Monday, 8 November 2010

Clutter - From Here to TIMBUCKTOO



(Nov 8th, 2010)

If I had to elect what has fascinated me the most up to now in the Maddie McCann case, I would have to say, without hesitating a minute, that that had to be YOU.

YOU, as the avid reader of blogs, like this one, that think, and adamantly defend, that Maddie is dead and that her parents have done all to obstruct justice.

And why do YOU fascinate me so?

Because I’ve seen YOU from the very beginning behaving like a monkey in a cage that jumps anxiously and goes after each and every peanut that is thrown at you from the outside by an unseen hand.

Before you think I’m insulting you, let me clarify you that I’m NOT.

No ONE that has ever been fooled has been fooled by own will. No one wakes up one morning and says "hmm... let me see where can I get fooled first today...".

One is fooled because one has been masterfully misled.

And he who says he hasn’t been fooled is the biggest fool of all.

Usually, those that master the techniques of deceit basically rely on the fact that the fooled firmly believe that they're unable to be fooled.

By the way, I do have a friend, who is no fool, that states that he has NEVER ever, been fooled one single time in his life. What he says has happened to him is that many, many times in his life he has paid to learn a lesson, a lesson in life, and the pricing has been variable in terms of money, pain and disappointment.

I, for one, have been fooled by the “McCann machine”.

My difference with most is that I’m able to recognize and understand that, and, most importantly, am able to retrieve my steps back to where I knew I stood on solid ground and, from there, restart the journey.

You just have to read my initial theory, and verify that my opinion in many details have changed since.

That’s why I say, and repeat as many times needed, that the only golden rule that this blog has, is that it will never bend fact to theory, but always theory to fact.

I must now compliment my faithful readers who’ve very early understood that we here are not in the habit of running after any peanut that is thrown in our direction, although, as human “monkeys” that we are, we have ran after a few bogey ones.

But together, YOU and us, we’ve been able tread the path this far; we’ve led the way and you’ve corrected our every step. That results in what I deem the most important thing that has to be maintained at all costs: CREDIBILITY.

The reason why we, we and YOU, are so feared in many corners of the internet.

We all have been intoxicated with wave after wave of false information. Most of it blatant of its falsehood, while other has come coveted, varying in complexity of disguise.

This forced feeding of information has been done masterfully and beautifully, for our foes were, and are, worthy.

No, not speaking about the McCanns, for they are far from being worthy on anything but their stupidity and arrogance, nor, please, Clarence, for that individual confuses an echo of his hollow head with voices of wisdom such is the imense empty space there.

I’m talking about those who’ve set up a formidable machine of deceit. And they were almost totally successful.

Let me explain first their intent, and then, using an example, their achievement.

The intent is to block us away from reality by highlighting the illogical and absurd, mixing it up with logical and real information, in the just right amount in quantity and quality of deceitfulness so that the information as a whole becomes so complex that we lose completely track of it and are even physically incapable of ever locating the truth wherever it may have been.

When conclusions based on some, or total, intentionally misleading information become assumptions, that will base subsequent sets of conclusions that, in turn, become future assumptions, one can easily see that one not only is lost, but most important, one doesn’t even have that the faintest idea where one is.

Aggravated by the fact that one really thinks one knows exactly where one is.

Have I made sense? I usually don’t, but by now I do count on your patience.

The masterpiece bout the Maddie case, from the Black Hat side, is that they’ve been able to create this fake reality, and YOU’ve swallowed it line, hook and sink.

Every peanut that flew by, in slow-motion, you jumped gleefully to catch it even before it hit the ground.

No, obviously, not talking about if there was, or not, an abduction. I’m talking about their best HOAX: them being neglectful.

We’ve heard it, and dutifully repeated, that these monsters were capable of leaving their kids alone night after night, so they could go away to get boozed silly, as we’ve also heard that a certain couple was so monstrous that after learning, one morning, that their own little girl had felt abandoned the night before (a neighbor would later confirm that she had in fact been wailing away, terrorized by her solitude), had been capable to behave in the exact same manner that same night.

Terrible, terrible people, or are they really?

It’s now time for one of "my analogies", to exemplify the above said.

Imagine that you’re having an affair with your neighbor’s spouse.

One day, while sneaking out of your neighbor’s house, you trip and break a leg.

