The messages

1. Introduction

This week’s post is about a move from the other side, in an attempt to send a message, involving us all on the internet, to the government.

But with that same message they have sent another to their own people. It wasn’t their intention but they did.

The post is about both.

As we said in our post “Follow the money” the funding of Operation Grange for the second semester of the fiscal year of 2016/2017 was a move that left the pieces in the Maddie case chess board in such a way that checkmate against the black was the natural move to follow.

This checkmate would be given by “compelling evidence” move which would end the game. All that is needed is to make it and that is the logical, the reasonable and the decent thing that is to happen.

The funding move was, as we also showed in prior posts, preceded by another 3: associating Freud with the case, firing Mitchell and “firing” the McCanns. All this summer.

The black player seeing himself limited to have its king hopping between 2 squares while waiting in anguish for the guillotine blade to fall on his neck did what was expected of him, he acted in despair.

That’s what this “ghoulish tour” stunt was all about, a desperate move by the desperate.

How desperate they appear to be is what we hope to show.



2. Ghoulish and Ghoul

We became aware of the ghoulish tours story from the Mirror, in its edition of Oct 1 2016 by Alan Selby and Phil Cardy “Ghoulish Madeleine McCann tour takes tourists where missing tot stayed and cops dug for body”.

This article was replicated by the Sun and Daily Mail.

To understand the purported intent of the article(s) it’s important to clarify what the meanings of the words ghoulish and ghoul are:

Ghoulish:

1. strangely diabolical or cruel; monstrous: a ghoulish and questionable sense of humour.

2. showing fascination with death, disease, maiming, etc.; morbid: ghoulish curiosity.

3. of, relating to, or like a ghoul

Ghoul:

1. an evil demon, originally of Muslim legend, supposed to feed on human beings, and especially to rob graves, prey on corpses, etc.

2. a grave robber.

3. a person who revels in what is revolting.

Very clearly not commendable words to say the least.

But, interestingly, related to death, their use was an unwitting assumption that Maddie is dead.

But it’s not that we want to highlight. That was accidental. What is evident is that the use of these words in the story was meant to cause in readers a very strong sense of disgust about these tours and the person organising it.

That, was fully achieved. Maybe the only one of their objectives that was.



3. The tours

The articles are quite clear in stating that these tours are for tourists.

They’re not. They are not proposed on any tourist site or any sort of outdoor big or small.

They are proposed by a blog which is clearly dedicated to the Maddie case and not to promote tourism in Praia da Luz.

The blogger in question proposes to guide any of his readers who are interested in visiting Luz.

There are no places outdoors in Luz advertising any Maddie tours like there are about the water parks, boats to the grottos or deep sea fishing. These, yes, are tourist tours.

To be precise, what the blogger offers, whether one agrees with him or not, are fact checking tours and only the people who read his blog would know of these tours.

People who are curious about the case and want to see locally what they have read about both in the media and on the internet.

Reading the blog, one gets the idea that 3 tours have happened. All appear to be taken by individual visitors and we don’t think a couple of people (visitor and guide) walking around Praia da Luz can cause any sort of a commotion.

When we visited the little town last year, we were a bigger group than that and no one seemed to have noticed us.

Maddie is a global crime and this obviously make people from all over the world curious about it.

Global crimes become historic and this attracts visitors. Many other crime scenes are visited worldwide. Two come immediately to mind, the Dealy Plaza in Dallas where JFK was shot and the Jack the Ripper sites.

One could say that Maddie is different, as it’s still ongoing and – let’s play the fool here for a second – the parents still don’t know what has happened to their daughter (as if).

That is true – except that bit about the parents, of course – and that is what makes it all so more intriguing and making one want to visit Luz even more. What other case is still actively open after 10 years and has had a SY special force especially dedicated to it?

No other, as far as we can remember. And Luz is where all happened so it’s natural it generates curiosity.

Those interested in the case and with the possibility to visit, will do so they’re able to get their own views about it. There’s nothing ghoulish or morbid about visiting Praia da Luz because of Maddie.

That would make the many people who have already visited Praia da Luz because of Maddie to be just that.

In that number of people not only are we included but also the so called pros, the name given to the McCann supporters. Shortly before the articles were published a small group of pro-McCann supporters went out there to Luz. They boasted about it in a pro-McCann group called “Debunking the myths surrounding The Madeleine McCann” and posted the photos and videos that have been posted in another pro-McCann group called “Say what you want”.

