Tide change

Now, at the end of winter of 2016, it seems that Maddie has suddenly bloomed like a flower in full spring.

If it had happened in the spring then we all would have understood it. But out of the blue in winter?

Last week we spoke of 2 articles in the Sun, the article  “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann as she launches Child Rescue campaign” published on February 15 and the other, published 2 days later the “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'” in the same tabloid.

Then we said each sent its own specific message to ears meant to be targeted.

The message of the first was in our opinion to ask for an end to the suffering and of the other was that the twins were ready for whatever that requested closure meant.

We also said that both articles had the common factor of being absolutely ridiculous by affirming the likelihood of Maddie being alive and near Praia da Luz.

But on February 20 a third article of the same tabloid was published and showed us to be wrong, there was no ridiculousness in the previous 2 ones. The article was called “Kate McCann: 'I physically can't rest without knowing where Maddie is'”

Before we say anything about this last article, we would like to note that in  just 5 days (February 15, 17 and 20) there were 3 articles published in the Sun all by Antonella “I’m a McCann groupie” Lazzeri. Impressive? We would rather say it presents a rhythm that discards any coincidence.

As we said, we spoke too soon of ridiculousness in our last post. But our post was published on the 19th and this article only came out on the 20th, so we couldn’t have read it. In our opinion it’s the most important of the 3, and we have called it the “knowledge of what happened to Maddie” article.

It explains why Kate points all her fingers of both her hands towards Praia da Luz. And by explaining that it justifies the “ridiculousness” of having it said Maddie is still alive. She has to use Maddie for her intent and to use Maddie she obviously has to say she’s alive.

To understand all, let’s first recap the snippets from the first 2 articles.

From article #1, the  “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann as she launches Child Rescue campaign”:

“It’s nearly nine years and that’s so ridiculous and so unbelievable”

“Nine years. Time just goes too quickly. It’s the quiet times that are tough”

“I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”

We then said it was Kate begging “King Richard” for a closure. We maintain that was the message.

From article #2, the “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'”:

Starting with the title: “the twins know all about her disappearance”

Continuing inside with:

“KATE McCann and husband Gerry have told their twins "everything" about Maddie's disappearance”

“the couple have strived to keep their other children in the loop”

“Kate explained: The twins are doing really well”

“they are up to date, they know everything, they know if we are meeting police”

“there is nothing kept from them”.

We then said it was the McCanns (not only Kate) saying that the twins were ready for any outcome. We maintain that was the message.

Now let’s look at article #3, the one that takes us full circle.

From the title: “can't rest without knowing where Maddie is”

And inside:

“she can never feel 'at peace' without knowing what happened to her daughter”

“You just can’t rest without knowing”.

What is being said is, in our opinion, that what happened to Maddie is to be known. To be disclosed.

Almost innocent and logical words if it wasn’t for the repeated Praia da Luz soundbites. Let’s recap on them:

From article #1:

“I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann”, KATE McCann yesterday said she is convinced whoever snatched Madeleine from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz never took her far”

“That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there”

“I’ve always said Praia da Luz is the place where I feel closest to her”

“but Kate believes Madeleine probably never left the country”

“she said she and husband Gerry have learned from their years of research that abducted children are generally not taken far”.

Article #2 doesn’t mention Praia da Luz. It is about the twins so understandably unlikely for that town to have been mentioned.

From article #3:

“Kate, from Rothley, Leicester, said she feels Maddie is still in the Algarve as that's the place she feels "closest" to her daughter.”

To sum up the message of the 3 articles: I want closure, the twins are ready and what happened to Maddie in Praia da Luz is to be disclosed.

Very simple, very direct, very straightforward and very objective.

And what happened to Maddie is really all that happened to her. From the death to disposal. Thus the near Praia da Luz and not only Praia da Luz.

All those who are to be implicated will be implicated.

Kate is saying she’s not going down alone.

Why should she be silent when they go after her? If she’s charged what has she got to lose? Nothing. All she had to lose will have been lost.

