A Question of Myths

(Feb 27th, 2011)

A reader has posted the following comment on the post "A Tad Too Posh?":

“Tex, I often think people 'look' but they do not 'see' what I see is a group of very relaxed people enjoying themselves.  

Absent from this group is Kate and Gerry, why are they absent, it is the end of the holiday when will they have the opportunity to meet these 'friends' again. And thats it....they are NOT bothered they are NOT friends they are just a bunch of people on holiday, the Mccanns are not part of this group and never were, that is why we have the 'pact of silence' and the returning of the mega money from the Express Newspaper to Kate and Gerry from Tapas..none of them are involved with Mccanns, and they do not want to be involved. 

These people, the Tapas crew have been caught up in something not of their making. We need to go back to the start, go over it and then it will be clearer.  

Whatever happened, it was before 3rd that is why Mccanns are absent from Paradiso.”

 Anon,

Thank you for your comment.

Although we do both see a “very relaxed people enjoying themselves”, I must disagree with you, in what you deduce from what you see.

I see just relaxation and you seem to see relaxed perversity beyond words.

To me, they’re just having a cup of tea (or whatever), watching the sea freshly caressing the white beach sand with each wave… whilst to you, they’re just having a cup of tea (or whatever), watching the sea freshly caressing the white beach sand with each wave, but doing all that knowing that some of their friends, or even just acquaintances, have their own kid dead in their arms, at that moment, and less than half a mile away…

I may not be friends with you, but, the fact that I’d be in the knowledge that your had your dead daughter with you, would stop me from any joyous behavior.

If I were to be made up criminal scum, and wanting to cover-up, for whatever sick reason, for a “friend” that was “in trouble” and that that “trouble” was his/hers dead daughter, I may would have engaged in acting out some sort of a “relaxed” scene.

They are either a group of “very relaxed people enjoying themselves” (pardon the repetitive quote), which means that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the life of these people at the time these pictures were taken, or they are group pretending to be very relaxed and enjoying themselves.

You, like me, seem to see the first. But unlike me, go and make deductions based on the latter.

That would basically answer your comment, but you do bring up an interesting subject, which as almost recurrent as the "McCann Negligence Myth", which is the "McCann Outcast Myth".

It seems to be consensual that the McCanns were set apart from the group, yet, there’s absolutely no proof of that.

Another forum/blog myth?

We know for a fact that the McCanns were not in the Paraiso with the remainder of the group at the time of these pictures. However we could let our imagination run wild, and even question THAT fact. Were the McCanns REALLY NOT in Paraíso? The only proof is that they don’t appear in the pictures, but could be around the corner, careful not to be caught up in the CCTV pictures.

Am I being ridiculous? No, according to those that say that these pictures are “play-acting”, then one must assume that ALL actors involved knew “the stage” well, and some may have opted to stay in the “backstage”.

Maybe you didn't consider that. Back to reality.

For me, it’s a FACT that the McCanns were NOT with the group on the late afternoon of May 3rd. Those stills portray genuine relaxation, and the McCanns are not in them.

But that is a single instance, and a single instance doesn’t make a rule.

For me, the fact that Kate would be jogging, as she says she was, and for Gerry to be playing tennis, as he says he was, or playing golf, as he doesn’t say he was, are perfect natural activities and don’t provide any clue that they were outcast from the group,

You do have a lot of other clues that show that this group was far from being a group. Or a cohesive one. Or one that behaved as one would expect such a group to behave if they were “together”.

I’m not saying or implying that they didn’t get along with each other, because, as you know, I think they did, and did REALLY get along VERY WELL with each other…

A group on holiday usually comes together, especially if they’re flying in, this one doesn’t.

On Monday I do believe that Jane and Russ say they did watersports alone, on another occasion that Kate and Gerry say they play tennis without the others of the group, where they were somewhere else, I haven’t checked this totally, but Kate and Gerry also say they went to Sagres, etc…

With the exception of the "Tapas dinners" (which we know didn't exist), show me one activity they all did together.

I know one: the two hour initial tennis lecture followed up by torturous long walk all the way to the Millenium.

So much so, that I would like to start, right here and now, my own "blog myth": that walk was so hard and difficult, that to this day those streets have become haunted, and to this day, there are some locals who swear on their souls that when the moon is full, the “Tapas moans & groans” can be heard in the night's silence…

Back to reality again, any other events where the T9 participated in TOGETHER as a GROUP?

Ah, say you, that PROVES that the McCanns were NOT part of the group.

Then, do tell me what other activities, or activity, besides the Paraíso's May 3rd afternoon, did the remainder T7 participate in, TOGETHER as a GROUP.  

None? That’s about right.

Add that to some unexpected, or even odd behavior from a group who are supposedly connected to each other on a holiday, like each couple being responsible to pick up their own kids.

One would expect, from such friendly relationships, that one adult would suffice to pick up all the “group’s kids”. We’re not pinpointing the McCanns on this one. They acted like all others during the week (or so they all say).

And we won’t get into the check-ONLY-the-McCanns-kids-system at dinner, because we know these checks didn’t exist.

But we do know about some “lonesome” activities from some of these people/couples. Or that they say they did (most of which we don't believe happened, and some we've already proved they didn't).  

Kate’s alleged jogging.  

Fiona’s alleged jogging.  

David going into Kate’s apartment.

According to Carol Tranmer-Fenn's statement, the likelihood of Russell leaving Oldfield’s apartment. Gerry alleged playing tennis.

Russ and Matt's inexistent watersports, allegedly leaving David to do his all alone…

People seem to forget that the McCanns were the “focused on” couple, so you know much more about them then you know about all the others.

 The others basically either confirm the other couple’s activity or justify what they were doing on the afternoon of May 3rd.

We don’t know of any activity these people did together, do we? Even the arrival at the pretence Tapas dinners, is all uncoordinated, and the faked children checking system, after five nights, still requires a lot of oiling up to do, as we still have plates requiring to be reheated…

If you look at the Paraíso CCTV picture, you can see a relaxed group of people, but you can also see that the group comes in “bunches” and not as a whole, as, once again, we would expect from a group enjoying a beach holiday TOGETHER.

They leave also separately as if each one had his/her own agenda, and the common denominator between them was not the group, the beach or the sun.

You may use “united” as adjective to qualify this group AFTER Maddie disappears, but there’s no perception of unity before that. The McCanns were as much part of this group, as all the other T7, as we have NO PROOF otherwise.

To say that the McCanns are total strangers to this group makes inexplicable the solidarity shown in the following hours, days, and months, by those other seven people, an attitude that your comment implies never happened.

If that was the case, why did Fiona Payne rush to Lisbon during the trial, when things went all wrong for the McCanns?

I can’t also see ANY reason for David Payne, using him as example, to take the responsibility for having been the one to organize the holiday if he didn’t know the McCanns from the Smiths.

Nor, for the remainder of the group pictured at Paraiso to say that they had dinner with the McCanns at Tapas.

Yes, their relationship has eroded and they’ve practically broken up, but that is AFTER the events. Do not mix things up.

