This, McCanns, is Something to be Explored

McCanns, confess, THIS one not even you were capable to come up with. Just imagine, for £17.00 a piece of "negligence", you wouldn't need to write the book!

Update: Sent in by a reader:

It seems Kate McCann's co-author, Jerry McCann (no, spelled as it is) is also the co-author of the famous book "Girls who rocked the world".

Maybe the The Tapas 5?

Pity, that the book that he 's also the co-author of, "Insane clown posse: The Pendulum (issue #7)" is not available.

I so much love books about clowns written by McCann!

Alone, J. McCann seems to be just another "Fruit Jar" nut:

 

A Voice For Madeleine

Just contributing in getting the case reoponed the quickest possible manner.

My way of helping the McCanns with all the burocracy needed to be done, because, it seems, they're unable to do it themselves.

You, can help me help them. thank you.

A Petition for Maddie

McCanns in Wonderland

It seems that the McCanns have made a further announcement, and that is they are to publish a book, in April 2011, about a SEARCH.

I might even be a buyer. If it’s about their fictional search for the late Madeleine Beth McCann, not interested.

If it’s about their search to get your money into their pockets, might be interested.

If it’s about their search to escape the inevitability of Justice, interested.

If it’s their search to get their “good name” cleared, with full explanations and details about their version of what happened between April 28th, 2007 and today, definitely interested!

Oh, by the way, McCanns & Co, in this little corner of the internet we’re not distracted by your idle, fruitless, attention-deviating campaigns. We’re staying on track. And you’re right in the middle of it.


Update: Nov 17th, 2010:

McCanns, I’ve been kind of busy lately, as you know, so I haven't had much time to whack your bottoms, at least in the way you'd certainly deserve, but let that not stop me from saying just a few words on what I think about your forthcoming book (?).

First, I’m divided between believing that you write and being sure you won’t.

If you had any sense, you’d opt, obviously for the latter, but as I’ve seen you do some REALLY stupid things (the injunction, the mockumentary, the Oprah… etc) I do think you egomaniacs are really going to put your hallucinogenic thoughts on paper.

I, for one, want you to do it.

Second, don’t think you’ve fooled me for a minute. Yes, your threats did find echo, and the “People in the Station” have, not so subtly, but effectively, a way to fund your fund continuous and endlessly.

For every book that is “sold” a “penny” goes there, right? And who controls the selling? The same people that you’ve just signed a contract with.

So if just write a one-pager, and the editors say, and pay the adequate taxes for, that they’ve sold a million copies for $30.00 a piece, who’s to deny it?

Or better, who can deny it?

If you have any questions on how the book business is run, do ask your friend J. K. Rawlings, because she knows it better than anyone else.

All legal, and unstoppable. Very nice scheme on your part.

Thirdly and last, if you do write it, I hope it REALLY sells like cupcakes. That it will hold the 1st place on the Best-Sellers list up to the following Christmas.

That you make a such a bundle of money that it will make Amaral’s book look like it sold very, very poorly indeed.

And unlike I said before, I’ll buy it, independent of content. Probably won’t read it, but I’ll certainly buy it. And buy some more copies for family and friends.

Why do I wish you this success?

Well, ask the “People in the Station”. At least the way that they’re spending it with you, they are CLEARLY showing you, and us, that there are some things much, much more IMPORTANT than money…

Do please speed up your writing, and please don’t take as long to write in your language, as you took to translate that other thing.

In Fact, What Is Really Fact?

(Nov 15th, 2010)

Today, I would like to determine what in fact is fact and what isn’t fact at all.

And all the in-betweens.

It has been assumed, for a fact, that Gonçalo Amaral´s book is full of facts.

Well, it is… and it isn’t. Confused? Don’t be, I’ll do my best to explain.

As has been proved in Court, the majority of the content of Amaral’s book is based on the PJ Files. As you know, he was been very careful to not make the slightest change between what is said in the book that the files say and what they do say. To have done otherwise would have been unwise and foolish, two characteristics that he has proven largely not to have.

There are some bits there, where he describes his thoughts and decisions, and does, one time or another, give his opinion about what he finds odd in the behavior of some of the characters portrayed. For example, he thinks strange the apparent good mood in which Gerry McCann happens to appear to be in when they were about to make contact, via Messenger, with a possible abductor of his daughter.

Yes, Gerry is entitled to laugh, suck on a lollypop and talk about sports, but so is Amaral to find that absolutely strange.

It’s a subjective opinion, yet a legitimate one, and not as baseless as the ones, insulting and demeaning, which have been so many times made about Amaral.

But these personal passages in the book are in the minority. As I said, the majority is based on the PJ Files, and that is a fact.

But are the PJ Files fact? Well, they are… and aren’t.

And this is the crux of this post.

Much of what we consider fact, may, or not, be fact. For nothing proves that they are... fact.

There are events that we all are certain that they are facts, namely those reported by the adequate authorities.

For example, the rather curious question made by Gerry to the GNR Officer asking if he knew where there was a church nearby. No, the fact in question here is NOT whether Gerry knew, or not, about the church, but the fact, or not, if Gerry did ask that particular question.

See where your mind was already wandering to? Why is it Gerry's question, questionable? The only source we have is the GNR stating, in the files, that Gerry did ask him. What does that guarantee us that that it really did occur? Nothing, only the Officer's signed statement.

Let me clarify here that I’M NOT EVEN INSINUATING that the GNR lied, just trying to prove a point.

I'm just stating that the ONLY FACT that we have out of this little episode is that the GNR has said what he said. Absolutely nothing else is a fact.

And why is it a fact? As said, because it’s written down, and signed for, in the PJ Files, that's why. We can then conclude that the PJ Files is greatly made up of facts that people have said what they’ve said and we have no guarantees that what they’ve said is in fact, fact.