It’s not like she can serve a prison sentence, however light, and then return to a normal life as if nothing happened and retake her life from April 2007. She can’t. That was taken away from her in May 2007. Then, she was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in a prison without walls.

And that sentence will not be lightened even if she serves one other in a prison with physical walls.

The only thing that will lighten that sentence is truth. It will not lighten the fact that it’s a life sentence and it will continue to be so but it will make the walls much, much thinner.

When she shows she didn’t run away from the responsibility of the accidental death but that she was forced to. Forced to act out a play faking the life of her own daughter. Forced not because she was protecting herself but rather others, important others, who were there in Praia da Luz that week.

That, and only that, will shift some of the guilt from her shoulders.

She may even go from being the devil to become a saint when the public realizes that the hoax was the work of the “powerful” and that the McCanns were just mere puppets.

Even then she will never be able to go back to a normal life but at least a great deal of the stigma she will carry will be taken away.

Could it be that when she appears to be saying that she won’t go down alone, she’s not being submissive and accepting her fate but rather being defiant and is blackmailing?

We don’t think so. The first 2 articles seem to contradict that. If she was defiant, in the first she wouldn’t be seeking an end but rather stating she continued to have the strength to continue. The focus would be on that.

But it’s the second article that to us clarifies that there’s acceptance. The twins are not played as victims but as ready. As up to speed on all. The article does not seek sympathy. Does not send the message that if they are arrested the twins will suffer even more. The message is the exact opposite, the twins are ready, they are prepared.

When she appears to say she is not going down alone, she’s simply, in our opinion giving a timely warning to those in Praia da Luz and near it to be ready.

These 3 articles in the Sun told us that the tide was changing.

That things seemed to be definitely heading for closure.

But then we were surprised when the changing tide suddenly became a tsunami.

The tsunami of Katie Hopkins publishing on February 22 an article on her Mail Online column “KATIE HOPKINS: We'll never know what really happened to Maddie but her parents should accept their share of the blame and let her go” bashing the McCanns.

Katie Hopkins is a controversial woman who seeks to be controversial.

She has said unthinkable things in the past. But one thing one has to recognise in Hopkins is that there’s no falsehood. She speaks the language of the not politically correct. Sometimes she says things that we think should never be said. But no one can accuse her of saying things she doesn’t believe in.

That’s why she has a massive audience. Numbers don’t lie. On Twitter, Katie Hopkins has 622,000 followers!

So when Katie Hopkins decides to say what she thinks on the McCanns she has definitely set a milestone in the case. There’s a before Katie Hopkins and there’s an after.

The historic moment was set when UK’s biggest loudmouth – said as a compliment because it is by being one that she earns her living very nicely – said “I have never been allowed to say this before”.

If Katie Hopkins, who in the past has used the media to say the most outrageous things, couldn’t up to now give her honest opinion about the McCanns, then who could? No one.

Or as she describes it, “It’s been a white-out, like the silence of snow” up to now.

So when she does finally give her opinion about the couple – and publicising it beforehand – it was like a large stone door protecting some ancient treasured secret that had been sealed shut was finally opened.

We will get back to that “door opening” later on. Let’s first look at what Katie Hopkins says in her article:

“There is no amount of money the will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.”

“Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations.”

“If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand.”

“Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.”

“Kate was no better. There were 48 police questions Kate McCann refused to answer after Maddie was gone. Surely if you wanted to find your child you would give anything, tell police everything you knew, offer anything you had?”

 “Taking her little bed-time toy, Cuddle Cat, with the last smell of their daughter, and putting it in the wash just five days after she vanished into the night.”

Summing up, libel actions threat, reputation salvage, protection by an invisible force, the explicit use of the words “protection of the state”, 48 questions and washing of cuddle-cat.

If what was to be said in order to denounce the McCanns were gangsters then Katie’s article was certainly Saint Day’s Valentine’s Massacre, when many mobsters of Chicago were gunned down.

But the massacre doesn’t end there. We have saved the most juicy snippet for last:

“Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.

Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.”

Savour it please. Read and enjoy every single word of it.

With this, Katie Hopkins just machine-guns down three really important “McCann mobsters”.

