Paulo Sargento articles........................

Maddie and Joana Again? Amongst the Bad Parenthood, the Hazelnuts Liars and the alleged Dog’s Injustice

The second half of January was, as I expected, very interesting.

The Maddie case came back in full force! The Joana case was interrupted by a rocambolesque and, I believe, unprecedented legal event. The Metódo3 showed its teeth. And the Freeport distracted us.


by Dr.Paulo Sargento

The last time I wrote, I recall that Dr Gerry McCann had returned to Portugal for the first time since September 2007, allegedly for, together with one of his attorneys, the illustrious Mr. Rogério Alves, have a reunion with His Excellency the British Ambassador in Lisbon [Alexander Ellis], to know what could still be done to find Madeleine.

The trip indeed happened! Mr. Rogério Alves was, as everyone could see, with Dr Gerry McCann, and to what is known, they met with the Ambassador.

Well, it happened! So why to repeat myself?

As I had previously said and now I reaffirm it: the argument used by Dr Gerry McCann is illogical. By his own words, he assumed he had not still read the whole process (which includes ALL the diligences made), because the process had not yet been fully translated. I repeat the question that intrigues me: How can you want to know what you can still do about anything when it is not known, entirely, all that was done? It makes no sense whatsoever! I reiterate that this escapes any logic.

Now then, what was the purpose of Dr Gerry McCann’s visit? Without anyone asking, it was guaranteed that he did not come to meet with anyone from the government or anyone connected to the government. But, what government? The current one? Well, here is something that can not escape the logic. Nor, contrary to the previous statement, we can affirm (without a pejorative assessment of the awareness of the statement) that it is a lie.

It even makes sense that Dr Gerry McCann has not come to meet with people connected to the ACTUAL government (and I swear that I am not using rhetorical imagery to induce the reading into the Freeport case). However, nothing was said, and in truth, nothing was asked regarding meetings with elements of previous governments or related to them.

Right! Nice trick! In some corridors, with hushed loudness, it has been made possible to pin point someone to the fourth chair of the said meeting: the first name, truly Lusitanian and the surname, clearly Welsh! And I stop right here.

Do you know why?

Because, from this time on, not even Mendes Bota was able to save the honour of the monastery: the Man who, according with all the polls, would guaranteedly win a City Council was rejected by the Directorate of the Party of which he is an active militant, allegedly for not corresponding to the appropriate profile for that Town Hall (well, at least, from the mouth of the censors, pardon, of the decision makers, did not came a even more ludicrous story, the lack of political experience). Of course I am talking about Gonçalo Amaral.

Besides of cowardly, of shameful and, obviously, manipulated, this act of refusing Gonçalo Amaral candidacy, is the most naive expectation of a ‘currency exchange’ that I have seen in Portuguese politics (besides I only have 43 years old and there are political alliances that are secular).

Meanwhile, in the Joana case, after the confession, pre-announced by the Illustrious lawyer of Madam Leonor Cipriano (I recall the interview with Dr. Marcos Aragão Correia, in the weekly "The Crime" of December 4, 2008), our courts performed one of the strangest scenes unprecedented in the Portuguese memory: the expulsion of a lawyer from the Court chambers for being suspended by the Bar Association, allegedly because of the failure to communicate his change of address.

This event made a flow, desirably for some, of more ink lines in multiple newspapers. Relatively to this, we yet have to understand what really happened, However, the confession of Leonor Cipriano, that Dr. Marcos Aragão Correia referred to have be written by is own hand, but dictated by the lady is, as I had a chance to say, another point in detriment of Leonor Cipriano herself: it’s another one among nearly a dozen versions, all different.

What can we conclude here? Two things. The first is that Leonor has lost more of her, already diminutive and very doubtful, credibility of testimony. Secondly, calculating the highest common denominator of the various versions, we find a high consistency of one element in the different versions: Joana, who unfortunately, died, or rather was killed, as most of the forensic evidence indicates.

The letter, in addition to have been written by Mr. Marcos Aragão Correia, was not dictated by a person born in the Algarve area, with a very low level of education. Somehow the statement denotes a kind of legal concern, to the level of its content (namely, the legal possibility of the adoption as it is referred and the insistency on details that could, potentially, constitute evidence for the accusation - pants with blood). But as I reiterate, the excessive use of the gerund [verbal noun] and the reversal of possessives and demonstratives add up to an aspect of linguistic expression more usual in Madeira, or with some effort, in some parts of the Alentejo. Who dictated the letter? A person from Madeira? Or, being in Odemira, a person from Alentejo?

Still in the Joana case, following the aforementioned "confession" a new search was encouraged to the place where, allegedly, the body of Joana was buried. But, after several searches, conducted by the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano and family (which family?) it was assumed the impossibility to continue this task due to the deficiency of cinotechnical means [K9 units]. Indeed, this argument deserves some reflection.

