Blog Break

It's the time of year for our customary summer break, when we give our families undivided attention, enjoy our holiday season and catch up on all those tasks we keep putting off.

We will be keeping an eye on developments too and it seems timely to take a break now; to await the outcome of the visit of the British Crown Prosecution Service to Portugal in April and to see if the libel trial of Mr Amaral actually happens.

We hope it will all result in a clear-up, rather than a cover-up. Hope springs eternal, as the saying goes. And you never know, justice, true justice, may just render this blog useless.

We have taken the blog along to the point of almost a resolution to the case. We have exposed the plot and only the finer dust (and there is still much of it) remains to be cleaned. You know, the devil’s favorite playground: the details.

It seems that there are some pessimists who have already forecast that the UK authorities are determined to conclude that it was “an abductor” after all, one anonymous, mysterious and inconclusive abductor.

And no sign of Maddie.

First, it seems just a little too little of a difference for the almighty glorified and (ex-) reputable SY to make its difference from the “bungling” PJ.

You don’t see the difference? Yes, we understand why you don’t. That’s how brilliantly formatted you’ve been all this time.

You see, the only official version that we’re aware of is that the Portuguese Justice System could find no evidence parents involved in Maddie’s disappearance.

No talk of an abductor.

Maddie is gone… but the why is still open to speculation as you so well know.

Second, if getting an “abductor” to fit the part was easy, or even possible, don’t you think that would have been done long ago?

That’s what they’ve been trying to do for the last 6 years with very little success and a very fast eroding margin of manoeuvre.

There’s one thing that differentiates this case from all others: the millions of words written about it and that are publicly available.

The true White Hats have contributed out of their own good-will.

The “White Hats” have, unwittingly, contributed also, and decisively, due to their fierce engagement in the issue. These, remember, wanted just part of the truth to be outed and have the T9 punished for Maddie’s death.

So, they were absolutely truthful about anything that did NOT hinder their interests. And what they wanted to hide, they lied as much as any Black Hat. After all, we mustn’t forget, they are Black Hats. The sentence of an innocent man, Tony Bennett, is, as we said “blood” on their hands.

So do take away the clutter that these “White Hats” have spread in their own interests and you’ll have left a good chunk of pure, honest truth.

Lastly, the Black Hats. How useful they have been. Their counter-argumentation will be the biggest embarrassingly legacy of all time.

There’s simply too much information out there to find an adequate patsy. Simply impossible.

“Maddie – The Movie”, when it will be made, won’t be about the events that happened inside the apartment until the little girl died, but about all the circus that was mounted around her death. We believe that not much of the filming will be using PdL as scenario…

Police in UK can't afford another scandal blowing up after the latest uproar on trying to discredit Stephen Lawrence family campaign,  the use of undercover police in spying on protest groups and Plebgate.

There’s also some idle talk about Mr Amaral’s “strange” silence. We don’t find it strange at all. As far as we know, Mr Amaral owes no one any explanation about anything.

If there has to be an eventual explanation, it has to come from the Judicial System as to why there was no trial (if there isn’t to be one) or from the accusing side, the McCanns, as to why they dropped the charges (if they drop the charges).

Mr Amaral’s silence about the issue is not only justified as is very comprehensible. He has nothing to say, so, correctly, says nothing.

We wish our readers an enjoyable holiday break and thank those who have stayed with us in a quest for justice.

"Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon

Many times, in our blog, we’ve told you to see things that you were only looking at but weren't capturing all they were really telling you.

Examples of this are the Paraíso pictures, the Smith Sighting, the body disposal theories, both on the beach and in the church, the Tapas reservation (?) sheets, the Big Round Table (and Brunt’s video registry of it), the Quiz Nights, the non-cryptic picture taken from a balcony different from the one it was said to have been taken from, the Fenn’s supermarket bags and the amazing memory qualities and lapses of some ex-Pats, among many other things.

These are examples of what we've alerted you to but there are as many that we have detected and that are still waiting "in line" for publication.

But today’s post is about something that while we were advising you to use you “eyesight” adequately we were failing to see what was right before our, and your, very own eyes.

We call it the “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon.

It might just be the key to this whole problem and yet it has been biting our heels all this time. One master clutter move on the part of BHs.

One must recognize excellence when one sees it. We won’t do that right now because we’re still in doubt if it was excellence or despair that have kept the obvious hidden away right before our eyes.

Let’s then go straight into our allegory so that you can fully understand what we mean.

Imagine that you, like many of us have or had, have teenage children. You agree to allow your sixteen yr old daughter to have her birthday party at your house with her friends.

At the birthday’s girl request and promise of best behaviour you also agree that you and hubby will not be present.

You take this opportunity and go for a nice romantic dinner with your husband and almost thought of following it with a movie but decided against it because it would make your return much too late in the night.

The negotiations ended with all the parties agreeing that you would return home between 10.30 and 11.00 pm.

On the day, like the loving mother you are, you help set up the birthday table. Besides the birthday cake, you had various sodas, assorted crisps, mini-pizzas, crackers, various pastries, such as vol au vents, cheese straws and anything else that you could remember to prepare.

And to have your princess feel like the “adult” she desperately wants to feel like, you and hubby leave the house before any of her friends arrive, so that she can play fully the role of hostess.

You arrive, as agreed, from your evening at around 10.45. The party is dwindling down and most of her friends have left.

