Lions and the Settlement of Truth

1. Introduction

One day it had to happen, one day the British tabloids would publish something like this about the Maddie case:

“But Leanne Baulch, 22, of Birmingham, created the page and wrote the fund was created “as a quest for justice and backed by supporters from all over the globe, in solidarity, friendship and above all, in the interest of furthering the investigation of the case into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.

And:

“There are many who follow Amaral’s dissatisfaction, and whom, like him, urge for the day the truth, or some more of it will emerge.”

Unquestionable and unequivocal support shown for Mr Amaral in a British tabloid.

The same press that smeared him shamelessly and ruthlessly has published, in very explicit terms, words saying that one day the truth will emerge on the Maddie case.

A truth that stems from Mr Amaral’s dissatisfaction or, to say it even more plainly, a truth that is not the one the McCanns say it is.

Those following the case from its beginning can fully understand the magnitude of this. The days when it was easier to call for Satan in Salem than saying anything against the McCanns seem to be over.


2. Then and now

If the reader thinks we’re quoting the article from the Mail of May 13 2016 that is now known either as the “Mail doorstepping” article or the “Honourable Troll” one, we’re not.

We are instead quoting one that preceded that one by more than a year, published by the Express on May 4, 2015, “Online trolls pay Madeleine McCann libel detective’s legal bills on eight year anniversary”.

Then it was said truth would emerge and that supporting Mr Amaral was a quest for justice, as shown above.

Then, the British police was mentioned in the Express article for supporting Mr Amaral in the name of a retired policeman, John Green:

“A British policeman is one of more than 330 people who have donated more than £5,300 towards Goncalo Amaral’s legal bills after he was sued by Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry” and “John Green paid £10 to the fund and wrote: I am a retired police officer and will never understand how criminal proceedings have never been taken against the McCanns.”

A year later on May 13 2016 the Mail published the article “Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese policeman who wrote a book claiming the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine”.

To be more specific 375 days, £47,600 (fund would reach £52,900) and 2,484 people (fund would have 2,814 donors) later.

And in between the 2 articles the British police is supposedly to have donated more £990 than John Green’s £10 – in no way are we minimising Mr Green’s donation, on the contrary, it deserves all the visibility possible, but it shows the progression the fund had, even in donations from police officers, retired or on active duty.


3. Imprecisions

The Mail article fell like a drop of liquid detergent falling in the middle of dark grease in a pan of a TV ad, a sudden patch of clarity in the middle of dirty filth. Filth removed to never return.

The article contains some relevant imprecisions such as stating Mr Amaral accuses the McCanns of killing/murdering Maddie: “a Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents” and “wrote a book accusing them of murdering their three-year-old daughter and then faking her abduction”.

We all know this is not true.

The thesis which Mr Amaral defends in his book – and one we don’t agree with – is that Maddie died in an accident when she fell off the couch while alone in the apartment.

When the book hits the stands in Britain that will be very clear and will work against those now saying that Mr Amaral has accused the McCanns of something which he hasn’t.

The article also wrongly states that “the Portuguese authorities formally closed the inquiry in 2008 and cleared the couple of any wrongdoing”.

Again, we all know this is not true, the McCanns were never cleared, they were not charged.

It was deemed by whomever had the legitimate authority to decide that the existing evidence in the process wasn’t enough to charge the McCanns – an assumption with which we don’t agree with and have proved how wrong it was through many posts in the blog.

To those thinking we’re playing with words, we’re not. There’s a huge difference between the McCanns being cleared and not being charged.

That difference is them being or not being able to be charged today with wrongdoings in the case.

When one is cleared it means the system once having judged about a precise matter of fact and confronted with the fact there exists no evidence to charge (note the difference between not existing or not having been found, one is a certainty, the other something that can be changed any time) it makes a statement which exempts the individual of any accountability before justice about the facts in question.

With this statement the process is over for that individual, as the principle of justice that says that one cannot be judged twice for the same facts is put automatically in place.

The justice system analyses and decides about a matter of fact and cannot do it more than once.

But if one is not cleared but just not charged one can still be charged in relation to the same matter of fact. The justice system is in this instance saying it doesn’t have all the possible facts to decide. The difference of a case closed (cleared) and archived (not charged).

The McCanns can still be charged with the facts relating to Maddie’s disappearance. That’s a fact that alone shows very clearly they were not cleared.

