Fat-shaming

Image from  here, used as said

1. Introduction

The biggest challenge to this week’s post was to come up with a title.

First, let’s just say that we were finally going to start our Praia da Luz posts but we were pushed by events and had to delay that once again. Our apologies. Just hoping that when we do get to do them, time won’t make memory more diffuse than it should.

It wasn’t watching Michael Fallon fall that caused that delay as in that we saw nothing surprising. As we said last week we was simply a distracting victim, an attention magnet.

Nor was it the reading Andrea Leadson’s outburst in being responsible for Michael Fallon’s fall, because that just made us smile, as we will show later.

And it also wasn’t any of the happenings with various politicians directly and evidently related with the sex pest list sleaze scandal. That was expected.

The event that made us delay was the Daily Mail article about Woman-in-Purple.

On understanding it, we saw we had to write a post about it. Problem was giving it a name.

We thought about calling it “Skeleton Games” as a representation of what we saw as both sides of the board using what they thought to be the others’ skeletons in the closet in some kind of a game of “your skeleton is bigger than mine”.

But then on reading that article with the attention it should be read, we realised it wasn’t about the outing any skeletons as the ones being thrown about were the ones within the sex pest list scandal.

We realised that the article, although directly related Maddie was inset in a game with a much wider scope, or better said, layers.

The image is similar to that of a chess championship.

There are many boards where the game of chess is being played and in each the objective is to win. But the objective of each team, which means that of the collective, is to win most of those games and win the match, the championship.

The Woman-in-Purple article, was the Maddie game, or one of the many boards, being played inside the political game of the sex pest list championship.

So, we thought of calling the post “The layers of the game” to show how the different layers of the sex pest list game were being played.

But this blog is about the Maddie case and the Daily Mail article gave us precious information about the current status of the case that we thought we should keep the focus on that.

Thus, the title “fat-shaming”.

The only bad thing about it is that it might lead our readers to think that we have run out of imagination in using the word shaming again after having called last week’s post “Sex-shaming”.

It hasn’t, and we hope to make our readers understand why we thought this title to be the most apt.


2. The, errmmmm… victim?

Let’s start at the beginning, which was on Tuesday Oct 31 2017 when we got to know that Michael Fallon apologised to for touching the knee of journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer.

“Theresa May believes her defence secretary was right to apologise for repeatedly touching a journalist’s knee during a dinner, but is not triggering an investigation into the incident, according to her official spokesman” said the article in the Guardian that day by Anushka Asthana “Michael Fallon right to apologise for hand-on-knee incident, says PM”.

In the last paragraph of this article this was said: “The prime minister’s spokesman was also asked about the publication of a redacted list outlining allegations against Tory MPs that is circulating widely at Westminster. He would not be drawn on particular names on the list, saying: “I’m not getting involved in speculation about individuals.””

So we now know that by that Tuesday the sex pest list had been given the green light to be leaked and was circulating.

As we showed last week, that Tuesday it was already possible to see it on the internet. Both censored and uncensored.

The link to Twitter provided by Anonymous at 1 Nov 2017, 20:21:00, in his/her unpublished comment shows that at least by 17:38 a partially censored list was circulating in the social media. The link showed the list as we showed as List A last week.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We’re still at the point that Michael Fallon apologised to the journalist.

The journalist in question Julia Hartley-Brewer, downplayed completely the hand on the knee incident in the Sun article which she wrote and was published on Wednesday Nov 01 2017, 00:28, updated Nov 02 00:28 “JULIA HARTLEY-BREWER: Westminster isn’t full of sex pests, it’s so much duller than that”.

We never thought we would live to see the day the Sun would downplay an alleged sexual scandal, and one at Westminster at that, but it seems we have.

We feel that we should transcribe here fully this article.

One written by an alleged victim of a sexual assault that brought down the UK’s defense secretary during the critical period in which the UK is going through because of the Brexit process.

“IT’S not every day you wake up to find your own knee featured on the front page of Britain’s biggest selling newspaper.

And it’s not every day you’re the lead TV news item because Defence Secretary Michael Fallon touched that knee 15 years ago and you threatened to punch him.

But after what some Westminster wags have laughably dubbed “Kneegate”, we are now in the middle of a witch-hunt that seeks to bring down any politician who can be tarred with a claim of sexual misdemeanour.

The hunt for Westminster sex pests was launched in the wake of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein sex scandal.

If money, power and sex always go hand in clammy hand, then where else will we find more sleazy sex pests? Westminster was the obvious answer.

Now pointing the finger of sexual misdemeanour at Westminster has become a blood sport, an opportunity to settle old scores and make political capital.

Rumours now abound about any and every MP — including senior Cabinet ministers — who has ever dared to share a drink and a joke with a female colleague or journalist.

Some of the allegations, involving MPs of all parties, are serious and deserve to be investigated at the highest level.

But the list of potential Westminster sex pests also includes the names of MPs who are having consensual affairs with their secretaries and even a minister guilty of the crime of sending his female researcher out to pick up his lunch

Anyone reading the stories about Westminster sleaze might be forgiven for thinking the corridors of power are full of sex-crazed men running after scantily clad young women to the sound of the Benny Hill theme tune.

As someone who has worked in and around Westminster for almost 20 years, I can assure you it’s much duller in real life.

Does Westminster have a problem with men sexually harassing women? Yes. Is it on a major scale? No. Is it any worse than any other workplace? I doubt it.

In any workplace where men and women work long hours together, where business and socialising are mixed, and where alcohol is freely available, you’re going to find blurred lines.

This is absurd. We are now in the ridiculous situation where any woman can point the finger of blame at any man and anyone who dares to question her is instantly accused of “victim shaming” or, worse, being a “rape apologist”.

No one should ever have to put up with sexual harassment of any kind. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.

Attempts to paint every man as a potential sex assaulter and every woman as a victim just don’t ring true.

Do we really want to work in offices so dull and sterile you can’t compliment someone or even touch their hand without written permission signed in triplicate and an independent witness? I don’t.

By all means, let’s tackle harassment in Westminster, but let’s remember not every male MP is a sex pest, far from it, and not every woman is a victim.

Indeed, when we turn every mild indiscretion, clumsy pass or drunken remark into a crime, that does nothing to help the genuine victims of sexual harassment.

So before we continue with this witch-hunt, I would advise everyone to Get A Grip — just as long as they don’t grip my knee, of course.”

She makes the point about consensual activities. And even posts a picture in the article of her knees showing how unharmed they were:

We agree with her that there are things that are serious and then there are those that really are. The human animal is a sexual being and there will always be sexual tensions wherever people gather.

Sexual harassment in the situations where there is a balance of power between 2 people starts when one makes the other person start to feel discomfort.

There are obvious situations in which one incurs in sexual harassment right from the start but there are others where the limits aren’t that clear. In these, they must be made clear, that’s what warnings are for.

If the aggressor persists then it is harassment. If s/he stops then the whole incident should be considered as a failed attempt of seduction.