Always the suspicious mother you look around and everything seems to be fine. Besides the dining room, starting with the table. being in a total disarray, which was expected, everything else seems to be in order. Your daughter seems to have earned your trust

The last guests leave and as everyone is tired, you put the rest of the birthday cake in the refrigerator and you all agree to go to bed and leave the cleaning for the next day.

The next morning, being the first to get up, you take the task of cleaning into your own hands. You take all the stuff that was still on the table to the kitchen and come back with a broom… to find the floor spotlessly clean.

You’re before what we call the “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon.

Please don’t confuse this phenomenon with the “Hide the Party” phenomenon. That one is your typical “babysitter party” where you aren’t supposed to know that a party has taken place.

A forgotten beer bottle or a lamp out of place are the tell tale signs of a “Hide the Party” phenomenon, where you discover that there was had been a party albeit all efforts to hide that fact from you.

With the “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon you know that there was a party. You authorized it, you helped prepare it and when you came back home you found a dwindling down party as expected.

The “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon is when what apparently didn’t need any cleaning, was cleaned.

It's risking you'll disregard the oddity of the situation versus the certainty they have that you'll realize what they don't want you to know.

So what is the importance of this?

It shows clearly that someone went into an extra effort trying to hide something specific about what happened during the party.

The floor should have been filthy but wasn't. The expected crumbs and crisp bits were nowhere to be found. And no, a group of teenagers wasn't being careful in eating at a party so as not to litter the floor.

So someone took the trouble to clean some particular kind of mess so that you wouldn’t know about something very specific that had happened.

Two or three motives pop up into my mind about what teenagers would want to hide from you but we’re not here to speak about the teenage parties.

Let’s see where this is applicable to the Maddie Affair. We know that the apartment was exaggeratedly cleaned. And it seems obvious to all of us the reasons as to why it was done.

But is it that obvious?

We, like you, thought that the cleaning was done to remove any and all traces of Maddie’s demise from the apartment.

That meant that the cleaning had one main focus: rid the apartment from any trace of Maddie’s blood.

We know that the body laid in the living room by the window and then was taken from there to the parent’s cupboard where it waited to be removed from the apartment when the time came.

This move is important as this marked the time the first cleaning began, done by non-expert “cleaners”, the T9, to remove all visible traces of blood and so prepare the apartment for the arrival of the Portuguese authorities that would be called when the alarm was to be raised.

Now to clean a fluid like blood, one obviously needs water and the nearest water sources available and at hand were in the bathroom and kitchen.

The diagram above shows the possible routes that the T9 likely used to clean up Maddie’s blood. Note that we include the use of both the kitchen’s interior window and door.

Once that was done, the apartment was ready for the alarm to be raised. As it was, earlier than expected, but was.

Then, later, we now know that a team of expert "cleaners" or as we like to call them “6-cleaners” came to do the job as it should be done.

And they are the one’s who introduce the “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon., which, as we've said, has been right under our noses this whole time and the BHs have dedicated both significant time and effort for us not to see.

As you can see in the diagram above, there was one room that didn’t need to be cleaned. The kids room.

We can’t see how any of Maddie’s blood could have gone into that room.

So, ALL traces of Maddie in that room would have been as expected as the crumbs on the floor in our teenage party.

It would have been VERY convenient in terms of realism for that room to be filled with Maddie’s DNA. After all it would have been where she spent a lot of her time after all, wouldn’t it?

So why wash clean that room completely clean of Maddie?

Why wash the pillowcases and sheets where the child had just slept?

But was Maddie's DNA the only "crumbs" that were expected to be found... and weren't there?

The immediate answer would be the traces of all those who are said, and reported, to have been in that room that night.

So why clean that up too? After all it was evident, as was witnessed and reported by the authorities, how so many people contaminated the crime scene. A contamination that fails to make its "appearance" as we know.

Wouldn't it have been best to leave the room with ALL its traces and not clean it at all?

But, here is where the “Clean Party Floor” phenomenon is crucial.

Are Maddie's DNA and the traces of all those who were there on the night of the 3rd the only missing "crumbs"? No.

If one doesn't forget that the Ocean Club cleaners aren't exactly "expert cleaners" one must ask why also the lack of expected amount of forensic data from former tourists in that apartment and, in particular, in that room?

We have, as far as we know, the evidence of the stain attributed to a 3 yr old.  

The wall and floor stains 9a&b are also attributed to him, which would contradict the blood splatters being from Paul “Labrador” Gordon in the living room who is said to have walked around the apartment trying to staunch bleeding after cutting himself shaving.

We call him Paul “Labrador” Gordon like a Labrador he seems to shake his body with such energy that sprays walls with his blood. But that's hearsay and you know what we think about hearsay.

But if you look at the cleansing of the kids room under the "Clean Party Floor” phenomenon perspective then suddenly you may understand many things.

What if they weren’t cleaning Maddie’s DNA in that room but cleaning all traces of those who had been present in that room in the last days?

Traces of those who could even be "suspected" of being the “abductor” as they fitted the profile of being male and present in PdL during that period of time and had absolutely no excuse, according to the official version, to have been inside the apartment and much less that room.

And we're not talking about only men. If any traces were found inside 5A, of both male or female, present in PdL and with apparently no relationship with the McCanns it would be highly compromising both to the official story and those involved to say the least.

And that is the importance of Profile L and the reason for so much discussion around Maddie’s DNA.

That discussion, my friends had the exact same objective as the negligence theory had for such a long time: to pin you down on irrelevant matter and away from what mattered.

