No More Doubts

If you go to the SY site, and search for “abduction” + “maddie”, you will find the following entry (it seems that this link, if clicked directly, gives an error message. Do go directly to the SY Webpage and do the query... it should get you there):

If you click on that link, a word document (228_288_Op Grange Remit) pops up. Do open and read it:

Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

Now, the phrase “It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK)” is very, very clear.

There are no “ifs ” or “buts” about it. SY is investigating an ABDUCTION. That's their guideline on the issue.

If my memory serves me right, as of late 2007, the media, and everyone else, has been very careful to avoid the term “abduction”, rather replacing it with other more ambiguous, but truthful, terminology, such as vanished, missing, etc…

Now we have it in black & white. From SY itself. To say that in 2012, may be a blunder, but it isn't innocent.

The Met commissioner has resigned since this announcement. He did say the outcome may not be published. It doesn’t surprise me one bit.

All those of you that still had a glimmer of hope that the SY Review would bring some truth to the Maddie Affair, please be reasonable, do stop having it.

If you thought that there was a serious investigation going on to serve justice, please read the above and I suggest that you start to realize that there is a serious investigation going on, but to whitewash the case.

But you know me; I'm patient and will wait for you to come to that conclusion by yourself...

Lest we forget, £3 mill were allocated for this.

Fancy meeting you here!

By May I

Fancy meeting you here!

Walking up a mountain path on a remote Greek island, I bumped into a Greek guy I knew from my local pub - we both happened to be visiting the same place. “Well, fancy meeting you here!”, we said. No doubt many have had the same experience, but Praia da Luz was full of such strange coincidences. Take Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien; they bumped into Charlotte and James Gorrod; their neighbours and acquaintances from Exeter. Charlotte does not have appear to have mentioned that she owned an apartment in the resort and that they would be going on holiday there. I wonder if they said FMYH!?

Nicole Cox and Emma Berry; partners, respectively, of Raj Balu and Neil Berry had never met before the holiday, but discovered they had both worked for the same company.
Well, fancy that!

Then there was Philip Norman Allen, an officer from Thames Valley Police - on secondment to the Criminal Investigation Support Dept.- whose family happened to be staying with the Eveleighs at their Salsalito guest house, shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance. Salsalito would later be searched by the PJ. Would you credit it? Philip had some interesting conversations with Robert Murat. He later explained to the PJ that his superiors knew he was staying in PDL. He had met Robert Murat previously, to discuss the purchase of an apartment. However, the holiday apartment he had bought three years ago at the Vila Baia wasn’t yet ready for him to stay in. This property was part of the Oceanico Group’s portfolio, which just happened to be the same group who owned the Estrela da Luz, where strangely enough, the Smith family had an apartment.

The Smiths came from Drogheda, County Louth, where Gerry Fagan, owner of the Ocean Club also came from. I wonder if they ever bumped into each other and said “Don’t I know you from somewhere?” Drogheda - “Well, how’s that for a coincidence!”

I wonder how many other FMYH moments were there in April/May 2007 in PDL...

The video:



And the lyrics:

"Didn't I say?
Didn't you say?
Didn't we say?
Didn't who say?

Didn't you say you were off to China?
Fancy meeting you here!
Yes, and didn't you just board an ocean liner?
Fancy meeting you here!
Didn't we agree that our affair was too frantic,
And we'd both feel good divided by the wide Atlantic?

Weren't you yachting off the Riviera?
With Onassis!
Fancy meeting you here!
Was it jolly roaming the Sahara?
Dry, but laughs!
Fancy meeting you here!
If you don't think I have missed your lovin',
Let's get this clear, dear!
I just think it's fancy meeting you right here!

Did you say that you enjoyed Alaska?
Loved it, loved it!
Did I get a note from Madagascar?
Wrote it!
You're a good girl!
Didn't we divide our little world into sections?
A clean break!
But love has sure affected both our senses of
Directions!

Say, tell me somethin', how did you ever lose that
Wealthy, that big fat Persian?
'Twasn't easy!
Fancy meetin' you here!
Did you take that African excursion?
I blew it!
Yeah, for the local zoo here!
If you don't think it's a kick to see ya,
Let's get this clear, dear!
From the way my heart is wildly beating,
What we had is more than worth repeating,
My arm, girl!
And it's more than fancy meeting you right
Here!"

Textusa Is Giving Up On The Maddie Affair

You read it right.

We’re giving up on the Maddie Affair.

We’re totally aware that we’ve just shocked White Hats and caused Black Hatted sheer joy and grinning.

Is Textusa going to shut down? No. Such thought hasn’t crossed our minds.