What we don’t agree with her is that because she was in a position to handle it and not beholden in any way to Fallon, that other people in subservient positions to politicians can do the same.

In situations where there’s no balance of power between the parties, if one is a lowly researcher, if one threatens to punch a minister in the face, one would lose one’s job.

Personally, we would be prepared to do both but we can’t speak for everyone.

Reading Julia Hartley-Brewer’s article she certainly doesn’t consider herself a victim and even considers it resolved years ago. But yet, it was what made the secretary of defense resign.

Premonitory are these words from her: “Pointing the finger of sexual misdemeanour at Westminster has become a blood sport, an opportunity to settle old scores and make political capital.”


3. Fallon’s discrepant accusations

As we said last week’s post, we don’t like to name names:

“We are fully aware that the list can be searched and seen on social media but we refuse to collaborate with sex-shaming people, even if they have engaged in criminal activity as some are accused in the list to have.

We prefer to trust in the legitimate authorities to pursue those who are accountable, without exceptions.

The reader may call us naïve and maybe we are, but as we are very wary of how uncontrollable vigilantism can easily become, we prefer to limit ourselves to being the ‘couch-journalists’ we assume to be and let such sensitive matters be dealt with qualified professionals.”

We even censored last week the names of the few politicians outed in List B, as we thought inappropriate for them to have been cherry-picked while others on that same list remained anonymous.

However, some of these qualified journalists from the Sun decided not only to reveal the names as they went as far as to detail further the accusations of some of the politicians on the list.

This happened in the article of that tabloid by Patrick Knox and Richard Wheatstone, published Nov 8 2017, 09:00, updated at 09:10, “PEST-MINSTER: What is the MPs sex scandal, who’s been named in the Tory dossier and what are the accusations?”.

We find it baffling for it to be said that it was first published on Nov 8, as we found the link to this article it on the internet on Nov 01 at 11:24 and we don’t know for how long it had been online by then . Has someone in the Sun invented a time machine?

Before we go through all the names which the Sun details their accusations we would like to focus for now only on Michael Fallon, as a follow-up what we have been talking about, which is the hand on the knee apology and the dismissal of any seriousness in the wrongdoing by the alleged victim, Julia Hartley-Brewer.

For some reason, the Sun decided to out and detail the accusations of 11 of the 40 politicians. This is what it had to say about Michael Fallon:

“Michael Fallon resigned as Defence Secretary after admitting that he got “handsy” when he inappropriately touched the knee of journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer. Married father-of-two Mr Fallon admitted to The Sun he had touched Julia — but insisted he apologised over the incident 15 years ago and that both considered the matter closed. Julia said she did not feel like she was a victim of a sexual assault, and found the incident nothing more than “mildly amusing”.”

It absolutely agrees with all we have been above. So why did we want to focus on Michael Fallon?

Because of all of the above has absolutely nothing to do with what Michael Fallon is accused of in the sex-pest list.

In it, Michael Fallon is politician #9:

List A accuses him of “odd sexual penchants and sexual with fellow MP (censored) a drunk.”

List B says that he’s “Accused of odd sexual penchants.”

And the list published in the Sun, the same paper AND article that accuses him with all the detailed above, has him only accused of “odd sexual penchants (censored)”

So, did Michael Fallon resign over putting a hand on a journalist’s knee 15 years ago and so nothing to do with the sex pest list or was it because of unspecified odd sexual penchants as per mentioned in that list?

Why the discrepancy between the reason reported for his resignation and what he’s indeed accused of in the sex pest list?

If it’s for both, then why weren’t his alleged “odd sexual penchants” ever mentioned?


4. Details v List

Let’s now look at the detailed accusations of the other 10 outed and like we did with Michael Fallon, compare that with what they’re accused of in the sex-pest list:

a. “Brexit minister Mark Garnier admitted calling his secretary "sugar t*ts" and taking her to buy him vibrators in Soho. Caroline Edmonson said Mr Garnier stood outside the shop and sent her in to buy sex aides for his wife and a member of his constituency staff. He did not deny the claims but told the Mail on Sunday the incidents were taken out of context. He was reported to the Cabinet Office which launched an investigation.”

Mark Garnier is politician #7:

List A: “Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked (censored) to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry”

List B: “Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked PA to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry”

The Sun List says “Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked PA to buy sex toys”

There’s conformity between lists and the Sun details. 

b. “Former cabinet minister Stephen Crabb sent sexually explicit messages to a 19-year-old woman who applied to work in his Commons office. The 44-year-old husband and devout Christian admitted saying some “pretty outrageous things” after the interview. Mr Crabb had previously been caught sending messages to a woman around half his age describing a sex act he would like to perform on her.”

Stephen Crabb is politician #4:

List A: “Sexual relations with (censored) and inappropriate with women”

List B: “Accused of 'inappropriate' relations with women. Previously resigned over sexting”

The Sun List says “(censored) and inappropriate with women”

In the Sun detailing of the accusation, there’s no mention of him having sexual relations with anyone which is one of the accusations made in the sex-pest list.

In the detailed accusation one cannot read anything about being “inappropriate with women”. We interpret the expression of being “inappropriate with women” as describing situations involving direct contact, or an attempted one between aggressor and victim.

In this particular instance, it seems to have been a case of sending inappropriate sexting, which in the list would be written as “inappropriate sexting”.

The difference? “Inappropriate sexting” leaves a physical trail while “inappropriate with women” doesn’t and relies, unfortunately, on the credibility that is given to the victim.

Sexting or “sending messages”, unless done after being told not to, is not illegal. Both women mentioned are not minors.

Also, “saying some “pretty outrageous things” after the interview” may show an unpleasant trait of a person but it’s not illegal.

However, the detailing does imply that Stephen Crabb exercised sexual blackmail when it says that it was to a job applicant that he texted and said those things after interview but then the accusation should have been clear and say “sexual blackmail on a job applicant” and it doesn’t.

In conclusion, there are significant discrepancies between what is detailed and the lists. 

c. “Deputy PM Damian Green was accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a woman 30 years his junior. Kate Maltby, a Tory activist and academic, said he had made a pass on her in a bar - and flirted with her over text. He denied the allegations, saying: "It is absolutely and completely untrue that I've ever made any sexual advances on Ms Maltby." He also denied having signed up to extra-marital affair website Ashley Madison. The 61-year-old was also rocked by a fresh scandal after it was claimed police found "extreme" pornography on his computer when they raided his Parliamentary office.”

Damian Green is politician #1:

List A: “Ashley Madison - handsy at parties”

List B: “Ashley Madison. Refers to 2015 claim that he was member of adultery website. He denied this”

The Sun List says “Ashley Madison (censored)”

The detailing refers to him having “made a pass on her in a bar”. That can hardly be considered being “handsy at parties” which is what is mentioned in the list.

The detailing mentions of “extreme pornography” on his computer. Is that a crime? No, at the worst it’s a disciplinary infraction.

Looking and/or downloading pornography is not illegal, even if it’s extreme – we are supposing this extremism falls within the limits of the law otherwise the word illegal should have been used.

