Christmas lights

1. Introduction

It’s Christmas time and in the majority of homes a Christmas tree is put up.

It’s indeed called a Christmas trees but it has no connection to Christianity other than the star some homes put on top of it and which is supposed to represent the one that guided the three Wise Men to Bethlehem.

But if one is not religious, one can always put a decorative star on the top and tell the children that it is what guides Santa Claus to their house.

All this to say that this is the time for Christmas tree decorations and lights to be expected.

Decorations and lights that appeal visually in such a way that dazzle and make one forget completely that they do represent something: icicles and snow on the tree branches.

They are not what they represent but they do represent something.

The Christmas tree decorations and lights are something fake representing something true.

Just like Maddie’s 2016 December Media Surge.

No question about it, its absurdity dazzled. A dazzling that impeded all seeing all that it had and was filled with more meaning than the number of presents that can fit in a Christmas stocking.

One just has to look through all the dazzle caused by its Christmas decorations and lights.


2. The surge

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 the Express published an article by Gerard Couzens published “Madeleine McCann LATEST: European trafficking gang snatched missing Maddie - Portugal cops”.

It had the peculiarity of being preceded by the Sun’s article by Mike Sullivan, on the previous day, Dec 4, “Cops given cash to probe ‘important’ new lead that Maddie was snatched by people trafficking gang” and followed by another Sun’s article on the following day, Dec 6, by Gemma Mullin and Gerard Couzens “'WE'RE COMPLETELY IN TUNE': Portuguese cops ‘working closely with British detectives’ after tip Madeleine McCann was snatched by traffickers”.

The 3 make up what we have called the Maddie’s 2016 December Media Surge.

3 days, 3 articles. Christmas things do seem to come in 3. What a brilliant team effort!

If one adds to the lot the article, which is basically an echo of the Express article, from the Metro by Georgia Diebelius on Dec 5 Dec 2016 “Portuguese police refuse to rule out new Madeleine McCann trafficking lead” then one can indeed say that what one watched was a 4 x 100 metres relay in which the baton got detail added to it by each one of the athletes.

First leg, the Sun starts off with ‘people trafficking gang’; second leg, the Express adds ‘it’s a Portuguese lead’; the Metro picks it up for the third leg adding that ‘the Portuguese are really going for it’ and the Sun crosses the finish line with the crowd on their feet under the standing ovation with ‘together, Brits and the Portuguese, will crack down that people trafficking gang that abducted Maddie’!

Some call it nonsense and it indeed appears to be.

But when one uses unicorns and leprechauns in analogies to illustrate truths is one saying one believes that these fairy creatures really exist?

No, one isn’t.

One is just using fake imagery to convey real information.


3. Anger relief

It’s a cinematographic principle to include in a serious movie a comic relief. It lightens up the audience, providing a momentary balance that motivates it to pay better attention to the plot.

In the Maddie case we have anger reliefs.

The audience is exposed to something to make them angry and repeating such exposures over and over again makes the public feel more and more pent up and frustrated.

People are losing patience. Saturation levels are starting to be reached. The simple mention of the McCann name is starting to cause unpleasant physical reactions on people.

The more the McCanns are disliked, the harder it is to protect the secret they represent.

The people trafficking gang in these articles is just another anger relief of this particular film.

Not to be taken seriously in terms of truthfulness, because we are certain it is far from it, but to be taken very seriously in emotional terms. And, from what we have seen, it has been taken very seriously.

To aggravate this, nothing like reminding people how this absurd case has sucked and is sucking up their hard earned tax-payers money in games that insult anyone’s intelligence.

The McCanns are the only people we know that can brag that their country has spent £12 million (by the way, this number has stayed the same for some time, so maybe update it?) on them.

And what for? To chase dragons, cyclops, centaurs and people trafficking gangs among other mythical creatures.

If one adds to that £12 million the millions they had outside Operation Grange, in the Fraudulent Fund and the millions Portugal has spent on them, the McCanns do come across to the common citizen as one humongous and merciless money shredding machine.

In times when pensions and the funding of the NHS are under debate, this heinous expenditure of public money does not sit comfortably with the public, to say the least.

The ‘people trafficking gang’ and the ‘new batch of money’ more than untruths are anger manipulators against the McCanns and quite effective ones.

Decorations to dazzle the public’s eye.

Once that is understood, the real pearls of the articles can be found.


4. Inter-nation tuning

The surge speaks of a supposed perfect tuning between the Portuguese and the British police when it comes to the next steps about Maddie.

The Express article practically contradicts itself on that.