Have we changed our minds about what happened on May 3rd? No. Not even a tiny weenie bit.

We’re just giving up on the Maddie Affair because we’ve realistically, after a very careful and attentive analysis of the case in question, come to the conclusion that Humanity (at least the part you and me belong to) is never to know the truth about it.

What made us reach such conclusion? The Leveson Inquiry

It was not about the content of the hearings themselves, as we were able to witness, it was the expected shambolic and shameful farce. Hardly surprising.

Nor was it the reason for its existence. We do understand why it was created, although “Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press” is as reasonable as Count Dracula naming some Transylvanian judge to inquire about “The Advantages of Ketchup over Blood Consumption”.

What has enlightened us is the simple fact that it was created. Let me try and explain what I mean.

It started with the blatant, evident involvement of the UK’s Government, Diplomacy and Police in covering up what really was at stake with Maddie dying the way, where and when she did. But at least, they were “discreet”, using the tabloids to voice out idiotic lies. Nothing “Official”, except the CEOP during the Jim Gamble days, but that doesn't really count.

We, then, thought they were “saving” themselves to pounce on the couple when the time was right and circumstances convenient. Whenever and wherever that would be.

But our dreams were brought to reality with the innocuous phone hacking hearings, where Murdoch, Brooks and a pie were the highlights of the spectacle. Mind you, it was innocuous in terms of results, that is, because, let’s be very clear, nothing could be more serious than hacking other people’s phones.

We did, however get to realize two things. The first is that apparently you either have to have very short memory span to be rich or you have to have the ability to delegate all you can and then some more so that end up knowing very little; and the second is that, also apparently, the tabloids tailored stories to conveniences, and this “concept” fitted the tabloid attitude toward the Maddie Affair like a glove.

Unfortunately, history will probably only register the pie, and Murdoch’s wife prompt reaction, if it registers anything of it at all.

But we still kept a glimmer of hope alive, especially because these hearings involved the Maddie Affair very marginally.

But then came the Leveson Inquiry.

Questions had already been raised as to whether Leveson should have been appointed, after it was revealed that he had attended evening events at the home of Matthew Freud, husband of Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth. Was there potential here for a possible conflict of interests?

In the matter of the publication of Kate's diary, Colin Myler, former News of the World editor said he had been given repeated assurances from his head of news, Ian Edmonson, that Clarence Mitchell supported publication; a claim which Mitchell denied.

Who to believe? Mmm... A difficult choice between Myler, the editor of the discredited newspaper or Mitchell, former deputy of Andy Coulson in the run up to the last election (a former editor of the discredited newspaper and since arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandal)

Mitchell is also a former employee of Freud Communications. Leveson appears to have sided with Mitchell's version of events. We know who we would prefer to believe, but then we don't have a conflict of interest to consider.

Imagine Society being made up of layers, one on top of the other, as indeed it is. Now imagine how many of the top layers are required to set up things such as “Phone Hacking Hearings” and “Levenson Inquiry”. Their existence, together with what is perceived to be their attitude and effectiveness, could make one seriously think that both the Judicial and the Legislative Pillars of UK are “in the know” about what happened on May 3rd, 2007, in PdL.

That would, in turn, mean that there would be too many and too powerful people, financially, judicially and politically, in Britain that would have allowed themselves to get involved in the Maddie Affair.

Like having Nobility and Clergy taking side against their own people just because… who knows? Let’s just hope that Britain and Portugal haven’t become Nations where the “powerful” are nothing but puppets-on-a-string to the powerful, which we’ll keep believing they haven’t.

So, jumping from supposition to supposition and conjecture to conjecture, it’s seems to us that, realistically, never will truth be known via any of the British or Portuguese “Official Institutions”.

Let us now explain what we like to call the “hamburger decision”.

Basically it is what one chooses to do when one is presented with a hamburger to eat. Those who seek to know what is in fact in the the hamburger are naïve fools. It’s not that important to know what it contains, in comparison to the fact that one should understand why is one eating it.

You see, once one understands the why, then one may not only eat it, however unpleasant it may taste, but go and ask for seconds, and thirds... or, for the exact same reason never put one of these things to one’s mouth, no matter how much one enjoyed junk food until then…

That’s the “hamburger decision”.

UK’s Basic Pillars seem to have understood the all the facts, at least that’s how it appears to us, and also seem to have made their decision on whether to eat, or not, the “hamburger” in front of them.

It’s our opinion that this apparent decision had got nothing to do with either taste or content, but with a conscientious decision of convenience. But that’s just an opinion, and worth what it’s worth.

And that’s why we’ve decided to give up on the Maddie Affair.