And we have so many times proved, for a fact, that many who have made statements in the PJ Files have blatantly lied.

But, on the other hand, it's been taken for a fact many a statement as true, when there was and isn't any reason for doing such. It's just been done because they seemed to be so truthful. Mrs Fenn ring a bell?

But, ask you, if you say that the existing facts are just that people have said something, than what are we to consider as what is said in their content? Certainly not everyone is lying...

Firstly, no, not everybody is a liar, but everybody is a potential liar.

Secondly, even those who lie, willingly or unwillingly, tell the truth, for various reasons, but mainly to give coherence to their lies, so should their statements not be totally regarded as false.

Thirdly, even those telling the truth, willingly or unwillingly, may mislead, for various reasons, but mainly for self-protection, so should their statements be continuously reevaluated.

Fourthly, from fact can fact be deduced, that is called logic. It is the Police’s job to deduce fact from fact, to evaluate or devaluate what has been said. It’s their job, it’s their profession. And that was what Gonçalo Amaral was doing when he got pulled off the case.

Using as example my previous post, we have three FACTS:

First, it’s a FACT that Mrs Fenn said that “at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry”, and that she also said that “the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes”, and that “At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive”.

Second, its’ a FACT that Mrs McCann said that “she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom”.

Third, its’ a FACT that Mr McCann said that “As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom”.

 It’s a FACT that these three people have said what I’ve just said they said.

The PJ Files PROVE that they said what I’ve just said.

However as is easily understood, these three described FACTS are contradictory to each other, so, by placing them together we come up with a fourth FACT: either Mrs Fenn is lying, or the McCanns are.

The fourth FACT, just stated, doesn’t contradict a possible fifth FACT, and that is that all of them are lying.

This could be proved by joining other facts to these, but that is, as said, the Police’s job.

So please, next time you read either the PJ Files and Amaral’s book do try and make an effort to understand what is FACT and what isn’t.

And what is it that you’ve taken as fact, but is nothing but your own interpretation. It may be fact… and it may not.

Just because something “shuts the Pro’s up” it doesn’t make it true, because the so–called “Pros” might just want to be “shut” up in that exact manner, thus making you create the illusion you’ve won a battle when you’ve won nothing but a diversion.

Hidden beyond the hill, lies the bulk of the enemy’s army, that is doing the best it can not to be heard snickering.

Likewise, when you read something in favor of the McCanns version of events, don’t automatically think it a lie.

A fact is only a fact when it is, in fact, a fact and not because somebody, me or anybody else, tells you that it is.

About the statement I made in the beginning about Gonçalo Amaral´s book being, and not being, full of facts, I hope that you now understand, that yes, it’s full of factual statements (the PJ Files), but these, in turn, seem to have little fact in them.

Debunking a "McCann Urban Myth"

Let’s look, attentively, at what I call the BIGGEST "McCann Urban Myth" AKA “The Neglected Crying Maddie”, or as is known: the “Mummy, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?” episode.

Although Maddie is, unfortunately, dead, we still can obtain information from other characters from this silly charade: Mrs Fenn and Mr. and Mrs McCann. Let’s start with a Mrs Fenn, on Aug 20th, 2007:

"She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below.

 At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse."

Continue with Mr. McCann on May 4th, 2007:

"Between the 28th April, the day they arrived and the time the disappearance was discovered, he says that nothing unusual happened, only referring to an episode on the morning of the 3rd May, when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom, however he finds his daughter’s comment to be strange, maybe because it was the first time that she had made it."

And end, in terms of PJ statements, with Mrs. McCann also on May 4th, 2007:

"Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it."

What the McCanns say, as we’ll see contradict TOTALLY what Mrs Fenn had to say. A procedure, now known to us, as the McCann habit of getting you to lie for them, and once they have what they want from you, leave you high and dry and on your own. The Sun, that reliable source of information, on April 19th, 2008, corroborate, almost, the couple’s wording:

"LITTLE Madeleine McCann asked why Kate and Gerry had not gone to comfort her as she cried the night before she vanished, according to reports. The four-year-old is said to have asked why mum Kate, 39, had left her and her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, to sob alone in their room the previous night.

The Spanish TV station Telecinco made the claim as it broadcast translated copies of documents it said were the McCanns' police statements. Crime reporter Nacho Abad, read out in Spanish an excerpt of the statement he said Kate had given Portuguese police.

He said: "While we were having breakfast, Maddie said, 'Mummy, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?' "Gerry and I spoke for a couple of minutes and agreed to keep a closer watch over the children."

The only contradiction between what the paper says and what the parent’s had to say is that while both state that Maddie “rats” on her siblings, the newspaper has Maddie confessing being part of the “Crying gang”. Relevant? No. But relevant is what both, Mr and Mrs. McCann do have to say, or to more precise... how they say it:

When one says

“Between the 28th April, the day they arrived and the time the disappearance was discovered, he says that nothing unusual happened”

the other goes and says

“Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual.”

When one says

“only referring to an episode on the morning of the 3rd May”

the other goes and says

“She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd”

When one says

“when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying”

the other goes and says

“Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.”

When one says

“As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom”

the other goes and says

“The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom”

When one says

“however he finds his daughter’s comment to be strange, maybe because it was the first time that she had made it”

the other goes and says

“She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.”

When one says

“the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain”

the other goes and says

“in Spain, the rain stays mainly in the plain”.

No, just joking, obviously they didn’t say THAT last bit… It's from my Fair Lady, as we all know, otherwise it would be TOO MUCH of a coincidence wouldn’t it? Completely preposterous, even to the point of being ludicrous.

But much more relevant than what or how they say what they do say, is what they don’t say, but that is for later.

