Break

We hereby confirm the news that will make some happy and others unhappy Textusa team is breaking up.

For Summer. Only for Summer.

Yes, it’s that time of year again, Summer Hols.

Our regular Summer Break is very welcomed (we’re certain) by those who now can look upon Fridays for a couple of months without the unpleasant surprises these weekdays have come to represent while those who will have to wait until September to read us again will, we hope, be rather discontent.

Unlike whoever is responsible for the SY Farce – honestly, it’s so absurd that we hesitate in what to call it: SY Farce, SY Fiasco, SY Absurdity, SY Meltdown, etc... – we do not let the Lisbon Trial affect our personal agenda.

The team had planned to break for Summer during the months of July/August and that is what we will do, irrelevant of the fact the damages trial, wrongly called libel, is to have sessions on the 8 and 10 July.

About the damages v libel, it’s quite amusing to see how the Black Hats were able to, once again, instil in people exactly what they wanted.

“Libel”, like “negligence” and “paedophilia” is a catchy word that is easily picked up by a thirsty crowd whenever one wants to misinform.

We are not lawyers but it seems to us that libel in the UK has a different interpretation than in Portugal.

In the UK, Mr Amaral would have to prove he did not defame the McCanns. In Portugal, the McCanns have to prove Mr Amaral did defame them.

For the trial to be libel it would mean the McCanns would have to prove that Mr Amaral lied when he said that Maddie was dead and then seek financial compensation for the damages that lie caused.

We are sure they won’t ever risk proving publicly that what Mr Amaral has said in his book about Maddie being dead is a lie. All they can do and have done is to hiss and grunt about it but never really contest it in a court of law.

That's why we challenged, more than 5 years ago, the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral for libel in our "A New Symbol for the McCanns - A Proposal" (27May09) and "We shan't forget nor let you forget" (29May09):

The best they did was to put, in January 2010, a gagging order against Mr Amaral's book. Go to court to stop the selling of the book but not to go to there and call Mr Amaral a liar.

We provided our opinion about the McCann's venture into the Portuguese Justice system in our "Nobel Stupidity Prize of the Millenium" post (13JAN10).

Unsurprisingly, they failed to meet the challenge for a confrontation then and continue to avoid discussing facts in court.

The nearest they got to pronounce the words defamation and slander is expressed in the decision of the appeal to overturn the initial sentence of the book ban:

"30 - The first Defendant knows what defamation and slander mean."

To know what defamation and slander means doesn't in any way mean one has committed either or both.

To state that another person knows the meaning of both defamation and slander is far from accusing him of having committed either or both.

Nowhere in the dispatch is there the expression "the first Defendant defamed" or "it is claimed the first Defendant has defamed".

They never claim Mr Amaral has lied. We will repeat this as many times as we find it necessary to repeat it.

They have only left that implicit. They never say it explicitly.

They limit their implicit accusation against a background supported by the archival dispatch. According to them, it exists so Mr Amaral shouldn't be saying such things. What things? That Maddie is dead. Why, is he wrong? The process has been archived they will answer.

It's true that the dispacth that detemined the process was to be archived in 2008 doesn't accuse them of anything but it's as much true that it doesn't exempt them from anything in the case. Nowhere it says that they are guilty and nowhere does it say they're innocent.

And nowhere in that dispatch does it say she was abducted and is alive. So when Mr Amaral says Maddie is dead he's not contradicting in any way the dispatch.

It simply says there wasn't not enough evidence to proceed so best to archive it.

The fact it was archived and not closed meant the Public Ministry accepts that one day there will be enough evidence to close it one way or another, as was proved in 2013 when it was reopened.

What they claim in this trial, as far as we were able to see, is 2 things:

- that when Mr Amaral said Maddie died in that apartment that night he seriously and significantly hindered the search for her;

- and that the book has caused serious and significant distress to the entire McCann family. 

Only the the implication that Mr Amaral has lied but nowhere seeking to prove it.

Even if they have included in the claim the "right to a good name", which probably they have, we are certain the reasons as to why the good of the name has been affected were not. At least explicitly. Most probably it will have been something like there's this dispatch and the claimants are entitled to their good name.