You might be implying that the people were caught up in something AFTER these pictureswere taken , and that that something happened on the day BEFORE.

What, one has to ask? Were they blackmailed after these pictures?

 But, from the pictures, there’s absolutely no difference between Maddie dying on May 2nd, and these people being blackmailed late evening May 3rd, and Maddie dying on May 3rd, and these people being blackmailed that same late evening, May 3rd.

These pictures, unlike you say, DO NOT prove any timeline, besides the fact that the watersports storyline is false, but that's something you're not questioning.

And if they were being blackmailed, (which would mean that there was a relationship between these people and the McCanns) what did they have to fear?  

Being part of an secret medical experimentation so horrific that would jeopardize national security?

That brings us to another “forum/blog myth” that REALLY needs to be debunked: “The PdL Medical Convention Myth”.

Many have assumed, because the T9 is made up 6 doctors, that there was some sort medical secret meeting taking place during that week.

Or that, being more benign, that the holiday was paid by some medical company and that the whole cover-up would have been to protect this company’s name.

Or maybe a mixture of both of the scenarios.

But the majority of people on the holiday were NOT doctors, certainly not the major players.

We can see only 2 other docs, Julian Totman and Louise Hume,

There may be more, but Carpenter. Edmonds, the Weinbergers, Balu, Berry, Jensens were not.

That makes up a group of 8 doctors.

Less than the tennis group that ALLEGEDLY reserved dinner for Friday, I think.

Maybe it's better just to keep things simple.

A Warning from a Friend (via mail)

Dear Textusa 

I often visit your blog to read the latest information on the mccanns ( I never bother to write their name in capital letters), and this time everything, the whole page, is blocked by someone advertising a domain name, someone sabotaging your page!! 

Hope this returns back to normal soon for your sake and ours! as reading the information often gives one a better picture of the little game these people are playing. 

Kind Regards,

XXXX
 

My comment: My friends, all efforts against this blog are more telling than ALL words we may here ever write.

Update on 28Feb: 

Some readers have reported, offline, that the blog appears as normal as it has always has, and according to them, there's been no hacking to the blog.

The information that confirms what this reader has told us is from the MMF, where, apparently in some people's PC's a frog (apparentky a software program called ICECUP) appears. 

Some have even suggested that we take off any reference to hacking issues in case anyone is put off from posting. 

We trust our readers, we trust on their willingness to find the truth and on their willingness to cooperate with us in our efforts to find it. 

Besides that, Insane has made one of her typical comments, this one too good to let it pass by, so, exceptionally, 

I've published it here.

A Tad too Posh?

When, at the beginning of December last year, I asked to look at the Paraíso CCTV photos again, some called me crazy and many didn’t understand the exercise at the time.

I then, pressured I confess, explained that I wanted you notice two main things: the rather significant space required to be occupied by a large group of people having a meal and the fact that two of the T9 men were spotlessly dry.

Today, I hope that you now see that those pictures are indeed VALUABLE visual aids to understand that two LEGITIMATE and OFFICIAL facts, as stated in the PJ Files and to this day uncontested by the LEGITIMATE authorities, NEVER happened: the Tapas dinners (note the plural form of the word) at Tapas, and the life-risking May 3rd afternoon watersports adventure undertaken by all but one of the T9 men.

By the way, in my opinion, the only one who says that he didn’t play in the water that afternoon, was probably the only one who in reality did, as I bet there are a lot of water obstacles in the Boavista Golf Course, but that is another different story altogether.

Today, I say that there’s a THIRD valuable piece of information that can be withdrawn from the said pictures. As I intend to launch a challenge to you my readers quite soon, I’ll just state here right away what I think it is.

But let me just, before I say what I have to say, tell you what some people see what I don’t see: that the Paraiso CCTV pictures are alibi pictures.

Some have stated that the T9 were intentionally “posing” on the afternoon of May 3rd, to provide some kind alibi to hide the fact that Maddie's death happened before that day.

That, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

One creates a false alibi in order to be seen somewhere AROUND ABOUT THE TIME the possible criminal activity is taking place or has just taken place. That’s the whole idea of an alibi: to be seen at a certain point in time somewhere else but the place where one is NOT to be seen.

So, IF (please note the BIG “if”) these pictures were to PROVE that the T9 were seeking an alibi, then they would PROVE that the crime happened around about the time these pictures were taken, and that would place the time of death late afternoon of May the 3rd.

And if posing for those pictures were to create an alibi for THAT afternoon, May 3rd, why then come up with the whole nonsensical story about the watersports “fun”, which is basically contradicted by those exact same pictures?

If it were me, I would make sure I would appear in them leaving no question that I had just recently come out of the water, preferably in a wetsuit, and would be keeping all possible receipts/bookings that would prove that I had really hired a boat.

But, as we've seen, they just appear in those pictures as if... they are having a late afternoon relaxed snack which I believe is all they were doing.

But a fundamental question one has to ask is whatever for were they creating, if they were, a false alibi?

What was supposed to be going on that required for the group to be seen there at that time?

For example, the watersports storyline was made up to create the illusion that Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield were not where they were that afternoon, or to be more precise, they were not where and when Carol Tranmer-Fenn saw a blonde man exiting the Oldfield’s apartment by the back gate.

Much, much much earlier than the time seen on Paraiso CCTV pictures.

Now, that's one good reason to create an alibi.  

Russ was NOT supposed to be seen exiting THAT apartment THAT afternoon.

Why? There could have been a million innocent reasons for him to be seen where he was seen and doing what he was doing.

But he has what is known as "guilty conscience" which we all have when we know we’ve done something we shouldn’t have been doing.

 Life REALLY is sarcastic.

One one hand David Payne tells the truth because he doesn’t know if he’s been seen, or not, going into, and coming out of, Kate’s apartment, on the other Russell creates a lie because he knows he’s been seen.

David tells the truth “just in case”, Russell lies because he’s left with no choice but to deny as a preemptive tactic.

The Paraíso CCTV pictures represent just exactly what they portray: the last normal moments of the lives of these people.

Soon after these pictures were taken, their lives, and the lives of others, have become a daily living hell, to this day, as we all know.

 But today what I want is for you to look at Fiona Payne’s dress code, on that particular afternoon.

Doesn’t she just stand out from all others who just happen to be, as expected, casually dressed for one afternoon’s stroll by the beachfront?

She even stands out from Dianne Webster’s more conservative choice of clothing. Fiona Payne is dressed far more “poshly” than the remainder of the T party, wouldn't you say?

She seems to be dressed more likely to be going out on a shopping spree rather than to want fill up those skirt  and blouse with bothersome beach sand when she, supposedly, would have frolicked with the kids on the beach.

And just going back a little, to reinforce what was already said, would one “posh” oneself up for an alibi?

Maybe she had an “appointment” to go to later? No, please don’t say that she went jogging at around 7 pm that day.

We all know that whatever plans these people had for that evening/night were washed away.

