Wednesday, 30 December 2009

New Year's Wish - McCanns Wiped OFF the Map (... but whose wish, I wonder ?)

A friend of mine alerted me to a peculiarity that is occuring (don't exactly know for how long it's like that, as I just confirmed it) on the net.
It's usual, and understandable, for military or national security agencies to be "censored" from the digital maps that anybody can access. However, there is, at least one site that, not falling in either category, has had some privacy "privileges".
Here is a photo of Rothley, Leicester, hometown of some friends of ours:
Here is another, from another site:
Spot the differences? Only that some houses have been changed into green shrubbery. Not many... just all the ones below.
I wonder who lives in that area? And why would they like to hide in the woods.
Could it be a New Year's resolution come true, even before this one has ended? You never know with the connections these people have...

Sunday, 20 December 2009

Merry Christmas, McCanns & Friends

Unfortunately for Maddie, she's unable to come home. Home, as in Rothley, that is. I hope wherever her soul is, she's in peace, and is home. I do believe in that.

About the second appeal on the opening page of the website, I beseech any of the people on the picture below to come forth and reveal where her body is. We know you know where she's laying. Please, please do let this desperate appeal touch your heart in this such meaningful season.

Saturday, 5 December 2009

Give Maddie a Chance - The Video

Just doing my tiny little bit.

Just a grain of sand.

That's how much I think I represent.

But, if everyone did their bit, there would be a greater beach to be landed upon than the one's the Allies found in Normandy in their heroic plight for freedom (a sacrifice so little respected these days)

Sunday, 29 November 2009

Caption the McCann Photo - the results

I confess I had a riot. 

The pics started to pile up, and I began to face a problem that was that I was looking in having an enormous post just with images. 

 The solution was to create a blog just for this relaxing exercise: 

This way, I can keep on updating it, with my own creations and with those received, voluntarily or not. Enjoy. 

Or, to some of you, not. 

That would please me.

PLACE A CAPTION, Textusa’s FIRST Online Contest

For me this picture is where the Infamous Couple is most unfortunate in their portrayal.

Look at their expression. How many adjectives can you find appropriate? So many, I’m sure, as I’m sure also that none benefit the couple.

To add to their misfortune, they hold a piece of paper right in front of them, as if asking please “please erase its insides and place your own caption on it”.

I’m thinking of some myself, and will probably use this picture with them many a time in posts yet unwritten. Do feel free to have a go.

Remember, it’s got to fit in that piece of paper:

Friday, 27 November 2009

DUMBVILLE LANE - From Rothley to Everton FC

I was "offline" at the time, but was completely surprised and totally astonished with the sad, sad spectacle that the Everton FC fans gave in Lisbon, when their club went there to play SL Benfica.

Still haven't figured if those people really believed in what they were doing or if they were trying a marketing ploy thinking that Maddie is a popular-heart-breaking-heart-warming theme amongst the Portuguese, and thus creating some positive empathy out of the stupid, ignorant "sardine-munchers".

Either case, my opinion is the same: DUMBASS STUPID.

I even thought that God had a finger on that final humiliating result. If angels could be heard, I'm sure Maddie's giggle would have been heard all the way to Rothley.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

The McCann Road to Punishment

Do me a favor and picture a road in your mind. Not the one above, just any road that pops up in your brain. Although a simple request, clear and to-the-point, it has endless possibilities for an answer.

You may come up with a seaside route, or a curvy road running through mountains like wild spaghetti. You may line it with trees or simply run it through a desert. Might even throw in a sunset, or spoil it all by sprinkling it with potholes.

The point is that each and every one responds correctly to what was required: to be a picture of a road. All diverse, all correct.

What has this to do with the McCanns? Well, basically what each one of us pictures “guilt” and “punishment”.

The more purists state that one is ONLY adequately punished for a committed crime AFTER, and only after, being sentenced by a rightful Court-of-Law.

Theoretically correct, flawed simply by assuming that the Justice system is, well, JUST, and most importantly, that is able to punish ALL crimes.

So, all those that have committed a crime and are not sentenced by abovementioned Justice, are “unpunished”, or as some even say, have “got away with it”.

I’ve already written about what I think about the “innocent until proven guilty” concept. So I’ll summarize it here just by saying that it’s as naïve as misused. A person, according to it, that has committed a crime and is not sentenced, is not “unpunished” but INNOCENT.

I hear some voices saying that I should leave that to the rightful Courts. I would, if I could. If I believed in them, or, I would if they made themselves believable to me. But they don’t even try. They have, unfortunately, become just a mockery of what they were created for.

The whole gag thing on the Amaral’s book is quite a good example.

If the book, or what is written in its pages, were full of lies, or full of slander, still there is no justifiable reason that I can see to place a cloak over it, exclusively against British eyes. If lies and slander were to be valid reasons for censorship, why haven’t the authorities acted upon the British tabloids?

We, who have read it, know it lieless and slanderless.

So the reason lies not with the lies in it, but with all those surrounding it. Reasons stated by a British Judge, at least. Out of a system that I’m supposed to deposit ALL my trust on guaranteeing that all punishable are punished and all innocent are freed. Imagine that. Me telling you a blatant lie and in turn DEMANDING from you that I be treated, and looked upon, as Honest Jane. Pretty insulting, wouldn’t be? Not to mention what a show of stupidity as I wouldn’t be able to pull it off, or of arrogance if I could.

Back to the McCanns and the picture of the road. Are they guilty? In my opinion, yes. Have they been punished? In my opinion, again, yes. They are human disgust.

Reading news about Maddie is getting tiresome. People know for a fact that she’s dead. Nobody buys the McCann act anymore. Everybody has stopped caring, because they know that that pair isn't fooling nobody anymore, and are just one sorry pair of sods that, had they ANY shame, should present themselves in the nearest prison and ask, plead, beg, to be locked away for life.

And that is exactly what their state is: locked away for life. Locked in a lie, for the rest of their lives.

Locked in the fact of having played a relevant role in a fraud that involved millions, pounds and people, for the rest of their lives. Payback won't be tardy. At least on the "pound" bit.

Locked in the conscience of being guilty, for the rest of their lives.

Locked in the knowledge that each stranger is just another anonymous accuser, for the rest of their lives.

Locked in the stare of a society that knows that they are simply a couple of “unpunished”, far from innocent, for the rest of their lives.

Locked in the terror felt about the moment when Sean and Amelie will find the truth. How each of them will find it and how each will react. Will it be Sean first, or will it be Amelie? Should they be the ones to go through the hell of telling or should they trust chance to escape from this inferno? Can anything be worse than never being able to trust your own children’s stare for the rest of your life? Honestly, I can't imagine anything worse. But I can imagine the anguish it's causing. About that, the only certainty is that each day passing is one day nearer to this horrific CERTAIN reality. Amelie and Sean, drugged one night, growing maturity by the day, for the rest of their life.

Locked by Maddie’s remembrance, praying each and every day for her forgiveness, but dying never knowing if they ever got it.

I call that a sentence for life. I call that punishment.

 I will not get into Divine Justice. They may be non-believers, as, for all I know, all their church-going may be a farce as is the remainder of their lives.

As a believer, I believe that a sentence will be pronounced. But this one, not for life. A sentencing in a rightful earthly Court would be mostly a “coming-to-peace” for the couple, not to me.

I’m pretty much satisfied with their self-sentenced punishment. They have a big enough burden on their shoulders. Why then, do I keep writing?

Because, as I said before, a rightful Judge decided, purposefully, in my opinion, wrongly. Or rightly so, according to interests strange to Justice but certainly not strange to some in some strange places.

Because this particular Judge is only one of many official “players”in this absurd “game”.

Because this whole lie is so evident that only very powerful “players” may have kept it going for as long as it has been going on.

Because very powerful “players” make up a very powerful something, and when something is this powerful it affects society itself. All of us, but most important to me, me.

For all those that will read me in the future, yes, we do live in absurd, but interesting, times these days. I do hope that our humanity has finally been able discover some common sense.

If not, don’t worry, wisdom has always been built with blocks of absurdity.

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Just some words to keep a promise

A promise is a promise, and I promised I would be back on the 6th.

Must inform that I’ve been through 3 sleepless nights, trying to the best of my ability to make my small businesses survive.

Portugal is, if anything else, a mighty opponent.

About our little girl, during my absence, I’ve seen a lot of noise, but of little importance. The injunction of Amaral´s book, just another sign how unjust is the Portuguese justice (small letter intentional) when, recognizing it’s own inaptitude to provide justice either in time or in a fair manner, comes up with the legal term of “injunction” which basically means absolutely nothing, except to be unnecessarily coercive.