It first says this:

“A senior Lisbon-based PJ officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “Although we are talking from a formal point of view about two different investigations which are independent of each other, the contacts between the two teams are easy and frequent.

“The high-ranking meetings at the PJ HQ in Lisbon, which worked to establish models of co-operation are no longer needed.

“Since the Operation Grange leadership changed, the relationship is easy and fluid and conducted by phone.”

And then says this:

“He [a Faro police source] said: "We maintained regular email correspondence with the team but reached a point where they kept saying 'We are re-evaluating our investigation.'

"As they expressed the need for further questioning, we have been expecting a new rogatory letter, but it never arrived"

“The last letter of request was answered, once we received the remaining requested results.

“That was our task, to answer the letters of request about everything requested and allowed by Portuguese law.

“Now, we have no more contact with the British authorities unless something new is requested, which hasn't happened yet".”

Are Lisbon phones working better than Faro mails?

It doesn’t seem that the Portuguese are working in any way together with Scotland Yard on any line of enquiry much less on a people trafficking gang one.

We very much doubt that any “senior Lisbon-based PJ officer, speaking on condition of anonymity” ever spoke to the Brit tabloids about this.

So what’s the message here?

That Portugal and the UK are in synch about what outcome this case is to have, which it seems has been decided, just taking into account the public voicing of this alleged tuning.

Not on a police level but on a political one, because that’s where the Maddie case has been handled and decided since 2007.

We have said many times before that both the PJ and Scotland Yard are waiting to be told what they are to say they found out.

The other side is simply being informed that on a political level things are well coordinated between the 2 countries, whatever that means.


5. Whitehall

This is not new. We pointed out the stepping in of Whitehall into the case in our post “Follow the money”.

This article is very clear in confirming that: “The Met was said to be taking the development (…) so seriously that leading Whitehall officials were being briefed on its progress.”

With the Maddie case, the UK has brought into criminology a revolutionary concept: a crime is only a crime if there’s money for it to be a crime.

In modern western societies, crime investigation is paid for by money generated by taxation.

Not the investigation of this or that crime but of all and any crime taking place in their sovereign territory.

Crimes happen when they happen and certainly do not stand in line waiting to happen only when there’s available police for them.

And when they do happen they are investigated by people who are paid by society to do just that. Said investigation only finishes when said people determine, professionally, that it is finished because it’s either solved or because it’s worthless to continue pursuing it.

Never, ever because there’s a shortage of social funds to continue.

Except in the UK.

There, it seems, a crime is only investigated if there’s money to investigate it. Fascinating country.

Plus, and respecting the separation of powers, governments of modern western societies shouldn’t be able to intervene in any way in any criminal investigation.

Except in the UK.

There, it seems, police have to update government on a criminal investigation. That means it is the government that is overseeing this investigation and not the country’s police or even its justice system.

Please note that it’s the  “leading Whitehall officials” and not just any Whitehall officials who are being briefed.

Outside Idi Amin’s Uganda and other similar regimes, it’s the first time we’re seeing the government of a nation be so directly involved in a criminal investigation.

But, however thwarted in principle it is, this confirmation that it is Whitehall controlling things does represent excellent news, for us seeking justice for what happened to Maddie.

The reader just has to ask him or herself: why would Whitehall impose on itself this responsibility if the outcome was archival?

Does Whitehall want to pass the image that it’s made up of people easily conned out of public funds by Scotland Yard?

Archival would make it appear to be so as just 3 months ago they were briefed and convinced by them that this final push was worthwhile paying for.

For us, this Whitehall commitment tells us that things are not heading for archival.

The other options? Truth or Third Option.


6. Annulment of the Third Option

We have explained it in our “Third Option” post. It basically validates the bungled burglary theory.

The article clearly says that the PJ considers that bungled burglary is ridiculous:

“The PJ made no secret of their rejection of the theory championed by former Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood about Madeleine being kidnapped from her Algarve holiday flat by a gang of thieves during a bungled burglary.

Before (…), it was thought the botched burglary claims formed the final line of inquiry.

(…)

“In July 2014 four Portuguese men faced a barrage of more than 250 questions while being questioned as arguidos or formal suspects in interviews conducted at Scotland Yard’s request.

They included the question: “Did you kill Madeleine?”

All four men denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

They were quizzed after British detectives honed in on the theory Madeleine, three when she disappeared on May 3, 2007 from her holiday apartment in Praia da Luz as her parents ate tapas nearby, may have killed during a bungled break-in and her body buried on waste ground nearby.