Next time one reads someone saying the McCanns have been cleared, one only has to ask of whoever says so if they think the McCanns can or cannot be charged in the Maddie case.

If they can, as they can, then it’s very clear they weren’t cleared.

We will later return in the post as to why we think the terms killing and murder were used, which we think has the same motive of saying they were cleared.


4. Honourable Trolls

Let’s now look at the content of the article.

The word “Troll” appears right in the title. But immediately in the bullet points below, it quickly becomes a “Group of Britons” right away.

Inside the article is a very clear and precise explanation as to why “some of whom admit they are internet ‘trolls’”:

“After the donors were accused of being ‘trolls’, some were furious, insisting they were ‘truth-seekers’. Others adopted the term as a badge of honour, with one even using the name ‘Honourable Troll’”

When troll is said in the Maddie case, please read troll-as-in-truth-seeker. And very honoured to be one. “Honourable Troll”, what 2 wonderful, powerful words when talking about Maddie.

Then let’s read what these trolls-as-in-truth-seekers had to say in the article:

- “Met police officers who said they were ‘outraged’ at the way the officer had been treated”;

- “This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations should be conducted, without fear or favour, malice or ill will. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill will are in this case”;

- “I set up the page to help him [Amaral] with his appeal because I felt he had suffered an injustice. His assets had been frozen so he had no way to defend himself”;

- “I’m not anti-Kate and Gerry McCann. I don’t know what happened and I don’t claim to know. But I do believe there are hard questions that need to be answered”;

- “The people who donated are very passionate and are pro-truth and justice, not against the McCanns”;

- “The fund was part of a ‘quest for justice’ backed by supporters ‘in solidarity, friendship and above all, in the interest of furthering the investigation...”;

- “She was delighted to have helped Amaral”;

- “I think it’s a marvellous result that he won his appeal. I think it was an outrage the case was ever brought … We don’t live in the 14th century or under the Stasi”;

- “Said her interest in the case stemmed from taking holidays in Praia da Luz. She said Amaral ‘was a policeman doing his job and was persecuted for giving his opinion”.

Is this article really about trolling? Because it doesn’t seem to, so much so that one is bombarded with such positive messages about trolls that one just grows a fondness for them. Exactly the intention.

Indeed, there’s no question everyone can clearly see where the truth is and where malice and ill will are in this case.

And the Met is mentioned three times in the article:

#1 – “£1,000 claimed to be from a ‘very large’ group of Met police officers”;

#2 – “More than £50,000 was raised by Britons – including an apparent group of police – in support of a Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents”;

#3 – “One of the biggest payments to the detective’s appeal fund was £1,000 claimed to be from a ‘very large’ group of unnamed Met police officers who said they were ‘outraged’ at the way the officer had been treated”.

No matter how much politicians have humiliated the Met with Operation Grange, with the help of some of its members and heads, there are those in the force who won’t allow this shame to shame them. And it is a very large group of Met police officers.

And to wrap it all up, the article is very clear how important this support was for the April 19 court sentence:

“In an online post thanking his supporters after he won his appeal, Amaral said he felt ‘extremely humble’. He added: ‘None of this would have been possible without you.’”

Words mean what they are meant to mean at the moment and context in which they are said. From now on the word Troll used in the context of the Maddie case has become definitely a synonym of truth-seeking. A badge of honour to be worn with the utmost pride.

The word Troll has now been emptied of any derogatory meaning when said about those looking for the truth about Maddie and has instead gained a whole new meaning of altruistic justice seeking.

Even the Sun had to go with the flow on this one and published the article “Web trolls raise £50,000 for Portuguese cop who wrote book claiming Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine McCann... And even 'Brit police donated'” by Guy Birchall on May 14:

- “One of the donations was £1,000 which came from a “very large group of unnamed Metropolitan Police officers” who claimed to be “outraged” by the treatment the cop had received”;

- “This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations should be conducted, without fear or favour, malice or ill will. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill will are in this case”;

- “I set up the page to help him (Amaral) with his appeal because I felt he had suffered an injustice. His assets had been frozen so he had no way to defend himself. I’m not anti-Kate and Gerry McCann. I don’t know what happened and I don’t claim to know.But I do believe there are hard questions that need to be answered”;

- “The people who donated are very passionate and are pro-truth and justice, not against the McCanns”;

- “Some donors were livid after being accused of being “trolls” but others wore the slur as a badge of honour with one adopting the username “Honourable Troll””.