But we’ve also said that we weren’t going to give up, right? We’ve understood why they’ve made their “hamburger decision”: it seems they chose to know the facts and keep them from you and me. Is it possible that a stage is now being set up to, in February, using the Amaral Trial in Lisbon, to get the case “re-opened”?

By the way, we do think it is... And, surprise, surprise, "discover" that the parents & friends are indeed guilty of negligence and manslaughter?

The charges may even describe truthfully what happened precisely at the time of death, namely, we might even get to know who, if David Payne or Kate McCann, was the one that struck the irate, but unfortunately fatal, blow. They will also tell us how Tanner and the others lied out of pure friendship, and that there was no abductor to begin with.

But that is as far the system will allow the truth to go. Not an inch further.

And let’s be honest, that will be enough to quench the general public’s curiosity on the issue. The parents confirmed neglectors and liars, the friends just as honest and responsible, all or some behind bars, and the end of the Fund.

That, for us also, would have been enough sometime ago. Until we understood that negligence was as fictional as the abduction.

Evidently, what the group, and by group we don’t mean only the “T9”, was in PdL for, and what were the circumstances and involvements that really surrounded the hours, days, weeks, months and years that followed the moment Maddie died, are NOT to be included in the said staging, if it does happen.

If it does happen we believe that in its possible conclusions, they will certainly leave out many things that they think you may NOT know, things the system will never acknowledge or allow it ever to happen.

So, keeping in mind that we think that those, on which we should rely to tell us the truth, won’t, we shall continue to disclose what we’ve been able to find out about these events.

We’ve may given up on the Maddie Affair, as in per Official Institutions, but rest assured that we won’t give up on what happened on May 3rd 2007, in PdL.

Because, as we’ve always said and maintain, the crime one must fight for to never to happen again, is not that the death of that girl, but the tremendous crime that followed her demise. The ripples of guilt go much beyond the circles made by the couple, and their seven friends…

Happy 2012, and may you all receive all you deserve!

Christmas Reading

It has now arrived the time for us, and you, to make a Christmas break. Our nearest loved ones require our full-attention, or better said, it’s us that require giving all of ourselves to them.

Now is the time to make Christmas the magical season it is to so many, old and young alike. Before continuing I would like to address a few words of encouragement and hope to so many families that just a year ago didn’t dream the hardship this Christmas would be.

Caught unaware, like all of us, in this terrible economic crisis that is punishing harshly those that little contributed for it, while leaving unhindered all those responsible. It’s time to realize, like our ancestors did, that richness comes in many shapes and ways. There may be no money to put as much, or any for that matter, food on the table, but maybe because last year there was, we didn’t value as much the human comfort that we can always present each other, a hug, a kiss, a caress on your child’s cheek, a hand ruffle through her hair.

Our heart is with you this Christmas, hoping, and willing you on, that you may muster the strength to make this the happiest, merriest Christmas of all time.

That it will be memorable, let there be little doubt.

Back to the blog, and its Christmas break.

Last year, around about this time, we asked you to LOOK at the Paraíso pictures. That particular post anticipated many things, and we were forced to interrupt our “vacations” to clarify some issues, if you remember, that even triggered all that was written about the fictitious Tapas T9 Big Round Table.

This year we propose some Christmas reading for you to do until we return. Summer last year, just before heading for my own holidays, I wrote a post called “Last Call – All ABOARD (Or NOT) !!!.

This was at a time that, although we had already debunked the BH “The Stroller” clutter, the NEGLIGENCE idea still ruled as the "what-really-happened" scenario. All blame was centered on the McCanns, and their 7 friends.

Everyone else was a reliable witness against the "T Group". Some statements, didn't make sense, we could easily see, but, these "discrepancies" were regarded having little importance because, after all, whoever made them was on our side.

The novelty was that this post warned the BH’s that upon my return from those holidays, the blog, for truth’s sake, was to redirect its blogeditorial guidelines and stop just focusing on the T9, but also on others, those that we, in the blog, thought were involved in the covering up of what happened on May 3rd, 2007 in PdL.

