Saturday, 30 May 2009

Pause



Be back as soon as I can.

McCanns, please don't use my break as an excuse for not suing Mr. Amaral. You may do so while I'm away. Promise I won't feel offended.

Friday, 29 May 2009

We shan’t forget nor let you forget.



I know you kinda busy, looking for Maddie an' all, so you didn't even realize that time flies, and May is already over...

Please don't let the same thing happen to June, ok?

A suggestion: would be quite a neat birthday present for Gerry, wouldn't?

I think it would.

Thursday, 28 May 2009

What really is at stake? An humble opinion.



From ALEX WEST, in Aachen, Germany
Published: 27 May 2009, in The Sun

(…) This is how the confrontation unfolded:  

THE SUN: Can you speak to us about Madeleine McCann?  

HEWLETT: I don't know what you're talking about.  

THE SUN: Did you have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?  

HEWLETT: No answer  

THE SUN: Could you tell us where you were when Madeleine McCann disappeared?  

HEWLETT: It's got nothing to do with you.  

THE SUN: Why don't you eliminate yourself from the inquiry for the sake of the McCanns?  

HEWLETT: I don't have to speak to you. F*** off.  

THE SUN: Why haven't you spoken to the detectives?  

HEWLETT: I will. Just f*** off out of here. I've done nothing wrong.  

THE SUN: Well, you've been on the run for more than 30 years and you're wanted for questioning by West Yorks Police.  

HEWLETT: What for? I don't believe it. 

THE SUN: A sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl in 1975. At this point Hewlett, who lives in Aachen with partner Mariana, 33, and their six kids, let fly with another four-letter volley before leaping from the wheelchair and dashing inside the hospital. (…)

This is a typical example of what is at stake here.

No, it’s not the incredible obnoxious manner with which one has the shameless gall to call the words above “news”.

No, it’s not the two-faced way of being in life of this WEST fellow: The McCanns are obviously innocent, as they haven’t in any way been PROVEN guilty, but Mr. HEWLETT is guilty, or treated as such, just because someone, with clear intent, associated his name to Maddie.

No such thing as innocent until proven guilty for such Mr HEWLETT. Only for beauties such as Kate, Gerry and all those vilified pretty people who were victim of a UKO (Unidentified Kidnapping Object) whilst on holiday.

No, it’s none of that. All that could be squashed into a blended undrinkable mixture of stupidity and arrogance, which, although unacceptable, is recurrent in this UK whenever and wherever the Maddie issue comes up. Or doesn’t.

What is at stake is what I call, "the right that some have to be above the Law, or be it".

Let’s see if I can make my point. One commentator to a post where I intentionally misquoted Orwell by saying “All animals (suspected pedophiles) are equal, but some animals (suspected pedophiles) are more equal than others", said the following: One of the men in the photos is a convicted, serial paedophile. The other is not. What is it about the difference that people like you do not understand??”

First, let me tell you upfront that what people like myself don’t understand is people like yourself. But that isn’t the subject of this post. Might be in the future. Second, when you refer to “one of the men” I’m deducing that you’re speaking about HEWLETT and not PAYNE.

So let's get back to one very important word this unfortunate soul has said about HEWLETT: CONVICTED.

This means one thing, at least to me. That this man has stood before a legitimate Court of Law, his deeds judged, his crimes punished and has done the time, whatever time he was sentenced to do.

I’m not going to debate on whether his sentence was adequate or not. Can only give you a hint, and that is to say that I think that no condemned pedophile should ever walk the streets again. But that is me. I’m not Society.

Society decided that this gentleman should be punished and after his punishment completed is to walk around like the rest of us, with the exact the same rights as us. I personally disagree but that was Society's decision.

I have not heard that he's an escaped convict. Just a CONVICTED individual for a crime he committed.

Legally, he has paid his debt to society. You may not agree to that, as I don’t, but, tough luck, that is what he has done.

He has, as said, as much rights as you and me. The thought creeps the heck out of me, but that is the way civilized society has structured itself. Those are the rules of the game. Or should be the rules.

So when the McCanners pounce upon this man, they are not just being two-faced about justice, but that they are being JUSTICE itself disregarding completely what Society has determined.

They've decided that this man should have no right to privacy, no rights at all. Should be lynched if for nothing else for saying "another four-letter volley ."

What legitimacy do the McCanns PRIVATE detectives have? None.

Why then this so adamant obligation to speak to them as if they are legitimate representatives of the Law?

And how is it possible for all this to be put down in written word on a national paper of one of western’s civilized nations?

Because, my friends, they KNOW that they are "the Law". That’s why.

The UK has become a Far-West land where the sheriff with the biggest pistol sets the Law. And if he sets it, he’s above it.

No, the McCanns are not innocent until proven guilty, "conceptually". They are innocent, because they have determined to be so.

That’s why they go on Oprah.

That’s why they can say one thing today, another tomorrow on national TV, on national newspapers.

That’s why they are so shameless.

And all the legitimate judicial entities of what was once a great empire, just watch passively. Completely and absurdly inactive.

And when they do something, it’s always in the protection of those that most harm the prestige they should have but have so unequivocally given up their right to have.

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Even Geographically, the Abduction Theory is ABSURD.

Let’s all make one effort into ABSURDITY and, for a moment, just pretend to look the other way, assuming that there was an infamous abductor and that he was even able to do everything the McCanns have given him credit for.

Let's freeze time at the moment he has just jumped through the 5A window with Maddie peacefully in his arms.

Now, there are only 2 possibilities: this was an opportunistic kidnapping, or a planned one.

Even the McCanns have put aside the first as it would be so cumulatively absurd that we would have to resurrect Einstein himself so we could get a faint grasp on how illogical that would be.

It's quite consensual amongst those that "believe" in the abduction theory that it was a planned one.

That fact means that the abductor had only ONE of the following options:

Option 1. Take the child, on foot, to a nearby house, and from there, on an opportunistic timing, take her to whatever destination intended.

Option 2. Take the child, the quickest way possible out of PRAIA DA LUZ, to whatever destination intended. This is only achieved through one of the following 5 sub-options:

Sub-Option 2A – By car, either out of the country, to SPAIN, or to an intermediate location for on an opportunistic timing, take her to whatever destination intended. This option could be accomplished by a single abductor, or by an organization (more than 1 person).

Sub-Option 2B – By car, toward the nearest marina, which would be in LAGOS; there embark her, and take her, by boat, to whatever destination intended. This option could be accomplished by a single abductor, or by an organization.

Sub-Option 2C – By car, towards the nearest airfield, or FARO Airport, and from there embark her, and take her, by plane, to whatever destination intended. This option could be accomplished by a single abductor, or by an organization. Very, very unlikely. Only stated for academic reasons.

Sub-Option 2D – On foot, take her to the PRAIA DA LUZ beach, embark her on a waiting small boat, which would take her to a bigger vessel and take her, by boat, to whatever destination intended. This option could only accomplished by an organization.

Sub-Option 2E – By car, take her to one of the nearest beaches to PRAIA DA LUZ, PORTO DE MÓS (E) or BURGAU (W) and act as per option 2D. This option could only accomplished by an organization.

Option 1 can be immediately put aside because PRAIA DA LUZ is such a small place and was combed with such a fine comb for the past 2 years that only if the local community had a secret pact to protect the abductor, would it be possible for Maddie to be the smiling 6-year old girl that Oprah had the pleasure to present us with.

This connection between “local community” and “secret pact” with the “abductor” is very important when later I’ll talk about option 2D, the taking of Maddie, on foot, to the PRAIA DA LUZ beach.

In all sub-options, except 2D, it’s MANDATORY to leave PRAIA DA LUZ, by car, and THE QUICKEST WAY POSSIBLE.

Let’s, for argument’s sake assume that our abductor WANTS to leave PRAIA DA LUZ as quickly as he can, so let’s leave option 2D for later.

Figure 1

Figure 2


By looking at Figures 1 and 2, “leaving PRAIA DA LUZ, by car” means, geographically, the taking one of the following routes:

- Go WEST toward VILA DO BISPO, and there NORTH to ALJEZUR;

- Go EAST towards Lagos Marina, located in LAGOS;

- Go EAST towards the Highway A22, and from there either to ALJEZUR or to SPAIN by highway.

 
Figure 3

Figure 3 shows that in any of the above referred options it’s MANDATORY to take EN125 Road, either if towards WEST, in the direction of VILA DO BISPO or it to EAST towards LAGOS.