Was this really in the Sun?

Yes, we pinched ourselves and it really was.

Quoting ourselves from our post “The Last Chance Saloon” on April 29:

“As we said above this issue has had, it seems, quite an interesting development. It seems that the Mail is doorstepping, directly or mandating others to do it for them, donors to the GoFund to ask them ask them why they donated.

To the best of our knowledge this has happened to 2 people so far but it seems the intention was to do this to hundreds.

If one really intends to sell the colour blue, then one seeks the weakest link within the sellers of red and then one does the best one can to discredit that colour and those selling it.

If one goes after hundreds of red colour salesmen, then one will know beforehand that what one will get is a bucketful of compliments and reasons to buy red instead of blue.

For someone who sells blue to attack one or 2 people selling red, means that someone really wants to sell the colour blue. But to go after hundreds of them is to really want to sell red even if one says one wants to sell blue.

We don’t know what the intentions of the Mail on this are. But let’s be naïve for a minute and allow the possibility of that paper wanting to do a complimentary piece on the so-labelled trolls, showing what good natured and well-intentioned people they are.

To do that the paper would have to contact people directly and the best way to do that is to look up the names of those who opted not to donate anonymously to the fund.”

It’s always nice to be proven right especially when everyone else was banging the Mail left, right and centre for doorstepping people.

When they pick beautiful, polite and intelligent people to doorstep, like they did in this article, they are not stealthily selling red while professing they are blue, they are as brazenly as they can saying they are selling red.


5. The Settlement of the truth

Note that the GoFund was closed on Sept 2015. The appeal court victory was on April 19 this year. So why bring this up now?

We think it was to make the point the McCann supporters most dreaded hearing: the water has now overflowed the dam and is unstoppably running down the valley.

The 2015 Express article was what the Portuguese say to “put a spear in Africa” – the equivalent expression as setting the Thames on fire – as it opened the doors to what could follow.

However an open door is just a meaningless passage if no one walks through it.

The 2016 Mail one proves that a year later many people did. Or better, it reminds us all, at this crucial time that many people did. And that these people mattered.

The 2016 Mail article makes the 2015 Express to not be a Roanoke Colony but a Jamestown Settlement. Not an unsuccessful venture but a settlement with a promising future.

It is saying clearly that resolute people, people who mattered when it was needed to matter, are putting their shoulders together and pushing truth along no matter what resistance they find.

The other side understood how important this article was.

Truth has now disembarked on the Maddie beaches and is out to rescue justice from the claws that are imprisoning it.

This was nothing like what happened with the tragic Brenda Leyland doorstepping, starting with the most important fact that they didn’t control it.

They knew this article would be adverse, but never crossed their minds it would be so much against them.

We believe they thought they would get messages from those supporting Mr Amaral. They hoped it would describe one or two violent reactions to the doorstepping. They never expected an article clearly showing the support, how people stepped up the plate when it mattered and counted, including a very large group of Police officers from the Met.

For some reason the McCann supporters are flying away like pigeons being chased by a border collie.


6. The 2016 press and Maddie

The fact that the Mail – in our opinion engaging in a war for the lead on Maddie with James Murray’s Express – felt it possible to publish such an article speaks loads. First of all it means the MSM is rebelling. They seem to have lost the fear. With Mr Amaral’s victory the libel threats have become whimpers.

The press is just not openly brazen because they need to go through a transition period. Between night and day, dawn must happen.

What is really important to be noted is that it has crossed a line and there’s no possible going back for them.

After what was reported about Mr Amaral’s victory the British MSM closed all archival doors behind them.

In 2007, they backtracked, they first accused the McCanns in August and September and but then sanctified the couple from September onwards.

But in 2007 they had something that allowed them to do that, which they don’t have in 2016: Mr Amaral, the PJ, the Portuguese and Portugal.

They all could be called incompetent to justify the British change of heart about the McCanns.

Now, in 2016, who is there to pin the blame on if they want to backtrack?

The SY, from which a very large group of police officers donated significantly to support Mr Amaral? Don’t think so.

It can easily be seen that it will be ridiculous to try to justify the archival after all that has been published in the British press about Mr Amaral and his British supporters.  


7. The Great Maddie War again

Let’s get back to the use of “murder/killing” and the mention that the McCanns were cleared.