The post was published on August 13th, 2007. On the next day, the blog received the following unpublished comment from Yawn (to those who don’t know, Yawn, was Insane’s nick at the time):

“Yawn has left a new comment on your post "Last Call - All ABOARD (...or NOT) !!!":

It's difficult to decide sometimes whether you are sane and deeply malicious, or just completely off your head. Two things are sure, however. One is that you are full of yourself almost beyond belief, and the second is that you are quite astonishingly stupid. Posted by Yawn to Textusa at Aug 14, 2010 6:06:00 AM”

Whether we’re sane but deeply malicious, completely off our heads, full of ourselves or astonishingly stupid, we kept our word, and wrote what we thought should be written. You be the judge:

We wrote about the Tapas Bar and the famous fictitious BIG ROUND Tapas T9 table: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

And also about the peculiarities of the watersports and "drowning" activities that took place in PdL in 2007: (1), (2), (3), and (4)

We gave our opinion on the possible involvement in all this by the various levels of MW OC’s Staff: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)

The Quiz Night theme was so interesting that we decided to start one of our own, and it still has to be finished: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) and (14)

We wrote about a crucial character in this story, the "not-so-white-hat-after-all" Mrs Fenn: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

And we wrote about other guests that happened to have been at that same resort on that same infamous period, a subject to be expanded: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

And besides Mrs Fenn and OC guests, we also mentioned others: (1), (2), (3) and (4)

We didn’t overlook to provide our opinion about the possible involvement of the “powerful” in all this affair: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

For all that we wrote to make sense, we had to clarify two things.

The first, why we thought that what really was happening that week in PdL was swinging: : (1), (2), (3) and (4)

And second, we had to debunk NEGLIGENCE which was/is THE BLACK HAT MASTER MOVE (it has now become a "master trap" as nor the McCanns will let go of it as they depend on it for own survival, as they, the BHs, just can't figure a way out of it, no matter how hard they're trying, and they ARE trying): (1) and (2)

Last, but not least, we had to speak about Kate’s masterpiece, which some call it a book, and we here like to call it affidavit: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

We do hope that this will keep you entertained until we return. A merry and a wonderful Christmas and a Happy 2012 to you all, are the sincere wishes from the Bronte-Cohen Sisters.

The Mystery of Profile L

By May I
The final report of the Portuguese Police was published in June 2008. It comes to some conclusions about the scientific evidence, dismissing the relevance of a certain stain.
I am not qualified to dispute scientific evidence, but there are some intriguing questions which merit further investigation.

This is what the report had to say about the stain. “A stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleine’s room (not the one it was reported she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out. Duly analysed, the stain consisted of a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to the child- Craig G who had been on holiday earlier, with his parents, in the same apartment” (Although the name of the child is contained in the PJ files, I’ve opted to use the pseudonym, Craig G, in this quote).

Returning to newspaper reports, there was an article in the. Mail Online, June 1st 2007, which seems to be a reference to this finding: “Madeleine: “Mystery DNA” found in her bedroom” “Police searching for Madeleine McCann have found DNA from a mystery “Sixth” person was in the bedroom where she was abducted, it has been claimed. The Portuguese police, Policia Judicaria, have handed the sample to the national forensic laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, according to local newspaper 24 Horas. It does not match the DNA of Mr or Mrs McCann or their 3 children, the paper said. Neither does the DNA match that of the only named suspect in the case, property developer Robert Murat, the paper added...”

Other newspapers reported this finding and added that there were no matches to the other members of the “Tapas” group. This was subsequently confirmed in the PJ files as they show that DNA profiles were obtained for all of the group and Robert Murat. In the PJ files, there is a photograph of a bedspread, taken on May 4th (2317) Vol 1X.
The cover is purple/white and there is an exhibit number 5, marking the area of the stain. On May 9th, the Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) is sent 1 piece of cloth in envelope 5. “ from the bedspread of the bed next to the window in the children’s’ room- not the bed M slept in. …fragment of mauve/violet cloth with square motifs, circular in form about 10 cm in diameter. A small fluorescent spot is observed under a crime light. Acid photophase test to detect semen en. 5. Semen needs to be detected by other means. Result weakly positive.” Then “Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children’s bedroom: positive."
 

So far, we can deduce that semen would rule out Craig G, aged 3 as the source. Unlike Craig’s saliva deposit, which had apparently survived a wash, Madeleine’s DNA was, amazingly, nowhere to be found at the apartment.
Not a toothbrush, a hairbrush for her long hair, the clothes she wore that day, her toys?

Jose De Freitas, an officer from the Metropolitan Police, not the Leicestershire Police, was despatched to Rothley to return with a sample from M’s pillowcase.
Her DNA sample was later labelled SJM/1 by the FSS in Britain on May 22nd. The twins were labelled SBM /2 SBM/3 because there was originally some confusion about whether it was their or Madeleine’s DNA on pillowcase/cases obtained from Rothley.

The bed Madeleine was reported to have slept in was not the bed under the window, which is the bed referred to in this report. I presume this would be the bed Kate said she slept in after her argument with Gerry.
It was reported in 24 Horas that the cleaners had washed sheets, blankets and pillowcases in the McCanns’ apartment after they left.

If this was the normal procedure between guests, can we assume that the bedding had been washed twice since the saliva/semen was deposited?
If it wasn’t the normal procedure, why was it carried out following the McCanns’ departure?