For now, we can now confirm that it’s a Mr. Nacho Abad, a CRIME REPORTER, that says that Kate stated that Maddie said “Mummy, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?”.

There’s no other proof that Maddie did effectively say what is said she said, but that somebody, if nobody else, Mr. Abad, said she said, that is a fact.

When Mr Abad, the reporter, reports, in theory, Mrs Fenn’s statements to the PJ are unknown to this mother, described by the reporter as distraught, when says what she's said to have said, as the PJ files would only be released three and a half months later.

So this is, apparently, a volunteered self-condemning statement that can only be justified by a guilt-ridden conscience, and this can only be commendable.

But is it logic? No, unless she warranted public pardon or if she wanted people to think that she was a neglectful b*tch.

If it was to pursue public pardon, it could only be to somehow compensate what WE may even forgive but that SHE’ll never be able to forget.

Oh, poor cursed wench. “Mummy, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?” is unquestionably a touching, sentimental and even heart-wrenching question.

Those skeptical about the grammar capability of a four year old child can only be evil, for this woman is emptying selflessly her soul, and they are being needlessly picky and judgmental.

If the woman says the child said what she said it was because she did say what she said.

However what the woman, Kate McCann, doesn’t say is why the said child, Maddie McCann, doesn't ask any question of the same nature (and with the same eloquence of the night before) to the same said woman, Kate McCann, on the night she cried, but only on the next day.

You see, from Mrs Fenn’s statement, we are told that the parents arrive while she was crying, or just finishing crying, probably their arrival was the very same reason she stopped, so, when these caring parents, picked certainly this sobbing, terrified, child into their arms and comforted her, wouldn’t THEN be opportune moment for her to ask “Mummy, why didn't you come when we cried tonight?”, or the expectable “Mummy, I’m scared, where were you?” instead of waiting for the next day’s breakfast to satisfy her curiosity?

But as I said, this report offers little credibility, and proves absolutely nothing but the intent of the said newspaper to mislead. But that we already know and has been said too many a time.

Let’s stick to the PJ Files. Can it be that the McCanns are proving, by their statements on the May 4th. that Mrs Fenn would later lie, on Aug 20th? But why?

Well, first there is the date mix-up. One says it was May 1st, better known as the “Najoua Night”, while the other two say it was the night before the night of May 3rd, which makes it May 2nd.

Mrs Fenn contradicted the first time.

And then there is the fact that Mrs Fenn hears the child crying from 22:30, for 1 hour and fifteen minutes, that makes it until 23.45, the exact time she hears the parents arriving, but the parents say, quite clearly, that they didn’t hear anything.

We’ve that had to, sometime or another, handle an hysterical toddler late at night, desperately looking for that on/off switch that we all know that they don’t come equipped with, know that for a fact that the yelling does NOT suddenly subside. Not even when they cry themselves to sleep. There’s the reduction of volume and intensity until it goes down to a slobbering sobbing, and then, only then, there’s that golden silence, if one is lucky and does not get a repeat session.

And that is with a cranky child, not a terrified, lonely one as Maddie is supposed to be one then.

So when Mrs Fenn links the parents’ arrival with having stopped hearing the child crying, she can only be maliciously lying, for as per the couple's written words, the apartment was peaceful and silent.

Mrs Fenn, that’s twice.

Lastly, Mrs Fenn, according with the McCanns, lies with as many teeth as she has in her mouth, when she says she hears ONE child crying, when the parents are quite clear that Maddie points the finger to the twins. (later Gerry would say it was her and a twin, which, anyway you count it, it makes two children).

Could she be mistaken? You be the judge, as in her own words “seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger”, so that rules the twins out… leaving only… Maddie.

Mrs Fenn, that’s thrice.

Mrs Fenn, you evil, evil woman, according to the McCanns, that is.

At this point, and this is what is beautiful is that I have on one side, the Black Hats, who would love to jump on the opportunity for seeing me slandering Mrs Fenn's testimony, but, knowing me, are wondering why on earth am I doing it, saying that she is a liar.

Does that mean that I’m recognizing that the McCanns are telling the truth, and that the “Mummy, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?” episode was just something blown completely out of proportion by the White Hats?

And then I have the White Hats, that know me as well, and are thinking, that up to now we all White Hats have believed that Mrs Fenn had no reason to say nothing but the truth, so the fact that she contradicts the McCanns, not only is natural, but is expected, as they are the ones that are always lying… yet you’ve heard me already say that not one word Mrs Fenn has said is to be believed, so are the McCanns telling the truth here?

No, both Mrs Fenn and the McCanns are lying. You've got used to whatever you read against the McCanns to be true, and what you read in their support to be a lie.

As I said, I don’t believe one word that Mrs Fenn says. She’s nothing but clutter to reinforce the idea of neglect, to implant in your brain that the McCanns were negligent, drunkard slops... and they weren’t and aren’t.

Why don’t I believe Mrs Fenn?

Well, for starters, getting the May date wrong is quite telling, and then, would you, withholding such pertinent information, go to the police after 109 days had gone by?

When that same police had been RIGHT on your doorstep on the night it happened and on the immediate days that followed it? Didn’t Mrs Fenn think it important to speak then?

Ok, so what made you change your mind more than 100 days afterwards? But on Mrs Fenn, Headlines Today says it all much better than I do.

Now, is her statement to be discarded completely? Of course not. Below all those layers of lies, from her and the couple, lies a layer of very significant truth, from what she and the couple DON'T say, or have forgotten the implications of what they say... Can you see it?

It Can't Get Any Simpler Than That

After all, it was much simpler than we all thought. This morning, looking at the news, SIC Notícias, to be more precise, I heard my good old friends, Gerry and Kate, about their petition to review the process.

It seems that it had, at the time, 31,000 signatures.

