Maddie & Swinging

1. Introduction

This week we’re going to surprise readers with our answer to the following question:

Question A: What does the collective swinging that we think was going on in Praia da Luz and outskirts have to do with Maddie’s death?

Answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Yes, that’s exactly what the blog thinks. We can only imagine the surprised faces of our readers.

However we are certain that by now our readers know that when we surprise them like this it’s because there’s a catch.

And the catch is that the question stops in the word “death”. The fact that it stops there makes us answer it the way we did.

If one inserts at the end of the question the hyphenated “cover-up”, then the answer changes completely, in fact it changes to its exact opposite:

Question B: What does the collective swinging that we think was going on in Praia da Luz and outskirts have to do with the cover-up of Maddie’s death?

Answer: All. Totally all.


2. Convention v snack

The reader may then ask if we’re not contradicting ourselves. After all isn’t the blog’s position the defense that Maddie died in an unfortunate accident inside apartment 5A in the early evening of May 3, when David Payne went there to have some adult fun with Kate McCann? And doesn’t that make them swingers? If it does, as it seems it does, isn’t then swinging involved in Maddie’s death?

The answer to the first question, yes it is.

To the second question, which is the key one, is no, it doesn’t make them swingers in the context in which swinging is involved in the Maddie case (note word case and not death).

Answer to the third, no, as we have said, it doesn’t. Let us try to explain why.

Please imagine that one is a chef in a cooking convention. One is just one among many chefs there, all with a common reason and purpose to be where one is: the convention. A collective event about cooking food.

Please imagine that during one of the many breaks of that convention, 2 chefs decide to go to a local esplanade to get a snack.

One of them gets food-poisoning from what they ate there, at the esplanade.

Is this food-poisoning in anything related with the cooking convention? No, it is not.

Does this food-poisoning in a local esplanade cause any sanitary implications for the cooking convention? No, it doesn’t.

Note, both events, convention and poisoning, are food related but the only overlap they have is that one happened to attendants of the other.

In much the same way, when Kate McCann and David Payne were, as we think they were, involved (attempting to get involved is to be involved) in what we think was some sort of adult activity when the accident that would cause Maddie’s death happened, it was outside the context of the collective swinging event we believe was being organised in the Praia da Luz area at the time.

Maddie’s death was the food-poisoning, the organised swinging the cooking convention. Overlapping both only Kate McCann and David Payne, nothing else.

The organised collective swinging event had nothing to do with what happened to Maddie.


3. Worsening a stigma

We have read, written by our detractors, our always passionate detractors of the swinging theory that one reason, if not for them the main one, is that there could not possibly be any swinging going on because they cannot understand for the life of them – almost to the point of crossing their hearts and hoping to die – why hasn’t any Ocean Club staff member gone to the authorities by now telling them about the swinging.

And not only Ocean Club staff but also, as Insane has said on the site we referred to last week but thought best not to acknowledge and in which where he tried, unsuccessfully, to gain a wider audience for himself, “management, locals, other guests, condom salesman, lube suppliers, Ann Summers or basically any human being on the surface of the earth who was in PdL that week saying to the PJ "Oh incidentally chaps, I'm not sure if you know this, but they were all shagging each other sideways last week''”.

One obvious lapse on Insane’s part was to forget Mark Warner’s staff and management but we’re certain he just forgot to include them, so we’ll consider he meant them as well.

In fact, the detractors even go as far as saying that if there was this sort of frolicking in Praia da Luz then that could only mean that Mr Amaral was either stupid, incompetent or both.

Comments we received in our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post from an Anonymous AKA Insane:

“Mr Amaral was not removed from the case until October, so what you are claiming is that he and every officer he coordinated completely missed this massive conspiracy of swingers you claim went on right under his nose, for five months, and has continued to miss it ever since. He was there, with access to the witnesses, you weren't. Police officers on the ground always know what is going on in their patch, so you are dissing every other officer who, according to you missed the fact that the entire resort was a big knocking shop. And as for your idea that some guests volunteered to take part in a cover up, well that's just completely ridiculous.” (Anonymous 30 Aug 2014 20:29:00)

“Stop attempting to twist what I said, I said you were suggesting Mr Amaral was stupid or incompetent because he does not agree with any of this swingers nonsense you have made up, and I can only assume that you are doing it precisely to discredit him - why you are doing it is a matter for your own conscience, but you seem determined to create this impression that he didn't know what he was doing.” (Anonymous 31 Aug 2014 00:40:00)

Insane above is very clear, he says that if there ever was any swinging going on in Praia da Luz then only the stupid and incompetent would have missed the connection between this swinging and Maddie’s death, and as Mr Amaral apparently didn’t see that, then if there was swinging he was indeed stupid and incompetent.