This is also valid if the intended destinations are the PORTO DE MÓS (E) or BURGAU (W) beaches. In conclusion, Figure 3 proves that to get out of PRAIA THE LUZ, by car, you HAVE to take the EN125 Road.



Figure 4

Figure 4 shows that if one is located at the Ocean Club (in red) and one wants to go to EN125, as the "abductor" HAD to, one has only one of two options:

- Route BLUE (by Rua Primeiro de Maio)

- Route GREEN (by Rua Direita).

NO OTHER WAY. Just looking at Figure 4, it’s logical to opt for Route BLUE, independent of any reason other than it’s the quickest you can get to EN125 Road.



Figure 5

Now, let’s look at Figure 5 in detail.

Ocean Club and Apartment 5A are in red. That is where our abductor is and he is looking at the Options he has:

- go right on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, turn right towards Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins (where, by the way, are Gerry, Jeremy and Jane, as is the entrance to the Ocean Club that accesses the Tapas Restaurant), and then take Rua Direita towards EN125 Road; or

- go left on the ill-lit Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, turn right towards Rua Primeiro de Maio towards EN125 Road.

You figure in which of the options you can best park your car, or have an accomplice waiting for you, so that you’re able to better achieve your intent.

Looking at the Route TANNER, in yellow, is as stupid is its author.

It means going the long way around to a destination that you have a shorter, quicker and safer way.

See how totally ABSURD is the abductor theory just by looking at the terrain?

But there is only ONE option left: 2D.

Totally invalid if you have a conscious child.

Remember that the abductor went first on the TANNER Route, and then was later seen by the Smiths (blue circle), according with that so enlightening documentary “Cutting Edge”.

This gentleman walks around PRAIA DA LUZ, with a 4-year old that doesn’t know him from Santa Claus and doesn’t wake up or react.

Is just taken away peacefully, put in a dinghy and way she goes to happy land where all kidnapped children go and live happy ever after with pedophiles who just want someone to love.

Now, do smile like Gerry does whenever he says something similar.

No please, don’t even go the way of her being drugged.

Don’t even try to tell me that an abductor who planned a kidnapping to the detail of bringing a syringe and drugs with him, forgets to bring a car, or forgets that he has to turn left and instead turns right and walks, as already said, and as is perfectly normal, all around PRAIA DA LUZ, with a child in his arms in the middle of the night…

But, option 2D is totally valid if you have a dead child.

And not taken to a boat but to a safe place.

A church perhaps?

Just add the referred connection between “local community” and “secret pact” with the “abductor”. Replace “abductor” with “body-concealer” (or “father” if you prefer) and you might not be so far from the truth of what happened on that May night.

Monday, 25 May 2009

Oh George, you were such a genius...



All animals (suspected pedophiles) are equal, but some animals (suspected pedophiles) are more equal than others.

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Guerra, Amaral, Confessions from a Deathbed and other stuff - a reply to a request from a comment



I got the following comment/request:  

Tirei do Blogue de Joana este comentário pois gosto sempre de ler o que ele pensa: " On May 23, guerra said... Não há ninguém em Portugal que tem coragem para defender o Sr. Amaral. Parece-me que estão a fazer tudo possível para destruir este homem. Uma pessoa já não sabe o que há de pensar. Não ficam surpreendidos se o casal obtêm uma confissão assinada do novo suspeito antes dele morrer. Com essa confissão vai ser fácil processar o Sr.Amaral, e os livros, e documentários dele nunca mais vão ser vistos." 

************ 

Já agora,poderá contra comentar ou analisar estes pensamentos? 

My translation of the above:  

I took this comment from Joana’s blog as I always like to read what he thinks: “On May 23, guerra said... There isn’t anyone in Portugal who has the courage to defend Mr. Amaral. Seems to me that they are doing everything possible to destroy this man. One no longer knows what is to think. Are you not surprised if the couple obtains a signed confession from the new suspect before he dies. With that confession it will be easy to process Mr. Amaral, and the books, and his documentaries will never again be seen” 

************ 

As it happens, could you counter comment or analyze these thoughts?

First, my deepest respect for Guerra. I am deeply saddened by the anguish that can be felt in the comment.

A few words about Guerra. Don’t know him or her, but I do think that this person is intelligent and passionate. He’s passionate about Justice and is about Portugal. But passionate people unwillingly fail to see the flaws of their beloved objects.

Not a shortfall, rather a quality. He usually expresses himself in English. For me, to have done so in Portuguese is quite relevant.

Yes, there are a lot of people willing, and with the courage, to defend Mr. Amaral. I’ll name Paulo Sargento as an example of someone who has given his face in the most polite of manners. I’ll name also Hernâni Carvalho, who exposed the McCanns, right from the beginning, in the most harshest way possible.

And would take quite a while to name all the bloggers, with real names or nicks, that have given so much of their time and effort to help Mr. Amaral.

No, Guerra, there is no lack of courage in Portugal.

There are two things: lack of courage of those that have power to make a difference, and fear from the remainder society.

Don’t confuse fear with lack of courage, because the latter only exists when the first is present, felt and conquered.

I don’t want to comment on the lack of courage of those who can make a difference. Their reasons are known and shameful.

About the fear vs courage of the remainder, let me say that the lack of action is symptomatic of the materialization of the enormous support that Mr. Amaral has within the Portuguese society. This support is so immense and intense that it’s assumed by each that it requires no further help.

This was one very important reason in the prevention of further condemnation of Mr. Amaral. Yes, they are trying to destroy the man. He bothers.

I hope now that you understand on the why we disagreed on the incompetence of the Portuguese police on this affair. You saw this force is confined to Mr. Amaral and his team, and, yes, these were, unfortunately for the McCanns but fortunately for the rest of the world, totally competent within the adverse circumstances.

But the Portuguese police also encompasses the GNR who, let’s be honest, were blinded by the foreignness of the participants, and did a very poor, sloppy job; as well as Mr. Amaral’s supervisors and chiefs, who’ve ashamed the Country to this day.

As a whole, the Portuguese police was incompetent.

About the British police, incompetence doesn’t even begin to qualify them.

Portugal is a Country where democracy rules with an Iron Fist. Imposing a state of fear that would make some fascists states blush with candor.

On the other hand, it’s a small Country, where within international relationships the Iron Fist rules but where the bigger the fist, the bigger the power to rule. So Portugal does as it's told to do. Much like the British media. It’s the survival of the fittest, both intrastate and interstate.

It was this setting that made the Portuguese police, the Portuguese judicial system, the Portuguese politicians and the Portuguese society to shameful succumb to, what should have never been tolerated, totally intolerable pressure. Y

es, they are trying to destroy this man. But can’t.

George Orwell was, fortunately once more, wrong about the erasure of a man’s existence.

Believe me, in a “1984” world with the current Governments, the simple pronunciation of Gonçalo Amaral’s name would have you immediately “erased” and re-educated. But how much they wish they had that kind power, they don’t. The best they can do is attempted brainwashing.

But when they have poor materiel to work with, their task is impossible. Their greatest adversary is not Mr. Amaral, but that set of idiots that they are so hard trying to protect.

It’s like trying to hide a flatulent elephant in a fridge when hosting to Royalty in the house. Impossible, unpleasant, and exhausting.

After coming up with a seemingly plausible explanation for the smell and noise coming from the kitchen, the stupid animal let’s out another one, and you have to rattle your brain to come up with yet another explanation. Over and over again. Tiresome.

Believe me, if you find the McCanns repulsive, their puppeteers find them much more, if you hate them, you can’t imagine how much they do and if you wish you’d never met them, well, join the most unanimous club in this whole wide world.

About the confession of the dying man. Yes, it’s coming. Dramatically from the deathbed. We all know that. It's being prepared meticulously.


Let me just say this to the McCanners: STUPID, STUPID move.

Once again. Like Guerra states, if he confesses then there will be nothing to stop you suing Mr. Amaral.

Especially if all the serious media picks up on the issue. Without Mr Amaral’s book to contradict, the WHOLE of UK will be convinced that the Maddie’s mystery HAS BEEN SOLVED. Case closed. Finito.

But, now you have, on one side, THE TRUTH, someone having confessed to killing Maddie (I’m not foreseeing any scenario where he’ll present Maddie alive), corroborating your WHOLE story, and on the other, THE LIE, an ignominious disgraced ex-cop who has devoted his whole life to disgracing you.