Now, it should be around the 31,200 mark, or over it, I'm sure. Mine is one of them. I really would like this to go forward.

I really, really what to know who the legitimacy to make the decision to reviewt, as we’re talking about involving two different sovereign nations, and what exactly is going to be reviewed that hasn’t been reviewed a thousand times by the requestors.

A request for something impossible. Not because it hasn't been done before, but because, and they know it, it just can't be done.

But let's overlook that bit. They say, with apparent reason, that if you have two separate bits of a something, then the best thing to do is put them together so that you can get a clearer picture of the whole.

So very true, and completely unarguable. Just a question, and sorry to be a spoilsport… what two bits?

From where I stand, I see an investigation done on one side. That’s one bit, and that includes all statements heard in Portugal and all the statements done in the UK, by request. They're all in the PJ files, and as far as I know, that institution belongs to only one of the two said Countries.

So what other bit is there?

I can only see, and I’m not so sure that the McCanns want that reviewed, the forensic evidence that was apparently lost in some dark corridor in the UK. Do you really want to review that?

Oh, also, there’s the question of the missing blue bag, but that we do not know, yet, in which bit, here or there, is it stored.  

Otherwise, what other bit does the UK hold that none of us know about?

So apparently it’s not understandable what is and why is it, being requested at all.

That is, you don’t only if you didn’t hear Kate McCann’s words “… this review is vital for the reopening…”

Et voilá!

 “Oh... woe is me, if only would I was able to do that so VITAL review... for without it, I find myself with my hands and feet absolutely tied up and COMPLETELY UNABLE to do what I SO MUCH WANT TO DO and have been so hard fighting and struggling for, and that is to REOPEN our missing daughter's file in the swiftest time possible! Damn the burocrats and their infamous and cruel burocracy!”.

No, neither of them said it… but I heard it loud and clear.

Clutter - From Here to TIMBUCKTOO

(Nov 8th, 2010)

If I had to elect what has fascinated me the most up to now in the Maddie McCann case, I would have to say, without hesitating a minute, that had to be YOU.

YOU, as the avid reader of blogs, like this one, who think, and adamantly defend that Maddie is dead and that her parents have done all to obstruct justice.

And why do YOU fascinate me so?

Because I’ve seen YOU from the very beginning behaving like a monkey in a cage who jumps anxiously and goes after each and every peanut that is thrown at you from the outside by an unseen hand.

Before you think I’m insulting you, let me clarify you that I’m NOT.

No ONE who has ever been fooled has been fooled by own will. No one wakes up one morning and says "hmm... let me see where can I get fooled first today...".

One is fooled because one has been masterfully misled.

And he who says he hasn’t been fooled is the biggest fool of all.

Usually, those who master the techniques of deceit basically rely on the fact that the fooled firmly believe that they're unable to be fooled.

By the way, I do have a friend, who is no fool, who states that he has NEVER ever, been fooled one single time in his life. What he says has happened to him is that many, many times in his life he has paid to learn a lesson, a lesson in life, and the pricing has been variable in terms of money, pain and disappointment.

I, for one, have been fooled by the “McCann machine”.

My difference with most is that I’m able to recognize and understand that, and, most importantly, am able to retrieve my steps back to where I knew I stood on solid ground and, from there, restart the journey.

You just have to read my initial theory, and verify that my opinion in many details have changed since.

That’s why I say, and repeat as many times needed, that the only golden rule that this blog has, is that it will never bend fact to theory but always theory to fact.

I must now compliment my faithful readers who’ve very early understood that we here are not in the habit of running after any peanut that is thrown in our direction, although, as human “monkeys” that we are, we have ran after a few bogey ones.

But together, YOU and us, we’ve been able tread the path this far; we’ve led the way and you’ve corrected our every step. That results in what I deem the most important thing that has to be maintained at all costs: CREDIBILITY.

The reason why we, we and YOU, are so feared in many corners of the internet.

We all have been intoxicated with wave after wave of false information. Most of it blatant of its falsehood, while other has come coveted, varying in complexity of disguise.

This forced feeding of information has been done masterfully and beautifully, for our foes were, and are, worthy.

No, not speaking about the McCanns, for they are far from being worthy on anything but their stupidity and arrogance, nor, please, Clarence, for that individual confuses an echo in his hollow head with voices of wisdom such is the immense empty space there.

I’m talking about those who’ve set up a formidable machine of deceit. And they were almost totally successful.

Let me explain first their intent, and then, using an example, their achievement.

The intent is to block us away from reality by highlighting the illogical and absurd, mixing it up with logical and real information, in the just right amount in quantity and quality of deceitfulness so that the information as a whole becomes so complex that we lose completely track of it and are even physically incapable of ever locating the truth wherever it may have been.

When conclusions based on some, or total, intentionally misleading information become assumptions, that will base subsequent sets of conclusions that, in turn, become future assumptions, one can easily see that one not only is lost, but most important, one doesn’t even have that the faintest idea where one is.

Aggravated by the fact that one really thinks one knows exactly where one is.

Have I made sense? I usually don’t, but by now I do count on your patience.

The masterpiece bout the Maddie case, from the Black Hat side, is that they’ve been able to create this fake reality, and YOU’ve swallowed it line, hook and sink.

Every peanut that flew by, in slow-motion, the reader jumped gleefully to catch it even before it hit the ground.

No, obviously, not talking about if there was, or not, an abduction. I’m talking about their best HOAX: them being neglectful.

We’ve heard it, and dutifully repeated, that these monsters were capable of leaving their kids alone night after night, so they could go away to get boozed silly, as we’ve also heard that a certain couple was so monstrous that after learning, one morning, that their own little girl had felt abandoned the night before (a neighbor would later confirm that she had in fact been wailing away, terrorized by her solitude), had been capable to behave in the exact same manner that same night.