First, the BBC. The state media service. She says very explicitly that the BBC “was in on the act”.

Second, at the end, with “they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy” she clearly is saying that Gerry is Smithman, the man SY says is of interest to the case.

But, it’s the third snippet that is the most relevant one. She says explicitly that the McCanns were “sitting on these pictures [the Smithman e-fits] for nearly five years”.

Wasn’t it for saying that the Times had to issue a public apology? Wasn’t it because of that the Times had to pay £50,000 to the McCanns in a libel suit no one was able to know when or where it happened, even after having issued a public apology?

We would say there was more “blood” spilled by Katie Hopkins’ article than on that fateful night in Chicago.

Only seeing one survivor: the dogs. Katie doesn’t mention the dogs.

The reaction to the article was tremendous. It was only the most read article of the Mail online.

As we write this, the article had 46,000 shares and 1,900 comments, the vast majority of which are against the couple.

Impressive to say the least.

Impossible to be ignored.

We don’t think Katie Hopkins ever had so much support to any of her ideas. Many, many said something on the terms of “I really dislike this woman, but on this one she’s spot on”.

Or as a reader put it in a comment to our last post:

“Opening gambit: “I have never been allowed to say this before”, starts the piece by Katie Hopkins, controversial British television personality and newspaper columnist, who has previously spoken out about obesity in much the same style as her latest piece – without filter and completely open to hatred, or perhaps even more shockingly, agreement.”

No question, like we said, there is from now on a time before Katie Hopkins and a time after.

Now, whenever the McCanns show their faces publicly to say anything, whatever, Katie Hopkins will be looming over them. It’s inevitable.

The alert app, whatever that was supposed to be being promoted by Kate (one has to ask why one has to pay install an app supposed to help missing children) has been utterly ridiculed just because she has lent her face and name to it.

By the way, of the 7 sponsors listed for this app that adds nothing to what Facebook and Twitter already do successfully, 3 are quite unsurprising: CEOP, Missing People and Virgin.

We realise that the content of Katie Hopkins’ article is basically about negligence.

Negligence, or “The Narrative of Negligence”, is something our readers know we think has never happened. No child was left alone in that resort that week either by the T9 or any other. All, when not with their parents, were being taken care of by nannies.

We think Katie Hopkins speaks of negligence not because she was curtailed in any way but because she, like the vast majority of the public, is what she believes happened. And by implying strongly that Gerry is Smithman, her narrative doesn’t seem to support abduction.

We return at this point to the “opening of doors” of the media that allowed this article to see the light of day. And be pre-announced.

No way the Mail online would allow itself to be surprised by such the content in an article.

Especially when the article contained the exact same thing that supposedly brought the mighty Times to its knees.

And it was pre-announced. This had to have approval by the Editor.

It’s possible that the Editor to approve, he went to get approval all the way up the food chain, all the way King Richard.

However, Paul Dacre, the Mail editor, has exposed the killers of Stephen Lawrence in a very bold move, making a front page accusation of his killers, which reflected badly on police handling of the case.

We don’t know whether he had to have the nod from King Richard or whether he has just made another bold move.

If boldness was the case, we here congratulate him.

But in whatever case, something happened that changed the rule set in iron that has ruled the UK media from September 2007: what is against the McCanns simply isn’t.

Even if a bold move, only now in these tide changing times could he sense he could be this bold. That the iron of that rule has rusted suddenly and it has eroded away.

Whatever, what was before Katie Hopkins, stopped being so after her. Before sensing he could publish an article like the one she wrote about the McCanns all the boldness wasn’t bold enough.

The tide has changed and there is an undercurrent of expectation.

Are we implying that Katie Hopkins is in on the plot? No, we aren’t. If we thought she was we would say so but we don’t think she is.

She’s too big, loves too much controversy and has a much too wide a audience for anyone to propose her to play any games.

But someone could have suggested something like “Hey Katie, what about you writing one on the McCanns? Think you can do that? Limits? No, no limits… let them have it! We assume any and all legal risks, so write away.”

And away she wrote.

And it seems she will continue to write on the subject.