They limit themselves to allege that when Mr Amaral voices his beliefs that Maddie is dead he causes such a negative effect on all those supposed to be searching for Maddie (authorities and population) that they feel demotivated to pursue.

Mr Amaral, according to the McCanns seems to have the power of influence of a religious guru of a worldwide major cult. He's off his rocker, they say, but they fear people will follow him blindly regardless. Apparently, according to them, he's able to tell people to jump and they will do it without giving it a thought.

They claim also that when Mr Amaral's voices his belief's it causes horrendous distress to them and their family. Or as the Mirror (12JUL09) writes "the couple both suffer from "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable It also says Kate McCann is "in a deep and serious depression"."

This, by the way, does not stand the test of time. They've been seen at fundraising events, out running, attending functions and Clarence Mitchell also denied Kate was once suicidal. It's past its sell, by date. No wonder they wanted a negotiated settlement

They do NOT question Mr Amaral’s beliefs but the effects these beliefs have caused on the search for Maddie and on themselves. That, as far as we can see, and we're no legal experts, is nothing to do with libel. 

The debate in court was whether book distressed them more than being made arguidos and how could such distress be quantified.

The plaintiffs' witnesses listed above put on a really poor show for the plaintiffs.

Day 1, witness 1 - Susan Hubbard

Susan Hubbard stated that everybody in Portugal believed in the book and that only in PdL some people believe in Kate and Gerry.

Day 1, witness 2 - Emma Loach

Emma Loach said “they were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says" when she should have said exactly the opposite as the case was supposed to be that they were more upset by the book! She also said she had seen the book published and on some bookshops in the UK. And that between the book and the files the only difference is that the first is easier to read.

Day 1, witness 3 - David Edgar

David Edgar confirmed the PJ went on investigating after the case was archived.

Day 2, witness 1 - David Trickey

David Trickey is a psychologist contracted by Madeleine's parents concerning the twins. He only sees them a few weeks after Madeleine disappeared so a year before the book was published. He doesn’t even know at what age the twins went to school. 

Day 2, witness 2 - Angus McBride

Angus McBride when asked “can you mention specifics about the effect of the book in July 2008?” says he can’t.

Day 3, witness 1 - Alan Pike

Alan Pike has no qualifications to give a testimony as an expert. He’s just a crisis counsellor, who in court admits he’s not a psychologist. Said he only has some competences in psychology - it seems psychology was one of the elements in his degree.

Day 3, witness 2 - João Melchior Gomes

João Melchior Gomes said he didn't read the book nor did he watch the documentary. This led to a momentary silence enveloping the court room.

Day 3, witness 3 - Alípio Ribeiro

Alípio Ribeiro also said he didn't read the book nor did he watch the documentary.

Day 3, witness 4 - Claudia Nogueira

Claudia Nogueira asked whether whoever reads Mr Amaral’s book might think he speaks the truth, instead of seizing the opportunity of exposing him as a liar doesn’t answer and only said she’s read the book.

Day 4, witness 1 - Michael Wright

Michael Wright, who wanted to use written notes in court, when asked by judge how could the book interfere with the investigation, first remains silent and then said “it didn't”. According to him it only interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.” The book, according to Wright demotivated only those hired by the McCanns!

Day 4, witness 2 - Isabel Stilwell

Isabel Stilwell says that everything in the media tended to make the McCann couple more distant than they were and when finally the book was published, the issue appeared to be resolved and closed, so admitting that public’s negative perception of the McCanns was due to the media, rather than to Mr Amaral’s book.

Day 6, witness 1 - Trish Cameron

Trish Cameron says when the McCanns came back to the UK, the people supported them and that after the book was published, the number of supporters decreased but then recognised she had heard of a petition containing some 17,000 signatures which originated in the UK in January 2008 - six months before the book - which demanded that Social Services investigate the family about the children being left alone.

Day 6, witness 2 - Henrique Machado

Henrique Machado spoke about an interview with Gonçalo Amaral he did together with Eduardo Dâmaso. Nothing about the book, about the book’s effect on the investigation or distress it may have caused to the McCanns.