As always, it’s a simple scenario, but in this case with a pinch of sex so as not to disappoint my detractors.

You now have the problem of besides having a broken leg to deal with, you have to make sure that both your spouse and your neighbor are unable to make a linkage between that fact and the circumstances in which it occurred.

As there’s evidently something wrong with your leg, the only thing you can do is fiddle around with facts that led to your leg to being in the state it is: broken.

And IF you can successfully convince them of a completely different set of "facts" for your leg to be the way it is, then your secret shall remain safe and sound as your other leg.

You have two choices. You either lie, and hope you lover is and will remain so, completely in synch, plus hope that no other neighbor saw you tripping where you happened to have tripped, or you lie in such a way that it will be impossible for anyone to know what both of you are up to, at least by way of discovering the real reason you broke the leg.

And how do you do that?

You spread your front yard with the biggest amount of clutter possible so that when both you neighbor and your spouse arrive, it will be completely logic to tell them that your leg is in the state that it is because you tripped over the wheelbarrow.

And if any of them asks why was the wheelbarrow there where it was, logic is completely irrelevant, as the only relevant logic at this point is the one that determines that you tripped over THAT wheelbarrow.

That is what is relevant, that this message, however illogical it may be, IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE HAPPENED, so can be taken for reality.

Even if around that wheelbarrow there are so many other things that shouldn't be there in the first place, what matter is that it is feasible that you tripped over THAT particular wheelbarrow and not over anything else.

As the neighbor’s spouse, your lover, is in this as deep as you are, it will be quite easy to convince both your spouse and your neighbor that it was joint decision, from you both, that the furniture of both of houses needed airing out.

That explains why you pushed your couch onto the driveway, and the coffee table by the tree house, next to the bookcase.

At this point, you’re wondering about my sanity, but just take a minute and see to where your own mind as wandered to: the absurdity of the scenario, the lack of logic in all said… and that is where I want your mind, as well as “your” spouse’s & neighbor’s minds, to wander to: as far away possible from what I’m (you’re) trying to hide from them, and dive right into the wonderful world of absurdity from which there’s no return.

When these two innocent souls arrive home, it’s perfectly logical for them that you've hurt yourself on that wheelbarrow, so their minds will struggle to make some sense out of the completely senseless scenario before them.

And why is it senseless? Because you've assured that it was, didn't you?

You can now just say that you decided that you felt that your dining room table needed a walk to stretch her legs, like any other pet, and that is what you decided to do.

The neighbor’s spouse, your lover, fact known only to you, "confirms" seeing you through the living room window, decided also, there and then, that their settee needed some exercise too…

And, oh so surprisingly, you both realized that all of a sudden you had most of your furniture outside.

You can even say that now that you think about it, you think you should have stopped the whole thing when you ALMOST slipped at your neighbors door when both of you were carrying the couch out the door (thus defending against any possible sneaky neighbor saying that you were seen falling where you did fall), but you only stopped, when, trying to push the bedside table out of the way for the sideboard to pass, that you tripped over the wheelbarrow and really hurt yourself.

No, I’m not being crazy, but both your spouse and your neighbor will think you are.

So what?

Is it REALLY important that they think you are crazy? No, it’s not.

You know you’re not and what is important is that they don’t suspect what you two are really up to. You want to get off the hook, and you're on your way out of it...

Rather be known as the neighborhood oddball than the local slut.

In the end, you had your way. You made up all the reality in which your spouse and you neighbor made their judgments upon.

Honest conclusions they reached, but on misled data .

And by placing carefully a layer of a deceit on top of another, making sure the latter always confirms the insanity both of you, the truth is, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, lost somewhere.

With just a bit of luck, bith your spouse and your neighbor might just arrange, for practical reasons, that you and your lover stay together under the same roof when either of them is away…

Plus, your spouse and your neighbor may now question, discuss, debate, argue over and about ALL the possible reasons for such an erratic behavior of you both that particular afternoon.

They can even theorize about why you saved the living room from the “walk” while your neighbor insisted that the whole office needed fresh air.

They can go back and forth on whats, the whys and whatfors that you two decided, or not, to put, on the front lawn and the whys and whatfors you two didn't use the much of the available space in the back of both your houses.