(…)

Portuguese police privately dismissed the botched burglary theory and indicated at the time they believed Madeleine had been snatched by a foreigner no longer in Portugal…

(…)

The arguido status of the four men questioned in July 2014 was lifted under Portuguese law when the rogatory letter relating to the questioning was returned.”

When one reads the above, one may be tempted to think that the bungled burglary has been abandoned.

Not exactly although we do come to that conclusion in the end.

Factually, the above only means a shift from a burglary gone wrong and ending up in accidental death to a snatching targeting Maddie which, we suppose, ends up in the accidental death as well.

In practical terms, stopping calling it a bungled burglary to call it a bungled snatching. All other elements of the theory would remain intact.

It’s the ridiculousness of it all that makes it null.

If the botched burglary would be extremely hard to pull off – we don’t say it would be impossible because nothing is when it’s the stupid deciding – then the trafficking snatching gone wrong just piles on it very significant difficulties.

We are not even going to go into how the gang would have to have photographed Maddie on the beach, send the picture to whomever deciding, get the green light to target her specifically, do all the recce work to find out where she and her family were staying, find out she was part of a bigger group taking into account the only activity in which the entire group took part together was the gruesome walk to the Millenium on the first night, realising that her parents and friends abandoned her every night in the apartment and to study and understand the “checking routine” to work around it, what we would like to know is why on earth would child traffickers take with them a dead girl?

And why on earth would they take the dead girl when they had, literally, a live one at an arm’s distance?

Plus, why would they wait inside the apartment for 45 minutes (from 21:15 to 22:00) in order to allow the development of cadaverine in detectable quantities – which we know takes much longer but are pampering to the only way the Third Option could be tried – with that same dead body?

If the Third Option in its bungled burglary version is ludicrous as we showed then in our post, in its bungled snatching one it goes into profound and unknown territories of ridiculousness.

The article crosses out completely the bungled burglary version of the Third Option and it has become void due to the ridiculousness of the alternative option.

Please note that this conclusion comes after an attentive reading. The general public will read what is written in the article and conclude very quickly that the bungled burglary is history and as the people trafficking is so transparently far-fetched that the entire things is just… words fail.

But was it only anger relief that was the objective here? We think not. We think the idea was to make it really clear that the botched burglary is indeed history.

By putting an end to that story, the July 2014 arguidos are once and for all taken out of that picture.

But, and this is very important as we will later see, out of that and only that story of the bungled burglary.

If the only link any of them had with this case was this absurd accusation, which we think is the case of the homeless boy and that of the drug addict, then they are completely off the Maddie case.

What about the others, Malinka and the driver?

Well, the same applies to them if they are only linked to the case because of the burglary.

If they are linked to it for other reasons, nothing takes them out of the picture. Quite the contrary, there’s something that places them well in it.


7. Subtle message

That something is a very subtle message that is supposed to be noticed only by those with a guilty conscience.

It’s subtle but very important as it starts to show exactly in what direction things seem to be going.

We will transcribe the passages from the article where that message is:

“In July 2014 four Portuguese men faced a barrage of more than 250 questions while being questioned as arguidos or formal suspects in interviews conducted at Scotland Yard’s request.

They included the question: “Did you kill Madeleine?”

All four men denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

They were quizzed after British detectives honed in on the theory Madeleine, three when she disappeared on May 3, 2007 from her holiday apartment in Praia da Luz as her parents ate tapas nearby, may have killed during a bungled break-in and her body buried on waste ground nearby.

Eleven witnesses including several Brits were questioned in December 2014 at the same police station in Faro.

Portuguese police privately dismissed the botched burglary theory and indicated at the time they believed Madeleine had been snatched by a foreigner no longer in Portugal, although they didn’t rule out the involvement of Euclides Monteiro, a former worker at the Ocean Club where the McCanns stayed.

(…)

The arguido status of the four men questioned in July 2014 was lifted under Portuguese law when the rogatory letter relating to the questioning was returned.”

Did the reader capture the message?

If not, it’s a good sign. It means the reader is not burdened by a heavy conscience.

Hopefully we hope the huge emphasis put on how the 4 July arguidos were cleared of the burglary accusation was noticed.

After all, of the 7 paragraphs transcribed the July 4 or the botched burglary are mentioned in 6 of them!

Who wrote this really wanted to convey the idea that these 4 men were no longer arguidos of any burglary involving Maddie.

And who gets mentioned in the only paragraph they are not? The December 11.

Nothing similar as to what has been said about the July 4 is said about the December 11. Nothing is said that they are no longer anything.