Day 6, witness 3 - Eduardo Dâmaso 

Eduardo Dâmaso, also was called as a witness for the defendants, was,  as witness for the plaintiffs, also questioned about the same interview with Gonçalo Amaral. In this inquiry, Isabel Duarte inexplicably quotes the following passages from that interview:

“The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.”

 “And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. The question is whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.”

 “Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a kerb, for example, something fell from the car boot’s right side, above the wheel.”

 “It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.”

Isabel Duarte ends this very damning reading to the McCanns to question Dâmaso only about Correio da Manhã’s choice of a “banner headline”!

One has to wonder if these witnesses were brought in by the plaintiffs or by the defendants. They really helped the latter.

They did not seem to be there to give evidence to prove defamation, only that the book had caused more damage to feelings than the contents of the official files. And that more distress was caused because the book made it easier for the facts to be understood!

Damage to feelings of the twins would be a prediction, not an established fact. No evidence was given as to current damage.

Note that in court debate little was discussed about the search for Maddie being hindered.

It's a fact there has been no damage to the search, which has been ongoing and likely to prove the most costly in the recent history of searches for missing children.

The debate on the part of the plaintiffs centered almost only on the distress Mr Amaral's book allegedly caused the McCanns.

It was more of an harassment trial than anything else. The McCanns seem to claim that Mr Amaral is  harassing, since 2008, them with his book and for that they want 1,2M€ in compensation.  We know the book has haunted them since then but it we're sure it would be a legal first for anyone to be condemned for haunting.

This couple seems to have suffered a greater loss from Mr Amaral saying Maddie was dead than they seem to have by losing Maddie.

From May 2007 until mid-August that year we all witnessed a couple partying on the newly found celebrity status .

From that September until archival we saw an angry but fearful couple fighting for their life, seeking desperately excuses and not their daughter.

From the archival onwards, which coincided with Mr Amaral’s book being published, we saw a vengeful couple against the former detective.

It seemed to all that to lose their daughter was bad but to have Mr Amaral say she was dead was much worse. That it seems caused them bigger pain than from imagining their daughter at the hands of possible sadist.

Mr Amaral really seemed to affect them. The disappearance of their daughter didn't seem to affect as much.

The fact that they leave on implicit terms that according to them Mr Amaral is lying is a very subtle wordplay that allows them, in our opinion, to be perceived as having a libel trial against Mr Amaral without, in reality, risking going into it.

This allows the following to be said as it was by BBC News:

"Goncalo Amaral published a book claiming the girl was dead and that her parents had lied about what happened.

The McCanns, who deny the claims, say the book discouraged people from coming forward with information.

The family's lawyer Isabel Duarte told reporters that the couple are seeking damages because they claim Mr Amaral's book defamed them and they maintain Madeleine was abducted.

They allege the book turned Portuguese public opinion against them."

In court we all saw how the accusation went on to prove in exactly what way Mr Amaral had defamed the McCanns.

This however has allowed them to have gained the status of being seen defending their honour without any risk of facing in court real issues being discussed.

Everyone is referring to it as libel trial, don't they? The Black Hats getting what the Black Hats want and the crowd going joyfully along.

They did it with negligence, and they are now doing it with libel.

They did it with paedophilia and they’re now doing it with libel.

Please call it what it is – the Damages Trial, or the Lisbon Trial. To associate the word libel with this trial is to play their game. Is to help them get their message across. They did not sue for libel, they sued for hindering and distress.

We don’t expect any surprises from the trial in July.

On the 8th, we expect to see distraught McCanns whining about how a sorry couple they are since Mr Amaral decided to voice his belief that Maddie no longer is alive.

How Mr Amaral has ruined their life with those malignant, evil words and will unsurprisingly twist the fact that SY has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds looking for a body - during which we didn’t hear the slightest whimpering protest from them - into it being the ultimate proof that their hope Maddie is still alive is rightful and reasonable.

We expect to see on the 8th a merciless couple begging for mercy. And demanding that mercy be transformed in money, please. 1,2M€ of it if you don’t mind. If SY has already blown away 8M£, 20% of that doesn’t seem that much now. does it?