Dr. Marcos Aragão Correia says, like many others, that in Portugal there are no dogs trained to detect the cadaverine scent. Nevertheless, some people said the opposite, some time ago. It is, therefore, a debatable issue. But, then, why was a search and rescue dog taken? Here, for sure the theory that those who “don’t have dogs hunts with a cat” is unfounded. So, I repeat, why would there be a need for an ERVD dog that detects the scent of cadavers?

Although I accept that I am completely uninformed regarding the major aspects of the qualities of those animals, I must, however, present some speculative arguments that have emerged in the consequence of the proclaimed affirmation made by Dr. Aragão Correia: “In the Maddie case a dog was brought from England to search for evidences against the parents. Why they don't do it now to find Joana's body?”

Let’s try to reflect upon it.

I would not be surprised and even would agree, absolutely, with Dr. Aragão Correia if the argument of Equalitarian Justice that he pretended to use wasn’t betrayed by its content. Let us see what I want to say, illustrating how I think that the argument should be exposed:

a) “In the Maddie case a dog was brought from England to search for evidences against the parents. Why they don’t do it now to try to get evidences against the mother and uncle of Joana?”, or alternatively,

b) “In the Maddie case a dog was brought from England to try to locate her body. Why they don't do it now to find Joana's body?”

Indeed, if the issues were raised in this way, I would be in complete agreement with the thesis of Dr. Aragão Correia.

Still, we would have, in my modest and, again I repeat, little sustained opinion, a methodological problem: in the case of Maddie, we had precise locations and objects which allowed to draw a methodology that is virtually beyond reproach as to the results observed (the dogs visited several apartments, several cars, smelled different pieces of clothing, BUT, I repeat, BUT there were control and “placebo” devices, if I am allowed to exploit these terms, so it is easier to understand).

In the Joana case, in addition to the search area being much larger and that there are no types of markers, the search should, in my opinion, begin with archaeologists and geologists who would attempt to define areas where signs of intervention not due to natural phenomena existed (ex. erosion of wind or rain in the modification of topographical accidents) and from then on proceed to search with other methods.

I admit that is much more difficult to detect the smell of dead bodies after almost 4 years, than after 2 months. I also admit that it would be much more difficult the discrimination of odours in outdoor areas than inside houses or in clothes dressed recently. I should, therefore conclude the arrival of the friendly and competent dogs (who have 200 positive identifications), in these conditions could constitute a failure.

Actually, allow me one more metaphor: the conditions described for the “monte das figueras”[figs hill] (which, in itself, involves a number of variables, of difficult, or even, virtual impossible control) and after almost 4 years are have gone by since the tragic death of a girl, the probability of the dogs (even though they are competent) to find the corpse of Joana is, certainly lower the likelihood that someone would have to win the Euromillions in 3 consecutive weeks, betting on the same combination key numbers.

However, to whom would help the failure of these dogs?





More to follow - it's a long and a bit 'hermetic' text to translate in one go, please be patient.



Courtesy of Dr. Paulo Sargento


By Joana Morais

Right! Nice trick! In some corridors, with hushed loudness, it has been made possible to pin point someone to the fourth chair of the said meeting: the first name, truly Lusitanian and the surname, clearly Welsh! And I stop right here.

I wonder who this is?



I'm also wondering if the lawyer wants these dogs brought over to rubbish them again when they dont find Joana's body. Could this be a trick?

More...
Exactly! You guessed it! To the defenders of Madeleine McCann abduction theory. Thus, one of the strongest evidences of the death of little Maddie would be attacked and the headlines would be as expected: Dogs who identified cadaver scent in the Maddie case didn’t detect any clues of Joana’s corpse. I admit that the confession of Leonor would likewise not be in ‘good sheets’. But I do not know why, I think that the media, would basically, belittle the image of the friendly dogs, and consequently of the sardines munchers.

Another issue which has come to light, and about which I have spoken [on TVI], concerns the recent news regarding the involvement of Método3 in the subject that I will only designate as Hazelnuts Traitors. This Agency has shown that it has within people who are: LIARS, SWINDLERS and SKILLFUL COINCIDENCE MANAGERS.

For these not to be just empty words, I begin to explain:

a) LIARS! They promised that Maddie would appear by the Christmas of 2007 – IT’S A LIE! They even guaranteed to have identified the kidnapper of Maddie - IT’S A LIE! (If it is true then report it to the authorities, to not be accountable of any crime in that regard, and I’ll give at that time, publicly and humbly my apologies for having said this sentence, but I’ll keep the previous)!

b) SWINDLERS! They take advantage of the work of others. The Hazelnuts had already owners. Copying sites is shameful. Exploiting the work of others is disgraceful.

c) SKILLFUL COINCIDENCE MANAGERS! They stated that while working in the Maddie case, 13 paedophiles have been arrested. Don’t make the Spanish Police a bunch of fools. Have some sense gentlemen.