What he’s being accused of is of possible breach of Westminster computer use policy.

Note, only possible as it all depends on what is the policy in Westminster about distributed computers and if they can be used for personal matters, for example, sending and receiving personal mails.

And if allowed to be used for personal issues, if that policy states that ‘pornography surfing’ is prohibited. This has nothing to do with curtailing individual lewdness (as, if policy allows for computers to be used for personal purposes, time can be considered equally wasted on viewing pornography as in using personal Facebook) but for security reasons because pornographic sites are more susceptible to be infested with computer viruses.

This means that the computer pornography issue around Damian Green’s computer is a purely internal disciplinary matter and it shouldn’t be news.

Him looking and downloading pornography is his personal business. Him doing that and breaching a policy is a Westminster internal issue. And to those thinking that a politician using a distributed computer to look at pornography is a matter of public interest, then the accusation should be clear that it is about him breaching a policy when doing that and not because he has looked at it.

It must be said that the pornography allegedly found was after a raid looking for security breaching – a valid reason for an MPs computer to be searched – and of which no evidence was found.

So, there’s a huge discrepancy between the details that mentions only the Ashley Madison thing and what was mentioned in the sex pest list on this politician. 

d. “Home Secretary Amber Rudd was on the list as having a “workplace relationship with Kwasi Kwarteng”, another Tory MP. She is not accused of any misconduct.”

Amber Rudd is politician #39:

List A: “Workplace relationship with (censored)”

List B: “Workplace relationship with (our censoring). PPS to the Chancellor. Widely reported”

She is not mentioned in the Sun List

So, if she’s not even not on the sex-pest list published by the Sun, why does the tabloid out her and detail her accusation?

And what sort of accusation is she being accused of?

Shouldn’t the phrase they printed that says “she is not accused of any misconduct” be clear enough to them that she shouldn’t even ever have been mentioned in both list and details?

But it must be said that there’s conformity between the details and the lists but one must ask, why is her name even on the sex-pest list? 

e. “Steve Double admitted last year that he had an affair with a 26-year-old researcher who was married to a journalist at his local newspaper. Mr Double, 50, MP for St Austell and Newquay in Cornwall, came clean about his deception and his wife of 30-years Anne, 52, forgave him and took him back.”

Steve Double is politician #33:

List A: “Affair with (censored) who was married (censored)”

List B: “Affair with female researcher who was married to local paper journalist. He confessed to this last year.”

The Sun List says “Affair with female researcher who was married to journalist at his local paper”

Conformity between the details and the lists but one must ask, why is his name even on the sex-pest list? 

f. “MP Justin Tomlinson, 40 was named in the dossier for settling down with his 25-year-old aide Katherine Bennett in 2016 when he was already married.”

Justin Tominson is politician #17:

List A: “Dates his (censored)”

List B: “Dates his researcher Katherine Bennett. Already public, consensual”

The Sun List says “Dates his researcher Katherine Bennett”

Conformity between the details and the lists but one must ask, again why is his name even on the sex-pest list? 

g. “Grant Schapps, the party’s former chairman, was listed because of rumours allegedly spread by his political rivals that he had an affair, which he denies.”

Grant Schapps is politician #36:

List A: “Affair”

List B: “Affair. He blamed allegations of affair earlier this year as a 'vicious smear' campaign. No evidence of affair.”

The Sun List says “Affair”

Conformity between the details and the lists but it’s another one must ask why is his name even on the sex-pest list? 

h. “Mark Menzies, who was also on the list, resigned as a ministerial aide in 2014 following reports he had hired a rent boy.”

Mark Menziers is politician #38:

List A: “Known to have used male prostitutes”

List B: “Known to have used male prostitutes. He quit as ministerial aide over this in 2014”

The Sun List says “Known to have used male prostitutes”

Conformity between the details and the lists but one must ask, but, sigh, one must ask why is his name even on the sex-pest list? 

i. “Minister Jake Berry was included because he “impregnated Boris Johnson’s office manager” Alice Robinson, even though the couple have lived together for some time and do not hide their relationship.”

Jake Berry is politician #16:

List A: “Impregnated (censored)”

List B: “Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.”

The Sun List says “Impregnated (censored) (censored) Office Manager”

Conformity between the details and the lists but one must ask, but, deep, deep sigh, one must ask why is his name even on the sex-pest list?

We would like to note that this is not the only time Boris Johnson’s name appears on this list. He also appears on the left-hand column. 

j. “Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, admitted having an affair with a Tory activist two years ago.”

Robert Halfon is politician #23:

List A: “Inappropriate with female researchers and (censored)”

List B: “Inappropriate with female researchers. Previously reported to of had six-month affair”

The Sun List says “Inappropriate with female researchers and (censored)”

Discrepancy between the detailing, which accuses him of having an affair and the lists that accuse him of being inappropriate with women.


5. What is the sex-pest list about?

So, summing up, of the 11 politicians, in 6 of them, Amber Rudd, Steve Double, Justin Tomlinson, Grant Schapps, Mark Menzies and Jake Berry, there’s indeed conformity between the Sun details and what mentioned in the sex pest list.

But in all of them there a very pertinent and important question must be asked: why are they even on it, if what was mentioned is clearly within the private sector of their lives?

With 4 of those politicians, Michael Fallon, Mark Garnier, Stephen Crabb and Damian Green there are significant discrepancy between the detailing done by the Sun and the sex pest list, so one has to wonder where is the overlap.

And if one takes into account that Michael Fallon is accused of odd sexual penchants and placing a hand on the knee of a woman who explicitly does not consider herself a victim, why is he also on the list when he shouldn’t be?

However he resigned because of this hand-on-knee accusation.

With Robert Halfon there’s a question mark. If one is to trust the accusation made in the detailing then he shouldn’t even be on the list as all he’s accused of is of having an affair.

But if the accusation on the sex pest list is true then he deserves to be outed as the accusation is of him being “inappropriate with female researchers”.

If this is the case, then together with Mark Garnier (inappropriate behaviour) and Damian Green (inappropriate behaviour) he deserved to be outed. Please add Stephen Crabb if the sexual blackmailing is true.

But a question has to linger on after reading all this detailing by the Sun and that is why the names and details of these 11 politicians were outed while not naming others who are on the list and are accused of inappropriate behaviour towards opposite gender as well as others who made silence agreements, and in doing so have admitted guilt?

There are those of higher and those of lesser political importance than of those named, so why did they escape the public sex-shaming?

Also, it’s quite clear that the sex-pest list had nothing to do with the reasons given for Michael Fallon’s resignation.

It’s also quite clear by the examples shown that the sex-pest list is far from complete in accusations.

The Sun has shown that at least for some politicians there is more dirt than what was expressed in the list.

Then, the number circulated is of 36 politicians being mentioned when there are 40. Can’t people simply count?

But the ultimate question that REALLY has to asked is: if the accusations on it aren’t being used for anything then what was the sex pest list for, what was it all about?