Terrible, terrible people, or are they really?

It’s now time for one of "my analogies", to exemplify the above said.

Imagine that one is having an affair with one’s neighbor’s spouse.

One day, while sneaking out of one’s neighbor’s house, one trips and breaks a leg.

As always, it’s a simple scenario, but in this case with a pinch of sex so as not to disappoint my detractors.

One now has the problem of besides having a broken leg to deal with, one has to make sure that both one’s spouse and one’s spouse’s neighbour are unable to make a linkage between the broken leg and one leaving one’s neighbor’s house, the circumstances in which it occurred.

As there’s evidently something wrong with your leg, the only thing you can do is fiddle around with facts that led to your leg to being in the state it is: broken.

And IF one can successfully convince them of a completely different set of "facts" for one’s leg to be the way it is, then one’s secret shall remain safe and sound as one’s other healthy leg.

One has two choices. One either lies, and hopes one’s lover is and will remain so, completely in synch, plus hope that no other neighbor saw one tripping where one happened to have tripped, or one lies in such a way that it will be impossible for anyone to know what both were indeed up to, at least by way of discovering the real reason why one has broke the leg.

And how does one do that?

One spreads the front yard with the biggest amount of clutter possible so that when both one’s neighbour’s spouse and one’s spouse arrive, it will be completely logic to tell them that your leg is in the state that it is because you tripped over the wheelbarrow in the middle of all that clutter.

And if any of them asks why was the wheelbarrow where it was, logic is completely irrelevant, as the only relevant logic at this point is the one that determines that one has tripped over THAT wheelbarrow. The wheelbarrow is there for all to see, it’s real, so to say, to confess, to highlight, that one has tripped over it will be taken as real as the wheelbarrow itself. 

That is what is relevant, that this message, however illogical it may be, IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE HAPPENED, so it can be taken as reality.

Even if around that wheelbarrow there are so many other things that shouldn't be there in the first place, what matter is that it is feasible that one has tripped over THAT particular wheelbarrow and not over anything else.

As the neighbor’s spouse, one’s lover, is in this as deep as one is, it will be quite easy to convince both your spouse and one’s neighbor’s spouse that it was joint decision, from you both, that the furniture from both of houses needed airing out. One says an absurdity, the other, supposedly independent to the breaking of the leg, confirms it and the absurd becomes real. Yes, it may even seem strange but will be taken as real.

That explains why one pushed one’s couch onto the driveway, and the coffee table by the tree house, next to the bookcase also put there to air out.

At this point, the reader may be wondering about my sanity, but please take a minute and see to where the mind has wandered to: the absurdity of the scenario, the lack of logic in all said… and that is where I want your mind to be, as far away possible from what is being hidden, the affair.

When the two innocent souls arrive home, within the absurdity of the yards filled with clutter, it be perfectly logical for them that one has hurt oneself on that wheelbarrow, so their minds will struggle to make some sense out of the completely senseless scenario before them. They will struggle to understand why the wheelbarrow is there in the first place but they won’t link the broken leg with an affair.

It will be so illogical that one will look like a fool but one will not look like an adulterer.

And why is it illogical? Because with the clutter one has assured that it would be, didn’t one?

One can now safely say that one has decided that one felt that one’s dining room table needed a walk to stretch its legs, like any other pet, and that is what one decide to do that afternoon.

The neighbour’s spouse, one’s lover, fact only one knows, "confirms" seeing one through the living room window, decided also, there and then, that their settee needed some exercise too…

And, oh so surprisingly, you both realized that all of a sudden you both had most of your furniture outside.

One can even say that now that one has thought about it better, you think one should have stopped the whole thing when one ALMOST slipped at one’s neighbours door when both of you were carrying the neighbour’s couch out the neighbour’s door and so defending against any possible sneaky neighbor saying that they saw one falling where one did.


No, one is not being crazy, but both one’s spouse and one’s neighbour’s spouse, will think you are.

So what?

Is it REALLY important that they think one is crazy? No, it’s not.

One knows one is not and what is important is that neither suspect what both were really up to. One wants to get off the hook, and one has been able to get off it...

Rather be known as the neighborhood oddball than the local slut.

In the end, one has had one’s way. One has made up all the reality in which one’s spouse and one’s neighbour’s spouse made their judgments on.

They reached honest conclusions on misleading data .

And by placing carefully a layer of a deceit on top of another, making sure the latter always confirms the insanity of both the truth is, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, lost somewhere.

With just a bit of luck, both one’s spouse and one’s neighbor might just arrange, for practical reasons, that one and one’s lover stay together under the same roof when either of them is away, while the leg is broken…

Plus, one’s spouse and one’s neighbour’s spouse may now question, discuss, debate, argue over and about ALL the possible reasons for such an erratic behavior from both that particular afternoon.

They can even theorize about why one saved the living room from the “walk” while your neighbor insisted that the whole office needed fresh air. No limits to the imagination...

They can go back and forth on whats, the whys and whatfors for the clutter to be there.


They can questions this and much more, and one just has to answer all with whatever ridiculous answer one wishes to give, as one knows, what is being discussed is effectively ridiculous, and has no possibility to lead anywhere near to where one doesn’t want the discussion to go into

And if a neighbour dares say that one was seen exiting the house and break a leg before any clutter was in the yard, one can react angrily against whoever makes such a heinous accusation, which is but the truth. 

More importantly, they can come to whatever conclusion they wish to come to because it’s unimportant and completely irrelevant.

Much like all the conclusions the reader has reached, these past three and a half years, from all the peanuts that has been caught, and that will keep being thrown and people will keep chasing.

I hope YOU now understand why that whenever I read that the Tapas have been neglectful, I cringe.

