Sunday, 19 December 2010


This blog is, as of today, REALLY, REALLY breaking for the Holiday Season.  


We leave you with just ONE suggestion for a gift to your loved ones. Then again, maybe not.

If bad taste is your thing, then, by all means, go for it.

Anyhow, although it will only be published on May 12th, 2011, NOW is a good time to pre-order.

There are people on the other side counting. Counting on you and your money:

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all our readers and supporters!

Friday, 17 December 2010

Holy Trinity

by May I
Listening to an early interview with Janet and Brian Kennedy, Kate McCanns’s aunt and uncle, a helpful priest was mentioned.

The name of the Anglican priest was David…. David? I didn’t remember a David. What I did recall was Father Pacheco, who gave the McCanns the keys to the Church of Nossa Senhora da Luz, most known as the PdL Church, and supposedly left a broken man, weighed down by the burden of Kate’s confession.

Then there was Haynes Hubbard and his wife, who arrived soon after Madeleine's disappearance, befriended the McCanns; to whom they returned the said keys.

I also remembered Paul Seddon, the Catholic priest who married the McCanns; an old golfing pal of Gerry. He was the priest Kate called on the night that Madeleine went missing. They spoke to him on the phone, according to an interview with The Tablet on June 16th, 2007.

It was in this interview the name of Father Pacheco is cleverly linked with Seddon’s name. They talked of him saying the rosary with them a later date; then, the article adds “The Parish Priest also gave the McCanns the keys to the Church so that they could pray there alone in the evenings.”

You see, it doesn’t say it was Father Pacheco, but it certainly implies it was to any reader. Father Pacheco’s statement of Oct 30th. 2007. gives a mixed message: “He (Father Pacheco) gave them the key to the church on the 7th or 8th of May, on the suggestion of John Geraghty, a resident of the parish, so that they could go calmly to church without any pressure. Someone from the Church gave the key to John Geraghty, who then passed it onto the McCanns with Father Pacheco’s permission.”

He does not remember the date upon which the key was returned. However, Father Pacheco later denied that he had made any decision to hand the keys to the McCanns. In an article dated Dec 13th, 2007, by Cecilia Pires, for The Algarve Resident, she writes: Father Pacheco ensures that “Priest have no power to order anything in our churches. We have an entity for that, which is the Conselho Pastoral, where the catholic community is represented…………….With regards to the key to the Praia da Luz Church that the McCanns were given after Madeleine went missing…..”That was a decision made by the Conselho Pastoral and I only knew about it three days later "”

How many people were members of the Conselho Pastoral and how many were required to make this decision? Could it be that only one person made this decision?  

David seems to have been airbrushed from history, often a sign that something interesting lurks.

The Reverend David W Heal was the priest at St Vincent’s; the Anglican name of the same church which was shared with the Catholic congregation.

According to reports in Correio da Manhã, Sep 19th, 2009: “The keys to the Church , which members of the parish decided to lend to the couple a few days after Madeleine’s disappearance…. were returned to the Anglican priest…who befriended the couple". However, Hubbard‘s comment on the returning of the keys was ambiguous “I agree that the parish decided to lend them the church keys” . He didn’t reveal it was to him that the couple returned the keys.”

The McCanns were reported to have handed the keys over without saying goodbye to Father Pacheco, so it certainly wasn’t him they were returned to. Even so, Father Pacheco seems to have been severely chastised by his superiors.

He denied taking confessions from the McCanns in his statement, so perhaps he left feeling used and abused. It’s hard to believe any burden he may have carried came from the unlikely event of confessions, but there may have been other reasons.

From what I know of the Catholic Faith, I’m certain that Kate would not have confessed to Father Pacheco. He would have told her that she could not be forgiven unless she confessed what had happened to the authorities.

Confession would have brought risk, not forgiveness. A few Hail Mary’s or a decade on the rosary would not be enough!

Unless she wanted to compromise him.  

Russell O’Brian, in his rogatory interview, refers to David Priest -a comma between the words is required- and explains why David’s number, beginning 914, is on his mobile phone, immediately after that of Robert Murat.

It seems David, therefore, was the most likely person to have sought the agreement of the Conselho Pastoral. Was it also not more likely that the keys had passed between Geraghty and Heal? Fiona Payne and Rachael Mampilly/Oldfield comment on the perceived strangeness of Kate’s desperate need to speak to a priest in the midst of this maelstrom and seek to explain it in a vague manner.

It seems that concerns were expressed that the McCanns had called the media and a priest before they contacted the police. El Pais in Dec 07 “For the police, the most surprising thing was that the first concern of the parents was to alert the press before the police themselves. They were also struck by the fact that Kate asked the Ocean Club reception for the village priest’s telephone number.”

Why would they do that?

The following article in First Magazine (with thanks to Pamalan’s site) throws a very interesting spotlight on the involvement of David Heal: “With every squeeze of her daughter’s Cuddle Cat, anguished mother Kate McCann willed her little daughter home. Priest’s wife, Pam Heal helped Kate and Gerry through the early, terrifying hours of Madeleine’s disappearance…. “Someone’s taken Madeleine, someone’s taken Madeleine” she wailed over and over again, said Pam. Kate kept playing with the toy. She said Madeleine had definitely been taken from them because she would never go anywhere without her favourite toy. The night Madeleine disappeared, Kate and Gerry telephoned the local Anglican priest, Father David Heal, asking him to visit them at their apartment…..When he arrived with his wife, 38 year old Kate threw herself into the priest’s arms as she broke down. It took him 3 hours to comfort Kate.” 

There are no statements from the Heals in the available PJ files, in spite of their KEY roles in the early hours of Madeleine’s disappearance.

References to the Heals’ involvement refer to the McCanns contacting them on Friday. The Mail, on Sunday reports Reverend Heal was called to meet the McCann family on Friday.”

Well, that would be partly true, if the Heals had arrived around 10 p.m. and had remained at the apartment for 3 hours. None of the T9 mentions the Heals’ visit in their interviews and they quickly disappear from the media radar.  

Father Heal did continue to conduct services at St Vincent’s, although one report suggests that he may have been leaving the next day.