So that particular urge to “run” at that particular moment was certainly triggered by something which was not the maintenance, or improvement, of body tonacity.

Or, maybe, most likely, she had come from an “appointment”? Much like the same way the watersports crowd had just come from theirs when they were pictured. I’ll, as I always like to do, let you THINK about it.

Update on Feb26th:

 One commentator at the MMF, has placed a photo sayimg "Fiona was wearing the same outfit on May 5th" This is the photo:
 
The difference in definition between this photo and the one's at Paraíso's makes me agree that the outfit is the same.

It only lacks the jacket, but the weather must have been warmer when this one was taken, in comparison with the temperature it must have been when all those people were having so much fun in the water.

But do look at Kate and Gerry, or the kids, for that matter. Are they poshly dressed? No. But are they dressed for the beach? For some fun in the sand? To get their feet wet, and clothes full of that grainy stuff? No.

They all look to be dressed for business "in-land". When I say, and maintain, that Fiona Payne is "too-poshly" dressed at the Paraiso CCTV pictures, I'm obviously making a statement in comparison with the natural beach-wear casual clothes the others WERE wearing, and that ANYONE would be wearing if one wanted to go INTO the beach.

Because if I was comparing that particular Fiona's outfit with what Kate wore in the 1000 day celebration, than I would have say that she was had very little dressing taste and that she was far, far from being posh.

The context is precise.

 Both Dianne and Fiona, on the CCTV pictures, are NOT dressed for what they say later they were doing around the time those pictures were taken.

Pleasuring Posh People

As a reader has so rightfully commented on this blog’s previous post, “sometimes, fortunately, fortune and fate do play their tricks”.

That said, EXACTLY after THAT post in which we said that we wouldn’t any longer publicize here newspapers' agendas, we see ourselves quoting The Guardian.

If that isn’t fate enjoying our sense of humor and we enjoying hers, then we don’t know what is.

In our defense, we did safeguard the fact that we would quote whenever we thought necessary to prove our point, and on Feb 18th, The Guardian decided to give us a hand.

A precious one at that, and the word “precious” here is being used with in its utmost expensive and posh meaning, obviously.

You see, the paper has been running a story on how Pontin's rescuer Alex Langsam plans to bring Disney-style resorts to Britain
 

You know Pontins so we won’t dwell on it.

What caught our attention was Alex Langsam's interview, which you can read here.

Now the fascinating bit:

“Pontins has annual sales of around £40m but Britannia will seek to increase its occupancy during the off-peak months. 

Quick wins for Britannia will be to boost occupancy by reinstating chalets that are out of use simply because they need repairs. "Number one we will go in and fix whatever we need to fix," he says. "In Scarborough [with the Grand] we started out with a plan to spend £13m, but ended up spending £15m. We have earmarked £25m but invariably will end up spending more on Pontins." 

The camps already cater for all-comers, hosting clairvoyant weekends and the "mardi gras of the north" at Southport.  

Langsam rattles off a list of special events organised by birdwatchers, chess players – and there had even been a swingers event. What? The dancers? "No, the sex bit," he admits. "You've got to get away from the idea that Pontins is for working-class people and [the camps] are downmarket. The reality is that all sorts of different things go on”

Sorry, too much information all at once, so let us break it down in a nice a simple way:  

“…will seek to increase its occupancy during the OFF-PEAK months” 

“…and there had even been a SWINGERS event.” 

“What? The dancers? "No, the SEX bit," he admits.” 

"You've got to get AWAY FROM THE IDEA that Pontins IS FOR WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE and [the camps] are downmarket.” 

“The reality is that all sorts of different things go on”

So, swinging isn't for the underclasses then!

It seems to be organized for upper and upper middle class people, certainly NOT for working-class people, at holiday venues, doesn’t it?

And on off-peak season too…

I suppose it does makes a change from knobbly knee and glamorous granny competitions!

Does it, by mere chance or coincidence, remind you of anything similar?

Blogeditorial Decision on the "Maddie McCann Case"

We, the Bronte-Cohen Sisters, have decided that as of today, this blog will NOT publicise here, or be distracted by, the lies repeatedly told by the various UK Tabloids.

We may, however, quote them, whenever we think adequate to do so, in order to help prove what really happened to Maddie McCann.

Nights of the Round Table

by Sina J When I go out to dinner with 8 friends, those who it could be said are ‘so into each other’ we would not want our evening meal to be rushed by super efficient restaurant staff.

I just wonder why the Tapas restaurant would want rush a party of 9, having between them 27 plates of food, or 28 or more, if we read further, and ?? bottles of wine.

We are not told by the waiters that T9 warned them they were in a hurry to eat and leave so it is reasonable to think that this group of people were hoping for a leisurely meal with nice wine and lots of conversation and the waiters anticipating to be in attendance to satisfy their needs.

We have an indication to the contrary for rushing, as on the Quiz Night, the T9 participated enthusiastically and even invited the hostess, Ms Najoua to the table.

And about the Quiz Night, we can see the start of the revealing of very peculiar relationship of the T9 in linking time with reality. Jane Tanner says a round of the quiz lasted a COUPLE of minutes!

In my experience the quiz is usually done in 2 rounds each lasting quite a while. Teams swap their answer papers with the table next to them to mark after each round.

But besides the Quiz Night participation, we also have the late times given by Tapas and OC Staff about the late returning to the apartments by the T9 on the previous nights, so, it seems certain that they were in no hurry to go back to bed during that whole week. They neither pressured, or felt pressured to hurry through the "Tapas dinners".

Waiters rely on tips and would be so attentive to their diners’ wishes to ensure they received the best service, not the speediest service, so having more opportunity to earn tips.

Maybe the waiter would get commission for offering the best wine on the menu, not the house plonk? Would the Tapas restaurant really make much profit if they gave away a free bottle of wine to every customer each evening as Jeronimo Salcedas says “The wine was included in the dinner at the Tapas and the functionaries were very generous.”?

Tiago Barreiros says “That the payment for alcohol, not included in the vacation package, was paid by service card. This payment was made by random members of the group of 9”.

So not free after all?

Oh dear, will Jeronimo now be in trouble for giving away the wine? Or will Tiago be in trouble for “making up” stories about random payments of free goods? The wine either is free, or it isn’t.

T9 arrive at the restaurant at their leisure, although the table was booked for 20.30. They could be’ fashionably late’ as there were no demands on their time after their children were asleep in bed, their supervision was organised whether by a checking system or electronic monitors were used.

No other diners would be arriving after this group so the restaurant would not need to use their table again later.

The restaurant may well be quite empty by the time the T9 group were eating so it’s surprising they didn’t notice the other few diners in there. The Sperreys were booked in for 21.00 so would have arrived at the same time as the Paynes and Dianne Webster. Which couple were Kate and Gerry talking to who had finished their meal and drinking coffee? Was it the Coxs or the Patells? No, according to Gerry it was the Carpenters? What is strange is that two of the diners, the Irwins on the booking form, seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth and the other diners don’t mention the big, noisy, restless group seated at the BIG ROUND TABLE.