The legal attack on Joana’s site. Unless law has become borderless (by the way the only world where legality really works as is ruthless) cannot see the objective, unless, as is my opinion, someone is desperately trying to rid themselves to any linkage to the infamous ones.

The unfortunate support of MPT to Amaral´s cause. Real politik at it’s best. The man deserved better, interests determined otherwise.

What else? The McCs coming to Lisbon? Kate’s hand is so up Gerry’s crotch that she’s so scared shitless that doesn’t even realize how ridiculous that rehearsed pose has become.

Just a couple of crooks trying to stay alive by keeping themselves on the news.

The withdrawal of Maddie’s page from The Sun says much, much more.

The bed is calling, the eyes are starting to acquire a very acute hearing.

See ya.

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

Silly Season has Begun!

Back from holidays.

The problem with them is that when we get back, we find all the problems concentrated in one huge pile, welcoming you to the harshest of realities.

About my holidays. As you might imagine, a lot of ball-whacking, same amount of wave-riding, all added up with the mathematical impossibility of horse-riding, beach-going, dinner-having, and drink-swallowing, squeezing the meager 24 daily hours into something a little more.

Impossible as said, but what lovely stress!

Back into “business”, I would like to congratulate Algarve for going the second-year straight without having a kidnapped English-little-girl-daughter-of-serious-parenting doctors. That is an achievement if I say so myself.

On a personal note, had a bog row with my daughter-in-law, because although we were on a second floor apartment, she locked the windows in case Maddie’s kidnapper was about.

Yes, she also agrees that there was no kidnapping, but, in her own words, “better safe than sorry”.

Congratulations, McCann scum, your story has grown into hysteria. What once was a peaceful region, is now, thanks to you, an area where people are afraid of shadows.

Damn you. I thought that the illustrious couple were to cash-in, in every sense of the expression, on the plight of the woman found in the States. Nothing relevant from them, which confirms my opinion that they’re not taken seriously anywhere in this small planet of ours.

I heard that there was an article about smacking the ears of Brian Kennedy. Biting the hand of the hand that has fed you is fruit of only two things: you’ve either been mistreated, or you’ve realized that you’re about to be put down.

A desperate senseless move. If your owner has decided your fate, there is little you can do about it.

About Amaral’s book being censored in Portugal. That is one of the most brilliantly stupid attitude that I’ve ever had the privilege to witness.

Couldn’t anybody tell these jackasses that banning a book that has been on sale for over a year, that whoever wanted it to read it, has read it, is as useful as selling Christmas trees on December 26th?

Just brought back attention to it, you stupid, sad sods. Just one huge unnecessary nail in the foreseeable Socrate’s electoral coffin. I would laugh it out, or shake my head, but my jaw has dropped so low that doing either would be hurtful.

McCanns, let me tell you something really, really heartfelt: your NEXT dumb move has to be really, really well thought out and planned, to be able to surpass this one.

Even you have to exceed yourselves in all that stupidity in which you live every day single day of that self-damned life of yours. I’d almost dare you, but won’t, because I know that you won’t disappoint me.

Saturday, 15 August 2009

Clarence Mitchell - The Luckiest, Unluckiest Turd of All

I haven’t done a lot of research about Clarence Mitchell. I particularly dislike the man, so the little I did was a very unpleasant experience.

No one is without qualities. Some do challenge this notion, but no one ever is. Without qualities.

Gerry McCann, for example, is able to stand on his own two feet without help and Kate, his beloved faithful wife, does knows so much about what I know, judging by the amount of times I’ve heard her say “y’know”.

Even if there isn’t much to be discovered, doing any researching on Clarence was evidently an agonizing painful process, wish I pray I won’t have to repeat. I got to know that he was a Media Monitor, a director at that, for the British Government at the time of Maddie’s demise and as of somewhere in May/June 2007 became the spokesman /PR for the McCann couple.

I think there isn’t much else to know. To confirm that, I picked up the following summary from my “Totally-Reliable-Maddie-Related-Bullock-Research-Centre”, also known as The Sun, on this character:  

“The making of a media expert From TV to Madeleine, and beyond 

- 1962 Born and educated in north-west London. Tries working in a bank after school but hates it. 

- 1982 Joins Hendon and Finchley Times as a trainee reporter, which brings him into contact with the local MP, Margaret Thatcher. "To see the Prime Minister sweep into the office with Special Branch while you are writing up the latest golden wedding is quite an experience." 

- 1985 Shift work on Sunday Express. 

- 1986 Joins the BBC in Sheffield as a radio reporter, before going on to television in Leeds with Look North. 

- 1989 Breakfast News in London, then "fireman" sent where needed, including extensive war reporting. 

- 1999 Made a BBC News presenter. 

- 2005 Joins Civil Service as director of Downing St Media Monitoring Unit. 

- May 2007 Sent to Portugal to help with press attention in the McCann case. 

- September 2007 Quits the Civil Service to become spokesman for McCanns. 2008 Extends help to other families.”

 I love the “tries working in a bank after school but hates it” Incompetents usually use the “hatred” or “boredom” excuses to hide, mainly from themselves, the harsh reality of being what they are, so this reveals, to me, up-front a personal trait of being totally inapt in anything that he engages on, and which he keeps on confirming.

One can only wonder how can ANYONE possibly deduce anywhere from this “brilliant” CV a “Media Expert”, but from The Sun, anything can be expected. Unsurprisingly it’s the case.

A Media Monitor is not a Media Expert. He keeps his activity to monitoring information in the media, doesn’t produce it, manipulate it or even influence it in any way. It’s his boss who determines what he has and is to read.

A hound sent out to chase the fox while the boss sits his butt in an expensive saddle all pretty and posh in his red jacket. He reads (and watches) all that is written (and shown) about the boss (like blogs as this one), especially the subjects determined by the boss, sifts all the information gathered and reports, as ordered, to the boss whatever the boss has told him to report about.

Pretty simple, with no particular expertise or any kind special qualification required. He is not even a journalist. Can be, but is not required to be one. He just reads what journalists (sorry to the real ones, but here I’m also including tabloid writers) and bloggers write.

That’s it. Like any toilet-seat-warmer, doing something that the boss doesn’t want to do or doesn’t have time or patience for. And a toilet-seat-warmer is no toilet expert, as a Media Monitor is certainly not an expert on media.

At best, he’s an expert in speed reading or paragraph summarizing. Or, by experience, on the quality of the paper in which the news are printed on.

So, seeing written on a British newspaper by, I imagine, a British journalist, that Clarence Mitchell is a media expert, reveals quite a lot about the British Media itself.

It’s as if the Nobel Academy considered, officially, that Homer Simpson was one of its most respected members. Quite clarifying, I must say.

You can tell a lot about someone not only from the people around him, but mostly from those he CHOOSES to have around. We know how the Maddie affair has shown about the quality of some of the Portuguese media and the ENTIRE British one.

Clarence Mitchell is nothing but a glamorized average-to-below-average bloke catapulted to stardom on qualifications that he doesn’t merit, have or is able to have. That is called being LUCKY.

It would be stupidly cruel to criticize him on that. Many have been given chances that they haven’t deserved, and are not obviously asked to decline, although that would be the wisest of decisions in the majority of the cases, as this case exemplifies.

The problem with Clarence is that he’s convinced that he is what they say he is, when he’s only the opposite. He thinks he’s an added value when, in fact, he’s a hindering splint on a sprinter’s calf.

Let’s forget, for a minute, that it was even mentioned ever that he was a “Media Expert”.

Let us just focus on him being the McCann spokesman. The couple’s very own Public Relations man. As if the couple was a major conglomerate able to afford one on their payroll, which is exceptional by all standards. Not even the millionaire-national-hero Charles Lindbergh had one after his child disappeared.

So, is he doing a good job as PR? Ask the McCanns. Sorry, I forgot that they are unable to tell the truth from that decisive moment on that fateful evening in which Kate accepted the whole scheme that was to ensure that ALL would get off the hook. So, yes, they are very satisfied, and yes, that laughter in the background is mine.

Let’s start with his attire. Everyone is free to dress as they will. With the exception of those who’ve voluntarily chose to be exposed to the public eye for professional or glamourful reasons. These aren’t. They have to make the CORRECT choices in attire.

It’s as a valid professional tool as any other. Whoever told Clarence that pinks looked good on him, likes him even less than I do, and if it was an inner voice, I maintain what I just said. There is a very thin line between being bold and being ridiculous. It requires a certain sensibility and sensitivity which the Americans refer as “it” and the French as the “je ne sais pas quoi”. It’s a common trait amongst gay men (that’s why so many are designers) but not exclusive to people with that particular sexual option.