We have given our opinion about what we think about it in our last post. Basically, because sex-shaming is such an effective and powerful tool, it was used to put in place those who someone thought they needed to be ‘disciplined’.

We would like to make one last note on this subject.

Soon, if not already, the public will have forgotten the names of the politicians named in the sex-pest list.

However, we ask our readers how long it will take for their constituents to forget that they read the name of their elected representative and respective accusation? A long time and to some it might even cost them their re-election.

And how long will their friends, their neighbours and neighbourhood acquaintances, their fellow parishioners, their children’s school staff let this go?

We would say never but we can’t speak for everyone.


6. Very high-level game

Evidently, the sex pest list wasn’t complete in either names or accusations, just the required of both to be efficient in reaching the objectives proposed.

We will let our readers come to their own conclusions about whether we were right or not in taking into account all that has been going on since the list surfaced.

We will just add 2 more inputs to this “sleazy” equation.

The first is the article by the Independent by Sean O’Grady, published Nov 3 2017 “How the Westminster sexual harassment scandal could stop Brexit” in which the threat of by-elections, something we think the Tory party seems to be wanting to avoid, is clearly made:

“It’s all a matter of timing, but the by-elections which could be forced by sleazy politicians standing down could end the dream of leaving the European Union”

Or, in other words, someone is saying to others to behave and to not protest too much or s/he’ll just pick up an axe and make an irreparable hole in the bottom of the ship and let it sink.

Which ship we’re talking about, we let our readers decide.

The second is the article on Sky News by Alan McGuinness, published Nov 06 2017, “PM pledges to create 'new culture of respect' amid Westminster sex scandal” in which Theresa May basically says about this sex pest list, now that things are under control, let’s continue things as if nothing happened, although it will be very clear to all those the message was destined for that they know it happened.

We would like the readers to notice how many sex-pest related news have appeared since that article. Not many, if  any and that is telling.

Please don’t count Carl Sargeant’s the tragic death as he was not part of the sex-pest list. May he rest in peace and our condolences to his family.

Let there be no doubt that the sex pest list was a move played at the UK’s highest political level.

The adversaries of those who leaked this list, reacted by trying to call for themselves the ownership of the list.

This was made through the Daily Mail article by Jason Groves, Jack Doyle And John Stevens For the Daily Mail (oh, what a surprising coincidence…) and Alexander Robertson For Mailonline, published Nov 02 2017 at 22:13 and updated on Nov 03 2017 at 10:58 “I was victim of Fallon's vile sexism, says minister: Andrea Leadsom is revealed as secret accuser who brought down the Defence Secretary”

By “owning” the list the opposition tried take away the initiative from whomever kick-started this snowball.

The response to this was swift and precise.

It came in a BBC article, by unknown author, published Nov 03 2017 “Andrea Leadsom did not call for Fallon's sacking says No 10”

Note, it’s Nº10 saying so. Need we say more?

We don’t but we will.

It’s someone clearly saying to someone else that if they seem to be thinking s/he is playing games then it’s best they know that, and s/he is being crystal clear about it, s/he’s not.

And it’s in this context and timeframe in this very high level political game that the Bulgarian Woman-in-Purple appears on the scene.


7. Woman-in-Purple and the high level political game

Only now, after so many words, are we staring to deal with the central character of this post.

The reason is that it was important for us to let our readers truly understand the context and the importance of this Woman-in-Purple and why she has resurfaced.

Going back to the chess championship analogy – and let’s call one side Team List and the other Team Pest – it seems quite clearly that Team Pest is losing the championship on all boards.

Woman-in-Purple shows that Team Pest have conceded and given up fighting on all boards but one: the Maddie case.

It’s in this one they are still willing to put up a fight. Or better said, a sort of fight, as we’ll see.

To be absolutely correct the only board they have decided to act on.

With what? The Woman-in-Purple.

Hopefully now the reader understands that this move is taken from a position of weakness.

But please never confuse a position of weakness for weakness itself, they usually mean the opposite.

Weakness means one is incapable of acting, that one is resigned to one’s fate while being in a position of weakness usually involves desperation and that desperation makes one act.

In a position of weakness, one acts in one of 2 ways: fierceness or pleading. They are not mutually exclusive.

Fierceness happens when one has nothing to lose, and is willing to sell one’s defeat. It may follow unsuccessful pleading.

Pleading happens when one still thinks one is able to argument oneself into survival, so it usually involves a great deal of begging.

Like when in nature 2 males fight for leadership of a pack, ending up with one of them cowering and putting himself in a vulnerable position pleading for clemency.

By doing this he avoids a fatal blow but most importantly, gets him permission to continue to be part of the pack in a subordinate position.

It’s up to the winner to decide what to do confronted with his opponent’s cowering position.

Killing him may only generate fear and not respect within the pack while allowing him to live may earn that respect which will legitimise the fear they have of him.

Killing the threat will do away with it.

Allowing it to live is a risk between having the advantage of having his victory permanently visible to all thorough his opponent’s continued subjugated presence and having that threat returning when it feels powerful enough to again challenge the leadership.

We see, as we will show, the Woman-in-Purple is the other side begging, a move within the high political level being played. A cowering position.

We say this because when there is news about Maddie there’s always a reason. The only thing happening when the Woman-in-purple resurfaced was the sex-pest list.

Looking attentively at what has been said about the Bulgarian woman, this is not just someone bringing a ridiculous suspect to distract but a very serious and substantiated proposal to the government on a possible way to archive the case.


8. Money-shaming or not money-shaming?

The Woman-in-Purple resurfaced with the Daily Mail (need we say anything?) article by Neil Tweedie, published Nov 03 2017 at 22:05, updated Nov 4 2017 08:27 “The TWO vital Maddie questions: Why didn't the Met quiz the McCanns again and who was the woman in purple?”

There it is said that:

“Their [Operation Grange]  budget had been due to run out in September, but officers are understood to have used the ‘woman in purple’ line of investigation to persuade the Home Office — which is financing the inquiry from central government funds — to grant a six-month extension.

The £154,000 agreed will allow inquiries to continue until March, taking the total spent on Operation Grange near to £12 million.

Given that Mrs Murat (whose son Robert was arrested as a suspect two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, but cleared of any involvement) raised the alarm about the woman on the morning after the alleged abduction, it must be asked why it has taken ten years for attention to focus on this suspect? Equally pertinent, perhaps, is the question: why is the British taxpayer being asked to finance Operation Grange further when all other leads have come to dispiriting dead-ends?”

All points towards the other side money-shaming the government on blowing away tax-payers money on something clearly absurd.

And that would be so, if the rest of the article would be conform with this.

But then it would make the Woman-in-Purple lead a ridiculous one, a ludicrous one. It’s clear that the article makes it the opposite, it shows the government how the Bulgarian lead is a very logical and reasonable, and above all substantiated, lead to follow.

Why is it so? Because it is in the PJ Files – via the absolutely unfamiliar to all Jennifer Conroy and very familiar to all Jez Wilkins – and it has the help of Jenny Murat, whose son supposedly has only bad things to say about the McCanns, to make her very real.