I was doing a mental exercise about having 9 people at a BIG ROUND table. Of course round is the best shape so everyone can talk to each other but T9 don't seem to have the same ability to share conversations as Matthew Oldfield’s communication to Gerry McCann on doing a room check for him was not acknowledged.

Although Gerry asked him to check according to his statement, Matthew did it without being asked and was a little offended when Gerry didn't take any notice and then went to check 5A for himself.

So shall we all share a "Tapas experience"? Please bear in mind this all has to be accomplished in approximately 45 minutes if we are generous with time, so if you find it hard to keep up, you are not alone.

Here we go using Russell’s timelines Sainsbury’s sticker activity book.

   

Timeline 1:  

8:45.(underlined) pm
9.00-9.05 Matt returns - listened at all 3 - all shutters down Jerry
9.10-9.15 in the room + all well ? did he check
9.20/5 - Ella (crossed out) Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child
9.30 - Russ. Ella (crossed out) Matt check all 3
9.35 - Matt check see twins - l
9.50 - Russ returns
9.55 (circled) - Kate realised Madeleine
10pm (circled) - Alarm raised

Timeline 2:  
8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food
9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL (double underlined) shutters down
9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom
9:20pm (circled) Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child (squared)]
9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
l
l
l
l
l
l
9.55pm 10:00pm (circled) Alarm raised after Kate

But the reality is, 9 people eventually get to the table at 21.10.

I think we can presume Jeronimo Salcedas took the orders for drinks and served them as he says he served the table frequently that night. Salcedas states he was frequently called to attend British clients as he speaks English and his colleagues had little knowledge of the English language.

The group could pretend to do what they did the night before and just order bottles of wine, more white than red, so to begin with, 2 white, 1 red and some water.

The waiter selects the wine and bottles of water, brings them to the table and opens them and serves.

Joaquim Baptista, now seems to have a good understanding of the English language because he says he took the orders for the food so 21.10 he opens his pad and goes around the table taking orders for starters and main courses at the same time according to Jane Tanner....what time is it now... 21.20?

How many people have already left the table for visits to their apartments? 3 or 4 people?

Being so efficient he takes the orders in 2 minutes and as Gerry must have given his order first he is free to leave the table just after 21.10.

The starters arrive for 9 people, and being speedy cooks, by 21.30, now I'm impressed.

We are also told there is a lull between courses at 21.40. The chef has to cook Russell’s steak on the outside grill after starters were prepared and served but then must go back into the restaurant to prepare the other meals.

I wonder where their sardines were cooked?

He goes out a second time to prepare another steak for Russell later on.
Dianne Webster says they have 3 courses as NORMAL, so this is going to be a bit of a challenge to fit them all in on the 3rd May.

Gerry orders sausage and potato starter ...so what time did all 9 starters arrive at the table if they were having cooked starters?...21.30 with super efficient staff? It takes 10 minutes to eat them and clear away ...21.40? That's being quick! One wonders if they were able to converse at all... and clarifies the need of so much wine to wash things down that quickly...

As they ordered main courses with starters, that would have added a few minutes to the initial order but then the waiter does not need to go back to the table to take the more orders. 9 main courses arrive 9.45? VERY IMPRESSIVE but there again there was nobody else in the Tapas restaurant needing attention by this time.

So by some time machine miracle those 9 people have main courses while fitting in room visits and have desserts (although Russell has to have a second steak cooked...he must like rare steak) and 11 more bottles of wine....all before 21.50 when Kate leaves the Tapas.

40 minutes in total by which time at least 28 plates of food and 14 bottles of wine have been delivered to the table.

Now about the BIG ROUND TABLE from Jane Tanner’s rogatory statement. “The big table for us is in the middle, they’d put a table there and then there was some more tables down the side by the tarpaulin. And I think our table had moved slightly that way”.

Tables that move themselves? She previously mentioned it was right beside the tarpaulin where the ‘wall thing’ was where she would rest her baby monitor.

According to Tiago Barreiros “That the table they occupied is next to the Tapas bar since that table was the biggest.”

 When Jane was asked if it was one table specifically for a large group or a group of tables put together she replied “I think they’d put some together, but it was round, it was just one big round, a big round one. I can’t remember to be honest.”

Not only does the table move but so do the people sitting at it.

Jane says “I was sitting next to Kate on one side and I think it was Rachael, I think it was Rachael the other side. I think it was, so it was Kate, me and Rachael….I think Dianne was next to Rachael…..and I think Russell might have been the other side of Kate or Matt was next”.

A rather different seating arrangement to Kate’s statement:

 
Also remember that Clarence Mitchell said the group had no watches, mobile phones or cameras with them (well…. apart from Dianne Webster who mentions in her statement looking at her watch) but I guess the Tapas restaurant has a nice big clock so everyone knows exactly what time they came and went.

The Paynes and Dianne Webster don’t arrive until 21.00 and Dianne Webster firmly states in her first interview on the 4th May when asked if “there was any possibility she crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and the restaurant” the witness said “no”.

She also states no-one had been sent back to the apartment to call them. So she did not see Matthew Oldfield who had gone to chivvy them up?

Although Ms Webster does say in her rogatory statement over a year later that she did meet Matthew Oldfield on the way to the restaurant, Matthew, in his statement that he passes Dianne and the Paynes but carries on to do a check anyway.

Can we assume that at a brisk walking pace walking pace it would take 3 minutes to get to the apartments and back and a couple of minutes to listen at ‘all 3’?

From the handwritten timeline he doesn’t specify what ‘all 3’ are so let’s presume he means apartment windows. So let’s also assume Matthew Oldfield is back at the table by 21.05 so the ordering did not begin until then.

Just to recap and think about the times we are given………. I think we can assume it is 21.12 or slightly later and 21.15 by the time the chef received the order sheet for food.

As the Tapas restaurant is very efficient, 9 starters are delivered to the table by….oh dear ….now things are already starting not to add up but let’s carry on with the information we are given by Russell.

Gerry is not at the table at 21.15 he is in 5A and as we now know he spoke to Jeremy Wilkins for 3 minutes (it was rather inconsiderate of Jez not to mention he was going to be out walking when this timeline was drawn up by Russell) and if it takes 3 minutes to get to 5A and back he doesn’t return to the table until 21.21.

Gerry settles down to his starter at 21.21 as it must be sitting on the table ready for him. I think the chef must have had those 9 starters pre-prepared as Jane Tanner finished hers by 21.20 so she can go back to her apartment.

It was so considerate of the chef to also give Jane her main course at the same time so she could go back to relieve Russell O’Brien if we go by timeline 1 above. But if we go by timeline 2 we are not told Russell had gone back to the apartments before Jane so it is getting a little confusing. 21.35, timeline 1, Matthew Oldfield goes back to the apartments and sees the twins so when he returns to the table it would be 21.40 (odd…just in time for the ‘lull’ between courses?) by which time 9 main courses are served, that is good going for 1 chef and 1 kitchen assistant.

So I assume Matthew begins his main course at 21.40.

