Vanished

An unpublished comment received that, for obvious reasons, was censored:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "TheClub of 4":

You really f****d up this time, you dozy cow. The book is crap, and they all know it

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Apr 12, 2013, 10:56:00 PM”

Oddly enough, sometimes we’re in total agreement with Insane, like when s/he said that s/he had witnessed a crime in PdL. We agreed fully then.

Now we find ourselves again fully agreeing with what Insane has said above.

We agree fully only with the second sentence, that is. About the first one, as usual, we’ll leave it up to our readers to make up their minds.

Let us start by saying that we think Danny Collins is the worst possible stereotype that Britain is able to produce.

The typical arrogant, self-centered, morally hypocritical and abusively xenophobic bloke down the road that is fed and feeds the tabloid culture, an exclusive British product.

He appears to be one of those Empire-addicted people who divide the world’s population into a classical three-class cast system. The first cast are the Brits or the masters, the second cast, the servants or all those who should treat the Brits as Sahib or something of the sort and the third and final cast, the unclean or all those who are just simply too ignorant to be servants to the Brits.

In terms of content, “Vanished”, is so factually imprecise that one is almost afraid to open its pages for fear of having it fall completely apart and physically crumble in one’s hand.

To avoid stooping to the language used by Insane, let’s just say that the book is ridiculous.

The only missing characteristics to complete the above description of Mr Collin’s worst-possible-British-stereotype would be for him to also be the drinking, loudmouth and troublemaking Brit who is easily identifiable in the many touristic resorts around southern Europe.

But if one judges Mr Collin’s ability to create fantasist scenarios as well as his capability to contradict himself, sometimes even in the same paragraph, one can only assume he was under the influence of some psychotropic or hallucinogenic substance when writing the book.

The book is indeed absolutely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least.

But why would anyone allow an author to accuse them of lying if they weren't, particularly the McCanns? In a radio interview, this very April, with Joan Lea, Mr Collins says the McCanns have read the manuscript and in the book says he spoke to Clarence Mitchell about contents - so why no contradictions from any of them?

Kate’s book only dismisses wandered off theory without any reference to “Vanished”. Very far from the assertiveness expected to refute a public “plausible” theory based exclusively on calling the McCanns liars.

That makes one ask what author would submit his allegations to those he was writing about and calling them liars? What would he do if they had objected?

Amazingly they didn’t.

"Vanished" is, as we've already said, absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

However, do you remember when we also used the adjective “ridiculous” about something here in the blog?

It was when we said: “If I were to elect the most ridiculous of all statements in the PJ Files, I would have to pick Derek Flack’s”

Ridiculous doesn’t necessarily mean worthless.

On the contrary, as Flack’s statements have demonstrated, the ridiculous sometimes prove to be of crucial importance.

In the case of “Vanished”, an overlooked treasure as we’ve called it.

Flack’s statements prove the direct involvement in the cover-up went beyond the Tapas 9. That this direct involvement went also beyond the Ocean Club and the Guests as Flack didn’t belong to any of the referred groups.

Much in the same way, “Vanished” proves the direct involvement in the cover-up of people from within the PJ.

That’s how important the book is and that’s not all of its importance as you’ll see.

A very, very important book indeed. It's not about what Mr Collins says but about what Mr Collins says when he's saying what he's saying and when he's saying it.

Let’s contextualize this literary whatever. Mr Collins, twice I believe, refers in the book that the McCanns still had their arguido status and that it wasn’t foreseeable when that would be changed.

We know that the McCann’s arguido status was lifted in July 2008, which means that the book was written before then.

That, in turn, means it was written before the PJ Files were released.

Now go back and read the book and ask yourself how it is possible for a Spanish-based British journalist to be able to know information that you now know but only because you’ve read the files.

It’s said that he copied and pasted information from the tabloids. If that is so, could please someone tell me in which tabloid, or any other media agent, published, before July 2008, that Dr. Oldfield convenientky "repolished" his initial statement, or as Mr Collins says on page 4: "Matthew Oldfield had told the police that he merely listened at the rear of the apartment for any sound but now he reorganised his statement and claimed he walked into the apartment through the unlocked patio doors and listened at the half-open bedroom door"?

Please name one newspaper, tabloid or other, that, prior to July 2008, speaks of Dr. Oldfield’s convenient remembrance, on May 10th, 2007, of a second check on the McCann's kids that he had simply forgot to mention just a few days before on his first statement, with the detail with which Mr Collins describes, not only on page 4 as throughout the book.

One could say that it was the Brit Police that was feeding the man.

We’re certain, by reading the book, that Mr Collins was fed information by the British Police but to say that it was his sole source is to overlook an important detail about the details which populate Mr Collin’s book: the PJ Files were written in Portuguese.

That means that Mr. Collins was fed information by someone close to the Portuguese investigation.