We will explain all this later but for now we want to highlight that we think the above paragraph about the money Operation Grange has and is spending, rather than being the other side rubbing in the face of the government the waste of funds, it’s instead making a desperate plea as if to say “look, even the money is another reason of why you should archive case, people are complaining more and more that the government is wasting money so stupidly on Maddie!”

Or, to understand fully the context, the pleading to have case archived was made up of the Woman-in-Purple as she’s a credible reason to do so and the pointing out that the money question is also a valid reason to do it as well.

Anyone who pleads, outside sheer stupidity certainly doesn’t try to shame the people being begged.

Also, and to confirm that this a plead rather than a shaming, it was already tried without success when funding was given to Operation Grange for the second semester of the 2017/2018 fiscal year.

When it comes to the Maddie case, the government has shown to be completely immune to money-shaming.

This is a plea and he who pleads is desperate.


9. The November Woman-in-Purple

We have already done a post in May this year about the Woman-in-Purple, in a post with that same title.

Then, we showed how Jenny Murat first says she saw Woman-in-Purple on the way to the supermarket and then says it was when she left the supermarket on the way home.

A contradiction very much repeated by her in the same account with the near-accident she claimed then to have had, first that it was on arrival at the supermarket and then it was when she was turning into the driveway on the way home.

The sighting of the Woman-in-Purple by Jenny Murat has, a legal term and we think it’s drivel. However, it may be twaddle. Must check with someone who understands the law but we think that we are not far off from being correct. If not legal terminology then they are the best words to describe it.

By the way, we would really like to know from where did Neil Tweedie of the Daily Mail get that “Mrs Murat (whose son Robert was arrested as a suspect two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, but cleared of any involvement) raised the alarm about the woman on the morning after the alleged abduction”.

It’s not on the PJ Files and in our post in May we said that we found strangely odd for Mrs Murat not to have mentioned to the PJ the fact she saw a suspicious woman the evening Maddie disappeared (about whom she alleges to have made notes about) but finds it more important to refer to the sound of an ambulance in the distance.

By the way, Robert Murat was never arrested. He was named an arguido. If one doesn’t know what one is talking about, then one should not be writing about it, should one?

We think the legal term for what Neil Tweedie has done is quite clear: to lie. To say that Robert Murat was arrested when he wasn’t, makes Jenny Murat an anti-McCann, so a reliable witness.

In that post we concluded that “It’s evident that a significant effort has been made, especially recently, to dissociate Jane Tanner from the Woman-in-Purple, to downplay the importance of the character” and that “the Woman-in-Purple frightens the other side”.

We maintain what we said. About the May Woman-in-Purple. The one made up by Kandohla on her the Sun article of May 1 2017, “MADDIE MYSTERY WOMAN, Madeleine McCann cops ‘hunting mysterious Woman-in-Purple seen loitering near Portuguese apartment just TWO hours before three-year-old went missing’”.

Now we have the November Woman-in-Purple.

Only this one is not invented – well, the bits from Jenny Murat’s invention are still there – but is one stitched together from the PJ Files by Neil Tweedie. Or supposedly by him.

What are the main differences between the May Woman-in-Purple and the November Woman-in-Purple? One word mentioned in the article, Bulgaria, and one person not mentioned in it, Jennifer Conroy.

And those 2 things makes them completely different in purpose, even though Jane Tanner, Jez Wilkins and Jenny Murat continue to be the main characters of the story, as we’ll show.


10. The Bulgarian connection

So, to be very clear, in May the purpose of the Woman-in-Purple was to make sure that no one confused her with Jane Tanner.

The objective of inventing her was to make it perfectly clear that as Jane Tanner was supposed to be at Tapas, then the woman dressed in purple who Jez Wilkins says he saw couldn’t possibly be her but someone else who happened to also have been seen by Jenny Murat.

So, the bigger the differences between Woman-in-Purple and Jane Tanner the better. A distinction between them had to be made.

That’s why Jenny Murat speaks of seeing a “slight” woman as we said in our May post:

“Jenny’s description of the Woman-in-Purple varies from 2009 where she’s described as “slim” but in 2015 she tells James Murray that “I don’t remember much of her other than she was of SLIGHT build and was wearing a plum coloured jacket. She moved around the lamp post as if trying not to be noticed.” (our caps)

“Slight”, which is not the same as slim. Slight implies both small in stature and build, which is not a good description of Jane, in our opinion.

In that 2015 Express article:

“Jenny Murat, 78, the mother of wrongly accused Robert Murat, has potentially breakthrough evidence but no one has spoken to her. At 8pm on May 3, 2007, she went to a supermarket and then drove past apartment and saw a woman hanging around. Her notes from the time [oddly not included or mentioned in PJ interview] say: “There was a woman standing on the corner under a lamppost.

I don’t remember much of her other than she was of SLIGHT build and was wearing a plum-coloured jacket. She moved around the lamppost as if trying not to be noticed [she would need to be slight to hide behind a lamppost!]”

But with the introduction of Bulgaria, what is now being pursued is to have Woman-in-Purple look as much as Jane Tanner as possible and that is main and relevant difference between the May and the November Woman-in-Purple.

In May, not look like Jane Tanner, in November look like her as much as possible.

So, in fact we shouldn’t be saying it was the resurfacing of the Woman-in-Purple but of a new Woman-in-Purple or a Woman-in-Purple 2.0.

Why is what we hope to explain.


11. Varna Airport

The key to unravel this is a piece of handwritten paper that for some reason was not translated (we’re not accusing anyone of anything just finding it genuinely a curious coincidence) while about what was behind it an attempt was made to transcribe it.

It’s page 1242 of Apensos 5, Vol 6 of the PJ Files:

The handwritten paper, which happens to be page 1241 of that volume (which has been mentioned as missing from the files), says:

“Polícia Inglesa 07/08/23

Jennifer Conroy já informou as autoridades de ter visto Madeleine no Aeroporto de Varna, na Bulgária, no dia 25/05/2007. Depois de ter lido a edição do jornal Daily Express do dia 22/08/2007, contendo as fotos de Russel O’Brien e Jane Tanner, Jennifer Conroy diz q eram estas as pessoas com quem viu Madeleine no dia 25/05/2007.”

Which translates into:

“English Police 07/08/23 [Aug 23 2007]

Jennifer Conroy has already informed authorities of having seen Madeleine at Varna Airport, Bulgaria, on 25/05/2007. After reading the Daily Express issue of 22/08/2007, containing the photos of Russel O'Brien and Jane Tanner, Jennifer Conroy says that these were the people she saw Madeleine with on 25/05/2007”

And this, dear reader is where Bulgaria comes into the Maddie case.

And before the reader asks us who Jennifer Conroy is, we haven’t the faintest idea.

This was the first time we saw her name.


12. Reverse MIB

First of all, we don’t think we have to point out the coincidence (NOT) of having a sighting made by a Brit in a far-away place.