The other side is struggling about who will have to fall. We think very soon, if not already, we are back into “Great Maddie War” mode, or in practical terms, it’s a free-for-all with the McCanns but only with them.

The more attention the McCanns get, the less it will be focused on others and that allows some to escape from getting wet when the thunderstorm hits.

So the flames of hatred for the McCann have to be stoked.

They are the ones who are evil. That has to be made clear.

Note how in the title of the Mail article it’s said very explicitly “the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine”.

Even the good guy, Mr Amaral, they say, has said they killed Maddie, or even worse, they murdered her.

The association of ideas is very simple to make. The court has said Mr Amaral was right to accuse the McCanns and he’s accusing them of killing Maddie, so they did it, the murdering scum.

When the book gets out and people read that Mr Amaral has never said such a thing won’t matter as the message will have travelled its way independent of possible correction afterwards.

The carrot has been placed in front of the donkey and we’ll see if the donkey trots after it.

Saying they were cleared causes an equal and opposite reaction, oh, no they weren’t!

Say the McCanns were cleared and the hatred for them just goes up a notch. Quite simple and effective. The more they are hated the less attention others will get.

We remind all that nailing the McCanns alone is not justice. They are to face justice, no question about that, but not on their own. Same is said about the remainder T7.

We do say this almost nonchalantly as we know it will be impossible for that to happen but will say it anyway as a warning for people not to fall in such an appetising trap and avoid contributing actively  to such a primal campaign.


8. Walking with the lions

The fact that one walks with the lions doesn’t mean at all one is a lion.

When one is not a lion and walks with them, one is but a walking meal that the lions don’t even have the trouble of carrying and is just there for them to consume when they feel like it.

Even if one is a lion among lions one has to be on permanent alert, not being one is just stupid to walk with them because of their protection.

Yes, other predators may be dissuaded but the biggest threat is right there, a breath away.

When the lions feel the time has come to eat, they will mercilessly rip the flesh right off the bone before one can even utter a whimper.

We don’t think Lorraine Kelly is a lioness but she has clearly shown that the McCanns’ flesh has now become really appetising for the lions, and is taking a step aside to avoid getting blood spatters on her blouse when the predatory teeth sink into the couples’ flesh.

The McCanns were not the only ones who walked with the lions and Lorraine is just trying to make sure she isn’t part of the menu when McCanns a-la-carte is served.

Lorraine Kelly is just doing what many who walked with the lions in the Maddie journey are doing, trying put to the McCanns between herself and the lions.

She first clarified that she never invited the McCanns this year for the “anniversary celebrations” and now is using Ben Needham with the same intention.

We do not wish to get into the Ben Needham case as we don’t know enough about it to give our opinion, however we cannot have avoided noticing how Lorraine Kelly uses Ben in the article from the Sun on May 14 “Lorraine Kelly: Shameful cops must know the hell Ben’s mum has suffered”:

“Mum’s agony as search for Maddy McCann receives millions, while Ben is forgotten”.

Really? Only realised that after hosting the McCanns for eight years and so contribute to the big differential between both cases?

“Kerry had to watch as the campaign to find Madeleine McCann went global and raised millions of pounds.”

“In stark contrast, she received virtually no help or money from the authorities and while full of sympathy for Kate and Gerry McCann, Kerry understandably found this unfair and frustrating.”

No doubt she has. We think she should speak out against those who did all they could to shamelessly spread that “sympathy campaign” for the McCanns. Really shame of them, especially those hosting TV shows.

Lorraine Kelly abandoning ship is very symptomatic. The truth smiles while watching this spectacle.

To Ms Kelly, please do not play the naïve virgin now, you’re fooling no one. Accept that your name will be placed in history where it was put by your own doing.


9. Conclusion

Things are in a way that only massive doses of shamelessness can stop any conclusion other than charging the McCanns for something.

After Hillsborough we’re not seeing Operation Grange being archived.

The scandal would be huge and the people who mattered and showed they could be counted on, will not be silent.

The media would either have to backtrack on all that has been said lately or save face and fight the archival. Again, Hillsborough as a reminder.

It seems to us that it’s no longer a question of IF the McCanns will be charged but of WHEN.

We will now go back to the case. Mr Amaral has challenged the UK to do a reconstruction. We think it would be nice if we gave the UK a hand.