On the 10th we expect to see a Mr Amaral voicing his indignation about all. Or we hope to have Mr Amaral doing that.

He has shown signs that he has rolled up his sleeves and he is ready to fight. To fight hard. To throw punches where they really hurt.

To not give any quarter to those who have wronged him.

The time for him to be nice is over and this is leaving the Black Hats terrified. Especially if he starts to speak in court about how the British ambassador in Portugal meddled in the investigation. And to speak about the protection thing. You know, the "group of friends" that are being protected?

Then there’s the sentencing. No surprises there.

It won’t be before we return from our holidays.

Although the judge has had more than enough time to have seen all evidence presented and to prepare, or at least outline, the sentence even before hearing what she’s predictably is going to hear from the final allegations from either side there are 2 things between the 10th and the reading of the sentence: the Judicial Holidays in Portugal starting in mid-July and the 30 days the McCanns have to provide an authorisation to represent Maddie.

So, best scenario will be a date set for the end of September or early October. Almost to the year after it was initially expected.

Earlier only if the McCanns state clearly that they will be denied authorisation. We don't expect that to happen, at least not before the Judicial Holidays.

About the sentence itself, no surprise expected.

If it goes Mr Amaral’s way, we hope the judge admonishes Isabel Duarte for such a poor show from the plaintiffs.

We didn’t see a single shred of evidence to prove the thesis that Mr Amaral’s words in 2008 hindered since in any way any search for Maddie. In fact, SY’s Circus in 2014 more than proves that Maddie is indeed dead, it has also proven the British state is willing to spend enormous amounts of cash to search for Maddie's body, 6 years after Mr Amaral published his book.

So, if it goes his way, no surprise.

If it goes against Mr Amaral, no surprises there either. As we have said repeatedly, it will only reveal nonsense. If that is to be the case, it will transparently reveal how much the Establishment couldn't care less about you and us and that any and all game within some hunting grounds are only for the amusement of nobility no matter how starving the populace may be.

Commoners not allowed to poach there. Stay away. You are not welcomed and trespassers will be prosecuted and sentenced.

Lest we forget, Mr Amaral's book was banned in the XXIst century in a country belonging supposedly to the western civilised world, and in which a revolution to gain free speech is celebrated with a national holiday each year since 1975.

So if that happens we won't be surprised. Just disappointed.

But if that happens do you know who really is going to be disappointed? To the point of a possible meltdown? The McCanns.

The last thing they want is for the judge to pronounce a sentence in their favour. That will mean that Mr Amaral will appeal and the nightmare will go on.

The best option for them is to drop the case because of the WoC issue. That will make their legal team look quite incompetent but we don’t think it’s possible to look worse. This issue should not have been an issue in the first place.

By "having" to drop the case they have to hear the judge give them reason and see the nightmare continue or give the reason to Mr Amaral and suffer an humiliating defeat at the hands of their biggest foe.

But maybe all in the game are waiting for this humiliating defeat. We don't think anyone, and we mean really anyone, wants the McCanns to win this thing.  

About the game, the month of June has brought us some interesting news. We would like to highlight 2: Daniel Abreu from Madeira and SY’s engagement in the Burglary Thesis and how they blew it.

Daniel's mother on TVI, via phone, playing the part in fake abduction (image from Publico)

Daniel, the little boy who was supposedly abducted and who was found alive 3 days later about 4 kms away from where he had disappeared, alone and crying but relatively clean and nourished.

This last week Daniel’s mother. Lídia, confessed it was all a hoax. She (we have yet to know if she was the mastermind of the plot) faked the abduction so Daniel could have been sold to another family.

At the time the McCann silence relative to a case very similar to theirs was noted. And this silence became as pitch high as a million thunders at once when the boy was found alive and well 3 days later.

Supposedly, similar to what everyone (except those who knew that not to be possible from the very beginning) had wished to have happened in May 2007: Maddie to have been found well and alive in time to celebrate her 4th bithday. And yet, from the McCanns we only heard sepulchral silence.

Daniel, the abducted toddler, found well and alive and the McCanns stayed clearly away from him. Why?