While we went needlessly around in circles about the all the intentionally made complexity (so that it would either confuse, bore or do both) of already complex scientific data of determining DNA,  we didn’t do the intended and that was not to ask the obvious question: why no other DNA?

Discussing Maddie's DNA over and over again, all to distract you from the importance of Profile L.

Profile L wasn't supposed to be found. It slipped through the cracks like the blood and the cadaverine.

The discussion around Maddie's DNA was to distract you from all the important forensic findings REALLY made by FSS which was then "convinced" to "unfind" them.

To distract you from the importance of all the backtracking that FSS was forced to do to comply with the official script.

Maybe, if we go back to Mario Marreiro’s Improved Memory Syndrome, then we all might now understand why Neil Berry was asked, via rogatory letter, the following questions:

* At about 6.00 p.m., in particular, where were you ? Who were you with ?

* Considering the fact that you were seen by a witness, clarify what you were doing at that time next to the stairs leading to the upper floor , which are located next to the lift of Block 5 at the Ocean Club, i.e. not far from the apartment from where Madeleine McCann went missing ?

* On that occasion, did you actually pass by an Ocean Club employee that went there to pick up laundry ?

* If yes, what was the reaction like and why ?"

Laundryman gave an interview one month after his PJ statement, to Daily Mirror on 29/9/07, but didn't want to be named:

“Stocky BRITISH tourist wearing 2 tone glasses spotted by OC worker in the stairwell. " I'll never forget him"

Not Scandinavian here!

Discover what they really were trying to hide from you in that room and there may lie the key to unravel all this mess.

Why clean a room that didn’t need cleaning?

To remove all traces of Maddie's blood was doing a "Hide the Party" but to clean the kid's room was doing a "Clean Party Floor".  




Post Scriptum:  

With saying that we think that the discussion around Maddie's DNA has been but a BH  stalling and distracting technique, we would like to make it very clear that we in no way want to imply that our reader who has stoically defended her points of view against the relentless attacks on the subject made by Insane is a BH.

We believe her to be a true WH and thank her for her very insightful comments.

BH's Little Big Horn?

On our last post we said that we thought that the “PdL BH Faction” was in the hot seat at the moment. This post will attempt to explain why we think that is so.

We have had the privilege of watching the ebbs and flows of one the most interesting “power-play” games in western civilization and all because a little girl was accidentally killed in a remote location in Portugal in May 2007.

Since the beginning of this year, 2013, we’ve tried in various posts to explain, in our opinion, what the Maddie Affair is all about and how we are where we are today.

We explained how the SY Review was initially to only go after the McCann couple and their friends, known as T7 without them or T9 with them.

But once it was quickly realized that it was an impossible objective to achieve, the Review went into a sort of limbo, not knowing how to justify its existence exactly.

We had the vague and ridiculous 195 new leads and the tentative trials in finding a scapegoat from time to time.

Meanwhile, the real players, Murdoch and Cameron were fighting the "Leveson war" as to who would control the Enablers who made the Maddie Affair the mess as big as it became: the Tabloid Press.

It seems that that particular fighting is over, having, in our opinion, Cameron has refocused his objectives after wisely understanding that time plays in Murdoch's.

Between the two, Murdoch holds now less power but will continue to have it while Cameron will lose his in the natural democratic passage of time, 

We believe that the “6-cleaner” episode showed clearly to Cameron that the way the battle was being fought would cause casualties in the ranks which neither party was interested in inflicting.

It was a very successful move on the part of Murdoch. It not only stopped the opponent's offensive as it transformed him into an ally.

We also said that now was the time for Cameron to act, to make his move, under the penalty of seeing his name also mistreated by history when all pertaining Maddie McCann will be adequately analyzed  in the future.

The SY Review has become a huge embarrassment and the only way for that not to be so is for SY to “discover” the truth.

And so we believe that Cameron has indeed acted.

But before we proceed, let us recap who is in the game. We’ve spoken already of David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch, representing the UK Government and the Tabloids respectively. The only ones left to mention are the Guests.

The Guests is a very complex group.

Unlike the other two, it doesn’t have a representative leader. This has not only got to do with the fact that these people certainly don’t want any sort of attention on them as it’s quite heterogenic group.

This group was able, through pure nepotism, to get hundreds of people to actively participate in the cover-up. Their nepotism is real and is powerful.

But this means that we’re not only talking about those who were physically present in PdL but also all those in the UK who upon request helped set up the hoax.

The Guests are basically divided into three groups:

Group A, or the “BH PdL Faction”, is made up of those who hosted the event. They were/are resident or working in Praia da Luz and were not guests. Ocean Club management and staff as well as the “core-organization-team” made up ex-Pats of which Robert Murat is the most well known.

This group was the one that took the early decisions and is the one that is looked at as the one responsible for all this.

It was this group that in our opinion took care of the body until it was disposed of.

Group B is made up of the guests. All those who flew into Praia da Luz to participate in a swinging event that took place in the Ocean Club Resort.

This group was assured by Group A that all would be alright and that Maddie’s disappearance would be perfectly justified by having Maddie “abducted” and in that way guarantee that no sex-scandal would ever erupt.

Group C is made up of all those on the receiving end of the many phone-calls made by those of Groups A and B on the night from 3 to 4 May 2007.

Group C is made up of very powerful and very influential people in UK. So powerful and so influential that they were able to make not only the UK act according to their desire but make Portugal also do the same.

But we must note that their power and influence was when Tony Blair / Gordon Brown were in government.