It’s perfectly natural for the town to be visited because of the Maddie case.

If one is to talk about ghoul tours to Praia da Luz, then the only ones we can only think of are those conducted by the media there and making money from it, unlike the blogger.

In fact, we think Praia da Luz is getting less Maddie related visitors than expected after 10 years have passed and that is because anything surrounding the case was made to be filled with fear.

There isn’t a single person in the world who hasn’t understood that political powers are directly involved in the case.

Everyone knows the case is all about secrets being kept and, more important, being protected by the very powerful. This scares people away.

Those, from the general public, who do venture into the case, prefer to keep themselves at a screen’s length from the case, safely hidden in anonymity and so protecting themselves and the ones they love from what they imagine to be the ever watchful big brother eye of their government, scared to risk finding their names in a governmental black list of people who are to be persecuted and suffer for having dared.

By associating with a strong disgust to any sort of Maddie related visit to Praia da Luz this fearful status quo is continued and even further ingrained.

As if at the little town’s limit there’s a sign saying that it’s fine for one to visit the beach but one is NOT to poke around Maddie things or one will be considered a trespasser and treated as such.

We, who have been there, as we wrote in our “Praia da Luz” post, found the visit to be very enlightening and clarifying. To have visited the little, really small, town really helped us understand what the size of hoax it all is.

The less people visit it, the more mackerel can be sold for caviar. If one can stop people from ever tasting caviar who can tell the difference? No one.

The blogger targeted, when responding to the Mirror, speaks of Praia da Luz in the following terms: “by the way, Luz isn’t picturesque, a word you would never use to describe the place if you actually visited”. He should know, he lives there.

Not picturesque and yet, during the off-season, hundreds of people flocked there inexplicably to spend – or waste? – their hard earned money on a stay.

Note, it’s hundreds of people if we only take into account those staying at the Ocean Club resort and, as far as we know, that was not the only tourist facility there in April/May 2007.

One thing appears to be factual, and that is the Mirror reporters are not writing about what is being called ghoulish tours based on hearsay knowledge.

They quote the guide in their article so it can be assumed they interviewed him and that makes the article to reflect, supposedly, first-hand knowledge.

By reading the article, one imagines an eager crowd of really obsessed tourists, noisy and nosy, and their respective forest of selfie-sticks led by a lunatic holding a sign saying “Maddie tours” inconveniently disturbing the peaceful village of Praia da Luz.

That was the whole idea and that’s why they have emphasised the ghoulish to the point that it has even supposedly “triggered disgust among other Brits in Praia”.

This way they exaggerate their importance and their impact. And, of course, they exaggerate the disgust it supposedly they have caused.



4. The Maddie tours

It appears it was because of us, more specifically because of our visit to Luz, the reason why these tours were even conceived.

About 2 and a half months after we wrote the post “Praia da Luz” the then prospective tour organiser reacted to our post with this on Jan 09 this year on his blog:

“Third, into the mix we can throw Textusa. Deliberately on my part, I have not rechecked this information – I am doing it from memory.

Textusa had what might be called a flying visit to Luz in the latter part of 2015. It was a short, sharp tour, basically in and out in very little time. So here we have a person with a considerable knowledge of Luz, attempting to drill down to the essence of Luz v Madeleine. And in the process missing a bucketload of relevant information.

I need to make clear here that I am not being critical of Textusa. I am trying to illustrate the challenge that faces someone who has detailed knowledge of the case, but essentially is ignorant of (lacks knowledge of) Luz.”

(…)

“Let me return to Textusa. The key conclusions, from memory, were that Luz is compact (true) and that it lacks charm (true), therefore someone visiting here is coming for something else (true).

We now have to turn to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Textusa’s analysis fails on the whole truth. There is a lot more to Luz, relevant to Madeleine, than the bits visited by Textusa on that short visit.

Nothing but the truth? Until I go back and look at that Textusa post again, my personal jury is out on that one. Here’s the reason. I can shape a tour of Luz to highlight any particular theorem of what happened to Madeleine, basically regardless of what that theorem is. Obviously, this is not particularly helpful in making progress, but it can be done.”

(…)

“Third, if you have an interest in the case and you get a chance to visit Luz, please give me just a little bit of advance warning, and I’ll be happy to take you around everything that is relevant. I happen to disagree with Textusa on the fundamentals of the case, but frankly, I would have been happy to conduct a more informed tour than the one that occurred on that occasion. Basically, it is not your agreement with my views that I consider important, it is your interest in the case.”

