Monday, 18 January 2010

Before Demanding, We Should Provide

“At the dinner [in Lisbon in support of Gonçalo Amaral] Stephen was very well received, many people chatting to him. Grenville had a long chat to Duarte Levy. (…) Joana Morais was unable to attend the dinner as she needed to upload material for her blog about the trial. She told Grenville that keeping up the blog was almost a full-time job and at busy times meant working until the early hours of the morning.” (

Sorry to be a spoil-sport in such euphoric times of watching the McCann’s sandcastle shiver while it watches the rising tide slowly but surely come in, but I must get this off my chest.

What are we demanding from the McCanns? One word: honesty.

Honesty about what happened that night. With that, consequences will follow, that one must endure as result of one’s actions. It all boils down to having the TRUTH be known.

It’s only logical that in order to demand one must first provide. Set the example. That said I was quite surprised to read the name of an already exposed conman in a post about how Court proceedings were being successful in putting in pressure on the McCanns so as to rip away, once and for all, their evil masks.

How can one criticize Branson, Kennedy or Rawlings (based only on what I've read on who to expect to attend on Jan27th) in attending the forthcoming social event to refinance the Fraudulent Fund (can’t you people understand that the ONLY reason for these events is to provide a “plausible” excuse to inject money into the fund, regardless of who attends them?)?.

They are only being friends to somebody they know is wrong, and has done wrong. Because, as all know, a really true friend is there when you need him the most.

So, all those being friendly with this gentleman, please refrain from ever again criticizing ANY of the McCann friends. If you do, you’re being an hypocrite.

Sorry, I know this isn't what you like or want to read, but this is what I have to say to be coherent with my conscience.

Liars are usually shameless people. Arrogant, egocentric and egomaniacal are devoid of shame. Put all these traits together and you’ll find the same amount of shame as you’ll find life in little Maddie’s cadaver.

I’m still waiting from him the same that I’m basically demanding from the McCanns: a truthful recognition of error, and full assumption of responsibility for deeds done. Instead, I got a lame excuse that it was personal business.

I do believe that this gentleman “forced” his way in, as only a manipulator is able. Saying an outright “no” to this kind of person takes a courage that most people don’t have.

Let me speak directly to you, whoever was responsible to invite the gentleman. I’m led to believe that his presence was a direct result of you being a True Friend of his. Not turning your back on him. But were you? A friend, I mean. I tell my friends that my friendship towards them is not revealed by helping them to run away from responsibility, but in the fact of making them face it, with all its consequence.

And is also shown by my full support to them all the painful way. If they are my friends, they understand that making ME going through the process of harboring their shortfalls, is an attitude that reveals very little friendship from them towards me.

Was this conman being your friend when he blatantly lied about his feats in a process in which you were deeply involved and to which you bravely gave your face? I don’t think so.

And is a “friend” like that worth your friendship? That, Sir, only you can answer. However if you answer is affirmative, please don't ask any of the McCann friends & family to come foward and cooperate with justice.

I also believe that that was the reason for Joana’s absence at that dinner. I’m assuming this as this is what I would have done were I her. I probably wouldn’t have come up with such a polite excuse like she did, but she’s put a whole lot of her into bringing all of this to a successful end, and once again, has shown greatness by understanding that sometimes some things are much more important than oneself.

I would've thrown a tantrum and would have sulked and behaved like a spoiled child. But then she’s lady, and her “lie” (which, I repeat, I’m assuming solely) is acceptable.

To finish, let me state clearly that I think that there were three major things that have been decisive in this arduous process of bringing the McCanns to justice: Gonçalo Amaral, the man and the book; Joana & Astro’s blog (sorry Kazlux, but you came in later) and the 3Arguidos Forum.

Not that many others weren’t and aren’t important. They were and are and I have one time or another named them, and if I haven’t I’ve been unjust, but these, for me, were the DECISIVE ones. So, in honoring Gonçalo Amaral, we had a dinner where a conman was present and Joana wasn’t.

At least now you know my opinion on the subject.

Note: (19Jan, 07:00) Through a comment on Joana's blog, made by herself, she suggests that there is a possibility of me having used the name of Dr. Sargento's abusevely in this post. 

Not wanting to be unjust, I have withdrawn from the post any mentioning of his name. 