Another thing the public support to Katie Hopkins’ article showed was that Maddie’s fate interests much more people than those who daily populate “Maddie’s internet world” .

Unfortunately, some places of this “Maddie’s internet world” have, with time, become platforms not to seek the truth but only to provide self-gratification to the egos of some.

We see them pushing theories based on the most fragile of conjectures from which they take highly convenient conclusions while discarding or ignoring blatant evidence because it’s inconvenient for them to include it.

All just to prove a point, the point that they are right. Even if they know perfectly well they aren’t anywhere near being so.

As the Portuguese say, rather break than bend. Rather be caught dead than wrong. They have committed themselves to a certain theory and nothing, not even truth, will stand between them and them being the only ones who are right.

We have never seen truth be proven when parts of its story has been hidden.

But there are countless episodes in history in which what was supposed to have been the truth, is found out not to be when parts of its history that were hidden are revealed.

And in these cases, these inevitably these falsities became truths because someone thought that proving their point was much more important than proving the truth.

Very few things are more loathsome than to lie just to prove one is telling the truth when one knows one isn’t.

Especially about the death of little girl. Disrespecting her memory and disrespecting also Mr Amaral, his wife and the two biggest living victims of all this, Mr Amaral’s young daughters.

And it’s becoming boring. We have had quite significant feedback of people telling us they are only waiting for the court verdict to abandon the case.

It’s a shame to see it happen but they are tired of people enforcing their rather stupid and baseless theories. Theories that are filled only with lots of imagination, usually spectacular, but have little or no substance but only cherry picked information about what is used and what is not.

One is reminded of the words of General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord:

“I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”

Once stupidity and diligence join forces, only disaster flourishes.

The concept of “mine is better than yours” is really quite stupid but it seems to be what motivates some very diligent people.

It’s up to the reader to reach the conclusion if this blog falls under the shadow of this shameful behaviour.

But, as we said, the reaction to Katie Hopkins’ article showed us that there is a number of common citizens interested in knowing about the little girl outside “Maddie’s internet world”.

The reaction from the public to her article but also to the 3 Lazzeri articles from the Sun have made the “archival” option very difficult. We would even say impossible.

The Evening Standard echoed Katie Hopkins’ article with their “Katie Hopkins sparks Twitter frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents”, published on February 22. The Standard article has at the moment we write 9,000 shares.

The interest in the subject from the general public is clear.

In this article, readers can vote in a poll. 87% agree that Katie Hopkins is right that the McCanns should take more blame for Maddie’s disappearance.

The public is speaking with crystal clear clarity.
 
There was a surge of people going online to find out about Maddie. That article has educated a lot of people about Maddie. For example, many have stumbled on the dog videos for the first time.

The reaction from the other side appears to be feeble, not to say pathetic:

In today’s article from the Sun, again from Lazzeri, “Kate McCann and Coral Jones receive award for dedication to missing kids”, in a story that links Kate McCann to Coral Jones but leaves Coral out of the pictures, Kate McCann has received an award, “the Stephen Wynard Award from the Charity Missing People at a gala event attended by Bob Geldof at London's BT Tower this week” for people who “despite having been affected themselves, volunteer their time for free to make a difference for all missing children and their families”.

Receiving an award from Missing People is like receiving an award from Metodo 3 for best investigative services.

And we are supposing that the sponsor of this award is Stephen Winyard and not Stephen Wynard, a misspelling by Lazzeri, who we spoke about in our “A Triumph of Tycoons” about the private forensic tests done on the Renault Scenic in John Geraghty’s property.

Stephen Winyard, owner of Stobo Castle health spa in Scotland and resident of Monaco, was the first tycoon to be named as a financial supporter of the McCanns. By May 10th 2007, Mr Winyard was reported to have made the offer of a million pound reward for information leading to the return of Madeleine. The offer was made earlier in the week through The Times.

These are the first comments from the public to the article that have come in:

rachel davies 13 minutes ago
Congratulations to Coral Jones. My heart bleeds for both children. The only thing Kate Mccann should be getting is a.... life sentence, for making up a story of leaving her daughter to cover up what really happened to her the day before they declared her missing. Our government will eat humble pie when the truth is told.