Let’s hope Russell’s steak wasn’t too rare with the speed meals are cooked, or maybe it was overcooked so it was taken back and another one cooked for him for when he returned at 21.50 just in time for Kate to leave to do her check.

So, being super efficient, between 21.15 and 21.45 drinks orders are taken and served, starters and main course orders for 18 plates of food are taken, cooked, served by a waiter who must have done at least 3 trips to the kitchen for each course, eating the meals and the table cleared between courses, a second steak cooked and 4 people making trips backwards and forwards, all within 30 minutes?

We have a statement to say everyone had finished eating by 21.50.

I suppose being doctors they would know what to do in the case of severe indigestion. It gives me indigestion just thinking about it.

My goodness, tennis and watersports make you hungry!

Thanks to the speed of the the cooks and waiters at the Tapas restaurant they can fill the needs of 9 hungry people with 3 courses and all that ‘free’ wine within that short space of time.

Do they serve indigestion tablets with the liquers?

As Joaquim Baptista spent 30 minutes in the kitchen when the group had finished their main course he can’t have been hanging around waiting to offer desserts or coffee. Had he abandoned hope of getting any tips?

I don’t think Salcedas was banking on tips either because he was speaking to his two colleagues, Ze and Ricardo, who were on a break (not very considerate taking into account that such a frenetic activity was going on around the BIG ROUND TABLE) and then he returned to the restaurant to find only Dianne Webster sitting at the table.

So he wasn’t paying any attention to the group. So who was paying attention to the group of diners?

If there were no diners there that would explain their lack of attention.

Maybe Dianne Webster remained at the table when Kate raised the alarm that Madeleine had been ‘abducted’ as her statement says it was usual for the group to have dessert and she stayed behind to eat hers?

Let’s not forget she goes back later for the camera she didn’t take!

As an afterthought, maybe we should look at the statement of Arlindo Peleja…who only sees 3 couples sitting at one table on the esplanade. That seems slightly more credible. 2 small square tables put together would not be unusual and no-one would take much notice.

He doesn’t say which 6 people apart from Dianne Webster but as he says couples it would indicate 3 men and 3 women so I wonder who he partnered Dianne Webster with?

He says he arrived at the restaurant at around 21.10 and heard clamour at around 21.20, at 21.40 (remember that, apparently, he was the ONLY one wearing a watch) when he left the table was completely empty and various items, principally clothing, was left behind.

Who would be sitting ‘outside’ on a cold night, eating dinner and NOT wearing the clothing they had taken?

Hommage to a People

Politians, take heed, you are NOT above your people.

10 Common Facts Between Two Global Lies

Ridiculous Fact #1: The Single Bullet Theory of JFK’s Assassination:
   
Ridiculous Fact #2: The Abduction Theory of MBM's Disappearance:
  1 – Both are physically impossible to accomplish, FICTIONAL up to the point of being RIDICULOUS.

2 – Both are ARROGANTLY INSULTING in the assumption that we’re to believe in them.  

3 – Both seek to blame a SINGLE culprit.
   
4 – Both leave INTENTIONALLY out ALL those who indeed did play a significant part in the events investigated, with the exception of the victim.  

5 – Both are FALSE in terms of what really happened to the victim.  

6 – Both had the FULL support of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA in helping to pass as reality what is blatantly a lie.
   
7 – Both are conclusions reached after the work done by the ADEQUATE NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE agencies/authorities.

 8 – Both are accepted by the respective NATIONAL Judicial Systems as the TRUTH. 

9 – Both are conclusions presented by the ADEQUATE NATIONAL JUDICIAL authorities, thus represent the NATIONAL OFFICIAL VIEW on the respective subject.  

10 – Both are LEGITIMATE

Joining the Dots, Colour Filling is Up for Grabs...

by May I

Rupert Murdoch-, proprietor of News of the World (NoW), The Sun, SKY TV.-. media who have supported the McCanns, raised millions for the reward for finding Maddie and run stupid sighting stories.

All party politicians in UK seem terrified of him. Murdoch changes allegiance as to which party he will support in his media outlets.  
Politicians are anxious to please him. Does he have something on a lot of them too? See phone hacking scandal.  

Andy Coulson -former editor of NoW Until recently, director of communications for PM David Cameron.
Resigned in the face of the phone hacking scandal on NoW. Phone hacking scandal – ongoing.

Reporters on NoW hacked into voice mails of celebs and politicians. Originally said to be rogue reporter now serving prison sentence, but now evidence emerging that it was a widespread practice, allegedly sanctioned and encouraged by Coulson.  
Clarence M- worked under Coulson in the run up to Cameron’s election.

He is now asking questions about hacking on his phone- to see how far back the records are kept?
Records supposedly lost to the Met have now been found!  

Scotland Yard- made inquiries into the scandal. Didn’t tell a lot of people about evidence of hacking, including Gordon Brown. Now celebs who can afford to sue are doing so and Met is coming under fire for an inadequate investigation.
It has been reported that the police only agreed to re-open the case when Tom Watson, a government minister, demanded it be handed over to another police force.  

Sue Akers, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Specialist Crime Directorate has been appointed to lead the enquiry.  
Andy Hayman- former Chief Constable of Norfolk and former Met police and said to be friend of Andy Coulson.

In the Scottish libel trial of Tommy Sheridan, Andy Coulson said he was on friendly terms with Andy Hayman, recalling having tea and possibly lunch with him as well.  
Hayman was the Former head of Special Crime Directorate in 2007. This was the department phoned by David Payne on the night Maddie disappeared (-see DP’s rogatory statement.)  

Hayman was responsible for the anti terrorism unit when Jean de Menezez was shot dead in error at Stockwell tube station in 2007.  
Philip Norman Allen- formerly Thames Valley Police. Staying with the Eveleighs in May 2007, waiting for his apartment at Estrela da Luz to be completed. Spoke to Robert Murat about his phone being tapped.

There is also a phone call on PJ files , dated 15.5.07., between female member of Murat family and male, referring to an anti terrorism officer with them and their helpful Leicester police.
There is currently an investigation as to the activities of undercover terrorism officers infiltrating protest groups as agent provocateurs and then breaking cover.

Google Mark Kennedy / Stone for the full story. Association of Chief Police Officers are to be stripped of their role in handling undercover work, which may now be undertaken by the Met police!
Poacher turned gamekeeper?

NR- former press officer with Independent Police Complaints Commission, with whom Hayman allegedly had an affair. He resigned following this allegation and some queries about his expenses claims.  
NR went on to work with ACPO as a communications officer Hayman headed ACPO Hayman is now a columnist for News International Group, belonging to Murdoch.

Guess who is said to be serialising the McCanns’ book?

As Perfect as Eden, Until...

The Ocean Club (OC), located in PRAIA DA LUZ (PdL), is close to a major town, LAGOS, which is in the ALGARVE, the most southern region of PORTUGAL.

The ALGARVE is served by the FARO's Airport, which has direct flights to and from the UK.