One thing the Maddie case has taught us is that only the Brits were able at the time to mistake young blonde girls for Maddie all over the world.

Secondly, we may have to rethink what people say when people want to highlight the utter ridiculousness of it all and end up saying “well, maybe Maddie has been taken by aliens”.

Because this Bulgarian episode shows that there may be have been some alien meddling in the case.

Everyone who as seen the movie Men in Black (MIB) remembers the neuralyzer. That instrument that Wikipedia says it’s a “a device about the size of an average cigar tube that gives a bright flash which erases the memories of the past hours, days, weeks, months or years, depending on the chosen settings.”

We seem to have some evidence that a reverse-neuralyser, some sort of device that brings back the memories of the past hours, days, weeks, months or years, depending on the chosen settings which must have been used in the Maddie case around Aug 20 2007.

First we had Mrs Fenn who around this time remembers something she should have told authorities immediately after Maddie disappeared but only decided to do it then (even though she adamantly denies ever doing so to the media at the time).

Now we have a woman, who recognises Maddie with a couple on May 25 2007, at the height of the Maddie hysteria, but only remembers to report this sighting to authorities on Aug 23 2007. Go figure.

We think the PJ should contact MIB HQ to find out which of their agents was in Praia da Luz at that time.

And we do wish we could find that reverse-neuralyser so we could use it on many who populate the case so we could make them remember the shame they have absolutely lost with the Maddie case, although we suspect that in some cases they never had any to lose.

Returning to seriousness, what would make her remember that couple and child so vividly, even if prompted by the pictures of Jane and Russel (let’s just pretend for a minute)?

Either then she thought the toddler was strikingly similar to Maddie and she should have then reported the incident to the nearest authorities immediately or then the child in question didn’t really catch her attention and so neither would the couple.

No one would say, oh, that child looks like Maddie but I’m not sure, so let me memorise what the adults who are with her look like just in case one day will be important for me to remember.


13. Joining up the dots

What is relevant to be noticed in this episode is the supposed striking similarity between a woman allegedly seen with Maddie in Bulgaria with Jane Tanner.

This was made with the same purpose others also have had in finding excuses in case they were seen outside in Praia da Luz around the time Maddie is supposed to have disappeared.

We have had Neil Berry and Raj Balu coming up with the excuse they had to walk to the reception and back to find out how a practically self-assembling cot was assembled; we have had Jez Wilkins saying he pushed his child in a baby-carriage around for over an hour in chilly Praia da Luz and we have even had Jane Tanner describing Gerry McCann almost to a tee (we would say only the hair was different), when he was indeed taking Maddie’s body to Murat’s property, thus Tannerman, just in case someone saw him from a window, a balcony or a parking lot nearby.

Unfortunately for all of the above, no one saw them as Praia da Luz at that time was really dead, like Mr Amaral says in his book (even though the Ocean Club alone had an average of 360 people there a day, as per their doctored booking sheets), so by coming up with these excuses they only showed they had something to hide and so giving the game away.

The only person who really needed an excuse, it seems, was Jane Tanner as she was the only one seen by someone else, Jez Wilkins, when she shouldn’t have been.

She needs an excuse because it’s not enough to say she was checking on the children for two reasons, first because when a person does that the person walks there and back very objectively and is not seen loitering about when, for example, she was making her phone call to Charlotte Gorrod (Batchelor in PJ Files - maiden name), and secondly because her checking-trip has already been “spent” on seeing Jez Wilkins talking to Gerry on his way back home when he states that he sees the Woman-in-Purple earlier, when he started his alleged walk around Luz with his child.

But where we must focus on is that the Bulgarian woman mentioned by Jennifer Conroy is strikingly similar to Jane Tanner. To the point of easy confusion.

And this allows to make the Bulgarian woman lead a logical and a reasonable one.

The idea is to have Jez Wilkins leaving his apartment and really seeing a woman dressed in purple, who he THINKS is Jane Tanner – and the Varna airport story shows that’s a natural mistake to make – but is instead a woman strikingly similar to her, her doppelganger, who has also been seen loitering around about the same time by Jenny Murat and was seen days later in Bulgaria with Maddie by an independent witness.

Jez Wilkins and Jenny Murat being the “Two witnesses reported seeing the "woman in purple" staring at the holiday flat Maddie, then three, went missing from in 2007” reported in the Daily Star article by by Douglas Patient, published Nov 5 2017, “Maddie McCann NEW LEAD: Detectives searching for Brit girl hunt 'convicted paedo's widow'”

Can the reader now see how credible the Bulgarian lead can be made out to be?


14. Fat-shaming

It matters not that in May, according to Kandohla, the police knew exactly who Woman-in-Purple was, now what is really important is to make sure that Woman-in-Purple is linked to Jane Tanner as much as possible, as it’s the only way for both be confused with each other, and so make both the Murat’s and Wilkins’ Woman-in-Purple sightings to be Tanner doppelganger ones credible.

And how is that being done? By fat-shaming Jane Tanner.

The poor woman, who has already been publicly humiliated in the 2009 Mockumentary to the point of tears is now fat-shamed.

What a collection of prizes she has gathered just because she went out of her way to help the hoax that night.

Rachael Manpilly and Fiona Payne were quite wise to keep themselves in the shadow. They stayed at Tapas and since then out of any spotlight.

We would say that after Gerry and Kate she must be the most well-known person of the T9. Even more than David Payne.

So, to make the Bulgarian story stick, they have gone and decided to insult Jane Tanner. No one likes to be called fat but Tanner’s happiness is not exactly relevant when one is playing high-level political stakes.

Just another episode of someone finding out that walking with the lions does not make one a lion but only lion food.

How happy Jane Tanner must now be feeling for having decided to volunteer to help more than the other T6 that night.


15. Wobbly and fat

The generosity of the volume supposedly characteristic of the Woman-in-Purple’s body appeared on the Daily Star article by Jerry Lawton, published Nov 6 2017, “Madeleine McCann 'snatched by wobbly fat woman and is still alive', psychic claims”

“MADELEINE McCann is still alive after being snatched by a “wobbly fat” woman child trafficker, claims a psychic.”

The psychic being “Mum-of-three Margaret, from Long Bennington, Notts, told the Daily Star she has been haunted by “visions” involving Madeleine since she disappeared from the Algarve.”

Margaret Carne is from Grantham, which isn’t in Nottinghamshire - it’s Lincolnshire.

Immediately people dismissed this article as absolutely ridiculous.

And indeed it is but we will come back to this ridiculousness later, now we want to highlight something about this psychic we doubt most people know and which makes her appearance slightly less ridiculous.

She made her appearance in the case, not noted by many, in the Foyer Magazine on Dec 8 2014, in article with her name as the title:

In it she does name some names:

“In May 2007, shortly after 8pm on a Friday evening, I received a telephone call. The person on the other end of the phone introduced himself as Sergeant Gary Watts of Leicester Police Crime Unit. He was working on the Madeleine McCann case. He explained that I had been highly recommended by a senior officer, the head West Midlands Police. He asked me about my thoughts on Madeleine’s disappearance, I said I thought Madeleine had been taken by a female Portuguese cleaner, who was fat and muscular.