Fobie Wobie 1 hour ago
What an utter disgrace that this liar is given an award for being negligent in the care of her own child.

Steve Freeman 1 hour ago
This women has had her child abducted for goodness sake. Say what you like about the circumstances just imagine how she feels for a minute.
I'm sure the knowitall's commenting on this thread are perfect parents and deserve their own reward, but when she goes to sleep tonight her child will still be missing. Our children will be fine tonight, but I hope you guys will sleep better in the knowledge you've made a smug comment towards someone who's hurting, and her child will still not be there in the morning.

Fobie Wobie 1 hour ago
@Steve Freeman The evidence points to the child NOT being abducted.

chiangmai1 1 hour ago
an award for lying and not answer questions about what she done.something wrong here

Matt mould 2 hours ago
So she gets an award for going out on the lash whilst her kids getting abducted ? the whole sorry story is all wrong! dodgy dodgy couple

Reply
rachel davies 8 minutes ago
She didn't go on the lash they pretended too so as An alibi for her so called dissapearance this child was never left alone x

robw71 2 hours ago
Is this a f## p###take

Mary Donohoe 2 hours ago
This is a hideous joke, getting an award after leaving children alone, just to go out with pals, sooooo wrong...

jbird65 3 hours ago
That vile McCann woman should be behind bars, not getting an award of any sort. Pity she wan't as dedicated to her kid while she had the chance.

The clarity from the public continues.

Has anyone heard of this award? Was anyone aware that this gala took place?

It seems this award was created in 2015, as announced in the Peeblesshire News on July 21 2015, in their article “Child Rescue Alert at Stobo”:

“A COUPLE who launched a worldwide search for their missing daughter visited Peeblesshire to promote a new child rescue alert system.

Kate and Gerry McCann were among a group of 30 guests and supporters of UK charity Missing People at Stobo Castle for the first Child Rescue Alert dinner in Scotland.

Their daughter Madeleine went missing on a family holiday in Portugal eight years ago.

The local event was hosted by Stobo owner Stephen Winyard who is also a patron of the Child Rescue Alert system which is managed by the charity.

The Child Rescue Alert system, which is a partnership between CEOP, a command of the National Crime Agency, the charity Missing People and Groupcall, offers vital, rapid public outreach when a child is known to have been abducted or their life is believed to be at immediate risk.”

If this award is the best reaction the other side has to offer then someone on that camp should rethink their current strategy.

Or maybe the strength of their ammo is indeed running out.

To spend millions and 5 years to end up saying we don’t know what happened to Maddie seems to us something King Richard cannot afford to say anymore.


Post Scriptum 27Feb16:

One of our readers, Anonymous at 27 Feb 2016, 09:03:00, has submitted a comment that just said “Look at what I found!” and a link.

The link took us to a swinger website.

As experience as shown us, we have against us people who are without any scruples or sense of decency, so to protect the private details of those appearing in that swinger website we thought best not to publish the link provided by the reader.

Instead we opted to use a screengrab:

A swinger, saying the following “Hi we are staying at stobo castle 19th feb looking for some company. Anyone around or can point us in the right direction? Cheers”

Stobo Castle is owned by Stephen Winyard, assumed patron of the McCanns and as of this past week a permanent presence in their Rothley household via a Missing People award with his name given to Kate McCann.

We have been accused in the current post by a commenter that we just “point to the files and go 'what do you make of this'”. We assumed that was exactly what we did. We showed readers things on the files and elsewhere and then allowed the readers to make up their own minds about what we showed.

Exactly as we will do with the above statement in the website from the swinger.

Reader, what do you make of this?

We would like it to make it very clear that the hotel owner may be unaware of such events and is in no way responsible for the individual private behaviour of the guests, so we are making no allegation against Stephen Winyard.

Also, as we have said, we have done our best to protect the private details of the people in that website. However, we are aware that if someone is dead set on finding this website and this webpage will eventually be able to do so.

That is not of our doing or responsibility and whoever does it is the only one responsible for the use of the information found.