During a service held later in the week Father Heal’s sermon included the following observations “Whatever happens today, whatever happens tomorrow, whatever happens in the days ahead, after this week, life will never be the same again……. We have all been changed and we have all been changed forever.” (Mail on Sunday)

Thanks to The Maddie Case File for newspaper archives. References refer to key and keys. I don’t know if there was more than one.

Pictures of Father David Heal, from Pamalam:
Also from Pamalam:

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Black Shoelaces

I read and keep reading people, good and honest and who seek wholeheartedly justice for Maddie, and that in this blog we designate them as White Hats (WH).  The main argument used by the WHs to seek prosecution against the McCanns is due to the fact the couple THEY LEFT their children alone in a strange apartment in a foreign land.
To sum it up, according to the WHs the McCanns were NEGLIGENT.
I also read and keep reading people, not so good and not so honest and who seek to stop wholeheartedly any justice for Maddie, and that in this blog designates them as Black Hats (BH).  Those people who want you to go on looking ourt there for a girl they know is not missing. These people also saying that there’s NO reason to prosecute the McCanns on the grounds of NEGLIGENCE, as they had full safety assurance of their children by regularly checking them, within a “good parenting distance”.
To sum it up, according to the BHs the McCanns were NOT NEGLIGENT.
So it seems, at least at first sight, that anyone who states that the McCanns are NEGLIGENT, is basically ATTACKING the couple’s interests in conveying their “abduction” theory.
By opposite effect, defending that the couple was NOT NEGLECTFUL is to be SUPPORTIVE of the "abduction" theory.
I couldn't explain it in simpler terms.
As we here, believe and defend that the McCanns, as well as thet the remainder Tapas, WERE NOT NEGLECTFUL, not even a little bit, that should imply that we're a “pro-McCann” blog, right?
Some have already accused us of just that, of pursuing a hidden agenda to help the McCanns.
The insults to my sanity have abounded, and, unfortunately, have stopped being entertaining, to become just dull and boring.
One does have to have some patience, and put up with this futile silliness.
By the way, to say, as an insult, to one really crazy person that he/she is "crazy", plus/minus some other colourful adjectives, is a stupid exercise in itself. If you just stop to think about it, such a person, by definition, lacks the reason or the judgment to grasp the meaning of the insult, so doesn't feel insulted, which is the whole objective of the insult.
Calling anyone not crazy, “crazy” is as useful as wetting a puddle of water, as he isn’t, so is the supposed insult not applicable. Simple logic, but as we've seen, there are people who are "allergic" to logic, so we expect the insult continuance.
But let’s see what does the Maggot World have to say about this blog:
 Re: Textusa meltdown
by preciousramotswe » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:57 pm
Just look at what that crazy creature wrote in a comment on its own blog: “Mrs Fenn did what she had to on the night of May 1st, and that was to do nothing, because she heard nothing. What she shouldn’t have done and did, was to go to the Police and lie about events that didn’t exist. Mrs Fenn is a piece of “clutter” that this blog has already set aside, like the body disposal and negligence, so your attempt to bring it put it back in our path, is as useless and futile as was the one to whitewash CEOP.”
And this was in reponse to a thoughtful and mild comment on the need to protect children, which sicko completely misconstrued! I do hope Sargento has been alerted to the mad dog out on the prowl, he might like to either round it up or confirm to the pound that it isn't one of his.
Re: Textusa meltdown
by Winter » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:18 pm

Post Scriptum: Black Hats, I'm still awaiting for your answer as to the question "what is for you indeed FACT in terms of how was Maddie's room's window found by Kate?", or are you going to be like BBC and pretend that you don't know I'm asking, and do like they're doing about the "Amaral's F-word slander" footage?

The thing is some idiots will believe it.

In bold, is where this blog is quoted.

So what are the things that I've said and that “some idiots” will believe in?

First, I say clearly that Mrs Fenn heard nothing on the night of May 1st, and that she’s LYING when she says she did.

Second, I say there was no body disposal. Obvious to those who read this blog, but to newcomers let me explain that, when I wrote that, I was referring to the Smith Sighting. Mr Smith was not a witness to the carrying of a cadaver, but to that of a transportation of a very ALIVE little girl.

Third, I say that there was NO NEGLIGENCE with the children that week.

Fourth, I say that a reader that placed the comment was trying to clutter up our line of thought by whitewashing attempt of both Mrs Fenn and CEOP.

That, my friends, is what I said and that you’re either supposed not to believe in, or if you do, you’re an “idiot”.

Careful, before you get upset with me, it’s not me saying it, it’s the Black Hats.

Let’s abandon the fourth thing I said, as both the said reader and his/her intentions are completely irrelevant and isn’t because of them that you’ve been branded an “idiot”. I must remind you that you're ONLY "an idiot" if you believe in the first three things I said.

Let’s just focus on them shall we?

I’ll start with the second, I thought that by stating that there was NO NEGLIGENCE, we were favouring the McCanns. NO NEGLIGENCE means good parenting, that simple and straight forward. Apparently not, as it per own Black Hat wording.

Now to the first, dear Mrs Fenn, the backbone of the “negligence theory”. Without her, there’s NO NEGLIGENCE, as she’s the only witness who questions the effectiveness of the “checking system” set up by the McCanns and friends, here known as the Tapas 9.

She states that she heard a child cry for one hour and fifteen minutes all alone in the apartment below hers, which, coincidence would have it, was the one where the McCanns were staying.

And she is quite clear that it wasn’t a baby crying, but a toddler. By logic and exclusion, it could only be Maddie.

I thought that by clearly discrediting this witness, it would unquestionably question the whole NEGLIGENCE thesis, thus confirming that the "checking system" was indeed sound and effective and only an abductor who had attentively observed this group's routine could overcome it.

If Mrs Fenn is to be proven a liar, then the more solid and justified the “abduction” theory becomes.

So much so, according to some, the fact that I dared say that Mrs Fenn lied, it was the equivalent Jonestown of the White Hats, the Armageddon of us ever seeing justice for Maddie.

Well, it seems that the Black Hats are quite outraged for me having called Mrs Fenn a liar.

Go figure that.

They simply cannot recognize a friend when they see one, can they?