If the trafficking gang is a new lead, which it’s supposed to be, then shouldn’t the efforts made by SY involving these 11 people also be discarded? Certainly they were not asked about this gang then.

Whatever drew suspicions on the July 4 is now to be discarded, shouldn’t the same reasoning be applied to the December 11?

No, the July 4 are exempted from the burglary (and only the burglary) but nothing is said that the December 11 have stopped being of interest to the case.

Or, to be precise, they continue to be.

Of the December 11 people, we remember the Murat and the Hill couples and Sílvia Baptista. We spoke of this group and the importance of the December 2014 questionings in our “2015” post.


8. Person of interest

But the article contains other Interesting messages. All very worrying to the other side.

One is that a certain person of interest continues to be of interest.

If, the Portuguese were enthusiastically pursuing the trafficking gang lead, why mention Euclides Monteiro twice?

“The Operation Grange team, now led by DCI Nicola Wall, is in regular contact with the Madeleine McCann review team based in Porto which got the case reopened in Portugal in October 2013 after linking convicted burglar Euclides Monteiro who died in a tractor accident in 2009 to the British child’s disappearance.”

And:

“Portuguese police privately dismissed the botched burglary theory and indicated at the time they believed Madeleine had been snatched by a foreigner no longer in Portugal, although they didn’t rule out the involvement of Euclides Monteiro, a former worker at the Ocean Club where the McCanns stayed.”

Note, as we said, that in the article it was carefully shown that the July arguidos were no longer arguidos but it links Monteiro to the case very clearly and, in our opinion very clearly, nowhere takes him out of it.

It’s very clear in saying that it was because of him the case was opened in Portugal and is also quite clear that his involvement is far from having been ruled out.

Loads of clarity.

We explained in our “Person of Interest” post what we think was Euclides Monteiro’s involvement in this case and that is that we think he may have been asked to help and hide the body after it was taken out of Murat’s property when the authorities suspended the searches just before dawn of May 4.


9. DNA

But the crucial words that the other side dreaded to read were these:

“A spokesman for Portugal’s Attorney General’s office confirmed today the first of the six letters was returned on November 26, 2014 after being completed.

The remaining five were returned between January 12 last year and October 25 this year, when the final one which is thought to have contained the results of DNA tests from Portugal’s Police Scientific Laboratory, was sent back to the British authorities.”

Unless INML is as permeable as FSS proved to be, and we are certain it isn’t, this really is not good news for the other side.

Nothing determined independently about DNA on this case is good for the other side. And we’re not seeing INML compromising their reputation and independence to do anyone any favours.

For the other side DNA is like sunlight, garlic, crucifixes and wooden stakes put together are to vampires.

Reading “confirmed” together with “results of DNA tests from Portugal’s Police Scientific Laboratory” must have drained the blood out of many, we are certain.


10. Hyenas

Following the surge but not a part of it but rather as a consequence, on Dec 6, the Daily Star publishes the article by Jerry Lawton “Investigator who exposed Jimmy Savile questions theory traffickers snatched Maddie McCann”

The Daily Star, Jerry Lawton and Mark Williams-Thomas make up quite a pro-McCann trio. One that we will abstain to qualify with any adjectives because we’re unable to do so without being crude.

And why have they come together? To ridicule the people trafficking gang theory, of all things!

One could think that it was the response from the other side but a quick look at the content quickly shows that it isn’t.

Mark Williams-Thomas asks not a question but THE question that blasphemes the McCann sanctity, the question everyone has asked since 2007 but no one has even tried to ask directly to the couple and which is why if someone went in to abduct a young British female toddler, why didn’t they take Amelie instead?

And the Daily Star in an article by Jerry Lawton validates it!

Mark Wiiliams-Thomas tweeted this at 01:32 on Dec 6:

“How many cases exist of traffickers breaking into house & abducting a 3yr old from their bed whilst leaving another younger female child ?”

On that same day, James Lawton publishes this:

“Mark Williams-Thomas suggested if traffickers had broken into the McCanns' Portuguese holiday apartment in 2007 instead of abducting Madeleine they would have probably taken her sister Amelie sleeping just feet away.

Skeptics have pointed out the younger child was only two and would have been easier to abduct, lighter to carry and smaller to conceal.

They claim she would have had poorer speech skills than her sister – who was then nearly four – and in time would have been less likely to be able to recall her ordeal or true family.”

Note that he speaks of Mark Williams-Thomas’s tweet – Lawton must have been awake late that Dec 5 night – but gives the opinion of skeptics.

It’s not only Mark Williams-Thomas that says it but many others.