If you see someone wearing bright colors in a variety of materials and look desirable, he’s got it. If he looks ridiculous, he hasn’t. And by all means I’m not saying that Clarence isn’t gay. Just stating that he has no taste whatsoever in clothes. Clarence Mitchell is a total fashion disaster in any way, gender or sexual option you happen to be looking from. He wouldn’t even make the “worst-dressed” list, because this is made for people with bad taste, not for those with no taste at all.

It’s supposed to be his job to look good, or to not to be looked at, at all. He’s unable to do either.

Let’s now move forward and forget looks. Let us look for competence. After all, that is what really matters. A PR is an Information Manager. Analyzes what he has to work with and designs all the required strategies and tactics to achieve the outcome that he has determined will best express success.

The number ONE rule in Information Management (IM) is that you manage it, you’re NOT it. You make the news, you’re NOT the news. See immediately where Clarence is a total nincompoop?

Let me give an example of a good PR: whoever got Senator Barack Obama elected. Do you know the person? Exactly. But do try to hire him. He was worth his weight in gold before the US election. Now his price has gone up threefold.

I do realize that the Senator was/is a pretty good material to work with in terms of IM, and you do certainly get to sweat it out to get anything decent out of the McCanns, but if it’s them you have, it’s with them that you have to work with. That’s what you get paid to do, to extract the best of what you have, not of what you could’ve had.

Oh, you say that he’s a Spokesman, not a PR. Ok, lets go down that path too. I’ll use the US Presidency once again. How many times have you seen the U.S. President’s Spokesman answering questions from the Press with the President standing behind him? Or even in the same room? How many times have you seen ANY political spokesman speaking to the press with those he represents behind him?

A Spokeman speaks on behalf of someone when, and ONLY when, that particular someone for some reason is unable to do so himself. Because he has more important things to do, such is the case of the US President, or because he’s in grief, such should be the case of a parent of a kidnapped child.

You DO NOT have a spokesman just because you can afford one, is fashionable or looks cool. You do that, and it backfires: Clarence Mitchell. In the case of a grieving parent of a kidnapped child, the choice for a spokesman befalls usually upon the Police. Not because the parent may or may not afford an “expert spokesman” but because it’s required a trained professional to handle such sensitive information.

The kidnappers are watching and all words and facial expressions must be carefully chosen, and that is a job for the Police, certainly not for an “I’m-too-sexy-for-my-body-kind-a-guy”.

About this, to the best of me recollection, the only time I remember the McCanns addressing Maddie’s supposed kidnappers, was in an unconvincing emotionless reading of words written down on a piece of paper.

All appeals, the real emotional ones, were made to the “general public”, those who were able to help Maddie (who her parents miss beyond words or ACTION) by contributing to the Infamous Fraudulent Fund, also known as the “Brian-Kennedy-you-got-had Fund”.

To watch Clarence Mitchell speaking on behalf of a couple that stands right behind him was an incomprehensible spectacle, a stupid exercise of human behavior. Only justified if the couple wasn’t to be trusted to speak directly to the Press, which was not the case as they spoke by themselves on numerous other occasions.

It was simply the horrific result of a misjudgment by an incompetent man, Clarence Mitchell, doing the best he is able to do. I might, one day, tell you how I would conduct, were I in Clarence’s shoes, the McCann affair.

Let me summarize for now that it would involve abandonment of the scene of the crime at the earliest possible time, and a lot of negotiating, involving all, from the criminals to the politicians, on who was to take the fall, if such became necessary. And most importantly, all was to be done in the lowest of profiles.

No media at all. Just a small news-release, if handling the situation from Day1, or, after Sky News picked up the story, doing the best to downsize it to an ongoing Police investigation. Take the punishment, contain the damage. If things well conducted, the punishment would be slight and the damage imperceptible.

No Fund whatsoever. That was an unnecessarily greedy mistake.

But no, the Media Circus option was the one taken. I do understand that the British Government only realized how serious the situation was in late May. But when you’re in a tight spot you call McGyver, not Mr. Bean.

Trusting Clarence with the job was turning an unpleasant situation into a major disaster. And that was exactly what he was able to achieve. Now, a man can only be asked to do what he’s able to do. And when one works one’s ass off to the best of one’s ability but is only able to achieve failure, is one really to blame?

Clarence is incompetent not by his will, but for lack of competent skills for the job he was given. Like if you ask someone to drive a Formula 1 car in a championship race without having a driver’s license, you cannot expect him to get the car till the first curve, much less to do one full lap.

To be mandated with such a task would be very UNLUCKY. And that’s exactly what they’ve asked Clarence to do. They’ve given this poor, pompous and vain man a humungous unachievable task.

To hear that he manipulates news doesn’t make me laugh, only brings me a pitiful smile.

 Now let’s look at his status today. He’s loathed by any human being that has heard of Maddie. Even the supporters who feel he has done a pretty bad job. He’s hated by the McCanns, who are stuck in this fixed “forced marriage” with this bloke, and how they wish they could get rid of him, he’s got the “plague” as no serious journalist wants to be seen around him, he’s despised by those who’ve paid his salary for although he isn’t the responsible one, he has decisively contributed to the ill-spending of their money.

Pretty lonely place to be, isn’t it Clarence? That’s why he's aged so much lately. Looking back, I wonder who convinced him to leave the Civil Service and accept this ruinous job.

I can only think that someone saw an opportunity to get rid of him and took it.

Probably the same person who told him that pink was the color to go for… And that person is still celebrating to this day…

(I thought I would leave you this post before a left toward the sunset… see ya!)

Friday, 14 August 2009

This Summer, Be VERY Generous

Forget about hunger in Africa, typhoon, tornado or flood victims.

Forget also about any charity campaign that might have the words "poverty" or "desease" linked to it, as it will only be just a shameful marketing ploy to get filthy hands on your money.

We know who REALLY deserves our money, don't we?

Now, directly to the McCanns: lest you've forgotten, here's a suggestion on how how you can get your hands on the BIGGEST of all donations! Help Find Maddie yourselves and go for it. Ask not what OTHERS can do for Maddie, ask rather what YOU can do for her:

Note: While I'm not busy pressing those lovely PayPal buttons (do give it a go, it's loads of fun as it's "McCann Guaranteed" and if you can't trust them, who can you trust? Payne? LOL) I'll be hogging all the Sun's rays that I possibly can until the end of the month. Just a little sacrifice I'll be making so that the rest of the world can have healthy skin... See you then.

Sunday, 9 August 2009

Being Intentionally and Purposefully Obscene

The press-conference done by the indescribable Mitchell & Edgar was an insult to each and every single one of us.

Unnecessarily obscene.

Rubbing it on our faces how they can DARE insist that the Sun has frozen over and still be taken be taken “seriously” by some.

The conveniently so ever-ready “some”. It’s no longer spinning a lie. It’s ridiculously abusing it.

How many computer generated faces are we still to see? I know that saying a lie a thousand times, makes whatever is said to be truthful, thus the gazillion misquotations that exist.

But there are some lies that not even a gazillion times can make it anything else than it is, a blatant, stupid lie.

Saying that Maddie is alive is like shouting in Tel-Aviv that the Holocaust never existed. It’s insulting. It’s obscene. It’s ridiculous.

So to all in the UK, please do go on protecting the murdering scum as you may. It’s a stupid useless exercise, in my opinion, but I respect you to differ.

But do stop once and for all, insulting my intelligence as a human being.

It degrades you even further.

To all those who’ve asked (insulted) me if I’ll eat my words if Maddie is to be found alive, firstly I’ve said that I would at once apologise to the McCann couple.

I’ve since changed my mind. Yes, I would rejoice for the little girl to be alive.

Unfortunately I won’t because she never made it to 4.

But looking at the behavior, from day 1, of the ignominious couple and thinking that how they’ve acted in the interest of a living missing offspring, well, let me tell you that thinking (knowing) them as murdering scum is a better opinion (if such can be said) than that of thinking of them as parents of a suffering kidnapped child.

That’s how insulting this whole lie is to me.

Saturday, 8 August 2009

Thank You, Sir

Heaven, is, as of today, a much happier place. Thank you for a time well spent amongst us. Will miss you.

Friday, 7 August 2009

Maddie's Aussie Woman Found!

Police believe she now lives in Leicester, and has VERY VALUABLE information about the case.

However, they're still awaiting for approval to question her.

Monday, 20 July 2009

A Response to a Comment

A comment left yesterday: 

So, you have taken three long and rather convoluted posts to say what we all knew that your ilk are claiming anyway: that 'Levy' is a McCann plant, a traitor working for 'the enemy'. This is risible, ridiculous rubbish. 

This conman has fed the case from almost the begining - he IS the source for so much of the lurid, stupid rubbish paraded by so many as fact. (I note you are still parading, on 3As, the idea that the McCann party were swingers - a claim made on prime time Poruguese TV can never be rescinded heh, no matter how obviously false?) 