But what impressed more than the McCann silence about Daniel, it was the BH campaign trying to convince the world that he had not been abducted. Those who said it is obvious Maddie was abducted were the same ones saying it was obvious that Daniel had wandered off by himself.

arrow pointing Daniel was found

Manuel Teixeira showing where he found little Daniel  (image from iol)

They sided with the thesis that Daniel survived those 3 days because he drank water from plants. Fortunately he was found before these people started to venture that he had been able to hunt with a bow and arrows made with his bare hands and so obtained a protein balanced diet in the days he had been strolling around.

These people simply won’t face the truth even if encircled by it. We have seen them side with people like Joana Cipriano and Savile just to show how scrupulous they are.

But the biggest news in June for us was the unveiling of how committed to the whitewashing SY seemed to be.

The whitewashing thesis, or what we call it, the Bungled Burglary Theory, was, according to Mr Amaral, put forward to PJ by SY in 2007. It was considered then what everyone considers it now: ridiculous.

(24Horas full page)

SY even had 3 of its officers go and do a diligence on their own to the apartment in 25May07, authorised by PJ. They were seen measuring the window.

It seems that SY’s mission then was to befuddle PJ whitewashing the whole thing with a bungled burglary.

Don’t jump to the conclusion that we have surrendered ourselves to the whitewashing, because we haven’t. We continue to believe that it will not be the case. Now more than ever.

In our opinion, in 2007, SY, was instructed to do its best to distract PJ from guests, Ocean Club and T9 in that order and so came up with the ridiculous Bungled Burglary Theory.

After measuring it, it was obvious a single burglar couldn’t have passed thhrough that window hoding Maddie. Thus the multiple-burglar burglary.

The story was discarded but it seems SY kept it for future use.

As we have explained, we think the opening of the review was to go for the McCanns’ throat. To make them go up on a wagon and lead them through the crowd to the nearest gallows while the mob threw rotten fruit at them.

We have also explained why we think this wasn't done because without Maddie’s body there was no way to explain how the McCanns were able to dispose of the body without help.

And once it had to be accepted they had help then reasons to have been provided had to be given.

If the whitewashing had been SY’s initial plan, then the Bungled Burglary Theory would have been put out as soon as possible after the opening of the review. To ride the wave of Kate’s book publication, so to speak.

We would have heard immediately how SY were looking into all those phone calls made from PdL that night. 3,000 plus of them, wasn’t it?

Instead, immediately after the opening of the review in 2011, we heard silence. It was like Kate’s book had been thrown into a dark murky pond. It made a few of ripples going in and then the waters quickly went back to being still.

The couple went suddenly into silence, The Sun’s exclusive follow up of the book didn’t even start and we practically didn’t hear of the case from SY.

Only in 2013, 2 years later, with the 6-cleaner episode was the Maddie case picked up again, as we noted in the blog then.

That’s 2 years of silence.

That can only mean that whatever was planned to happen in 2011 didn’t. SY struggled for 2 years with various options. From plan B to plan Z. And yes, we think whitewashing or the Bungled Burglary Theory, was certainly one that was considered.

But if SY was really on the path to whitewashing, and only on the whitewashing as some advocate, why start to tighten the noose around Ocean Club? Why involve the resort's personnel? Everyone knows if you play with fire you’re likely to get your fingers burned and bringing in the Ocean Club is really taking things too close to the flames.

If it is whitewashing it indeed wants, why not involve only unknown and vague outsiders like the SuperBockman and leave things away from the resort? Away from the people who know what really happened?

The Ocean club staff, we're sure, know what happened and as fearful as they may be, no one wants have their name forever associated with the killing of the most notorious dead girl of the XXIst century if not of all history.

As we have said before, this game is being played by intelligent people. None can be underestimated. Even the apparently unintelligent have the intelligence to know that what is required of a pawn is not to have intelligence of its own but to be intelligent enough to only follow the orders of the intelligent who are effectively orchestrating the whole thing with intelligence.

We have also said that no one knows how the story is going to end. SY has, in our opinion, carefully followed a path where all options remain open. For example, the fact that in UK CW it withdraws the Paynes from the picture, that doesn’t mean they can’t be brought back to the relevant role we have the opinion they had that night.