LAGOS has a MARINA, which is great to accommodate those that do like to exhibit how much money they have, which is by no means illegal or unethical, but certainly is an area where size does matter, as it has a direct proportion in WEALTH, POWER and VANITY.

 LAGOS, like other ALGARVE cities with marinas, offers offshore activities like “Seafary” Cruises and Big Game Fishing.

The coastline, East of LAGOS, up to SAGRES, where PdL is inserted in, is made up of cliffs which make it one of the most interesting scenarios to be seen, and offers one of the most sought after scuba diving locations.  

PdL, where the OC is located, has a rather large beach. Besides the evident enjoyment of the well known "Algarve Trilogy" (Beach/Climate/Sea) which attracts so many tourists from all over the world, it also allows the enjoyment of various watersports.

Between PdL and LAGOS, there’s the BOAVISTA GOLF COURSE (BGC).

One could even exaggerate and say that the BGC and the OC are next door neighbours. But to say that golf would is one of the OC’s major attraction, would be no exaggeration at all.

The OC Complex layout is very convenient if one would like to invest in satisfying more "peculiar" wants of special guests.

It's spread out all over PdL, so some of its facilities could be exclusively dedicated to swinging while others would remain for the “normal” tourism.

The added advantage would be that "normal area" wouldn't need to know about or contact with the "swinging area", so the so much needed and demanded discretion would be guaranteed.

PdL, being and offroad small town, with an adequate "colonization" it would be possible to ward off the less welcomed "foreigners".

If things had gone they should have gone, PdL to remain discreet and generally unknown, the only “strangers” present would be the Portuguese, as “native peasants”, either in the form of local residents or of labour, or, most likely, in both.

Repeating myself, the Ocean Club (OC), located in PRAIA DA LUZ (PdL), is close to major town, LAGOS, which is in the ALGARVE, PORTUGAL’s most southern region, and the Portuguese have a very little sexual hang-ups, and albeit a very conservative and catholic lifestyle do have a liberal mindset.

The ALGARVE in the 60's and 70's, it was one of the few places in the world where topless was done with no raising of eyebrows whatsoever.

 The Portuguese consider each one’s sexual behavior as a very personal issue, so VERY rarely are there sex-scandals referred in the media.

They do exist, like in any other country, but are contained to private comment, and the usual effect is the sudden spawning of jokes about the theme or characters involved.

The OC is then located in a country very permissible and DISCREET about things such as swinging.

Only comparable to HOLLAND, or maybe BELGIUM, but far, far better in terms of weather.

A perfect location for a Swinging Club. 


One EXCLUSIVE to the powerful and the rich and to those that are both.

Nothing, it seems, could be added to such perfection.

For example, to have made it more luxurious, would called for unwelcomed attention, and the scenario where and as it was set, provided full satisfaction to the type of guest that it targeted.

What could it spoil it? An earthquake could. A tsunami also.

Or, if you really want to let your imagination go wild, the death of a little girl whose corpse, time or location of death, would raise questions whose answers would compromise the lives of those present in such an atypical kind of holiday.

The MAJORITY of which had had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the little's girl's death.

But life is sarcastic, isn't it?

When Nations Lie to Their Citizens

For some, the possibility for a WHOLE Nation’s Judicial System of a to be an active part of an HOAX is just not feasible.

To those, I would like to refresh their memory of a memorable episode of human history, in which this did happen, and it was not such a long time ago, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

This post is NOT about the assassination itself, but to illustrate that when the “Establishment” decides that its citizens are not worthy of handling the truth, it will stop at nothing to hide the truth from them.

Not even reason or common sense will be an obstacle.

So I ask you to please abstain from commenting about anything related with JFK, or with the characterization of a conspiracy behind the demise of the historical character. This blog is about the Maddie McCann Affair and will remain as such.

About JFK’s assassination, today it’s quite clear why the “single shooter” theory had to be the ONLY OFFICIAL version,

If just one other human being was involved, that would mean that some sort of conspiracy took place. The greater the number of it’s participants the greater the complexity of planning and execution. A lot of explaining to do when there was no want to give any sort explanation. It just HAD to be a lonesome act of a deranged individual.

To come up with its “single-shooter” thesis, the “Establishment” had the following limitations, which couldn’t be ignored:

First, the time, 6 to 8 seconds, which the vehicle was on the Dealy Plaza and remained as a possible target after that first shot.

Second, it was the fact that two shots were seen, by witnesses, having missed the Presidential car. This obviously meant that it was a third shot that killed JFK. Three shots that HAD to be explained.

Third, both the President and Governor Connally were physically wounded, and if two shots missed the car, then ONLY a SINGLE shot did all the damage on the bodies of these two individuals.

Fourth, the gun found, and filmed being found, was NOT an automatic rifle. It had to be MANUALLY reloaded.

These were the ingredients, and this was the recipe, according to Wikipedia:  

“According to the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, as President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, penetrated his neck, slightly damaged a spinal vertebra and the top of his right lung, exited his throat nearly centerline just beneath his Adam's apple, then nicked the left side of his suit tie knot. He then raised his elbows and clenched his fists in front of his face and neck, then leaned forward and towards his left (…). Governor Connally also reacted after the same bullet penetrated his back creating an oval entry wound, impacted and destroyed four inches of his right, fifth rib bone, exited his chest just below his right nipple creating a two-and-a-half inch oval sucking-air chest wound, then entered just above his right wrist, impacted and cleanly fractured his right wrist bone, exited just below the wrist at the inner side of his right palm, and entered his left inner thigh.”

If you want to entertain yourself with the all the intricate physical impossibilities of the “magical bullet” do go and read Wikipedia, but it doesn’t take a too bright mind to see immediately this thesis makes no sense at all

Let’s overlook the near physical impossibility to reload MANUALLY the rifle, fixate it to one’s shoulder to absorb the recoil, find the target and aim, in 6 to 8 seconds, not once, but twice to press the trigger to shoot thrice.

Let’s also overlook the odds required for someone who appears not to be a sharpshooter, after all he did miss, by yards, the first shot, and then misses the second shot, also by yards) to, under the pressure of having to fire against a disappearing target, have the luck of a hitting the target dead centre on the third shot.

Let’s suppose he got it right on the first shot, and then shot the other two just for fun’s sake. I want you to concentrate on the “magical bullet”, that, much like the McCann window, is completely impossible to have done what is said OFFICIALLY to have achieved.

Either the bullet had enough speed and the path going through the President’s body and would have been dead straight, regardless of bone found ahead, but then couldn’t have done all the zigzagging it seems to have done; or it was losing speed and did ricochet off the spine of the victim, but then wouldn’t have enough power to penetrate Connally’s body, much less end up in his leg after a grand tour around his body.

It either had the speed and couldn’t, or it didn’t have the speed and couldn’t also.

Simple and undeniable logic.

And once it’s blatantly false how it “entered” Connally’s body, any discussion involving what it did there, is futile, unnecessary and even ridiculous.

However, no matter how ridiculous it was, it stood as the OFFICIAL VERSION of FACT.