The idea that the McCanns would deliberately feed this vile rubbish into the public consciousness is SO insane that it is indeed a mark of the desperation of the 'community' which exists only to trash them. They are not going to be tried, let alone go to prison. 

You and yours know no more about the truth of what happened to that poor child than your own semi-useless idol, GA. 

But to persevere with the idea that Levy is batting for the other side - well, it's funny to be frank, in a rather creepy sort of way. It's also sad that a clearly intelligent person should be so totally sucked into the conspiraloon mindest.

Let’s, like Billy Crystal, analyse this: So, you have taken three long and rather convoluted posts to say what we all knew that your ilk are claiming anyway: that 'Levy' is a McCann plant, a traitor working for 'the enemy'. This is risible, ridiculous rubbish. This conman has fed the case from almost the begining - he IS the source for so much of the lurid, stupid rubbish paraded by so many as fact.

Against your conscious will, most certainly, we, you and I, find ourselves mostly in agreement. There are only two little details in which we differ: him being planted and his rubbish being paraded as fact. The rest of the paragraph, I subscribe entirely.

Saying that I even thought that he was planted by your people would be giving credit where absolutely is neither due or deserved. I simply implied that he was used by your ilk to undermine the truth.

Figuratively speaking, your people saw a breech in the wall and exploited it. But you didn’t create it. From which point of time you started the exploitation, I couldn’t care less.

There are manipulative people, and people who think they are. The main difference between them, apart the intelligence bit, is that the first are shrewd and avoid any limelight, whilst the latter are like boasting kids after winning a soccer match.

People that THINK they are manipulative are the easiest to be manipulated due to their permeable personalities. Arrogance, egocentrism and vanity are normal attributes of these souls, so they are as easy to convince as is a dog to go and fetch a stick. Just dip it in gold, throw it, and off they go.

However, what they don’t realize in the moment they bolt after the stick is that there is no turning back, and obviously nobody s going to tell them that. Once exposed, they, suddenly find themselves standing on no-man’s land, appetizing targets to fire incoming from all sides, which, by the way, your comment is a perfect example of.

About his rubbish being paraded as fact, it would have been nice of you to have used an example, but you, and your people are not here to be nice, are you? His rubbish, it seems indeed, is indeed rubbish. But as far as I can recall you can hardly call it facts. Any which way you look at it.

The 24 photos? Him being on Oprah? Him being in Sri Lanka or in Aachen? Being in Rothley? Kate depressed? It they are all true, then there are 24 photos, he was on Oprah, was in Aachen, Sri Lanka and Rothley and Kate is depressed. If they are also false, then there are no 24 photos, he wasn’t on Oprah, nor was he in Aachen, Sri Lanka or Rothley and Kate isn’t depressed. If some are true and others not, you do the fact-giggling please. What is relevant if any this is true or false? Absolutely nothing. That’s how important his rubbish is, exactly in the same degree as the next speaker at Hyde Park.

No matter how much you wish he were, he simply isn’t. It would be very convenient that he would be a relevant figure amongst my “ilk”. I know your people will the utmost to make him an important link. Essential in any in any smearing whatever information is out there. A piece of advice, just refrain from doing it, but if you must waste energy needlessly, please do go ahead.

The information out there is too consistent, coeherent and coehesive against the McCanns and friends that any smearing campaign is simply inept. Also, there is only ONE relevant personality on the side of Truth (many others, my apologies but I’m certain you’ll understand), and that is Gonçalo Amaral.

And how hard you all have tried, by all means possible, to bring him down, with so poor results. Even stooping so low as to come up with the most basic slander tactics such as racism, wife-beating and drinking habits (which, as everybody knows is publicly reputed by all British citizens, especially abroad, who not only refrain from, but do condemn in the most harshest and puritanical of terms the consumption of any and all alcoholic beverages).

And he’s still standing tall and proud. Cannot say the same about others…  

I note you are still parading, on 3As, the idea that the McCann party were swingers - a claim made on prime time Poruguese TV can never be rescinded heh, no matter how obviously false? 

The swinging is a personal deduction, to which I’m still convinced to be truthful. I didn’t come up with the swinging because I saw it on TV, as I didn’t even know that that had been put forward there. I suppose it was on the “Tardes da Júlia”. Sorry, it’s in the afternoon and I do have better things to do with myself that time of day.

I came up with it maybe because I’m a swinger myself. Or maybe because, once upon a time, I might have taken a “PdL Special” myself. Or even because I have been with you lot in PdL, and might be having second thoughts about having helped you. Or I might just know someone who has all or some of the before mentioned characteristics. Please don’t take for granted that your entire “ilk” is faithful to the “cause”. Traitors are everywhere, you know. Then again, I might just be bluffing.

This compulsory need to lie is one thing that I have in common with the Tapas 9. And it's the only thing, and is already one thing too many for my comfort.

But what I found MOST interesting in this paragraph is a phrase that I would like, with your permission, to throw back at you. Your own words, just replacing ONE word for another. It will read like this: “a claim made on prime time British TV can never be rescinded heh, no matter how obviously false?

Suddenly all makes sense, doesn’t it? And it’s not because the spelling got better, but, in this particular instance, it makes SO much more sense… Your words, I repeat, not mine.

The idea that the McCanns would deliberately feed this vile rubbish into the public consciousness is SO insane that it is indeed a mark of the desperation of the 'community' which exists only to trash them. They are not going to be tried, let alone go to prison.

No, it’s not the McCanns that are doing the feeding. Those who for fear of admitting loss of face after being caught up in a tragic lie, instead of owning up to it, have decided to pretend, like in George Orwell’s 1984, to “erase” it from having happened.

And before you jump up and down like a silly child who knows the answer in a classroom, please don’t ask then why, if I say what I say, do the McCanns try to keep the issue so much alive.

First, the issue of her being DEAD is silenced, and that is THE issue.

Second, it’s, in my humble opinion, the most incompetent information campaign management that I’ve ever had the opportunity to witness. So many means, so little brains. As someone would’ve put it so candidly: never so few owed so much to so many.

That someone, if he were alive, I’m sure wouldn’t say such, for, as far as history has registered, he was a person of dignity.

About the prison going, well, you don’t have to go to prison to be imprisoned. I’ve before stated that I think the McCanns have condemned themselves to life imprisonment to be served wherever on the planet they happen to be at the moment.

It only saddens me that they are stupid enough not to realize that they are taking the heat all by themselves. The remainder of the gang is getting off the hook each day passing. They, on the other hand, will never be forgotten. They will continue to appear on the news, less and less, but from time to time we’ll all be reminded of Maddie.

Even if only to justify the fund. But henceforth they ALWAYS have a faithful partner: the glooming shadow of their effective guilt. It will always be over their shoulder, following them. Whenever, wherever. Even death-row prisoners who are watched 24/7, are not as self-conscious. Terrible, terrible fate the McCanns have imposed on themselves.

The "community" to which you refer doesn't exist to trash them. It exists to see Justice trash them. That’s all, and it’s not desperate, just saddened by seeing two Nations with no pride or dignity whatsoever. And please, if you can, don’t confuse anger for hatred. They are two completely different things and no matter how much you try to mix them, they’ll remain apart.  

You and yours know no more about the truth of what happened to that poor child than your own semi-useless idol, GA.

The only aggressive word I find in the above sentence is “poor”, as is used by someone, you, intentionally mean to the memory of the child in question. You should be ashamed of yourself whenever you refer to Maddie as a “poor child” or any other similar caring expression. Hypocrisy at it’s disgustingly worst.

It’s you and people like you that have deprived her of any and all dignity. Do go and wash your mouth

About the semi-useless idol of mine, why is his book so much feared in the UK? Are you afraid that he might convince the general public with his lunatic ideas? No, that would be underestimating the intelligence of the British by implying that they can’t tell a difference from the blabber of a semi-useless, alcoholic wife-beater and the truth.

So publish it, and if it’s so full of lies, laugh it out, and expose all his ridiculously invented allegations, completely ridiculing him, in a humiliation to the point of insult. That would certainly help your cause, the McCanns would regain their lost dignity and he would shut up his mouth once and for all.

Do go for it. How about it? Gonçalo Amaral is no Virginia Woolf, right? And it’s only a book. I mean, he is going to get sued anyhow, isn’t he? Isn’t he? Helloooo, please do confirm that he’s going to get sued, or was it just another piece of rubbish from the other guy? No, couldn’t be. I saw it on Sky News myself. On May 18th, if memory serves me right…  

But to persevere with the idea that Levy is batting for the other side - well, it's funny to be frank, in a rather creepy sort of way.