The report continues “Autosomic STR’s were obtained from the following vestigios: root of 1 of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3), and in the lower zone of the fibre from the car boot. Table 1 also includes the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously."

The report then identifies 3 male DNA samples. On September 4th Goncalo Amaral (3252/3) sent 3 unidentified male profiles to the INML to check with the British database, delivered on the 9th and analysed on October 4th.

He was taken off the investigation on Oct 3rd, but this line of enquiry was continued by Paulo Rebelo when he took over the investigation on October 8th.

On 12.12.07.he asks for a forensic examination from the INML of ; “ A natureza da mancha (encontrada na colcha de uma das camas do apartamento 5A…) e que permitiu a indentificacao pela letra L. “ 

I’ll refer to them as Male 1, Male 2 and Male 3.

Male 3 is profile L, so I’ll call him Leo, to make it easier to see him as a person and not a letter Male1 sample is found in the car boot (the car rented by the McCanns) (1)  

Male 2 is found in Burgau (Vg3) (2)  

Male 3 = Leo is found on the bedspread and also hair roots - 1 at entrance to bedroom at Ocean Club, 2 in the entrance hall, 4 on the floor next to the window= 8 samples in total.

So, can Craig be the source of the 8 samples? The stain on the bedcover is now said to be his saliva, but what about the 7 hair roots?  
Rebelo sent the 3 profiles for analysis and asked for the profiles of two other guests, Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Singh Balu to be compared.

There is no result of this in the PJ files, as far as I have discovered.  

Berry and Balu ordered Take–aways from the Tapas the night Madeleine disappeared. They were later asked to account for their movements between 6pm and 11pm that night.

Their rogatory statements are available but their initial statements to the UK police are not included in the publicly released files.

There is no date on the following correspondence from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML. “It was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom where the child went missing. It has already been checked that there is no matching between the obtained genetic profile and the profile of various samples of reference, which includes the ones of parents, friends and others.”

Could "others" be Balu and Berry? We don’t know. The request goes on to ask for this to be tested against the 3 previous occupants of the apartment. Simon Andrew Fawkes, Carlo D’Ambrosio and Paul Anthony Gordon with the DNA profile L.
This is L’s profile D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11 HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D9 D21511 29-32 VWA 18 D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13 Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11 D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24 D13S317 12-14 D2S1338 18-25 D78520 10-12 D19S433 13-15 D16S539 11 XY  

“We also request a reply as regards the previous queries concerning the collected mouth swabs from Neil Berry and Rajinder Raj Sing Balu as well as their DNA profiles.”

It seems Rebelo was not receiving the information he needed as promptly as he should have? I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the first comment: “My source tells me that the Portuguese used the wrong chemical to identify semen before it was sent to the FSS. They used a saliva identifier and not semen. The chemical corrupted the sample and rendered it useless and this degradation was the reason it was sent to the FSS”
Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..  

Raymond Hewlett’s estranged son Wayne claimed to have a letter from his now deceased, formerly estranged father in September 2010, denying his involvement in Madeleine’s death, but claiming she had been taken by gypsies.
But… wait for it … the son had destroyed it, in what was derided by many wise commentators as ”the dog ate my homework” excuse.

In February 2011, Kate McCann wanted Hewlett’s German widow to tell her what she knew and Mrs Hewlett was reported as being very resentful about this intrusion.  
Kate dismisses Hewlett as a suspect in her book and the Hewlett story now seems to have died with him.

To date, there has been no attempt to link Profile L/Leo to him, but we now have a pending review by Scotland Yard. It will be interesting to see where that goes!
Could Leo’s profile may be the result of some other adult activity on the bed in question? Or the stain may indeed been from the child’s saliva, but how does that explain the 7 hairs of the same profile? What about the stain on the mattress; was that also from profile L?

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying Leo was the abductor, I can only say that I’m sure the McCanns would have been the first people to come to such a conclusion on reading the PJ files.
However, this evidence doesn’t even merit a mention in Kate’s book.

Their own timeline places an intruder in the apartment when Gerry said he made his check and hardly gives any time for any molestation of the child before the alleged abduction. I agree with the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral and others; that the evidence suggested that Madeleine died as the result of an accident in her parents’ apartment.
Paulo Rebelo seems to have suffered the same foot-dragging behaviour from the UK on providing the information he requested as his predecessor, Goncalo Amaral.

As a consequence, we may never know for certain who Profile L was. Rebelo had FAR more to investigate before the case was shelved.  