Lastly, I also thought that by proving that the little girl, who was carried by the man designated as “McStroller”, was ALIVE when she was seen by Mr Smith, that would be highly helpful to the McCanns in the construction of their “abduction theory”.

ONLY a girl very much ALIVE, there and then, can justify and reinforce the alleged fact that Maddie was abducted.

No, the Black Hats don’t seem to agree with this either.

And when I say that these three things are “clutter”, or distracting facts to draw us away from what we here perceive as reality, I do have to prove them as inexistent, and if they’re inexistent I’m then leaving, apparently, an open path for the McCanns to explore in their pursuit to prove that they were NOT NEGLEGENT.

Once again, it appears that is not what the Black Hats want.

So, from what you can read above, what the Black Hats REALLY wanted me to say was, first, that the McCanns were NEGLIGENT; second, that Mrs Fenn is NOT LYING, thus aggravating the already referred NEGLIGENCE and, third, that the Smith Sighting was the disposal of a body, so the girl in the man's arms was NOT ALIVE.

The fact that "McStroller" carried a cadaver means that not only that there was NO “abduction” as also implicates Gerry McCann as seen disposing of Maddie's body, and that is what the Black Hats appear  now defend, deosn't it?

That is what you have to believe in, according to the Black Hats, if you don’t want to be branded an “idiot”.

But... is it only "apparently" that they want you to believe, or do they REALLY want you to believe in all these facts that, this time really apparently, seem to be against them? T

he fact that there was NO NEGLIGENCE, that Mrs Fenn was LYING and that the little girl was ALIVE in the Rua da Escola Primária, are three things, as we've shown, that will be very prejudicial to the McCanns and Tapas, and very favorable to finding the truth.

So they really, really are trying very hard for you not to believe in them.

They’ve even resorted to calling you “idiots”

Their problem is that they have a White Hat using their own arguments against them, because, effectively they are against them.

They have no option other than to start to trip over their own Black shoelaces, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Saying they support what they were supposed to be against.

As the Portuguese say, “it’s easier to catch a liar than a limping man”.

All this before what the Wik*leaks revealed yesterday.

About that I wonder what Black Hats want you to believe about that cable?

Do they want you to believe that UK Diplomats LIED blatantly to their US counterparts, and LIED to incriminate needlessly the couple, or do they want you to believe that the Britih police had evidence that in fact incriminated the McCanns?

They simply can’t have it both ways, can they?

Oh, I know, it must have been Wik*leaks that forged that cable just to upset the McCanns.

Evil, evil people those “leakers”, almost as much as us, the White Hats.

But let’s come back to NEGLIGENCE.

There was no NEGLIGENCE that night, but PRETENCE of NEGLIGENCE that could only be half-justified by the infamous "checking-system" written up on the pages of a children’s book.


A risky strategy, but what other scenario would allow an "abduction" to take place? None whatsoever.

It couldn't happen if someone was there 100% of the time. Mrs Fenn is the only "independent" witness that there wasn't someone always with the children. If Mrs Fenn has lied, there's no abduction, is there.

Why did they need to stage an abduction? A rhetorical question, as rhetorical as asking why do the BH need for a damning statement from a supposedly WH, Mrs Fenn, to be true...

Monday, 13 December 2010

Wikileaks Is Finally McCannleaks!!!

McCanns, wake up!

Please be fully awake so that you can savor your worst nightmare adequately.  

Wikileaks have finally knocked on your door!

You may be right after all, Maddie may, at long last, come home this Christmas, not physically, but with her memory restored.

Anon, who sent this, THANK YOU!  

My appeal: YOU, reader, can also do YOUR share. Create a Twitter account, and tweet this blog, and all similar and TRUSTWORTHY, and spread the word.

It’s technology that can be used in the exercise of YOUR citizenship, by spreading the word that Justice for Maddie is demanded.

If you’re an UK resident, write/mail your MP. Wikileaks has the strength to make them act and not reply as they have done up to now.

This is YOUR window of opportunity, don’t waste it!

Time is for ACTION!  

Translation of the El PAIS article:

'Madeleine Case': British police pointed to the parents  

Only one among the 250,000 cables leaked to Wikileaks refers to the sad and tragic case of Madeleine McCann, the British girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz (Algarve) on the night of May 3, 2007 and whose fate has not yet been heard. 

The confidential dispatch is dated at Lisbon on 29 September that year, only 20 days after the girl's parents left Portugal in haste after being questioned at Portimão police station on suspicion of accidental death and concealment Maddie’s body. 

In the cable, the then new British ambassador in Lisbon, Alexander W. Ellis admits to his U.S. counterpart, Alfred Hoffman, that the British police had found the evidence against Madeleine's parents. 

Hoffman writes, Ellis "did not go into details of the case" but "admitted that it had been the police of his own country who had conducted the tests." 

Ambassador Ellis also told his counterpart that the security forces of both countries "were working in a coordinated way" in the case, and speaking of the huge media attention, said, "was expected and acceptable, provided that representatives of the Government maintain comments closed. "  

Ellis recommends total secrecy, suggesting that their job is to keep the case secret with the Portuguese government. 

And above all, he admits privately that the spokesperson for the family and the British Government never admitted publicly, that the passage of the parents of Madeleine, Gerry and Kate, from complainants to suspects was due to evidence obtained by the British police deployed to the Algarve.  

Many Portuguese and international media, including EL PAIS, at the time told in detail what Ellis confirmed in secret, that it was the British detectives, with the help of two special dogs brought from England, who found evidence of Maddie’s possible death (body odor, blood, and traces of body fluids) both in a wall of the apartment and in the trunk of the car that the McCanns had rented. 

This finding, together with some inconsistencies shown by the friends and parents of Maddie, prompted the Portuguese police to declare Kate and Gerry McCann as arguidos (suspects in the Portuguese judicial system) and take their statements on September 6 for almost 11 hours. 

Three days later, McCann staged a spectacular escape at dawn from Praia da Luz to Faro airport and from there to England. On July 21, 2008, the Prosecutor General of Portugal decided to shelve the case and exonerated the parents for lack of evidence.