They can questions this and much more, and you can keep answering all with whatever ridiculous answer you wish to give, as you know, what is being discussed is effectively ridiculous, and has no possibility to lead anywhere near to where you don't want the discussion to go into.

More importantly, they can come to whatever conclusion they wish to come to because it’s unimportant and completely irrelevant.

Much like all the conclusions YOU’ve reached, these past three and a half years, from all the peanuts that YOU’ve been catching, and that they keep throwing and you keep chasing.

I hope YOU now understand why that whenever I read that the Tapas have been neglectful, I cringe.

And I hope that soon I’ll be able to make you understand why Mrs Fenn was just an full bedroom set somewhere on the lawn, whilst the Gaspars were just an armchair….

26 comments:

  1. This has been known for a long time. The McCanns had to admit to some neglect - but tried to minimise it by "dining in their back garden", checking in a Benny Hill fashion etc otherwise there could BE no abduction.
    No neglect = no abduction
    A McCann trade off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ironside said so firstly in this blog. But what I'm trying to say is that they didn't admit to "some neglect", but that they've shoved down our throats that they were neglectful, making us think that we had discovered how much.

    In a next post, I'll explain why I don't believe a word Mrs Fenn says... and she's basically all we have to "prove" that the kids were left "cruelly" alone.

    We know, by Ironside, that they've guranteed that if things come to worse, there was always an adult at the apartments taking care of the children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, what fascinated blog readers was the amount of blogs that born under Madeleine's drama. I believe most of the readers, like me, never came to any blog before that saga start's. Almost all of us were fool by that pair. Even if we suspect their story since day one. I find myself in that ridiculous situation, many times in 2007- Not believing in any abduction but paying attention to the little blond girls (looking like Maddie) in every airport, Mall, etc, that I pass by. Without noticing, I was searching the girl. What a fool.
    There was no neglicence at all in PDL. That's why they were not charged with it. The police knows the truth about that issue. The negligence was another fabricated story, very convennient for the Mccann's to divert from the real crime- 'The less bad'. Mrs Fenn was conveniently grabbed into the saga to bake the abduction. Many childs cried for long time at night, even when in well care. In a corner with many childs why she just heard Madeleine crying? The cry like the smile is countagious. If a child cry for some time, all the other childs who share the same space will cry as well. At least she should said that the all Mccann's child cried. She is part of the lie and I have the same feeling with Gaspars. This ones came to bake the Paedos story. Most probably Maddie died because she was a trouble girl and her parents had difficult to deal with her behaviour. The stars on the Rothley fridge did not lie and why the Nannies foccus their statments on the image of a 'Sweet Madeleine, fragile, polite, happy and well behavied? BECAUSE SHE WAS THE OPPOSITE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon 9:31,

    Have you stolen my brain without me realizing it?!? If so, please return it...

    Spot on!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was fooled at first for many reasons. It was my 'belief' system that stopped me questioning. Blind faith.

    1 I believed all parents would have strange reactions in a situation that was alien to them.
    2 I believe most people are honest
    3 I would not expect parents to have a hidden agenda.
    4 I did not want to think the worst for a child, I wanted to believe MBM would not be badly harmed.
    5 I was powerless to do anything and could only believe what I heard in the news.

    It was all based on belief not fact.

    That WAS my thinking but it was uncomfortable. Everything seemed so wrong and for a time I put these negative thoughts to the back of my mind. I couldn't know how I would not react if anything like that happened to me like I believed happened to the McCanns. Then something did happen to me that I thought my child had had an accident and I lost the plot! If someone had asked me to trade my life I would have done, giving my life or selling y that home would not have been an issue. In fact I would not want my life or my home without my child.

    All the time I was trying to rationalise the McCann case but nothing fell into place. Then I started seeing the deception and then could see it was worse, these people were lying! But why?

    People lie when they don't want people to know the truth, obviously.

    That is a challenge to find out what they are covering up by lying.
    Most people when faced with a challenge will not give up until they get satisfaction.