It doesn't alter in anyway what I meant to say in it, and as said, originally, 

I have no problem in apologizing if that, I repeat, is the case.


  1. por isso meu amigo, é que eu não pus lá os pés- se há uma coisa que eu aprecio é honestidade e amizade. um grande abraço, tua J.

  2. Hay muchas formas de entender la amistad.

    Es importante no confundirse y no equivocarse.

    Valoro a Joana. La aprecio sin conocerla.

    No considero a Duarte Levy un estafador.

    También entiendo que no es el momento de ser aguafiestas.

    Con mis respetos,


  3. I am "Honest John" according to some in the blogosphere. I have Aspergers Syndrome and it is said by the experts on this condition that sufferers of AS do not know how to tell a lie. I can be brutally honest and some have said I am too honest for my own good. However, whilst I understand why they say this (out of concern for me) I don't believe that anybody can be too honest. If one person says one thing and another says something different, I don't rest until I have established which version is the truth.

    Until I read Joana's post and followed the link over here, I admit I did not know your blog existed. I don't know everything. I won't apologise for this. I do know that the 3As made a mistake in banning me for freedom of expression. With AS some people say we can say inappropriate things. This is only because we are different.

    One of the benefits of AS is seeing the obvious which others miss, and attention to detail. Whereas Rain Man was good with numbers I am good with words. I remember things I read, hear or see. This helps me with the McCann case. Where things match I file them away in my mind in a compartment. When they don't and yet should I keep searching until I get a satisfactory explanation.

    Break-in + disappearance = abductor, claimed the McCanns. The break-in was questionable from the outset. It was not until 25 October 2007 "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell. But he stuck to the abductor story. As an ex-burglar I didn't fancy the break-in story. Disappearance = abductor is not as strong. Notwithstanding Clarence Mitchell's retreat, to date the McCanns have still not explained why they invented the break-in story. They need to do so.

    Your post is well written.

  4. Remember,

    I don't own the truth. I respect your opinion which is different than mine. You say there is many different ways to see friendship, I say there's many different ways to see loyalty. A dog (no I'm not calling anybody an animal, just exemplifying through one) is always loyal, but many times unreasonable.


    In my book, there's no such thing as too much truth. Yes, there is politeness, but, truth, truth, only one. Many were the mistakes of 3A, but they were, as said, important.

    Here feel free to be brutally honest, because, honestly, I can't see anyhow truth could be insulting, but do see it as a challenge to correct my ways if that is the case.

    Thanks for the comments

  5. Dear Textusa, thank you for publicly standing up for my friend Joana, whose only fault it was to trust too much.
    Others keep on trusting, despite advice and evidence to the contrary; it is their prerogative.
    Time will set the record straight.

  6. Amigos e Amizade: há que valorizar e preservar,contra tudo e todos, caso seja necessário.Fica bem e comove.

    Das palavras de AStro destaco:

    "whose only fault it was to trust too much."

    o que é um aspecto a ter em consideração, no dia a dia e a fugirmos de quem nos faz mal.

    Bom,mesmo bom teria sido a capacidade de quem cai nestas armadilhas,conseguir racionalizar e fugir das situações que nos levam a tantos problemas.Estar-se atento e evitar deslumbramentos.

    Falo com conhecimento de causa(própria),daí que entenda.


  7. so are you saying joana didnt go to the meal because levy was there
    but isnt that a case of cut of your nose to spite your face

  8. Anon Jan 19, 2010 5:52:00 PM

    I was waiting when one of you hyenas would show up. Began to think you'd wised up. For fun's sake, I was wrong...

    The case, my friend, is that YOU are the case.

  9. if that was aimed at me ,you need to get a life ,all i did was ask a question about joana not going to the meal,bloody hell i have never wrote on this blog before, seems you have me mixed up with some else.

  10. Qual é o problema em um Amigo estar ao lado dos Amigos/as? E revoltar-se e dar a explicação que devia ser dada?

    Where is the problem if some are friends and like the truth(real)?


    E quem não souber inglês(eu não sei) use 1 translator,please.

  11. Anon, took the expression "case of cut of your nose to spite your face" personnally, which I realize its not. Mixture of shortfalls of brain, mastery of the language and misuse of speed reading.

    My apologies. I deserve your anger.


    John Hirsts site for Madeleine.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.