Any PJ files of an ongoing investigation are not shared. Only those with direct relationship with the investigation have access to them.

The files are only sent to the higher echelon once a final or intercalary report is written.

In the case of the Maddie’s PJ Files, only a final report was written and it was dispatched, as we know, for the process to be archived. But that was in July 2008.

So from who did Mr. Collins get the information pertaining Maddie that was written in Portuguese?

Mr. Collins in his generous acknowledgments does recognize the help from Portuguese police members: “I include a whispered muito obrigado to those more simpatico members of the Portuguese Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR) and Judicial Police who opened their minds to me regarding the progress of the investigation. Thank you guys, for your expert observations and comments. Honour bound, I won’t tell if you don’t!” (pag xii)

The GNR had no access to such sensitive information that is in the book.

It seems then that Mr Amaral is quite right in thinking that he was back-stabbed by his own because indeed he was.

I would like to remind all those within the PJ that have betrayed their nation in favour of a foreign power, of Miguel de Vasconcelos e Brito who was defenestrated back in December 1st, 1640.

We’re not supportive of any sort of physical violence, either by citizens or by state, so let us make it perfectly clear that we’re not advocating any sort physical harm to these traitors, only hoping they will feel the shame they deserve to feel.

But we did say that “Vanished” was much more important than the fact that it proved that Mr Amaral was literally next to his worst enemies.

It’s important because it’s symptomatic.

It reveals what the BHs felt in that first period of the Great Maddie War, from September 2007 to July 2008.

During that time, uncertainty reined within the BHs ranks. UK had told Portugal to play along but until everything was black on white, as the Portuguese say, with the archiving dispatch, all was an open game.

However unlikely, but the obedient Portuguese could, for some strange reason, decide not to comply.

That’s the reason this book was written. To react preemptively to the scenario of the parents being charged by badmouthing them to make sure that attention remained on them and in no way would digress in the direction of the guests.

No abduction? Then the idea would then be to convey that the parents lied to hide the fact that Maddie had wandered off thus continuing to contain the events within the T9.

The absence of a reaction on the part of the McCanns about the book is ample proof that the couple had little or nothing to say about their own fate.

The BHs were setting the McCanns up in a scenario they had to accept as the lies about a break in had become too obvious

This was a job paid for to an absolutely soulless individual to do and he did it. He isn't another lunatic putting another absurd theory out there.

About that, there aren't as many lunatics on this subject as it's made to believe there are. Yes, they do put out absolutely absurd theories but they're far from being people who suffer from any sort of lunacy.

They're "lunatics" not lunatics.

But the fact that he did it, now allows us to analyse its content with the same objectiveness we asked you to have when looking at the Paraiso pictures back in 2010, when the Big Round Table and the T9 Watersports began to be debunked.

Sift through the ridiculousness of the ridiculous. Read it with the serious, objective mindset the subject deserves.

For example, when walking down a road you come to a bifurcation and there stands a person, who you mistrust completely, telling you to take the road to the right, do ask yourself what are the reasons for that person not wanting you to know where the left road may lead to.

When reading, do keep in mind that never in Mr. Collins' wildest dreams at the time, nor in those of those who "ordered" this work, occurred that soon after the book's publication the PJ Files would be publicly released and that Mr Amaral would write a book.

This meant that Mr Collins wrote this book thinking he could get away with saying anything. A common mistake made by many that left physical registry of their "opinion" prior to July 2008.

Like this "Manuela" who "forgot" that she had already said that she wasn't at Tapas that night, "forgot" that another woman had already stated she was the cook that night, "forgot" that the menu had already been detailed and "forgot" that the creche next to Tapas wasn't the one that Maddie went to:

"Forgot" or didn't know or wasn't told.

Not all were fed information the way Mr. Collins was.

About calling me a cow, by looking at how much Humanity should respect this animal as it owes it an enormous chunk of its nutrition, both in meat and dairy products, I can only take it as a compliment.


Footnote:

Dr Oldfield's first statement: 

"That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine.

That after this check, he returned to the restaurant, saying that all the children were asleep. However, Gerry, Madeleine's father, went to the area of the apartments to check for himself if the children were asleep. That Gerry would have entered  into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was left open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant." 

Dr Oldfield's second statement: 

"Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.

He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.

(…)

Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls.

At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM.

Questioned about his motives for such a check, going against the prevailing/established procedure, or - why would two people have gone to check the three apartments (in this case the witness and ROB going to check their own apartments and that of GM), the deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.

Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, but, in the case of it having been he [MO] to make such a suggestion it would have been due to, having spent days on holiday together, [there already being] a very close friendship with the couple [allowing him] to enter their apartment.

That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own residences, to check on their own children. After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.

To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.

That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.

Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.

Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.

Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.

The question asked, he relates that he thinks he returned to Tapas between 21h25 and 21h30, telling the others in the group that he found everything within normality in the residential block."