What is funny for some is completely humorless for others. Please do creep in anyway you wish, like or fantasize to creep in.  

It's also sad that a clearly intelligent person should be so totally sucked into the conspiraloon mindest.

It’s sadder to see somebody actively helping the attempted whitewashing of a heinous crime.

Yours respectfully,

Back to my holidaying.

Saturday, 18 July 2009

Textusa’s Summer Thoughts.

A girl has died.

 Her parents didn’t give a sh*t about leaving her alone and went off and got p*ssed (not on the evening she died, but on the nights before).

Same parents that when they saw her dead, freshly diseased, didn’t give a sh*t about her or anybody else, except themselves.

Neither did they give a sh*t about burying her with a minimum of dignity or human decency.

They still don’t give a sh*t about her by doing all they can to make the general public think that their daughter is being repeatedly buggered blue by some sadistic pedophile since the day she was “kidnapped”, instead of thinking that she’s dead but in peace.

Fortunately, they are f*cking it all up.

The “friend” that probably killed her didn’t give a sh*t about her also or anybody else for that matter, except himself.

And he’s not giving a sh*t about getting away with it by making a mockery of Justice.

The “friends” that know where, when, how, why and who killed her, don’t give a sh*t to come with a coherent version of events.

That holiday was to f*ck, so f*ck the little girl, that’s their motto.

The country where she was killed didn’t give a sh*t about her.

Nor does it give a sh*t in serving Justice to those who deserve it.

A country that cowardly just gave a sh*t about the only one who gave a sh*t about her, by trying to make sure that he didn’t f*ck up this conveniently subservient sh*t.

Bad luck, he didn’t give a sh*t about those that didn’t give a sh*t about her but gave about him, and wrote a book.

The country where she died still doesn’t give a sh*t about her or its own dignity by allowing a lunatic lawyer with a head full of sh*t to use its courts, and it’s Lawyer’s Order, for his delusional and delirious crusade against the only man who gave a sh*t about her.

Her own country didn’t give a sh*t about her.

Just gave a sh*t about protecting the image, and ass, of those who didn’t give a sh*t about the girl.

Her country also doesn’t it give a sh*t about a couple toddlers who live with the parents that didn’t give a sh*t about their sister, and will have to live with that sh*t of weight for the rest of their lives on their innocent shoulders.

Nor does it give a sh*t about the instatement of a fraudulent fund that has inhumanly profited, is profiting and seems to continue to profit, solely based on her supposed misery.

If she were to be dead, the abovementioned fund wouldn’t be worth a sh*t.

The media didn’t give a sh*t in putting out all the lies, knowing that they were lying, with the same circumspect faces in which they announce a death of a valiant soldier who gave his life for the country. Not comparable, but, in effect, compared, that’s sh*tty this sh*t is.

Her country doesn’t give a sh*t about the contradiction between the fact that they read in the news that she’s “missing”, “abducted” or “kidnapped” and that their police doesn’t give a sh*t about it.

Her country didn’t give a sh*t that it calls itself a democracy by using its own legal system to “censor” a book that has just some, not all, truth in its pages.

A girl has died. She, like the Unknown Soldier is an expendable casualty, in the bigger set of things, so those that do give a sh*t, should, for higher reasons than reason itself, look the other way and pretend that no sh*t has happened.

Those, like me, who just won’t let the sh*t dry up are expected to shut up or take their sh*t somewhere else.

The whole western civilization doesn’t give a sh*t about the truth just because it’s inconvenient, or better said, has become inconvenient, or even better said than before, has been made to become inconvenient.

Yet, its the same civilization that has reached its pinnacle by making an author place a “*” in the place of whichever incovenient vowel so that the most sensitive of eyes may not be feel offended, although, the same pair of eyes knows fully well what exactly has been written and flimsly hidden.

Exactly like with all the sh*t around the girls death.

 Is it just me, or does something smell awfully foul about all this?

Sometimes it hits the fan, but most of the time its all around you.

Thursday, 16 July 2009

A golf story – when one is confronted with one’s ugly self

Bill and I paired up to play a best-ball tournament, stableford scoring. Our adversaries were two Danes with one heck of a sense of humor which made the whole afternoon one enormous pleasurable memory.

We come to the 14th, a short 130 yd par-3, with a very small green on the other side of a pond. They had the honors, so one of them takes an iron, tees it up and hits it beautifully. The ball flies as it should, but, surprisingly to all, ends right in the water, 3 yards from the grass.

 His partner follows, also with an iron, and lets that ball have whatever it deserved, because it cleared the water and fell on the green, about 3 yards, this time from the hole.

It was my partner’s turn. One inconvenience of being a lady in this sport, is that you get “discriminated” and have to tee off from somewhere else than from where the guys do. So the men do "their" thing first, and then we do "ours".

Bill, picks up his iron and away he whacks the ball. A repeat of what had just happened: one perfect stroke, one perfect flight, had it not this this minor flaw of falling into the water.

I also chose an iron, a 5, with which on a normal day carries me over that distance. I hit the ball and watched it fly, in that awe of the moment in which all of us who play golf incarnate into a Tiger and an Annika all at once, until... yes, you guessed it, right into that so much dreaded water.

Since I was on my tee-box, I took the next shot for the team, and yes, I was stubborn enough to maintain the same iron. And coherent enough to repeat the whole shot. Coherence is my middle name, and water is my game.

It’s what all golfers know as "feeding-the-lake-mode". you just keep doing it until you either run out of balls or the lake runs out of absorbing capability.

Amazing how stupidly stubborn the human being can be, so I do thank that we were in a pair’s game and couldn’t just tee one ball after another as it has happened so often. So Bill walks to his bag and changes irons. Tees up the ball, and looks at his club again. His eyes fiery with rage. Walks back to the bag, and this time takes out a wood. And like a raging bull he swings that club smacking that ball as if his life depended on it.

All out eyes went right on to the green to see if it landed there, or if it would just ignore it and fly over. But the ball fell on the fairway on the right side of the pond. Unexpectedly to all, but to Bill. Only sissies play there. It landed right of the green, about thirty yards from the flag.

What a brilliant play! What emotional control and rationale in a moment of enormous stress! We all applauded the decision, and Bill silently whispered to me that if I ever told a soul about how he had ran away from a 90 yd pond with a shameful 3 wood, he would use it again to bang my head with it. Don’t worry Bill, your secret is safe with me! I won't tell a soul!

I chipped onto the green, a yard from the hole, and Bill sank it with the graceful ease of the hero of the moment that we all made him feel like.

The other guys 2-putted for par, and we all walked off with huge smiles on our faces, marking the pars on both cards. Yes, we all overlooked the fact that Bill and I had sank 3 balls.

It wasn’t a par, but a double bogey. But the excitement of the moment, or for whatever reason, it simply didn’t occur. The game ended, checked the scores, handed in our cards and waited for the final results.

We came around about half-way down, which is pretty good, said our good-byes and off we went our way. Two days later, Bill's brilliant stroke crossed my mind again, and I smiled thinking of how that big man had taught me such a nice lesson, when it hit me: we didn’t take the penalty!

I immediately called Bill and told him what I had just remembered. Damn, you right, he said, we all just got caught up with the moment and unconsciously just compared their 1 ball in the pond with our 3, and if they had made par, we didn't! We have to call the club and have them rectify the whole thing! But then again, he said, only WE know about this,. MAYBE the other guys might have thought about it also. But that's a big MAYBE. If we go and tell the club now, they will look really bad, because they were our markers and should have been paying attention. If we say anything, it’s not confessing, it's telling! Showing everybody else that they didn’t give a hoot about what they were doing. A long silence followed.

Yeah… I said, I guess we best just shut up. I mean, it’s not like we won prizes or what. The truth will only bring us a couple of places down and THEIR reputation will be seriously harmed. But, what if they have remembered it like we did, and are now thinking what a couple of cheats we are?!?

We could call them, but if we do, we will be forcing them to confess, to come public and do the club calling themselves, being branded as sloppy. And if they don't say we told them, WE will be branded as cheats. Yep, if we call, they will come out indeed as sloppy, if they call, they continue to be sloppy and we become cheaters. If we remain in silence, then our consciences will eat our hearts away, and every innocent look from anybody at the club will seem guilt-filled. This is totally a lose-lose situation. What do we do Bill?!?

No, I haven’t called the club. Haven't confessed my crime. Only to my accomplice. Don’t know if I will, or not. Most likely I will, but that is not is relevant here.

The important thing is that I know that I’m wrong, and although I quite clearly know what the only rightful option is, I’ve up to this moment, CONSCIOUSLY taken the wrongful one.

And we’re talking just about a golf penalty, not a dead child.