Update Dec14th:  

The Portuguese TV is running the story! 

Gonçalo Amaral finds it strange that it was required a Diplomatic Cable to "discover" that there was evidence against the parents. 

He says that the investigation he led always pointed in that direction. 

From The Guardian:  

WikiLeaks cables: UK police 'developed' evidence against McCanns  

British ambassador's reported comments to US counterpart offer insight into role of UK police in 2007 investigation  

Ben Quinn Monday 13 December 2010 21.30 GMT  

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007. 

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police.  

The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever." In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively." 

The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case. 

The disclosure comes as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to court in an attempt to secure bail following his arrest last week at the request of Swedish authorities who want to interview him over allegations of sexual assault. 

A number of other cables released by the whistleblowers' website shed new light on aspects of the financial crisis. 

Revelations include: 

 • RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the board of the bank breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" by allowing the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro. 
 • The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, was so worried about the health of the banks that he proposed a secret international fund to recapitalise them six months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. 
 • US officials expressed doubts in October 2008 over whether Ireland appreciated how much trouble its banks were in. 

In one of two cables referring to the McCann case, the US ambassador notes: "Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents." 

He reported that his British counterpart thought "that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors". 

It was not until 21 July 2008 that the Portuguese authorities shelved their investigation and lifted the arguido status of the McCanns. 

Responding to the contents of the cable, a spokesman for the McCanns told the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever. "To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities." 

British authorities had substantial involvement in the investigation launched after Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 from the holiday apartment where the McCanns had left their three children in bed before joining friends at a nearby restaurant in the Algarve village of Praia da Luz.  

At least one British sniffer dog was used in the investigation and, according to reports, was said to have picked up the scent of a dead body in the apartment

 In 2008, when a dossier detailing investigations by Portuguese police was made public, it emerged British scientists had warned that DNA tests on a sample from the McCanns' holiday hire car were inconclusive days before they were made suspects

It is known that the Forensic Science Service analysed material sent to Britain by Portuguese police. A spokesman for Leicestershire police said their involvement in the investigation was limited to co-ordinating UK-based inquiries on behalf of the Portuguese authorities.

Posted on JillHavern Forum  

by Cheshire Cat, on Dec 13th, 21:45:  

US embassy cables: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns, Washington told  

Friday, 28 September 2007, 15:36 
C O N F I D E N T I A L 
Classified By: XXXXXXXXXXXX FOR REASONS 1.4 (B),(D) 

SUMMARY ------- 
1. (C) On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He suggested that Russia's position with its neighbors was guided by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Regarding Robert Mugabe's participation in the proposed EU-Africa Summit, Ellis said the UK would not discourage other member states from participating if PM Brown stayed away. He doubted, however, if the Dutch, Irish, or Swedish would attend in Brown's absence. Ellis also noted that it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention. He informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues. END SUMMARY 

RUSSIA'S ENERGY GAME IS COMING TO AN END ---------------------------------------- 
2. (C) According to Ellis, European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for increased market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He called Russia the greatest threat to European energy security and described its energy policies as a "game that's coming to an end." He argued that Gazprom's sustainability depends on the European distribution network and that Putin, who is "always trying to make a point to Europe," knew and understood this reality. Quoting a statement he had heard elsewhere, Ellis described Russia as "too strong, too weak"; suggesting that it was a bipolar society divided by feelings of strength and empowerment and internal fears of national failure. 

RUSSIA, THE BIG BAD NEIGHBOR ---------------------------- 
3. (C) When questioned about Kosovo and Russia's relationship with its neighbors, Ellis suggested that Russia's position (on Kosovo) was driven by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Ellis did not believe that Russia had high regard for Serbia or any of its other neighbors, but rather it feared outside influences in the region. Reflecting on his position as Director of the EU Enlargement Team in London (2001-2003), Ellis noted that completing the 2004 EU enlargement phase had been difficult, and hypothesized that if the Russia of now were the Russia of then, the process would have been nearly impossible. 

MUGABE...AND THE OTHER BAD GUYS ------------------------------- 
 4. (C) According to Ellis, the UK's position on Zimbabwe has not changed; if Robert Mugabe showed up, then Gordon Brown would not. However, he could not confirm if the British government would send any representatives. While he claimed that the UK had steered away from discouraging other member stated from attending, he noted the possibility that the Dutch, Irish, and Swedish leaders may follow Brown's lead. Regarding Chavez and Ahmadinejad, Ellis commented that Portugal's approach was centered on "engagement" -- even with the so-called bad guys. Ambassador Hoffman countered that "irrational people cannot be expected to behave rationally." While acknowledging that the US position was justifiable, Ellis responded that there were sensitivities at play for Portugal, especially regarding Venezuela. (Note: There are approximately a half-million Portuguese living in Venezuela. End Note)  

THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE ------------------------- 
5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.  

BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ----------------------------------------- 
6. (SBU) Ellis, a former school teacher, joined Britain's LISBON 00002527 002 OF 002 Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1990 and moved progressively up the chain to Ambassador. Lisbon was his first foreign tour as a diplomat, followed by postings in Brussels, Madrid and London. He has also served as Director of the EU Enlargement Team in London (2001-2003) and as adviser on energy policies and trade issues (2005-2007) under EC President Jose Barroso. XXXXXXXXXXXX Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position with a British gas company and that his abrupt departure in August 2007 had nothing to do with bilateral issues.

From the Daily Mail:  

British police ‘developed evidence’ against McCanns, WikiLeaks cable claims  

By Paul Bentley Last updated at 5:50 AM on 14th December 2010 

The parents of Madeleine McCann had evidence against them ‘developed’ by British police as they were investigated by Portuguese authorities over the disappearance of their daughter, a senior official has claimed. 

The UK’s ambassador to Portugal, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, told his American counterpart that police in Britain were working with Portuguese officers to build a case against the McCanns

He made the claims on September 21, 2007, according to secret diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. Two weeks earlier, Portuguese police had named Gerry and Kate McCann as ‘arguidos’, or formal suspects. 

In a cable to Washington marked confidential, U.S. ambassador Al Hoffman wrote: ‘Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively.’ 