What is the ONLY path you have left? You have to sue the bloke. You HAVE to, no other choice.

After all, he’s lying isn’t he? ISN’T HE?

The excuse that you might forfeit Maddie’s life, is no longer valid, is it? All you have to do is go to Court and prove, with the said confession in your hand, that he’s a liar and sue the living daylights out of the bloke.

See the catch, you morons? See yourselves in Court proving that he's lying? See where the funds of the Fraudulent Fund have to go, also? Quite an interesting scenario.

The same twit who came up with the idea for the “Cutting Edge”, must have been the same one who had the bright idea of this “Scapegoat”.

Just one piece of advice, do pay the man as agreed, but do tell him not to say anything. And FINALLY realize that you have ONLY ONE WAY out: make the McCanns & friends walk the plank.

But first be sure that the sharks are really, really hungry, so that they won’t have time to say anything once they hit the water.

There will be a lot of blood for a while, but the floods will wash it way pretty quick and the sea will become a peaceful blue again.

About not seeing Amaral’s work ever again. Don’t worry, they know how desirable a forbidden fruit is. Make it illegal, and procurement soars.

Guerra, this is like chess. The closest game to a war. Knight takes Bishop, Rook takes Knight, etc. No need to "cry" for every piece lost. And, whilst we’ve been sacrificing no pieces until now, they’ve been losing valuable pieces endlessly.

They thought they were able to take a Bishop, or said that they wanted to take the Bishop but were only able get a pawn and one who knew he was to be sacrificed right from the beginning at that.

A totally harmless, totally expected move. Just look how little importance the “serious” British media made out of the issue.

Do refrain to include Sky News in the serious media. They’ve opted not to be considered as such, so do please their will.

They are now left only with a King surrounded by cardboard pieces, because the real ones are starting to feel ashamed to show up for the game.

Guerra, don’t despair. There’s simply no reason.

They've just played another card.

Less one they have on their hand.

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Lee Hewlett Oswald


Amaral's Verdict - My Humble Opinion (2)



Just learned the facts by which Gonçalo Amaral was condemned.

Endorsing the report that stated that injuries resulting from a fall on the stairs, LOGIC (that cruel illusion by which some dumbasses like myself live by) says that if there was TORTURE, there was no fall, thus, the report is fake.

In that case, whoever wrote it, lied.

My opinion is that she was beaten up in prison by the other inmates, and she said that she did fall from the stairs to avoid being beaten further, and that the inspector knew that fact and wrote the report knowing he was writing a false statement.

But this is a personal opinion, and Justice should not be fuelled or fooled by them.

Only by FACT, within a reasonable doubt, as I’ve explained before.

But now I ask what FACTS proved, within reasonable doubt, that Gonçalo Amaral KNEW the report was fake?

Because there was TORTURE so he had to know?

Did any of the inspectors came on record “Yes, I told Dr. Amaral that I was lying in the report, and specifically asked him to endorse it”?

Let’s just for arguments sake suppose that there was the absurd TORTURE within the PJ’s facilities. Couldn’t the 3 inspectors beat the hell out of her, and then wrote a report, hand it to their boss, who, upon reading it, signed it because he trusted men who didn’t deserve his trust?

Where are the FACTS?

Why is it assumed by the Court that Gonçalo Amaral is lying when he says that he believes to be truthful whatever is written in a report?

Wasn’t he sworn in? Or is it simply because that so many have come to lie in the Portuguese Courts of Law and remaining unpunished for that fact, that it’s assumed that whoever is being questioned will naturally lie?

Gonçalo Amaral can only be PROFESSIONALLY responsible if that report proved to be fake. A disciplinary punishment should have taken place. But a CRIMINAL one? One what basis?!?

For me, it says a lot about the will and want that existed in having a conviction.

And, with ALL that will and want, ALL that you got him for was that, then the man is really uncorrupt.

Which is one of the many things that weren’t anticipated, by the McCanns, their friends, the friends of their friends, and the friends of these latter who profit from or fear them. DURA LEX SED LEX, with a few minor exceptions, here and there…

Just a Reminder


Hellloooooo!! You said you were going to sue...

Friday, 22 May 2009

Here's to you, Mr Amaral (3)


Here's to you, Mr Amaral (2)


Sir, we, the anonymous majority, applaud you.

The Amaral Verdict - My Humble Opinion



The collective of judges considered that Leonor Cipriano was TORTURED, even though it could NOT be proved by whom.

If she was TORTURED, as the Court stated, then Portugal is within that limited list of countries that is both barbaric and has the stupidest of police forces.

Very few countries can say the same. Only the most ridiculously stupid policeman would TORTURE someone to the state in which Leonor appears to have been left in with all the media around focused on her as they were at the time of the alleged events.

Pretty, pretty stupid, to say the least.

If they waited for after the confession to beat her up for whatever reason, that means exactly that: a beating, not TORTURE.

TORTURE means that you have inflict pain to obtain information. Beating, you just want to inflict pain.

I don’t know the details of the said sentence, but I’m most curious to know to what was fact that made the collective of judges determine as proved the TORTURE.

TORTURE was proved, so it was determined the place, time, and MOTIVE for it to have occurred. I'm really, really curious as to which.

The Court finds that we have 3 inspectors who TORTURED a person, but they couldn’t pinpoint the one that really, really TORTURED the lady in question.

Fine (did I just say fine?!?!), rather let go free a guilty person than condemn an innocent.I agree with the principle, but there seems that a mathematical equation wasn’t adequately addressed.

See if I get this straight: 4 people in a room, 1 is TORTURED, which leaves 3 people to do the TORTURING.

Of the 3 TORTURERS, at least 1 did the TORTURE; otherwise there would be no TORTURE at all.

It could have been all the 3 doing the TORTURE, but we can only guarantee that, at least, there was 1 TORTURER, which the Court wasn’t capable to determine which.

Fine (did I say fine again?!?). Let’s get back to maths.

So, we have 1 TORTURER and 1 TORTURED. What about the other 2?

Most likely, they were accomplices to the TORTURER, or, in the least, were witnesses to a crime of TORTURE that they didn’t report.

So, in front of the collective of judges, we have 3 people, 1 of which TORTURED the crap out of a child-killer and the other 2 that helped this TORTURE, or at least witnessed the TORTURING being done.

Logic would say, if it couldn’t be proved who effectively TORTURED, all 3 should have been punished for concealing a TORTURE.

No innocent would be condemned, only 1 of the 3 would get a much lighter sentence than he should have got.

But no, said the Court, she was just TORTURED, and that’s it, so now let’s all go home.

A WISE decision if they knew that there was never any TORTURE, but had to come up with a guilty verdict come what may...

As said yesterday, this only leaves me sad.

What about forgery of pictures, the role of the Prison Director, the admittance of pressure by prison wards, the confession of those who beat her up?

I pity the Portuguese. They either live in a country where police torture AFTER a confession, as apparently was the case according to the Portuguese Justice, or in one where its Judicial System is so inept that it serves all purposes with the exception of the one for which it was supposed to serve, as is my opinion.

Mine and that of many others.

About the crimes for which Gonçalo Amaral was condemned, I don’t know sufficient detail to pronounce adequately about them. They are completely irrelevant.

Simple droplets in a Force 5 Hurricane.

IF he did what he was accused of, he was correctly punished, for that is what Justice is all about. I maintain my belief in his total innocence, but as to err is human, let me just say that, Sir, you wouldn’t lose one ounce of my total and absolute respect.

IF he didn’t, as I think he didn't, then… well you know what I think.

As Fred says, this would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

The Scapegoat



Quoting myself on May 10th about what kind of tricks the McCanns still had up their sleeve:

"The new suspect. Well, what can be said about this one? I confess I was surprised. The shamelessness, the sheer gall, the “we-take-you-for-an-idiot” attitude, really surprised me. 

I thought they were looking for what they most need: empathy. And they pull out a card like that. That only says that they have very, very few cards remaining and are scraping, desperately, the bottom of the barrel.

(…) 

So, EVEN IF, cartoon-man was a pedophiliac that was stalking apartment 5A with the intention of kidnapping specifically Maddie, he didn’t do it. Why? Simply because Maddie was NOT abducted. 

For Maddie, unfortunately for her, those nearest that should have protected and cared her, got to her first, before any other, imaginary or otherwise, threat. (…) Another suspect? It’s been done."