And I do have my vacations to continue with…

Friday, 10 July 2009

Textusa's Fall Season - A preview

My absence has nothing to do with stupid, mean and meaningless comments from stupid, mean and meaningless people. Simply to do with a very good reason: summer laziness. Which I recommend.

After I arrive home from a good pleasurable afternoon activity, and honestly, after a nice shower, meal and story reading to my grand-children, feel not very much like writing. Yes, I’m lazy. And proud of it.

I do have many subjects in my head that I wish to write about before closing this blog. Consider this as a preview for “Textusa’s” next season. For the Fall. Summer is for re-runs.

- Platforms of powers, the difference of political correctness and capability and how honest people sell their souls so cheaply;

 - The luckiest unluckiest turd of all, the demystification of a bogus media expert but a brilliant media nincompoop;

- Amaral, the biggest McCann mis-antecipation (on a request from a reader);

- An open letter to Kate (a long due promise to another reader), where I try to ask that monster where, and why, she decided to abandon motherhood, on an early May evening (and Joana, still thinking if I censor it or not...);

- Two absurd theories, a bullet and a snatch; the continuation of the absurdity of the McCann saga;

- Kate’s tits, assets or ass bits?; about how we all fell in love with the McCanns;

- The Portuguese Judicial Obnexity; about whatever because about this so much could be written;

- An open letter to Paulo Sargento and Hernani Carvalho; two people I respect, and hopefully never have to write it;

- An homage to a reader; whom I call, privately; Maddie’s real granny.

- Horse-riding, a power game when ill-played is a boomerang; about those who think they are powerful,

- The Thing, already written in a Portuguese blog a long time ago, in Portuguese, about what is Power.

As you can see, a lot to write about. If I have the strength and stamina. And imagination. No, it’s not a 24-photo promise, because I’m not promising that I’m going to write any of the above.

Just loose ideas running around this filthy mind of mine.

Hopefully (although I don't give it much of a chance) the McCanns will be brought to Justice, saving me a lot of time before this screen.

Now, it’s time to golf, sail, cards and gourmet food and drink. To dedicate my whole self to my most passionate of hobbies: collecting memories.

Above a picture, created, out of various snapshots of this blog. All flags are real. Obviously not all on the same day.

I get 30/50 hits on a bad day, around 200 on a good one. Imagine how the World would look like with all the flags that Joana gets.

Before leaving, just some food for thought: which has a more important reach, Joana’s blog, that reaches thousands worldwide, or “Tardes da Júlia” that reaches hundreds of thousands?

I know you know what I think, but just loose a second in thinking why.

When I write, I imagine I’m doing it for those 10/12 faithfull readers that I do have.

As if they were sitting around me, or behind me, reading every word that I write, smiling with each grammar error or spelling mistake, or hte shake of the head of each deletion or correction of an idea.

It’s to you that I write.

And thank the patience.
Be back here once in a while, but please don't expect much.

Sunday, 5 July 2009

An intermission, following advise from friends of mine.

I'm the one in the middle

Re: Back to Reality- The Failure of the 3As
by Jayelles
» 2:35 pm Mon Apr 27, 2009  

Who/what is Textusa? It wisnae me. A big boy did it and ran away...  

Re: Back to Reality- The Failure of the 3As
by preciousramotswe
» 2:46 pm Mon Apr 27, 2009  

Jayelles, if I tell you who Textusa is you won't thank me
'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine'  

Re: Back to Reality- The Failure of the 3As
by Jayelles
» 2:56 pm Mon Apr 27, 2009  

Oh come on. Now I need to know! I'm asking because I think I've come across the hat on another forum.

Re: Back to Reality- The Failure of the 3As
by preciousramotswe
» 3:01 pm Mon Apr 27, 2009  

She is a mad Portugeeza who turned up on 3AS. She has a thread there now I think. She also has her own blog but at one time her stuff was turning up on joana morais/xclamation's site, too. She is a bit of a hanger-on of hers. Completely bonkers, and with a nasty line in vivid, filty imagination. (you will notice her blog followers are other rabid females - sorry but it's a fact!!)  
'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine'  

Re: Back to Reality- The Failure of the 3As
by Jayelles
» 6:06 pm Mon Apr 27, 2009  

I had a quick look. It was enough. She needs to get a life.

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

A Response to a Response

NOTE : Toutes les informations publiées par moi sur ce blogue ou dans n´importe quel autre blogue, sans oublier les médias avec qui je continue à travailler, sont authentiques et ont toujours été vérifiées auprès de plusieurs sources comme il est requis à un journaliste. Il est évident que je suis toujours prêt à défendre en justice contre toute allégation contraire. En autre, toute question qui n’aurait pas un lien direct avec mon travail et qui relève de ma vie privée, en particulier les commentaires qui ont été faits récemment après la fin d’une relation amoureuse de plusieurs mois, ne mérite pas de réponse… en tout cas pas ici. (from Mr. Nuno Duarte's blog)

Mr. Nuno Duarte,

I, for one, haven’t once touched your personal life. I have questioned, question and will remain questioning until satisfaction, your work ethics as a journalist. Or as an alleged one.

I've accused you, amongst many other things, using the argumentation that I have, of not being anywhere near the Oprah show which the McCanns were invited to, and that you as a journalist (or as an alleged one), reported that you were.

 That, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with your personal life. It’s got to do, exclusively, to your (alleged) professional one.

I placed in paranthesis "alleged" because I’m highly suspicious that you have a much different way of earning a living than the one you state you have. Time and truth will tell if my suspicions are consubstantiated.

About my accusation, I can give you a few suggestions on where you can prove me wrong:

- A still, showing that you were in the audience at the referred show;

- A self-taken picture, in the show, of yourself in the audience (I don’t remember reading anything about not being allowed cameras on set, but most likely that is the case, so, if that is so, ignore this one);

- The stub of the ticket you used to enter the premises;

- Any printed confirmation, from the Oprah show people, that a ticket was issued in your name for that referred show;

- A self-taken picture taken outside the premises, as any journalist with such a scoop would have certainly taken;

- A copy of the receipt from the hotel you stayed at;

- A copy of the page of the passport where US Customs placed their stamp allowing you into the country for that particular trip (and please don’t say that you got in on a forged identity and/or passport into the US in this day and age…);

- A copy of the airplane ticket stubs of your flights both in and out of the States, and of those in that country;

- Detail (in your blog, for example) which planes (airline, time of departure and airport) you took to get in and out of the States, as well as those that you may have used in the country, so that I, as an independent citizen, may ask the various airlines involved if your name was on the passenger list (I'm assuming with your authorization, because if you wanted for this to remain a secret, you wouldn’t have publicized it in the first place).

Don’t worry, I’ll fake that I’m a journalist. A list of simple suggestions that I’m providing so that you'll have the opportunity to contradict me, thus forcing me into a humiliating apology.

Which I'll give if proven wrong.

About the abusive involvement of personal life. From Joana’s posts, one can see that the accusations are about you lying about the Maddie case or about and your forged personal (read professional) involvement in it.

Professional business, quite clearly.

Nothing, as far as I can read, from a woman scorned.

You, sir, seem to be the ONLY one that's abusively using the “personal life” excuse to avoid explaining yourself.

Because it doesn’t merit your comments, you say. Could have been right out Gerry’s mouth. Or Clarence’s. But was from yours.

We begin to understand why. You are ready to defend yourself “in Justice”, you say also. Do you think yourself THAT important to merit the spending, on my initiative, of a single cent to prove your falsity, when you do a pretty good job all by yourself? Please do spare me the drama.

Also, where have I heard of avoiding explanations using the legal-system-as-the-right-battleground excuse to avoid any explanation on suspected wrongdoing ? Oh, from the McCanns. Congratulations, you’ve proven to be such a good pupil.

Mr. Nuno Duarte, don’t play the offended damsel here. Only you know where, when and how did you lose your “virginity” in all of this, and honestly, I don’t care.

The why, however, leaves me slightly curious.

The McCanns and Tapas are saving their asses. Clarence and team are doing their job. Poorly, but that’s pure incompetence. The friends and relatives of the McCanns are doing the same as Dr. Paulo Sargento (when he calls you a journalist with a capital “J”), and are defending them beyond any rationality.

And above any criticism, all of them declared themselves clearly on which side of the fence they stood (exception for Dr. Sargento who appears in the above paragraph only as an example and is one, if not the biggest, of your victims).

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Final Part)

(June 30th, 2009)

Facts are facts. In the previous two posts, I’ve tried to explain how they get made up and thrown at you.

How information is a powerful tool thought to be used by many, but, in fact, only few use do really it, though using those referred many as a mean to do so.

Sorry to be confusing, but this is a confusing business.