To sum up, to the detractors of the swinging theory (Insane but not only him as others have used the exact same reasoning) say that if there was swinging then there was an obvious and evident connection between it and Maddie’s death/disappearance.

A connection between swinging and Maddie’s death/disappearance that is so obvious and evident that someone would have to have gone by now to the authorities. Would have to, not should. And as no one has done that to date, then there was no swinging.

Also a connection so obvious and evident that would be impossible for the PJ to have missed it. If it did indeed miss it can only mean the PJ was either stupid or incompetent.

We think the above just about sums up this argument used by our detractors against us.

However, what is said only helps us prove our point.

What Insane and all others are failing to see is that what they are saying is that it’s obvious and evident that swingers are murderers at worst and abductors at best.

Plus, whoever can’t see that is stupid and incompetent.

If swingers aren’t murderers/abductors then what other connection is there to be made between swinging and Maddie’s death/disappearance?

And they do imply the connection is very obvious and evident, so that can only be because the general population perceives swingers as murderers/abductors.

And so all “staff, management, locals, other guests, condom salesman, lube suppliers, Ann Summers or basically any human being on the surface of the earth who was in PdL that week” aware of swinging would have to have gone straight to the PJ. They would know, as everyone does, that swingers are murderers and/or abductors so it it would be obvious to anyone that the swingers were the ones responsible for Maddie’s death/disappearance.

Not only is it absurdly ridiculous as it makes even worse the social stigma already carried by those who opt to engage in this absolutely legal adult lifestyle.

Swingers who were already sick and depraved perverts to those who think that sinning is done only with what one has between one’s legs instead of with what one has between one’s ears are now also, apparently, murderous scum.

On a serious note, please be aware that from now on, when one reads again someone asking why hasn’t anyone up to now come forward to denounce the swinging in the Maddie case, please note to that person that s/he is basically accusing swingers, any and all swingers, of being murderers and/or abductors.

And if that whoever has used words like evident and obvious, then that person is only making the false accusation with greater conviction.


4. PJ and swinging

But the thing is, someone did tell PJ that swinging was going on the area.

And in a property, Quinta do Stº Phunurius, linked in some way to Robert Murat.

Up front and before what we have said above is used and twisted to fit fact by those obsessed with pinning the most fantastical things on Robert Murat, the PJ is very clear in saying about this particular diligence that “However, it wasn’t possible to determine if Robert Murat currently frequents the referred Quinta.”

All that can be linked between Stº Phunurius and Robert Murat is that it was one of “various residences used and/or property of Robert Murat or of one of his family members”.

PJ doesn’t say in what way Stº Phunurius is linked to Murat, as it doesn’t say about any of the other 3 properties visited on this day in this external diligence.

Anything said relating Murat to this property besides this is pure speculation or based on documentation other than the PJ Files.

But what matters is what PJ writes about this diligence: “in conversation with various locals [populares] residing in the same area it was possible to determine that is it is a Quinta property of English citizens and that would have management by an individual of American nationality with residence in (…), having the locals [populares] further referred that the Quinta is used for “PARTIES” of sexual nature.”

Caps are from PJ, not ours.

“Populares” is best translated into locals. Local people.

Quinta de Stº Phunurius is certainly not a small place.

And it has a very discreet entrance.

It is used for tourism, so in and out goings shouldn’t have raised any local eyebrows.

For locals to have noticed that parties were happening there can only mean they saw the entrance and exit of a significant and unusual number of guests on the same evening/night.

That is the characteristic of any party. It starts at a certain time and ends sometime during the night or even at dawn. People with the purpose of being lodged there would stay for the night.

It’s evident that locals saw a significant number of people entering the property in the evening or night and noticed that they departed during the night, otherwise how they be able to say there were such parties? And why invent such a thing?

Note it is plural locals. It was not just one person saying this.

How did they know these parties were of a sexual nature? Because people working there do talk and word does get around and the ins and outs of that place would be in accordance with what would have been said.

One curious thing we found in the pictures we saw of Stº Phunurius was a… Big Round Table:

Not the infamous Tapa’s Big Round Table of course, that one has still to be seen.

The Tapas BRT is supposedly bigger than this one as this one only sits 8 people and not 9/10 people as the Tapas one supposedly did.

Look how it dominates the room, how it occupies a very significant space in it.

