag still in the apartment! What idiots! Then leaving the damn trousers on the bed! My heart almost stopped when I walked into the room with the GNR, and saw them just lying there!!!... How pathetic we must have looked like when we threw ourselves on the floor crying like babies... but that was the only idea I got to distract them... twice! Once so the trousers could be taken off the bed, and the other to get the trousers and the bag out of the apartment! Twice! It resulted... but what a blunder that was...

F: Blunder? Blunder was you lot ever setting foot on Luz! That was what was THE BLUNDER!!!

Debunking Urban Myths: The Unpublished PJ Files

2012-01-23T06:01:00.008Z

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Compare and Contrast":

"Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?She could have told more incidents to the police.It is possible that she informed the OC the folowing morning and the OC warned the McCanns. That could be the reason that Gerry replied her on the fatal night"a child has been abducted (or disappeared")and he did not say "my daughter disappeared" and Mrs Fenn thought it was odd. He probably had heard about Mrs. Fenn complaints.When the PJ asked Kate about the cry incident, Kate denied it "not true".Kate could have used it for the abduction explanation.

It is posssible that Mrs. Fenn left Portugal short after that night and that she came back in August.
Or it is possible that the OC told the police about her complaints.
It is also possible that there is another statement, telling more and we don't know it(rows, fights).
Within a very short time the police knew there was no abduction.No traces, no evidence."

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jan 20, 2012 10:47:00 AM

This Anonymous’ comment seems to credit, and we're beyond innocence at this point in time, someone who, like so many others, acted in a very despicable manner, Mrs Fenn.

S/he implies that Mrs Fenn may have provided the PJ with some relevant information before late August, 2007.

I have said before, and maintain it, that Mrs Fenn was certainly heard in the hours that followed the PJ arrival at the scene, as a resident of the same building where the events supposedly were to have taken place; and I also said, and maintain, that the fact that there’s no written register of this statement it's because the information she had to provide at the time added little or nothing to the investigation.

At that moment Mrs Fenn was truthful, because she indeed saw and heard nothing, and was yet to be indoctrinated about the goings on, so, the investigators at that point in time ruled her as an irrelevant witness, which she indeed was.

But, says Anonymous, what if she did say something?

If she did, both herself and the PJ enquirers seem to have forgotten to make any mention of it in the sole statement that we can find, and read, in the PJ Files.

But, what if this is ANOTHER statement that is in the “unpublished PJ Files”?

It’s time to debunk yet another urban myth.

I would like today to speak about a piece of clutter that I see mentioned much too often: the infamous unpublished PJ Files.

There are two different types of documentation that are perceived to being part of these unpublished PJ files. I divide them into the following categories: those that I know of and those that I don’t know anything about.

Those that I know of are those that are missing from the files. I don’t know, for certain, and in some cases at all, what their content is, but I know they aren't there. How do I know they’re missing? By the page numbering system used.

This page numbering is of mandatory use in any Portuguese legal documentation that has more than a single page. The objective is to make it impossible any innuendo afterwards about any kind of page or pages that were supposed to exist, but can’t be found. Not to avoid, but to make it absolutely impossible the existence of phenomenons such as the "unpublished PJ Files", subject of the present post.

As a side issue, it also allows to determine a timeframe in which a certain document was put into the files, regardless of any other date mentioned in the document itself.

For example, imagine that page #333 is dated with a statement from Aug 15th, and page #334 has one from Jun 14th. The numbering makes it clear that the attaching sequence was that page #334 was attached on, or after, Aug 15th.

The reason for that 62 day interval, or even a bigger one depending on how able we're to determine when documents that follow it were attached, may be clearly and easily explainable, or not. But that is complete separate topic than the one we intend to discuss in this post.

Fact is that the numbering tells us that the Jun 14th document is attached after the Aug 15th one. The numbering makes the whole documentation be consistent and cohesive. There can be no chance for any of its parts to have its legitimacy questioned.

No page in a Portuguese Legal Process is pulled out of a process without justification. None is thrown away, so if, for some reason, it’s to be disregarded, it’s crossed out, so that the number of pages is consistent with the numbering. For the same reason, no pages are added in between existing ones, as per the Aug 15th/June 14th example above .

One thing we know about the PJ Files, and that is there are, in fact, many missing pages from it. Numbers that have been are skipped, meaning pages that ought to be there but aren't.

The reason for a page to be missing in a file, can be conjectured or justified, more or less clearly, but there’s one absolute certainty that if page #4 is the one that follows page #2, then one, and only one, page is missing, which is obviously page #3, and not a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand.

In this example, the numbering allows us to have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that ONE page, and ONLY ONE PAGE is MISSING, and that it was inserted AFTER page #2 and BEFORE page #3. There are no two ways about it. Anything else is pure invention.

It's common to hear say that not all of the PJ Files were published, to justify something that is not in the PJ Files, but may be there... we only don't know if it is or is not, because it may be in the unpublished PJ Files.

Confusing? Yes, and maybe that's the idea.

Unless someone corrects me, the documents that constitute the PJ Files that we have access to are numbered, from beginning to end, in a coherent and consistent manner, as they should be. There are some pages missing, as I’ve said, and I’ll speak about them later, but we’re before a unique, and almost complete, set of pages, which were methodically collated and joined together into what we know to be the PJ Files.

This to say, that there isn't any "big chunk" of the PJ Files, that could be considered as whole process by itself, the "unpublished PJ Files", that we didn't know not only its whereabouts, much less could we guess its approximate size...

Let's see what pages are indeed missing. Those whose numbers don't appear. There are various reasons why they were pulled before the documentation's release to the public. You can read here, a thorough and commendable work at Pamalam's:

- Category A, relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).

- Category B, relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.

- Category C , relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward.

Besides these there's also have a set pulled that aren’t in the files as they involve analysis:

1 - Anexo 17: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 17:30 to 19:59 on 3 May 2007

2 - Anexo 19: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007

3 - Anexo 30: Analysis of second round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007

4 - Anexo 37: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Dates from 28 April to 1 May 2007 inclusive

5 - Anexo 55: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Time period 22:00 to 22:59 on 4 May 2007

6 - Anexo 61: Analysis of events described by McCann parents, Date 3 May 2007

7 - Anexos 63 and 64: Analysis of creche registers, Dated 30 April (Anexo 63) and 1 May (Anexo 64)

These pages, in my opinion correctly pulled out, are not statements, but intermediate conclusions reached during the course of the investigation.

Then you have other non-secretive documentation that was also pulled off, such as Court papers, and personal photographs that the PJ, after analysis, determined not to be linked to the case in any way, and so were pulled out to preserve individual privacy. We consider that Dianne Webster's Tapas dinner photos are NOT among these pictures, as they're definitely linked, and relevant, to the case, if not for anything else, to prove who was sitting next to who, according to their made-up version, of course...

And that’s it. That's about all the papers that are missing from the process that we call the PJ Files.

If you add the above mentioned pages, to the public known documents, you’d have yourself a complete set of PJ Files. Everything else, is NOT PJ Files.

What about the first Carol Fenn-Tranmer (CFT) statement, you ask? That’s missing, isn’t it?

Please don’t confuse missing from left out. To be missing, is to have been in a certain place and not be there any longer. To be left out, is never to have been there.

CFT’s first statement was never a part of the PJ Files. So it is NOT missing, it was left out.

You also have a set of statements, for which you have a roster that the people were heard by the PJ and which statements don’t appear in the PJ Files:

Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager;

Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;

Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance;

Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor;

Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor;

Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor;

Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor;

Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor;

Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor;

Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny;

Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor;

Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny;

Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny;

Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor;

Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor;

Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor;

Robert Ragone OC Kids Chef;

Jackie McConnel OC nanny.

Most likely these people were heard, and their statements not deemed relevant, and probably not even put on paper, so there’s no physical registry of them. Very much like what happened with Mrs Fenn, on the night of the 3rd, possibly the day of the 4th.

And that is so unfortunate, as we now know how important the statements from some of these people would REALLY be. So many watersports instructors... and nannies...

Do read what their jobs were supposed to be, and how high they ranked they are in the OC's hierarchy, and do come up with what any of them could have said that would be so sensitive that couldn’t be published. You can't. There are no statements from them on the PJ Files, because there are no written statements from them. Not missing, simply non existent.

Then you have the statements, or "original statements" from a set of VERY interesting people, that are mentioned in the PJ Files but don’t appear in them:

Stephen Carpenter, original statement taken on 17th May 2007 by a UK Police Officer:

Rajinder Balu, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Neil Berry, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”

Carolyn Carpenter, rogatory interview not included in DVD.

Carole Tranmer, original interview and identikit not included in DVD (in the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading)

These, I repeat, are NOT missing. They just aren’t there. I hope by now, that you understand why they aren’t there and who deliberately left them out.

And, we know of these because they were mentioned somewhere else. How many others were left out that we don't know? And will we ever know?

What matters is that they’re NOT, or ever were, part of the PJ Files. They’re not missing, they were left out. They're NOT something the "PJ knew"... they're something that were kept from PJ's knowledge!

So where are the unpublished PJ Files? Those secretive statements made that only a few know them?

There aren’t any. The missing pages, we know. The left out ones we don't, but these can't be said to be part of the investigation, can they?

There are, however, a series of other documents, and maybe even processes, directly related to the Maddie Affair. Remember Wikileaks, for example?

For example, I imagine that in the UK there are many different processes on this subject and in many different places.

My guess is that each major agency involved has one. In Portugal, there's probably not that many. The significant difference in numbers is due to the fact that this implicates much more the British, than it does the Portuguese.

But none of these documents/processes are the PJ Files, are they? They never were there, there were never pulled from there, so they’re not missing from there.

They are what I called in beginning of the post as those documents that I didn't know anything about, because I don't. Nothing or no one tells me how many there are, what they are, or where I can find them. Obviously I don't know what I most want to know, and that is why I don't know...

The fact they could exist, as they probably do (some of them, like the “original statements” we know they do), tells us lots.

If they’re directly related with evidence pertaining the Maddie Affair, and were not shared with the ONLY legitimate and adequate authority to handle this process, shows us clearly that there was a deliberate intent in sabotaging any chances for the PJ to have any sort of success.

And to mind come the FSS documents, credit cards information, Maddie’s medical information, among others.

If they’re directly related with the consequences and implications that would supposedly result from public knowledge of facts, then it would a fact that those facts have absolutely nothing to do with the eventual abduction of a little girl, as per the official version of things, so they're not part of the investigation.

Whatever may these documents contain, call them what you may, but don’t call them “unpublished PJ Files”.

You see, it’s important that this is very clear.

What has happened is that a myth has been created, a sort of bin where one can easily and immediately put in any uncomfortable answer one doesn’t want or is unable to provide, or from which one can easily and immediately conjecture something up. How many times have we read “that may be/is in the unpublished PJ Files”?

So to the question Anonymous puts: “Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?”, the answer is simple: the PJ Files does.

Is there any reason whatsoever for Mrs Fenn to have a statement in a process external to the PJ Files? Or is there a reason for her, in part or entirely, statement to be intentionally left out? I see none, but if you do, as you know, we’re open to discuss it.

Now do go back and read the amount of conjecture that this Anonymous created just on the basis that Mrs Fenn may have had a statement in the “unpublished PJ Files”.

These “unpublished PJ Files” have often been used by many a BH’s as their way to explain the unexplainable and the unexplained, as well as the basis for planting clutter, which much is still taken as fact.

What If?

2012-01-20T15:47:00.004Z

What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a doctor… would the headline then be “PERVERT DOCTOR’S £150 AN HOUR FOR ON-THE-SIDE OPERATIONS”?

What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a renown lawyer… would the headline then be “SHAMELESS LAWYER CHARGES £150 AN HOUR HER “OTHER” CLIENTS”?

What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a big businesswoman… would the headline then be “DISGRACED MILLIONAIRESS CHARGES £150 AN HOUR FOR “BUSINESS” MEETINGS IN BED”?

What if, instead of a school's secretary, she happened to be a magistrate… would the headline then be “KINKY JUDGE DISHES OUT “SENTENCES” FOR £150 AN HOUR”?

Within the Maddie Affair context, all these are rhetorical questions, for everyone knows the answer to ALL of them is: “No, because she has the necessary connections to stop that headline from ever appearing”.

This headline, however, shows quite clearly what was, is, and will remain to be for a long time coming, at stake the moment poor Madeleine died, just because both her parents and her parents' “friends” were where they wanted nobody to know they were, and this because they were doing what they couldn’t afford anyone (read, you) to know what they were doing.

None of them could EVER afford a similar headline.

Once this particular child died, they couldn’t do anything about having be known where they were (some were able to), but could, and did, do something about being known what they were doing.

But even the best Chef under pressure spoils a recipe, and in this case, with the haste and the amount of “excuses” to be found, the whole broil was overcooked. But did that spoil the serving? Of course not.

All the "guests" had instructions, to save their own backsides, to say how “delicious” the food was even if it was evident to all that it was over burned, overcooked and looked just like it tasted, but won't describe it as it would need the use of rather unpleasant wording.

“DELICIOUS!!!” did they all unanimously shout out, the loudest manner their lungs allowed, with the biggest grin they could muster. Some even went to the point for asking for seconds and thirds (here do read about the “hamburger theory”), avoiding the grimaces that their taste buds demanded, so much was what was at stake... They shouted out then, and will continue to shout as long as this farce will be allowed to last.

About this particular woman, a school's secretary and apparently also a hooker, let me just ponder a minute with you, if you will, on how she found herself to be such “headline news” and an exclusive at that. It’s something that is very relevant to be understood.

Did she call the tabloid? I don’t think so.

How then did the reporter get to know about this?

Two ways, as far as I can see, either from investigative journalism or from someone who knew her and called the tabloid to denounce the situation.

The first, if true, it would make one wonder what kind of journalism we’re before. Has the reporter gone through a thousand of these adverts in hope of finding similar cases to expose? If so, how many prostitutes did he "visit" before he stumbled on this case? All in the purest “line-of-duty”, of course. Where will he now take his investigative journalism? One is afraid to ask, much less venture an answer…

The second possibility, much more likely, does bring up question as to why didn’t the person who denounced this situation report it FIRST to the proper educational authority, starting, for example, with the school’s principal? That would be the responsible thing to do if one was REALLY worried about the children’s care.

Only after faced with inaction, should this individual pursue further on his or her concerns, and if need be, involve the media.

That doesn’t seem to have been the procedure in this case. The reporting went through the straightest and shortest possible way to a reporter, of a tabloid.

Out of spite, out of greed, or out of whatever reason, but with the exact same objective, to tintillate the populace’s voyeurism, which, as we can witness, is ruthless but fundamentally profitable. A tabloid sells. and not in small numbers...

These kind of "news" quench the mob’s thirst to be judgmental and, through that, feel superior.

I personally feel really sorry for the poor woman who was exposed, as long as all her clients were consenting adults. Both parties, the service provider and its receivers, appear to have engaged in said activity voluntarily. A private issue that should have remained private.

Prostitution clients include pillars of the community, such as magistrates, businessmen and bank managers, to name a few. Many people we would know in positions of authority, politics, business or law…

A heterogenic group, very much like the rag readers one, you know, all those that just love sleaze. Do check what’s the most read story, and related ones, if you doubt it.

Back to the article and its journalistic content, it does make one wonder what some people do for a living, and I’m not talking about the school's secretary/hooker.

Did those present in PDL REALLY have something to fear if word got out about what they were up to?

You tell me. A hint, could it be something like this?

Compare and Contrast

2012-01-16T06:11:00.000Z

By Sina J

One of the tasks in my school English lessons was to compare and contrast two pieces of work such as two of Shakespeare’s plays, for example, Macbeth and The Comedy of Errors. This was a straightforward task because no matter which theatre puts on the play or which book is read for reference, the words are always the same because they are reproductions from a prepared script and followed without deviation. Of course some actors add their acting talent to bring their character to life but he or she is not at liberty to ad lib. If we think of the week Maddie went missing as a play and set an exam question and try to apply the same compare and contrast methods then I would fail miserably.