I’ve already revealed my passion for bridge and golf.

Today, I’ll bring in the one I have about sailing. A sport, hobby or whatever you want to call it that makes one nice analogy with this information thing.

For me, jut out of curiosity, I love the solitude it provides and as well as the reminder of how small one really is. But that's beside the point.

Imagine that information is like the water in which a boat floats, and the facts are the waves and the currents, in all their sizes and possible shapes. Let’s start with a motorboat. No mastery of winds involved or required at this stage. Just want to try and move it in the straightest of lines. Quite a simple task in a smooth surface, as the only waves there are the ones that you've just made.

Now, start adding some turbulence. The waves start to throw your boat in each and every other way, and everytime you try to compensate you’re only able to make things worse. And if you don’t have a reference point, you’ll find yourself perfectly lost in no time at all.

Only when you find that the wave that made your boat go port, will be followed by one that makes it go starboard, naturally compensating, will you have then found the way to success. The sea is not to be fought. It’s to be ridden, naturally. If you fight it, you face doom, if you understand it, then it’s the most delicious of play-grounds.

The same happens with information. You have to trust your instincts. And be fearless of mistakes, because you’ll make many. They’ll, in turn, will provide you valuable information on how to ride the information sea.

Never forget that pain is a privilege, not a sentence, of those who try. Those that don’t, live life painlessly, but do not live it at all.

Back to the sea analogy, and bring in the wind. That factor that influences, in such a relevant manner, the size, shape and direction of the waves.

To be able to dominate it, if you have to do one essential thing, which most sailors do instinctively but said, seems complicated to achieve: ignore the waves but never lose sight of them.

Basically, the capability to extract ONLY the relevant information from the waves and not be overwhelmed by them.

Just like in information. An art few know. And less master it. People like DL, or like Clarence Mitchell are simple waves. Their mission is to throw your boat off-course.

They are far from being wind-masters. But both have what the latter prey on: an oversized ego. DL, I believe, is simply a poor megalomaniac soul who was conveniently provided with the adequate information when thought adequate.

He became too big for his own shoes. Making stupid mistakes like the Oprah show, starting to believe that he was much more than he really was. And off he goes to Sri Lanka, Aachen and, if Joana had not stopped him short, would have been to Mars on a Monday and on the Moon the Friday before.

The norm with these small-time manipulators is that that they are manipulated themselves.

But those that manipulate them, rest not easy.

Not you, not anybody else, can dominate the sea. And when the tide changes, it changes. Nothing can be done about it. And all those that are left in the sand, (on purpose or just because) will be picked upon. By seagulls, for example.

Or just stepped on by some disrespectful idiot like myself. They will desperately wait for the next tide, but so many never survive to see it.

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Part II)

(June 24th, 2009)

In any information campaign you have to provide a minimum of 90% of good, sound revealing facts about yourself.

If you want to guarantee sucess, it should be a higher percentage. It has to guarantee enough resistance to checking, cross-checking and rechecking. Only then will trust be gained.

Voluntary moles are people who do what they do normally out of pure conviction. Very rarely, although it does happen, do you see a "sell-out" amongst these people. They volunteer, driven by their firm beliefs, to undermine the adversary’s willingness to fight. Some call them traitors, I call them brave.

This volunteer thing does not happen with the other moles, the involuntary ones. These only realize that they are what they are long after they have done the damage they were designated to do. You feed the adversary with good information has I've said. He picks it up and as skeptical as he is tests it. It proves to be true. It must. He will use it and have good results. Then you feed him some more. The results evolve from good to better then good, on their way to excellence. He begins to trust your source as a good one. In journalism, a "deep-throat-scoop". And so on, until you’ve become to him, a totally trusted and irrefutable source, and he, in turn, is seen by those around him as an excellent fountain of information.

Someone they can REALLY trust to come up with key information right on time. Because that's exactly what he does. At this point there has been no damage in the enemy lines while, with the information you have provided, by him through you, there has been quite some to yours. He is a hero, you, apparently a traitor. He has now achieved the stage where he can be activated.

This is when from you start to provide him with false information with one of two goals: either to make the enemy act the way you want him exactly to; or to shatter the mole’s credibility.

The first has the obvious reason of allowing you to inflict the greatest, decisive damage possible. With the information before, he was able to win battle after battle. But moving like a mouse after peanut-butter on a trap, he's headed for doom. Total defeat, unconditional surrender. The mole’s role was to undermine the perception of truth about that last given information: what was false was taken for the truth. With disastrous results.

The second goal seems, at first, to be a contradiction. Total nonsense. You've gone about constructing a reliable source within the enemy camp, with quite damaging effects on your own and then you decide to “waste” all that hard work by destroying his credibility. Why? It all boils down to perception. Provide him with a piece of information that will prove to be disastrous. So scandalously false that will make him lose face among his friends.

Obviously it can’t be a blatant lie, but something that will swallowed whole as the whole prior information fed, but once gone through the natural filtering will reveal him as the fraud that he doesn’t even know he is.

So what’s to gain from that? By this exposure, all his previous "truthful" information will be questionable. The apple principle. Yes, it was true, but has come from a mole. A disgusting being. So, from then on all that was thought reliable has now a high probability to have been planted, as, by the way, was.

So when you said you’d go left, as you really mean to go, the other side NOW wonders why that piece of information got to him, via the mole, an ex-hero, now a repulsive being, and thinking that he can outwit you, starts to prepare himself for a move from you to the right.

You’ve muddled up all his perception capabilities. He is lost in the sea of information before him incapable of deciding which, of all the apples, those that are healthy, and those that have to be contaminated.

The higher the stakes, the less risk he is able to take. So he discards the whole basket and goes and gets his apples from somewhere else. From your side of the fence, well, you’ve just managed to convince your adversary that a whole lot of pretty truthful information is “false” and can act, now, accordingly.

The problem with using moles is what is common in all human activity: the fact that they are human. With all their flaws. Two very important ones: vanity and ambition.

Qualities when moderate, but in excess they’re intolerable shortfalls. Especially in this activity. (to be continued... next week)

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Part I)

(June 23rd, 2009)

I’ve had my say about Mr. Duarte Levy, and don’t want to waste any more of my precious time on him. To do so would be granting him an importance that he’s far from deserving.

I want to speak about moles, manipulation and, of course, mole manipulation.

Henceforth I’ll use Mr Levy’s pseudonym’s initials “DL” because his case is fresh on our minds and that rather facilitates getting my message across, but would like it to make clear that it’s not about or because of him.

I could use Mata Hari as an example, but that’s a story that history has to clarify to a yet acceptable margin of error.

Treason is a very hard pill to swallow. Nothing shakes our foundations more then the betrayal of trust. We perceive a friend as a safe haven from hardships of life.

When this falters, we feel exposed, unprotected, cheated on. If that particular foul friend also happens to be a partner, in business or just intent, then the pain from betrayal is exponentially increased.

The sense of purpose is lost as all is left is a vacuum where once was what was perceived as shared value. Strength is lost because who we perceived as burden-sharer is not only not helping but hindering, on purpose and with malice, all effort and focus.

As you can see, perception is the key. That’s why it’s imperative to understand its mechanism. Basically, it’s an individual, subjective, interpretation of the surrounding reality, based upon various facts and factors captured and gathered by all our bodily senses and filtered by the common one.

We unconsciously stack these facts one upon another, unwittingly establishing the relationships between them, be they contradictory or complementary. This results in the provision, from one to oneself, of a broader picture about any given subject.

That picture is what we "perceive" as the reality of a particular subject. Each of us has stacked a series of "bricks" for every conceivable thing.

We make these blocks in various tonalities of “truth”, according to our perception, or what we constructed it to be, to be more exact.

This is what I call the “edifice of truth”.

Let’s just say that the tone of real truth is white. The lighter the edifice, the more solid it is, the darker, the quicker it gets ignored. All said, it’s quite clear that these so called edifices are very subjective in nature. All depend on the individual who creates them. Very much like the opinion you have about me right now.

Sometimes, truth is simple and plain. Not even subject to discussion. But reality shows that truth and simplicity, even though truth IS simple, are very seldom seen together. It's not the truth that is at stake but it’s, supposed, consequences.

There are those who’ll do just about anything to avoid that the truth, as they know it to be, to be “officially” confirmed. That, as per rules of a civilized society, would implicate a rather serious punishment.

So they are not set to defend the truth, but their own behinds for obvious and understandable reasons. They need to, not want, tear down the edifice of truth.

But to deconstruct you need to understand first the construction. So who you going to call? Hardly the ghostbusters. You need people that understand people. That can read people like they read a book, because they’ve wrote it. Information experts.