Even though it’s smaller than the one supposed to have existed in Tapas, or even if both would be of the same size, one has to agree that it is quite a visible object.

To this day we have yet to see a similar object in any of pictures of the Tapas esplanade. In fact, the furniture of Tapas is so frail that in a recent video production to illustrate the Tapas esplanade area, images of the Millenium were used repeatedly even though pictures from Tapas are available in Mr Amaral’s book.

It is a fact that locals gave information on May 15 to PJ about swinging going on in the area when they were specifically investigating Robert Murat and it was probably because of this piece of information that the word “swing” was searched for in all 9 seized computers.

So, to say no one has come forward to date to denounce swinging to the PJ is false. Someone did and did it right away.


5. The swinging lead

Why didn’t then PJ pursue this “swinging” lead?

If one joins up what we have said today with what we said in our post “TRUTH” the reader can easily join up the pieces as to the wall that was put in place to stop the PJ following anything related with swinging in connection with the Maddie case.

Note, we have said Maddie case and not Maddie’s death.

Because as we said in the beginning, when it comes to Maddie’s death’s cover-up swinging is definitely involved.

Swinging has nothing to do with Maddie’s death but it has all to do with the obstructions placed in the PJ’s investigation of that same death.

One big detractor of the swinging theory, JJ, who has said “I would expect the locals to be aware of this swingers convention and not one person has ever spoken out” (as shown, JJ is absolutely wrong), replied to the following question:

Anonymous 25 February 2016 at 20:07

JJ, do you agree that the "men on the field" did not have a grasp of the entire situation and that there were things kept away from their eyes?


JJ 25 February 2016 at 22:43

If you mean were things kept away from the PJ then, yes.

It is a matter of public record the Leics police were operating in PDL on Saturday 5th May without the knowledge or permission of the PJ.

It is a matter of public record that the Leics police met the Macs at a private meeting without a PJ liaison officer present, this breaks every police convention.

The Macs gave them instructions on how to deal with the PJ.

The Leics police did not inform GA or the PJ of this meeting.

So whoever authorised these actions and why, would go a long way to resolve the mystery of Madeleine McCann.

JJ tries to deflect the question towards Leics police in Luz.

We do wonder based on what does JJ adamantly say “The Macs gave them instructions on how to deal with the PJ”. If it’s his/her opinion, we respect that but if it’s a statement then we would like to see something that would back it up.

What matters is that this detractor of the swinging theory says very clearly that “things were kept away from the PJ”.

We in the blog agree with him and say that one of those things (in our opinion the main thing) kept away from the PJ was the swinging event that was going on. And it was a successful blockade as outside the locals on that day who didn’t know they weren’t supposed to speak about it, it has been hushed.

To ask PJ to have grasped who they were really up against is to be extremely unfair to this police force.

We think that for the PJ the sex-parties happening in places like Stº Phunurius was just Brit hanky-panky not related with what they were investigating, Maddie’s disappearance.

Speculating, as we have said before in this post, we even think that the search for the word “swing” in the computers was not about the activity itself but to establish if there were any contacts between that world and Robert Murat.

To say that PJ found nothing in that search is to lie:

“Not Textusa 14 February 2016 at 00:22

The PJ did not ''know'' there was swinging.

They searched one computer and found nothing.

Of course, if you can point to anywhere in the entirety of the PJ files where there is any evidence that swinging took place then please do share it.”

PJ searched for the word “swing” in all 9 seized computers and not as Insane states, one computer and nothing.

And yes, they did find something. the word “swing” was returned on 2 computers: “814” and “904”.

On computer “814” there were 908 registries linked to the keyword “swing” . 883 of which in 2 occasions: 807 on 05Feb07 and 76 on 16May07, the day after Murat is named arguido.

On computer “904” in there were found 4 files containing “swinging”.

All shown in our post “Why swing?”.

To say PJ “searched one computer and found nothing” is to lie as is to say “PJ did not ''know'' there was swinging”. Insane states he’s read the files in their entirety, and parts more than one time. So why lie about this?

PJ went to Stº Phunurius because of Robert Murat (we’re not told in what way that property is linked to him but PJ goes there because of him) and they were informed that sex parties took place there, so it’s quite understandable PJ would try to see if and in what way Robert Murat contacted this world.

What PJ didn’t realise was that this hanky-panky that they thought completely unrelated with their case was exactly what impeded them from investigating the accident that had happened to Maddie.


6. Telling PJ

It’s easy to tell people what to do when one is not in their predicament.

Telling someone in depression to snap out of it is to be insensitive.