The cable does not specify what evidence British police are alleged to have gathered, or whether UK investigators were involved in the decision to formally name the McCanns as suspects. 

The comments suggest British police had a far greater role in the investigation of the McCanns than has previously been thought. The widespread perception at the time was that Portuguese authorities were the driving force behind their treatment as suspects. 

In one of two cables which refer to the case, U.S. ambassador Hoffman also noted: ‘Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine’s parents.’ 

He said the British ambassador thought ‘the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors’. 

The McCanns have said that there was ‘absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine’s disappearance’.  

After they were named as suspects, Madeleine’s parents remained under official suspicion until July 2008, when Portuguese police shelved the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance.

Speaking when their suspect status was lifted, Mrs McCann said: ‘It is hard to describe how utterly despairing it was to be named arguidos and portrayed in the media as suspects.’ 

Following the WikiLeaks revelation, a spokesman for the McCanns said: ‘This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. ‘Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine’s disappearance.’  

Madeleine went missing from an apartment in the Algarve village of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, when she was three years old  

Update Dec 14th, 20:30: 

For a minute there I thought that they wouldn't go this way, but it's in their blood. They simply can't avoid misusing the expression that I don't think they know what it means anymore:

I would like to thank all those that made an effort to "force" the mainstream media to report this. 

As I've said before, I've long settled that the McCanns had faced justice. 

The life they live has absolutely no quality whatsoever, and the only ones responsible for that, are themselves.

Today, they were passed a harsher sentence: they'll walk the streets of Britain with the same comfort that they do in Portugal. 

Let's hope that Kate's book sells like hotcakes, so that this subject remains, shamefully for Britain, in the minds of the world. 

Today, I called my Brit friends, and the embarrassment was evident, either in their voice or by avoiding to look me in the eyes and looking down on the floor. 

Shame, incomprehensible shame was so palpable. 

All tried to minimize and tried change the subject to other leaks, all reluctant to speak about Maddie, all acknowledging McCann's guilt. 

Pitiful sight, I'm so sorry to say. 

How is it possible for a Nation where the Sun once never set, be brought to its knees by a little more than handful of people? 

NOTHING justifies such a humiliation. 


This blog was not created to report. It does that once in a while, when it deems important to do so. But the reason for its existence is to expose, by non-official, and non-paid, investigative work of it's authors, the truth of what happened to Maddie. Or at least try our best to do so.

We really hope that one day, the mainstream media will render hiding the truth useless. 

That is our goal. 

This blog seeks to expose all the ridiculousness of a version that is OFFICIAL, so that one day, in the future, Mankind can see how absurd Mankind can be, so we''ll continue to journey down the path we've set for ourselves.

Textusa Meltdown

I was warned by friends that the Maggot Family had started to speak about me.

They had done somewhat of the kind before, of course, but never in such an open manner, they said.

I found this slightly strange, as all through the Smith Sighting posting, and they were many, and through the still unfinished Mrs Fenn one, this blog, taking a few insults here and there, was never mentioned.

As if completely inexistent. So there I went for a visit, down Rugrat Lane, to check it out, and effectively there it was under “Textusa meltdown”.

Going through it, it became quite clear to me that these people had many, many unanswered questions, and I realized, silly me, that this blog didn’t have a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

As no proper blog should go without one, I decided, today, to do such a section:  

Q: Where this does quite leaves the likes of Paulo Sargento, who mentioned your previous theories on live PT TV with approval? 

A: I hope in the exactly same place where he may be right now. By the way, he didn’t mention any theory of mine, he complimented the fact that I showed to be a fact the fact that if you wanted to leave PdL in a hurry by car, the direction in which “Tanner’s Abudctor” was seen heading to, is absurd. 

However, as I’ve stated, its absurdity is confined to the fact that the “abductor” WANTED to leave PdL.

Otherwise, it makes perfect sense what was seen by Tanner. Take note of the words “what was seen” and not what she says she sees, much less from where she says she sees it.  

Q: What about those 24 photos Levy had of them all at the dinner table (don't tell me that they were all fake)?  

A: No, I won’t tell you they’re all fake, but I’ll tell you that I think they simply don’t exist. 

In times, I asked Mr. Levy to produce them, and he has yet to do so. 

Until he does that, I’m assuming them as inexistent. 

But you know who could prove me wrong? The McCanns, or any other Tapas by showing me photographs of those lively dinners at Tapas

I do recall seeing a camera on the McCann dinner table in the apartment, so I’m supposing that there MUST be some photograph that could EASILY prove how absurd I’m being.  

Q: Don’t the restaurant table reservations lists confirm they were there, or do you think they’re all photoshopped?  

A: No, I don’t think they were photoshoped at all, and if I gave you that impression, I truly apologise. 

They just contain false information, that’s all. 

The writing on it is real; the information it reads, is not. 

You know, those reservation sheets provide quite a significant amount of further evidence that the dinner’s were inexistent, that you may now wish that they were indeed photoshoped. 

But, as I said, they’re real, so deliciously real. I intend to write a whole separate post just about them, that’s how relevant I think they are.  

Q: They don’t even serve tapas there, do they?  

A: The Ocean Club’s answer to one of our readers was “The Tapas restaurant can be used by Mark Warner guest too. They do serve salads, burgers, sandwiches, chips at lunch and then in the evening is pizzeria”, so, no, apparently they do not serve tapas. 

It’s not me saying it, it’s the Ocean Club, so if you don’t agree, go pick your bone with them. 

And note the words "Mark Warner guest too" is NOT used to imply that the Tapas Bar is directed to the "general public" and that MW guests may use it also, but that although the Millenium is the MAIN PdL's Ocean Club's restaurant, their guests may also use the Tapas Bar, thus the "too". 

This is very important, for future posting, not to be mistaken.  

 Q: And if they did serve tapas there do you really think they would seat them at a table that’s not big enough?  

A: No I certainly do think they would sit them in a sufficiently big one. 

Logically, as in any restaurant, all they had to do would be to join up square tables to the size required to accommodate the size of the group, a pretty simple task, done millions of times daily in restaurants worldwide. 

But by doing that one doesn’t end up with a big ROUND table, does one? 