    I think the now McCanns realise that many people have taken up this challenge and will keep on bringing it to attention until they get that satisfaction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I read somewhere that on a previous night to the one of 3rd May, someone from the Ocean Club staff had to go and "fetch" the McCanns from a bar outside the complex (Chaplin's?), because other guests had complained about a child crying for a long time in one of the apartments...was it Madeleine? Was this real or just another forum myth?
    Why would Mrs. Fenn make up the crying story, and tell it to the police in an official statement? I believe she indeed heard a child crying, a child that was in distress NOT because she was alone, but because of who was with her and of what was being done to her! It seems that there is evidence that Kate was in the apartment when the crying incident happened, something to do with mobile phones, activation of antenas, positioning, etc., the information was in Paulo Reis' "Gazeta Digital blogspot".
    Mrs. Fenn said the crying stopped after she heard the sound of the slidding patio doors, and she assumed it were the parents arriving, but it could very well be the sound of "someone" leaving, after having finished his "visit"...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quando a noticia rebentou, estava num jantar com amigos a milhares de Kms da PDL, num outro continente. Lembro-me do silencio que se fez porque eram noticias de Portugal (coisa rara) na CNN. O grupo de amigos era cosmopolita e dele tambem faziam parte portugueses e ingleses.
    Quando a noticia terminou houve um desabafo quase unanime: 'A policia esta tramada'. Daquelas coisas que inexplicavelmente se sentem e atravessam multidoes. Claro que desde a primeira noticia, o caso passou para as nossas conversas diarias e nos tornamos espectadores atentos do drama da crianca e do desembaraco dos pais. O primeiro apelo que fizeram recorrendo a uma licao de portugues mal estudada para dizerem " Por favorrr devolvam a nossa menina" voltou a despontar em nos a mesma expressao: 'A policia esta tramada'. Porque diabo uma historia que e toda inglesa, que so aconteceu em Portugal por um acidente de percurso, com suspeitos marroquinos, ciganos, etc( nenhum portugues) devidamente 'dropped-off' pelo grupo, havia de ter o primeiro apelo em portugues? Foi o primeiro erro visivel para o publico mais atento.
    Depois a sra. Fenn... ouvinte 'unica' de um choro sofrido mas isolado. So pode ser uma mentira. A noite, e a que ela descreve ja e de adiantada hora, e farta em silencios por isso qualquer burburinho cruza distancias e entra feroz nos ouvidos dos mais distraidois. Ouvimos mais o vento e a chuva a noite, porque o ruido do dia os silencia. So a sra. Fenn ouviu um ruido que acordaria o quarteirao inteiro. Depois quando uma crianca chora na presenca de outras, em minutos o choro se contagia e transforma o espaco num verdadeiro coro de terror ( todos que somos pais sabemos como sao terrificas as noites de choro e como o caso se agrava quando temos mais de um). Ela ouviu so Maddie. Acometeu de surdez colectiva 2 gemeos, todas as criancas dos Tapas mais as de outros hospedes que estivessem nas redondezas. E a ser verdadeira a taxa de ocupacao do O.C. tinha de haver mais criancas a serem contagiadas.Tinha de haver um coro de choros.
    Ha uma luz que se acende no meu cerebro sempre que se fala da sra. Fenn ou da sra. Jenny. Uma e proprietaria de um apartamento( que usa com frequencia) junto da casa onde vive a tempo inteiro a outra. Ambas sao inglesas num pais estrangeiro. A PDL deve ser um deserto humano durante largos meses do ano, logo, HA UMA ENORME POSSIBILIDADE DAS DUAS SE CONHECEREM OU SEREM AMIGAS. Uma montou uma barraca para apanhar 'as deixas' largadas pelos turistas (quem viu ou sabe o que), a outra alimentou a fogueira com um choro fabricado para cimentar a ideia de negligencia e de um raptor que ja teria entrado no quarto nessa noite para fazer o reconhecimento do local e voltar mais tarde.
    A hipotetica entrevista de G.A. reportada pelo Express esta semana, nao passa para mim, de mais um conjunto de manobras do grupo, iguais as que fizeram no inicio. So mentiras para enganar desinformados e distraidos. Quem ouve as entrevistas de G.A. em Portugal, sabe que a do Express nunca podia ser verdadeira.

    Bom dia a todos e que haja coragem na justica portuguesa para reabrir a investigacao e re-admitir G.A. Ha mentiras que e uma vergonha durarem tanto tempo.