Notes:

(1) These vehicles were checked out by Rebelo:  

- Audi model A4 10-91-PF Malinka
- Renault Kangoo 07-20-UI Luis Antonio  
- Volkswagen Passat 57-12-HP L Antoni
- There was also a Volkswagen camper van 44-77-KD - Jenny Murat/ Robert Murat – car 6 of the 10 searched by the dogs in the garage in Portimao.

The car hired by the McCanns was a Renault Scenic reg: 59 DA 27  

(2) The Burgau apartment is the Solimar/ Sol e Mar where DNA profiles of a person of the maternal line of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found on 5/5/07.
The report explains why these profiles do not prove they were the profiles of RM or JT, merely a person of the same maternal lines - cousin, child, sibling, aunt… A subject for a post in its own right.

Forsaken, To Be... (Soon?)

(picture based on one published at Blacksmith's)

In Pictura Post Scriptum, Pictura (Written after the picture, in a picture):

Absolute Eloquence About Maddie

By our reader Ross A friendly holiday from Hell
Left with so many lies to tell.
Darkness in the Place of Light
Carefully hidden in plain sight.

Of scribbled lists and secret pacts
Of cold black hearts and evil acts.
Of favours called and favours won
Of innocence lost and lives undone.

Unseen powers soon took hold
Ensuring truth would not be told.
The tale of a proud nation traduced
A mockery of the case reduced.

Serpentine words slither and slime
Cynical contortions concealing crime.
Conspiracy's such an easy word
To cow the narcoleptic herd.

If she ever was, she has gone.
Yet still the dance macabre rolls on.

Dispose Of, Adequately

Kate McCann apparently has been saying that she felt “mentally raped” by the exposure of her diary by NOTW back in the day.

Apparently people are reacting to this news angrily, as, once again, before their eyes, or in this case, their ears, they see that this celebrity couple just can’t seem to have any sort of limitation to their shamelessness.

People see this episode as an attempt to scam some money from the Murdoch Empire, by sinking their teeth into the hand that has so much provided them
.

It’s, apparently, a manoeuvre spawned out of pure and evil and greed.

But let’s see if that is so. Let’s recap, and check, for example, what the mccannfiles have said on this:

"On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from 'Kate's Diary'. (...)

When it became apparent that Kate had not given authorisation for its release, the online article was instantly removed. Both The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund."

Obviously the money they got was intended to deter other newspapers from publishing these extracts.

So it can’t be about money, can it? The “debt” apparently has been settled, the mistake thus fully corrected.

Objectives fully achieved.

But still on the “greed” topic, could it be then that they NOW want more than what was involved in the “undisclosed payment”?

I can only assume that the News International’s battalion of lawyers did take some sort of precaution at the time, and some kind of documentation was signed guaranteeing no viability of any further “wanting”, no matter how brutally and viciously Kate NOW feels having been “mentally raped”, which she didn’t quite feel THEN.

So, we do have take out the “greed” off the “greed and evil” expression which you thought adequate to the McCann’s claim to have been victims of intrusion of privacy by the British Tabloids (now read this last sentence twice, and do smile like I did when I wrote it…).

But if so, it must be a very recent feeling. Only that can explain why they did, in May this year, allow The Sun, of the group which had “mentally raped” her, to publish extracts from her book. Why not another paper or just publish without serialisation in a paper?

Obviously I’m supposing that the extracts that were published before the book’s publication and the much announced but inexistent serialization that was supposed to follow it, were paid for. A package deal that would guarantee exclusiveness to the The Sun to what was going to be a huge bestseller. I may be wrong on this, but the couple has given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that their relationship with money is NOT to be taken for granted… to say the least.

So, no, I’m not seeing all this having to do with money, at least it’s not what it’s all about, as I’ll later explain.

Could be then just pure “evil”, ask you?

Well, it could. After all they’re, as said, biting viciously the hand that has fed them. If Kate and Gerry (and some others) are not locked up today, one of many they can thank for, are the Tabloids.

Not only them, of course, but they do hold one big chunk of responsibility for the couple’s arrogant impunity in these last three and a half years.

But she has already bitten that same hand the day when she published her book, hasn’t she?

Why do you think that since the publication of Kate’s book the Tabloids have practically turned their back on the couple, when the same Tabloids had, before that fact, announced they were going to run a full circus with the couple?

I’ve already written about that, and explained what various humungous mistakes Kate made when she published that thing. I’ll point out just two. The first was to sign an enormous affidavit when silence was recommended, and the second, to point, in that same affidavit, all her fingers, including her beautifully manicured nails, towards an “inside job”.

The couple alone, and their group of "known" friends, by themselves, certainly didn’t have enough power to influence the Tabloids. If one is to just add up two and two, it was probably those same “insiders” that made sure that those Tabloids, and the "serious" Brit Media, distorted the reality according to the desired tune.