Unlike her sighting, I do think Jane Tanner was having some sort of hallucination when she speaks up of joining up tables with the end result of a big ROUND table. 

However sympathetic I would want to be with the woman, and I don’t, it’s a physical impossibility.  

Q: Can you fit 9 people around a round table?  

A: Yes, of course, it all depends on the size of the table and the space to put it.  

Q: But can you fit 9 people around a round table, PLUS the mysterious elusive 10th tapas?  

A: I don’t think that any restaurant worldwide does cater for elusive people. If you find one, I bet they’re throwing out a lot of food away every evening. 

But as said before, you can fit ANY number of people around a round table, as long as it’s big enough and you there’s room enough to fit it. 

I’ve never seen more than twelve people around a round table, but that was at rather luxurious wedding, and each table did have an enormous centerpiece. You know, to occupy all that centre space that is “lost” because the table is so big that you cannot reach things that are put there unless you stand up. 

That’s just one of many problems in using a big ROUND table to accommodate a big group.  

Q: I'm getting visions of Johnny Depp and the Mad Hatter's tea party. Are you on Special Brew?  

A: You’re the one with the visions, so you tell me what you’re on.  

Q: Isn't there a sketch drawing in the files showing the seating positions?  

A: Yes, there is and is used in the post. I just superimposed the Tapas 9 faces so that would be easier to understand who was where. 

I thought you knew the PJ Files much better than that, Dcb2

Q: What's the record for the number of people in a mini?  

A: Googled it and it said that it was 21. In Malaysia

However, I remember seeing back in 1981 or 1982, on Julio Isidro’s TV Show Passeio dos Alegres, 32 or 34 people get into one and honk the horn. But memory is not as it was.  

Q: Do you think that the record for the number of people in a mini provides a reasonable comparison to check if it’s possible to fit 9 people around a round table, PLUS the mysterious elusive 10th tapas?

A: No, it doesn’t provide such thing. You see, the idea is to sit people AROUND the table, on the OUTSIDE, not on the INSIDE. 

If one wanted to check how many people one would be able to put on TOP of a table, then yes, it would provide a reasonable comparison.  

Q: Maths never was my forte… what size was the mini?

A: I believe that all Mini coopers are basically all the same size.  

Q: I love the smell of total bullshit in the evening. Do you think it gladdens my black old heart?  

A: That is so personal that I don’t dare provide an opinion. 

I’ve said more than once, I don’t judge from where or what people get their kicks from. As long as they don’t involve other people not able to have reasonable judgment. 

And if your thing is to smell “bullsh*y in the evening” then you’re effectively participating regularly in the right forum. 

Probably, I bet, is the reason for you to keep coming back there.  

Q: You’re fond of blathering about 'black hats' and 'white hats' but the real question is....... who supplied the straight jacket?  

A: Is that the straight jacket provided with the BIG ROUND table by the Tapas staff? You know, the inexistent one. 

All other straight-jackets that I know of are non-fictional and meant to treat serious diseases that deserve our respect.  

Q: Who printed the now obviously faked receipt detailing the wine consumption and meal orders?

A: I’ve already answered a similar question. And they're not fake receipts, they're fake reservation sheets

You know what else is fake? 

The checking timelines drawn up on ripped pages of a Maddie’s book. 

Different subjects, same intent in the doing.  

Q: How much the waiter who did the interview on Sky was paid to say the invisible tapas 9 were not rolling drunk?  

A: I imagine much less than Clarence Mitchell gets to say whatever he has to say whenever he opens his mouth on McCann's behalf. 

Probably this fellow didn’t receive a cent, because only those that can’t be threatened for free are paid.

Anyhow, if you paid him, you did wrong. 

If he did say that the Tapas weren’t rolling drunk he was just being truthful, so why pay? 

One simply cannot see any Tapas drunk when there are no Tapas to be seen anywhere near Tapas

When he eventually did see the Tapas at Tapas, on May 3rd, they certainly weren’t drunk. 

So, yes, it’s likely that he was not lying, however, having come from Sky, I reserve some skepticism.  

Q: 21 People in a mini is the World record. Is it hard to break?  

A: Don’t know, don’t intend to try. But as I said, I think the figure is much higher.  

Q: Do you think if those people injuring themselves by stuffing themselves into a mini had realised the challenge of fitting nine people around a table WITH tapas and wine on the table, could have avoided the black eyes and groin strains?  

A: The insistence of you people in comparing oranges with apples is somewhat tiresome. 

I usually don’t watch people do silly things just for the sake of calling attention upon themselves, but I relate “black eyes and groin strains” with kick-boxing and not “mini-stuffing”. 

By the way, groin strains are normally the result of over-extension of the limbs, and not due to compression of the same in tight spaces. 

You people do have some fixation for genitalia, and then call others perverse, much like you love to use hateful, violent wording and then call others haters.  

Q: Do you think Ironside's glad she retired, as how on earth could anyone back this crapola up? 

A: The reasons Ironside retired merit all of our utmost RESPECT. 

Q: Just noticed the strapline on your blog: Those that defend the indefensable can only use reason beyond reason itself. Is that bloody apt or what? 

A: Yes it is, isn’t it? I’m kind of proud how I was able to define you people so succinctly, I’m so glad you agree.  

Q: Do you think it was the PJ who did all that forging?  

A: No, I don’t. 

Up to now, I can only see the Tapas 9 with the timelines on the Kid’s book’s pages, and someone from Tapas Bar/Ocean Club with the reservation sheets.  

Q: Do you think the PJ forged the Creche Records as well?

A: As I said, I don’t think the PJ forged anything. 

And I’ll keep answering the same way no matter how many times you ask. 

The repetition technique to tire people out of a subject doesn’t work in this blog. 

About those records, I’ve heard that there’s something fishy about them, but haven’t looked properly at them yet. 

And I might not even do so because, in my opinion, they offer little or no added value, other than to confirm that some of the Ocean Club staff intentionally obstructed justice, either by own initiative or ordered, when lying about whatever involved the Tapas 9 stay at PdL.