It seems we missed being the first guided visitors of these tours. We would say next time we would call but as we said last week, the place is just too small to merit a second visit. If we ever return is to go to the beach, which we agree, seems to be very nice.



5. The blogger

The person to whom the Mirror has the filth smearing gun pointed at is a blogger who says he resides in Luz and we have no reason to doubt that.

There is one true phrase in the Mirror’s article: “He’s written thousands of words about the case and pored over maps, photographs and police transcripts”.

He has indeed. We would even say that outside actually visiting Luz, his blog is quite a nice source of information about the pedestrian views of Praia da Luz, also known as Luz or Vila da Luz, that Google street view hasn’t captured.

However, the blogger in question defends something that is slightly more difficult to defend than that there are Martians on Venus: he defends that Maddie was abducted.

Of course, if asked, he will say that he only considers abduction to be only one of many other possibilities, otherwise he wouldn’t be read. The fact is, and those minimally familiar with the case know it, to consider abduction a possibility, and then expand on it, in a case where it’s evident no abduction has ever happened, is either to be addicted to time-wasting or pro-abduction. 

His work is basically about where the abductor could have gone, where he couldn’t have gone sprinkled with explaining why whatever the T9 have said they did, they did.

The immediate natural reaction is be stupefied and ask why in the heavens would the other side vilify so viciously someone who defends abduction?

The answer to that question we hope to give later on in this post.

The fact that the blogger believes in abduction, immediately alters all about what may be interesting or not to be visited in Luz concerning what has happened to Maddie.

By absurdity, let’s suppose the McCanns were made up of peanut-butter. Yes, it’s completely absurd but please do make the effort.

Under that absurd premise all supermarkets in the area would be of interest to the Maddie case as they certainly sell bread and jam.

That in turn would mean that all these supermarkets, small, medium or big would most certainly be worth a visit. A visit, we suppose, that would take days if not weeks.

The thing is that the McCanns are not made up of peanut-butter. They are made of flesh and blood like any other human being so to visit these supermarkets because of the relationship of peanut-butter with bread and jam is laughable and as useful to the truth as blowing a whistle underwater.

To start, to entertain or to contribute to such a conversation would be equally ridiculous. Unless, of course, one wants to misinform. But then misinforming is neither accidental nor naïve, is it?

For example, to say that it takes 7 to 8 hours to visit the sites of interest to the Maddie case in Praia da Luz, is basically trying to say that one can squeeze a gallon of juice out of a single lemon.

We can’t help that there may be people who enjoy a really watered down lemonade with a very vague taste of the fruit, or pretend they do. If they want to go for a roller without the coaster why stop them?

To say it takes that long to visit the sites of interest to Maddie is to go definitely into peanut-butter supermarket visiting idiocy.

And while speaking of peanut-butter, it must be said that some people do treat a peanut-butter and jam sandwich with much more respect than they do Maddie, as they are much more careful in committing their mouths to such a sandwich than they are when they speak about the little girl’s fate.

About his involvement in the case, it has to be noted that he says “we did not emigrate to Praia da Luz. An early part of my blog makes it clear that within the family no-one had any interest in Madeleine McCann as none of us followed the story in 2007. Oddly, not a single one of us twigged the connection to Madeleine McCann, otherwise we would have probably gone elsewhere”.

That must make him and his family the only people not linking Maddie to Praia da Luz including those who followed the case in 2007 with little or no interest, as then one would have to really walk with their head bowed down and eyes fixated on the ground to avoid seeing news about Maddie and Praia da Luz but even that wouldn’t have blocked sound. But if he says that is so, we must believe him.

If one brings into the picture the fact that one of his most frequent and welcomed commentators to his blog is Heriberto Janosch González, the long armed abductor or the pillow snatcher, who we spoke of in our “The Sun will go down” post this May, then one can easily understand what the real relationship between the blog and truth really is:

But then one cannot expect an abduction apologist to stick too much to the truth.

Such apologist uses only the bits of the truth that validate that thesis and will disregard all of it that doesn’t. We all have witnessed that many, many times and not only about those openly in favour of the official version of events.

As an example, and in his response against the Mirror article, the blogger reacts to the apparent blunder made by the reporters because they put up a picture of Block 6 as if it was Block 5:

Absolutely correct in doing so, that is the Block 6, across the street from Block 5 which a little bit of it can be seen on the left border of the picture. Here blogger uses truth and protests in its favour.