    From Anon @ 9:31, Nov.8

    ReplyDelete
  8. good good good. never believd in the neglect. to me 'gaspers' statement never had the ring of truth. i have the same feeling with mrs fens 'crying child'.
    will reread 'truth of the Lie'. Goncolo Amarel has his reasons for including all their nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ao meu post anterior acrescento a querida Kate que se recusou a responder as perguntas da PJ e a fazer a reconstituicao da noite, mas que largou gratuita e avidamente, na imprensa, as palavras (supostas) de Maddie na manha de 3 de Maio:' Mama, porque nao vieste ontem quando eu e Sean choramos'. Uma crianca de 3/4 anos nao expressa a frase que Kate diz ter saido da boca da filha. E demasiado elaborada para uma crianca desta idade, mesmo que tenha um elevado grau de cultura/instrucao. Esta frase, e colar na boca de uma crianca, uma frase adulta. Logo, uma fabricacao. Depois criancas tao pequenas, retem na memoria os maus momentos mas nao os reavivam ou reproduzem fora de contexto. O pequeno almoco, seria um momento bom, portanto lembrar maus momentos esta fora de contexto. Perante a hipotese eminente de voltar a ficar sozinha( se isso fosse verdade), Madeleine reagiria, gritando, esperneando, expressando medo, panico com palavras fortes, do genero,NAO!!NAO!! nunca com frases tao elaboradas. So no cerebro de Kate, nao cabe este pormenor por isso teve de credibilizar ridiculamente o testemunho da sra. Fenn. Afinal ele servia tao bem a teoria da negligencia e do rapto, nao e?
    Pobre policia que alem de ter de perceber o que aconteceu a crianca, teve de lidar com lunaticas fabricacoes. Cada testemunho fabricado nao so iludiu a policia como lhes consumiu tempo ( a PJ nao pode recusar depoimentos). E claro cada minuto perdido pela policia, foi um ponto ganho pelos Mccann. Mas nao ha mentira que perdure...

    ReplyDelete
  10. The last Wail article about the McCanns had several comments that were negative to the McCanns.
    Well seemingly negative but in light of what you say and the clutter people - it was highly positive.
    Every single comment spoke vehemently about these people leaving their child alone at night and they deserved to live without her. Like okay you bad people, suffer in silence. We have had enough of you you negligent creeps.

    Whereas if it came to light that there had been sexual abuse - well people would have physically gone after them with pitchforks.
    Strange I thought , why are they publishing this. I don't believe the tables have turned in any way for the british press (bp).

    So at this critical moment - their greatest lie is once again spewed out.
    And having been on forums since the beginning we have chased that bone like the hungriest dog.
    Maddie Maddie, Mrs Fen - about 10 000 comments all in all , in all forums.
    Jesus.
    We have been fooled.

    Which makes me raise a question over Dr Amarals thesis that she died by accident in the apartment.
    If she died by accident - is he implying that they were present at the time?
    Because I don't believe those children were left alone - not ever.
    Those people are control freaks - each and every one of them.
    They even set the Oldfields up as part of the clutterwith their sick child being left alone while they went to dinner.
    They were so willing to take on in my mind a most hideous of parental slander - that of neglect.

    Now for people such as these why on earth would they claim neglect if there had been none.
    Again something much worse than neglect is being covered up here.

    I was kicked off certain forums because I had a way of wanting to question every assumption.
    And as much as I think Dr Amaral is the most wonderful human being - intuitively I feel that Rebelo has been bundled away by the clutter brigade.
    I think he has a valuable role to play as well.
    In the background - away from the dangers of falling over the wheelbarrow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh and Textusa you write:
    " In a next post, I'll explain why I don't believe a word Mrs Fenn says... and she's basically all we have to "prove" that the kids were left "cruelly" alone."

    Interesting that and I guess Mrs
    Fenn and Jenny Murat are about the same age.
    Do you imagine they are friends?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry I will try and make this my last comment for now.
    But having read the comments through again a question arises.
    You, Textusa agree with another poster that you think she was a bad child re star charts and all that and that is why they maybe killed her accidentally. I mean you point to us again that she was not a model child and lead us to prove of that with the star charts.

    And to me that is potentially another wheelbarrow.
    For so many people to have lied about this, to have implicated themselves not only in the McCanns lies but leaving their kids the legacy of also having been left alone when young and helpless and that could be disastrous for familial relationships.