And as it was the OFFICIAL VERSION, it was (is?) the LEGITIMATE FACT of what happened.

False, but LEGITIMATE.

 The WHOLE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, for whatever reason, embarked on this farce.

And 20% of the Americans, it seems, believed it to be true: “The ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963–1964, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976–1979, and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby before he could stand trial. This conclusion was initially met with support among the American public; however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 concluded approximately 80 percent of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findings. “

Now, this was the assassination of the President of the world’s most powerful Nation about to embark on the unfortunate and EXPENSIVE Vietnam experience, which he supposedly opposed, so we can “understand” what was at stake.

But 44 years later, we seem to be witnessing a similar phenomenon. With an English couple on holiday. With friends. In a quaint little village in Portugal.

Back to the “magical bullet”, as I’ve said, it’s irrelevant to discuss what was said that the bullet did.

But the FACT that someone DID SAY it did what we know it didn't do deserves certainly an analysis.

And if that “someone” has the power to pronounce what is and what is not “LEGITIMATE FACT", than THAT analysis is no longer deserved, but MANDATORY.

Not on this forum, because, this, as was said, is about Maddie McCann’s death.

But a parallel can be established, besides the one already mentioned about the blatant interventions of entire National Judicial Systems, and that is what is RELEVANT to be discussed at this stage.

The whole discussion about if the McCanns, used here in broad sense, and getting broader by the day, “perhaps” did or not do it is OVER.

It's has been so repetitive that it has become tiresome to read about it (which is exactly what the Black Hats want you to feel). The McCanns “did it”.

But, likewise with the “magical bullet” we’ve been mislead by the OFFICIAL Judicial System on what the “McCann bullet” effectively did.

We know for certain that it wasn’t what they said they did.

So we have to uncover, and determine what that “McCann bullet” REALLY did do, and that can only be done by fully understanding what was the reason behind each lie.

Who Took the "Reason" Out of "Reasonable Doubt"?

We all have the correct notion of “innocent” and “guilty”.

They’re simple concepts, to differentiate between them is as easy as telling black and white apart. .

The “not guilty” one is much more complex. It’s neither “innocent” nor “guilty” as if either were it, it would then render useless the referred terminology.

Very few understand it, or rather, understand what it implies, what exactly it means, and how easily it can be misconstrued, distorted and even brought to be a mockery of itself.  

Because of it we are where we are in the Maddie Affair, and why with things remaining as they are, it’s not unlikely that the justice we all seek will be NOT be found unless we do something about it.

Let’s go back to basics, and understand where all this comes from.

Imagine that Justice is a simple grayscale array going from black to white. Black, meaning guilt, white innocence.

However, as we know, life is never black or white, but grey, in its infinite scale of possibilities
. Because they are the scale’s opposite extremes, neither black nor white really do exist. Before you say that black is black, remember that 99,99% black isn’t 100% black.

It’s in fact just a really, really, REALLY, dark grey, but it just isn’t black. It lacks that 0,01%.

So, if ONLY 100% black is guilt, and 100% black is impossible to obtain, then, apparently, that makes it impossible for society to convict.

However simple logic determines that 99,99% black is as black as black can get, so should REASONABLY be considered as such, assuming that way that guilt has been proven, as that 0,01% margin of white can be disregarded.
  It is that 0,01% that is what is called “reasonable doubt”.

It’s reasonable to consider that a 99.99% black is 100% black.

Now, what about 99,98% black? Or even 99,985% black? Should these percentages be considered black as well? From what percentage does grey end, and black start?

This discussion is of particular relevance when it comes for society to take away one of human being’s most precious possession, FREEDOM.

It’s always preferable to let a guilty man walk than to imprison an innocent one. That's the pillar that upholds all Justice’s principles.

But society MUST ALSO do all in its power to oblige those who don’t abide by its rules to be accountable for their deeds. The obvious reason is that it serves as a POSITIVE example to those who do abide, who constitute the large majority as one has to assume that the rules set by society itself are fair, just, reasonable, necessary and expected.

Nothing is worse for the morale and credibility of a nation than for the law-abiding citizens to witness the incapability their Judicial System to punish appropriate and accordingly those who have not obeyed the set Law.

It’s bad when this incapability results from incapacity, but much, much worse when it is from willingness, as we’ll see.

I’ve written in a previous post that a person does not walk into a court-room innocent and walks out guilty, but that he walks in either guilty or innocent, and walks out convicted or not convicted.

And if he walks in guilty and walks out not convicted, then that is ONLY due to a SINGLE reason: the “reasonable doubt” threshold to convict him was NOT surpassed.

Does that mean he was innocent in the first place? No, and we know it doesn’t.

It was just simply not possible, for various reasons, to reach that 99,99% gradient of black.

Imagine then the iron-clad protection one would be provided with if those with the responsibility to show that 99,99% black is indeed black, were unwilling to do so. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to find guilt when there’s NO want in finding it.

That would certainly be a scandal, the most evident distortion of Justice both in its nature and in its principles.

Apparently scandalous, yes, but is it really unlikely? As we’ve seen, “reasonable doubt” is a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision that should guarantee that an innocent is not convicted.

Using the grayscale example, it basically it states for example, that anything, say, as dark as 99,8% black, or darker is to be considered black, anything lighter than that is grey, and grey is “not guilty”. 

It’s a VERY SERIOUS decision to make, as it has associated VERY SERIOUS implications.

One can easily understand that when doubt settles in, we’re not discussing the lighter grey part of the scale, rather about the differences in shade between dark and darker grey…

The relevant questions then to be asked are, who is to determine THAT value of gradient, and on what should that particular person base his opinion on?
 
For that, society has educated a very limited amount its citizens to be able to understand not only the full scope of the concept, but most importantly, the enormous responsibility of its appliance.

They’re called Judges.

A very limited set of people that society has given the power, the authority, as well as the LEGITIMACY, to determine what is and what isn’t “reasonable doubt”, in others words, has given them the power to convict, to take away other citizen's freedom from them.

They’re the only ones that are able to that LEGITIMATELY.

The ordinary citizen, like you and me, able to reason with logic, is able to understand what is reasonable and what is not, but lacks the LEGITIMACY to validate LEGALLY his opinion. This lack of validation DOESN’T mean lack of reason in any ways, or be an impediment to undertake the exercise, it just means that however right the citizen may be, his opinion is LEGALLY USELESS.

Morally right, but with no LEGAL value.

In a perfect society, this citizen’s LEGALLY USELESS opinion should coincide with the Judicial System's LEGITIMATE one. And that is what usually happens.

Courts are the place where Judges apply Justice, according to their education, experience and wisdom. By education, I’m implying that they base their decision on full knowledge of the LAW.

Now, let’s run off-track, because it’s about going awry that this post is all about.

A Judge may, for whatever reasons, decide that black is white or that white is black even if logic shows CLEARLY otherwise.
 
It’s a WRONG decision but a LEGITIMATE one, and because of that it is to be UPHELD.