But then why not correct the same reporters about the picture that appears right below the one above, which was used to illlustrate the Tapas bar when clearly it isn’t:

Here the blogger seems to contain his protests and not be pay much attention to truth. Why? Well, the picture of the restaurant that has been repeatedly shown as Tapas, above, makes it seem natural for the Tapas dinners to have taken place while the pictures of the real Tapas, below, does make one question all:

And talking about on how the British media shows Tapas, this is the picture the Sun used in its echoing article about the ghoul tours:

We dont even think that esplanade is from Praia da Luz.

Then there’s the blogger’s relationship with our blog. This is what is said in one of his posts about the tours: “Then there is the trip to the beach. I am far from convinced that the route is important, as per a Textusa theorem. However, if you think it is, recreating this route is simple, so you can judge for yourself”.

We wrote a post specifically on the subject on May 12, 2010 “Debunking Body Disposal, Part II - The Beach”  debunking clearly any and all relationship between the beaches and the Maddie case, which at the time was a popular thesis.

We have written repeatedly that we don’t think the body was carried on foot any further than the Murat’s property and yet we are portrayed by the blogger as firm believers that Maddie’s body was taken to the beach.

Reading what he writes, he’s the sane one and we’re the idiots who believe the beach is important in the case.

But one thing is very important to be pointed out as we will see later: his blog, however, has one very significant characteristic that one cannot find in other similar pro-abduction sites: he’s respectful and polite.

That is quite important because that means he can be taken seriously. And if one can be taken seriously then one gains credit and that credit is something the other side has used with these ghoul tours as we will show.



6. Betrayal

The blogger feels betrayed by the Mirror article. We think he has every reason to feel that way. We would.

He is quoted in the article and in his response he doesn’t deny any. Where he appears quoted in the article:

“Explaining why he ­remains anonymous, the guide says: “I see a lot of people for whom the Madeleine McCann case is about them, as if they want major roles in a stage drama.

“I want the exact opposite.

“I prefer to remain anonymous, in the background, a non-character in the case.

“That means my musings are more likely to be judged on merit alone.

“Hopefully, that in turn maximises the chance of working out what ­happened to Madeleine McCann.”

Explaining the twisted thinking that ­produced the tour, the man says: “My first thought was simple.

“I just could not make a ghouls tour of Luz fly. Then the idea began to intrigue me.

“How does one make a ghouls’ tour of Luz actually work?

“The solution is cheap and cheerful. It comes out of the best penny ­dreadfuls in Victorian era. You do not bother about the truth. Or the facts. You simply go for the thrill value.”

He continues: “I suppose, at a push, with all the red herrings around, I could develop a ghouls’ tour with at least 20 points on the map.

“There must be at least ten more red herrings in the Madeleine story, surely.

“The difficulty is my brain is not into red herring stories and my heart is not into this line of action.””

Lots of direct speech there.

It’s evident that the blogger collaborated actively with the reporters, probably duped with his 15 minutes of glory for his loyal work, and there was a lot of it, in defending abduction as he supposed to be the want of the Lords of the Britains, who have  been pulling the strings all along.

We imagine he even jumped at the chance.

His speech is filled with glee and anticipation of seeing his efforts publicly recognised and, most important, acclaimed. This sentence says all “You do not bother about the truth. Or the facts. You simply go for the thrill value”.

He really thought he was talking to friends, didn’t he?

But there’s an enormous difference between what one thinks one deserves and what others think one does and there’s another big difference, normally dictated by pragmatism, between that and what one gets.

And the blogger got his 15 minutes of fame only not the exact way he expected!

In our post “Lions and the Settlement of the truth” we said that when one is not a lion but walks with lions that does not make one a lion but just lion food.

And that is what this blogger has so painfully found out.

The answer to the question we have put above – why in the heavens would the other side vilify so viciously someone who defends abduction? – is because the lions from the other side felt that it was the right time to “consume” the meal in which the blogger was the starter, the main, the dessert, the wine and even the napkin.

It’s quite amusing to watch how the blogger has failed to realise what has happened to him.

Apparently he continues to offer his services to Operation Grange and to the McCanns (?) claiming that he has better knowledge of the terrain because he lives there than all those policemen who scoured every single inch of the entire area on May 2007 had. Interesting to see he never offers them to the PJ that has an open investigation on Maddie and would be the ones responsible to further explore whatever he may think is there in Praia da Luz that may be useful to the case.