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Here's to You, Mr. Amaral



Tomorrow a sentence will be read.

Only one text, but two verdicts.

The first verdict, that of the Gonçalo Amaral’s Trial, in whose innocence I believe in. Have said so before, and will continue to say until forces allow me to do so.

For me, it’s irrelevant what will the sentence be. Obviously it’s not so for the gentleman.

Sir, if in this senseless affair there remains a glimpse of reason then the verdict is the obvious one: you walking away from the Courthouse as formally guiltless as you are indeed.

The second verdict, that of the Judicial System’s Trial.

That one has already a guilty verdict, just for having allowed the spectacle. A clown who proclaims himself a lawyer, and who has shamed his professional class and whoever teaches Law in Portugal, allowing for that particular man to hold such a degree.

Let's wait what disciplinary actions, if any, are taken against this person. An accusation with so many holes in it that if it were a product to be sold, the salesman would be ran off in tar and feathers for attempted insulting of the collective intelligence.

A Lawyer’s Order who endorsed this Circus, forgetting, purposely, that on the other side of the fence were professionals entitled also to their protection.

If the Gonçalo Amaral is pronounced guilty tomorrow, a Nation will ask why. The question really being: “How could you find him guilty?”

If the Gonçalo Amaral is pronounced innocent tomorrow, a Nation will also ask why. The question really being: “Why this whole sad spectacle?”

 So, tomorrow Portugal will be a very sad Country.

An already mistrusted Judicial System will be even further mistrusted. And rightfully so. A case like this should have been dismissed, not allowing it even to have had any legs to walk.

Leonor had a fair trial. To question it, based on what we have seen, is the System simply mocking itself.

Once again it will be confirmed that, in Portugal, the wisest way to face this Justice is to avoid it any way possible, independently of reason.

Everybody knows that one gets no justice from Justice. And that is exactly the Justice that the Tapas 9 quickly found out they were to face that evening.

The same Justice that, were it not for the tenacity and courage of one man, would have forgotten about them by now.

The same man who, incomprehensibly, will tomorrow have a sentence read to by the same Justice that protects those who should be sitting, a long time ago, in the dock.

Sir, I believe that both Maddie and Joana will be watching and protecting you tomorrow.

May their smiles keep your heart forever warm.

God bless you, Mr. Amaral.

British Tabloids (on Maddie)


Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Mr. Aragão Correia, only YOU can STOP a mother and father from suffering.



Sir,

I'm humbly on my hands and knees and in the name of whatever you hold most precious,

I beg, implore and besiege thee, to stop, once and for all, with the most horrible of pains to which a mother and father are being subjected to and have endured, stoically, to this day. And apparently it’s to go on until nobody knows.

Terrible fate. Enough, I say. Nobody should be subject to such an inhumane punishment, independent of guilt.

It’s cruel and repulsive beyond any human known adjective, and you, Sir, are the ONLY one who is capable to put an end to it. To end this misery.

I know that what I’m asking of you goes to the limit of the human strength, but that’s what separates the strong from the weak, the great from the remainder humanity.

And, Sir, you’ve proven to be one not of afraid of impossible challenges.

Of absolutely ridiculously impossible tasks.

Failure is what most thinks that that is what you’re facing, but I know, that with your tenacity, will and knowledge you will bring victory home.

Let’s hope it’s not too late.

We're all depositing our trust in you, and if you really do put your heart into it, we are sure that you will liberate that mother and father from their everyday doom they are FORCED to face.

No Sir, I’m not talking about the McCanns, but about your own parents.

How ashamed they must be of you.

Monday, 18 May 2009

The Sun - Starting to set the mood?



("Maddie parents set to sue cop", in small box and not below the “Latest Maddie”. Cartoon-man remains #1.) Published: Today (interesting, very interesting… only two days after the McCanns announcement. Stale news, one would think) 

 MISSING Madeleine McCann’s parents are suing the disgraced police chief who led the hunt for their daughter. Kate and Gerry McCann are furious (TRUE, how TRUE) over the book written by Goncalo Amaral claiming Maddie is DEAD — and that they were involved.

Their UK lawyer Edward Smethurst said they were applying for a gagging order (that’s suing?!? Is that it?!?) in Lisbon’s civil court, Portugal. He added: “Proceedings are being issued for an injunction to prevent further publication.”

The McCanns, of Rothley, Leics, issued a statement saying: “We are taking this action over his entirely unfounded and grossly defamatory claims that Madeleine is not only dead, but that we were somehow involved in concealing her body.”

Amaral, who was kicked off the case (TRUE, but where is the usual “disgraced”?), yesterday vowed to counter-sue. He said: “My lawyers are working on the case and we will take the McCann couple to court for defamation, slanderous denunciations and false statements.” (Oooops McCanns, so many, many not nice adjectives applied to you in a single The Sun article. All TRUE though, but this paper is not meant to print the TRUTH about this case, is it? A sign of the times, perhaps?) 

Maddie, then three, vanished (TRUE, but where is the usual “abducted”?) from a holiday flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007.

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Reporting for duty



Just arrived home and learned, through my dear friends in the http://www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/ that Gonçalo Amaral is suing the McCanns.

Firstly, it’s long overdue.

Secondly, it’s a pity that the Portuguese state took no action, and seems determined not to do so, to defend its reputation, leaving it to the hands of a single citizen to do so.

Thirdly, I don’t know much of the details, so I’ll leave any further comments for later. But I do wish to, right now, to show my full support to Mr. Amaral.

 It would be an honor, and a pleasure, to help you in anyway I can.

Sir, I’m entirely at your disposal.

Saturday, 16 May 2009

About the McCann Lawsuit against Gonçalo Amaral



These idiots had to make me come back from my self-imposed slumber.

I’m almost tempted to think it’s personal.

About this moronic idiocy, these people are starting to fear what is inevitable: Justice.

This message is to have 2 major effects.

The first being to unite the remainder below-average xenophobic British that are still buying this story, and pass on the word that they are to stand fast, united, and face the ignominious enemy like only the courageous Brits are able to…

The second, and much more important, is to remind the British publishers that they mean business on their turf. If they ever so much think of printing a single word, they will be pounced upon, like when De Niro played Al Capone and had a baseball bat in his hands…

Both, desperate measures. Both, demonstration of fear, or as the Americans like to say, of being scared shitless beyond the worst of nightmares.

McCanns & pals, do put on your best attire. You sure want to look mighty pretty when the hangman comes and takes your height and weight.

He usually notes both, although everyone knows that the height is for the undertaker only.

That way, the hangman saves him the trouble of the trip.

He only accompanies the hangman for VIPs. You’re hardly that. Irrelevant of how much you were convinced that you were.

We know that you’re stupid, but we also know that you’re not THAT stupid.

Friday, 15 May 2009

Be Right Back



Due only to personal reasons.

No, Mrs M hasn't sent 007 with some fancy weapon designed by Q after me.

And no, he's certainly not forcing me to type this...

There are still some British institutions that the McCanns haven't tainted.

The T9 Virus

A vision impairing virus that affects, selectively, VIP’s.

(May 15th, 2009)

Foreword: the text below was the result of an initiation from www.joana-morais.blogspot.com to participate in their “May Special” which I adhered enthusiastically. As an offering it was, and is, I lost its ownership. This property issue wasn’t quite as peaceful as anticipated. Me insisting that it was theirs, and them, completely irrefutable that it was mine. After long and exhausting conversations between the interested parties, respective lawyers and real estate representatives, an agreement was finally reached: the text became officially “ours”. However, I had one last say. I would only publish it here, on the day it became an “older” post on their blog.  

For the most absurdly curious, almost comical, legal reasons, all that is known about the Maddie case is what each one of us constructs to what may have happened on that fateful May 3rd afternoon. 

There has been so much information and disinformation about the case, that it will certainly be a future case-study in the most diverse of subjects. 

Journalism and Investigative Sciences, upfront, but Psychology and Politics, are other that occur to me at the moment. 

On the latter, I would even go as far as to think that it will be studied under the “State-Terrorism” perspective. But, this is the sole opinion of the author. 

But all these constructs, although mental, are not made out-of-the-blue, be in whichever side of the board each one stands at. Yes, they’re biased by a mixture of background, education and opinion on the subject at stake, but always, always based on information assumed as, or taken for, fact. 