For a start the ‘script’ for that week was written retrospectively, after the final act was ‘performed’ so therefore everything had to be written to fit what had already happened. It was also written by the ‘performers’ and the result is a play written by a committee, much of it ad libbed. The committee members had different roles to play and some didn’t even make a stage entrance, the back stage crew had some input and some players left the theatre with haste never to be seen or heard from again.
To show you what I mean let’s begin by comparing and contrasting witness statements of the cast. I’ll start with Mr Graham MacKenzie, for no particular reason although it may have been more methodical to go in alphabetical order.

Mr and Mrs MacKenzie were booked into room G31 from 30th April to 5th May and in his statement he says during their stay they used the child care facilities. When they picked up their son C*** they would chat to other parents. Why is his child not included in any of the creche lists?
We instantly have a problem because it appears he wasn’t included in someone else’s script, the person who wrote the crèche records. Compare his statement to the crèche records. But also he was only booked for a 5 night holiday from 30th April according to one list so he didn’t take advantage of the Mark Warner package deal. Although comparing and contrasting this to the Mark Warner Property Arrival list the booking was from 28th April to 5th May and his flight details show he flew from Gatwick which is part of the package deal.

He says he got to know Raj Balu from a nearby apartment and another man called Neil, I presume he is referring to Neil Berry as he and Mr Balu had also become friends, even sharing a meal together. Mr MacKenzie says that Neil and his wife booked their stay for 2 weeks but left the resort early.
Is this a deviation from the "official script" or a fact? We need to compare Mr Berry’s statement and then contrast with the room booking sheets which state Mr Berry was booked into room G606 from 28th April to 5th May then room DP01 from 5th to 12th May.
As Mr MacKenzie mentions Mr Berry and Mr Balu in his statement then I think some extracts from their statements should also be included.

If we check the Mark Warner Booking sheets we see that the Berry family had only booked for 1 week.

Neil Berry says…..”At about 16.00 we were at the swimming pool bar within the complex. It was at this time that we had a few drinks with Raj Balu, Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire, as I testified in my statement of 8th January 2008. My family returned to the apartment at about 17.00 and the four of us remained at the pool bar. I must have stayed there for another half an hour (which would be at 17.30) before joining my family in the apartment. I do not remember whether Raj left with me or whether he stayed at the bar.”

Raj Balu…..” Neil and I eventually left the bar after 19:00. I don’t remember if we left together or not”.
One would have thought everyone in this play would have times and actions imprinted in their minds forever.
He goes on to say….” I returned to my apartment and got ready to go out for dinner."
Much like Superman Mr Balu can arrive somewhere at the same time as leaving somewhere else.
“Around 19:00, together with my wife and son, we headed to the Berry apartment. When we arrived, Neil was having problems in assembling a cot, which was placed there for my son. We had to head to the Mark Warner service desk and they sent someone to help us”.
Mr Berry had been seen by an OC employee near a lift shaft in the complex around 16.00.

Neil Berry……”With regard to where I was at 18.00, whom I was with and the fact that I was seen by a witness at this time next to stairs and lift of block 5 of the Ocean Club:
I am not certain where I was at 18.00. It is possible that I was already in my apartment or returning from the bar”.

Fortunately Mr Balu lets us know where he was at 18.00.

About the cot.....

Mr Berry says “After I returned to the apartment I was with my wife and children. The children went to bed at 19.00 and Raj arrived at our apartment with his family, carrying a cot for his son. We did not manage to set the cot up and I went to find a member of staff. I found a Mark Warner employee, whose name I cannot remember but she was the girlfriend of a maintenance employee called Rob. She accompanied us back to the apartment and managed to set up the cot.”

That seems to be a contradiction rather than a contrast but it can be compared.

If Mr Berry was right and Mr Balu brought the cot, did he bring it from his apartment? If so then he was able to dismantle it and if it was a portable cot then designed to be erected with ease. So between 4 professional people no-one had the ability to erect a cot?

But if Mr Balu was right about exactly who was responsible for it, when did Mr Berry request another cot, to whom and who delivered it? Or as he puts it…. “it was placed there for his son” so maybe it just miraculously arrived? A person delivering a cot would have been able to state where Mr Berry was at the time in question.

Why no name and no statement or statements from the person who delivered the cot or the person who came to erect it? The conflict the two statements throw up indicates the involvement of two different Mark Warner employees.
Could it be then that because they needed some sort of reason that this cot as brought on stage? Not necessarily because they had any involvement in the disappearance of Maddie but for some other reason. Whatever the reason was for the cot story, a witness who brought a cot would have provided them with the alibi they needed when they were interviewed and swabbed by the PJ, yet no witness who brought the cot seems to have been interviewed.

Was there really any cot at all delivered, brought or erected in the Berry apartment?
Anyway I digress…..
Mr MacKenzie says he got to know the McCanns when they dined at the Tapas although no-one else mentions that. The only night the MacKenzies appear on the Tapas booking sheet is Tuesday at 8pm. If the restaurant was serving meals at the pace suggested by T9 and this party were usually running late then Mr & Mrs MacKenzie would either have been leaving or had already left the restaurant before T9 arrived so any meeting would have been fleeting if at all.

“During our stay we had seen the McCann party when the children had tea together and also when eating at the Tapas bar in the evenings” NB. Evenings-plural.

As he has only been there once how would he know how many evenings they were supposed to be there?
Mr Mackenzie says they could not get a table on 3rd May so had a take-away meal collected by his wife at 8.30pm. There is no mention of any take away on the booking sheets unlike the following day 4th May when Neil Berry collected a meal for 4 people.
Although I really can't understand why any restaurant would need to know how many people were going to consume a take away meal.
How strange that neither Berry or Balu saw Mrs MacKenzie waiting for a take away or crossed paths or that she saw them.

One would presume everyone who visited the Tapas that night would be interviewed but Mrs MacKenzie was not asked to provide a statement yet was supposedly wandering around the complex around the time T9 were making their way there.
If the Mackenzies were on a package deal why didn’t they take advantage of the dinner at the Mill if they couldn’t get into Tapas again? Was he required in the wings to witness a ‘commotion’?

Ms Cox had been more fortunate and she had a table for 2 booked on 3rd at 7.30pm which had been authorised by Steve. Nicole Cox is the partner of Mr Balu and they have child together.

Mr Balu says……”Neil and E*** (Berry) were having a drink with my wife and I. We had a table reserved in the restaurant for that night, but they were not able to arrange a table and for this reason we decided to leave our table and ate together in their apartment using takeaway service”
There is a tick against Ms Cox’s booking which would indicate that two people arrived. It’s not possible to see the full table number which begins with 2 as it falls off the edge of the copied sheet. Did Ms Cox cancel her table or just ‘leave it’ and someone else got the opportunity to take it? Did Ms Cox get charged by default as her name wasn’t scrubbed and no other name was substituted? The strangest thing is why would Ms Cox and Mr Balu would not share their table with the Berrys, why would the Berrys need a separate table?

Back to Mr MacKenzie who is very vague about the time he heard a ‘commotion’ on the complex later that night, he puts it between 10 and 11 pm. He found out what was going on then informs his wife he is going to join the search for a missing child, spends some time searching in the shrubbery and the gardens of the apartments, working his way around the tennis courts and to the Mccann's apartment where he spends a few moments listening to Gerry McCann on the phone. He went back to his own apartment to inform his wife of what was going on, has a drink and returns to the search. He spends a couple of hours searching. He says the police eventually turned up later in the evening. Add all this activity to the 10 and 11 pm time window he set for the ‘commotion’, add a "later" and that's when he says the GNR did arrive. Is he implying they were slow to respond and the search had been in progress for quite some time?

Yet according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR, the first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was at 10.50pm and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later.
So now stage crew are introducing their own script?

Mr MacKenzie also makes a comment about there being no real organisation of the searching….
“There were lots of people just standing round looking, the police eventually turned up later in the evening. There didn't seem to be any real organisation of the searching and I eventually went back to our apartment for the night”
Yet at about 22.17 Hotel manager Emma Louise Knight received a call from Lyndsey Johnson the Crêche Manager, informing her that the girl had gone missing. She met Lyndsey Johnson and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and they initiated the "Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child". Did Mr MacKenzie search alone without taking part in the prescribed procedure?
Ms Tierney appears to have 2 roles in this play and in this scene is playing the role of ‘Service manager’. As a creche worker she would have no reason to be at Tapas reception at midnight as she states.

Why was Mr Mackenzie not aware of what was going on that night if he was part of the search? Wasn’t the whole point of missing child procedure to direct participants in a search where to go and as he was supposed to be searching for hours he could hardly fail to be aware? And no, he wasn't somewhere looking in some isolated spot all on his own. He was right at the centre of things, near Gerry McCann for example. And in and out of his apartment.

I do find his statement rather vague not only on time but also the days. When he says he saw Kate collecting the twins from the creche 'the following day at lunchtime', does he mean 4th May or the day after that? Dianne Webster collects the twins earlier than any other parents at 12 o'clock on the 4th .

“The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing”.
More importantly he is confirming his child was at the crèche and as noted before not named on the respective sheets.

Let’s return to the previous scene
What is very strange is if Mrs MacKenzie had collected a meal from the Tapas restaurant at 8.30pm on 3rd May why wasn't she interviewed by the Police? It's not until 16th September that Mr MacKenzie decides to get in touch with the Police to tell them what he heard on the night Maddie went missing when he found out the Police were trying to pinpoint telephone conversations made in the resort. So it was the search for telephone conversations that prompted him.
Why wasn’t Mrs MacKenzie’s name included on the Tapas booking sheets "script" as the Berry take away was the following day?

One comment in Mr MacKenzie’s statement seems to support his belief that someone could have been observing the McCanns. He relates that the temporary apartment he was given on the day of his departure overlooked the Mccanns apartment and there were a lot of cigarette butts on the balcony 'as if someone had been stood there a long time smoking', which he thought was odd. What I would find odd is that the cleaners had not removed them before the next people used the apartment. Convenient butts, a clue befitting any detective B movie ever made.
The stage hands using props in exaggeration, or the existence of these butts may be as questionable as the Berry & Balu cot?

I will leave you with the words of Lady Macbeth in Act 5 scene 1

“Out damned spot”
"What, will these hands ne'er be clean. . . All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand"

The doctor who called to see Lady Macbeth sleepwalking concluded she needed a priest not a physician and that he and her maid must not reveal what they saw or heard.

From The Comedy of Errors Act 2 scene 2

Am I in earth, in heaven, or in hell?
Sleeping or waking? mad or well-advised?
Known unto these, and to myself disguised!
I'll say as they say and persever so,
And in this mist at all adventures go.

To Follow Or Not To Follow

2012-01-12T18:42:00.000Z

loopdaloop has left a new comment on your post "No More Doubts":

“Unfortunately Textusa you have read into this one wrong.

An investigative review means that they WILL be following up leads as if IT HAPPENED IN THE UK!

Which gives them more power.

Secondly, an abduction is what was reported so they will investigate that as Goncalo Amaral and the Portugese did. Once they realise that it leads to a dead end they will follow up the other leads!

I believe in Scotland Yard for this one! Don't forget that it was the British Police that helped the Portugese DEVELOP the 'accident and coverup' theory!

The evidence of Martin Grimes dogs is also not disputed in this country.

After clearing up the Stephen Lawrence case, Scotland yard will do the same on this one!!”

Posted by loopdaloop to Textusa at Jan 11, 2012 6:48:00 PM

Ldlp,

Thank you for your comment, however the expression used continues, for us, to be as clear as it is read. I understand your point of view, and might even subscribe it, if not concurrent with other details that make us have opposing thoughts.

You see, at this point in time, there isn’t anyone in the “upper layers” of British Society who isn’t aware of what really happened, as there isn’t one of them who doesn’t know, and understand, the exact implications of revealing publicly whatever the truth is now.

Yes, because this particular truth evolves daily, forever changing by incrementing its disastrous consequences with each person comes into "the club”. Either privately or publicly. The truth, say, on July 7, 2007, to just name a date randomly, was completely different both in scope and personal involvements than it was to be on Aug 8, 2008, as it is different from then to today, and so on.

That said, when the British PM allocated the 3£ mill to the Maddie SY Review, he had only one of two objectives: either to “fry” the McCanns, and end the embarrassment, or whitewash the case and do the best possible for the said embarrassment to go away.

I understand that it seems, on a first glance, that the terminology “abduction” could have been used as the natural sequencing of the ongoing investigation. Picking it up from where it was left off, or to be precise, archived at.

But picked up from whom or where?

Not from the PJ, because in its investigation, it clearly doesn’t conclude that there was abduction, does it? To qualify its conclusions with that word, it's completely inadequate and abusive in terms of Police work.

If it has to follow something then it can only be from what the couple alleges to have happened. They did say it was abduction, and the first page of the PJ Files does say “rapto” (kidnap). But as I said in the post, besides the couple and friends, the rest of the world, in which are included their “friends”, let the “abduction” term drop pretty quickly.

To use the word “abduction” to express the pick-up point would make SY be following up on what the McCanns had to say on the matter rather than what their Portuguese counterpart officially concluded. And from what we read, that's exactly what is happening.

Between the PJ and the McCanns, I know who I’d believe. I’d rather go on investigated facts, then from desperate claims from people who bear heavily burdened consciences, but that’s me.

Also, when one is writing a high-profile document, such as this one is, that one knows that’s going to be meticulously scrutinized, such as this one would be, one is very careful with the wording used. Each word and each sentence is, as is being written, revised by more than a single pair of eyes.

So, the author, if he wished to express, as seems to be the case, the level of commitment to be made by those responsible for the Review, saying that although it happened somewhere we’ll treat it as if it happened right at our front door, using the word “events” instead of “abduction” (“as if the events occurred in the UK”) would have served fully that purpose, without being minimally controversial. But that wouldn't fully support the "Official" version of things, would it?

Also, there’s the question of the results being published or not. It seems that they won’t be, which, as I’ve said it doesn't surprise me in the least. Are SY investigations usually published? No. Are PJ investigations usually published? No.

But is the outcome, or RESULT, of the investigations, either by PJ or SY, usually known to the public? Yes, they are.

Even if just to say something biased and false, like the Portuguese Judicial System said about the Maddie Affair: there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute the couple.

We now know it to be a completely ridiculous statement, but at least something was said, a result presented, which apparently will not be the case, with the Review. Just to say if they’re to prosecute someone or not, in a case determined by the Nation’s PM and paid for by £3 million of British Public Funds.

By the way, to say that they won’t publish the result of a certain investigation means, to me, that they have published something of the nature in the past. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any expectancy would it?

Then there’s the resignation. Why?

Now throw in the Leveson Inquiry (what a sad, pathetic spectacle put on by the "establishment") and the Phone Hacking Hearings, put all in an oven and keep regularly checking how it’s cooking.

I repeat that we stated only an opinion and we would dearly love for it to be wrong and would be happy to apologise if it is.

We aren’t owners of the truth, and we welcome opposing opinions as we’ve shown more than once before. The only people who really know for certain are those "in the know".

We know that they know that we know. That they know sums it up for us as regards them.

We don’t sit here in judgement telling others that what we’ve decided has now become fact. That is a style used by many a Black Hat dressed in White from head to toe.

No More Doubts

2012-01-09T11:29:00.003Z

If you go to the SY site, and search for “abduction” + “maddie”, you will find the following entry (it seems that this link, if clicked directly, gives an error message. Do go directly to the SY Webpage and do the query... it should get you there):

If you click on that link, a word document (228_288_Op Grange Remit) pops up. Do open and read it:

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

Now, the phrase “It is It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK)” is very, very clear.

There are no “ifs ” or “buts” about it. The SY is investigating an ABDUCTION. That's their guideline on the issue.

If my memory serves me right, as of late 2007, the media, and everyone else, has been very careful to avoid the term “abduction”, rather replacing it with other more ambiguous, but truthful, terminology, such as vanished, missing, etc…

Now we have it in black & white. From the SY itself. To say that in 2012, may be a blunder, but it isn't innocent.

The Met commissioner has resigned since this announcement. He did say the outcome may not be published. It doesn’t surprise me one bit.

All those of you that still had a glimmer of hope that the SY Review would bring some truth to the Maddie Affair, please be reasonable, do stop having it.

If you thought that there was a serious investigation going on to serve justice, please read the above and I suggest that you start to realize that there is a serious investigation going on, but to whitewash the case.

But you know me; I'm patient and will wait for you to come to that conclusion by yourself...

Lest we forget, £3 mill were allocated for this.

Fancy meeting you here!

2012-01-06T23:24:00.002Z

By May I

Fancy meeting you here!

Walking up a mountain path on a remote Greek island, I bumped into a Greek guy I knew from my local pub - we both happened to be visiting the same place. “Well, fancy meeting you here!”, we said. No doubt many have had the same experience, but Praia da Luz was full of such strange coincidences. Take Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien; they bumped into Charlotte and James Gorrod; their neighbours and acquaintances from Exeter. Charlotte does not have appear to have mentioned that she owned an apartment in the resort and that they would be going on holiday there. I wonder if they said FMYH!?

Nicole Cox and Emma Berry; partners, respectively, of Raj Balu and Neil Berry had never met before the holiday, but discovered they had both worked for the same company.
Well, fancy that!

Then there was Philip Norman Allen, an officer from Thames Valley Police - on secondment to the Criminal Investigation Support Dept.- whose family happened to be staying with the Eveleighs at their Salsalito guest house, shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance. Salsalito would later be searched by the PJ. Would you credit it? Philip had some interesting conversations with Robert Murat. He later explained to the PJ that his superiors knew he was staying in PDL. He had met Robert Murat previously, to discuss the purchase of an apartment. However, the holiday apartment he had bought three years ago at the Vila Baia wasn’t yet ready for him to stay in. This property was part of the Oceanico Group’s portfolio, which just happened to be the same group who owned the Estrela da Luz, where strangely enough, the Smith family had an apartment.

The Smiths came from Drogheda, County Louth, where Gerry Fagan, owner of the Ocean Club also came from. I wonder if they ever bumped into each other and said “Don’t I know you from somewhere?” Drogheda - “Well, how’s that for a coincidence!”

I wonder how many other FMYH moments were there in April/May 2007 in PDL...

The video:

And the lyrics:

"Didn't I say?
Didn't you say?
Didn't we say?
Didn't who say?

Didn't you say you were off to China?
Fancy meeting you here!
Yes, and didn't you just board an ocean liner?
Fancy meeting you here!
Didn't we agree that our affair was too frantic,
And we'd both feel good divided by the wide Atlantic?

Weren't you yachting off the Riviera?
With Onassis!
Fancy meeting you here!
Was it jolly roaming the Sahara?
Dry, but laughs!
Fancy meeting you here!
If you don't think I have missed your lovin',
Let's get this clear, dear!
I just think it's fancy meeting you right here!

Did you say that you enjoyed Alaska?
Loved it, loved it!
Did I get a note from Madagascar?
Wrote it!
You're a good girl!
Didn't we divide our little world into sections?
A clean break!
But love has sure affected both our senses of
Directions!

Say, tell me somethin', how did you ever lose that
Wealthy, that big fat Persian?
'Twasn't easy!
Fancy meetin' you here!
Did you take that African excursion?
I blew it!
Yeah, for the local zoo here!
If you don't think it's a kick to see ya,
Let's get this clear, dear!
From the way my heart is wildly beating,
What we had is more than worth repeating,
My arm, girl!
And it's more than fancy meeting you right
Here!"

Textusa Is Giving Up On The Maddie Affair

2012-01-03T21:45:00.001Z

You read it right. We’re giving up on the Maddie Affair.

We’re totally aware that we’ve just shocked White Hats and caused Black Hatted sheer joy and grinning.

Is Textusa going to shut down? No. Such thought hasn’t crossed our minds.

Have we changed our minds about what happened on May 3rd? No. Not even a tiny weenie bit.

We’re just giving up on the Maddie Affair because we’ve realistically, after a very careful and attentive analysis of the case in question, come to the conclusion that Humanity (at least the part you and me belong to) is never to know the truth about it.

What made us reach such conclusion?

The Leveson Inquiry

It was not about the content of the hearings themselves, as we were able to witness, it was the expected shambolic and shameful farce. Hardly surprising.

Nor was it the reason for its existence. We do understand why it was created, although “Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press” is as reasonable as Count Dracula naming some Transylvanian judge to inquire about “The Advantages of Ketchup over Blood Consumption”.

What has enlightened us is the simple fact that it was created.

Let me try and explain what I mean.

It started with the blatant, evident involvement of the UK’s Government, Diplomacy and Police in covering up what really was at stake with Maddie dying the way, where and when she did.

But at least, they were “discreet”, using the tabloids to voice out idiotic lies.

Nothing “Official”, except the CEOP during the Jim Gamble days, but that doesn't really count.

We, then, thought they were “saving” themselves to pounce on the couple when the time was right and circumstances convenient. Whenever and wherever that would be.

But our dreams were brought to reality with the innocuous phone hacking hearings, where Murdoch, Brooks and a pie were the highlights of the spectacle.

Mind you, it was innocuous in terms of results, that is, because, let’s be very clear, nothing could be more serious than hacking other people’s phones.

We did, however get to realize two things. The first is that apparently you either have to have very short memory span to be rich or you have to have the ability to delegate all you can and then some more so that end up knowing very little; and the second is that, also apparently, the tabloids tailored stories to conveniences, and this “concept” fitted the tabloid attitude toward the Maddie Affair like a glove.

Unfortunately, history will probably only register the pie, and Murdoch’s wife prompt reaction, if it registers anything of it at all.

But we still kept a glimmer of hope alive, especially because these hearings involved the Maddie Affair very marginally.

But then came the Leveson Inquiry.

Questions had already been raised as to whether Leveson should have been appointed, after it was revealed that he had attended evening events at the home of Matthew Freud, husband of Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth. Was there potential here for a possible conflict of interests?

In the matter of the publication of Kate's diary, Colin Myler, former News of the World editor said he had been given repeated assurances from his head of news, Ian Edmonson, that Clarence Mitchell supported publication; a claim which Mitchell denied.

Who to believe? Mmm... A difficult choice between Myler, the editor of the discredited newspaper or Mitchell, former deputy of Andy Coulson in the run up to the last election (a former editor of the discredited newspaper and since arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandal)

Mitchell is also a former employee of Freud Communications.

Leveson appears to have sided with Mitchell's version of events. We know who we would prefer to believe, but then we don't have a conflict of interest to consider.

Imagine Society being made up of layers, one on top of the other, as indeed it is.

Now imagine how many of the top layers are required to set up things such as “Phone Hacking Hearings” and “Levenson Inquiry”.

Their existence, together with what is perceived to be their attitude and effectiveness, could make one seriously think that both the Judicial and the Legislative Pillars of UK are “in the know” about what happened on May 3rd, 2007, in PdL.

That would, in turn, mean that there would be too many and too powerful people, financially, judicially and politically, in Britain that would have allowed themselves to get involved in the Maddie Affair.

Like having Nobility and Clergy taking side against their own people just because… who knows?

Let’s just hope that Britain and Portugal haven’t become Nations where the “powerful” are nothing but puppets-on-a-string to the powerful, which we’ll keep believing they haven’t.

So, jumping from supposition to supposition and conjecture to conjecture, it’s seems to us that, realistically, never will truth be known via any of the British or Portuguese “Official Institutions”.

Let us now explain what we like to call the “hamburger decision”.

Basically it is what one chooses to do when one is presented with a hamburger to eat.

Those who seek to know what is in fact in the the hamburger are naïve fools.

It’s not that important to know what it contains, in comparison to the fact that one should understand why is one eating it.

You see, once one understands the why, then one may not only eat it, however unpleasant it may taste, but go and ask for seconds, and thirds... or, for the exact same reason never put one of these things to one’s mouth, no matter how much one enjoyed junk food until then…

That’s the “hamburger decision”.

UK’s Basic Pillars seem to have understood the all the facts, at least that’s how it appears to us, and also seem to have made their decision on whether to eat, or not, the “hamburger” in front of them.

It’s our opinion that this apparent decision had got nothing to do with either taste or content, but with a conscientious decision of convenience. But that’s just an opinion, and worth what it’s worth.

And that’s why we’ve decided to give up on the Maddie Affair.

But we’ve also said that we weren’t going to give up, right?

We’ve understood why they’ve made their “hamburger decision”: it seems they chose to know the facts and keep them from you and me.

Is it possible that a stage is now being set up to, in February, using the Amaral Trial in Lisbon, to get the case “re-opened”? By the way, we do think it is... And, surprise, surprise, "discover" that the parents & friends are indeed guilty of negligence and manslaughter?

The charges may even describe truthfully what happened precisely at the time of death, namely, we might even get to know who, if David Payne or Kate McCann, was the one that struck the irate, but unfortunately fatal, blow.

They will also tell us how Tanner and the others lied out of pure friendship, and that there was no abductor to begin with.

But that is as far the system will allow the truth to go. Not an inch further.

And let’s be honest, that will be enough to quench the general public’s curiosity on the issue. The parents confirmed neglectors and liars, the friends just as honest and responsible, all or some behind bars, and the end of the Fund.

That, for us also, would have been enough sometime ago. Until we understood that negligence was as fictional as the abduction.

Evidently, what the group, and by group we don’t mean only the “T9”, was in PdL for, and what were the circumstances and involvements that really surrounded the hours, days, weeks, months and years that followed the moment Maddie died, are NOT to be included in the said staging, if it does happen.

If it does happen we believe that in its possible conclusions, they will certainly leave out many things that they think you may NOT know, things the system will never acknowledge or allow it ever to happen.

So, keeping in mind that we think that those, on which we should rely to tell us the truth, won’t, we shall continue to disclose what we’ve been able to find out about these events.

We’ve may given up on the Maddie Affair, as in per Official Institutions, but rest assured that we won’t give up on what happened on May 3rd 2007, in PdL.

Because, as we’ve always said and maintain, the crime one must fight for to never to happen again, is not that the death of that girl, but the tremendous crime that followed her demise.

The ripples of guilt go much beyond the circles made by the couple, and their seven friends…

Happy 2012, and may you all receive all you deserve!

Christmas Reading

2011-12-06T20:43:00.001Z

It has now arrived the time for us, and you, to make a Christmas break. Our nearest loved ones require our full-attention, or better said, it’s us that require giving all of ourselves to them. Now is the time to make Christmas the magical season it is to so many, old and young alike.

Before continuing I would like to address a few words of encouragement and hope to so many families that just a year ago didn’t dream the hardship this Christmas would be. Caught unaware, like all of us, in this terrible economic crisis that is punishing harshly those that little contributed for it, while leaving unhindered all those responsible.

It’s time to realize, like our ancestors did, that richness comes in many shapes and ways. There may be no money to put as much, or any for that matter, food on the table, but maybe because last year there was, we didn’t value as much the human comfort that we can always present each other, a hug, a kiss, a caress on your child’s cheek, a hand ruffle through her hair.

Our heart is with you this Christmas, hoping, and willing you on, that you may muster the strength to make this the happiest, merriest Christmas of all time. That it will be memorable, let there be little doubt.

Back to the blog, and its Christmas break.

Last year, around about this time, we asked you to LOOK at the Paraíso pictures. That particular post anticipated many things, and we were forced to interrupt our “vacations” to clarify some issues, if you remember, that even triggered all that was written about the fictitious Tapas T9 Big Round Table.

This year we propose some Christmas reading for you to do until we return.

Summer last year, just before heading for my own holidays, I wrote a post called “Last Call – All ABOARD (Or NOT) !!!.

This was at a time that, although we had already debunked the BH “The Stroller” clutter, the NEGLIGENCE idea still ruled as the "what-really-happened" scenario. All blame was centered on the McCanns, and their 7 friends. Everyone else was a reliable witness against the "T Group". Some statements, didn't make sense, we could easily see, but, these "discrepancies" were regarded having little importance because, after all, whoever made them was on our side.

The novelty was that this post warned the BH’s that upon my return from those holidays, the blog, for truth’s sake, was to redirect its blogeditorial guidelines and stop just focusing on the T9, but also on others, those that we, in the blog, thought were involved in the covering up of what happened on May 3rd, 2007 in PdL.

The post was published on August 13th, 2007. On the next day, the blog received the following unpublished comment from Yawn (to those who don’t know, Yawn, was Insane’s nick at the time):

“Yawn has left a new comment on your post "Last Call - All ABOARD (...or NOT) !!!":

It's difficult to decide sometimes whether you are sane and deeply malicious, or just completely off your head.

Two things are sure, however. One is that you are full of yourself almost beyond belief, and the second is that you are quite astonishingly stupid.

Posted by Yawn to Textusa at Aug 14, 2010 6:06:00 AM”

Whether we’re sane but deeply malicious, completely off our heads, full of ourselves or astonishingly stupid, we kept our word, and wrote what we thought should be written. You be the judge:

We wrote about the Tapas Bar and the famous fictitious BIG ROUND Tapas T9 table: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

And also about the peculiarities of the watersports and "drowning" activities that took place in PdL in 2007: (1), (2), (3), and (4)

We gave our opinion on the possible involvement in all this by the various levels of MW OC’s Staff: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)

The Quiz Night theme was so interesting that we decided to start one of our own, and it still has to be finished: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) and (14)

We wrote about a crucial character in this story, the "not-so-white-hat-after-all" Mrs Fenn: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

And we wrote about other guests that happened to have been at that same resort on that same infamous period, a subject to be expanded: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

And besides Mrs Fenn and OC guests, we also mentioned others: (1), (2), (3) and (4)

We didn’t overlook to provide our opinion about the possible involvement of the “powerful” in all this affair: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

For all that we wrote to make sense, we had to clarify two things. The first, why we thought that what really was happening that week in PdL was swinging: : (1), (2), (3) and (4)

And second, we had to debunk NEGLIGENCE which was/is THE BLACK HAT MASTER MOVE (it has now become a "master trap" as nor the McCanns will let go of it as they depend on it for own survival, as they, the BHs, just can't figure a way out of it, no matter how hard they're trying, and they ARE trying): (1) and (2)

Last, but not least, we had to speak about Kate’s masterpiece, which some call it a book, and we here like to call it affidavit: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

We do hope that this will keep you entertained until we return.

A merry and a wonderful Christmas and a Happy 2012 to you all, are the sincere wishes from the Bronte-Cohen Sisters.

The Mystery of Profile L

2011-11-30T18:05:00.000Z

By May I

The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation. This is what the report had to say about the stain.

“A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment”
(Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).

Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding:

“Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom”

“Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed.
The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas.
It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said.
Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”

Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group.
This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat.

In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X. The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5.
“ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means.
Result weakly positive.”
Then “Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children’s bedroom: positive."

So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment. Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?
Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase. Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd.
The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley. The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.

It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left. If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited? If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?

The report continues
“Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."

The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th. He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th. On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ;
“ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “

I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3. Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter
Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)
Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)
Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.

So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?

Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared. There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.
Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night, Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.

There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML.

“It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”
Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know.
The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.

This is L’s profile
D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18
D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24
D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY

“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”
It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have?

I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge. Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment:

“My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”

Second comment on 14.2.10.
“The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved”

This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..

Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies. But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.
In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion. Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him. To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!

Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files. However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book. Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.

Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral. As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.

Notes:

(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:
- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.
The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27

(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.

Forsaken, To Be... (Soon?)

2011-11-28T20:10:00.004Z

(picture based on one published at Blacksmith's)

In Pictura Post Scriptum, Pictura (Written after the picture, in a picture):

Absolute Eloquence About Maddie

2011-11-26T14:37:00.005Z

By our reader Ross

A friendly holiday from Hell
Left with so many lies to tell.
Darkness in the Place of Light
Carefully hidden in plain sight.

Of scribbled lists and secret pacts
Of cold black hearts and evil acts.
Of favours called and favours won
Of innocence lost and lives undone.

Unseen powers soon took hold
Ensuring truth would not be told.
The tale of a proud nation traduced
A mockery of the case reduced.

Serpentine words slither and slime
Cynical contortions concealing crime.
Conspiracy's such an easy word
To cow the narcoleptic herd.

If she ever was, she has gone.
Yet still the dance macabre rolls on.

Dispose Of, Adequately

2011-11-24T15:02:00.003Z

Kate McCann apparently has been saying that she felt “mentally raped” by the exposure of her diary by NOTW back in the day.

Apparently people are reacting to this news angrily, as, once again, before their eyes, or in this case, their ears, they see that this celebrity couple just can’t seem to have any sort of limitation to their shamelessness.

People see this episode as an attempt to scam some money from the Murdoch Empire, by sinking their teeth into the hand that has so much provided them.

It’s, apparently, a manoeuvre spawned out of pure and evil and greed.

But let’s see if that is so. Let’s recap, and check, for example, what the mccannfiles have said on this:

"On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from 'Kate's Diary'. (...)

When it became apparent that Kate had not given authorisation for its release, the online article was instantly removed. Both The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund."

Obviously the money they got was intended to deter other newspapers from publishing these extracts.

So it can’t be about money, can it? The “debt” apparently has been settled, the mistake thus fully corrected. Objectives fully achieved.

But still on the “greed” topic, could it be then that they NOW want more than what was involved in the “undisclosed payment”?

I can only assume that the News International’s battalion of lawyers did take some sort of precaution at the time, and some kind of documentation was signed guaranteeing no viability of any further “wanting”, no matter how brutally and viciously Kate NOW feels having been “mentally raped”, which she didn’t quite feel THEN.

So, we do have take out the “greed” off the “greed and evil” expression which you thought adequate to the McCann’s claim to have been victims of intrusion of privacy by the British Tabloids (now read this last sentence twice, and do smile like I did when I wrote it…).

But if so, it must be a very recent feeling. Only that can explain why they did, in May this year, allow The Sun, of the group which had “mentally raped” her, to publish extracts from her book. Why not another paper or just publish without serialisation in a paper?

Obviously I’m supposing that the extracts that were published before the book’s publication and the much announced but inexistent serialization that was supposed to follow it, were paid for. A package deal that would guarantee exclusiveness to the The Sun to what was going to be a huge bestseller. I may be wrong on this, but the couple has given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that their relationship with money is NOT to be taken for granted… to say the least.

So, no, I’m not seeing all this having to do with money, at least it’s not what it’s all about, as I’ll later explain.

Could be then just pure “evil”, ask you?

Well, it could. After all they’re, as said, biting viciously the hand that has fed them. If Kate and Gerry (and some others) are not locked up today, one of many they can thank for, are the Tabloids.

Not only them, of course, but they do hold one big chunk of responsibility for the couple’s arrogant impunity in these last three and a half years.

But she has already bitten that same hand the day when she published her book, hasn’t she?

Why do you think that since the publication of Kate’s book the Tabloids have practically turned their back on the couple, when the same Tabloids had, before that fact, announced they were going to run a full circus with the couple?

I’ve already written about that, and explained what various humungous mistakes Kate made when she published that thing. I’ll point out just two. The first was to sign an enormous affidavit when silence was recommended, and the second, to point, in that same affidavit, all her fingers, including her beautifully manicured nails, towards an “inside job”.

The couple alone, and their group of "known" friends, by themselves, certainly didn’t have enough power to influence the Tabloids. If one is to just add up two and two, it was probably those same “insiders” that made sure that those Tabloids, and the "serious" Brit Media, distorted the reality according to the desired tune.

Anyone can have a big mouth, but no one can take a bigger bite than the one Kate was able to with that book. And it really hurt the hand she bit.

Explains why, even with this emotional “mentally raped” cry, we practically can’t see the book on sale, a supposed record breaking best-seller. You have to look really hard if you want to buy a copy, and most likely will be able to buy it with a significant discount.

As a side note, do allow me to address just a few words to Kate.

Kate, your recent ageing and sincerely distraught expression, do show real and truthful worry and anguish.

THAT is what we expected to see from you, for 3 whole years: a distraught expression of a mother of an abducted little girl.

Not because we wanted you worried and unhappy, but because it's not an expectation but a certainty that the uncertainty of the fate and the uncertainty of the sufferance of a lost child to an abductor can bring only utter and horrifying worry and complete unhappiness to her parents. Whatever child, whatever parent.

When your child was supposedly abducted, you went jogging. When your book flopped, you aged.

Yes, we both know your recent accelerated ageing has nothing to do with the book flopping. It has to do with worry, real worry.

But that’s all your doing.

Back to the readers.

We’ve now concluded that this “mentally raped” episode was not for the money, nor out of evil. Then why?

Before proceeding, let me clarify that I’m not saying that money isn’t an issue for the McCanns.

It is, and might be the crux of all this. But not out of greed, but of survivability.

As I’ve said time and time again, TIME is McCanns’ greatest enemy and the Black Hats’ biggest ally.

You see, for the common Black Hat, the longer it takes for the truth to come out, the greatest are the odds that s/he (or that parent or close relation) will come out of this unscathed, as time erodes memory, and facts do become myth and vice-versa.

Details will be lost, and guilt will forever lodge solely on the individual minds.

Am I saying that this will all go unpunished? No, of course I’m not.

I’m only talking about those who are secondary role players. People who shouldn’t have been involved in the first place, but because they naively agreed to participate in a “sure” thing, their life has become a living hell as of August 2007 (time when truth finally started to surface).

For the big role players, they live in the nightmare that once the truth will surface, their names and deeds will be known, but for the others, each passing day is a blessing.

But the exception for these, the "little BHs", as you know, is this blog.

They visit it daily, directly or indirectly, to check if their name pops up, and will forever be registered in history. They know if it doesn’t appear here, then they’re on safe ground. And I’m talking about many who are today perceived as White Hats, or, at least, as irrelevant bystanders…

But for the McCanns, each day is one day further into oblivion. And they don’t want oblivion. They need the spotlight. Not out of vanity, but of real need.

Each set of 24 hours means that they’ll be 24 hours less relevant than they were just 24 hours before.

Whatever trump they hold, it will have suffered a 24 hour erosion, which means it becomes less powerful each 24 hours.

That simple.

Mind you, the McCanns will never fade completely away. Their case will be kept being remembered forever more.

But unlike the BHs, for them each day doesn’t mean that they are one step closer to finally being off the hook, but, quite on the contrary, it means that they are one day closer to being fished line, sink and hook.

Let me explain.

Someone has been paying “the bill”.

The Fraudulent Fund did roll in some convenient millions in those first few months, but as of July/August 2007, if not before, the revenue from the general public basically dried up.

Someone has to be paying “the bill”.

Before you think I’m going to reveal here who is doing so, let me disappoint you by telling you that I’m not going to do that. A good reason for not doing it, it's because I don’t know.

Nor do I care to know, sincerely.

But I do know that someone, singular or plural, is taking this "tab".

All the millions, and in terms of millions, they weren’t that many, that we’ve been told to have existed in the Fund, through basic mathematical calculation, wouldn’t have been enough to pay what have been known expenditures, which of the many, one the biggest must be having to keep the couple’s, and family, daily existence and lifestyle, as of May 3rd, 2007, to date.

And this is where the TIME factor is decisive.

You see, with each passing day the "tab" becomes harder to be picked up.

For each set of 24 hours that passes, the amount paid seems less reasonable to be paid, by whoever is paying it, than it was 24 hours before. It’s not only the amount that is questioned, but, most importantly, the reason(s) to do so.

If this source of income dries up for the McCanns, it will be disastrous for them.

When it happens, it will mean, in practical terms, they’ve been deemed not to have enough worth to be “kept” any longer.

That day they will have become what they most fear: worthless.

And what is worthless, is best disposed of.

The McCanns with this invasion of privacy claim, epitomized with the “mentally raped”, are fighting back.

Fighting for their survival.

Fighting so that “bill” is kept being paid. Fighting for that at least the “installments” will keep coming.

Reluctantly having to accept that each day the “payment” will be a little less, in amount and will, than it “was” the day before, but hoping that the day it will definitely stop will be a long time from now.

And they're fighting with the weapons little people usually have: little weapons. They’ve convinced themselves that they were big, but they are what they are, always were, and never stopped to be: little.

All they can do is say “Hey, we’re still here!” And hope someone hears. It seems that someone still feels that they're pretending to "hear". Let's wait and see how loud their voices will be next February.

But there will be the day “the bill” will be stopped being paid, and a little bird is telling me that it may be sooner than they would like it to be…

History is filled with little people who’ve been used, that thought they were the ones doing the using, that were deemed worthless and disposed of.

Post Scriptum: It was just a year ago that this blog revolutionized the public’s perception about this case. We realize that our public is far from being the "general public" (although we've been accused, and threatened because of it, of being too popular when we had, if I remember, 60.000 hits), but is a public so many fear. Because you are intelligent, respectful, cooperative and participative, and above all, commited as we are.

Just a year ago, the Tapas dinners were taken for granted; the Ocean Club, its management and staff, were on our side of the fence; that we knew the British Police did act suspiciously, but we didn’t know, or understand, the full scope of the intent to boycott the investigation from the start; the guests that shared the resort with the T9 were simple bystanders; Mrs Fenn was just a nice and concerned elderly lady…

This was in just a year. We thank you for keeping us motivated.

British Discrepancies

2011-11-18T18:08:00.003Z

There seems to be lately a rather heated fuss in Britain about Blatter’s blunder on racism. It seems that, according to the Brit tabloids, in particular my favorite one, The Sun, the least humanity could do to this man was to cover him in barbeque sauce and throw him to the lions under jubilant roars of a “justful” crowd:

According to these papers, it seems, that racism should be treated in the harshest, most vehement manner possible. No holding back. For the foulest of crimes, the most violent of sentences.

But, if memory doesn’t fail me, I do remember one particular episode, from a Tony Parsons, in The Mirror, where various flattering adjectives were used to qualify individuals from another Country.

This article, unfortunately, cannot be read any longer in its original site (wonder why?) but, thanks to Joana’s blog, we can still read this piece of literary masterpiece:

"OH, UP YOURS, SENOR

Tony Parsons 29/10/2007

Portugal's ambassador to Britain, Senor Antonio Santana Carlos, says that the Madeleine McCann case has seriously damaged relations between the two countries. Well, whose fault is that?

It is the fault of the spectacularly stupid, cruel Portuguese police. I have never much cared for the convention of calling cops "pigs" or "filth", but I am happy to make an exception.

They have tried to cover their humiliation at coming nowhere close to finding that stolen child by fitting up her parents.

The decline in relations is also the fault of the appalling Portuguese media, happy to print any piece of poisonous trash spoon-fed to them by "police sources" treating the abduction of a small child as light entertainment.

And the Portuguese public must also take their share of the blame. The sight of locals jeering at Kate McCann as she went in for questioning made me feel as though these leering bumpkins were not from another country, but another planet.

And the good ambassador can also be blamed for the decline in relations.

When he should be exercising a little diplomacy, he huffs and he puffs about the McCanns' tragic decision to leave their children sleeping alone on the night Madeleine was stolen.

"In Portugal we have the concept of a nuclear family," sniffs Senor Carlos. "That the families all live together."

They made a mistake, ambassador. Their lives have been wrecked. That is punishment enough, without your asinine, unwanted comments.

And I would respectfully suggest that in future, if you can't say something constructive about the disappearance of little Madeleine, then you just keep your stupid, sardine-munching mouth shut."

For these words, we haven't heard any apologies, nor heard any demand FROM THE BRITISH MEDIA, tabloid or other, for one. But for Blatter’s words we got an outright public outraged condemnation, including one from the Brit PM himself.

Oh, it must be that suggesting (stupidly I must add Mr Blatter) that racism could be resolved simply by a handshake is much, much more serious than using the following words towards a diplomat, an institution and an entire country:

the spectacularly stupid, cruel Portuguese police

I have never much cared for the convention of calling cops "pigs" or "filth", but I am happy to make an exception

appalling Portuguese media

the Portuguese public (…) leering bumpkins were not from another country, but another planet.

without your asinine, unwanted comments

just keep your stupid, sardine-munching mouth shut

and other interesting wording...

To condemn Blatter's words and just be silent about Parson's opinion is just another one of those “acceptable” British discrepancies?

PS: To write Senor, instead of Senhor, when referring to a Portuguese male individual, just goes to show the author's high cultural level. For example, like not knowing how much sardines are appreciated by fellow Brit tourists.

Beauty Is In The Eye Of Millions Of Beholders

2011-11-17T20:57:00.003Z

One thousand wounds are incapable to blemish courage.

One million masks are unable to hide the truth.

150K

2011-11-10T22:32:00.001Z

One hundred and fifty thousand hits.

Thank you.

Being Honest About Faked Abductions

2011-11-10T20:34:00.003Z

It’s hard to find, in these critical competitive times, truthful marketing campaigns.

They do try to squeeze out of you every little penny they can. Some campaigns are blatantly fake (like the irritating spam we keep receiving in our mail boxes); others seem to be absolutely honest, but… there’s the small print, or “applicable only to available stock”, etc.

Being a skeptical person by nature, and a cynic one by life's experience, I thought impossible that I could ever see truly honest publicity.

Until today.

Look at this result when searching for “faked abduction product”.

Isn’t it just completely, totally and absolutely honest?

Unfortunately, there’s just one tiny, little detail that spoils the perfection. Or, to be precise, two tiny, little details. See if you can spot them.

Look at the "popular tags" on the left of the screen:

- narcissistic personality disorder (2)

- unanswered questions (2)

- biography (1)

- cover-up (1)

- deliberate warped use of amazon tag system by... (1)

- evil internet creeps (1)

- fraud (1)

- jon benet ramsey (1)

- lies (1)

- making money off of neglectful parenting (1)

What are “biography” and “jon benet ramsey” doing in the middle of such truthful tags about the Black Hats?!?

Why Amazon?!?

Could I ask you, Amazon, to take out just those two tags off that particular page, so that I may become, against all I believe in, a believer in perfection?

Not as a “Post Scriptum” but as a sequence of the above, let me add the following thoughts. I imagine that Kate McCann may by now be thinking “Why is the whole world against me? Oh why?!?”

Let me appease you Dear Kate. No, the WHOLE world is NOT against you. There are still out there some voices defending you. They’re very few. Maybe less than a dozen, ridiculously hysterical, and honestly making a sad, sorry spectacle of themselves. NOT laughable, because laughter is an healthy human reaction that is NEVER triggered either by pity or by disgust.

Just a few days ago, the world reached it’s 7th billion human being. A dozen does in fact represent very, very little. Or even less than that.

A percentage that is to be discarded, I could say, but won’t. You know why? Because I’m applying the exact same principle you are when it comes to your understanding of “reasonable doubt”.

Although almost the totality of facts known do point to your guilt, you cling on to the smallest infinitesimal probability of occurrence of a ridiculous number of coincidences to claim your possible innocence until PROVEN guilty.

So, using the same reasoning, 12, more or less (and I’m being generous), out of 7 billion, means, if you want to be really, really, REALLY precise, that the WHOLE world is NOT against you.

Will The Sun Follow NOTW's Fate? We Do Hope So!

2011-11-05T12:03:00.002Z

A reporter from the tabloid The Sun was arrested over alleged police payments, as per yesterday's The Guardian.

The Sun has overlooked to report this fact until now... no surprise here.

Today it's all about police payments. Maybe tomorrow it will be about all the rubbish published about the McCanns by this tabloid.

As far as we know, publishing rubbish isn't reason an arrest. It could be argued that that same rubbish did do its best to mislead gullible people into contributing towards a Fraudulent Fund, and should then be considered a premeditated criminal act. Not to go into being a deliberate help in covering-up of a crime. But that's all argueable.

But one day all the rubbish published by The Sun about the Maddie will be under very serious public scrutiny. The tabloid and all its brilliant reporters will have to answer some very awkward questions. Antonella Lazzeri, for one, will have, in our opinion, a lot to say about this...

We remain patient. Very patient.

Update:

It seems, according with the MMF, that the The Sun reporter arrested is Jamie Pyatt.

In the same thread, it is raised the possibility that Mr. Pyatt could be the “Mystery Man” in one of the McCann related photos:

It is a fact that the resemblance between both is significant:

We, in this blog can’t confirm that the pictures are of the same person, and we do tend to think that it isn’t so:

But as uncertain as we are that Mr Pyatt is “Mystery Man” we’re equally uncertain that he isn’t. We cannot disregard that there could be as much as 4 years between these 2 pictures, and the angle with which the subject views the camera is different.

But what we’re certain of is that he's the author of a pro-McCann article in The Sun.

We do think the moat around the “McCann Castle” is starting to dry up pretty quickly, and the crocodiles there might now be rethinking on what side of the fence they really want to be now…

Paradise Lost?

2011-11-02T18:19:00.002Z

By May I

“Thus with the year
Seasons return, but not to me returns
Day, or the sweet approach of even or morn
Or the sight of vernal bloom, or summer’s rose”
John Milton

Kate’s book contains an extraordinary suggestion; that the British Consul, Bill Henderson knew of paedophile activity in the Albufeira area, in Algarve. In August 2006, British tour operators had apparently discussed their concerns with him, but had wanted this information to be kept confidential. The incidents were quite specific in detail; where intruders had got into holiday apartments at night and molested children in their beds, locking the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the children. In one case, the perpetrator had used the father’s aftershave in an attempt to “soothe or deceive the child.” This had occurred after the perpetrators had watched for routines in the behaviour of the family, to determine security and the location of bedrooms.

According to Kate, Henderson was uncertain as to what had happened to these people, although he thought one person had been arrested and was awaiting trial. Is Kate really suggesting that such a cavalier approach to the future safety of children was adopted by Bill Henderson? Why would the tour operators have discussed this with the recently appointed Consul if they wanted the information to remain confidential? How could they have been sure he would be in agreement with this course of inaction?

A perusal of The Algarve Resident newspaper for September 21st 2006 covers a story about the arrest of eight paedophiles in Lisbon and a report of a ring of 46 people sexually abusing minors. A 52 year old man had also been arrested for procuring an abortion for a 13 year old girl. It was also reported that the men involved had a relationship as a friend or neighbour with the children’s parents.
Could these have been the incidents the Consul was actually referring to? If so, he would have been aware that the police were dealing with the situation and that the scenario posed no direct threat to holidaymakers.

If he was referring to different incidents, he made no statement to the police after Madeleine’s disappearance. Surely he would have been under an obligation to do so if Kate’s story is to be believed? He had told her about the incidents when he met her shortly after Madeleine had disappeared, yet she refers to him as the retired Consul when she relates this story on page 295. Henderson retired at the end of August 2007, shortly before the McCanns were made arguidos. Apparently, the significance of his information in the early days had not occurred to Kate until after his retirement!
However, Bill Henderson was not listed by Kate and Gerry as one of the witnesses they wanted the police to interview, in spite of mentioning this as key information in her book.
Was Praia da Luz a hunting ground for paedophiles and burglars? Pamela Fenn mentions a burglary at her apartment. She apparently apprehended the man who made his escape through a window- a dangerous position to escape from on the second floor...
This apparently occurred before the McCanns arrived and, one presumes, was reported to the police at the time? An attempted burglary of an elderly lady in an otherwise unoccupied block of apartments should have been taken very seriously.

Susan and Paul Moyes, holiday time neighbours living directly above Mrs Fenn seemed blissfully unaware of all of the crimes in the resort. On the night Madeleine disappeared, they were sitting on their balcony, but saw and heard nothing other than guests at the Tapas bar enjoying themselves. They later joined the searches for Madeleine and gave their observations of Praia da Luz. Paul -“idyllic, safe” and Susan -“It was paradise.”

Or Paradise Lost?

Real Justice is Real but is it Justice?

2011-10-28T11:33:00.007+01:00

We’ve already spoken about this case. A series of contradictions made by Domingos Duarte Lima during the investigation done by the Brazilian Police, have now resulted in formally charging him with the murder of the Portuguese citizen, Rosalina Ribeiro.

According to the Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha, he's now wanted by Interpol.

But what is interesting about today’s news is the apparent debate on how expectedly very little amount of justice will be effectively applied to this individual. “Legal justice” that is.

Just look at this precious gem, from the picture above: “Fontes contactadas pelo CM (Correio da Manha) garantem que dificilmente Lima seria condenado, tanto mais que conta na sua defesa com alguns dos advogados mais prestigiados.”, which translates into, “Sources contacted by CM ensure that it will be very difficult to condemn Lima, so much so that he has in his defense some of the most prestigious lawyers.”

It seems it will be difficult to condemn this man NOT because the investigation was blotched, or because the accusation may be flawed or even because he may indeed be innocent.

No.

It will be difficult because he has VERY GOOD LAWYERS.

That’s what modern justice has come to. You get yourself a good lawyer and it’s irrelevant the crime you've committed.

A good lawyer, is assumed, will be able to, no matter what you may REALLY have done, find some legal technicality to keep you away from prison or some legal form of coersion (such as libel threats) to keep at a safe distance all those that may contribute for you to be put in one.

Remember those days when guilt had to do with having committed, or not, a crime or felony? Please don’t be naïve and do erase that idiotic concept from your personal set of values. That is applicable only of you can’t afford a GOOD lawyer.

But will Duarte Lima ever be off the hook, even if never officially (read as in “Official Judicial System”) convicted and sentenced?

As I’ve implied many times before, if you treat Justice lousily, then you get lousy justice.

So, even assuming that in this case it will be very difficult to condemn as it seems it will be (and reality has proven so, time and time again) a sentence has already been decreed: life-sentence, without any possibility of parole, of misery independent of surrounding riches.

Just like the McCanns & friends: to live the remainder of his days in a prison that, although without physical bars, is made of a permanent claustrophobic nightmare.

If in this case there isn’t a trial, then, like in the McCann one, Justice will have forfeited its role, turned its back on its duty.

But the perversity of perverse justice (or real "justice") is terrible, for, in this manner, it applies a much harsher sentence to those who pay, well, to flee from sentencing.

Who’d the McCanns be today, if they had owned up for what happened on May 3rd, 2007? I don’t know, but I have a hunch that most likely they would be in a much more peaceful state of mind that they’re currently in.

Duarte Lima has prestigious lawyers?

They may be so (I honestly don’t know who they are), but they still have a long way to go to begin to match up with the ones that the McCanns have on their side.

The Sp(McC)an(n)ish Arrest

2011-10-19T20:23:00.001+01:00

Two children, Jose, two, and Ruth Breton Ortiz, six, disappeared.

The British Media practically ignored the issue.

The father was arrested. The British tabloids COMPLETELY ignored this:

Daily Star: NOTHING to say…

Daily Mirror: NOTHING to say…

The Sun: NOTHING to say…

The Daily Mail: NOTHING to say…

Daily Express: NOTHING to say…

The Independent: NOTHING to say…

London Evening Standard: NOTHING to say…

What English-speaking media did report this after all?

These, to date, as far as we could research:

The Olive Press

"Jose Breton Gomez, 38, was seized at his home at 3am on Tuesday morning on suspicion of murder.

He was the last person to see Jose, two, and Ruth Breton Ortiz, six, alive before they disappeared and has been accused of making ‘false statements’.

He insisted he lost sight of them for ‘a moment’ and a search has been underway ever since.”

The Latin American Herald Tribune

“According to investigators’ remarks on Tuesday, Jose Breton was arrested because of the “numerous contradictions” that had been found in his account of what happened to his children.

The two youngsters – Ruth, 6, and Jose, 2 – were last seen in a Cordoba park on the afternoon of Oct. 8 while they were in the care of their father, who then reported their disappearance.

The children live in the nearby city of Huelva with their mother but had been staying in Cordoba with their father on the weekend, since the couple are in the process of separating.

Breton’s arrest came after police conducted an intensive search for the two children, both in the park as well as in a nearby river, and raided several residences of members of the father’s family.

So far, Breton had been cooperating with police and authorities have not reported what the precise motive for his arrest was, other than to note the contradictions they had detected in his account.”

The Reader.es

“Police have arrested José Bretón, the dad of the two children, aged 2 and 6, who allegedly went missing from a Córdoba park on October 8th, whilst supposedly in their father's care.

Officers from the National Police are still searching the property in "Las Quemadillas" owned by the paternal grandparents of the two children.

Sources close to the case say that many of officers with sniffer dogs are combing different parts of the farm for clues to the children's disappearance, going over the same area searched by forensic agents eight days ago when the children went missing.”

It seems that there are British children… and then there are other children. Children of a lesser god, it seems.

Pity that when it came to raise funds and attention, internationality was so desperately sought.

Important is that the Jose and Ruth’s father’s bluff was called and he was arrested.

Maybe the Spanish Police could teach Scotland Yard on how to handle cases like this. No, NOT of missing children, but of parents lying about their child(ren)'s disappearance.

The Eye of the Storm

2011-10-09T19:05:00.001+01:00

by May I
On June 9th 2008, Trevor Francis from Worthing, Sussex made a witness statement concerning a sighting of a child he believed to be Madeleine. He saw the girl on the island of Margharita in the Caribbean on May 16th 2007. The report was made to Sussex Police and sent to Leicester Police. The Portuguese police files, best known as PJ Files, were released publicly on August 4th 2008 and press reports describing reported sightings began to appear.

On the 10th of August, this story appears in an article written by Ross Hall in the News of the World, practically quoting the statement made to the police. The same story about this sighting appears on the same day in the Sunday Mirror, written by Lori Campbell. (*)
Other newspapers also covered the story, but I mention these two stories in particular, as Lori Campbell was the person who first ran the story on Robert Murat, claiming that his behaviour was reminiscent of Ian Huntley in the Soham murders. Like Martin Brunt from Sky News, Lori Campbell had also been a reporter at Soham.

“I saw Madeleine, I know it was her” Francis is quoted as saying, adding he was too afraid to grab her as he was afraid to cause a scene. He noted that the girl had a blemish in her right eye - a little FLECK, as he described it.
According to Hall, “Fresh witness Trevor is the first to get a clear view of the unique blemish in Madeleine’s eye.”
Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying: “The eye makes it potentially more serious than other sightings.”
Hall then elaborates about “The Mark of Madeleine.”, which is a key part of the campaign, writing that it is “actually what doctors call a coloboma.”

One person who appears to have noticed an eye defect predates Trevor Francis’ sighting by almost 4 months. Student Melissa Fiering describes seeing a girl in France with “a dark smudge in her right iris" in February 2008. On this previous occasion, Clarence Mitchell had declared this “more worthy than most (sightings) because of the eye defect.”
No mention of a coloboma here either.

What about sightings in 2007? Before the coloboma story grew legs.
There is another sighting where the eye defect is mentioned on June 10th which must have been significant because Gerry McCann is keen for it to be reported to Karen Eaton and Bob Small at Leicester police. The memo concerning a sighting by a pensioner by the name of Antonio Sousa is signed “Talk soon, Clarence” On this occasion, a person of Muslim appearance was seen with a child in Porto, Portugal and the eyes of the child were mentioned. Again, no mention of coloboma.

Another traumatic sighting at close quarters is by Janet Anderson of Wilmington, Kent, who saw a girl she thought was Madeleine in Dubrovnik on June 18th 2007. The girl was screaming as she was hustled into a taxi. Janet Anderson even put her head into the cab and asked what was wrong with the girl. Unfortunately, the report ends abruptly.
There is no mention of an eye defect in her report to Maidstone Police, made on her return to England on June 23rd. As the report is incomplete, we don’t know whether she reported this to the local police at the time, but in the same situation, I know what I would have done.

As we have already pointed out, there is no mention of a coloboma in Kate’s book, which seems to have come as a surprise to many readers. There is no photograph of her on holiday wearing sunglasses, which would have been needed to protect her eye if she had such a condition and the PJ files do not mention such a defect. What Goncalo Amaral has to say in his book is particularly relevant.

“The parents have always insisted that Madeleine was in good health. The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been the deciding factors. Why didn’t we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It’s deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative. In the course of this investigation, a doctor pointed out to us that Madeleine had a mark in her eye, described by some as a coloboma of the iris, which can be associated with cardiac insufficiency. In spite of repeated requests to the British Medical Association, we were never able to confirm that hypothesis, a simple photo not being sufficient to establish a medical diagnosis.“

Quite! So why were posters produced showing a coloboma if Madeleine did not have this condition? Any sighting of a child without such an eye defect could have resulted in the sighting being ignored. The McCann’s could have corrected any inaccurate reporting of Madeleine’s supposed eye defect, but instead, they seem to have been happy to use it as a “marketing opportunity.”
Why not say Madeleine has different coloured eyes, which is the information given to the PJ - Blue left eye, greenish right eye with a brown fleck - No mention of a coloboma here.
Francis saw her 4-5 feet away and his description of a fleck in her right eye is consistent with the PJ file, as is Melissa Fiering’s

In subsequent TV appearances - Oprah Winfrey and Piers Morgan- the eye defect has been played down. The information to the press about a coloboma seems to have been given by proxies, never directly from the McCanns themselves? Or did Gerry once make an error when he described the marketing opportunity offered?

(*) Ross Hall has been arrested in connection with the News International phone hacking scandal. It is alleged that he transcribed hacked voice mails for other journalists. He is married to Lori Campbell.

For the record, Kate in front of a "colobomaless" Maddie:

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #12/?

2011-10-02T08:23:00.003+01:00

Question: Was “Mission Impossible” Team at PdL around the time Maddie disappeared?

Answer: Yes, it does seem that they were indeed there, however, it can’t be determined if Tom Cruise was part, or not, of that particular crew.

We’ve already seen that the IRWINs, to appear as they do on May 3rd’s “reservation sheet”, had to make their reservation BEFORE that day. THREE days before, to be exact, if it was Rachael who did the T9 reservation, or FOUR days, if it was Russ.

We’ve also seen that when the T9 reserved (either Russ or Rachael), the “tennis Mark Warner” MUST have already been reserved, as it’s the only justification for the T9's surnames NOT to appear on Friday’s May 4th “reservation sheet”, as they do on the ones dated before.

The T9 arrived on Saturday 28th, had dinner that evening at The Mill, and say that they booked for the the rest of the week to have dinner at Tapas.

Please disregard the above as this alone does contradict the possibility of Rachael having done the booking on the morning of Monday 30th, as “her” reservation wouldn't have been possible to include the Sunday 29th dinner, and we would be then left without knowing who in fact booked that particular meal, or if anyone did book it at all. Sorry, I forgot, no walk-ins at Tapas, so SOMEONE must have booked it.

We know it was an absolute requirement, due to customer demand, to stand in line to get a meal, so if Rachael was the one who booked, on Monday 30th, then one other T9 must’ve had to wake up early to get a booking just for Sunday 29th. It could've been Russ, and that would certainly clarify this whole booking issue, but unfortunately he does speaks about a block booking, which isn’t exactly the concept for a single meal, which is what is at stake.

But, as I said, do disregard all that. What we have to remember is that the "tennis Mark Warner" booking was done before the T9 one. So either from Sunday 29th or from Monday 30th, this "collective" reservation was there for all to see. Just before it was also left, for all to see, that now famous enigmatic note (or annotation ?), on that same reservation book, that clearly stated the reason why the T9 had asked reserved (not to be too far from the children they LEFT in the apartments). Another odd "reservation" procedure only done in this really odd restaurant, Fortunately, for sanity's sake, nobody has seen it but Kate McCann.

The BERRYs and the HYNDs booked before the “tennis Mark Warner”, as the sequence on Friday 4th’s “reservation sheet” clearly shows, so they also must’ve booked their meal either on Sunday 29th or Monday 30th. Nothing we haven't already shown on Tapas Quiz Night Question #11. Sorry to be repetitive, but we have to be crystal clear.

We saw that meant that the PAYNEs, the OLDFIELDs, the O’BRIENs, the McCANNs, the IRWINs, the BERRYs and the HYNDs were allowed by Tapas to book in advance.

But were these people the only ones to be able to do that?

Of course not.

Remember our "Slide & Splash sheet", that we’ve concluded that it was but an inexplicable handwritten copy of Monday 07th'’s “reservation sheet”?:

It’s an important document because it clarifies that the HYNDs did book for that day, at 19:30 to be exact. This particular reservation was crossed out for reasons we don't know. One has to wonder about the criteria used by the person making the reservations. About the "tennis Mark Warner" dinner cancellation a "CANCELADO" is written, but with the HYNDs he feels the need to cross out the name intirely...

The HYNDs, as we've seen, booked in advance, either on Sunday 29th or on Monday 30th, for their meal for Friday, then it would have been on the same occasion that they also booked this meal. So either, just like the T9, either on Sunday 29th, or on Monday 30th, the HYNDs booked for Friday 4th and Monday 7th.

You could say that he booked the Friday 4th meal on THAT occasion, BUT booked the the Monday 7th meal on ANOTHER date. After all, we have NO statement from any of the HYNDs, do we? Well for that to happen, on any other date but of Monday 7th itself, the HYND surname would appear first on that reservation sheet.

By looking at the Monday 07th’s “reservation sheet”, by the sequence in which the names appear, we can then conclude that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs (misspelled as NEWAN) booked before the HYNDs:

So the only other possibility is for the HYNDs not to have booked in advance would have to be that they stood in the line, on Monday 7th, to book for that day's dinner. How credible is that? We now know that the HYNDs don't require to stand in line to book at Tapas. So is there any reason for them to decide to stand in a line they don't need to be in, early morning, to book a meal they're not certain they're having, as they later cancel it? The fact they appear THIRD on that list, means they either stood in that line, which, I repeat, they didn't need to, or that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs were also able to book in advance. No one stands in a line for fun.

So, if the HYNDs booked BEFORE the “tennis Mark Warner”, which they did, that means that the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs ALSO booked before the T9, on Sunday 30th or on Monday 1st.

So basically we just have to add up these two names to all those others that were able to “jump the queue”: the PAYNEs, the OLDFIELDS, the O’BRIENs, the McCANNs, the IRWINs, the BERRYs and the HYNDs; and now the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs.

That said, all we’d be saying new would be just to further confirm the naughtiness and disrespect with which the OC supposedly treated the majority of its clients, by granting inexplicable booking privileges to just a few of them.

But this is where “Mission Impossible” Team comes in.

Thanks to our friend, Insane, who adamantly and vehemently has shown the world, both here and on other sites, both real (Joana’s Morais' blog, comment #87) and imaginary (his blog), both the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs ONLY checked in on Friday, May 5th.

Here is what this character had to say, commenting our Tapas Quiz Night question #4:

“None of those people listed on that reservation sheet - or the impromptu copy made on the slide and splash notepaper - arrived in PdL until AFTER Madeleine had disappeared. Go and check for yourselves, their names are all listed in the PJ files, together with the dates they stayed. You are being lied to, by Textusa and her sidekicks, for reasons best known to themselves.

These are all the details and references where they can be found

Savage, apartment G30, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg
Newman (Misspelled as Newan ), apartment fp08, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_637.jpg
Hynd, apartment 0011, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg
Harrison, apartment dp03, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg
Mullard, apartment gp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_637.jpg
Burdekin (misspelled as Budekin) apartment gp01, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_635.jpg
Stinton-Heeley, apartment 0207, arrived 5/5/07, departed 19/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg
Mackeson, apartment 0025, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_636.jpg
Vincent, apartment cp02, arrived 5/5/07, departed 12/5/07
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_638.jpg

Stop lying to people. These guests ALL arrived after Madeleine went. Do your research properly, you are a total laughing stock”

He later corrects his statement, which he's absolutely entitled to do so: "Oh incidentally. I know Alistair Hyde was there the previous week - but he seems to be there on a rolling basis."

He doesn't correct anything about the SAVAGEs or the NEWMANs, does he? These people only arrive on the 5th.

So there you have it. Both the SAVAGEs and the NEWMANs booked dinners BEFORE they even arrived.

THAT is only POSSIBLE if done by the “Mission Impossible” Team.

Unfortunately, from the available data, we aren’t able to determine which of their members were at PdL under those identities, so we cannot confirm if Tom Cruise was there or not, although the choice of “SAVAGE” might be an indication that it could’ve been him.

As we don’t want TANNER to do another one of her Tanners, and before we see published in The Sun that she’s pointed Cruise as "the abductor" she allegedly saw, let us clarify that we’re not suggesting anything of the sort.

We’re only stating that there was an IMPOSSIBILITY that did happen at PdL.

No, we’re not talking, this time, but the abduction. We’re talking about ANOTHER IMPOSSIBILITY.

The IMPOSSIBILITY of being able to book dinners in an OPTIONAL restaurant at a foreign country BEFORE even arriving there.

Maybe Tapas, with all its marvelous unknown wonders did take bookings online.

Oh, and it’s useless to ask the "Mission Impossible" Team if they were there because "As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

As you know, we honestly believe that nothing of the above happened.

Justice When Unhindered, Works

2011-09-30T21:29:00.005+01:00

Duarte Lima, a very well known and influential Portuguese politician, is, according to the newspaper SOL, the only suspect in a murder case that happened in Brasil. It seems that the Brazilian Police weren't that much sensitive to his cries of innocence, nor to his apparent lack of cooperation in the investigation, and much less to his social status quo.

I'd advise the McCanns to follow this case attentively. If I were them, I'd even call it "dress-rehearsal".

Textusa's Dictionary: Nauseating

2011-09-30T20:13:00.002+01:00

nau•se•at•ing [naw-zee-ey-ting, -zhee-, -see-, -shee-]
adjective
1. causing sickness of the stomach; nauseous.
2. such as to cause contempt, disgust, loathing, etc.: I’m fed up with the nauseating McCann’s impunity and absolute lack of shame and self-decency.

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #11/?

2011-09-28T20:02:00.003+01:00

Question: Besides Maddie, what else disappeared from PdL on those fateful 24 hours, between midday May 3rd and noon May 4th, 2007?

Answer: A whole QUEUE of people.

The “Tapas reservation sheets” provide us, supposedly, with a timeline of events.

As we’ve seen, the IRWINs had to make their reservation three or four days before May 3rd, to appear as they do on that day’s “reservation sheet”.

Three days, if it was Rachael who did the T9 reservation, four days if it was Russ.

But it’s NOT ONLY the IRWINs who were able to NOT stand in the famous “Tapas queue”, that supposedly took place every day, except Saturdays, up to 11:00, to get a booking.

Do have a look at the May 4th “Tapas reservation sheet”:

The only reason, they say, for the T9 to not appear on this sheet, was because they were already included in the “Tennis Dinner” or "Tennis Mark Warner" for 12 PAX, on that day. It was cancelled, as can be seen on the sheet, because, at least that's what they say, of what happened to Maddie.

Irrelevant of the obvious differences in handwriting between the first three reservation sheets and the last three, in which May 4th is included (which would make it necessary for two people to be taking down reservations at the same time, one for each one of the supposed “working” weeks), what is important is that whenever the T9 reservation was made, the “Tennis dinner” was already there.

And that was either three or four days before May 4th.

That then means that the BERRYs and the HYNDs, who appear in this particular sheet, were, just like the IRWINs, able to jump the queue and get their reservations for when they wanted them.

Ocean Club, were you kidding with your clients?

You require for people to queue up to get a reservation to a very limited number of covers, and then you go and allow the PAYNEs, the OLDFIELDS, the O’BRIENs, the McCANNs, the IRWINs, the BERRYs and the HYNDs to get a booking BEFOREHAND?

That was very, very naughty of you. But that’s not the point of this post.

We would like you to look again at the May 4th “Tapas reservation sheet”.

Now that we now know that the BERRYs, the HYNDs and the “Tennis dinner” were all booked before the 4th, it leaves out as having booked that day… NOBODY.

NOBODY queued up on Friday, May 4th? No, and that's EXACTLY what this "reservation sheet" clearly shows.

We know Maddie disappeared on the night before, and that all available OC help went looking for her, but, as we know, the resort is spread out all over the town, so the news of the events wouldn’t have spread through its customers that fast. No reason for them to be alarmed, and no reason for those who planned to queue up the next morning, May 4th, not to do so.

And even if it did spread, the news that is, or if for some reason the queuing up was cancelled due to the tragic events, such would have certainly been mentioned about that in those various statements where it’s highlighted the high demand and the great difficulty to get a meal at Tapas. But there isn’t any such mention in any of the statements.

So we’ve NOTHING to justify as to why NOBODY reserved at Tapas on May 4th.

Maybe this particular queue was “abducted” on the previous night together with Maddie, and that’s why it didn’t show up the following morning.

We think this new piece of evidence, "the missing queue", will relevantly further help the ongoing "leave-no-stone-unturned" search currently undertaken by Edgar & peers.

You see, besides them having to look for an inexistent abducted little girl with an inexistent coloboma in one of her eyes, we now know that she may be found playing in an inexistent queue in her inexistent dungeon near PdL.

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, or Lewis Carroll as he’s better known, wouldn’t have been able to write a more bizarre piece of literary nonsense even if he tried, when compared with the Black Hat version of the Maddie Affair.

Post Scriptum: Aren't you getting a little bit tired of me PROVING what has already been more than proved, and that is that these "Reservation Sheets" are FAKE, that their only purpose was to confirm the T9's alibis, and that they PROVE the involvement of the Ocean Club Staff, and Guests in the cover-up that followed Maddie's death?

We are.

But do address this issue with the OC Staff as we're certainly not to blame that these sheets contain so much fact and information to PROVE all of the above. It's our duty, and commitment as stated, to leave to the future generations what we've been able to uncover, so do bear with us, and with our Quiz Tapas Night Questions, as there are many more to come.

However, we'd like to tell you, that besides these "Tapas reservation sheets" we still have a lot of new information to reveal. Much has been written down and stored, but this is like pulling a string, it just keeps on coming...

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #10/?

2011-09-26T19:15:00.005+01:00

Question: Who are the TAPAS' “Teacher’s pet”?

Answer: The IRWINs.

We’ve been told, that the TAPAS made an exception to accommodate T9’s wishes to have a block booking for dinner at 08.30 in their restaurant.

This, we were told, had even to have approval from management.

We’ve also been told that it was very, very hard to be able to book a dinner at TAPAS, for many reasons, but, at least according to the PJ Files, one was because it was better than The Mill.

We were told that this was so much so that you had to queue every morning to reserve.

We’re not exactly clear on who booked for the T9. I’ve read that it was Russ on Sunday, but then again I’ve heard that it was Rachael on Monday.

In any case, we have a "very-hard-to-get booking" the latest on Monday morning. That’s April 30th.

We’ve seen, in the previous post, that one’s reservation is noted, logically, according with the order with which one arrives in to make it.

Looking at the first THREE “Tapas reservation sheets”, we’ve seen that the Tapas Staff has very methodically created “quarter-of-an-hour” reservation blocks.

I think we all agree that, looking at it in any which angle you wish to do so, that at least within the “quarter-of-an-hour” blocks, the order in which the names appear are according with the order in which they made the reservation.

If for nothing else, this is so because one does start at the top of a page (in this case, block) and continues to write, in an orderly downward manner, whatever one wishes to list.

So, if you look at May 3rd “Tapas reservation sheet”, for the 08.30 “quarter-of-an-hour” reservation block, one is able to see that the IRWINs were able to book BEFORE the T9:

This means, that on Monday morning, the latest, or Sunday morning as is supposedly probable, the IRWINs managed to book a meal 3 or 4 days beforehand.

That would be fine if it weren’t for the supposedly high demand for reservations, and the apparent required authorization.

That makes the IRWINs reservation look as a shameless line jumping, doesn't it? Or am I reading this wrong?

Weren’t there people that queued up on both Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday that weren’t able to get a reservation?

I’m supposing that they wouldn’t be very happy to know that someone who had NOT stayed in line as they did would be able get a reservation, that they didn't.

We’ve also been told that the T9 got that booking because they wanted to be close to the children they left in the apartments. You may not agree with the reason, or with the meaning of “close” when used in the previous sentence. But it is a reason, and we’ve been told what it is.

But what was the reason for the IRWINs to have been able to book with such anticipation?

I can only see that they were friends with someone from management, and pulled in a favour.

We all know that it always pays off to be the “teacher’s pet” don’t we?

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #9/?

2011-09-24T07:14:00.020+01:00

Question: You are the reservations manager for a restaurant called “APPETIZERS Bar” (the English equivalent of the Spanish TAPAS).

On one afternoon like any other, the following happened:

At 15:15 a Mr. BROWN walks in and reserves a table for 19:45;

At 15:00 a Mr. JONES walks in and reserves a table for 19:15;

At 15:45 a Mr. ROBERTSON walks in and reserves a table for 20:30;

At 16:15 a Mr. SMITH walks in and reserves a table for 19:00;

At 16:30 a Mr. TAYLOR walks in and reserves a table for 19:30;

At 15:30 a Mr. WILLIAMS walks in and reserves a table for 20:00;

And at 16:00 a Mr. WILSON walks in and reserves a table for 20:15.

By which order would you jot down these reservations?

Answer:

OPTION 1: JONES, BROWN, WILLIAMS, ROBERTSON, WILSON, SMITH followed by TAYLOR, is if you happen to be working in ANY restaurant in the world, except the most extraordinary one of all;

OPTION 2: SMITH, JONES, TAYLOR, BROWN, WILLIAMS, WILSON followed by ROBERTSON, is if you happen to be working in Ocean Club’s Tapas Bar in PdL.

As the “APPETIZERS Bar” is NOT “TAPAS Bar”, the correct answer is then OPTION 1: JONES, BROWN, WILLIAMS, ROBERTSON, WILSON, SMITH and TAYLOR.

In the question, it seems like I’ve given you a lot of information to digest and analyse, but in fact it isn’t. It’s just describing SEVEN people walking, separately, into a restaurant to make a dinner reservation.

I just chose the CRITERIA of listing the surnames by alphabetical order, and that’s why, on a first look, it looks like it’s all jumbled up and complex (just a side note, the way you present information is VERY IMPORTANT to reach goals objectively).

And the CRITERIA with which one lists things is the crux of this post.

The logic and the reasonableness of the chosen CRITERIA are of the utmost importance when it comes to analyzing the veracity of the “Tapas reservation sheets”.

What CRITERIA would you then choose to write down the reservations as per question?

Logic, and all restaurants in the world except one, says that you would take note of the reservations by the order they came into your restaurant.

According to that, your reservation sheet would look something like this. We’ll pretend that desired eating times are needed and contact numbers are not. Obviously, what is written in between parenthesis wouldn’t appear, that I put in just to help you:

JONES - 19:15 (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:00)
BROWN - 19:45 (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:15)
WILLIAMS - 20:00 (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:30)
ROBERTSON - 20:30 (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:45)
WILSON - 20:15 (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 16:00)
SMITH - 19:00 (walked in the restaurant at to reserve 16:15)
TAYLOR - 19:30 (walked in the restaurant at to reserve 16:30)

Mr JONES arrives first, which means he gets the noted first, using the most logical of CRITERIA, which is first come, first served, or in this case, noted.

Mr SMITH, although wishing to have his meal before, appears in the listing after Mr BROWN simply, and LOGICALLY, because Mr. BROWN makes his reservation before Mr. SMITH.

If for anything else, the reason for ordering reservations by the times they are made is because, for example, when Mr. WILLIAMS makes his reservation nobody can in the world can guess if Mr WILSON is to appear or not. He does, but we only know that after he walks in.

Nobody did come after Mr. TAYLOR, did they? He was the last one to reserve, thus is the last person on the list for the day.

Irrefutable logic, right?

Wrong.

In the OC, reservations are, according to the Tapas Bar management, to be noted in the order in which the clients want to have their meals.

Why do we say that?

The first three “Tapas reservation sheets” seem to be templates, in which there are boxes of 4 lines for each quarter of an hour, from 19:00 to 21:00. But is it really so?

We’ve discovered that the apparently handwritten “Das 7 p.m. ás 9 p.m. Mesas lá dentro – 4 Mesas com 4 pax máximo” on the top of the May 1st, May 2nd and May 3rd “Tapas reservation sheets” clarify absolutely nothing with the exception that it confirms that these pages are photocopies of each other:

This would reinforce the thesis that we were before an unique template that was used from May 1st until May3rd.

However, a closer analysis (and not that attentive of one) at that shows that it isn’t exactly a template.

Look at how the differently the times are written down each day (left column. May 1st, center, May 2nd, right, May 3rd):

Will enlarge the 19:15, and the 20:15 times so that you can better see what we’re trying to show you:

It’s unquestionable that each one was written separately. They’re NOT copies of each other.

So, EVERY single day, whoever was responsible for the reservations would write down the times, defining then, and only then, the 4-lines-per-quarter-of-an-hour “reservation” blocks.

This means that it was EXPECTED to have only an average of 4 names, or less, per each “quarter of an hour”.

If, on a particular day, it happened that all supposed 20 vacancies wanted their meal at 20:30, then all this work of anticipation, and so neatly done, would have been rendered useless.

Here we have to go back to our “doodle” post, where it was shown how “boring” it must have been to work at Tapas.

You had time for doodles, and now, it seems, you had time to write down the times in a preemptive manner.

But it wasn’t just any writing down the numbers on blank spaces. Oh no. Please do take notice of the numbers “7” and “8”.

The number “7” is typed, identical in all 3 entries, which means it was already in the template, while the “8” is handwritten.

That is a big difference. It means that with the “7”. whatever number for the minutes that was there was tippexed, and written over, while the whole number that was where the “8”s now are to be seen, was totally tippexed.

To our Portuguese readers, to “tippex” is to pass on “white corrector”. It seems that the Tapas, besides having its own separate reception, it also had it quite well equipped with stationary. And with a photocopier.

So we have someone, who takes the time, and the care, to tippex numbers beforehand, EVERY single day on what are supposedly reservation sheets.

I would like to remind you that anywhere in the world, “reservation sheets” are documents NOT meant to be subject to any inspection or external presentation. Their purpose is to register reservations.

As such, they are INTERNAL working documentation, to which practicality is given primacy, which certainly is not given to neatness. If that were the case, the lack of care for neatness in the last 3 reservation sheets would’ve resulted in severe punishment, or possibly heavy fines.

On the previous post, Question #8, I showed, or tried to show, how irrelevant it is to book meals with a quarter of an hour precision. A time specification is required in restaurants that, as I said, wish to make as many servings as possible, and want an idea from when on they should consider a guest is late, so that they can get some profit out of what is to be then considered as an unused table.

As a reader exemplified, restaurants are that when a table vacates and whoever reserved isn’t there, they lose their turn and go to the end of the line, so to speak. When a time is asked, it's NEVER more precise than half the hour.

I believe that in the U.S., restaurants that have a daily high occupancy rate, in order to maximize the use of their tables, don’t accept reservations at all (the finest restaurants do reserve, and if what we see in the movies is true, do it with weeks and months in advance), but do, when you walk in, give you an electronic gadget that lights up and vibrates when there’s a table for you. That way, you can always spend some money in the bar while you wait… You run a business to make a PROFIT, that's the bottom line.

Ok, let’s disregard the complete lack of logic and usefulness of filling in quarterly hour reservation times, and consider them essential.

You may then say that the Tapas could have filled in the customer's surname in according to its “box” as the reservations appeared. This way, the sequencing is not per whole page, but only per each “quarter-hour” box.

This would, indeed, provide some logic to the sequencing as it appears, as I said, on the first three reservation sheets. And we’ll leave at that, although there are other some details that contradict this, but we'll leave these for another post.

There are, however the three other reservation sheets. And they throw this whole logic straight out the window.

On these, nobody has, strangely, decided to write down the times before the guests appeared to reserve, like it was done with the first three. But the times ARE SEQUENCIAL. Look at how they appear for those 3 days:

Friday, May 4th: 19:00, 19:30 followed by 20:15

Sunday, May 6th: 19:00, 19:20, 19:45, 20:00, 20:15 followed by 21:00

Monday, May 7th: 19:00, 19:15, 19:45 followed by 20:30

It's not possible to establish any coherence in the time intervals, or their respective spacing within the pages, with these last three reservation sheets, except for the fact that they’re CLEARLY sequenced in the order in which the clients wanted to have their meals.

If for the first three reservation sheets we could have the excuse that there are blocks for each quarter of the hour, for the last three, the CRITERIA used is clear: simple and straighforward sequencing according with the desired meal time.

This means that in our little exercise, the reservations, if made in the TAPAS Bar way, would have been written down the following way:

19:00 – SMITH (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 16:15)
19:15 - JONES (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:00)
19:30 - TAYLOR (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 16:30)
19:45 - BROWN (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:15)
20:00 - WILLIAMS (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:30)
20:15 - WILSON (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 16:00)
20:30 - ROBERTSON (walked in the restaurant to reserve at 15:45)

Seemingly impossible, Mr. SMITH, who arrives 45 minutes after Mr. WILLIAMS, to make a reservation, is to appear first on the reservation list.

This listing would ONLY be possible if the people who made the reservations arrived in the EXACT same order of the time that they wanted to have their meals, otherwise it would be COMPLETELY ABSURD, as only after is known the TOTALITY of reservations for the day is it possible to order the names by desired meal times, the CRITERIA used to list the reservations on the "Tapas reservation sheets":

So, for the "Tapas reservation sheets" to be filled the way THEY WERE, with the SEQUENTIAL CRITERIA they present, it would have been necessary, on those various days, for the people who wanted to reserve to have been standing in the queue in the EXACT same order in which they WANTED to have their meal!

And this, when all these people are supposedly strangers to each other.

Coincidence or what? That’s stretching the concept of coincidence even beyond the McCann margin of tolerance for coincidences.

Other than this, I can only see two other possibilities for it these listings to be feasible.

One would have been in auction-style bidding for hours. Whoever was responsible for the booking would address the “crowd” and ask “Let's start with who’s for 19:00? Please step aside and come forward…”

This would be practical but rather unfair. If one wanted to dine at 21:00, one would have to bid for an earlier hour just to make sure that one would make it and be able to have a meal at the renowned Tapas Bar. Also, I just can't see how it would be possible for people to be able to get the 21:00 timeslot, which some did get, without surpassing the 20 available seats figure. There was a queue wasn't there?

The other possibility would have to have been for this whole "reservation process" to be done “military” style.

In this, the Tapas management would come out, this time to address the whole line and inform “The reservations today are up to this gentleman/lady. The rest of you please go home and try again tomorrow”. And then turning to those that remained in line “And you, you lucky nincompoops, do organize yourselves in which time you want to have dinner, and be quick about it as we have many other important and useful things to do such as doodling and tippexing…”

Is either possibility feasible?

Well, as we’ve seen, in “McCannland” it’s like with Peter Pan: ALL is possible as long as you believe in it.

No, not really. You really don’t have to believe.

All you have to do is pretend that you believe, and defend that, regardless of reason or logic. And preferably with some help from your friends. INFLUENTIAL ones, mind you.

Post Scriptum: For those who've tried to fool others with the vain attempt of stating that we were running out of material, let me disappoint you by telling you that there's still very much to be shown about these fake reservation sheets. For example, this post, and this post alone, makes it there to be four or five additional pertinent questions. Can you see them? Well, they have to answered if these documents are to be REAL, otherwise... they're NOT.

Next Post - Tomorrow Morning

2011-09-23T22:43:00.002+01:00

I was feeling a little naughty tonight, so I decided to leave here just a little teaser, dedicated to all those who I wish will have a wonderful and peaceful night. G'night and see you in a few hours.

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #8/?

2011-09-21T06:24:00.013+01:00

Question: Which is the ONLY Restaurant in the whole world that serves “Every-Quarter-Hour-Dinner-Specials”?
Answer: Obviously the Ocean Club's TAPAS BAR at PdL, the ONLY restaurant where so many ONLY things do happen.

On the "Tapas reservation sheets" there’s one thing that stands right out as surplus data: the precision with which the time the guests wished to have their meals is registered. On the other hand, these documents lack of a piece of information that is usually required for reservations, and that is a contact number.

About the latter, we can be tolerant to its nonexistence, as we’re talking about foreigners in a foreign land, and there are roaming costs associated with the use of cell phones there.

But this is being really tolerant, because, business wise it makes absolute sense that a restaurant demands some way of contacting whoever that reserves in case they don’t show up.

This contact is usually made under the circumstance of having waiting clients and all other tables are occupied. If you have tables, and a guest doesn't show up, you just have to accept that fact. Calling him will probably only annoy him, and the chances are that client, already lost for that evening, would be lost for forever.

But although the probability of use is almost nil, it's the norm to ask as is any other safeguard of expected minimal use.

And if you do take the McCanns as an example, it seems that with the exception of the evening and late night of May 3rd, they had absolutely no restrictions in using their mobiles in PdL, BEFORE and after Maddie died, so shouldn't have any qualms in leaving their contacts. Not because of money, at least.

You can say that leaving the room number is sufficient, as the OC Reception would then contact the guest at fault. Is that really practical? Call the reception to pull up the cell phone of the client, have the reception call the client and then call the restaurant to say what the client said... Certainly not as much as asking the person directly for the number. Quick, painless and, most of all, practical.

All in all, it’s just not understandable why on the "Tapas reservation sheets" that we’ve been shown there are no contact numbers.

But we’ll pretend it is and move on.

Today, what is important is the precision of time in which the guests made their reservations with.

What's the difference, for any restaurant, to know that a certain person wishes to dine at 20:00, or that she wishes to do so at 20:15 or 20:30? ABSOLUTELY NONE.

Is the table only set 30 seconds before arrival? No, it’s set at the start of the evening.

Does the cook start five minutes before? No. First the guests arrive, and only then do things start at the kitchen. After all, a guest may not arrive at all. And unless in the reservation is written down which dish chosen, nobody but the guest (each one of them) knows what is desired to eat that particular evening. We haven't seen any such choice in any of these sheets...

That’s why there are appetizers. You arrive, you sit and you chose. And have appetizers (or Tapas) while you wait for the main dish to arrive. If you don't order Tapas, then you just wait.

Is it because the ice could melt? It could be. I’ve heard so many lame excuses for so many things that I imagine that that could be it. The guests had to give the exact time they wanted to eat to avoid needless ice melting.

If not for that, then FOR WHAT are the reservation times specified?

Restaurants usually have two servings per meal. You either are able to book for the first serving, or if you’re only able to get a table on the second serving, the person responsible will give you warning such as “we’re only able to accommodate you after 21:00, if that’s alright with you”. It’s implicit that you’ll get a table as soon one other vacates that evening, and you either accept that or you don’t.

The finest restaurants usually have only one serving, as they can’t pressure their clients to leave, they will not risk not being able to sit clients that had reserved. They do charge enough to cover their losses.

Could it be an "obsession" with this precision due to customer demand? A meal just had to be served at EXACTLY the desired time?

We do have an indication, from Tapas bar itself, that the exact arrival time was indeed a completely irrelevant detail, as, at least on May 3rd, the T9 practically only were ready to eat after 21:00, although they booked for 20:30. .

Nobody complains about this, because there's nothing to complain about. Nobody notices it, as there's nothing to notice. Much like there’s no reason to book a meal at an exact time in an evening. Yet it's something that is demanded, even if not enforced. Customer are fitted into PRECISE "quarter-hour" slots, at least according with the first 3 "Tapas reservation sheets".

And who on earth knows if they're having dinner at 19:15, and not at 19:30? Not even at home. Whenever Fred asks if dinner will take too long, I politely tell him that it will take only 5 more minutes than it will take him to make it if he started there and then. Maybe that's why he never asks, poor, but dear soul.

Me, when we go out for dinner I just care where we're eating. Somewhere posh always gets my preference. If the person there that's noting the reservations asks "For what time?" my natural reaction is to ask "What's the limitation?". One reserves for dinner, and that's that.

But that's me, and I'm weird as everyone knows. Dinner out is leisure time, and when I'm in leisure time, I like it to be me who manages my own time, and am not pleased if I'm to be pressured to meet a certain schedule for food. No way would I ever allow that to happen on holiday. A restaurant is NOT a boarding school.

We’ve seen before that it may have been possible for the FICTIONAL character, Arsene Lupin, to have dined Tapas, so, could it be possible also that yet another FICTIONAL character dined there too?

I’m talking about Phileas Fogg, of course. We all know how pressed for time Mr Fogg is known to be.

Looking at the "Tapas reservation sheets", we see that there’s no FOGG mentioned, nor a PASSPARTOUT , so it can only mean that back in October 1872, this gentleman, and his valet, on his way through to the Suez, demanded to have dinner on the quarter of the hour, not a minute after, and with this started a trend in PdL that has upheld to this day, that of specifying the exact minute in which the client wishes to dine.

Unfortunately, for the defenders such theory, according to the charting of Fogg’s trip, he didn’t come anywhere near Portugal:

Jules Verne was French, because if he was a Brit, then a string could be pulled and “someone” could be arranged to “talk” to this author convincing him into changing his novel just to "fit" the events at PdL… The fact that he’s dead since 1905 would certainly be a minor detail that could be easily overcome. If only he wasn’t French…

So we have yet another curiosity that happens ONLY in PdL, which is the time specification, to the quarter of an hour, of restaurant bookings.

And they say that, in Portugal, Entroncamento is where all strange phenomena happen. But that was before Spring 2007.

Did I say "quarter of an hour"? We do have, at least, one exception and that’s our friend Arsene Lupin/Thomas Cook. He asked for his meal (never, ever to be billed) 20 minutes after the hour. Not on the hour, not a quarter past or to, not half past, but 20 minutes past. Devious, devious character isn’t he?

There’s absolutely no reason for these times to appear. For a restaurant it’s completely indifferent if you eat at 20:00 or 21:00 if there are tables available and they can fit you within the same serving. You arrive, you sit, you eat, you pay and you leave, and the time boundaries to do all that are generic as they always should be.

Do you want to know why these times were used?

Well, who hasn’t seen a crime movie/TV episode where the murderer turns to a bystander and asks “I’m sorry but my watch has just stopped and I have these pills to take, do you happen to know what time it is right now? ” This will obviously enable the bad guy/gal, the criminal, to have a witness which will later confirm the fake alibi created but that the good guy/gal, the brilliant detective with the title-role, unravels all before the credits start to roll.

In FICTION, that phrase is used, but in REAL LIFE it seems preferable to make up absolutely irrelevant times on absolutely fake reservation sheets.

Next Post: YOU be a Reservation Manager.

Our Sincere Apologies

2011-09-17T09:30:00.010+01:00

Beloved readers,

As you know we’ve had here lately and persistently the contribution of someone who is obsessively interested in our blog as seems to have a direct interest in what is written here.

Clearly a Black Hat, we’ve come to know this person by an adjective which is quite aggressive in nature. Not talking about the person, but the actual adjective by which we identify this individual.

And it’s exactly for allowing into the blog this aggressiveness, one that constantly, and most likely purposefully, accompanies this individual’s comments, that we're here to apologise.

To disassociate ourselves from all the aggressiveness contained in that particular adjective by which this individual is called, we, henceforth, shall refer to this person as “The Character” or simply TC. Not to be mistaken with Thomas Cook.

In doing so we hope to contribute to the clearing up some of the pestilent air caused by all this unpleasant and disagreeable aggressiveness that has here settled. Avoid the use of unnecessary violent language.

Violence, as you know, is the most common weapon used by the weak. Bravado, in its essence, is nothing but a cover for fear. That alone says much about the intent of who has posted the referred comments.

The decision to post TC's comments was not an easy one, and many of them remain unpublished.

When we decided to publish those that we did, we did it for two reasons.

The first was that we thought best to allow our readers to realize the constant abuse and insult that our blog is constantly subjected to, and the other, was for you to feel and understand all the despair contained in them.

This despair is for us a clear indication that we’re on the right path.

TC’s comments bring nothing new, are abusive in their interpretation of posts and comments and rapidly slip into offensive generalizations.

They cling to every single possible flaw as if their life depended on it, in a desperate attempt to make a whole building crumble with a single firecracker.

They’re unreasonable, because it’s impossible to quench the demands. Not because they’re not answered, but because the answers are always deemed unsatisfactory regardless of their logic, reason and completeness.

This, together with the permanent bullying and intolerant speech, has dominated lately the comments in our blog in a very argumentative nasty way, and brought quite an unpleasant aggressive aura to it.

TC’s comments are indeed off-putting. It spoils our blog and dilutes excellent contributions from our polite readers, discouraging them from further participation.

This is obviously TC's intention, to drive away readership and readership participation.

Some of our readers fell into this trap and have lapsed into arguing with TC.

It’s completely understandable, as no one likes to see muddy feet in a spotlessly clean living room.

Some of our readers have engaged in a quite passionate argumentation with said individual. It is commendable for their dedicated protection of this space which is all of all of us, but has to be reprimanded for further contributing to allow this person to play his/her game.

And the first to be reprimanded, are we, who published the comments, and myself, in particular, for responding needlessly to one or two of them.

Here we must pay a huge compliment to all those readers who remained calm and poised, and continued to post polite and useful comments, ignoring completely the turmoil set by TC's comments. Thank you.

We were called to reason by our wonderful readers. And when reason calls, we pay attention. When one is wrong, the only acceptable way forward is by correcting the error as best as is possible to be done.

Thus our heartfelt apologies, as we've indeed allowed TC space to field his tactics that targeted our most polite and educated readers.

Life is hard as it is so we fully understand that there's no need to come here to obtain further anguish. So we blame no other than ourselves for distancing some of our readers.

But not all is bad, as TC has provided us with very valuable information.

We’re talking obviously about TC’s recognition that the guests were indeed witnesses to a crime that involved the death of a little girl; about TC’s bringing on scene a very interesting guest, Mr. Philip Edmonds, who, as he say himself, not only photographs Maddie on May 3rd, but also says he was a “first-hand” witness to the events although he exits the scene in the early hours of May 4th; about TC’s confirmation that the dog did react to blood in a spot on the floor located behind the couch in apartment 5A’s living room; and TC’s very useful mix-up between oval and round table shapes.

But that is not all we've been provided with.

TC has also led us, or better said, insisted, as you’ll see, that we go, down a particularly valuable path of information. Without TC’s indication and insistence, I don’t think we would ever discover what we did.

Let me tell you as an appetizer, that it is worth all the unpleasantness that our blog has been subjected to.

But that is no reason or excuse to have allowed TC’s comments.

We’re fully aware of the fact that one can learn a lot from a car wreck, but that isn’t in any way a reason for one to drive a car into a tree.

Information can, and should, be obtained by much more reasonable and sensible manner, as we've done in the past and intend to continue to do.

We hope we can recover as quickly as possible all those readers that were driven away because of this unfortunate mistake, and hope that the possible damage done to the structure of our, yours and my, blog is not significant.

Yours respectfully,

Textusa

Update on Sep18, 2011, 20:24:

From reading the feedback we've received, it made us have the feeling that our readers would like us to publish BH’s comments.

Not an indiscriminate publication, but one subject to the adequate filtering and censorship.

Let us tell you that your reaction pleases us immensely. What pleases us is not what you’ve suggested, but that you suggested it. In fact, some valid suggestions were against what is above written.

What did please us is that you’ve revealed that we’re achieving what we’ve intended, and that was, and is, to have our readers be stakeholders of this blog. You may not share ownership, but you’ve certainly shown sharing its best interests.

You’ve demonstrated that the success of this blog is not ours, as in its authors, but is ours, as in Textusa family.

We will continue do a case-by-case analysis of comments, and publish those we deem constructive or revealing, censoring them if need be.

As we’ve said, we’re fully for freedom of speech and opinion, just not for freedom of insult. Our censoring will never affect content.

Let us give you an example. One of the last comments from "The Character" (TC) that was published, was censored.

This is its original version (in bold, what was censored):

@ anon(and deranged) 2.12pm
Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious.
This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. This is nothing more than a bizarre theory, which you can't prove.
@ Anon 2.35
Not implying anything. You seem to be doing quite enough of that to go around
Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this? There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment.
Reading this blog is at times like reading the deranged nonsense on the 9/11 sites, where people seem to believe in holograms and conspiracies and missiles. It's all nuts.
This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. But do go on kidding yourselves, it's amusing.

This is the censored version we published:

@ anon(and (censored)) 2.12pm
Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious.
This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. (censored).
@ Anon 2.35
Not implying anything.(censored)
Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this? There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment. (censored)
This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. (censored).

As you can see, only the insulting, offensive or aggressive language was cut out, leaving the relevant content intact.

Also it has become much less off-putting than certainly originally intended.

It would be naive of us to believe that TC is a single person, although it certainly does appear to be just someone who, unable to withstand the heat of the frying pan in which he voluntarily jumped in, has decided to lash out like a cornered animal. From now on, any BH now knows that he either abides by the basic rules of education or accepts that his/her comment will not be published, or, if it is to be, it will be censored.

We also receive comments from readers who're not blatantly BH that we think best not to publish. Here is an example (by the way, it’s the only one we’ve withheld with reference with the present post this far):

Can we stop this discussion about some idiot and get back to the real object of this forum please.
You have a little girl still waiting for justice.

The reason for not publishing it (well, we’ve done it now, haven’t we?) is the unnecessarily aggressive language used.

If it’s from coming from a WH, than s/he should rephrase it. As we have no way of asking to have that done, we’re limited to not publishing.

It contains language we can do without, and its tone reveals a kind of support we do not seek or even want to associate with us.

If, as it appears to be, it’s from a BH, and most likely from TC, it brings nothing new, and seeks only to divert the attention away from him.

Hope this pleases who we aim to please, and that’s you, for we need your help in trekking this path.

One last note for clarification's sake, and that is to think, or even mention, that the TC acronym is referring to our friend Totally Confused is to be transparently abusive and ill-intended.

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #7/?

2011-09-14T06:17:00.000+01:00

Question: Who was able to steal from the Ocean Club, or, more precisely, from its Tapas Bar, at a time exactly when the eyes of the whole wide world were upon that exact resort?

Answer. Arséne Lupin, or maybe not. It's a trick question, as we honestly don’t know who really did it, but the whole thing is so preposterous that if you did happen to answer something ridiculous as Bugs Bunny, we’ll give you the full marks.

Maddie was abducted on May 3rd, so her parents say, and as both friends and strangers and do seem to confirm. The latest person that we got to know that did exactly that, thanks to our own private and exclusive Insane, was a Mr. Philip Edmonds, apparently a stranger to the couple, who has, so says he, a picture of Maddie taken on that exact same day.

One has to wonder if it was taken after the famous “last picture” by the pool. If it was, then it should be the one to get all the publicity instead of that one, shouldn’t it? Obviously, to protect the privacy of this gentleman’s sons, their faces should be blurred upon its publication.

We, on the other hand, say that if we must use the term “abduction” to describe what happened that night to Maddie, then it was God who used a human hand to abduct the child from this life and call her to His side.

On May 3rd, Maddie left this world, our world, and the world was violently shaken by its collars and made sure that it was fully aware of that exact fact. If you didn't know, then the world media, led by the British Media (who knew exactly what they were doing) made sure you got to know. We may then allow for some ignorance in the first 24 hours, but as of May 5th there wasn’t a living soul that didn’t turn his/her eyes towards PdL.

On May 6th, all those not included as "living souls", such as those that had worked the whole previous day in some mine, or in any other job, or situation, that excluded any social contact with the outside world, joined the remainder of us in this collective hysteria of looking for a girl that, unfortunately for her, hadn’t gone that far after all.

And what else happened on May 6th, the peak of attention from the whole wide world on PdL?

A Tapas dinner, of course.

And what is so peculiar about this Tapas dinner, that is worth mentioning?

Well, as the world was explaining where EXACTLY allegedly the parents and friends sat when the alleged abductor did the alleged dastardly deed, a person was able to steal, I repeat, STEAL, two meals from the Tapas Bar!

Who dared such, ask you?

We don’t know who, but whoever it was s/he had guts. That, we must give it to him or her.

First, s/he stands in line to be able to reserve, and it seems to have been the 4th in line. He reserved, show the records, a meal for 2, for 7:20.

Provides NO room number, and then does one defying move, which, for us, makes us think that it was Arsene Lupin indeed, that FICTITIOUS gentleman-thief, that pulled this off: he goes and identifies himself as “Thomas Cook”, the booking agency that competes directly with Mark Warner at the OC!!

Is that a daring move or what?!? It certainly is. Either folly or utter bravado!!

At 7:20 Mr. “T. Cook” arrives, is CHECKED and allocated table #209.

He then has his meal, accompanied by someone, certainly a partner in crime, or, possibly a damsel to be seduced by being swept off her feet by the luxury offered by the Tapas Bar.

Done his evil deed, exits, never to be seen, never to be billed. What audacity!!

You think I’m making this up?

Check it out for yourself:

Unless, of course, this piece of paper is anything BUT a reservation sheet, and its only purpose, as with all other “Tapas Reservation Sheets” was to provide the idea that there were dinners that never happened.

But that would mean that both the guests whose names appear on these sheets, as well as the OC Staff who wrote them up and handed them to the PJ were in on something, wouldn’t it?

Finally, there’s only one thing that makes us be skeptical about Mr. “Thomas Cook” being Mr. Arsene Lupin. The latter is totally and completely FICTIONAL, while we believe that the first IS NOT.

We think that Mr. “Thomas Cook” happens to be real, very real. And not only real, but REALISTIC, because s/he chose not to be involved in this whole HOAX and made sure that his/her real name didn’t appear.

Post Scriptum: My personal situation remains unchanged, unfortunately. So please do continue to consider me "absent". Each day is just each day. Thank you so much for your messages of love and support. They've been a decisive strengthening factor, and show how caring humanity can be. Thank you.

Textusa has been called away

2011-09-09T16:25:00.000+01:00

Even though Textusa has to go away for a few days to attend to her relative, who has taken a turn for the worse, she is still thinking of you readers.

She asked me to tell you that she needs to spend the next few days with this dear person. It is a very distressing time for all the family and Textusa is the person who shoulders most of the burden to lessen the load for the others.

I know you will join May I and me wishing and hoping that the person will show signs of recovery soon.

We still have lots to share with you and I will be publishing comments until she is back with us so please do keep sending your comments.

For those of you who believe in the power of prayer your devotions would be most welcome.

The "Adultch" Triangle

2011-09-02T22:05:00.000+01:00

Foreword: this post is intended to be understood ONLY by a very selective group of people who we know follow very attentively this blog. To all our other readers, our apologies for this "enigmatic" post.

In the most famous triangle of the world, the Bermuda Triangle, things disappeared without explanation.

There’s another triangle, known to few, which we’ll call the “Adultch" Triangle, which is defined by AMSTERDAM – VENLO – ROERMOND, which as unlikely as it seems, may have played a significant part in the Maddie McCann Affair.

In this triangle, "Adult Only" interests are catered for. Very, very adult interests. "Adultch" is the resulting compression of the word "Adult" with "Dutch". The first, is the intent, the latter the location. Mind you, we believe that this is but one of many existing "Triangles". But this one is very well known within the few we know know it.

The thing about this particular triangle, is that, unlike its Bermuda counterpart, it might explain many, many unexplained things.

You see, in the Bermuda Triangle, people from the outside, came inside it and unexplainably disappeared.

But in the "Adultch" Triangle, people come mainly from the outside, gathered in a "somewhere" inside, and come out as if they were never in it. But while they were there, there were many, many a story to be forever untold, and we're not going to be the ones to tell them. Not that we know any, that is. What we know is from hearsay.

But this "Adultch Triangle", just might explain the cover-up of a disappearance. Both, the cover-up and disappearance, or disappearance and cover-up to put them in the correct order, happened many, many miles away.

It brings to memory a certain song, which we've taken the liberty of adapting:

Down by Reuven
(an adaptation of the song “Down River” by The Temper Trap)

Finally
We have seen some things
Some awfully nice
Some dreadfully bad

But we will sing
Wash the blood, off our knees
Cause our love breaks
Through ruff seas, our ship will sail it

I, don't, understand
How this world will work
Cause time will tell us nothing
I'll take a chance on something

(Fill them up
Fill them
This time take you)

Down by Reuven
Down by Reuven
Down by Reuven
Down..

(Walk these stairs
Put the pieces back together)

Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go don't stop
Now go..

Finally
We have seen some things
But bells in your hallways
Don't move you in the right place

So we will sing
Cast our hopes out to sea
Though our hears break
Through violent winds, our ship will sail it

I, don't, understand
How this world will work
Cause time will tell us nothing
I'll take a chance on something

(Build them up
Build them
This time take you)

Down by Reuven.
Down by Reuven
Down by Reuven
Down..

(Walk these stairs
Put, the pieces, back together)

Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go don't stop
Now go..
Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go don't stop
Now go..

Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go, don't stop
Go don't stop
Now go..

This world really is one filled with insanity.

Important (You) Notice

2011-08-29T14:55:00.000+01:00

We think this should be given more visibility then it currently has in the comments box for the post Doing a TANNER. Please pardon the foul language, but we thought best to keep the comments as they were.

Comment from Insane at Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM:

“ ''And yet the dogs would beg to differ.

Thats the fundamental problem and very crux of the matter , we don't believe a word the M say , there is no evidence of an abduction!. I am afraid, Gerry says is totally insufficient , the shutters were lie one day one and so it has continued ad nuseum for 4 years''

Christ, the stupidity.

This has nothing to do with the dogs, or what the McCann's say, don't you understand that?

Disbelieve the McCanns all you like - I do. But that does not give anyone on this blog the right to harass and libel members of the public who have done nothing wrong. You have no right, and it makes you just as bad as the McCanns.

How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Comment from Insane at Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM:

'' ''Where in that is there a disbelief of the McCanns that you so much are claiming to divert the attention from the OC and guests?''

If you can translate that into English, I'll answer it

Aug 28, 2011 12:14:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

“ "Oh behave !! Is that seriously your evidence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

How long will it be until you say "Alright, we'll call it a draw"?

Have you no sense of shame or decency?''

Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Post Scriptum: Thank you Angelique for pointing this out to us.