The fact that he seems unaware that the entire Praia da Luz was searched may be explained by his and his family’s strange oblivion about what was going on in Praia da Luz in 2007 but then someone should tell him that every stone in the area was indeed turned over and it wasn’t by the McCanns but people trained to look for crime clues for every single hypothesis, abduction included, as to what could have happened to Maddie. We suggest he look up on the internet, there are lots of videos and news stories about it.

He has even gone as far as offering to better translate the PJ Files! But then, who are we to question the linguistic abilities of an ex-pat who has moved to Praia da Luz less than 10 years ago and who now can fully understand and comprehend not only the Portuguese language but its extremely complicated legalese version as well?

His reaction to the betrayal is that of a man who has found himself inside a cauldron circled by cannibals chatting in anticipation of a delicious meal and instead of concentrating on how to get out, starts to complain about the quality of the carrots and turnips floating around him in the boiling water and is desperately shouting out that the best vegetables to use are those he grew himself in his backyard.



7. Message to pawns

Look at the epithets he was awarded – or branded – with in the article as a reward for all his hard work for the other side’s cause:

“the twisted organiser”, “a British grandfather in his 60s who has become obsessed with the case since emigrating to Praia da Luz”, “the guide is obsessed with Maddie”, “the weirdo”, “the sicko”, “explaining the twisted thinking” and “this deluded man ­amuses himself”.

And when referring about the visits he organised things get much worse:

“Ghoulish Madeleine McCann tour”, “a ghoulish sightseeing tour”, “the sick trips”, “the tours, dubbed the “Luz Challenge”, have ­triggered disgust among ­other Brits in Praia”, “this is in appalling taste. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it”, “this is totally uncalled for”, “a little girl going missing should not be made into a game or a challenge”, “the gruesome tours”, “offering his version of “Mission Impossible” to work out what happened to Madeleine”, “another ghoulish spot on the tour is the Our Lady of the Light church in the centre of Luz”, “he is clearly ­unaware or not bothered by the disgust his warped ­pastime is causing”, “critics said the sightseeing tour is in appalling taste”, “twisted thinking that ­produced the tour” and “his outrageous “game””.

That is one huge bunch of compliments. NOT.

We hope this serves as a lesson to the little pawns who have stuck their necks out to help the other side one way or another all these years. Including those who have gone silent lately.

Because that’s one of the messages this episode has sent.

A message the other side didn’t mean to send but is there to be seen very clearly: to you, our little insignificant helpers, at the end of the day, this is what will be waiting for you.

We strongly advise that the little black pawns of this game should really start to realise that the principle that everyone is expendable is really true when it comes to them.

The real question they should ask is not whether they will be expended but when they will.

The blogger is the clear example that if it fits their purpose they won’t hesitate to vilify mercilessly one who had, apparently, shown his selfless generous loyalty, even, if as we’ll see, when doing it in a stupid and pointless move.

He was enticed him into a trap and they just threw him to the wolves not giving a second thought about what eventual distress and even damage it would cause the man. They matter, little people don’t.

And if anyone hasn’t realised at this point in time the difference between little and big people, let us just say that Freud has clarified exactly that.

And just between us and the other side, we know the blogger wasn’t the first to feel this ruthless friendly fire, isn’t that so?

The next one to be thrown under the bus will then very quickly understand that the only hand coming for him or her will be the one to hold them down.

History is quite straight forward: those who walk with the lions and aren’t lions, spend their last breath smelling theirs.



8. Message intended

The question remains, why would they pick on one of their own?

Because, dear reader, they want the blogger to represent you.

To represent you, us and everyone who uses the internet to seek to find out what really happened to Maddie.

That’s why they vilified the blogger. That’s why they exaggerated the disgust he may be and the disgust the Luz visits/tours would have caused.

They convey the idea that there’s a there is a disgusting parallel world on the internet, made up of a bunch of hopeless people who are hopelessly beyond repair obsessed with Maddie.

People who don’t possess any sense of decency and who won’t impose any of sort limits on themselves to their actions, and look how this disgusting blogger who has organised these sick twisted ghoul tours is just a perfect example of that.

By making the blogger disgusting they make him to be clearly one of us and never one of them.

They have spent years calling us disgusting trolls, so by calling the blogger that they make him become not only one of us but, very important, all of us.