Not saying they’ve stopped being powerful and influential, just stating that they might not be as much today, in Cameron’s era, as they were then.

These 3 groups aren't intended to be an exhaustive list but just to give an idea of the main players involved in the current “war games”.

For example, we haven’t mentioned the McCanns or any of the other T7. Although they were guests, they’ve had so many puppeteers that they now belong to no group, Guest, Government or Tabloid, but will receive orders from all.

Imagine that this was all a popular TV Game show. Two teams, on one side Government & Tabloids and on the other the Guests A, B & C. High on a platform, sitting in silence, the T9 with Kate and Gerry McCann on the front row.

If Team Government & Tabloid get its answers wrong then the McCanns and friends remain “dry” but if it’s Team Guests A, B & C that get it wrong then the floor beneath the T9 chairs will disappear from under them and they will fall… into a pool much to the pleasure and cheers of the TV live audience.

To the many "WHs" who advocated that the McCanns & friends had enough power to change the rotational direction of planet Earth, it seems inexplicable T9's absolute silence about everything lately.

Please don’t think that all of the T9 are as inactive about their fate as the McCanns. On the contrary, one of the most active and fascinating group is the “BH David Payne Faction”. But we’ll speak about them in a later date.

Back to the action and why the “BH PdL Faction” has many reasons to be worried.

First, because we believe that the train has definitely left the station.

But before you get your hopes up, we still have to see if it's headed for Dumbledore, Harry Potter’s school or for a more real station like King’s Cross.

To understand what we mean by this let’s recap what we think has happened in the last months.

The “6 cleaner” episode, was well within the war between Cameron vs Murdoch. But it happened to become, very much like our “Last Call – All Aboard (or Not)” post, a unwitting catalyst of new things to come.

In this case, it is, in our opinion, an unwitting “Last Call – All Aboard for the Final Chapter”.

You see, once decided that that eating each other up was of no use and detrimental to both, Cameron and Murdoch have turned the guns to the Guests.

To unravel what happened in PdL the Guests, all the 3 groups of them, have their roles exposed.

The main target is Group C, the powerful and influential. But they aren’t an easy target. If they were they would have already been eaten alive by now, and they haven’t. No, they’re not an easy prey and they will not fall without a fierce fight.

So the only way to get to them is through the most vulnerable of them, Group A or “BH PdL Faction”.

First, it’s because that’s where the proof of the collective lie is. Where everything we’ve shown in the blog can be easily demonstrated and all debunked.

Second, and most important, although Group B will be implicated, many will be able to escape unscathed as there will be too many names to remember, so if an adequate damage control is applied many who wanted to remain out of this mess will remain that way.

We're talking about Groups B and C.

Group A is expendable in face of the relevance of the interests of these two groups. By attacking Group A mercilessly, then Groups B and C will retain some margin of space to get off the hook.

So, as we’ve witnessed, and not by coincidence, all guns are turned smack on Praia da Luz.

Suddenly, almost out of the blue, the “BH PdL Faction” has found itself in a “McCann Predicament”, which is being totally helpless about one's own fate. What happens to them is a decision made by others.

In the case of the “BH PdL Faction” on how much of a fight Group C will put up. Group A is only safe if Group C holds the fort. If it ever concedes an inch, it will be at this Group A's expense.

It started, as we said, unwittingly, with the “6 cleaner” episode and was followed, this time intentionally, with the “X People of Interest in PdL”, X being a variable that changes conveniently with time and circumstances.

This set the stage definitely in PdL.

Not in Germany, Morocco, Romania, New Zealand, Switzerland or Disneyland.

It was set in Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal. That’s where SY has said were the “people of interest”.

Note also that now there aren't gypsies or any more heinous Latino stereotypes. The "people of interest" are Ocean Club workers, ex-Pats and Guests.

Scotland Yard has bet it's whole reputation that this "crime" will be solved in Praia da Luz.

It's as if PdL has become a Little Big Horn, a last stand.

Only left to define is who is going to be Custer. The BH or the Brit Gov?

Once the stage set in PdL, then it was time to proceed.

Enter the stage Mario Fernando Madeira Marreiros a laundryman.

Now if one is to read Mario Fernando’s statement to the PJ on 08 May, 2007, one really has to stretch one’s imagination to read it and find in it anything that could remotely make him in any possible way “one of 12 manual workers and cleaners Scotland Yard detectives have identified as “people of interest”:

This is his statement in the PJ Files:

“He has worked at the OC since the 5th March 2007 as a laundry worker as well as the driver of the laundry vehicles of the resort, delivering and collecting laundry (towels and sheets) from the apartments that make up the resort.

With relation to the events being investigated he states that on 4th May 2007, upon arriving at work at about 10.00 he saw that next to an apartment block there were various cars and police as well as members of the press, which he found strange.

Later, when he arrived at his place of work he was informed by colleagues that this "apparatus" was due to the disappearance of a little girl who had been staying at the resort.

He was informed that the girl was three years old, of British nationality and he observed that posters with her photograph and details were already up, with indications to follow in the case of information about her disappearance.

When questioned he said that he did not know the girl or her family, only having heard about them after the event.

When questioned about the day of the disappearance (03 May 2007) of the girl whose name he does not remember, he says he carried out his normal routine, arriving at his place of work at about 10.00, with a lunch break from 13.00 to 14.30, returning to work until 18.00. After work he returned home where he stayed with his wife until 21.30 when he went alone by car to Barao de Sao Joao, where his step son works.

After having picked up his step son he returned home where he stayed until the following day when he left for work.

He only knew about the events from the press and from his colleagues.

He knows nothing more apart from that the girl was on holiday with her family and twin siblings as he was informed later.

He does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events.”

To see in these words any source of interest is like picking up a rock, covering it up with a golden coat of paint and calling it a nugget.

We've failed to confirm in the PJ Files what Mario Fernando now says “he identified a potential suspect to Portuguese police a few months after Madeleine went missing” nor that  “However, according to Portuguese files, officers asked British police to put more questions to this man – a full year after Madeleine vanished.”

So it’s rather strange that someone just 4 days after the events has to say that “He does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events” suddenly remembers, 6 years later:

“Mario believes the man he saw the night before three-year-old Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 should be on Scotland Yard’s list too.

(…)

Mario recalls a “nervous” man wearing big sunglasses hiding in a stairwell seconds away from the holiday apartment where parents Gerry and Kate were staying with their three children.

The laundryman is convinced the lurker was involved in the kidnap.

(…)

"It was 7.30pm to 8pm. When cleaners cleared sheets they dropped them down the hole in the stairs to be collected by me at the bottom.

“When I walked down and turned into the hole to get the laundry, I saw the weird guy and we nearly bumped into each other. He was embarrassed. He looked nervous.

“He was walking out from the hole under the stairs and must have been much further inside but had taken several steps after hearing me coming. We were, like, dodging each other.

“He had a really fat face and had two-tone sunglasses on, they got lighter at the bottom and were big. I will never forget those glasses.

“There was no reason for him to be there and no reason to wear the glasses as it was dark under the stairs.

“He did not walk away but watched what I did. I collected the sheets and took them to the van outside. He stayed there watching me.

“I had never seen him before. I knew everyone who was living at the complex and he was not one of them.

“It is still recorded in my head like it was at the time. It was not usual for people to be there, in the shadows.

“My theory is that guy must have been involved, either in the kidnapping or studying what to do — their movements.

"He was there for something, for sure!”

(…)

Describing the man who haunts him he explained: “He was quite tall and looked sort-of Scandinavian.

"He had lots of hair, close to his head — like it was glued. It was straight hair. He was about my age now — 45, 46.”

Mr. Mario Marreiros is evidently just another victim of IMS, a disease that we've seen afflict so many in this affair. For those who don't know what IMS is, it stands for Improved Memory Syndrome.

Evidently we don’t believe a word of what this man is saying but we do find very important what he has said.

Remember how we defined the “6 cleaner” episode as one in the best “I know what you did that summer” style?

Now, what if, as we think it is, this “Laundryman” episode to be a message to someone in PdL who just might understand it loud and clear?

What if, as we think it is, this “Laundryman” sighting is about the rightful “owner” of the stain that was found on the bedspread in the children’s room in 5A and up to now attributed to a 3 year old boy?

What if, as we think it is, SY has known all along who this “owner” is and is now telling this person “Hello, this is about YOU!”?

We know we've said that from Mario Moreiras' single statement in the PJ Files nothing of interest to the case could be deduced, and anyone doubting that please feel free to read him again above.
 
We have also said that nowhere else in the PJ Files can be found any reference of him having spoken to the PJ besides that single statement.

However we must say there was someone, referenced in the PJ Files, who was asked if he had actually passed by an Ocean Club employee that went there to pick up laundry but that's something we'll speak about in another post in the near future.

Then it would make sense that now, Justine McGuiness, in a travel media article, not in a mainstream paper would say:

“Asked what she now believes happened to Madeleine, McGuiness said it was highly unlikely she was kidnapped to order as some theories suggested or just walked out of the apartment herself.

But she said her experience of the case made her realise that many paedophiles appear to be upstanding members of communities not thought capable of carrying out that sort of crime.”

Upstanding members of the communities? Interesting to say the least!

Yes, the battleground is definitely Praia da Luz. And the “BH PdL Faction” really has reasons to sweat.

Much has been speculated as to what Kate McCann came to do in PdL in the beginning of the month, on the 6th Anniversary of Maddie's death.

Our opinion of that is quite simple. She came to report to the "BH PdL Faction" who wanted to hear first hand on what is going on and most likely also wanted to relay to the "other side" their interests.

The "Laundryman" episode seems to show that their proposals didn't have any sort of echo.

As we said above, the casting of who is to play Custer (BH or Brit Gov) in this Little Big Horn still has to be done.

To which side will the balance tip?

We would say there's one more likely than the other. That main reason being that SY bet the whole of its reputation by circumscribing the “hunting ground” to Praia da Luz.

So, basically, we would say that that this now boils down to the following: Is SY’s reputation more or less important than Group C’s power and influence?

We’ll see, hopefully soon, if SY is ridiculed yet again… or not.

As we've alerted, the next deadline is McCanns vs Amaral trial in Portugal. which many, many are very anxious about.

We are, as you know, in terms of the most elementary of justices, also are very interested in the outcome.

Be that outcome it taking place or not.

As we've also said, the eventuality of an agreement being reached is a decision that belongs solely to Mr. Amaral and about which we won't provide an opinion.

But we do want to highlight the high interest that many have, both in Portugal and in UK, which is very diverse from ours, about this particular judicial event.

Their interest about what may happen until then, what may happen to avoid it happening, what they may do to downsize the importance if it happens, what may happen if it happens and what may happen after it happens... and all other "what may" that we haven't said here.

Very interesting. Thus the high interest.

Clueless... or NOT

While some commentators are very analytical language wise, to a point of astounding precision, others use words without apparently knowing their meaning as they not only use them abusively as they withdraw from them conclusions, obviously to their own conveniences, and absolutely wrong.

This is a comment we received from a Anonymous #48:

 “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

No DNA from Madeleine in her bed (were the sheets and pillow changed before the police arrived?) and the McCanns also did not give the police Madeleine's comb/hairbrush or a toothbrush, those personal items never showed up! Of course, she could have shared the same comb or hairbrush with the twins, but a shared toothbrush?! No way!

After a visit to England, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day. Not even from Madeleine's "sweaty sandals", that Kate proposed as the possible source of contamination for any DNA from Madeleine found in the hired car.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6537-5a-forensics-taken-04-05-07

Despite the apparent "deep cleaning" of the apartment, there were still plenty of other people's vestiges...but NONE from Madeleine...quite a "surgical" clean up!

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 8:40:00 PM”

Anonymous #48 used normal and educated language as can be read. The abusive language came from a very heated reaction to this comment from another poster, Anonymous #50:

 “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Poster #48 is singularly clueless, I'm afraid

There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed, which they should know if they have in fact read the files.

Why do you publish such unsubstantiated nonsense? It rightly exposes you to complete ridicule

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 10:03:00 PM”

Let’s start with the word CLUELESS. Or its use, or misuse of the word by Anon #50.

It seems to us that #48 is far from being clueless in his/her comment.

In fact, what #48 is in fact doing is to highlight one very relevant clue of the case. It’s noticing and noting the existence of the clue, so, by definition, unlikely, not to say impossible, to be clueless about that particular clue.

So to saying someone is clueless when mentioning a clue simply doesn’t add up.

But is the clue mentioned in the PJ Files?

We’ll say for now that it isn’t, just for argument's sake. If one is to take the spirit of comment #50, at least as we understand it to be, then it isn’t, which, as you’ll see later on, isn’t exactly so.

At least we know that it isn’t written anywhere in the PJ Files that there was an attempt to look for Maddie’s DNA from the child’s most obvious sources, nor in her personals objects and neither in the objects used by her daily or recently.

So, let's believe that it's true that these objects aren’t mentioned in the PJ Files.

So up to here, Anon #50 seems to have logic on his/her side.

But before giving reason to this BH, let’s remember that up to here we’re only discussing the use of the word “clueless”

The question is if something is NOT a clue just because it isn’t mentioned in the files?

Of course it is a clue.

There are many clues we’ve seen that aren’t in the PJ Files.

In fact, we would dare say that the majority of the clues are outside the PJ Files as we today know how conditioned the PJ was when investigating. So many important clues that we now know were withheld on purpose by the Brit police from the Portuguese police.

No, these “outside clues” aren’t in the fictitious “Unpublished PJ Files” and we’ve already debunked their existence here.

We do believe that these clues are indeed in files, other than PJ Files, with names such as SY Files or Leicester Files, or any other possible names they may have and that have been maintained literally hidden in secret up to now and not, we would like to emphasize this, unpublished.

These secret files have no relationship whatsoever with the PJ Files besides having the same theme: Maddie’s disappearance.

The reason we say this is because we’re certain that PJ has absolute no knowledge of their content and lest we forget, the PJ Files were written by the PJ.

But these hidden files are filled with clues. Filled to the brim with important and relevant clues. With very, very relevant clues. So relevant that we’re sure that they’re the clues that will one day solve this whole sordid affair.

The blog has discovered some, of which we’ll only now name two: Carol Tranmer’s first statement and JW’s (or Jane (B)Wond as we called her) two statements.

All three are filled with clues and none are mentioned in the PJ Files.

So to say that someone is clueless just because a clue isn’t mentioned in the files is being clueless about what clueless means.

So from here on this post, I’ll call Anon #50 Clueless, the true clueless commentator.

But is Clueless as clueless as as s/he appears to be up to now? No, of course not. S/he’s much, much more clueless than that.

Clueless is so clueless that s/he doesn’t even know how clueless s/he really is being.

Let’s now focus on the content of the Clueless’ comments.

If you read his/her many comments in that particular post, you’ll notice that s/he’s absolutely convinced so strong is his/her conviction.

S/he does repeat again and again the same challenge leaving no margin for doubt in the rest of us that s/he's absolutely certain of what s/he’s saying: there was no attempt to collect DNA from Maddie's personal objects.

And challenges the blog to prove otherwise.

Clueless makes a real effort to keep that challenge alive. As if s/he has finally found something that has put us into a corner and now won’t let go of it until he can squeeze every last drop out of it.

But Clueless, as clueless s/he is, didn’t have a clue that it was nothing that s/he was holding to.

The importance behind Anon #48’s question was NOT whether they found DNA or not those personal objects, but WHY didn't they look into those obvious personal objects for DNA...

Or better yet, it's to try and understand why weren't these obvious objects handed out by the parents instead of an “imported” pillowcase?

Clueless says clearly “There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed”.

In other words, the PJ wasn’t bright enough to use Maddie’s personal objects. Blame it on the PJ incompetence, that’s what Clueless has to say!

Well, it seems that we have a person who disagrees with Clueless and isn’t any of us here in the blog, authoresses or commentators.

It’s Mr Goncalo Amaral, in his book, on the night of the disappearance:

 “…on the night of the disappearance, with dogs from the local police.. We get them to sniff a towel, which according to Kate was used to dry Madeleine after her bath."

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try and pick up Madeine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35 when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins.

Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

I'm sure this check is necessary.

- The clothes? Are you mad? If I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take the clothes to have them analysed?

- Yes, what's the problem? It's perfectly normal in cases like this.

- Of course, but with this media hype.. ..."

This just goes to show the British authorities’ level of obstruction right from the very start.

So it seems that the PJ did indeed attempt to collect samples from Maddie’s obvious personal objects.

Clueless… I guess you’re wrong on this one. But are you just wrong or are you absolutely wrong?

You see, not only there seems to have been an attempt, as the PJ Files show clearly there was more than an attempt.

It seems that Maddie’s hairbrush was indeed analyzed,

SJM 36 was Maddie’s hairbrush, tested by Andrew Palmer 09/11/07. No hairs found on it or pillowcase, so her hairbrush WAS tested.

From the PJ Files in Outros Apensos 01 Volume 2  pages 327 to 333:

"Examination and results 

Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her."

The origin of the hairbrush is not mentioned. It could be one also brought back from UK, together with the pillowcase (although there’s no mention of that) but logic dictates it would be a brush from the holiday.

We also suppose that tops SJM 2, 4 and 5 were from holiday and not brought in from Rothley

That is various clues about a Maddie’s personal objects that are mentioned in the PJ Files.

Strangely, no hairs on the brush! A very interesting clue indeed.

But does make one wonder, like Anon #48 does, why weren’t the other objects analyzed too?

I think it’s sufficient to reread Mr Amaral above.

As can be seen Clueless is indeed all-round clueless.

Clueless is part of a team, which we call team Insane, that as you know attacks viciously the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic the other a clue.

The tactic is to constantly imply that we’re barmy conspiracy theorists.

It's only real and effective weapon that our detractors can use against us and that is to follow religiously the Portuguese saying “Agua mole em pedra dura tanto bate até que fura” or “Soft water repeatedly hitting hard rock will eventually break through it”.

This is done by using time and time again the word “conspiracy” to define the blog’s editorial guideline.

This technique is often wrongly minimized.

Because what seems ridiculous at first with a constant and steady beating into one’s skull of the idea, like when you say a lie a thousand times to make it true, makes the ridiculous appear sensible after a while and before one knows it one has assimilated it as reality.

It’s very, very effective.

By repeating the word “conspiracy” together with others like “nutters” they will ingrain the idea into the reader’s minds that is what we are, no matter how many times we justify to the contrary.

Many have come here under that exact influence and have left without adequately reading our words.

Once the idea “absorbed” it will be irrelevant how well we show why we think we’re before a cover-up and not a conspiracy.

These people seek only disruption and not reason so we’re certain that they’ll continue to use the word conspiracy at every opportunity they have, just like they have done in the past.

Fortunately for us, in our “Mind your Ps” post, Clueless got him or herself into such frenzy (or ist despair?) that ended up making a priceless “conspiracy” comment:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Some of you people must live incredibly sad lives if all you can think about is your obsession with swinging.

This entire blog, and Textusa's entire premise, is built on lies. She has clearly attracted the right clientelle for the most part as the bulk of you would believe literally anything she told you.

Why don't you step back a minute and get a grip?

What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories and provide alibis for a group of people they had for the most part never met and to whom they owed nothing. That hundreds of people who didn't know them and didn't owe them anything were prepared to risk long prison sentences themselves in order to cover up for people they didn't know. That multi-national TV companies would join in, fabricating footage for the express purpose of ''proving'' years later that there was no ''big round table'' and what's more they would go about it so clumsily that the ''forgery'' would be immediately spotted by a group of middle-aged layabouts watching a youtube clip?

That the catholic church and the governments of two nations would collude together to cover up the homicide of a small child at a holiday resort?

Does it ever occur to you, even for a second, that you have been taken for a complete and total ride by this lunatic?

That the reason she claims the Brunt video is photoshopped is precisely because it blows one of her loony ideas out of the water?

Because to believe as you claim to do, you would also have to believe that:

Every holidaymaker in the resort was ''in on it''

Every local resident was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at Mark Warners was ''in on it''

Every member of the british consulate staff plus the ambassador was ''in on it''

the catholic church was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at the tapas was ''in on it''

All the nannies, sports coaches, ancillary staff were ''in on it''

every member of the ex-pat community, even those in their 80's was ''in on it''

sky news were ''in on it''

Martin Brunt was ''in on it''

The police forces of two nations were ''in on it''

The forensic labs were ''in on it''

All these people. In on it. In on what you simultaneously claim was an accidental act of brutality committed in the heat of the moment and with no pre-planning involved.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:49:00 AM”

Followed by the continuing comment:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Cont.....Tell me something. The statements of many of the witnesses corroborate each other. These statements are further corroborated by documented evidence such as the tapas booking sheets.

The people who were shown at having booked tables duly turned up and testify to that. Those who decided instead on a takeaway testify to that. Those who had tables booked testify to seeing the ones who didn't, waiting to pick up their takeaway meal. Other holidaymakers eating with them corroborate this. None of these people are in any way able to alibi the McCanns - if anything their statements merely clarify what they themselves were doing that night and who they saw. So who created this complex back-story? Because if you claim that the tapas wasn't even open, and the tapas dinners never even happened, then you need to explain who came up with the interlinking back story and why.

You won't be able to, of course, because it does not exist, but even then none of you have the wit or wisdom to come up with a scenario that fits.

And swinging?

Let's leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no indication that the place was being used for that purpose. Why would hundreds of people - yes, hundreds - perjure themselves and risk long prison sentences for conspiracy to cover up a serious crime, lose their jobs, homes, livelihoods, children and families rather than be ''tainted'' with an activity which isn't even illegal?

Textusa's central theory is nuts.

Because it's nuts, she had to invent even more ridiculous ones to support the first.

Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.

And frankly, you are all too dim to see it.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:50:00 AM “

To which we replied with the utmost sincerity:

“Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

Insane,

Never thought I would say this, but thank you.

You've summarized it all almost to a tee, besides the blabber against me, but that is comprehensible coming from you.

I would advise the readers to read these comments very attentively.

Do replace the exaggerated "Every" in the sentences of the first comment and replace them with "some" or "many".

Then do the magic trick and replace the following sentence :

"What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories"

with:

"What Textusa is saying is that tenths of connected people, participating in a swinging event, all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories to react to an unfortunate mishap in which a child lost her life in order to protect their own reputation. These tenths of connected people activated as fast as they could all their connections so that the just fabricated story would be enforced officially and in doing so got hundreds of people involved in one of the biggest cover-up of western civilization."

Insane, I know you understand Portuguese so I'll refrain from translating the definition of what you just did: "Com a verdade me enganas".

I don't have words to express my gratefulness.

Posted by Textusa to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 11:45:00 AM"

Don’t you just love the “Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.”? If isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

As we said, Clueless’ team attacks the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic, which we have just spoke of, the other a clue.

With this latest intervention, Clueless has once again confirmed a very interesting clue that we’ve come to realize in this affair.

That clue is the quick and tenacious way of responding whenever we publish anything that has to with either the Ocean Club personnel or PdL ex-Pats.

The “PdL BH Faction”, as we call it, is always very attentive to the blog.

Yet the real clue is their double standards when it comes to what is written/shown in the blog.

Take this comment from Clueless: 

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":

What on earth are you on about?

The only person who suggested that the quiz night was on the 3rd was Collins, presumably because he had read it in some tabloid rag which got it wrong.

His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy.

That's the problem when you rely on rubbish in newspapers. textusa 

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 6, 2013, 11:22:00 AM"

One of our readers has provided the best possible reply:

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":

@45

"His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy."

So "any old rubbish" is ok to print but not anything which may come somewhere near the Truth?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 7, 2013, 6:36:00 AM"

Indeed.

Insane Team, besides being the only ones that insist that the Tapas sheets are real and reliable when the rest of the world can see clearly that they aren't, being the only ones insisting that the Tapas dinners took place when the rest of the world can see clearly that they didn't, being the only ones that insist the Big Round Table existed when the rest of the world can see clearly that it never did and being the only ones that insist on so many other things that defy logic and reason when the rest of the world can see clearly that these things are neither logical or reasonable, they also have a double standard on what deserves, according to them, legal action and on what doesn't.

Mr Collins's "Vanished" is a rubbish that, according to Team Insane, doesn't need permission from the McCanns or Mitchell, nor, apparently, from the Ocean Club and ex-Pats as Mr. Collins does include them in his "insightful" non-fictional novel (or rubbish) but on the other hand whatever we write here is subject to permanent libel threat and even under supposed tight surveillance from many a child protection agency.

As far as we know, we don't know of any legal action taken against Mr Collins, and we do believe that he has profited from all the "rubbish" from his book.

Fascinating double standard to say the least.

We think natural for this violence against us to exist as we were the first (and only ones up to now) to put out the swinging hypothesis and who have consistently debunked the clutter involving those outside the T9 (Guests, Ocean Club and ex-Pats) and so this faction has to react immediately when feeling their toes stepped on.

We believe that this particular group is looked upon by the other BH as the one's responsible for things to have gotten completely out of hand as they have.

We think that is so because they seem to have been the ones who came up with, approved and implemented the absurd “Abductor Theory” and with it assured, at the time, the other BHs present that it would be suffice to solve the crisis to the best of everyone’s interests.

It wasn’t so.

On the contrary.

In fact, with a little less imagination and they wouldn’t be in this mess. They and all those they promised that everything was under control and that no one would ever know what was really happening, which, as we know was of absolutely non-criminal nature.

Time has demonstrated that they have far from shown that everything was under control. We know it wasn’t their entire fault.

Yes, had they been less xenophobic, misogynist and arrogant they might even got away with it but it was fundamentally the resilience, tenacity and determination of all those of us on the internet that stopped that from happening.

But then again it was all the unrestrained xenophobia, misogyny and arrogance that we all of us witnessed incredulously that further motivated us all to seek the truth. So in a strange way, truth has to be grateful to these people.   

Their excessive imagination imprisoned them forever to their absurdly fantastic storyline. That’s why they react fiercely.

That’s why there has to be a Big Round Table, Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights at Tapas.

That’s why the Ocean Club staff has to be truthful.

That’s why ex-Pats can’t lie.

If any of these elements crumble, they will have failed.

Just to give you an example of when this group doesn’t react, the post, "The 60 of Us", very popular, where we mentioned the Jensen sisters wasn’t attacked at all.

Are we to believe that the Jensen sisters are less than Baptista/Batista “a poorly paid Portuguese worker”?

We believe that the “PdL BH Faction” is quite worried at the moment. In our opinion it should be.

We think the train has already left the station and is heading right towards them. They’re in the hot seat right now.

The reasons as to why we think that is so, in our next post.