To tell a bullied teen to stand up and face the bully is cruel.

If they could they would. If they could they wouldn’t be in the situation they are.

Either advice only aggravates the situation as it further highlights their impotence.

Impotence and anger are the 2 sentiments felt by the general public about the Maddie case.

There are various truths – even if not true – that the general public believes about this case, and we list the top 3 as the following:

1. The McCanns were negligent.

2. Maddie is dead and the parents are directly involved in her death and hiding of her body.

3. The McCann are protected at a governmental level in the UK and this protection is accepted by Portugal at government level as well.

If the protection is at state level then what’s the use for one to go to authorities?

To hold information, however relevant it may be, is completely useless if one cannot use it.

To hold information one feels goes against a farce the established powers have shown very clearly they favour by spending millions of their tax-payers money and humiliating their police forces then the best one can do is pretend not to have it and pray no one notices one has it.

To ask someone to go to the authorities with any relevant information about Maddie under such circumstances is like asking someone to go to the Klu Klux Klan and register a complaint about a racism abuse. Not only useless but looking needlessly for serious trouble.

And when one does asks that, as Insane does, one is just being a coward hiding behind the skirts of the established powers any normal person feels incapable and dares not confront:

Anonymous 14 February 2016 at 16:41

Portugal, in general, is not bothered if you swing or not.Its very liberal about that kind of thing. It doesn't print it in the papers etc. It is quite likely the group of guests were there as part of a VIP swinging group. They certainly were NOT playing tennis - that I know for sure. My niece is local to PdL. They were NOT playing tennis all day - they WERE dining in the town of PdL AS OPPOSED TO the TAPAS bar. That I know for sure. The ex pat community were also out wit them in the bars of PdL - THAT i KNOW FOR SURE. Unfortunately, apart form that info I dont have a clue! Please dont run under the illusion of them having a nice family holiday playing tennis. Not true.

Not Textusa 14 February 2016 at 19:18

Really? Well, your niece needs to get herself down to the PJ right now and give a statement. Any idea why she hasn't done so?

We have just explained why. But Insane knew that perfectly well before he asked, reason why he arrogantly asks.


7. The cover-up

The last element needed to understand the humungous hoax which the PJ faced is to understand why so many people embarked on this negative experience.

We could explain but we think best to let our detractors do that for us:

Anonymous 11 February 2016 at 12:05

Also swingers don't usually swing with friends. That could cause so many problems in case of things becoming emotional, or one partner ends up with the least fanciable one. Swingers usually go to clubs/parties or meet strangers through (online) adverts, chat groups etc. All part of the thrill of the chase. Some of these casual meetings turn out into something more long-term, where couples meet more regularly. It is however unlikely that friends/colleagues start swinging with each other. Very unlikely. I mean how would this even come up in conversation? Fancy swinging with us? What if the answer is no (which it most likely is): friendship over or never the same again. Why take that risk when there is plenty of opportunity to swing elsewhere with consenting strangers and no comeback.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 February 2016 at 17:14

Actually, thank you for pointing that out too 12:05, as you say, it would be excruciatingly embarrassing if friends and work colleagues were involved. People who know all the people you know, it doesn't bear thinking about!

Anonymous11 February 2016 at 17:21

Why "it would be excruciatingly embarrassing if friends and work colleagues were involved"? Isn't it accepted and completely legal?

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 February 2016 at 18:12

Seriously 17:21? Can you imagine the discussion around the water cooler - who shagged who's husband/ wife the night before?

Having an affair is not against the law 17:21 (in this century, just to clarify). That however, doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. Society is ruled by a set of codes and conventions that are mutually agreed, but not necessarily carved in stone.

In addition of course, most of us have morals and principals, we understand that our actions can hurt others. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Online stalkers should pay particular attention to that last line.

Not Textusa 11 February 2016 at 18:26

''Why "it would be excruciatingly embarrassing if friends and work colleagues were involved"? Isn't it accepted and completely legal?''

Lots of things are legal. But that doesn't mean you would want to do them with your workmates
.

Anonymous 11 February 2016 at 18:41 

Exactly.

You are the one saying as swinging is legal no would cover it up. 

Not Textusa 11 February 2016 at 18:56

No, I'm saying no-one would agree to be part of a criminal conspiracy to cover up the disappearance of a child in order to hide the fact that they had been shagging the away team, 

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 February 2016 at 18:56

Okily dokily 18:41. Go into work tomorrow and tell everyone you are a swinger. Do come back and tell us how you got on :)

We couldn’t have explained it better.