Same with Crèche Dad. He doesn’t eliminate Murat from the equation. Crèche Dad existing only makes who JT saw from the road to be a perfectly innocent bystander. The body can still be transported, unseen, by someone else. Evidence does show that the body was moved via back gate, doesn’t it? It couldn’t have been Bundleman or Crèche Dad anyway as both appear from the other side of the apartment.

The BH, as we also have said, are facing one big problem: the PJ investigation.

The 2007/2008 experience was very traumatic for the Portuguese. Blame it on the arrogant, reckless and stupid British. If it were not for the slander campaign maybe they would get more collaboration now.

The trauma hit all echelons of the Portuguese judiciary system. The most common thought in all the minds of those concerned with the present case is “Oh, no, not this time”.

For example, who back in 2007 asked to see the files during the ongoing investigation won’t ask again this time round. He who asks is afraid to hear an “Oh, no, not this time” from the person he asks from so he will say to himself “Oh, no, I will not ask this time”.

In all echelons, including those Mr Amaral points his finger to. This time the Portuguese are extra careful. This time they are extra reclusive. This time they follow the justice secrecy literally. “Oh, no, not this time” is thought over and over again. And also said between those responsible for the process.


And who is going crazy with all this? The British. They want to get in somehow but the Portuguese are saying... you got it, “Oh, no, not this time”.

And in their desperation to get in the PJ Investigation, via having a liaison officer (we can just hear PJ saying “Oh, no, not another Stuart this time”) they blew away any possibility of whitewashing with this SY’s PdL Circus.

The SY all-round absolute fiasco.

Bungled Burglary Theory was already a difficult one to materialise. Not because the cadaver dog signalled the body behind the couch and in the back yard. That would be covered in Pat Brown’s tailored for SY tale: the burglar would have killed Maddie near the window, left her body there and then later came back pick it up and exit via back door. Then, we don’t think this is Pat’s tale so we’re picking it up and inventing our own now, the burglar would have laid down the body on the flowerbed to check if anyone was on the street and once assuring the way was clear, leave with it.

Disregarding time needed to develop enough quantities of cadaverine to contaminate, all fine, with one minor exception. How and why had the body ended up in the closet of the parents’ bedroom?

If it’s really difficult to believe a burglar killed a little girl without stealing anything and leaving no trace, and then coming back for the body to get rid of it when he had absolutely no need to do so (by coming back the probability of leaving traces were bigger) it’s completely impossible to come up with a reason why the burglar would have stashed Maddie’s body in the closet in this tale.

The cadaver dog cannot be right about the couch and be wrong about the closet. And wrong about the car. And wrong about Kate’s clothes. And about the cuddle cat.

But if not for the cadaver dog, what other reason can SY have to say, as it has said, they believe Maddie was dead when she left the Apartment? The forensic evidence? That would get us talking…

But the reason SY really bungled up the whitewashing with their humungous but unfruitful effort of convincing PJ to be pals is that they have physically and geographically limited this thesis to its impossibility.

The biggest problem facing the whitewashing was to find a suitable patsy. It was tried with Hewlett and it didn’t work well. As we said, it’s really almost impossible to find someone to be forever branded Maddie’s killer who is not.

With the circus SY has limited the possible patsies to 3 men who live nearby the first scrubland. Live, not lived. And to know they were 3 and to know where they lived and to know what their mobile numbers they have to know exactly who they are.

SY must now have 3 names. 3 real identities.

3 names of men who live not just on the Western side of PdL but exactly on the South-Western side of the town. And near THAT scrubland.

From now on, no one else will do.

They do have a pal on the East side by the water treatment station, but the 3, who SY knows specifically their identity, live there and only there.

It either comes up magically with the names of 3 men who live in South-West PdL, who know each other, who had previous criminal records, who had gone burglaring together previously and who are willing to be patsies or SY has no other option but to go for partial or full truth.

As we said time and time again, we are optimistic because we think good-sense and realism will prevail. It’s just good-sense to be realistic and see that only truth will bring closure to this issue.

See you in September!

And thank you, wonderful readers:

If we were a corporation, our shares would be soaring!