And for the other side to defend itself by ridiculing the only hope they can cling to, the people trafficking gang – which basically was what the McCanns claimed from Day 1 – would be more than ridiculous, it would be utterly suicidal.

Without that gang, without the burglary then there are only 2 options left, archival and truth, and one of them seems that Whitehall is not very much interested in.

The other side HAS to defend the gang thesis.

But The Daily Star, Jerry Lawton and Mark Williams-Thomas not only don’t but make the effort to ridicule it.

This is just hyenas reacting to blood they’re smelling.

And that’s what makes this Daily Star article so important: it shows that there’s blood out there to be smelled.


11. The timings

Another particularity in this surge is that it’s like it’s the Sun’s articles buffering the Express article on either side of time, the before and the after.

Like if the intention was to capture the public’s attention (and anger) with the Sun’s articles and in-between the rain drops make the point with the Express and Metro.

If the reader hasn’t noticed, in this post we have only quoted from the Express article.

But there’s another sequence we think people should pay attention to and that is linked as to the reasons why this surge happened when it did.

We very much doubt that it was because it was linked to the forthcoming Supreme Court decision on the McCann appeal.

We say this because if there was indeed that link, it would be safer for Whitehall to wait for it and then act than to do it in anticipation, expecting it coming in the next following days.

Experience has shown, since October 2013 when the trial began, that the Portuguese Justice System has exasperatingly foiled time and time again any possible planning.

If it doesn’t come before Dec 15, then it will only come next year. That happening it would empty out the purpose of this surge, in case that was the intention, which we don’t think it is.

It can’t be to generate Christmas sympathy for the McCanns as it has generated the exact opposite.

It can’t be to generate funds for the McCanns for because it shows clearly to the public that the nation has already spent far too much of their money on this farce. Besides, the article doesn’t ask, suggest or even hint for donations.

Also, if one is to remember, the McCanns are not “allowed” to make any more money as of this summer as we explained in our post “Follow the money”.

Not being because of the trial decision, of generating sympathy or money for the couple, why this surge?

We think there’s a reason and it’s called Ben Needham.


Remember us noting the McCann awkward silence about Ben Needham? It has never broken, has it?

Now please try to recollect that since September, Ben Needham dominated the news. Absolutely nothing about Maddie.

On October 17, as we have repeatedly pointed out, South Yorkshire police stated in very clear terms that Ben Needham died in an accident near the farmhouse.

It was then said that they had up until the end of November for it to conclude the investigation.

November has passed and no conclusions from the South Yorkshire police on what seemed to be a straight-forward and fully understood case.

When the December Maddie Media Surge began, on Dec 4, the FindBenNeedham FB page published the following:

“All it takes is ONE person, ONE phone call , ONE anonymous tip sent to South Yorkshire Police. PLEASE help us find Ben and end this horrific torment now. 25 years is too long to hold this secret. WE WONT GIVE UP OR GO AWAY.”

Who has ever implied the Needham family was giving up?

Most importantly, who is it they feel wants them to go away?

All in caps.

Making such a fuss about the McCann case now seems to us to be to distract us from the Ben Needham’s case, distract us from the absence of conclusions from the South Yorkshire police.

If the case is not mentioned again, the general public will retain that it was the digger driver who accidentally killed Ben and the case, in their mind, is closed.

With this surge they caught the attention of the general public on the subject of missing children, shifting it from Ben to Maddie.

In the process they took the opportunity and informed the other side that a certain number of people continued to be of interest to the case, that untainted DNA results had been handed over and that things are well coordinated between the UK and Portugal.

As we have been saying, we think the conclusion of Ben’s case is closely linked with Maddie’s and it’s not a surge of news that will distract us from that.

Speaking exclusively within the Maddie game context, we won’t be surprised if  “ignoring” Ben is an option taken by those deciding.

But we would like it to make it very clear that when all is done about Maddie, if it ever is, Ben deserves as much justice as she does.

We will be here with the same determination to contribute to that.


12. Conclusion

December Maddie Media Surge cannot be linked to the other side.

It’s not of their doing as it really goes against them.

When the hyenas smell blood they get all excited and their excitement can be felt.

We know it’s not very “Christmassy” to speak about hyenas but when we must, we must.

The hyenas are starting start to appear and their laughter can be heard loudly so near they are.

However, we would recommend some hyenas to watch Disney’s Lion King and watch attentively what happened to the hyenas that collaborated with uncle Scar in that film.

And lest there be doubt, we evidently are not only talking about the hyenas mentioned in this post.

To all our readers we wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2017.