Q: Our local TexMex restaurant has an assortment of table shapes and sizes and they have couple of simple solutions for making tables larger. I've seen them pushing rectangular tables together to seat larger parties, but they also have a rather impressive round table top which gets rolled out like a big wheel from the kitchen and placed on top of a smaller table. It takes them a couple of minutes to set up and the larger table probably seats a dozen. When the party leaves, they have stripped again in no time and the table top is rolled back into its hidey place for the next time. Can I laugh at the pickle you’re getting yourself into over the Tapas Bar table sizes?  

A: Do laugh freely, please, I’m not one to judge anybody elses’s sense of humour. 

I very much doubt that that “rather impressive round table top” even exists (to seat a dozen it must really be IMPRESSIVE), but I’ll pamper your imagination and pretend it does, so you can go and tell your local TexMex Manager that I think he’s an idiot, but please do that, ONLY if that table top is real. 

Amongst other things, which I’ll deal with in a separate post, a table top like the one you describe, presents one major problem and that is lack of stability

This lack of stability results in two major effects, both of which are rather cumbersome for anyone trying to have a meal on it: sliding and leverage

To avoid sliding, is easily overcome, as one just has to screw small planks to one of its sides so that it fits nice and neat on the table top that it’s being put upon. The drawback is that it becomes designated to that specific table, but if the restaurant in question has only one type of table, which is normal, then it stops being a problem, as any table will do. 

The leverage is a little different. And to realize how problematic it is, just remember how irritating it is to have a meal on a table that has one leg shorter than the others. 

Here, you have no legs whatsoever, so if someone, for some reason decides to support themselves on the table top, it’s easy to imagine what will happen to everything that is on it. 

By the way, loved your “rather impressive” phrase, for it implies that it makes an impression, and if an impression is made, it is natural to be remembered and referred about afterwards. 

Sometimes people remember impressive things like baby devices, but overlook eventually having rolled a table top, impressive or not, to set up a specific table to a specific group of people who just had one of their kids abducted

But, as I said, by all means, do laugh.  

Q: Not saying the Tapas Bar does roll a rather impressive round table top from the kitchen this, as unlike the antis, I do not transform speculation into facts, do I?  

A: You people turning fiction into fact?!? Who on earth would say that?!? That would be absolutely false. You haven’t turned a single fiction into fact, although you've tried it so hard. 

Fortunately, both your enormous efforts of making fiction into fact, and fact into fiction have failed.  

Facts are what facts are, and they sure make you feel uncomfortable. 

Sorry for that, but that’s not my fault or doing. 

And talking about facts, maybe you could clarify one of the few things that I still haven’t understood in all this. Not that it’s important, but could you please just tell me what is FACT for you people in terms of how the Maddie’s room’s window was found by Kate? 

I’m not saying it was this or that way, 

I’m just curious on how you want us to believe it was, nothing else. 

With all the “jemmiying” and “wooshing” I got lost somewhere, so at this point I don’t exactly know what “version” of the thing you people do defend. 


Q: Don’t you think there are enough witnesses to the McCanns eating arrangements on the night Madeleine went missing, to substantiate their statements?  

A: You know, although a ROUND table does have many inconveniences, they say it has one great advantage, and that is that one can ALWAYS fit one more person around it. 

You know I disagree with this, but this is what they say. 

 Now, if you apply this to finding witnesses, that one can ALWAYS fit one more, then it’s absolutely true.

You know this better than me.  

Mrs Fenn only joined the "witness club" after 109 days, and I bet if the case wasn’t archived, that woman who presented us with a foggy picture of the abductor, would also have joined the party too. 

But if you’re to add extra witnesses, please do choose Philomena McCann, as the Tapas dinners are about the only thing she hasn’t given an opinion on, 

Or has she? Don’t pay much attention to what she says, so she could have.  

Q: You would believe ANYthing and ANYone rather than the McCanns (whom you claim to hate), wouldn’t you?  

A: Hatred is a basic emotion. I respect my ancestors too let my life be fuelled on such basic emotion. 

As I said, I know you hate me, and as I said I would hate me if I were you, but I have no reason to hate you, or the McCanns

But I have, as a citizen, the right to RESPECT. 

That was overlooked when all the unnecessary “clutter” was shoved down our collective throats. 

And I also know that you feel hatred not only for me, but also for the McCanns, as they forgot that they shouldn’t have been such media-exhibitionists, but everything in life is a bargain, they paid their price for centering all the attention upon them, you, the price of letting them off the hook for something that you had initially NO involvement in or guilt about, but allowed yourselves to become involved in. 

Your hatred for the couple was quite evidently shown in the incomprehensible absence of any of the remainder Tapas at the infamous 1000 day cerimony

After such a supposed ordeal, one would expect the bonding to become stronger by the day, but instead what we've witnessed is the apparent separation of these individuals. 

Lastly, no, it’s not only the McCanns I don’t believe in. 

I also don't beleive in many others, some more obvious than others, like, for example, some pretense White Hats that are still around.  

Q: The place/state you goons inhabit is a happy one?  

A: Disregarding the unnecessary insult, have no complaints, but thank you for asking. 

Q: Daft thing is, it's not just the Mcanns and their friends that are branded as liars, but the entire staff too, isn’t it?  

A: No, not the entire staff. Only those that lied. They know who they are, and are easily recognizable, just go back and read the statements.  

Q: The other OC guests at the dinner have also supposedly lied in their statements?  

A: Well, if they said they saw the Tapas eating at Tapas in any other date other than May 3rd, than yes, they’re lying. 

And that changes all we had perceived until now, doesn’t it? 

I repeat, once again, it’s very, very easy to prove me wrong. 

Before, I said that all was needed to prove me wrong was ONE picture from the McCanns showing them eating at Tapas. 

Now I extend that to the remainder of the guests. 

Just ONE picture

Certainly in all those evenings somebody must have taken ONE picture where we can see the famous big ROUND table

Maybe, if we’re lucky, somebody took one and caught Najoua too on Quiz Night.  

Q: The whole thing is ridiculous. I did read it twice to make sure I hadn't overlooked a hint of irony or sarcasm, that the whole idea was a joke. But no, it's serious, isn’t it?  

A: Yes, it is.  

Q: And Amaral and the GNR and PJ?  