And I hope that soon I’ve been able to make you understand why Mrs Fenn was just an full bedroom set somewhere on the lawn, whilst the Gaspars were just an armchair….

Yet Another Attempt to Cool Things Down

The Headlines today are “POLICE CHIEF: WE WILL REOPEN MADELEINE MCCANN CASE”.

No, I won’t bother to even link it up. “DETECTIVES working on the Madeleine McCann case say they are ready to reopen the investigation into her disappearance.”

Hmmm... weren’t these same words said by Gerry McCann, with a rather unfriendly face taking into account the that issue at hand was his own daughter, besides his likewise unfriendly looking wife, Kate McCann, used outside the Court?

Onlooking, their lawyer Isabel Duarte, who had just before revealed, detailing some, that some details within the files were completely overlooked and, by definition, deserved to be looked at again, thus meriting the reopening of the process?

That was in January 2010, I believe...

That means, mathematically, we'll hear an identical "we're ready to reopen the case...", somewhere in September 2011.

Hopefully, McCanns, you'll be wearing prisioner overalls when that time comes.

Another thing… what is meant by “detectives”? It can’t be Dave Edgar because he has no legitimacy to be reopening any process in Portugal.

It also can’t be Gonçalo Amaral, as, although he has tirelessly sought the reopening, he can no longer be described as “detective”.

Giving that this has come from a British Newspaper, and believing I that NO news coming from British journalist are not published without being revised and confirmed, I can only interpret this paragraph as “the NEW detectives that have joined Dave Edgar’s team, have been studying the case and have today announced that they are ready…”

Now, this paragraph starts to make some sense, doesn't it? It's got nothing to do with the headlines, but who cares? “Portuguese police have indicated they would be happy to work with the missing girl’s parents and their friends.”

The Police is happy to work WITH the parents?!? Shouldn’t the phrase be instead that the parents should be happy to work with the Police? After all, who is supposes to be leading who? Ups, a slip of the tongue here… the McCanns forgot to lose habits here, and still think an investigation is to be run on their terms, and on their terms only. “The couple, doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, are due to fly to Lisbon on Tuesday to consult their lawyers. Legal sources in Portugal say they should use their visit to ask their lawyer to formally write a letter to the Policia Judiciaria and to the Portuguese attorney-general’s office."

How many a gazillion times has this been explained to the infamous couple?

 It has been said so many times that even Bart Simpson is able to write it without a grammar or spelling mistake on the board:

To reopen the process all the McCanns have to do is just request it.

They don’t need to fly to Lisbon…

However, it seems that they need to be seen flying to Lisbon. The heat is pilling up and they need to be seen doing something…

A request is a piece of paper, no presence required. I don't remember them flying around to apply for the injunction on Gonçalo Amaral's book.

They just did it, didn't they?

So why is all this fuss for? “If a review was ordered, the Policia Judiciaria would suggest that there should be reconstructions of two key incidents on the evening of May 3, 2007, in Praia da Luz on the Algarve.”

“IF”, McCanns favorite word. As I don’t believe in this particular “if” the rest of the sentence is nonsense. and why have we jumped from the "reopen" of the headlines, to the McCann's "review"? Misleading journalism? Couldn't be, could it?

Let me conclude this piece of “news” (journalists out there, be ashamed of your profession). First, there will be no formal unconditional request to reopen the process. If there’s to be anything, it will be a list of condition’s under which the parent’s will ACCEPT that the process is to be reopened.

For example, that they never, ever, ever, even if proof points right into their noses, be considered "arguidos", that THEY’re the ones to pick the policemen that are to investigate and that these ARE NOT allowed to speak with Gonçalo Amaral; and that any reconstructions are to be done under THEIR exclusive control, and only with only those THEY deem think relevant present, etc…  

ANYTHING that will guarantee an excuse for them to use and explain it isn't them to blame that the case won't be reopened after all, but of the uncooperative Portuguese authorities...

In legal terms, it’s called dilatory technique. Or in layman’s language, to buying time.

This is to go as far as it is intended to go: nowhere.

Knowing what you know today, do you think Gerry and Kate McCann would be happy with ANY reconstruction?!?

Only if they knew already that it would lead to nowhere, as is the case, and they know this because they remain in control, or so they think, of the initiative.

Just a side note… if this was true, would this be news in tabloids only? Doesn’t just THAT say it all?

The day I see a face of a furious McCann under the headline “Maddie Case Reopened”, (note the verb tense) then, my friends, I’ll smile.

So what is this? A desperate attempt to shake off heat, just that.

Bad news once again McCanns, I, for one am still hearing a swan crying, They say it’s spectacular.. but nonetheless means the end.

You having not fooled me a single minute, you have deterred me in the exact same time from continuing to expose you with what I think is PROOF of your guilt, because, unlike you, I’m really happy to help the Police WHEN they’ll reopen the files.

So, from where I stand, and according to you, from now on I'm not just helping the general public understand the HOAX you are, I'm helping the Police too!

Pretty cool and highly motivating.

Oh, McCanns, do feel free to prove me wrong.

I tell you what, you request the reopening without any conditions and I’ll apologise, right here, having called you LIARS.

What say you?

The Swan's Cry

The latest spin from our friends McCann’s is now to ask for a joint review of the process.

Basically, saying, please pick it up, but don’t reopen it. Or, in other words, “hey people, just reminding you that we’re still interested, but not THAT interested”.

Before I give my opinion on this particular move, let me pretend that I’m naïve and that I really think that this is yet another “let’s remain in the Press” maneuver.

So, the McCanns are asking for a review, and I ask the McCanns why.

Yes, they have the right to ask for whatever they want to ask, and they are the first and foremost victims of the proverb “careful for what you wish for, for it just might come true…”

My question has got to do with the fact that they are THE EXPERTS on the PJ Files.