(…)

I rang him a few days later about a drawing I had done of the woman…

(…)

After some time had passed, Inspector Mick Graham form the Leicester Police got in touch with me to explain he was my new point of contact as Gary Watts was on another case (…) Later in 2008, I had a call from Jose, an involved member of the Portuguese police on this case, who asked me about the woman I had drawn (…) At a later date Mick Graham confirmed he was with Jose when he made the call”

Why on earth would Chief Constable of another police area advise him to consult a psychic whose main claim to fame, according to her, was locating lost dogs?

Did the reader notice how she feels comfortable to name with precision the British officers while the Portuguese PJ officer is only said to be a very convenient and vague Jose.

Jose being, together with Pedro, one of the most common Portuguese first names for men.

It has the same veracity as someone saying that one received a call from John, an involved member of the British police.

To refer that she also says that “some time had passed without contact so I decided to get in touch with Edward Smethurst, Brian Kennedy’s in-house lawyer and the McCann’s lawyer for their funding committee as appointed by Brian Kennedy himself”

Not only does she feel comfortable in taking the initiative of contacting Edward Smethurst as he agrees to meet with her in Lancashire together with 2 of his colleagues.

She also says that then she contacted Brian Kennedy and “as Brian was out of the country, I ultimately met with his project manager Morris Dentith, who also has had considerable involvement on the case.”

Quite a well-connected psychic, we would say, so not just an odd quack who Lawton pulled out of some obscure hat as the title of the Daily Star may suggest to be and about which people have sneered about.

She then continues in the Foyer “we were unable to proceed with the matter due to the investigations being undertaken by the Metropolitan police”.

Then she identifies the “Portuguese cleaner, who was fat and muscular”:

“By this time [which we are supposing was little after Operation Grange was launched, in May 2011], the drawing I sketched had taken shape because approximately 18 months afterwards [which would be around December 2012/January 2013], a picture of a suspect was printed in the newspaper, which bore a very strong resemblance to my drawing. Moreover she was a Portuguese cleaner and witnesses identified her as having been seen nearby during and after Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Immediately one must ask, if she said on that Friday of May 2007 to Sergeant Watts that she suspected of a “Portuguese cleaner, who was fat and muscular” why does she only discover it was a cleaner in the time period around December 2012/January 2013 because of “a picture of a suspect was printed in the newspaper”?

We must say that it did fascinate us how, upon receiving a surprise call from a British policeman, that on that same call she was able to dream that it was a “Portuguese cleaner, who was fat and muscular” who had taken Maddie. Powerful psychic stuff, that!

So much so that she even surprised herself when she was surprised 5 and half years later that the cleaner she said was a cleaner was indeed a cleaner!

Also, please note that, as we noted when quoting her, that she sees the “picture of a suspect [which] was printed in the newspaper” after the investigations were undertaken by undertaken by the Metropolitan police” 


16. The fat and muscular suspect

Inset the Foyer article there’s both a picture of what we are supposing to be that the “suspect [whose picture] was printed in the newspaper” and one of what we are supposing to be “the drawing I [Margaret Carne] sketched”:

The woman Margaret Carne mentions is called Ivone Albino:

Her picture appeared in the Daily Mail article by Arthur Martin, published March 04 2010, “'I'm convinced the little girl I saw was Madeleine McCann': The riddle of Maddie and 'the fat gipsy women'”

Right up front someone should tell Margaret Carne that she must edit her story. The picture of Ivone Albino appeared in the papers before Operation Grange was launched and not the other way around as she claims.

About the cleaner, the article says:

“The McCanns’ investigators believe the red-haired woman was Yvone Albino, a cleaner from Silves. Another witness, Jeni Weinberger, from Salisbury, Wiltshire, said she saw a woman resembling Mrs Albino outside the McCanns’ apartment in May 2007.

Mrs Albino, who has two grown-up sons, met teacher Jorge Martins and his partner Maria Silveira at their house in the orange grove.

David Edgar, a private investigator working for the McCanns, described their movements as ‘suspicious’.”

Ivone Albino (and not Yvone – she’s from a generation in which the letters, K, W and Y were not part of the Portuguese alphabet as they were considered to be ‘foreign letters’ and so no one could have a name with them in it) is indeed a Portuguese cleaner from Silves.

The blog “Portugal Newswatch” in its post “Maddie sightings and media madness”, published Dec 21 2010, sets all the facts straight about how Ivone Albino saw herself being mercilessly dragged into the case by the British, like many other defenseless people who have suffered the same fate:

“Ivone Albino, a Portuguese woman who makes her living as a part-time house cleaner,was shattered to learn in April this year that newspapers in the UK were running sensational stories directly linking her with the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann three years earlier. She was the latest victim in a tidal wave of misinformation and false “sightings” that began soon after Madeleine's disappearance from a holiday apartment in the village of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Mrs Albino's name was buried in a “secret” 2,000-page dossier containing information about Madeleine “sightings” that had been brought to the attention of the Portuguese criminal investigation police, the Polícia Judiciária. The existence of the dossier emerged after it was referred to by a police witness during a Lisbon court hearing considering the ban on a book by the former lead detective in the Madeleine case, Gonçalo Amaral.

(…)

The Carvoeiro witness described the first of the two women as “obese, size 30, in her mid to late 40s, with “dirty and unkempt” red hair. The other woman was around 60, with unwashed brown hair, and even fatter. The witness claimed that when the women realised she was looking at them, they hid the little girl's face. She recognised Mrs Albino as the red-haired woman with Madeleine in Carvoeiro. The second woman was never identified.

(…)

In fact, the Portuguese police did investigate the “sightings” and the “suspicious behaviour”. They questioned all three people and visited the farmhouse. They soon concluded there was no reason to take their inquiries further. Any reasonably intelligent Portuguese-speaking person who had spent a few minutes talking with Mrs Albino about the matter would have come to the same conclusion. This did not stop the British press from rushing into print with a load of baloney.

The truth that didn't make it into the papers is that Mrs Albino regularly drives through Carvoeiro on the way from Silves to a house she services. She never walks in the village with or without children in tow. “I have never held the hand of any child in Carvoeiro, let alone one with a black wig or resembling Madeleine McCann,” she told me. No villager can be found in Carvoeiro who would dispute that. As for Praia da Luz, Mrs Albino said she had never been there. She admitted somewhat sheepishly that she had only a vague idea of where Praia da Luz was located.”

Absolutely disgusting what was done with this woman.

We also debunked all of this in our post “It’s all baloney”, in March 2012.

So why point the finger again at her in December 2014?!!

One just has to go back and read our posts “Haywhimee, Roses and Thorns” (Nov 21, 2014), “The death of a whitewashing” (Nov 28, 2014), “2014 Christmas Break” (Dec 5, 2014) and “2015” (Jan 16 2015) to see that that when this article was published (Dec 8 2014) it was a period of time when 11 people of interest were about to be heard by the PJ under rogatory request of Operation Grange.