By interlinking what we know, or think we know, we, humans, are able to deduce what, in each one’s opinion, has in fact happened. 

The more solid are the events from which we construct these “facts”, the more real, or truthful, is the deduction. So, through common sense and logic, events can be deduced as to how, when, who and why they happened, and be assumed as fact. Although, de facto, unproven as such. 

Thus the creation of “reasonable” doubt, a frontier that, once overcome or conquered, makes an event become, legally, fact. 

The only problem here is how far each of us wishes to stretch, or shorten, the “reason” within “reasonable”. The desperate need to insert a doubt about a specific something attempting, by force, just to avoid having it had considered real is, by its own action, so unreasonable that it becomes, ironically, one of the principal reasons for it to be considered proved. 

Everything is linked to everything. Much more relevant than the actual lie is the reason why the liar is lying. That alone usually encapsulates a precious truth. 

The denial, based only on fortuity, of the existing forensic evidence, only reinforces the belief that they are true and do provide relevant evidence. 

On the other hand, events that are presented with such a degree of absurdity and void of logic and common sense show, all by themselves, where reason is denied. 

In the Maddie case, the abductor theory is so completely illogic and self-contradictory that denying its truthfulness is a natural human reaction. 

One has to force oneself, or be forced, to believe in it. 

The repeated claim, so ill-dramatized, by Gerry and Kate of their innocence, only makes it come back to them as it denotes lack of coherence and natural conviction and reiterates, significantly, the certainty we all have that they are guilty. 

I’ve said it before, and will repeat it as many times as required, that it can be determined, within a very reasonable “reasonable doubt” that Maddie is dead; that those nearest to her were involved directly in her death and that all of the of the Tapas group were involved, in some way or another in the obstruction of justice and in the concealment of her body with whatever evidence it might of upheld. 

And when I say “a very reasonable “reasonable doubt””, let there be no misunderstanding that I clearly mean that in any given similar circumstances, it would be more than enough to guarantee a conviction of any common British citizen in any Court of Law in the United Kingdom. 

Only intentionally turning one’s own head the opposite way can one pretend not to see the evidence that proves the McCann’s guilt. 

It’s so blatant that denying it can only be the result of self-inflicted blindness. 

In the UK and as of May 2007 onwards there seems to have been a sudden surge in the number of vision-impaired people. A condition that seems to affects only people in the judicial, law-enforcement and media areas of British society. 

Although these people can read, write and even drive, on the McCann issue they wouldn’t be able to see the lights on a billboard whilst standing in the middle of NY Times Square at night. 

Totally, completely and utterly blind. 

But this highly contagious disease has also spread to Portugal, affecting the exact same type of people.

Undoubtedly, one very, very selective virus. I’m not a doctor, but if I were the one who happened to discover the responsible micro-organism, I would name it the Turn-a-Blind Eye to Just Certain Judicial Processes Virus or TaBEtJCPJ Virus

A rather complex name for virus that causes such an easy disease to diagnose. As it has 9 letters, I would even abbreviate it to T9

A vision impairing virus that affects, selectively, VIP’s. 

If fiction were reality, I would even say that we were before the white blindness that José Saramago so beautifully wrote about, where people who have completely normal and healthy eyes suddenly become blind, for no known physical reason. 

One woman, one woman alone, did keep her eyesight throughout the book. 

Don’t remember her name or that she even had one, but I’ll call her Hope.

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Maddie: Hunt for 3 weirdos



THREE witnesses saw THREE scary weirdos who may have masterminded the abduction of Madeleine McCann, it was revealed last night. 

The ugly suspects, were seen watching the holiday apartment from which Maddie was snatched. 

The chilling artist’s impressions were pieced together from statements made by the three anonymous witnesses to the Portuguese police. 

The sightings, said by one witness to be “unnerving,” were never linked by the cops. But Maddie’s parents Kate and Gerry realised the significance of them as they ploughed through the 30,000 pages of police files about their daughter’s disappearance. 

They told their private investigation team, who re-interviewed the witnesses and came up with the images.

Last night, the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “These men and the woman need to be traced urgently. “The witnesses did talk to the Portuguese police but it appears that nothing was done to find them. They are a vital part of the jigsaw. Kate and Gerry believe the testimony is critically important but has not had the attention it deserves.” 

The existence of the witnesses and the gawping weirdos were highlighted in a Channel 4 documentary entitled Cutting Edge: Madeleine Was Here. 

Mr Mitchell last night revealed there had been 30 new possible sightings of Maddie since the McCanns appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show in America on Monday. 

The FindMadeleine hotline has been swamped by hundreds of calls and thousands have visited the FindMadeleine.com website. 

If you do, please don’t forget to stop by the Paypal button.

Monday, 11 May 2009

Here is a Headline, me thinks, I would love to see one day...



The original headline is "BROWN: I'M SORRY - PM apologises over expenses scandal", but one can always dream...

Hmmm, me thinks that somebody's apparent patron seems to be thinking he'll be jobless pretty soon. And when one is unemployed, one does tend to prioritize things...

Hmmm, me thinks that when one is unemployed, one tends to lose, as time passes, influence in the place where one used to work...

Hmmm, me thinks that a certain British family, and their friends, are accompanying, very, very worried, this all thing about the MPs being so irresponsible with public funds...

Hmmm, me likes this irresponsible spending of public money...

Not that me likes waste, but if waste is what is needed to cleanse waste, then let there be waste then. Just enough to set aside those, and those near to them, that apparently seem not to want that there be any cleansing…

But me thinks that he who might pick up the broom might not imagine the amount of garbage he faces.

Me thinks that he'll start to realize that the broom swing starts somewhere in unthinkable places within the Kingdom and only ends up in lands far, far away in unimaginable places.

Such as, for example, me thinks, way South in a Republic, former kingdom and the oldest of friends, known in the Kingdom for receiving temporarily its subjects for holidays in beaches where the Atlantic is mistaken for a much smaller sea.

Then the man who will pick up the broom might, me thinks, think he might not have enough arm. Or, me thinks, might be made to think that he might not.

Then, me thinks that the man with a broom, realizing that he is between a wall and a hard place, might look around desperate for options in order to pacify all that anxiety from those who placed their naïve trust in him as the Great Broom-Master, and now eagerly await, in the greatest of suspense, for his action.

Me thinks then, that the Great Broom-Master-to-be, might me made to think that the people are easily pacified with minor unimportant passionate things that the people love to love and is thus easily hypnotized into comfortable submission.

And people, me thinks, love to love a dead beautiful little girl whose life was abruptly and prematurely taken from her by those who should’ve loved to love her.

The Great Broom-Master, might, me thinks, be convinced in simple pragmatic trade-off: give exposure to what is known, in exchange for the silence about all that Great Darkness that is to remain unknown.

And what, me thinks, is there to be exposed that is already known?

Well, me thinks, that in the Republic, could only be about a port, that is Free but by decree of name only.

In the Kingdom, me thinks, a scandal that the Brits do love to love. It involves, me KNOWS, not thinks, news and those that pretended they were making them, especially specifically some, negligence in those that pretended to be tender, loving caring people, and, those eyes, big and soft, so full of life to be, that, SUDDENLY everybody realizes that haven’t been alive for so long, and now stare innocently from beyond, asking US ALL, as she asked her parents shortly before dying “how could you NOT have come when you heard me crying all this time?”

Sunday, 10 May 2009

The McCann Game, shortly out of tricks?



I like to play contract bridge, known simply as bridge.

For us who play it, there are, obviously otherwise we wouldn’t do so, many reasons to love the game, but that is not what this article is about. It’s about how some things are finite and limited by physical realities.

Bridge is a trick-taking card game, 52 cards in total, 4 suits of 13 cards each.

It’s played by 4 people, each with a hand of 13 cards.

In a predetermined order, each player plays one card, and the comparison of those 4 cards determines who wins or loses the trick.

So 13 cards per player means that there are only 13 tricks in each hand played. Not one single more, not one single less.

When it’s over, it’s over.

Another limitation, and Jacques de la Palisse wouldn’t say it better, is that for every trick played, it’s one less that is there able to be played.

It’s an obvious concept but a very, very important one to retain. If you’ve played 10 tricks, there are only 3 left. That’s it, no way around it. And, at that particular point of the game, 40 cards have already been revealed and only 12 are left to be played.

As each player has 3 cards in his hands, and is able see the Dummy’s 3 cards, there are only 6 cards that remain to be seen.