What is there to stop making such a blatant wrong decision? Three things: common sense, own conscience and accountability.

If we dismiss the two first, both dismissible, accountability is the ONLY foreseeable obstacle stopping him to determine that hereforth black is white. But he’s ONLY accountable before his fellow colleagues in the Judicial System, other Judges, like himself, in which society relies to have the education, experience and wisdom to overturn a wrong decision, and eventually punish the Judge for abuse of power.

But what if, the collective Judicial System decides to embark on a farce? Or, if his decision to determine that black is white is but a part of a bigger scheme of things?

And to involve the whole Judicial System, the scheme really has to be BIG. Or BIG interests at stake to make it be that ENORMOUS.

So, if the Judicial System decides that black is white do start to get used to seeing brides walking down the aisles dressed in virginal black.

This whole Judicial System, in turn, is ONLY accountable to society, and society, as an entity, has no forum, other than the electoral one (and in some Countries not even that) to express its discontentment.

That’s why in dictatorial States, Justice is completely arbitrary, but one expects, in the so-called civilized world, like Portugal and the UK, for it not to be so.

Unfortunately, the Maddie Affair has proved otherwise. We can see that the PJ Files relay facts, or as I’ve said before, facts that people say to have happened, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they did.

Upon closely studying the evidence presented before him in by PJ Files, the Portuguese PGR, has concluded LEGITIMATELY that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns, and until further evidence is produced, the case was to be archived.

The Judicial System includes the prosecution. These have the capability, in “light-grey” cases, to deduce what is “reasonable doubt” to avoid overburdening needlessly the Courts. In this instance, the PGR did LEGITIMATELY decide to archive the process.

If a Court verdict of “Not Guilty” is NOT a declaration of innocence but just of lack of capability to convict (although that lack of capability may be the result of the Judge’s total conviction of the accused's innocence), the archiving of a process is even further from that.

But mind you, is as equally far from declaring a suspect guilty.

It means that the Prosecutor faced with the evidence presented before him, LEGITIMATELY decided that it the case at hand lay clearly on the lighter end of the grayscale of guilt, so no further action was required.

If anything new is to arise, then a new decision will be taken.

Do notice my insistence on LEGITIMATELY, which is far from being RIGHTFULLY. Let me say it straight that, in my opinion, the PGR’s decision is him looking at a really, really dark object and publicly declaring it as bleach white.

A LEGITIMATE decision, but taken with intentional wrong interpretation of the contents PJ Files.

And when you don’t want to see, you just WON'T SEE. And if you've compromised yourself into NOT SEEING, then it's impossible for you to ever correct your forged lack of sight. It's voluntary blindness, or even worse, voluntary distortion of whatever is meant not to be seen.

Then you will be able to see a million curves where millions of others see only a straight line, because it is indeed straight, and you will even be able to see the mathematically impossible beginning and end of a line that constitutes a circumference.

Blogs, like this one, have PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that the phrase “not enough evidence” is as hypocritical as saying that it's the Sun that goes around Earth and not the other way around, which may I remind you was the official LEGITIMATE version of the 24-hour cycle during a long, long time.   

The abduction of Maddie is absurd and was forged by the parents, by the family and by the missing child’s parents’ friends and acquaintances. Plus the blogs have PROVED that evidence points towards the girl’s death, making it also a crime, of horrendous ethical proportions, the setting up of the Fund.

This blog in particular, has PROVED the existence of, apparently, new facts.

That there was NO NEGLIGENCE, that the McStroller was no other than Dr. Gerry McCann, who was also proved to be a LIAR, that there was direct involvement of other OC Guests and some PdL Residents, and that this group’s watersports activities on May 3rd and the dinners at the Tapas Bar were simple fiction.

You’ve read it here, and you’ve seen how well we've justified all our statements, albeit the permanent and continuous threats of legal action against the blog, and even to its readers.

These facts have been here PROVED, and yes, they point towards a TOTALLY different version on which, apparently, the PGR’s based his decision upon.

That means that there IS, after all, EXISTING evidence for the McCanns to be prosecuted.

But is that really so? No, and let me tell you why.

All these “new” facts simply aren’t… new. They’re ALL in the PJ Files.

We’ve just limited ourselves in putting them together the way we thought they should be. But, they’re all in there, and "there" is where the PGR based his decision to archive.

So although we've said here that black is black because it’s black, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that all appeared to him to be white.

And when we showed here that something was as straight as a laser beam, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that to him it had more curves than a Formula 1 track.

With the same reasoning, whatever we here demonstrated to be a circumference, the PGR has said, LEGITIMATELY, that for him it just isn’t.

And he has the LEGITIMACY and we don’t.

Plus, as time as shown, he’s not alone in this highly selective way of looking onto things. It seems that the Judicial Systems of both Portugal and UK are not very keen in questioning his eyesight abilities, much less his judgmental ones.

Maybe because he's a mere instrument of their will?

To sum, whatever we may here say, and we WILL continue to say, apparently will never make him change his mind.

The McCannleaks, proved that. It really seems that absolutely nothing can be said that will change the PGR’s mind. What did he say about that? That the "leaked" facts were analyzed in due time so they didn’t constitute any new evidence.

It’s as almost as if he had read this post before I even wrote it.

So, should we give up? No. This reality was present when we started and that didn't make us stop starting, and we're still here, and you will continue to find us right here.

 Let’s rewind a bit here. Remember I said that there were three things that could stop someone from saying that black was white: common sense, own conscience and accountability.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, on one side accountability is something is that is not to be feared by the decider, and on the other, one’s own conscience tends to take on a submissive role when other interests, own or other's, arise, or seemed to have arisen.

We’re left with common sense. The only way to win this battle is to beat them by shame, by brazenly exposing their lack of moral, ethical and intellectual honesty. By continuously exposing their arrogance.

By showing that whoever says “that if the PJ had to prosecute the McCanns they would have done that a long time ago”, is saying it in a deliberate malignant manner, using ignorance with much pretence as the McCanns have used negligence.

By showing the Judicial Systems, time and time again, that with power comes responsibility, and NOT, as they think it does, the freedom to act as they please.

By showing how EVIDENT is the EVIDENCE against the McCanns, we can hope that they will one day concede and backdown just a little. To hope to tame the “animal” is naïve, but we can certainly show him that there are boundaries that HAVE to be respected.

That’s why we fight this fight.

It’s much, much bigger than the McCanns, it’s about citizenship.

It’s about stopping today future hunting grounds that they, the “nobility”, may use and you, the “peasants”, may not.

Our goal is to prove that when it’s said that there’s NO EVIDENCE in the PJ FILES to prosecute the McCanns, although it’s a LEGITIMATELY absolutely right statement, it is ALSO, more importantly, not only a morally, ethically and intellectually ABSOLUTELY WRONG one to make.

It is as well a blatant and arrogant attempt to certify us, citizens, as a herd made up of thought-incapable morons.

There was a day when the LEGITIMATE Judicial System said that the Earth was flat, wasn’t there?

They even burned people at the stake who dared deny that then, didn't they?