They’ve read it word, for word.

They’ve took almost a year to translate it, so there’s not a single word, a single picture that have gone past their eyes.

I would even say, that if I read on the news that the POLICE wanted to review the files, I would be the first to strongly advise them to go and speak with the McCanns.

The evidence of this REAL expertise, were all the facts, CONTAINED in the files, that Isabel Duarte said to have been overlooked by the PJ in its apparently clumsy investigation.

 If the McCanns were to ask for a review, they should specify, to help and justify the request, what makes them want the review.

Say that on VOL IXC page 92361 a man in a yellow jersey sneezed when a witness was being enquired about a blue vehicle that ran on cooking oil and that should be better looked together with other existing detail, to help understand what happened to Maddie.

You know a specific detailed request from someone who deeply understands ALL that those files contain.


Noticed I said “should be better looked together with other existing detail”, and not “to be relooked at”, because that would mean reopening the bl**dy thing, and that is something NOBODY wants… with the exception of the whole world, well except you know who.

But let me stop my naivety here, and tell you what I think this is.

Since the announcement of Jim Gamble’s “demise” on Oct 5th, for which I like to think, modesty aside, I’ve decisively contributed for, the downfall of the McCanns have accelerated significantly.

The pathetic Gamble at the Hearing, strongly contributed to confirm that the man not only was unpopular, on such a popular subject such as child protection, as he was full of… nothing.

His idiotic plea that he had a letter from Microsoft that they would be so sad that is still wandering around my head, for I don’t know where to archive THAT memory…

The McCanns have turned on the government; they’ve turned on their own police; they’ve turned on those, like J. K. Rawlings, that had supported them… You see, what they’re doing is damage control.

There’s a battle raging inside the McCann camp, to see who can get out of this unscathed.

Understand the sudden urge of Kate McCann coming to PdL for “prayer”?

 This is a message to their side: “We’re desperate, and we’re not going down alone. We don’t know how you will get us out of this , but you better come up with something, because, if you’re thinking of walking out when we need you, think better again…”

Or so they think…

Well McCanns, I have news for you. You’re going down. Maybe it will take years, but you are going down.

You can always ask for help from Murat and Tanner, they know how friendly a friend you are.

Up For Tennis, Doc? Chapter I

By the Bronte-Cohen Sisters
Once upon a time, there was a far, far away place called Luz.

It was a very, very strange place and it was named not after the light that may have shined from it, but for exactly its opposite effect.

As you’ll see, it is a village that has an unique capability to provide us with all but enlightenment on whichever one wishes to be clarified about. It was also very, very strange as it had many more inhabitants than those that actually resided there, and many more nationalities than inhabitants.

And between nationalities, residents and inhabitants many saw many things that the whole world put together wouldn’t be capable to see.

Another oddity is that in that particular village, strangers are at home while those at home are considered strangers, so much so that the vast majority of those there speak a language foreign to the land where this village is situated on.

An example is the local church, where those who were supposed to use it for their prayers cannot, as there were other people who’ve come from far, far away places, and because they wanted it for other things than prayer, had thus priority.  

Luz, a village where there was no sense, located somewhere in a land where it was senseless to have sense.

One day, a rather large group from Wimbledon, or thereabouts, so great was their fixation for that sport called tennis, decided to holiday there.

As Luz had a beach, common nonsense dictated that the chillier the weather the better, so these Brits decided that the best time would be the end of April, beginning of May.

This was no ordinary holiday - an off- season, low budget holiday – as the group was made up of rich and/or well connected characters: medics, company directors of property management pharmaceuticals, software, corporate entertainment, security… either rich and/or well-connected. What was their purpose in commandeering of the resort of Luz; arriving like the retinue of a feudal ruler with servants in tow? Whatever it was, it had to be kept secret. Not a whisper of a common cause could reach the media, and although some have said freemasonry was a possible explanation by some, but sure, many of these characters when created may have been connected to the Brotherhood, but as this seems to be endemic amongst certain professions in the UK and of itself, is no explanation.

  Gomez Addams booked the holiday on behalf of Ken M in January 2007. Gomez and his wife, Morticia, later commented on Barbie M’s reluctance to join in the plans and premonition of something unspecified. It was also Gomez who released the “F- off, I’m not here to enjoy myself” camera pictures of Ken on the airport shuttle bus. Obviously uninhibited by the presence a small children, a miserable Ken utters his now notorious words.

 
Gomez would also comment in his interviews with PC Plod’s colleagues, that they expected something to happen, but not that. What indeed? In retrospect, was he trying to tell us something?

Let’s start with tennis; a strange choice for the golf-playing Ken, who never once mentions a trip to the golf course. He had been to less than 50 miles from Luz before; to play golf, in 1998. For that matter, so had Calamity Jane - not to play golf, as far as we know, but to then arrange a conference for the firm she then worked for; Fishing & Science Toys Inc.

Our first tennis player, present in this atypical holiday, Shrek the Ogre; who appears first in this story as the person who “introduces” Elmer Fudd to the Dalton Brothers (to which the Addams, Calamity and the Ms, Ken and Barbie, belonged to, together with another five characters).

This was over a “chance” encounter over a hedge, on the morning after Bambi’s disappearance.

We have to rely on Shrek’s account given to DC Comics on April 2008, because his original statement is not available in the PC Plod & Colleagues Storybook.

According to Shrek, and to his wife Fiona, both vaguely recalled having heard someone calling “Bambi, Bambi” on the night she disappeared. A highly significant piece of information, tantalising, but not available for reading as her statement is also missing from abovementioned Storybook.

Shrek’s statement has the group of approximately 10 people seated at approximately half past eight. The first anomaly with the Dalton Brothers timings arises here. Shrek and family had arrived at 7 and had spoken to a man with 3 children who was flying back to Switzerland the next day. They had never met before, according to Shrek.