Out of 52. At this point in time these 6 cards hold very little surprise, if any at all. Now, let’s see how many tricks the McCanns have played lately:  

The Malta sighting.

A card played over and over again to the point of saturation. This one was either the last one of its suit or, whatever the next one appears it will get the same attention as this one got: a smirk and a shake of the head.  

The Oprah show.

This was like thinking that you adversary had the ace of trump, but it was only a deuce. And not even a trump at that.

As far as I’m aware, it had no impact whatsoever in favor of the couple. On the contrary, they were completely ridiculed by their own act.

Even Girls Aloud got more attention.

In my opinion, it proved only that Oprah is amongst the list of their friends. Unfortunately for me as I had her in the greatest of considerations, but that’s what I’m deducing by the lack of any action on her part after getting the reactions she got on her site both before and after the show.

At what cost to her credibility, only time, and the Americans; will tell.

The new suspect.

Well, what can be said about this one? I confess I was surprised.

The shamelessness, the sheer gall, the “we-take-you-for-an-idiot” attitude, really surprised me.

I thought they were looking for what they most need: empathy. And they pull out a card like that. That only says that they have very, very few cards remaining and are scraping, desperately, the bottom of the barrel.

Did I hear that now they added a scar to that horrendous face?!? What next, an eye patch and a parrot on the shoulder?  

The C4 “Cutting Edge” documentary.

The most stupid self-incriminating piece of backfiring propaganda that I've ever seen.

Never so much rubbish was joined together in so little time. Who was the idiot that came up with this idea?

We were all invited to a black and tie party, and all we got served was peanuts. And stale ones at that.

The anxiously waited defense from the vilified, who managed, all by themselves, to prove that their vilification is not only adequate as its absolutely righteous. These criminals deserve no less than the most intense of vilifications.

Kate’s “we had left it” confessing that there were no checking of children whatsoever.

The mysterious “wooooosh” draft, later a celebrity on Oprah, who happens to be violent in nature but very volatile in action. The draft that is... on one hand, slams doors and makes curtains fly, but on the other, stays ambushed when patio doors are open.

Almost as if acting only upon cue, for the greatest dramatization effect. So, so Hollywood.

The dim-witted Jane realizing, finally, how contradictory everything she ever said was. Do spare me the crocodile tears, dear.

The most stupid attempt in bringing to “our-side of the story” the Smith sighting, which only comes to confirm that, yes, it was Gerry, and yes, it worries the hell out of the McCanns.

The American actress that vanished. Was she also abducted? By cartoon-man?

And, Oh yes, the cartoon-man. An infamous character straight out of the most dementedly xenophobic of minds, set to be disgusted by the whole of western civilization. Yet, and that’s how humanity sometimes surprises you, got nothing but sympathy from all.

Ugliness, McCanns, is not a sin. Guilt, is. (Gerry, not quite a compliment hearing that he looks like you, is it? Not me saying it... not me saying it... just heard it)

So now, everything boils down to a 12-year old girl’s (which I believe that what she's saying is true) statement that she saw a man staring at the apartment. The identifit on file certainly seems to be human, unlike the cartoon created.

If you want a perfectly logical reason for a man to be staring at the apartment 5A, I’ll give you one upfront. Not stating that it was, just saying that it could’ve well been. He was eyeballing Kate, or at least trying to. She’s an attractive woman, and he was curious to find out where she was staying.

No, not to kidnap or hurt her, but to be able to just check her out more often. Simple as that.

Many a time I’ve been stared at. Sometimes I took it as a compliment, others as annoying, that is exclusively up to each one’s fickleness, but never as a crime, unless it’s stalking.

Which, by all witness accounts, was not the case. BUT, not being one to ignore relevant information let me say that I will certainly take in consideration, as suspicious, the presence of a man staring at the 5A apartment.

But I will do that only AFTER I get reasonable explanations about the broken shutter, about the inexistent shelf where cuddlecat supposedly was but ended up next to the pillow, about the Olympic capabilities of the abductor inside a dark room with a 4-year old in his arms, about…, about…, about so many lies that it’s getting pretty tiresome to list just the most relevant ones.

After you give me a reasonable explanation for all those, then I promise to consider, seriously and wholeheartedly, the suspect number whatever, known as cartoon-man, as a possible abductor.

I’ll even abstain to look at him as the fictional character he is. You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. But you scratch mine first.

You can’t, can you? Everybody knows you can’t. You have to have an abductee before you have an abductor So, EVEN IF, cartoon-man was a pedophiliac that was stalking apartment 5A with the intention of kidnapping specifically Maddie, he didn’t do it.

Why? Simply because Maddie was NOT abducted. For Maddie, unfortunately for her, those nearest that should have protected and cared her, got to her first, before any other, imaginary or otherwise, threat.

The second anniversary “festivities” were a flop. The McCanns are clearly playing their last cards.

Their stack is running short. And they haven’t much more to play with. Little surprises expected ahead, at least nothing that I can think of.

Another suspect? It’s been done.

Another sighting? Done that before,

Another documentary? Been there (but, by all means, do repeat).

Another show? Cannot see who can top Oprah.

Lest we forget, for every trick played, it’s one less that is able to be played, and there isn’t much game left, is there, McCanns?

Saturday, 9 May 2009

Much further than we had left it

 

"I took my check about 10 o’clock, and went in through the, sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought Oh, all quiet… and to be honest I might of, been tempted to turn around, then but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door, where the 3 children were sleeping, was open much further than we had left it, I went to close it to about here…"

Friday, 8 May 2009

Kate McCann Confesses, Finally.


The moment Kate blunders up, and confesses...

Kate McCann, in “Cutting Edge”:  

"I took my check about 10 o’clock, and went in through the, sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought Oh, all quiet… and to be honest I might of, been tempted to turn around, then but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door, where the 3 children were sleeping, was open much further than we had left it, I went to close it to about here…"  

The “we had left it”, can only mean herself and Gerry, before going to dinner.

There is no other "we" involving her.

That was the last time she was in the apartment before her return to realize that her daughter had been abducted. According to McCanns & Friends, there were 2 visits where movement of the referred door had to happen: the one at 09.15, by Gerry, who, by the way sees the door open and doesn’t find anything strange about that, and goes to the toilet; and the one at 9.35 by Matt Oldfield who sees only the twins.

Both had to physically open the door from the “we had left it” position, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to see inside.

So, for Kate to find it strange that the door was not as “we had left it” and that fact, all by its own, made her suspicious that something was wrong, means ONLY one thing: to her, there was no visit to the apartment between the time she left it, for dinner, and when she returned, to find Maddie gone.

Gotcha! Explain that.

*********

Updated Saturday May 9th, 18:15 Last night at least 2 people on www.joana-morais.blogspot.com, Ana and an Anon., commented having realized the same thing I had, before I even posted. It's evident. It's undeniable.

This consolidates the strength of the "we had left it" that I deem as a very strong piece of evidence to reopen the process.

These are the comments, at this time, at the referred blog:

 ++++++++ 

Ana said... There's one thing that has stuck with me for the past week, since Kate's new "testimonies" (1st on Opraha and now here): Kate says she went into the room and she felt something was not quite right because the door was opened wide(r) than when they had left the children... But two other people (at least) had been there since, right? First Gerry, than Matt(?). Couldn't one of them had left the door in a different position? Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction? Unless... the checks story is a lie and no one checked the children but Kate. 08/05/09 20:50 

++++++++ 

Anonymous said... Ana, you're right. How would Kate know if other people were checking before her last check....the door may naturally not be left the same if different people were taking turns to check the kids...this is so obvious yet I missed it...well done! 08/05/09 21:39 

 ++++++++ 

Anonymous said... Ana, Congrats! You saw exact what I saw: the proof that Kate is lying, thus confessing. I posted it last night, and posted also on the 3Arguido's. Let's all push, and make this count. She's confessing!!! Textusa 09/05/09 07:48 

 ++++++++ 

Jo said (…) Ana "Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction?"kate should have cut her tongue,shouldnt she? 09/05/09 13:13 

++++++++

Feel depressed? Have a laugh then.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mockumentary.html  

Post-scriptum: 

Didn’t laugh. 

Didn't feel like laughing at all. 

Felt very, very sad. 

The human being can reach such levels of inhumanity that make anyone despair. 

Feel depressed. 