    I really believe I would lie for a friend in certain cases, but for so many people to lie - no - not if they were innocent Why would they protect them. Because they were best friends ? No they would let the couple face charges - sorry I am not going to trip over that one.

    By the way I think this is one of the best blogs on the subject.
    Thank you for your awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Q:- In what consisted the said "neglect" in this case?

    A: - The children left on their own in the apartms. at night while the parents partied.

    If there is no neglect, then it means the children were NEVER left alone. If the children were NEVER left alone, then there was no neglect. It's what we call "pescadinha de rabo-na-boca"!

    Question again:- if the children were not alone, then, someone had to be minding them...who? where?
    In the beggining of the case, some portuguese media reported that the children were all together in one of the apartments, true or invention? Where were the children and who was with them? I'm inclined to think that they were indeed all in one of the apartms., and that one of the group would stay with them...or did they had a sitter, someone who managed to stay secret the whole time? There were also rumors of a Tapas 10, leaving Portugal that evening...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I thought it extremely odd from the start that ALL of the media deified the McCanns, they never asked tough questions such as why they told all of their family and friends that the shutters were jemmied and the windows were forced open when their was clearly no sign of an abduction and why did none of the media "walk the walk" and say exactly how far away the tapas bar was from the apartment and note that the children would have been out of sight and hearing. It took 9 months for Martin Brunt to actually pace it out on live TV. Why was that? and why were the McCanns allowed to get away with spouting such obvious drivel?
    This is what drove me to the blogs and has kept me here over three years on. And the media are STILL allowing them to get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe that night ( May 3) the childs were all together in one flat, quite and allowing the alarm to be raised( exception for Madeleine). This is why the twins appeared in the cots without blankets or sheets in a cold night. They were left there in a rush. Sedated, were not able to feel or react to the cold, then no crying, no noise. In the Tapas there was an empty place the all night, even a plate of food had to be handed over back to avoid to be cold. Seems that was not from O'Brien. Some of the workers said at the time that they did not remember Gerry on the table. Gerry was reported by the Media ( quickly washed off) as who handed the pictures from Madeleine to the police. The famous good quality pictures, all the same, printed in a profissional paper not find on any of the PDL photo shops. To hand that pictures to GNR one hour after the alarm being raised by Kate, means the pictures were ready before the time the abduction hapenned. How they know, they will need them? Who went to a week holiday with 4 pictures, postal size, all the same from their own child? In a digital and mobile Era, parents store the smile of their loved childs in mobile screens. They are even saling the photo of Madeleine to be downloaded as a mobile screen.
    Gerry sent 14 messages that night. Were sent before or after the alarm? Gerry that night call his relatives saying that a disaster hapenned. The word disaster is too strong and normally used to describe something that could not be reversed. How he knows, few hours after, that the girl was not wonder off by herself and easy to be recovered? Amazing yeah Gerry, when we look deep and start seeing what is under the lines.

    ReplyDelete
  16. just like david payne was a few seconds or minutes or half a hour when he called to see kate for gerry.
    why the difference?
    a peanut i say.
    must have being having nooky,why kate bath and shower?
    a big wheelbarrow or tv cabinet out in the yard!
    distraction theory not conspiracy theory!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Text, if I'm reading you right, there ar no such things as "independent" witnesses. There are either fooled or fooling ones, or fooled ones that think they are fooling.

    There's an expression that the Mob usually uses and that is "never sell yourself short", and that is where I think you're absolutely right. Many sold themselves for 3a mere 30 pieces of silver...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I$a Má

    http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=4072


    GA acusa I$a D.

    MC

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is this the answer to the blood splattered on the walls as a result of a violent movement?

    ReplyDelete
  20. They went again to Lisbon to fool some more people. No trip to the place, 10 Miles away from PDL, where their detectives claim the girl was kept captive.
    The public still looking with attention to what is behind every word that come out of two liar mouths. They are not able to fool Portugal anymore. We know there is no reopen of the case, asked by them. They will never fill any form that can end in reopen the investigation and bring dogs or sophisticate tec. to find the truth.
    Just this week Portugal reopenned a case archieved many years ago, related with the death of a old man. Police believe that the man was killed by the 'King Ghobb'. No any body was found but he still in preventive prison. Because alive people cannot evaporate leaving no traces.
    It is never later to achieve the truth. That is the reality Mccann's have to face one day. By now, let them fool themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Textusa

    I thank you for your recent article - Clutter - it has taken me a while to understand what you have written and what you were really saying. But I think I know now - after reading some of the other comments.