Those eleven people of interest, who we called the “Gang of 11”, were:

- Robert Murat;

- Michaela Walczuch, Murat’s wife;

- Luis Antonio, Michaela’s ex-husband;

- Joaquim Marques, a pig-farmer publicly revealed by the Mail online in 25 January 2008 as “the man in the sketch of Madeleine McCann's alleged abductor has been identified as a pig farmer who raped a British tourist in the town where the three-year-old disappeared.”;

- John Hill, manager of Ocean Club

- Donna Hill, manager of Ocean Club

- Silvia Batista, head of maintenance

- Tiago da Silva, maintenance man

- Mario Marreiros – Laundryman of Ocean Clu

- Michael Green, the man whose photofit PJ shows TS to see if he was the man (Pimpleman) she says she saw twice. She says he’s not. His details were withheld at the request of the UK police.

- Mysterious Brit woman heard in UK.

So, we believe that this article in the Foyer magazine, pointing the finger at Maria Julia Silva, was just an attempt to distract the attention away from the ”Gang of 11”.

It was hardly noticed then by anyone and correctly so.

What matters is that someone in December 2017, right in the middle of the sex-pest list sleaze scandal, has decided to bring this article back to life.

Why? Simply because it mentions a ‘fat and muscular’ suspect.

The idea being as we have explained, fat-shame Jane Tanner making as much as possible the association between this body type and her.

The logic being Woman-in-Purple, the suspect, must be fat, Jane Tanner is fat, Jane Tanner is easily confused with Woman-in-Purple, so Woman-in-Purple is a credible suspect.

The making of Jane Tanner fat is a very simple thing to do. As everyone knows that the Woman-in-Purple is Tanner, by saying that the Woman-in-Purple is fat they are saying Jane Tanner is fat.

A subconscious trap in which we all fall.


17. The power of ridiculousness

The reader may say that the ‘Wobbly and Fat’ Daily Star article is absolute tripe and beyond ridiculous.

True.

And may also say that no one in their right mind will believe a word that psychic has to say.

Again, very true.

And now reading the Foyer Magazine ‘Fat and Muscular’ article the reader will even go as far as to say that all is even more balderdash as the cleaner is Portuguese and not even Bulgarian so it brings this utter tripe tumbling down.

Partly true, or most of it, right up to the point of where it’s said that it will bring the tripe tumbling down.

First, the discrepancy between the Portuguese cleaner and the Woman-in-Purple being Bulgarian is something that only now many will have read.

Second, it assumes that the objective of the article was to be credible.

It wasn’t.

Immediately, it’s evident that when one uses a title like “Madeleine McCann 'snatched by wobbly fat woman and is still alive', psychic claims” in which the psychic stands out like a sore thumb one does not expect to be credible.

It’s something without any credibility whatsoever but yet it was brilliantly efficient in achieving its purpose.

If one reads attentively, the association between the Woman-in-Purple and the fat and wobbly is one  made up by the reader and not by the psychic.

With an admirable subtlety, the Woman-in-Purple and the fat and wobbly woman appear to be related but there’s nothing in the article that states that.

The fat and wobbly woman appears in the title only, while inside the Woman-in-Purple is someone the Met is looking for and nothing in the article links them:

“Metropolitan Police are hunting a woman dressed in purple seen lurking outside the McCanns’ Portuguese holiday apartment 90 minutes before then three-year-old Madeleine vanished in 2007

She and her husband – a convicted paedophile who has since died – were working as domestic helpers in the area at the time.

They too had vanished following Madeleine’s disappearance.

Brit detectives have been unable to locate the wife despite extensive searches and reportedly travelled to Bulgaria in a bid to find her as they pursue their £12million investigation.”

Note that according to the article that it is the Woman-in-purple who is a “domestic helper” and not the wobbly and fat one.

The article relies on the internet sleuthing it was known it would happen to find the Foyer Magazine article for the connection “domestic helper” and “cleaner” to be made.

Also something that is done in a very subtle way is that in this article it is not said that the “domestic helper” is Bulgarian, only that the “Brit detectives have been unable to locate the wife despite extensive searches and reportedly travelled to Bulgaria in a bid to find her as they pursue their £12million investigation.”

As these 2 pieces seem to fit so nicely in the puzzle, the Woman-in-Purple became the “domestic helper”, all overlooking that one was Portuguese and the other may be, or probably is Bulgarian.

Those who didn’t overlook it were blinded by the ridiculousness of it all to see its importance.

What happens is that the human mind easily capture insults. The words ‘wobbly’ and ‘fat’ are catchy and easily absorbed by the mind like a sponge into which the rest of what one reads is sucked into.

One laughs, jokes and sneers over the ridiculousness of all but one’s mind captures the words ‘wobbly’ and ‘fat’ and associates them with the Woman-in-Purple.

As we said to our reader Bampots in reply to his/her comment in our last post:

“Textusa 6 Nov 2017, 18:44:00

Bampots,

Never underestimate the power of the ridiculous.

For example, in slapstick comedy, often many get pies in their faces.

Dubiously funny unquestionably not surprising. But some of the cream always drops onto the clothes the "pied" is wearing.

Long after the pie is cleaned off their faces, their clothes continue to carry the stains. Sometimes for a very long time.

So long that people forget they came from something utterly ridiculous and only see the stain, which is real and not ridiculous at all.”

In this case the pie stain was the word FAT.

Everyone now thinks that Woman-in-Purple is fat. And that was the objective from the start. Fully achieved:

Image from here, used as said

Now, by efficiently fat-shaming Jane Tanner, without even having mentioned her name, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the woman Jez Wilkins saw dressed in purple was someone who looked like her just because now we all think of a fat woman when think of the Woman-in-Purple.


18. Conclusion

The other side, from a position of weakness after the sex-pest list sleaze scandal is pleading with the government to archive the Maddie case.

This time by showing it how it can be done credibly as it would be by using what Jez Wilkins and Jennifer Conroy have said and that is in the PJ Files.

All sad, and all pathetic but it is being tried. Desperation makes people do really strange and, yes, desperate, things.

It’s all they have to cling to still save face in the only game board they are still clinging to with desperation.

It’s not even a boat that one could say that it had so many holes in its hull that it will sink the moment it touches water even before its first crew member is able to even step in it.

It’s just a collection of half a dozen of popsicle sticks tied together and above which was hoisted a Union Jack and someone just called it “HMS Please”.

“HMS Please” was by the way, another title we thought of giving to this post.

But as in all other tries (and how tired we are of saying this over and over…) this attempt also doesn’t answer the questions we have put in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box”.

ONLY truth will answer them.

But truth is a reality the other side simply refuses to face so certain it is how shameful will be for certain people to outed as swingers and be sex-shamed as sleazy, perverted or even sick individuals.

To those who are now saying that swinging is legal and bla, bla, bla… as promised, we have only 3 words for you: sex-pest list.