Yes, please read it again because it’s important. Not some of us but all of us.

That way they put us all into the same weirdo jar and slap on it the label just saying “Nutcases (like the Luz Blogger)”.

Maddie’s internet world must be made to be seen to be a heinous group of the sort who flock together and follow a sick weirdo around Luz.

That’s why they have squeezed every single last drop of disgust juice they could get out of this story.

But if the reader thinks this vilification is to vilify, please think again. They have put out before enough hate messages against us to no avail. Believe it or not, via the blogger they want to make us their allies!

Once that is understood, one can understand the real message of the entire article. This is it:

 “In the first blog about the tour, the so-called host said: “If you can visit Luz, please get in touch with me, because I would like you to show you the reality.

“I think of this as the Luz Challenge. Our version of Mission Impossible.”

Then, in an offensive ­comment, the sicko says: “You have to come up with a way in which the McCanns, for whatever reason, ­disposed of Madeleine’s body, and the body was not found in searches.”

In a reference to the officer in charge of the original search, the tour guide says: “Gonçalo Amaral struggled, and in my opinion failed, to come up with an explanation.

“He had something like 25 years of experience policing Portugal and the Algarve, and he failed to come up with a solution to a one-word question. How?

“How do you dispose of a child’s body when all you have is foot power and no experience of Luz.

“Would you like to see if you can overcome the Luz Challenge?””

This is the crux of the whole thing. This is the intended message of this entire story:

Look government at how we’re telling the public that there is this disgusting parallel world on the internet that mercilessly haunts the McCanns, a world filled and obsessed with red herrings as they themselves recognise BUT, look, at how they acknowledge that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the McCanns to have done it! Even all those disgustful lunatics, the low-life scum of the internet, namely that sicko weirdo from Luz, agree that the McCanns didn’t do it! Look how he even dares others to prove otherwise! See? Even the internet expects that you archive Operation Grange!

Once understood, it really is quite clear.



9. Target audience

But to really understand it all, one must realise what the variables really are in this quite complex equation that we are breaking down bit by bit.

We have spoken of the first 2 of 3 variables: The first being the “disgustful internet” and the second the “agreeing disgustful internet that agrees that the McCanns couldn’t do it”.

The third variable, the one that gives the entire thing critical mass is the target audience.

Let us put this quite bluntly: do you think the article was meant to sway your opinion? Obviously it wasn’t.

The article was meant to sway government’s opinion, that’s evident. But why then go public with an article? To use the general public to pressure the government into swaying its opinion.

And the public they are seeking is the one they know can influence the government, the ignorant about the Maddie case.

How? If the other side can convince government that archival is what the public not only expects but finds it to be the reasonable thing to do, their job is done.

The message they want to whisper in government’s ear and have government be convinced is this: archive the case and you will see there will be no electoral consequences and much less a public turmoil.

When we said above “look, government, at how we’re telling the public that” that public is not you, us or anyone in the white side of this issue on the internet. They know we know too much and know perfectly well that our loyalty lies with the truth.

Their targets are the ignorant.

Please do not confuse ignorant with stupid. To be ignorant is simply not to have knowledge of a certain subject.

We are all ignorant in so many things others have knowledge of. Ignorance is the chalice we each possess, and which we strive to fill throughout our lives. It’s never full and the thrill of being alive is in filling it.

Stupidity is when one insists on being ignorant. But that is not knowing, that is not wanting to know.

The message of the article is directed at the ignorant about the Maddie case. As we said above, they stay away from it sickened – and/or scared – by the fishy smell that corruption always brings to anything.

We on the internet world may be many but the target audience are many, many more. It’s what is called the public opinion. It’s what really pressures governments.

The government is very much aware that public opinion is aware that the internet plays an important part in the Maddie case. The internet has popped up in the Lisbon trials repeatedly and we keep being called trolls by the Brit media.

So when the other side suggests to the public that the internet agrees Grange should be archived, all that is needed is for the public to fall for that scam.

And here the politeness of the blogger plays an important role.

The blog gets overt publicity from the article, and we hope by now the reader understands why: to make it easily found.

Upon visiting it, one does not find the expected filth and insult but instead polite, respectful and well written texts.

Making him disgusting was just to make him one of us, all of us. In fact, not only makes him that as it increases the respectability of his blog.