    What I fear most is what is being suggested really happened. Not an accidental death but something more serious.

    Angelique

    ReplyDelete
  22. British Claire11 Nov 2010, 10:48:00

    This clutter all began from day one then, a strategy. Would this mean that if Madeleine were killed/murdered then this was all premeditated? If the death was accidental then who thought up this strategy through the initial shock and grief phase of the bereavement? It was either a 3rd party or this was a premeditated murder.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Problem is, no one knows when the child really disappeared.

    Portia

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is funny. Because, when I first heard about that "abduction" - it was on telly - it was said, that the parents had left 3 kids under 3 years of age alone in a holiday appartment while they were eating out in a restaurant. The first thought that came to my mind was: that is impossible. No parents would leave 3 baby kids alone in a holiday appartment in a foreign country at nights. - And I usually can rely on my first thoughts. Therefore, I followed that stories with a little more attention and learnt, they were Doctors. The more I found that to be impossible.
    But when I've heard of their habbit of sedating the kids, I thought it could be true. Somebody mentioned here, they both were control freaks thus had never left their kids unattended.
    What, if they thought, everything is under control (with them being experts in sedating ppl)? Otherwise, my own "theory" of the events dies right here... and so would the theory of GA?
    As for Madeleine's crying reported by Ms Fenn, I think it is possible that either she woke up and was indeed alone - or somebody was with her. Her siblings did not wake up and joined her crying, because they were sedated or in another appartment. Next to the McCann's was - I think - JT/ROB or the Oldfields. Next to them was nobody at that time. And above was not rented out, according to a plan I have seen (3 Arguidos forum). That could be an explanation, why nobody else heard it except Ms Fenn (tho I don't know if she was in 2nd or 3rd floor). So my theory is this: McCann's heard certainly Madeleine crying when they returned. They noticed, that they had not given enough medication to her. The next day was Wednesday and on that day, the group went to the bar after dinner and drank a lot. At least the guys were completely drunk that night. I believe that the McCanns gave some more medication to Madeleine that night and thus, an "incident" occured. Kate slept in the room of the kids that night. She has probably tried to reanimate her (Gerry was too drunk), thus the mess with the blood on the walls - depends on what drug they gave her and how Madeleine reacted to that. In the morning, Kate phoned a friend who is a pathalogist very early in the morning.
    Then they had the whole Wednesday to wash the curtains and floor, remove the blood, put Madeleine into the closet, inform the rest of the group and get rid of their body. Because, when should they have washed the curtains if she died only in the night of May 3rd, as GA claims at 9pm even? How did they wash and dry the curtains within an hours time? That is not possible.
    If Madeleine died not of an accident due to drugs and/or false reanimation, then something more sinister must have happened - and it seems whole PDL is sinister... with all that freemasonry symbols around, full of pedophiles and lots of expats there, who helped the McCanns, because they are also freemasons...

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Then they had the whole THURSday to wash the curtains and floor..." should that have been, of course. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The "McCann Machine", as it were, may turn out to be something akin to what Christinne Hardy calls "semantic constellations or SeCos". No doubt, part of it is orchestrated - think Burson-Marsteller/Lift Consulting "reputation management" - a veritable "McCann Machine"; the remaining may turn out to be the result of what Hardy calls "SeCo's" (Semantic Constellations, a technical term for "Mind in the World". Quote:"the co-creation of collective SeCos depends essentially upon semantic parameters such as intensity, recurrence, coherence. In particular, the parameter of semantic proximity generates strong linkages between individuals' minds or between minds and objects and events, whatever the spatial or temporal distance between them" (Christine Hardy, Ph.D. in "Networks of Meaning". Another way to look at SeCos is in terms of British hegemony and ideology at play. Such hypothesis is supported by the involvement of David Cameron (PM) and Scotland Yard for example. Normally, as you aptly point out, ideology works beyond or behind the threshold of conscience. Thank our monkey minds for that! For if it is true to say humans have sprung from the apes; it is also true they have not sprung very far. Of course most of us won't admit to that. Another interesting theory to throw in passing is "cognitive dissonance theory" but I won't go into it here...

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa