The PdL Triangle

Anonymous Jun 15, 2011 12:56:00 PM wrote:

“I couldn't agree more. Media, police files, statements hold the most important key of information on the first days. 

When Madeleine was gone I read that all the kids were alone in the same apartment. In fact, Madeleine was alone and dead in 5-A ready to be transferred to a safer place.

So, if Kate and Payne were there when she was bumped in the head, this trouble was cooked late in the afternoon, the dinner was planned to put the group away from the crime scene and to be seen during the evening.

At the same time n abduction window of opportunity was opened. Was Jez involved in this swinging process and forced to go along with them or was he in a wrong place in the wrong time?


Was Murat called to help them with a KEY (seems the man was plenty of keys from empty apartments...) because he is a relative of Mark Warner owner?

What would be MW resort problem refusing to help Mccanns? How could McCanns prove MW is a resort for special couples and selective swinging?

Wasn't even worse to be involved in a fake abduction, hiding a corpse and produce fake statements involving employees that do follow your orders today but may change direction tomorrow?

That takes me to this conclusion: hiding Madeleine fatal condition worths what they were saving, and that cannot be the swinging resort offering... might be related to what would be found in the autopsy.  

She didn't fall, was not an accident... but why would the resort got involved?

Because 

a) they've panic and did not realize how things went wrong;

b) someone from OC should be supervising kids and wasn't without knowing she was already dead and a civil complain was on the way to OC. Covering up was the solution;

c) someone very important could not be involved in such a thing and that person was....;  

d) at that time OC did his best and had no idea to what was dragged for;

e) you name it or correct me if you please”

Dear Anon, First, let me praise you for the fact that you exposed your ideas but left, intentionally, room for them to be debated freely, which is highly commendable.

You raise a very interesting subject, and that is what parties exactly were involved, and how so.

Their will, their commitment and which of them took the lead in what we call here “The Maddie Affair”.

First we have to define the parties involved.

In our opinion, there were, and still are, three: T9, OC (which includes ownership and a significant part of the staff), and guests.

For simplicity sake, we shall call them the T-Team, the O-Team and the G-Team.

There are some “loose” players, like the PdL resident Expats. These can be either O-Team (had the same, or more, to lose as the OC) or G-Team (had the same to lose as some of the guests, or then assumed, for many different reasons, the mission to protect at all costs any reference made about any kind of involvement by some of them), or "play" for both teams.

For example, I find difficult to fit Murat in any of these teams as he fits in both.

But the Expats, are not the only “loose” players around. As all things in life, there’s no strict and clear line separating, or intersecting, these groups.  

David Payne, for example, seems to be right in the middle of the intersection of the three teams.

Secondly, we have to define the time.

As it went by, so the power relation between the teams changed.

During a long time it did, more or less, remain stable, but took on a lively turn since Jim Gamble was, shall we say, asked to perform much more important and noble duties, like being told to fade away into the background.  

Then, we said it was the beginning of the end, today we see the evident signs of the unavoidable erosion that has followed.

But let’s freeze time at the exact time we believe Maddie McCann died: around 18:30 on May 3rd, 2007.

We do this so that we can analyse what each of the teams had to lose, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, or thought they had to lose when they did realize how compromising Maddie’s death actually was.

Before you think we’re going into highly secret, or covert scientifically secret, reasons, let me clarify those that are new to the blog, that Maddie’s death was compromising just because it was an inexplicably violent death of a child (we still believe it to have happened unwittingly) in the middle of a swinging holiday.

How many times has each one us thought we would do something DIFFERENTLY if we had had the chance of knowing, BEFOREHAND, the consequences?

It’s so easy to judge, or decide the best path or course of action, knowing the OUTCOME.

But these people don't know that. They're before a fact, and making assessments and evaluating the implications of that particular fact upon themselves, based on the information possible and available, which is very little.

AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, they know not the world will pick up on this issue.

They know not that they will face a stubborn policeman.

They know not that the investigation, the PJ Files, will become public, for public scrutiny.

All they know is that they have a dead child on their hands, whose cadaver bears the marks of a violent demise, and they know that they don’t want anyone else to know that they were present or in the vicinities when Maddie lost her life.

And if it had to be known, as they soon realized that it had to be, that they were in fact THERE, that would be within the permissible boundaries (this for some, for others, not even that was to be permitted), but what was ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED TO BE KNOWN was the WHY they were there.

The UK has very little PUBLIC tolerance for any sexual "deviation"...

It's a fact that the UK tabloids act as starved dogs around a bone whenever they can get their teeth into a nice and juicy sex-scandal. Even the most hungry hyenas seem tame compared to them.

So, for all three teams, things, at that moment, were not looking good. Not good at all. In fact, they looked bad, horrible, with unacceptable consequences.

So they decide to take action.  

Who decided what and when?

Let’s first understand the constitution of each team.

The T-Team is made up of 9 elements. It would later grow, as various Healy and McCann signed up.

The O-Team, would, at this time, be at the Ownership/Managerial level. Some of the other staff were involved that evening, but probably were not aware of most of the details. Simply followed orders. On the next day, and the days after, the staff was slowly brought up to speed. Some of them were fully briefed on what was going on, probably because they were paid specifically to cater for that event.

These were conscious accomplices when they lied to the Police.

There were others that were convinced to go and tell “white lies” just to help out a distraught family, that had got herself into trouble, so there was no need to aggravate their grief.

They were probably told that it would be inconsequential lies, as the whole thing was under control, would quickly be resolved and that normality would quickly return.

These honest, low-wage workers, are the ones that have the biggest right to curse, which I'm sure they do, the day somebody decided to invite the McCanns over to a "PdL party"...

The G-Team, would have been two, or three of the most “important” guests.

It's uncertain how they appear into events, and only, I'm sure, David Payne can clarify that, and, as we've seen, asking him serve nothing to know.

He either contacted the O-Team first, and this team contacted the G-Team, or he contacted the G-Team first. Is it relevant the order in which the other two teams were contacted? No, it isn't, but I think it was the G-Team first, as the "Party-Coordinator" came from its ranks.

Like it happened with the O-Team, other guests were informed of what had happened on the next morning.

Some flew immediately out of scene, others cooperated out of pure self-interest, and some, probably less important and influential were pulled in.

The names that appear on the "Tapas sheets" are not there innocently. Those sheets were done, and redone. But they were done under pressure, and some who agreed to let their names be there, quickly changed their mind. H

How do I know that? By their deafening silence.

At first I thought, like you, that the McCanns had had always the lead, and were the ones to set the pace up, but I began, progressively to think somewhat differently.

You see, although the Jim Gamble "piece" did fit in the puzzle with perfection, one of the other around it, did not. It had to be forced into place, or, in the very least, didn't fit gently in.

That "piece" was David Payne.

I just couldn't see any set of circumstances which would have place Gamble under Payne's foot.

The other way around did seem a possibility, but the facts pointed for Gamble to be helping Payne, and certainly not the other way around.  

Gamble is a "filth collector" not a "filth-monger" himself. He who beholds the filth controls the "filthee", not the other way around. And taking into account the number and importance of people involved, both manipulating and being manipulated, as well as the resources spent and required, it meant that all went much, much further than a possible friendly return of favours, however strong their eventual bonding.

The David Payne "piece" just didn't fit in the way I think pieces should fit in. Always gently and naturally, never forced or distorted.

After some thought, and researching, I now think that in those early moments of that May 3rd evening, the decisions were in fact "tri-partied". All three teams suggesting and discussing possible solutions to the unsolvable problem.

But this "cooperation" was not for long. In fact, it probably only happened for a very short period of time.

It quickly became an exclusive “bi-party” ran operation. Ran solely by the O-Team and the G-Team.

Only these two teams had the capability and resources to influence and manipulate so many people, both powerful and common.

The first knew the terrain; and brought in ex-Pat help, the second had the power and influence and may justify why all of a sudden the UK Government took such a keen and devout interest in a group of upper middle-class, if that, doctors.

The T-Team, as insignificant as they really are, were ordered to take the role of actors, in a script written by the other two.

Yes, there was an “actor” very keen to please, a Dr. Gerald McCann, who, if others like the Smiths had cooperated, would have played the role of his life. A BAFTA in the very least.

His "we're not here to have fun", seems to indicate that they were to be introduced to a "higher" circle of people.

This was to be their trial run, their initiation ceremony.

All T-Team players had very little influence, with the exception of David Payne, who appears to be the connecting point between the T-Team and the other two.

Please do not confuse Payne's influence, with power to influence. His was liaison role only, aggravated with the fact that he was the responsible one for all the mess.

The script was well written, the play even had a title: "NEGLIGENCE AND ABDUCTOR".

The story of a forbidden love between two fictitious characters, Mrs Negligence and Mr. Abductor, brought together, by fate, in the fictitious far, far away land of COLOBOMA.

Unfortunately for all, the Kate's untimely alarm rendered all cue cards useless... as we all know, that timing is EVERYTHING in theatre, and Kate ruined it all.

Gerry still hadn't returned, the window still hadn't been broken into, they didn't have that precious hour to get the details right between them at the Tapas joined up tables, which would clarify as to who sat where, and that they didn't sit around a BIG ROUND TABLE.

Adding to this, and the “critic”-on-duty, one Gonçalo Amaral, proved to be not in the mood to play along with what had suddenly turned from a Tony Award winning spectacle into a sad, pathetic play.

But what NOBODY realized there and then was that, once they launched the play, the casting was done, without a possibility of changing any of the actors.

Not for the supporting roles, much less for the leading ones.

And between you and me, the choice of actors was disastrous and would prove to be disastrous both for the O and G-Team.

Yes, they could remove, which they did, from the building some, or most of the participant stagehands, but the main cast, was, as was proved, irreplaceable.

Everyone was taken by surprise with the selfish, egocentric and narcissistic personality traits of the McCann couple.

These two soon realized how great the power the information they possessed had, and, stupidly, as only stupid people can be, misused it by exaggeration and completely spoiled its usefulness.

Maybe that’s why that when they came to the tabloids threatening that they were “running out of money in the fund (... or else)”, they were subtly convinced to write the book (an ode to stupidity), which, they were certainly told, would end their problems once and for all, especially their financial ones.

Selfish, egocentric and narcissistic people are known to be highly manipulative, but are so much in love with themselves that you just have to give a little tug on their vanity that they will follow you down any path you wish to take them on.

And what Kate wrote, was not a book, but a sworn and signed self-incriminatory testimony of 350 plus pages.

One month has passed since it was published, and I believe that they would gladly give back all the money the book has made to date, just to be able to return to May 11th, 2011.

To ask to return to May 3rd, 2007 is not for them to plead, because, as said, I believe that little after Maddie died, they had little or nothing to say in the matter of the events of that evening.

Am I implying that the O-Team and the G-Team had anything to do with Maddie's death?

Of course not, because they didn't. That death occurred WITHIN the T-Team "compound".

Am I exempting the McCanns from any of their guilt?

Absolutely in no way.

 Once you understand this triangle, things will become much, much more clear.

Then, if you "submit" David Payne's "piece" to Gamble's one, and not the other way around, you'll find that it just slides in perfectly.

Post Scriptum:

About the reported, by Duarte Levy, suing of TVI, Goucha, Sargento and Carvalho, by the McCanns, this blog finds very strange that only Paulo Sargento has been constituted as "arguido".

The fact that a TV Station and ONE of its presenters seem to be involved, means that a certain, and specific, aired program merited this said judicial action.

A program where all three (Goucha, Sargento and Carvalho) were certainly present.

This in turn means it was single event in time, which would mean that ALL its PARTICIPANTS would have be named "arguido" at the same time, and not selectively, like seems to be the case with Sargento.

It simply doesn't make sense for him to have been notified of his "arguido" status on June 15th, and for Carvalho to be heard only in July.

When will then be the TVI Management heard or notified? Or Goucha?

Until we have confirmation from other sources other than Duarte Levy, this blog remains very skeptical about these "news".

And you know what we think about Levy's exclusive reporting...

The Devil's Finger is in the Detail

By May I
We thought the Tapas restaurant took 20 covers, just for MW guests [1] (not to be confused with OC guests as we know from the reviews that, at least, Thomas Cook also booked for that particular resort) and so did the receptionist, Luisa Coutinho [2].  

Kate's book has put us right and we now discover they could only cope with 15 [3].

She also confirms Rachael made the block booking for 9 [4] on Monday, as opposed to Russell O' Brien on Sunday, as stated by Luisa Coutinho, the receptionist. Presumably O'Brien, as he is described as tall and not the father of the child [5]

The customers could be assured of attentive service, as there were 7 members of staff on duty on the evening of May 3rd .

I've coped with as many as that at many of our at home gatherings and no dishwasher. I also watched as 4 young people efficiently prepared and served Sunday lunch and drinks for 25 customers, at the same time as running the bar at my local pub.

It's difficult to understand the willingness of prospective customers for the Tapas to queue for a booking for the remaining 6 places every morning, but Stephen Carpenter and Philip Edmonds obviously did.

One would imagine that men of their status wouldn't normally queue for anything, let alone a rather mediocre establishment which offered unsophisticated Quiz Nights as the highlight events.

Those Quiz Nights must have been rather boring, given that it must have consisted of one team of 9 against another of 6?

How did the T9 team manage to lose, given this advantage?  

Mr Carpenter says the whole T9 party were assembled at 8.30., but Kate doesn't mention this detail in her account of the truth.

 There are various accounts of the evening, so you can pick and choose to construct your own version of the night. Or the week, for that matter.

The two Irwin ladies had also made a successful bid for a table that night, but it seems they may not have turned up.

The T9 denied all knowledge of them when questioned by the Portuguese police. They did exist, as they are on the guest list, but no statements were obtained from them.

It looks like Luisa will be blamed for making the note on the reception book, as she says of the Tapas “O referido hóspede, justificou a exigência pelo facto de, no grupo, terem várias crianças pequenas que ficariam a dormir sózinhas, enquanto eles, os pais, iam jantar. Disse ainda que intervaladamente um dois pais se dirigiria aos apartamentos, a fim de verificar se estava tudo bem.”

This paragraph has a typo, as the expression “um dois pais” doesn’t exist in Portuguese. It can be either “um dos pais” (one of the parents) or “um ou dois pais” (one or two parents).

Either way this typo doesn’t alter the general sense of what Luisa had to say: “The mentioned guest justified the demand with the fact that, in the group, they had small children who would be sleeping alone, while they, the parents, would go dine. Furthermore said that at intervals one of the parents (or one or two parents) would go to the apartments, so as to verify that everything was alright.”

Inspector Hugo Silva continues Luisa’s statement with “The deponent put some restraints against the request, as it’s a very requested restaurant and that only has 20 daily places for the Mark Warner's guests, however after insistence from the mentioned guest, the deponent was able to make the requested bookings.” [6]

Inspector Hugo Silva took this statement on May 8th adding “During the present inquiry it was given by the deponent a minute book, handwritten, where is what was referred concerning the bookings to the restaurant “Tapas”’ [7]

What he DOESN'T say, however, is that she had made any notes IN THE BOOK about the group leaving children unattended.

We haven't been able to find ANY evidence of a written note in the RELEASED PJ files, but there is a possible source for Kate's observation that a note WAS written in the book [8], and it may be that the author she was relying on had simply made this interpretation from officer Silva's comment.  

Goncalo Amaral's book refers to the reception book, but in his account, it was on Tuesday May 1st; the day the Portuguese celebrate Labour Day, or Worker’s Day (Dia do Trabalhador).

 
Mr Amaral writes: “Coming the time for the adult’s dinner, the children again stay alone at home. In the restaurant "Tapas"’s reception book, a more diligent worker writes down the dinner booking and annotates that some elements of that group of tourists would get up from time to time, to go see the children who are in the apartments.” [9]

There was another trainee receptionist on duty on this day; Elise Romão, so is the suggestion here that she wrote the note in the book, or even another note?

 Goncalo Amaral later writes about the debate in the police crisis room: [10]:
“- It’s incomprehensible that an eventual predator would have the audacity of going inside an apartment and withdraw from it a child, having to suppose that the parents could arrive at any moment.
- That predator had to know the habits of parents and had to be sure of what he was going to do. - Another reason for that not to fall correctly into place... one of the two: either someone gave him the knowledge of such habits, and there we have to think of the "Tapas" restaurant staff or then he's hung around, studying the vicinity...
- If he studied the vicinity why did he go in through the front door and went out of the window, or even the other way around, the only door that was open was the one that goes to the pool area.
- Yes… there would have been easy to go in and out and run less risks of being seen.
- The child’s parents say that when they noticed Madeleine’s disappearance, the bedroom’s window was open and the front door closed  
- And if they’re not telling the truth?”

 It would be ironic if Kate's book, hinting at an inside job, relied on a source which she had banned from distribution, wouldn't it?

The weather-vane of this story has swung in many directions, but Kate's book seems to be taking us back to its initial position.

To recap, Robert Murat made the following infamous observation to David Jones of The Daily Mail on June 2nd 2007: “ Basically, I'm just an ordinary straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f.... up on the planet”, but the rest of the quote is less well remembered “If you want my opinion, it had to involve someone on the inside who works at the Ocean Club.”

So beware, Ocean Club employees, as the finger seems to be pointing back at you!  



Notes: 
[1] Luisa Coutinho says: “Importa referir que a família em questão, veio por intermédio da empresa “MARK WARNER”, esta empresa tem como política tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e as recepções, uma vez que esta última lida directamente com a empresa Mark Warner.” 
Which translates to: “It should be referred that the family in question, came through the "MARK WARNER" company, this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pgs 569 and 570) 

 [2] Luisa Coutinho says: “Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes Mark Warner dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe referem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares reservados a clientes “Mark Warner”, mais concretamente 20.” 
Which translates to: “Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner. For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation. However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking since it has a few seats reserved for "Mark Warner" customers, 20 to be concrete.” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570) 
And also says in the same statement: “A ora depoente colocou alguns entraves ao pedido, uma vez que é um restaurante muito solicitado e que dispões de apenas 20 lugares diários para os clientes da Mark warner, no entanto após insistência por parte do mencionado hóspede, a depoenete conseguiu efectuar as reservas solicitadas.”  
Which translates into: “The deponent put some restraints to the request, as it’s a very requested restaurant and that only has 20 daily seats for the Mark warner’s guests, however after insistence from the mentioned guest, the deponent was able to make the requested bookings.”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570)  

[3] “Today [Sunday] we’d been able to make a dinner reservation for the adult contingent at the poolside Tapas restaurant. Apparently, this restaurant, a canopied outdoor addition to the bar, catered for only up to fifteen diners in the evenings, and reservations could not be made until the morning of the day in question. Being so close, it was far more convenient than the Millennium.” 
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 52)  

[4] “In spite of what we’d been told about booking the Tapas restaurant, Rachael managed to get a table for nine at 8.30pm pencilled in for the rest of the week after having a word with the receptionist at the pool and Tapas area.”  
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 56) 

[5] Luisa Coutinho says: “Recorda que, no Domingo, 29, um dos elementos do grupo que chegou com a menor Madeleine MacCann , cujo nome desconhece e apenas saber ser do sexo masculino e alto e magro, dirigiu-se a ora depoente solicitando a marcação de jantar para todo o grupo, para toda a semana e sempre para as 20:30 Questionada afirma que o individuo que falou consigo não era o pai da menor, mas outro elemento do grupo que era visto regulatmente com ele.” 
Which translates into: “Recalls that on Sunday, 29, one of the elements of the group that came with the minor Madeleine MacCann, whose name she doesn’t know and only knows to be male and tall and thin, came to the deponent asking for dinner bookings for the entire group for the entire week and always for 20:30. Questioned says that the individual that spoke with her was not the father of the child, but another member of the group that was regularly with him.”  
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570) 

[6] Luisa Coutinho says: “A ora depoente colocou alguns entraves ao pedido, uma vez que é um restaurante muito solicitado e que dispões de apenas 20 lugares diários para os clientes da Mark warner, no entanto após insistência por parte do mencionado hóspede, a deponente conseguiu efectuar as reservas solicitadas” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 570)  

[7] Luisa Coutinho says: “No decurso da presente inquirição foi entregue pela ora depoente um livro de actas, manuscrito, onde consta o que foi referido relativamente às reservas ao restaurante “Tapas”.” 
(PJ Files, VOL III, pg. 571)  

[8] “It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. 
To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."  
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 56)  

[9] “Chegada a hora de jantar dos adultos, as crianças ficam de novo sozinhas em casa. No livro da recepção do restaurante “Tapas”, uma funcionária mais diligente escreve a marcação do jantar e anota que alguns dos elementos daquele grupo de turistas se levanta de vez em quando, para ir ver os filhos que se encontram nos apartamentos.”  
(in MADDIE, A VERDADE DA MENTIRA, by Gonçalo Amaral, published in 2008 by Guerra e Paz, pg. 35)  

[10] “- Não se compreende que um eventual predador tivesse a ousadia de entrar dentro de um apartamento e dali retirado uma criança, tendo que supor que os pais podiam chegar a qualquer momento.  
- Esse predador tinha que conhecer os hábitos dos pais e estar seguro do que iria fazer. 
- Mais uma razão para isso não bater certo... das duas uma: ou alguém lhe deu a conhecer tais hábitos , e aí temos que pensar nos funcionários do restaurante “Tapas”, ou então ele andou ali a rondar e a estudar o terreno...
- Se estudou o terreno porque entrou pela porta principal e saiu pela janela, ou mesmo ao contrário, a única porta que se encontrava aberta é a que dá para a zona das piscinas. 
- Sim.... por aí seria fácil entrar e sair e corria menos riscos de ser visto. 
- Os pais da criança dizem que a janela do quarto se encontrava aberta e a porta principal fechada, quando deram pelo desaparecimento de Madeleine.  
- E se eles não estiverem a falar verdade?” 
(in MADDIE, A VERDADE DA MENTIRA, by Gonçalo Amaral, published in 2008 by Guerra e Paz, pg. 61)

Gun With a Silencer, or Just a Smoking Gun?

My first words, go to our beloved readers (which exclude all those that come here to see if they don’t see, at least for one more day, what they don’t want to see, or be seen by others), and that is to apologise for my absence, but there are things in life much more important than chasing after criminals that everyone knows already to be that: criminals.

People have only failed to put their finger on what crime was exactly committed, and in that particular aspect, the Black Hat Machine has been brilliant.

Everyone knows the McCanns are criminals, but they’ve fooled the majority of what, and thus have reached the desired state of being wrongfully accused, as the accusation has nothing to do with the done deed.

That’s why good and honest people, like yourself, come here and try to understand what did really happen, through the methodical deconstruction of the immense web of lies that these (all of them not just the known ones) criminals have put between us and the truth.

Oh, and the not so good and not so honest people, also come here for the same reason, albeit with the opposite purpose of intent of the aforementioned, that meaning, to avoid at all costs, that you, good and honest citizen, understand what really happened.

My second words, go to Kate McCann. I would like to present her with my sincerest apologies. Kate, I’m incapable of reciprocating what you’ve done with us.

Your book proves that you read our blog very attentively, whilst, no matter how hard I try, I just can’t get through your book.

I’m stuck in between the two set of pictures, and just can’t progress. Not that I consider it a load of tripe, as many people do, because I really don’t. I honestly think it’s filled with immensely valuable information (which was quite a surprise), but as I know its content wasn’t meant for my eyes, so, reading it feels like eavesdropping on a conversation between you (and your “team”) and your “former friends” which I feel I am no part of.

Of the said conversation, that is.

Like reading private love letters where there’s little or absolutely no love at all between the parties.

I could've used the expression “like reading a diary..” but we all know that yours was anything but a diary, Kate.

The other thing that surprised me in your book was, although I’ve already said here many times that stupidity, unlike intelligence, is limitless; how you were able to surpass in stupidity (sorry to be repetitive, but the adjective is the only appropriate one, so I must reuse, as “asinine” doesn’t quite encompass all) the production of your infamous Mockumentary, back in May 2009.

In this book, each page is one huge treasure chest against you. Even the pics were unfortunate.

I must wonder if you people must be so much undermanned now, because that would be the only reason to let this thing pass. Couldn’t anybody see how big this mistake was? To say that you put your foot in your mouth would be an understatement. It is so big that, Kate, I honestly think you got had.
 

You were very, very unfortunate with the publication of this book. Almost as much as you were when, in your utter arrogance of not realizing that both the tides and winds had changed as of Nov last year, did decide to write a letter to David Cameron, thinking he wouldn’t react

Unfortunately for you, and thanks to you, he now has the upper hand, doesn’t he?

As you know, I do have other priorities at the moment, and so cannot dedicate myself to the blog as I used to, at least until life resets my priorities back to normal.

But let me just tell you two of the reasons why your book was an unquantifiable stupid, stupid move to make.

Firstly, you filled it with self-incriminating evidence.

Besides all the words, and there are many, that you write against yourself, your lame excuse of possible mistranslation doesn’t stick one bit.

One may mistranslate between a lettuce and a cabbage, when asked about a vegetable, but certainly there’s no possible confusion to be made between interstellar quantum physics and pink trainers.

And you imply too many a time for your own comfort that such confusions kept on happening, which basically means that they didn’t.

Secondly, how can I say this? When one threatens to spill the "beans" one has to be very careful how one does it. One has to very, very subtle.

Now, you’d read on this blog that we were on to the game you people were playing, so you should have been even more careful than careful. And you weren’t. Not even by a long shot.

The way you wrote the book, you’ve basically connected all the dots that needed to be connected. By threatening “them” that you could spill the said “beans”, you’ve basically have shown them to the rest of us.

And when you tried to cover a lie with another, you apparently forgot what information that this new lie further provides the rest of us.

And now, thanks to you, the “rest of us” besides now having the physical proof of yet another contradicting version of events from you, can easily see what “beans” are there with which you think you can threaten others with. And by simple logic, know who most likely are the "others".

 Silence is golden, didn’t anybody tell you that?

An unwritten piece of paper, like silence, is limitless, but as soon as you write on it, you limit it to the information that has just been put on it.

And how you’ve limited yourself, Kate.  

The indescribably sick and ethically repulsive “coloboma marketing ploy” is but one example.

If you thought that by throwing even more clutter onto the already existing humungous pile of trash, you’d fool any of us, that makes only a bigger fool of you.

I’m sorry for not having now the time to dissect your book right now. But, unless you get arrested meanwhile, there will be time to do so.

Oh, before I forget, I would like thank you for writing it, and publishing it, although I fully understand why J. K. Rowling (who, if I'm not mistaken, does not deserve one word of thanks, after having put you, once again I hope I'm right here, in contact with her publishers...) put quite a safe distance between herself and your book.

She's a smart woman.

To the readers, I appeal to your patience. I promise that I’ll write as much as time will permit, but do warn that time will not permit much.

Bless you all

Our sister Textusa is taking some time out

Our sister Textusa is taking some time out to look after one of her family members so May I and Sina J are going to keep an eye on the blog until she is able to take up the rei(g)ns again. Hopefully the family member is well on the way to recovery now so Textusa will be back soon and on form.

We know she has a lot she would like to discuss as soon as time allows.

Please keep your comments coming , even if they 're not published immediately because we value WH contributions which help to formulate our posts. Behind the scenes, a lot of research is taking place and it is proving VERY interesting,

Hide & Seek

Dear Kate McCann, I apologise for writing to you twice with such a short interval, but I'm finding myself in dire need of your help.

As I promised I’ve started to read your book.

And it has shown to be one of the most aching, agonizing, excruciating, harrowing, torturing, wrenching and traumatic experiences of my life.

What a naive fool I was in thinking that it would be a quick read!!! It’s been a arduous, gruelling, laborious, punishing and toilsome nauseating task… and I’m only on page 42.

So why do I need your help? It’s all got to do with our Brit friend.

You know the one that was practically forced by me to buy your book so that I could have one. Talk about masochism. On my part, that is, for our friend has proven, as always, to be the selfless and altruistic soul that we know her to be.

Since it’s been four days that I have the book, the friend has asked me one question, and to answer it, I do need your help: “HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THERE’S NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT MADDIE’S COLOBOMA IN THE ENTIRE BOOK?”

Honestly, my jaw dropped.

Please do help me out, and please DO tell me that you DIDN’T forget to mention about what your hubby has defined as a “good marketing ploy”, that mark, or better said, trademark, by which Maddie has become known worldwide?

A face recognized anywhere, so much so that that particular mark is perfectly visible in photo you chose for the cover of your book.

Because after reading all the details about your pregnancies (I shudder just to think that your “lovemaking chapter” may go into similar detail, I really do hope not!) it’s impossible that you would forget to speak about the MAIN physical characteristic by which someone would NOW be able to recognize your daughter.

You had so much time to prepare the content, so it would be completely ludicrous for you to forget that, wouldn't it?

After all it is ALL about that that your book is about, isn’t it?

To help others find your daughter, right? The eight year old girl with a COLOBOMA in her right eye, supposedly abducted 4 years ago.

This is where you come in. As I’ve told you, I’m on page 42. At this rhythm, tomorrow, by this time, I’ll be on page 50, being the optimistic that I am. That means, only in June will I will be able to provide my friend an answer.

That would be very rude on my part, wouldn’t it?

So, in order to allow me to answer my friend in a timely manner, could you, dear Kate, please direct us to which page(s) of your book is your daughter’s COLOBOMA referred to?

 Awfully grateful,

Your… Textusa

Update, May 24th:  

Kate, Now I’m really getting annoyed. I’ve only been able to reach page 47 up to now.

I'm continuously getting interrupted by our Brit friend: Have you seen that she doesn’t speak about this? Noticed that she says nothing about that? I love her, honestly I do, but she’s starting to become bothersome...

These are some of the things she mentioned that you forgot to write about:

- No mention of either of the Quiz Nights.
- No mention of free wine.
- No mention of the round table, much less of the BIG ROUND TABLE
- No mention of having argued with Gerry over his lack of attention caused by a woman, that made you sleep in Maddie’s bedroom, something that your husband didn’t even notice.
- No mention of washing Maddie’s Cuddle Cat.
- No mention of the stolen wallet incident.
- No mention of you having a best mate now although you did have one at school.
- No mention of the family trip to the beach.
- No mention of the lunch with the Paynes.
- No mention of the tennis dinner.
- No mention of Gaspars

Is there anything else that you'd like to forewarn me that you've forgot besides Maddie's COLOBOMA?!?

That you did forget to even think when you wrote it, is pretty clear... so please don’t mention it.

You know, reading about a narcissistic, that one particularly dislikes, going on about shamelessly complementing himself (herself in this case) is a terribly hard task to undertake by just by itself, so I certainly don't need to have it further aggravated with all these interruptions.

The book has 383 pages.  

Did you write about anything relevant? 

Or are these topics reserved for Gerry’s yet unannounced upcoming book?

Does this book jog any memories by providing any new info?... Well apart from the stupid e-fits of random new suspects?

I tell you, if my friend interrupts me once again, I’m seriously thinking of suing you for misleading of public and false propaganda.

But I have to get through the thing first, don’t I? Give me a break, please!

And this was what our friend had to say up to now.

In her hurry she may have missed or overlooked something and I would be grateful to readers if they let us know what else has been missed, or if she, out of so many forgotten things, has mentioned something that you didn't forget after all…

We, in this blog, don't want to accuse of anything that you don't deserve to be accused of!

Maddie's Rights

Dear Kate,

 I’ve finally received the copy of your book. Where I live, the mail is kind of slow, one of a handful of disadvantages among countless blessings.

My friend in the UK has refused to accept any refund for the “blood-money” she has given for your work of questionable art but, at least, of unquestionable bad taste.

We in the blog all hope to find that the purchase of the book will be worth our friend's real SACRIFICE. I now know not how to repay but the only option I’m left with is to send my friend my copy of Amaral’s book, and wait for the McCann's Portuguese lawyers to comply with the a Sovereign Country’s Court’s decision, and finally release the copies of the withheld books.

Then I can ask my Portuguese friend who bought this one for me, to buy another. Back then my Portuguese friend also refused any money. I’m almost tempted to feed the idea of setting up a library just on offered books.

I only don’t do that because I have already set up one: my head is filled up with unforgettable memories shared with priceless friends.

I digress as always. No disrespect meant, as I would have to have the most minuscule particle of respect for you, which I don’t, to be able to have such intent.

Let it be clear that from me you will never, ever, be disrespected.

Back to your book, I’ve looked at it. Better yet, have looked at the cover and it confers with what was shown daily in The Sun.

I haven’t read it yet. It’s Friday and I don’t want to spoil my weekend. You, especially, do understand what I mean, as you, better than all, know exactly how nauseating your book is.

But once I laid my eyes upon the vile object, it immediately came to my mind the Miranda Right’s. You know, that phrase that we’ve heard so many times that we’ve forgotten that it’s applicable only in the US, and even there, has variances from State to State: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”

I believe the UK version is somewhat similar, at least in intent: “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

“You have the right to remain silent / You do not have to say anything”, you chose not to. “Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law/ Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”, that’s your book in a nutshell.

But whoever came up with the UK version, must of had you, Kate McCann, dead set in their minds when coming up with the wording.

You see, while the American version speaks about needing and providing a lawyer, which we all know is something that you’ve been able to achieve by the bucketful of the most expensive ones, the British version fits you just like a glove “it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court”.

Now let me tell you what I’ll be looking for in your book. When I read it that is.

First, I’ll be checking the whole Reservation Book Saga. What you say was written on it, who wrote what, where it was, where it was left and who may possibly have read it. Let me tell that some people have already told me that you here had some sort of hallucination, as they say you say that you see things that nobody else has been able to see. Don’t worry, I’ll only believe it when I see it myself.

Then, I’ll read what you have to say about those crucial moments when you, apparently, found out that Maddie was missing. You know all the wooshing and clanking, or clanking and wooshing, in whichever order you decided to put it in your book, if you did put it in.

I’m also very interested in the apparent sudden urge that Gerry had to play with the window, a completely "natural" reaction for a father to have when discovering that Peter Pan has just flown through that same window with his daughter just minutes before. The Sun does describe it, but I’m sure that in your book it will be much more entertaining.

I’ll also dedicate some attention to all those people that a group of unknown tourists in an unknown little town apparently had coming in and out of the apartment during that particular night. From what I’ve been told, it seems more like it was taken out of a WWII Britcom. It's like the whole Brit Community in PdL was on it’s toes for a Fire Drill Exercise, and, just like clockwork, as soon as you wailed the alarm, half of the town obediently rushed to the preset muster point. I do believe that in the book most of these people remain nameless, but we know who they are, don’t we?

Lastly, let me just tell you how interested I am in the “lovemaking chapter” of your book. That particular subject in a book about the ordeal of one’s supposedly abducted daughter is quite revealing. It says tons about one’s personality, but, more importantly, even more about the need of even having written it.

Also it absolutely "validates" the fact that, albeit my timely calling to your attention, Dianne Webster's pictures of the lot of you having dinner around the BIG ROUND TABLE at Tapas, weren't published in your book after all because they were TOO INTIMATE... 

I intend to skip all those parts in which you dedicate to your own belly-button, so, I expect, as of Monday, to be a quick read.

By the way, I’m not foreseeing the need to change a single word of what we’ve written in this blog thus far about the case due to your book.

We will use it, obviously, to even further incriminate you, as well as to confirm that your group of 9, alone, couldn’t get away with it without external help.

And do read “external”, as starting just outside the apartment...

Best regards, and do enjoy your trip to Portugal.

Your… Textusa  


Post Scriptum: 
I’m starting to think I owe an apology to Mr Cameron. He may just have proven to be smarter than I initially thought.

The McCanns asked for help, but as a reader has commented, did they really want it? At least the way they got it? You see, by ”asking” the Met to look into the case, he has made aware, for those he knows more attentive, for the possibility of the Yard to “find” something.

This will certainly ease off some pressure from certain “privileged” quarters that have played "this game" by their own rules, but now do have to simmer down, so as not to run the risk of the broil spilling over...

Also, by “proposing” instead of “directing” he allows the Met not to come up with any result. They’ll look at the case very attentively, and then... look at it again, and if required, look at it as many times as they have to look at it, to really have a good look at it.

This is not good for the McCanns.

Cameron has now pinned them to the role they deserve to be in: mere pawns in the game. They go where they are moved, and pray that the bigger pieces, don’t find them appetizing enough for the next move in the permanent and endless game of power gaining where the two set of players gladiate mercilessly: the influential and the politicians.

Both REALLY powerful although the latter, living basically on opportunity and chance, are in a much more fragile position than the first.

 Now just imagine what life has become for the McCanns from now on.

Until now, they’ve spent each day looking over their shoulder to watch out for disdainful stares of all those who know them to be guilty but feel powerless before the powerful. Unpleasant but completely harmless.  

But now the game has changed. Now they still have to spend each day watching over their shoulder but now be completely and absolutely focused on who is looking. This time for survival reasons. Each second of their time is now to analyze what benefit they represent to a certain “rook”, or a certain “knight”, “bishop”, “queen” or even “king” to be unceremoniously kicked out of the board in a particular moment of time… which, for example, could be tomorrow.

Humiliating would be to be kicked out by another pawn... but that is a likely scenario, as they are the most numeric pieces on the board, aren't they, and very few reach the end of the game, so now they're all fighting for survival, aren't they?

And what’s the difference between this and a normal chess game? It’s the fact that the McCanns, in this case, are completely colourless. They are neither Black, nor White.

A very, very unpleasant position to be found in...

For example, suppose that in their forthcoming visit to Portugal, to promote Kate's book, “escorted” by the Yard, they're "asked”, out of the blue, to go down to PdL and perform a “surprise” reconstruction.

Wouldn’t that be fun? Just picture all those people literally jumping out of their chairs...

I have to stop to voice out my dreams…

CONTROL Calling Maddie, Over...

As one of our readers pointed out, according to The Sun a “Labour peer” has branded the Met Maddie case review a waste of money.

The “Labour peer” is none other than Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

No10 has hit back saying that it was “made "a request, not a direction" for a review “.

The Met confirmed, through Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson that it “was asked, not told, to provide expertise”.

If I were the PM, I knew what I would do. I would contact CONTROL and dispatch at once Agents 86 (Maxwell Smart) and 99 right down to the Algarve, where Edgar has spotted the lair where the KAOS HQ is located, and free Maddie to the glory of all.

Even a world respected and renown institution such as the Scotland Yard, had to be dragged into this mess…

THE PUPPETEERS

I’ve been quite disappointed. The days preceding the Kate's book's publication were exciting and promising, and I was expecting that Yesterday would climax into something grandiose.

It didn’t.

One British PM doesn’t make an exciting day since the so much missed “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” days.

We thought the Media would be discussing today how mistreated were both the couple and the case by the incompetent Portuguese.

That we’d have new refreshing passages about how Edgar had come brilliantly to the conclusion that there was a lair somewhere near PdL.

Looking back now, it was probably Edgar and his “lair” that outset Kate’ terrible, and quite graphic, nightmares.

And we’re talking about those she has only when she’s NOT looking into a mirror or any other surface that might reflect her face back at her, as then, I imagine, no other possible nightmare could try to occupy her mind besides that terrifying one right before her.

So I stocked up on popcorn, dimmed the lights, told Fred he would just have to shush up as I couldn’t care less if May was Champion’s League month, and glued my eyes to the little screen.

And what for? For the UK PM to tell me that he is to review a case where he has no jurisdiction upon, and to tell me that the Scotland Yard are NOW going to get their hands FINALLY in the case, and, surprise, surprise, we’re now learning, have intended to do so, secretly, for the last nine months.

Let’s then pretend that we don’t know that the Yard has been on it since May 2007, around about the same time as all other existing UK Police force, then and now.

We’ll just look awed and pretend that we've forgotten that Jose de Freitas, from the Met, was involved in 2007, and if memory doesn’t fail me, found some excuse not to come to the trial in Lisbon in January 2010…

We’ll even pretend that they have all been looking for an abductor.

If the matter at hand wasn’t that serious and if we were all still in kindergarten, I would even say we have been watching a game of “cops-‘n-robbers reverse style”…  

The Guardian in Yesterday's article "How the Met misled courts, parliament and public on phone hacking", by Nick Davies and Amelia Hill, is quite clear on how trustworthy the Yard has been: “The Royal Courts of Justice have heard hundreds of criminals claim that the police are bent. yesterday, it was a respectable group of public figures including three Cabinet Ministers and an erstwhile Police Chief who claimed that Scotland Yard had twisted the truth and buried the evidence in their case."

Let's hope that Scotland Yard, who now have some new women at the top of the force, will act with integrity in this matter.

If they will, they have a very easy task ahead of them. Complex, but simple. We’ll even give them a clue: it’s not only a couple, nor is it just a small group of 9, sitting or not, around a RESERVED BIG ROUND TABLE…

But it’s not about the Met that we’re talking here today. We’re talking about… today.

You know, a pretty, pretty boring day, unlike expected.

What else did we have? Oh the usual and expected interviews with the usual and expected interviewers asking the usual and expected questions and all be nauseating as usual and expected, as is example this opinion from Chris Freind who has gracefully sent us.

And that’s basically it.

I will not get YET into the details of Kate’s book, because I haven’t been able yet to get hold of one.

About that a quite telling story did happen. I asked a friend of ours to buy me a copy. This friend first thought I was joking, but when I, again this morning, insisted, realized I was really serious, showed to be very, very reluctant to go and buy it.

My friend even joked about going to shoplift the book.

As far as I know, this friend has never, ever committed the slightest felony consciously, and was now joking about stealing a book! Probably using humour to detract me from my objective…

It was not because of being afraid of being seen buying it. This friend had been Yesterday at a bookstore (by the way, the bookkeeper didn’t know where exactly the book was when my friend asked for it) and had read through it without buying it, which seems to have been the most habitual technique for that particular book to be handled, as she commented on how she had conversed with other people present about the shamelessness of the whole thing.

So it wasn’t also about any kind of fear or shame of being seen reading it in public. It was just because it was, and still is, for my friend, disgusting to spend any amount of money on that particular product.

Thankfully, I convinced my friend that I would be paying for it, and it would lay on my conscience the evil deed.

And the book was bought in a 3 books for the price of 2 offer, so not exactly flying off the shelves

I’ll be waiting for my book then. Paid for. Unlike many, outside the UK, that have read Gonçalo Amaral’s book and not paid a cent for his effort and courage.

Only when I have it with me, will I provide an opinion about its content.

Now that I’m anxious to comment, I am! Especially after having read some very important contributions from the segments that we were allowed to see in the tabloids from what the authoress allegedly wrote. And I do hope to take the "allegedly" out of the previous sentence as soon as I may!

We do understand that our readers are anxious to know what is going through our minds at the moment.

Well, first of all, as I’ve told you, boredom and deception.

Second, a slight shake of the head on how Cameron let himself get caught up in this. There was no need.

And all it has achieved is that in the various fora UK is present, the shameful way the Nation has handled this Maddie Affair will always be there as the noise made by rubber soles on a wooden floor, needless and annoying, and the blatant revelation of the incapacity of choosing footwear in accordance with the floor one has to step on.

Third, I know you want to hear my opinion about this book, at this point in time.

I think it is the “last installment” that “The Club” (made up of all those swingers present and all their usual and IMPORTANT business transactions that do happen in these highly selective and by “invitation-only" events, as well as their hosts (let us not forget for a SINGLE second the hosts…)) that the McCanns are due, or have made it due to them during this time with the help of some friends in high places, that meanwhile, unfortunately for them, have stepped, or been pushed, down.

Kind of a mob-style “charming” operation of “Hey, ya listen well McCanns, this is the LAST favour YOU gonna get from us, capicce?".

So, in my opinion, this is it, the end of the road for the narcissistic, now desperate, couple, so they should make the most out of it as they can.

After this, the "boat" will just go down-stream as the current will take it to go… no more arms to man the oars.

The cold-shoulder given by the most of the media, and the best result, thus far, being a letter from the PM stating the obvious, although in very nice and polite terms as only politicians are capable of filling paragraphs with very little, I dare say, is very little.

By next week, either the book sales build up, or I’m seeing the McCann name starting to be slowly to be taken off the marquees… and then from all billboards. Now, the fact that the PM did respond, still indicates that those handling the strings, have not slackened their hold in any way.

But they’re just a little too tired of putting up with this shameless couple, and there are many out there that won’t forget how arrogant and narcissistic they have been, and how ungrateful they've shown also to be, leaving those that having protected them in a time they needed it, have found themselves needing protection themselves..

Front Row Seats

Textusa’s blog will be taking a break

There are two reasons for this. The first, personal, to attend to business matters, the other, is to sit and watch very attentively the spectacle that has already began around and about Kate McCann’s book.

We, in the blog, set our own rhythm and do not act in accordance with what others would wish us to do. And what the Black Hats pretend from this book is to throw out bait, in their own timing and initiative, around a pond and have fun watching us “running” after it like crazy.

If we were to act just like a dog running after a stick, we would by doing it, be missing a lot of essential information, wouldn’t we? We would only be looking at the “stick”, where it was flying towards, and where it would eventually fall, and then, to the Black Hats’ gleeful enjoyment we would bring it "back" by starting discuss among us all the “ifs-and-not-ifs” as well as all the “whys-and-why-nots” of those facts literally thrown in our direction.

You’ve now know that we call this “stick-throwing” by the clutter that it is, aimed simply to distract and to add yet more clutter to the already humungous existing pile of trash.

You also know that we here have called, on various occasions, their “clutter-bluff”.

Only this time we have to see beyond their usual tactics. We now have also to see how their tactics are implemented. We have to see why a particular “stick” is picked in detriment of others near it at a particular point of time and why the specific timing for its use, as well as what was the posture and attitude of the thrower, all his/her reactions displayed while watching us wasting our time.

And these essential pieces of information, simply cannot be missed.

Because of that, we have to watch the thrower as well as all those playing in the “throwing-team”. And the spectacle, as we've said, as already began. So we’ll sit back, and let ourselves be, for now, silent spectators. Not uninterested, just very attentive and watchful.

And you, but most importantly them, know how well we pay attention to detail. To every detail. This will give us the opportunity to hear what Kate McCann has to say in her forthcoming book and incorporate anything relevant in future posts.

Unlike a chosen few, we have not been given an advance copy, but comments on other sites, from people who have obviously been briefed, lead us to believe Kate will not be having a go at the day that Maddie disappeared from our eyes, for that, "obviously" would be irrelevant to jog any memory from someone about facts that could have happened on that that day.

What really is important for Kate, it seems, is all that happened in the days, weeks and months after.

That day is too painful for her to remember, it seems. And we here, believe her. And understand exactly why it's so painful to remember...

Instead, it seems, she will have a go at the Portuguese side of the investigation. We might even see some “biting of the hand that has just fed you” and maybe see that the Leicester Police will also come in for some criticism… Now, that would bring a smile to our faces…

And talking about biting, it seems also that Kate’s main target will be that of the performance of the dogs and their handler, evidence which this blog has found unnecessary to mention yet to prove that the McCanns & friends are lying.

But, let’s sit back and watch whatever the most famous Rothley Lass has to say about the canines and how they helped or hampered the search of the missing girl, when they appeared on the scene two and half months after she was last seen…

We await some clarification about David Payne's visit to see the angelic trio, hope for an introduction to some of the other diners they chatted to that night at the Tapas and some explanation as to the couple who came to comfort Kate the night that Madeleine disappeared; the man who told her not to worry, because he had gone missing for ten days as a child.

 We also hope she will also clarify the roles of the three priests in our previous post, The Holy Trinity.

And of course, we do hope to see, finally, Dianne Webster’s pictures of one of those Tapas Bar dinners of 9 friends around a BIG ROUND TABLE.

In reality, we anticipate being disappointed in our expectations. However, the absence of information, as in the withheld statements in the PJ files, may be just as significant.

The Black Hats will benefit from the break, as they have so much monitoring to do and comments to make on other sites. They amuse and irritate us in turn, but their comments are a valuable source of information in their own way and often guide the direction we may choose to take ahead.

In the meantime, you are welcome to submit your comments on the said book. Although they may not appear for a while, we can look at your contributions and consider how they may assist us with future postings.

As usual, gratuitous insults will not be published as they add nothing to the debate and try, unfruitfully, to lower the tone of the blog.

 
Post Sriptum 11May11, the day before Kate’s Book is to be published (we hope).

Like watching a comedy and then blaming the plot for the laughter caused, I confess that I have to state in clear terms that I do not blame Kate McCann for all or any choking I’ve suffered the lately with popcorn I've brought to the spectacle.

And what a show it has been. I knew that I if read and ate popcorn at the same time, I had a recipe for disaster, and so was confirmed that the inevitable happened: I choked, more often than desired, I must admit. The only sad part is that a couple of laughs were mistaken as cough attacks by friends, but that is not that serious, is it?

Let us just say that we agree with Christopher Freind’s post on Joana’s blog, with the obvious exception that we don’t think there was ever NEGLIGENCE. The remainder of the article is correct and to the point, and merits public recognition.

But tomorrow we have the book. Another wonderful mistake made by these people, that history won't let it pass by.

Before we’re to dissect what it says (because, it seems, we finally have a clear, thought out description of the events from one of its main participants) let me just give you a slight help, if I may, when you do find the time to read it, and that is to tell you that the book is not directed at you.

You see, the book, from what I’ve been able to see, between the tears caused by the coughing, this book is to make clear to other Black Hats that they have to continue to "cough" up, or, somebody will indeed do just that, and "cough up". At least that is the threat.

You see, since Jim Gamble has gone MIA, the BH camp that has been slowly falling apart, showing that it was always made up of many factions, and all is now dependent on how desperate some people do appear to REALLY be to others.

I think the rope is getting thinner by the minute, and some people are REALLY starting to be tired up with all this...

The Black Hats have, by now, painfully realized that leaving things in the hands of narcissists is as sensible as agreeing to pay blackmailers.

Irrelevant of how much you pay, and how many times you do it, they’ll always come back for more.

Lastly, dear Kate, few people await your book with as much anxiety as we do. I REALLY want to see FINALLY the printed word, with YOUR NAME on it, so that you, and your side, will no longer be able to say that the “tabloids just write whatever they want to write”, while using the the tabloids for your convenience.

And when you and your side won’t be able to say that, the other Black Hats sides won’t too, and we've long understood how much you’re hating each other, a sentiment growing exponentially with time…

And all that will just be making a very enjoyable movie plot to follow, which we won't miss, comfortably seated in our front row, coughing, or not, all the popcorn we can get our hands on.

The Flower that wasn't meant to Blossom in May

A Tribute to Maddie from .....  

"A Reminiscence"  

"And though thy transient life is o'er  
'Tis sweet to think that thou hast been"

An extract from a poem by Anne Bronte.

To any reader who reads the poem in its entirety, it was written about a dear friend of Anne Bronte's.

 In no way are we suggesting that the poem refers to the resting place of Madeleine.