In fact, they had to be disgusting with the man to make him convincingly repugnant and that they did mercilessly and had absolutely no qualms in doing it. Little black pawns take heed, don’t say later you haven’t been warned.

Many, many times has the public seen us on the internet being slandered in the media. Those in the general public who do come to the internet after reading that, find the reality to be the exact opposite, that we are polite and respectful. The insults come only from those defending the official version of things and not from those the media calls trolls among other things.

So when the public visits his blog, his politeness and his respectfulness (which before anyone says we’re saying differently, those are characteristics we fully support and encourage on either side of the fence) versus the insults they have read in the articles about him is a discrepancy expected to be found.

Plus, the bigger the insult the more it means the insulted is feared by who insults.

Reading how he is ruthlessly insulted in the articles and realising how polite and respectful he is in the blog makes the ignorant think he really must be feared by those supporting the couple.

That’s why the more repulsive they make him appear to be, the more he is one of us, the more he is indeed all of us.

Whoever reads his polite, respectful and well written texts see that he agrees that Maddie was abducted, that’s the premise with which his posts are written. He agrees and as he represents us all, we all agree.

It will then be reasonable to think that it’s reasonable to say that the abduction indeed happened. The apparent seriousness with which his work seems to be covered makes it seem absolutely plausible.

After all, he is a polite and respectful blogger who has “written thousands of words about the case and pored over maps, photographs and police transcripts”, so he must know.

This then helps to make the public think that the internet users, both polite and sick or decent and indecent, agree on one thing: Maddie was abducted because the parents couldn’t have done it as they had nowhere to hide the body.

Who did it? It can’t be determined.

There will always be some oddballs, conspiracy theorists who will disagree but those are just that, oddballs.

So please, Operation Grange, just close shop, that’s what everyone, at least those minimally reasonable, expects you to do.



10. Salt and infected wound

What the other side has done with this story – and this also really applies to the blogger and his blog throughout time – is really not helping their cause at all.

They have only achieved to rub coarse salt on an already infected wound and that must really hurt.

If Operation Grange could rise up to the ‘Luz Challenge’ they would have done so a long time ago.

In fact, this ghoulish tour thing, or see how internet agrees that the McCanns didn’t do it, has, if anything, made their case much worse with the government.

And that is because this ‘Luz Challenge’ is the exact conundrum Operation Grange has found itself in since it opened and the ONLY reason why it hasn’t formalised an accusation against the McCanns and the other T7.

Operation Grange, like everyone else, cannot explain how a couple disposes “of a child’s body when all you have is foot power and no experience of Luz”.

That means to implicate this couple they must implicate others.

If they don’t implicate the couple they must find a suitable patsy and that is simply impossible as we keep saying time and time again.

To attach themselves in definite terms to a bungled burglary would be a very stupid thing to do as we showed in our “Third Option” post.

We imagine that this whole “ghoul-internet-agrees-McCanns-had-nowhere-to-hide-body” thing really didn’t go down well with the government side of the chess board, and we don’t have to remind that it is the government who is the hand holding the white queen that is poised to move to the square from where she will strike that fatal blow, checkmate.



11. Lying government

And to aggravate things against themselves, what does the other side decide to do next? Unbelievably, they decide to call the government liars.

Yes, we couldn’t believe our eyes either.

Usually, the news about Maddie appears first on one of the Brit tabloids and then is echoed in the others.

We say echoed and not mirrored because as it happens with the sound in an echo, it loses some quality. Same thing happens with the Maddie news in the tabloids, the original usually has the most information and the others a little less.

This time a very interesting thing happened. As we said, the story first appeared in the Mirror and then was echoed in the Sun and in the Daily Mail.

As usual, the information about the tours suffered some erosion in the respective echoed articles with the exception referred to concerning the funding of Operation Grange, which is a subject of the utmost importance as we wrote in our “Follow the money” post.

There was more sound of funding in the echoes than there was in the original story!

To us, this shows clearly how the publication of this story was coordinated between these tabloids.

The Mirror, the original story, hardly touches the subject. It says only:

“While this deluded man ­amuses himself with his outrageous “game” the British investigation into the ­disappearance codenamed Operation Grange has cost at least £12million.”

The Sun picks up the subject but is really comical going about it:

“The search for the girl, who would now be 13, has almost lasted a decade and funding for it to continue is dwindling.

In August the Metropolitan Police confirmed there is still work to be done, but only five more months of funding has been guaranteed by the Home Office.

This means the investigation could end this month.”