Anyone can have a big mouth, but no one can take a bigger bite than the one Kate was able to with that book. And it really hurt the hand she bit.

Explains why, even with this emotional “mentally raped” cry, we practically can’t see the book on sale, a supposed record breaking best-seller. You have to look really hard if you want to buy a copy, and most likely will be able to buy it with a significant discount.

As a side note, do allow me to address just a few words to Kate.

Kate, your recent ageing and sincerely distraught expression, do show real and truthful worry and anguish.

THAT is what we expected to see from you, for 3 whole years: a distraught expression of a mother of an abducted little girl.

Not because we wanted you worried and unhappy, but because it's not an expectation but a certainty that the uncertainty of the fate and the uncertainty of the sufferance of a lost child to an abductor can bring only utter and horrifying worry and complete unhappiness to her parents. Whatever child, whatever parent.

When your child was supposedly abducted, you went jogging. When your book flopped, you aged.

Yes, we both know your recent accelerated ageing has nothing to do with the book flopping. It has to do with worry, real worry.

But that’s all your doing. Back to the readers. 

We’ve now concluded that this “mentally raped” episode was not for the money, nor out of evil. Then why? 

Before proceeding, let me clarify that I’m not saying that money isn’t an issue for the McCanns. It is, and might be the crux of all this. But not out of greed, but of survivability.

As I’ve said time and time again, TIME is McCanns’ greatest enemy and the Black Hats’ biggest ally.

You see, for the common Black Hat, the longer it takes for the truth to come out, the greatest are the odds that s/he (or that parent or close relation) will come out of this unscathed, as time erodes memory, and facts do become myth and vice-versa.

Details will be lost, and guilt will forever lodge solely on the individual minds. Am I saying that this will all go unpunished? No, of course I’m not.

I’m only talking about those who are secondary role players. People who shouldn’t have been involved in the first place, but because they naively agreed to participate in a “sure” thing, their life has become a living hell as of August 2007 (time when truth finally started to surface).

For the big role players, they live in the nightmare that once the truth will surface, their names and deeds will be known, but for the others, each passing day is a blessing.

But the exception for these, the "little BHs", as you know, is this blog.

They visit it daily, directly or indirectly, to check if their name pops up, and will forever be registered in history. They know if it doesn’t appear here, then they’re on safe ground. And I’m talking about many who are today perceived as White Hats, or, at least, as irrelevant bystanders…

But for the McCanns, each day is one day further into oblivion. And they don’t want oblivion. They need the spotlight. Not out of vanity, but of real need.

Each set of 24 hours means that they’ll be 24 hours less relevant than they were just 24 hours before.

Whatever trump they hold, it will have suffered a 24 hour erosion, which means it becomes less powerful each 24 hours. That simple.

Mind you, the McCanns will never fade completely away. Their case will be kept being remembered forever more.

But unlike the BHs, for them each day doesn’t mean that they are one step closer to finally being off the hook, but, quite on the contrary, it means that they are one day closer to being fished line, sink and hook.

Let me explain. Someone has been paying “the bill”.

The Fraudulent Fund did roll in some convenient millions in those first few months, but as of July/August 2007, if not before, the revenue from the general public basically dried up.

Someone has to be paying “the bill”.

Before you think I’m going to reveal here who is doing so, let me disappoint you by telling you that I’m not going to do that. A good reason for not doing it, it's because I don’t know.

Nor do I care to know, sincerely. But I do know that someone, singular or plural, is taking this "tab".

All the millions, and in terms of millions, they weren’t that many, that we’ve been told to have existed in the Fund, through basic mathematical calculation, wouldn’t have been enough to pay what have been known expenditures, which of the many, one the biggest must be having to keep the couple’s, and family, daily existence and lifestyle, as of May 3rd, 2007, to date.

And this is where the TIME factor is decisive.

You see, with each passing day the "tab" becomes harder to be picked up.

For each set of 24 hours that passes, the amount paid seems less reasonable to be paid, by whoever is paying it, than it was 24 hours before. It’s not only the amount that is questioned, but, most importantly, the reason(s) to do so.

If this source of income dries up for the McCanns, it will be disastrous for them.

When it happens, it will mean, in practical terms, they’ve been deemed not to have enough worth to be “kept” any longer.

That day they will have become what they most fear: worthless.

And what is worthless, is best disposed of.

The McCanns with this invasion of privacy claim, epitomized with the “mentally raped”, are fighting back.

Fighting for their survival.

Fighting so that “bill” is kept being paid. Fighting for that at least the “installments” will keep coming.