 May God give me wisdom to understand these people, because I’m unable to do so right now. 

May God never give me the strength for I know I would use it unwisely. 

May God have pity on your souls. 

I’m human, I can’t. I assume the sin, but cannot overcome it. 

Sorry.

A word to a very, very wise woman.



Ms or Mrs Lisa Donovan,

I’ve addressed you, on April 6th, in a post called “A word to a future Porn Star, or not even that”.

A strong title that set the tone in which I adamantly criticized you for your appearance in a documentary, now known as The Mockumentary, that was aired yesterday.

You do not appear in it.

I’m assuming that you, for reasons that only you know, took a wise decision and decided to have no part in that circus.

If my words helped you in any way, it would make me very happy, but you’re the only one that merits all the wisdom in that decision.

 So, where criticism was due, compliments are now owed. Sincere congratulations.

Let me finish by saying that you’re living proof of that what happened that night happened like we, who say Maddie died in that apartment, say it did.

You have, inadvertently shown the world, and on tape, how the McCann use and abuse people and how they manipulate the information they convey.

Hope you have the greatest of successes personally and professionally.

Congratulations.

God Bless

Thursday, 7 May 2009

A Detail to Laugh at Tonight



Just from the trailer, of the upcoming video from the McCanns, I captured this little detail...

It seems now that the Smith’s sighting in “Rua da Escola Primária” (in picture as #2) corroborates the Tanner hallucination in “Rua Agostinho da Silva” (in picture as #1).

Jane is “a” and Gerry and Jeremy “b” and “c”.

Both show the direction to which the man seen traveling: in #1 from W to E, while on #2, from N to S.

Looking at the picture, it’s obvious, for any McCanner, the linkage between these 2 sightings.

For the remainder humanity… lolol.

By the way, I’m really looking forward to the reconstitution on how “The Athlete” jumped through the window…

The probable route of the abductor, according, to the McCanns:
 

The New Star of the Show



So, we’ve finally arrived at the day that we’re going to see the moving pictures from those famous artists: The McCanns It seems that the casting has found a new star…

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

The Script for "McCanns on Oprah"

 

Wide shot, only Gerry and Kate. Kate while speaking moves as rehearsed. Gerry MUST maintain the look as if his doing a highly complicated mathematical calculus during the whole dialogue.  

Kate: The curtains that were drawn over, just wooooosh… flew open, and that’s when I saw that the shutter was wide open and the window was pushed right open…  

Oprah: And that was when you realized that Maddie had been abducted, right?  

Kate: No, y’know, it was when I heard, y'know, the laughter.  

Oprah: The laughter? 

Kate: Yeah, y’know, I started to hear somebody laughing, y’know, on top of the music in the background… y’know, it sounded like Vincent Price…  

Oprah: The Vincent Price?!?  

Audience woooooos in amazement.  

Kate: Well, yeah, y’know, could have been him, y'know, or could have been somebody else, y’know, with all those violins you couln’t exactly say who it was… 

 Quick close up on Oprah’s face, amazement.  

Oprah: Do you think Vincent Price abducted Maddie?  

Camera swing to Gerry. Kate’s hand is seen placed on his knee.  

Gerry: It certainly should have been something that the Portuguese police should have looked at, instead of losing precious moments accusing us absurdly. I can say that having read almost all the files, it’s a stone, like all others, we will NOT leave unturned until we find our lovely daughter.  

Camera back to Oprah  

Oprah: But knowing that Vincent Price is dead since 1993, do you think he abducted Maddie but as "Dracula"?  

Camera to Gerry, leaning forward.  

Gerry: There’s no evidence that Vincent Price is dead, but if he is, and now is "Dracula", I can tell, knowing our little Maddie, if he bit her neck and sucked her dry, she certainly gave him Hell…  

laughs  

Audience laughs.  

Camera on Oprah in total amazement, eyes open, moves her mouth in a silent “wow”.  

Audience applaudes.  

Oprah: We'll be right back after this commercial break. Don't go away.  

Shot widens, until capturing whole studio with applauding audience. 

Fade.  


A special thanks to: www.joana-morais.blogspot.com

Monday, 4 May 2009

Appealing to All Americans



Or you can always go here:

Your US account is ready for use and abuse!

Oprah Got Had, Seriously Had


Ms Winfrey,

First of all let me express my sincere admiration for you. I lived for a while in your country, which I grew to love and respect, and you’re one of its most relevant icons.

For professional reasons, I never got to watch any of your shows. I paid little attention to TV, but on my daily commute your name came up frequently. I used to listen to 2 radio stations, one nationwide and the other local.

On the national TJMS, the reverence and caring way with which Tom and Sybil spoke about you and your work indicated quite clearly that you are a valued reference to every American.

This was reinforced, locally, by the way the people at the local station described in passionate detail every one of your shows. Whatever you said, ruled. So although I never watched you, many a show I did follow attentively.

You have built a career and a sound reputation on hard, honest work. You have my respect and recognition People look up to you for guidance, and seek you in their hour of need.

They’ve learned that the trust that they’ve put on you has been many times rewarded. You’re the average American’s trendsetter, if I may say so. So, your show is unquestionably a privileged way in which one may convey one’s message across the whole of America.

And many do try using it with ill intent. Of the messages that come out of your show, the majority as is supposed is of an honest nature. But some, and you better than anybody else know this, have mischievous intent. I do believe that you and staff work very hard to filter these, the best you can, thus eradicating opportunistic people who deserve no respect.

Unfortunately, it’s a human impossibility to spot and stop them all. Some do get by albeit all your best efforts. And that is what unfortunately has happened. Ms Winfrey, you have unwittingly and unwillingly become an accomplice of a couple who are suspect of having committed very serious crimes, both in Portugal and in the UK, and now, through your show, in the US. I’m afraid, as you Americans say, you got had, Ms Winfrey.

Seriously, seriously had.

I’m obviously talking about Kate and Gerry McCann. A show that will air today, May 4th, 2009.

You clearly aren’t responsible for any criminal activities that any of your guests may be involved or may be responsible for, nor am I saying or suggesting that you are. But, if criminals do use your show to contribute significantly to their illegal intentions, then yes, you’re involved.

By their exclusive initiative and responsibility, but you’re definitely involved nonetheless. If by ignorance, you’re blameless.

The problem is if that ignorance is the result of poor homework, as it seems to be in the case of this British couple, as I’ll try to explain and hope you’ll perceive.

In either case, once alerted, all that is required and expected from you is timely action as ignorance is involved.

I’ll avoid getting into too much detail on why I think that Kate and Gerry McCann have committed the crimes of obstruction of justice, concealment of the body of their daughter and fraud, or on why I think they’re directly involved in her death, or even on why I’m absolutely convinced that Madeleine Beth McCann, known as Maddie, is dead as of May 3rd, 2007.

All you have to do is to “google” this subject, and read with your own eyes the amount of evidence that point, without any shadow of a doubt, to the guilt of the McCann couple and their friends.

You may even throw in 2nd degree murder to the before mentioned. It’s most probable that the couple is involved in that serious of a crime, but in this case, proof is not as irrefutable.

On your search, you’ll find a book called “A Verdade da Mentira”, written by a Mr. Gonçalo Amaral. This book, unbelievably in this XXI Century is “banned” from publication in the UK. Not officially, but as this affair is of such a magnitude and involves directly the highest hierarchical British governmental and media institutions, no publisher is willing to risk it’s publication. If this isn’t unacceptable censorship, then I honestly don’t know what it is. Sad, but true.

The book was published in July 2008 in Portugal.

In spite of many threats, no legal action, by the McCanns or anybody else, has been taken against the author. Even having the couple hired two of the most prestigious Portuguese lawyers, one of which was, until recently, the Head of the Portuguese Lawyer’s Order, the highest national representation of that particular profession in the country.

Please do have the book locally translated. You’ll find that the content is in accordance with the title which basically translates to “The Truth of the Lie”. Being the lie the whole story concocted up by the couple.

Mr. Amaral was the Portuguese Police’s detective in charge of the case, and was suddenly and inexplicably pulled off the case shortly after the McCann couple was constituted as “Arguidos”.

Please let me explain what this “Arguido” status means. It’s a Portuguese legal status in which a citizen may find himself in when dealing with the Law. In practical terms it’s exactly the same thing that happens when one has one’s rights read to in the US. As of that moment, one knows that the State has reasons to believe that one has committed a felony and one has the opportunity to take all and whichever deemed appropriate action in one’s own defense.