Even Insane acknowledges that even though swinging is legal (which is the most used argument to say there’s absolute no need to hide being a swinger) says clearly it is something one certainly doesn’t want to involve workmates in.

Why? Supposedly there’s nothing to be ashamed of, is there?

And sex between co-workers is very common. A great deal of infidelity in this world starts in the work place so it’s not exactly a reason to not involve workmates if said workmates are willing and do share the same desire.

Same with friends.

The problem swinging has with involving friends and workmates is not with those one has sex with but with those one doesn’t.

Those are the ones who gather “around the water cooler” and discuss “who shagged who's husband/ wife the night before”. It is those discussions between people who judge others that make it all “excruciatingly embarrassing” to be known. And because it is excruciatingly embarrassing to be labelled a pervert which makes swinging to not be “socially acceptable” because “society is ruled by a set of codes and conventions that are mutually agreed, but not necessarily carved in stone”.

All words from our detractors, none from us.

It seems that we agree with our detractors and our detractors agree with us. Why they are our detractors does escape us and Insane’s late backpedalling in the discussion after allowing his mouth fall for the truth doesn’t change that.

And to the workmates and friends please do add family members near and afar, neighbours, schoolteachers and headmasters/headmistresses of one’s children, priests and church congregations, grocers, butchers and whoever else one has frequent contact with.

All of the above would make it “excruciatingly embarrassing” for one to be outed a swinger in one’s community.

This presents a very significant number of valid reasons for one to hide to one’s best capabilities the fact that one is a swinger.

About letting oneself be involved in a criminal act to protect oneself, let us put foward the following example:

Imagine one is under significant financial duress. Suddenly one finds oneself in a situation where one either pays taxes or one collapses financially, a really desperate situation. But in that direness one is told by the director general of the Personal Tax group of the HM Revenue and Customs that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it’s best for one not to pay said taxes. Would one pay them?

No, one would not pay those taxes. Even though one knew one was doing something illegal. But if one would be doing it with the protection of the government itself, then why not?

And that’s what happened in Praia da Luz. People desperate to salvage their reputation on realising the likelihood of it being publicly shamed and subsequent social ruining.

On being assured that it was advisable and for their own good to embark on a cover-up because they would have government backing, they didn’t hesitate to do so. Those saying they wouldn’t do the same are simply not being honest.

Plus, the parents of the deceased child were also going along with it, so really why not?

And once caught in a lie… the snowball starts, and a snowball engulfs those who never dreamt of partaking and who are now finding themselves in it neck deep. Some even just because they trusted in who told them that it was fine to help in the hoax because their back was covered. These people, we are sure, are not pleased and will not be happy if truth comes out.


8. Conclusion

In our last post, we quoted from what seems to be a very well researched TV Series about the OJ Simpson trial, in which Alan Dershowitz’s character says this about the DNA evidence:

“We will attack every assumption, question every single molecule of evidence, every aspect of how that molecule was gathered, handled and analysed! We will disrupt their presentation of physical evidence at every turn! We will hack at them! Make every piece of evidence presented either thrown out, untrustworthy or confusing! No quarter!”

And why is that done? Because lawyers are paid to win and not to see that justice is served. The application of justice is the role of the judges.

The only way to defend from truth when truth is compromising is to make the effort of making it seem untrue.

Thus all the arguments to make it untrustworthy or confusing.

Same as with the swinging theory. The fact that it gets attacked in the fiercest manner like no other only shows that we are on the right path. It’s a compromising truth, it must be fought.

It shows how desperate our detractors are to make it untrustworthy and confusing.

And when solid truth is shown and it is impossible to make it untrustworthy or confusing – like when we showed the booking sheets were tampered with by the Ocean Club – then the tactic used is to best pretend it wasn’t shown at all and this looking away conveniently feigns that the inconvenient truth doesn’t exist when it does.

Rather discuss pyjamas to the point of exhaustion than why the booking sheets were tampered with. 

The problem for our detractors is their arguments are easily debunked as we have been showing through the years.

But sometimes in their despair to make us unconvincing they are simply comical.

Like saying that they didn’t know swinging was called swinging in Portuguese. Or, like in this instance, in a rebuttal about the possibility of there being swinging in Stobo castle, property of Stephen Winyard – which we never said there was – Tigger had this to say:

“As for those swings at the Spa, completely misunderstood, part of the exercise regime you'd expect to use in any Health Farm of note.”

If any of our readers see a picture of a swing in a Spa as part of its exercise regime, we would be glad to see it.

By the way, we’re off to our Easter Break.