No, not Clarence Mitchell. That was an unfortunate error of casting as I one day I'll explain. He’s an unfortunate soul that the manipulators curse having around every single day. He’s a nut totally misplaced in a well oiled machine. Enough to make a well serviced engine cough up in pain.

No, these people are good. To understand how all this is played you have to first understand two major concepts of this business: the fooling-fooled relationship and the apple principle. Both are simple, but often overlooked. The first is states that no conman gives you a heads-up before he fools you.

These people don’t wear t-shirts with “I’m going to fool you” stamped on it. Nor have a tattoo on their forehead saying “basically, I’m mean”. Everyone of us has been fooled one time or another.

Except Bill, my dear American buddy. He adamantly states that he has NEVER been fooled in his whole life, and guarantees that he won’t be in the future. However he says that, from time to time, he has paid, more or less expensively, more or less painfully, for a lesson in life.

I tend to agree with him, but one lesson that life has taught me and Bill is that life only lets you know that you’ve learned a lesson AFTER it has been ministered.

So, I’m rather amazed when people who are shocked by fooled by those that they thought were incapable of such. And even more so with people that guarantee that such and such person is incapable of a dishonest act.

The second principle, the apple one, is that you only need one rotten apple to spoil the whole basket. All others, no matter how healthy they may be, will, from then on, be looked upon with suspicion.

A very rewarding ratio, if you’re set on disruption, obtained from just a single fruit.

Those that think that I’m pinpointing DL are way off target. Let me remind you that the edifice of truth is made out of “bricks”, supposed facts, not people. (to be continued)

Saturday, 20 June 2009

Mr Duarte Levy - an Opinion

I got a rather harsh comment from someone I quite respect about the picture I posted in the previous post. This has precipitated me into now publishing the text below, which, therefore, goes incomplete:  

“When I first thought about writing this, it was fresh news. Then Joana, rightfully so, spoiled the whole surprise, exposing Duarte Levy as who he really is. 

Stale bread does make nice toast, so do keep up with me. 

Lying is addictive. It offers physical pleasure to the one who lies. Either through the real feel of gratification from a non-existing merit; or from the absence of the expected pain after avoiding the merited punishment. Both are very pleasant physical sensations. Very addictive. 

And as per any other addiction, one only realizes how much one depends on the habit when one has overstepped the boundaries set by reason. Basically, after one has exaggerated, and feels the shame in everybody else’s eyes. Or even repulsion. But then, it’s too late. 

Mr. Duarte Levy is a pathological liar. I say I am, and I’m not. Or maybe I am. He doesn’t say he is, but through his actions and words proves exactly that. 

I first started to suspect with the “24-photo” episode. 

We’re still waiting, to this day, for them to be printed from the memory stick that surely is implanted in Mr. Levy’s skull. A journalistic exclusive of his, certainly, that isn’t to be revealed lightly, if ever at all. 

Then, suspicions became assumptions with the alleged Oprah presence. Typically a case of a liar going into exaggeration without realizing how ridiculous and condemning it is what he alleges. Jane Tanner started the trend, but many have followed it. 

To be on Oprah is a pretty hard task to achieve for anybody RESIDENT in the US. For someone, man or woman, to fly from Europe with the intent of just watching the referred show, it’s close to impossible. 

Plus, the Oprah the site quite clearly states that you CANNOT choose which show you wish to watch. You apply and, if you get SELECTED, you BUY a ticket that gets you to see whatever guests are invited to appear on the show that you were lucky enough to get a ticket. 

With the McCanns, I heard that they were going to appear in the beginning of May. Just for argument’s sake, I’ll say that the couple came to an agreement to appear in the time between the mid and late April. That is little over a month from the end of the season, meaning NO tickets, all sold out. 

You just don’t go on Oprah, because you happen to want to. You don’t go on Oprah just because you want to see a certain celebrity. 

Just go on the site and try to apply. All is done by phone; with so many rules that only an idiot lies about having been there. An idiot, if you’re a woman, because it’s a show assumingly directed to women, so the public is predominantly female. On any of Oprah’s shows, basically all the men seen are those that were invited. 

For a man, resident outside the US, to lie about having been there, incognito, you have to be an outright lunatic. 

Lastly, but not least, the McCanns did not travel alone. Nor were they alone for one minute, between the time they got off the plane and got back on it. They had staff working for them. Making sure that everything went smoothly. 

For example, certifying that the audience reacted adequately. There are four known faces which are present to any pro-McCann: Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento, Hernâni Carvalho and Duarte Levy. 

They have appeared many times “Tardes da Júlia” on TVI, a Portuguese TV Channel. You can add Joana Morais and Paulo Reis to this list as their faces appear on their blogs. ANY of these six people wouldn’t be allowed to enter the premises. The security is tight, and we’re not talking about thousands of people, but of around a hundred, or little more. 

Anybody walking in has their ID’s confirmed. If you buy an Oprah ticket for someone else and you don’t go, that person is not allowed to enter. Even if presenting his/her ticket. So when I heard that a big, burly, bearded man, alone, known publicly to be hostile to the guests had been able to infiltrate the Oprah show, my reaction was… “yeah, right…. don’t think sooooo….” 

Imagine Gerry McCann sitting, INCOGNITO and UNDETECTED, in one of “Tardes da Júlia”. 

But since he was “on our side”, and we human tend to partisan, instinctively both forgiving all the flaws of our friends and augmenting those of our enemies, I just assumed that he had got hold of a tape beforehand and was just going into a somewhat exaggerated bragging mode. It’s a proven fact that men will always be boys.

Even so, it didn’t feel right. But it was THE Duarte Levy, that I suspecting. So simply quieted down my suspicions. But the “100K € - 500K €” suing thing, a subject so dear to me, was the drop that made the cup fill over. Did he take me for a fool? 

A scoop of that magnitude was to be revealed by a blogger?!? Didn’t, just for a second, cross that megalomaniac brain of his that it wouldn’t have a follow up from the “official” media? Even from the crappy one. Or mainly from that one. Or did he think himself THAT important that the papers would just follow suit, just because HE was the source? 

Doesn’t he have enough intelligence to know that suing is an absolutely forbidden territory for the McCanns? Whenever they approach the subject, they are very, very, very careful about it. Limiting to themselves to the underlining of the threat without compromising to the actual deed. 

That is McCann 101. First Chapter, paragraph #1: McCanns cannot sue 

This apparent disconnect between the said word and the brain that has command it to say it, is a known trait of the McCanns, and here we have a follower and believer. So, as I was about to trash the gentleman when Joana (after having called him a liar a couple or so times) writes what only a passionate heart is able. 

That post made me rest my case about Nuno Duarte, AKA Duarte Levy, being a conman, a liar, a megalomaniac.”

I intend to continue by writing my point of view on why Duarte levy has acted the way he has. How manipulative people can be manipulated.

How all this has become a testing ground on information warfare. Let us not forget that those we face (which are and will remain faceless, obviously not the T9 or CM) are the best in the business.

It’s my opinion that Duarte Levy, voluntarily or not, has become a MOLE that has undermined the credibility of all those that seek justice for the truth that we know happened.

I have the faintest idea on whether or not he was/is on the payroll from the McCanns. That, for me, is irrelevant. Through his lies he has tried to profit, or has profited, illegitimately, from Maddie’s death, thus becoming none better than the child’s parents.

If I’m wrong about Duarte Levy, I’ll have no problem in apologizing and will certainly trash, on the same terms, Joana Morais for defaming such an honorable man.

However, a simple analysis is enough to detect that Duarte Levy’s behavior has the same irrationality as of the abductor that olympically jumped through a window holding a 4 year-old child in his arms.

It’s not my sympathy for Joana that moves me against Duarte Levy, or the McCanns. It’s all about Justice. For Maddie, for Portugal, for the UK and for basic citizenship. And that, in my book, is above all and any friendship.

Weren’t it to be so, I would be a hypocrite in criticizing the McCann friends for their given protection of the couple.

I’ll trash anybody who I find obstructing justice by cooperating in the protection of McCanns. A couple of common criminals who arrogantly avoid what they deserve, due only to an incomprehensible amount of protection they enjoy.

And if I, one day, am found to be a mole (after this episode I began to suspect even about myself), I expect to receive the same harsh treatment.

But don’t try to defame me, for those that read me I know that they know and trust that such will not slow me down. I write in accordance with own conscience with no hidden agenda or any type of pursuance of glory.

Just short notes about three other issues:

About the GNR receiving money. Didn’t surprise me, if it’s true. Nobody at that time anticipated the importance that all this would have.

Gerry’s nightwalk, if it also happened, is in accordance with Maddie’s death that night.

About the Portuguese PGR decision not to reopen the process, came as such a surprise that I couldn’t avoid a yawn.