But the “Arguido” status goes a little further, and, unlike in the US, whatever one says can and may NOT be used against oneself. In that particular status it’s not a felony if one doesn’t say the truth or even if one blatantly lies, as one is never sworn in any of one’s statements. I’m incompetent to pass judgment on this legal procedure, and will refrain from doing so.

All I wish to convey is that you have a feel on how hard it is to produce proof in Portugal. All in the principle, correct in my opinion, that it’s better to let a culprit go free than to convict an innocent. Many a guilty “Arguido” has been released, or not even prosecuted.

This, evidently, does not prove their innocence, but only the lack of enough proof to convict them. Not only are the McCann completely wrong in saying to say that they have been cleared and have been declared innocent just because their “Arguido” status was lifted, as it’s abusive.

They’re simply exploiting the natural ignorance the world has about legal details of a country the size of Portugal. They’re intentionally being untruthful, a typical behavior by this particular couple. In their case, the lifting of that status was due only to the archiving, for now, of the process, due to lack of evidence, or so was officially said.

Here, it’s very important who exactly states that there wasn’t enough “evidence”. If Count Dracula ever tells you that there was no blood in the glass he just drank, would you believe him? He’s entitled to say whatever he wishes but can’t determine that what he says is to be taken as truth.

As before said, the policeman in charge of the case was pulled off the case, officially, and with no explanation given. As simple as that.

This couple has friends in very high places in Portugal. And not only in Portugal. There is, according to the couple, and as you are publicizing, a missing British child, publicly known to presumably have been abducted by a paedophile.

And what is the British Police doing about it? Well, let me answer by using Bruce Springsteen: “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!”

Is this logic, or even acceptable? It is if you, the British Police, know that there isn’t anybody to find, because the little girl is, unfortunately, dead.

They know perfectly well that all the talk about Maddie being alive is a pure fictional tale, so they stay quiet. That’s how high a friends the McCanns have.

In your search you’ll also find a very interesting fact about Kate McCann. She refused to answer 48 questions to the police about the disappearance of her daughter. The “Arguido” status allows it. And so does your Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer (…) in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (…)”. 

I think that says all, don’t you? Can you, Ms Winfrey, see ANY other reason for this refusal, other than knowing full well that the answers would implicate her?

Ms Winfrey, we were all, at one time or another, enticed by the beauty and charm of this couple. We all fell for their story. Like sailors going after the mermaid’s chanting. But remember, Ted Bundy was also a handsome man. And proved to be the monster he was.

In the early days of May, 2007, MILLIONS of people worldwide provided full support to the couple in their plight. Now we know a staged abduction. The people of Praia da Luz, a quaint small village where this tragedy happened, didn’t sleep for days, showing altruism above any expectation.

You can see the footage, you can see the pictures. Only 2 years later, the same people on the exact same place have torn up posters of Maddie. Have they started to hate her? No, Ms Winfrey, the Portuguese do not hate people, quite the contrary. They simply don’t like to be played for fools.

You stated, to the best of my memory of what I saw on the trailer of your show, that the couple has been “vilified”. Ms Winfrey, have you just stopped for a second to ask why this could be? Why would ANYONE vilify a couple whose daughter has been abducted, most likely by a paedophile? Wouldn’t that be simply grotesque, cruel and inhumane?

And, please do tell me, for whatever reason? Public lynching? But why? Are the Portuguese and the British made up of purely evil, petty people? Just to hate for hatred’s sake? One second is all is required to conclude that there are no reasons. None whatsoever. Pure invented victimization.

The victims in this whole affair, Ms Winfrey, are far from being the couple that sat across you. Do you know of any victim, or relative to one, that has ever required a spokesperson to speak on their behalf to the press?

As far as I’ve been able to see they do not appear to be in a state of shock or suffer any kind of speech-impediment. You, from what I gather once again from the trailer, didn’t require a third party to interview them.

A strange requirement anyway you look at it. Especially that we know that that particular man left his job in the government to do this full time. Almost as strange as the hiring of the English lawyer that succeeded to avoid the extradition of the Chilean Dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet from England to Spain.

One wonders if they were afraid of being extradited from their own country. Quite strange behavior, more apt of a guilty conscience than that of a one consumed in finding an abducted daughter.

Do you. Ms Winfrey, know of any mother of an abducted child who ever required a piece of paper to read from in order to communicate with the abductors of her offspring? No, it wasn’t live. It was pre-recorded. She could have as many takes as she wished, rehearsed as many times as needed. Or act naturally and beg for the safe return of her daughter.

Lastly, Ms Winfrey, how many parents do you know that upon perceiving that their child had been abducted would contact first the English media, and only afterwards, the local authorities?

Ms Winfrey, they know that Maddie is dead. They have misled the police and have disposed of Maddie’s body. In Portugal they have committed the crimes of obstruction of justice and concealment of a body. Possibly, 2nd degree murder.

But how does all this involve you?

Well, Ms Winfrey, if it’s proved, which I believe it will be very soon, that the McCanns on May 4th, 2007, knew that Madeleine Beth McCann was dead; the constitution of the Madeleine Fund is criminal fraud.

That’s their crime in the UK. A Fund which was, as already admitted by the couple, used to pay mortgages of their house in the UK. Yes, they’ve repented having done so, but that says a lot about what sort of people they are to have even thought about it in the first place.

Many have given to this fraudulent Fund. Many known names. You may even know some. But many, many, anonymous simple people have also put in the Fund some of their hard-earned savings, based in an ignominious lie and benefiting these criminals.

Many have bought wristbands and t-shirts, contributing further to this fraud. And now, Ms Winfrey, many Americans will be, thanks to you, touched by this story, as we all were and will start, as generous as we know Americans to be, to give their hard-earned dollars to this Fund.

Helping these criminals succeed in their fraudulent scheme. But every American who gives money will also, from now on, be able to say that they did it just because they saw your name associated with it. You’ve publicly supported the couple.

And when the Americans realize, like before them the British and the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Australians, the French and the Dutch, the New Zealanders and the Brasilians, they’ve been fooled, they’ll be disappointed.

And after disappointment, anger follows, the one that is only felt by those that, after having given their best with the purest of hearts, feel betrayed.

Then, I do think, your name will most certainly surface.

The couple’s revenue, in terms of the Fund, both from UK and Portugal, was running low. Now, through you, they have reached the pockets of the Americans. So now, through you, this Fraud is on American soil.

Ms Winfrey, the McCanns are profiting from their daughter’s death, and you have associated your name to these people.

Believing what I believe about you, this is completely the opposite of what you’ve fought for your whole life and what you’re known to defend and stand for.

I felt that was my duty to elucidate you, and sincerely hope that you act accordingly with what these people merit. This would mean publicly distancing yourself from these people and persecuting them for wrongfully using your name and of abusing your reputation.

Ms. Winfrey, to finalize this long letter, let me clarify my option for this anonymity.

It’s just a rational conclusion just looking at the power gap between me and the enormity of the adversaries I face. I do not have the material or the influential means they have, so I cannot fight them on their ground. I only have morality, that they should also possess, so here, we're equal.

Some call it cowardice, others just being wise. I say, that at this point in time, it’s how I best serve justice and the truth.

I act solely according to my own conscience,

As a side issue, it might be interesting to think about the reasons that make people like me, on this day and age, to make this option.

 However, in your search you will find quite a lot of people who have given their faces and identities, some even defying the McCanns to proceed legally against them.

It’s not a question of anonymous bloggers, but that of justice.

 Ms Winfrey, I know that the McCanns have friends in the highest of places. But, as far as I can still remember, America was proud of being a place where everyone, big or small, could make a stand and demand that justice be served where and whenever it is due.

Oh, say! Does that star-spangled banner yet wave, over the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Yours Respectfully

Textusa

 **************

Updated, just after the show, a sign of times to come?: Someone, before the airing, at 3Arguidos forum:

Why send a letter before you have seen the show? It is just about to go on here in 15 minutes and I believe this is the first showing.

One and a half hour later:

OMG Sorry for my last post, just watched the show and it was pure theater. Oprah had a script written by Kate and Gerry and she asked all the right leading questions. Kate and Gerry answered on cue and if Kate forgot the script Oprah gave her hints about what the right answer was. Maybe Oprah didn't pay them money to be on her show but she paid a price with her integrity