A: Dcb2, the only one to understand me from the start. If I had to draw a cartoon character out of you, I wouldn’t forget the glasses or the receding hairline, but I won’t, I’m terrible in doing cartoons, I prefer real, tangible stuff. 

If you’re implying that I say that Amaral, the GNR and the PJ have lied, the answer is no, no and no. 

Yes, the lies are in the PJ files and the files are written up by the PJ

But they just wrote down what people told them. 

And there’s no guilt, as far as I know, to write down lies, especially if you're the Police, as those lies will later become evidence.  

Amaral, in his book, doesn’t say the Tapas had dinner at Tapas, he says that the Tapas say they had dinner at Tapas, which is what is written in the PJ Files

But sometimes there’s one huge difference between what one says one has done, and what one has done in reality.  

Q: You are trying to figure out where the staff would have got a large round table from......It's there right at the back of the tapas...there’s three of them from memory. They are used for the childrens dinner from the creche so all the kids can sit on the same table or two tables if need be. There are also larger table up above under the pegolas to the side of the tapas where children can also be seated.... Don’t you think there are lots of different size tables that could be used anyway?  

A: Sidmouth, your question was the one that made me do this post, so I do thank thee. 

According to your memory, there were then 4 (FOUR) round tables big enough that could have been used to sit 9 people

Let’s start with the 3 (THREE) Creche tables. 

I thought that the Creche for toddlers was about 250 yards further East, at the Rua Direita, and that at Tapas was the Babies Creche. So, according to you, they expected to have 27 (3 x 9) babies dine there?

Or, toddlers if we suppose that they walked the 250 yards back and forth from the other Creche for dinner?

Aren’t the parents supposed to pick them up before that? 

What kind of holiday was the Ocean Club catering?!? 

I suppose that on the initial lecture, you know, the one supposedly about tennis that lasted two hours, at a certain point someone would say "no cellphones, laptops, children or watches allowed, please place all of any of these items that you may have with you in the designated lockers, and make sure you memorize the number so that you can pick them up when you leave, thank you."  

Oh, when you say dinner, you mean lunch… ok, let’s forgive THAT slip of the tongue, and suppose it was for the kid’s lunch. 

Why didn’t anyone speak about this arrangement before, as, it seems to me, almost as important a trip, and this one was DAILY, to the one to the beach. 

Couldn't the abductor have been observing, EVERY DAY, this trip? 

Am I missing something here, or is your memory failing you? 

Then there’s the “Pergolas Table”, that famous table that nobody has ever mentioned before, and THAT must have been the one. 

How I wish that someone had had the bright idea of taking a picture of such a table, OUT from under the pergolas that is, but, it seems nobody did. 

What a pity. 

However, the fact that your memory only recollects tables OUTSIDE the Tapas Bar, you're acknowledging that INSIDE, as far as you remember, there were none big enough to sit 9 people

But that is not about the tables the reason I picked your comment as the most important one. 

It was because of your memory

You see, when you say all you said from your memory, you’re acknowledging you were there, because we’re talking about that particular week, and that particular night. 

That only confirms what we already knew, and that is some of you people are either Tapas or OC guests at the time of the events, the others, people in some manner related to you, the remainder, a minority, just bigoted idiots.  

Q: No, you can't be in a happy place. You are saturated with hatred and suspicion and mind boggling vileness. Jeezuz, I would rather get ripped off than live in that state, wouldn’t I?  

A: If I were living saturated with hatred and suspicion and mind boggling vileness, then yes, I would, like you, prefer to get ripped off, but as I don’t live saturated with hatred and suspicion and mind boggling vileness, I’m fine the way I am, thank you.  


A: The Ocean Club’s Tapas Bar, located in Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins in Praia da Luz, a little village near Lagos, in the Algarve region of Portugal.  

Q: I swear those photos of the TAPAS BAR are PHOTO SHOPPED. Just look at The Angle of Elevation. Isn’t it floating?  

A: So, when Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book he deliberately photoshoped the photos of the Tapas Bar because he knew I was going to use them years later to prove that there was no BIG ROUND table, thus no Tapas dinners

How about the buildings on the left? Do you think he used a model, or is that from Casablanca?  

Sidmouth, who seems to have a pretty good memory of the place at the time of the events said nothing about the furniture not being the same, so I’m assuming his silence as an agreement that that the chairs and tables that were at Tapas Bar that week and remainder of the summer 2007 season, which obviously includes the fateful evening of May 3rd, were the ones in the photos. 

About the floating “Angle of Elevation”, you should speak to Truthiness, he/she knows of some “Special Brews” that gives him/her visions. 

Together with your “floating”, you two will probably be the life of any party.  

Q: Has Havern's taken up your amazing revelations with gusto? If I had to bet on any of them, it would have been Havern's, they’re a Conspiracy Central aren’t they?  

A: As you know, I’m no longer a member of any forum. And if you don't, I'm telling you. 

No, it’s not a personal statement, I'm just too lazy to register and then memorize passwords. Too old for that. 

Yes, I know that you like to pass on the image that all those of us who care that justice is done about Maddie’s fate are “conspiracy loonies”, as well as haters and other common basic insults to fend off readers from this and other blogs that are fighting for justice. 

But, amongst many other things that you didn’t count on that summer of ’07, one of them was the tenacity that both British and Portuguese citizens would demonstrate having. 

Q: Allow me to blow your freaking provincial European minds. Here in the land of milk and honey, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group and Trilateral Commission have invented a system so dastardly, so evil, so needing in a worldwide conspiracy, and world-wide help... that I risk my life telling you it. .... when we're at a restaurant... and the table is very small. .... ...... .... ....... the wait staff... they clear the first plates... before second plate comes... and then the second plate... before the third plate comes. So on.. and so forth. Get it?  

A: No, I don’t.  

Q (?): bluj1515, WOW!!  

A: Yes, I do believe that bluj515’s sense of humour would appeal to people with your I.Q.. 

Just kidding, I know you’re an intelligent person, just pretending that you're not.

Post Scriptum: To those wondering if I was really asked these questions by these people, no, obviously I was not. I just turned statements into questions, and maintained their content as can be seen here.