He also mentions another couple, whose names he didn’t know. My belief is this was Fred and Wilma Flintstone; listed as reserved for dinner at the same time as the Dalton Brothers and like Judas Iscariot, all questioned about the presence of the Flintstone’s by PC Plod’s colleagues; denied all knowledge of them. Ms Flintstone, according to the flight list, was pregnant.

 
Shrek had been on a “Luz-type” holiday before, as he knew Daffy Duck. However, he does not say where. Presumably a good tennis player, as he was 13 years older than the highly competitive Ken.

Shrek’s address is referred to as being in Willow Tree, Heart of Swamp. In fact, it is 5 Down There, Willow Tree, which is now registered as the premises of a Clinic and Health Food Company.

However, there is another address for Shrek the Ogre in the PC Plod & Colleagues Storybook: Thine Barn, in Seven Acres. Worth £449k in 2002, and more like £700k now. This is significant, as it proves he is the same SO at the vexatious appellant against Seven Acres Council in 2008. He wrote threatening letters and seems a nasty piece of work. He was protesting about the garden centre next to his property developing some land.

Company Director search shows that Shrek the Ogre was CD of U’r Finance, Co dissolved.
Now CD of Power RPM (property management).

All in all, we’re able to understand that Shrek the Ogre is one powerful tennis player. And we’re not talking about his serve. As we know that in Luz, coincidences have surpassed largely realities, it’s needless to say that in this story, any reality with any coincidence is pure reality.

The Way I See What Tanner Saw

This post is just to clarify, as I’ve read that some people didn’t fully understand, fortunately a minority, what I was trying to convey with my “Tale of Tanner’s Abductor” post.

This is what Jane Tanner tells us how she has seen what she swears she’s really seen:

I believe her, I just think that this is how she saw the whole thing;
 
Basically, I just don’t exactly agree in the exact spot she’s standing, although VERY NEAR to where she states she was, nor with the exact route taken by the person carrying Maddie, although in both instances with the same clear final direction:
 
What I absolutely don’t agree with her is when she says she sees a stranger, because as already said, “The Abductor” AKA “McStroller” AKA Gerry McCann, was at the time, and still isn’t now, no stranger to her.

When she saw him then and there, she then thought he was a friend, today, she’s very certain he’s not. That doesn't make him a stranger, does it?

And Now For Something Completely The Same (Apparently)

I’ve been warned, more than once, and by more than one person, to stop writing.

I’m not talking about, obviously, threats from Black Hats, which are taken as certainties that this blog is following the right path.

I’m speaking about those that defend that whenever I expose the McCanns here, I’m giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.

I’m, according to them, helping, their defense in times to come.

I may be naïve, but I’m a firm believer that Justice is what is, and the System each country designates for its implementation, is a totally different thing.

But a crime is a crime, anywhere and anyhow you look at it. It seems, and allow me the lack of modesty, that AFTER we posted here something VERY incriminating to the “McCann Cause”, they’ve reacted, by trying to make it unimportant, almost routine and apparently blasé. Well, it isn’t.

It seems that the Express, today, October 31st, 2010, has made an appeal to the German public because “so many Germans were holidaying in the Algarve at the time Madeleine disappeared”.

The exact same content, nationalities aside, posted by Gerry McCann, on June 9th, 2007, made an appeal to the Irish because “there are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz”

A blatant attempt to minimize the importance of the June 2007 appeal, which we now know WAS a DIRECT appeal for the Smiths to come forward.

 It seems that it took 1240 days to realize that besides British and Irish, there were also “a LOT” of German tourists also there.

It seems PdL has won the prize for the most popular touristic worldwide mid-spring destination of 2007.

Yes, McCanns, you may NOW think you can babble into the wind that you didn’t appeal ONLY to the Irish... but 1240 days are a bit hard to explain, aren't they?

Everyone knows that the Algarve is a popular destination for British, German and Dutch tourists, but then, you DID NOT make any such a DIRECT appeal to any of these nationalities like you did with the Irish, and are now doing with Germans, and that is what matters.

So fellow White Hats, if, today I explain the importance of the absence of a "White Swan" in the McCann Saga, the fact that they produce one the next day is relevant only because it will be a tacit recognition of importance of said fact.

The McCanns have had ALL the time in the world to produce the relevant evidence, anything produced NOW to “explain” a major mistake, confirms only that that mistake needed to be corrected.

For me, today’s appeal to the German’s is their recognition that when it was important to jolt memories, they ONLY “remembered” to appeal to the Irish.

"Tanner's Abductor", A Tale Told by a Special Friend

Personal Tragedy

A father wakes up, and finds his 24-year old daughter dead, lying on the floor of her bathroom.

Apparently she had been deceased for hours.

She was last seen saying good-night at 23:30.

She practiced sport, and was on the final stretch of her education, a life just starting to be enjoyed that was brutally taken away.

Nothing to be angry against, nothing to blame, nothing to point a finger to.

Nothing, just absolute puzzlement and pain.

I didn’t know her, only the little brat around her daddy’s legs or on her mum’s lap, realizing only now that you became so quickly a woman.

 I don’t know the ratio of genes you inherited from either your father or your mother, but just by doing simple math, the result could only be what it was, a 100% of goodness.

Maybe that’s why God was so eager to have you near him, as soon as was possible.

To both of you, my friends, that God chose for you to remain behind, I could only wish that pain was measurable, so that I could cut one huge chunk for myself of what you’re carrying right now.

To my readers, I know you understand the silence.

Big Man Just Keeps Coming Back

 

On SIC, Gonçalo Amaral believes that the process will be reopened... and THIS TIME the words are not coming out of a McCanns mouth.