In August Operation Grange has funding for 5 more months and for the Sun, 5 months after August means… October.

But it is the Daily Mail that really tries hardest to have Operation Grange closed:

“With the future of the search, which has lasted almost a decade and cost £12million, in doubt Kate and Gerry have reportedly relieved media guru Clarence Mitchell of his duties via email.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed in August that there is still outstanding work to be done in the hunt for Madeleine, but the Home Office was only able to provide five more weeks of guaranteed funding - and the investigation could end as soon as October 5.

Forensic investigations into the disappearance were concluded in August after the final scientific tests carried out three months ago 'didn't take the police forward'.

Met Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe announced in May that the investigation would come to an end after one last line of inquiry was looked into.

At the time, then-Home Secretary Theresa May granted the team £95,000 to keep the investigation going.

Madeleine vanished at the age of three while on holiday with her parents in Portugal in 2007 and, despite a high-profile international hunt, no trace has ever been found.

Hopes were high when the UK investigation into her disappearance was launched in 2011, with Scotland Yard detectives later highlighting a sex offender who had targeted British families with young children staying in villas in the same area where Madeleine was last seen.

However, all routes of investigation have proved fruitless.”

Quite the summary about all the bogus stuff put out there to convince government to archive Grange isn’t it?

In an article having the internet agreeing to close Grange to add to all that.

But note how the Mail contradicts explicitly what was said the government said when it says this “in August (…) the Home Office was only able to provide five more weeks of guaranteed funding - and the investigation could end as soon as October 5”.

On Sep 18, 2016, in the Express article by James Murray and Caroline Wheeler “Madeline McCann: Fresh cash lifeline in search for missing child” says this:

“A Whitehall source had indicated funding would be approved if “compelling evidence that justifies the use of additional taxpayers’ money” was provided by the team.

A spokesman for the Home Office said on Friday: “We have provided the Metropolitan Police with the funding required for Operation Grange to continue until at least the end of this financial year.”

Calling government a liar? Apparently they are.

And where has the government ever announced in August that it only guaranteed 5 more weeks of funding?

Isn’t it  clear from the Express article that the funding is to go up the end of the current fiscal year? Do British journalists need to be educated on what fiscal years are, when they start and when they end?

The Sun says Operation Grange will close at the end of October, the Mail puts a date and says it would have ended by October 5.

Both were obviously putting on pressure on the government, which is understandable in any negotiation pressure. But placing that pressure by calling the other party a liar, is not exactly the best way to go about it. Not only is it ridiculous, it makes the other side angry and very little receptive to agree to whatever may be proposed.

By the way, we noted the silence from the Express about this story.



12. The response

The government’s response was through the Sun’s article of Oct 4, by Brittany Vonow, “Ex-cop who accused McCann’s of faking Maddie’s abduction plans second book slamming Brit cops”

“Goncalo Amaral has almost finished his second book with his first having caused ripples through the missing person's case”

This is inaccurate. Mr Amaral’s second book, “The English Gag”, has already been published. However, as it went unnoticed by the British media, we find the error made by Vonow understandable.

Mr Amaral has said publicly that he intends to publish an English version of the “Truth of the Lie” and we believe he is indeed finishing writing his third book, which is we think is what the Sun article is referring to.

Government showed the other side that one more reason for not archiving is Mr Amaral and his books. The translated version of the first and the publication of the third.

The general public will get to read his version of things and when they do that, it will be very hard to explain why the process was archived. Not even very hard, but impossible.

To the other side’s 'hey, look the internet agrees with archival', government responded with a dry 'oh, do shut up, the dam is about to break'.



13. Conclusion

In a nutshell, the other side has thrown the blogger under the bus in a move that made government feel both very angry (being called a liar) and very frustrated (seeing highlighted how blocked they are about being unable to charge the McCanns without involving others).

Desperation does indeed freeze brains.

We hope readers have understood that we are not giving any sort of importance to the blogger.

He’s just a mere pawn sacrificed by his friends. He was, is and will continue to be unimportant and we couldn’t care less about what he writes. People can go visit his blog and make up their own minds about that.

What we have done was to give importance to the importance the other side has given him. How they used him to tell something to the government. We hope we showed how it all backfired.

And also important, all the other side’s working bees got to see how well covered their back is. NOT.

When the time comes, the more the repulsive the black pieces of the board are made to be, the less attention will be drawn to the hands of who have moved them all along.