Reluctantly having to accept that each day the “payment” will be a little less, in amount and will, than it “was” the day before, but hoping that the day it will definitely stop will be a long time from now.

And they're fighting with the weapons little people usually have: little weapons. They’ve convinced themselves that they were big, but they are what they are, always were, and never stopped to be: little.

All they can do is say “Hey, we’re still here!” And hope someone hears. It seems that someone still feels that they're pretending to "hear". Let's wait and see how loud their voices will be next February.

But there will be the day “the bill” will be stopped being paid, and a little bird is telling me that it may be sooner than they would like it to be…

History is filled with little people who’ve been used, that thought they were the ones doing the using, that were deemed worthless and disposed of.

Post Scriptum:
It was just a year ago that this blog revolutionized the public’s perception about this case. We realize that our public is far from being the "general public" (although we've been accused, and threatened because of it, of being too popular when we had, if I remember, 60.000 hits), but is a public so many fear. Because you are intelligent, respectful, cooperative and participative, and above all, commited as we are.

Just a year ago, the Tapas dinners were taken for granted; the Ocean Club, its management and staff, were on our side of the fence; that we knew the British Police did act suspiciously, but we didn’t know, or understand, the full scope of the intent to boycott the investigation from the start; the guests that shared the resort with the T9 were simple bystanders; Mrs Fenn was just a nice and concerned elderly lady…

This was in just a year. We thank you for keeping us motivated.

British Discrepancies

There seems to be lately a rather heated fuss in Britain about Blatter’s blunder on racism. 

It seems that, according to the Brit tabloids, in particular my favorite one, The Sun, the least humanity could do to this man was to cover him in barbeque sauce and throw him to the lions under jubilant roars of a “justful” crowd:

 

According to these papers, it seems, that racism should be treated in the harshest, most vehement manner possible. No holding back. For the foulest of crimes, the most violent of sentences.

But, if memory doesn’t fail me, I do remember one particular episode, from a Tony Parsons, in The Mirror, where various flattering adjectives were used to qualify individuals from another Country.

This article, unfortunately, cannot be read any longer in its original site (wonder why?) but, thanks to Joana’s blog, we can still read this piece of literary masterpiece:

 
"OH, UP YOURS, SENOR Tony Parsons 29/10/2007

Portugal's ambassador to Britain, Senor Antonio Santana Carlos, says that the Madeleine McCann case has seriously damaged relations between the two countries. Well, whose fault is that?

It is the fault of the spectacularly stupid, cruel Portuguese police. I have never much cared for the convention of calling cops "pigs" or "filth", but I am happy to make an exception. They have tried to cover their humiliation at coming nowhere close to finding that stolen child by fitting up her parents.

The decline in relations is also the fault of the appalling Portuguese media, happy to print any piece of poisonous trash spoon-fed to them by "police sources" treating the abduction of a small child as light entertainment.

And the Portuguese public must also take their share of the blame. The sight of locals jeering at Kate McCann as she went in for questioning made me feel as though these leering bumpkins were not from another country, but another planet.

And the good ambassador can also be blamed for the decline in relations.

When he should be exercising a little diplomacy, he huffs and he puffs about the McCanns' tragic decision to leave their children sleeping alone on the night Madeleine was stolen.

"In Portugal we have the concept of a nuclear family," sniffs Senor Carlos. "That the families all live together."

They made a mistake, ambassador. Their lives have been wrecked. That is punishment enough, without your asinine, unwanted comments.

And I would respectfully suggest that in future, if you can't say something constructive about the disappearance of little Madeleine, then you just keep your stupid, sardine-munching mouth shut."

For these words, we haven't heard any apologies, nor heard any demand FROM THE BRITISH MEDIA, tabloid or other, for one.

But for Blatter’s words we got an outright public outraged condemnation, including one from the Brit PM himself.
 
Oh, it must be that suggesting (stupidly I must add Mr Blatter) that racism could be resolved simply by a handshake is much, much more serious than using the following words towards a diplomat, an institution and an entire country: the spectacularly stupid, cruel Portuguese police I have never much cared for the convention of calling cops "pigs" or "filth", but I am happy to make an exception appalling Portuguese media the Portuguese public (…) leering bumpkins were not from another country, but another planet. without your asinine, unwanted comments just keep your stupid, sardine-munching mouth shut and other interesting wording...

To condemn Blatter's words and just be silent about Parson's opinion is just another one of those “acceptable” British discrepancies?
   
PS: To write Senor, instead of Senhor, when referring to a Portuguese male individual, just goes to show the author's high cultural level. For example, like not knowing how much sardines are appreciated by fellow Brit tourists.