Let me say that institutions should not be confused with some people who belong to it. Of course, everywhere, there is good and bad. If I am being unfair to the agency Método3, I will apologize publicly after the agency brings to an end its connexion with the acts committed by some of its elements.

To the McCann Couple, I would like to start, exactly, here.

For how long do you intend to keep the link to the agency's Metódo3 in the Find Madeline site? Even after all the information regarding the said agency, it still keeps a privileged spot in the “Investigation” tab at the site where many people still want to help and contribute? For how long?

And the online store? Is to maintain, even losing a real fortune, as we were able to see, in the accounts of the Madeleine Fund? Who manufactures the T-Shirts? And the bracelets?

If it is true that you have no accounts or credit cards on your behalf, how do pay for your travels? And the expenses at the Ocean Club? How do you live without financial liaisons with any bank? And the mortgage of your home?

And the price of the site? In Portugal, a site maintenance costs 50€ per year. When we have no money, we draw our own pages or we ask some solidarity to friends who are competent in that area. To spend a thousand times more is unwise. I am sure that there are thousands of web designers that would help you for free. There are caring people in this world, if they believe that it is for a good cause.

The translations of the process should not be the PRIORITY to be able to know what was done, Dr Gerry McCann? There is STILL enough money in the fund. Please translate the process. It is urgent. It is imperative!

Dr. Kate McCann, we all understand your suffering. I do not want to believe that the idea that you are depressed and obsessively reading for 3 hours a day the process, is an idea of your own. I believe that this is a story of the evil tabloids. Please, sue them because they are giving of you an awful motherly image. A mother of a daughter who has disappeared and who does not rest for more than three hours a day, spending the remaining 19 hours reading. Yes, it could be assumed as worrying and it would translate an emotional disturbance in which the person is, in fact, obsessed and not thinking in anything else, not even in the other children.

And speaking about, the other children.


more...




Courtesy of Dr. Paulo Sargento




+/-

+/-

by Joana Morais

I would really like to know why Gerry went to Portugal.
I do not believe it was to meet up with his lawyers.

Excellent reading by Sargento as usual!

Edds I dont believe Gerry went to Portugal to hand over clues or ask for the case to be reopened...as Sargento says he cannot say one moment that he still hasnt finished reading the files then suddenly want to open the case if they have found nothing yet....

I believe Gerry and his wife (who can only dedicate 3 hours a day to reading the case about her child) have the same worries they always had and thats they are in the dark about what is happening in Portugal behind their backs and they are trying to stop Amaral...and maybe Tony too!

continues...


And speaking about, the other children.

In the first days after the disappearance of Maddie, where some people weaved considerations to the poor parental quality of the McCanns, I tried to devalue that idea on several occasions, interpreting benignly the various and more carefree parental educational practices of the Anglo-Saxons.

I even conveyed, and today I acknowledge that, stupidly, in the defense of the couple, saying that a culture of greater autonomy and its relationship with the educational development in some countries were in part, the result of parenting practices which promote more autonomy and are less over-protective, saying that the super-protection and affiliation were more common in southern Europe, in particular, and in the Latin people in general.

When I recognize the stupidity of what I said, I must confess that is not in relation of what I said. I stand by it!

The stupidity was not to have thought that the educational practices that the McCanns demonstrated were predictors of one of the biggest wickedness that I have witnessed against children: to give gifts to the twins, saying that those were sent by Maddie.

Mr and Mrs McCann:

Do not make of Maddie a Santa Claus who gives gifts to the children and that never, I repeat, NEVER, appears or will appear.

Let the twins do the mourning of their sister. You both know she will not appear.

Even if you believe that you had no intervention in the disappearance of your daughter (which I do not believe and I have that right as a citizen), you have been warned that the excessive media attention would increased the likelihood, in the hypothetical case of abduction, that the putative kidnapper would kill the girl. If you do not want to face the grief of Maddie, you have that right and you have your reasons. But please, let the twins do it.

The girl, unfortunately, will not return. Do not give hope to the little ones because they will not remember her sister. They will not have a memory of Maddie, unless through the pictures and for what is told to them, and unfortunately, for what they will know and understand when they grow up. Do not build false memories through deceiving illusions. Tell the twins that Maddie is a little star [in the sky]. They will know what that means. Until then, do not let any pact to use the twins as a means.

These children live in a strange ambience. “Where is Maddie? Will she be back? And if we are taken to that place?” Children do not think like us. They believe they are stolen by the boogeyman. And what if one has gone already?

Mr and Mrs McCann

I have never made any criticisms to your parental qualities.

However, given what you did with the twins I have to firmly say:

You are BAD PARENTS!

Get some counselling!

See you soon!


Courtesy of Dr. Paulo Sargento

Dr. Paulo Sargento is a Forensic Psychologist and a University Professor

by Paulo Sargento

Those who have been following the ‘Maddie’ phenomenon with some attention, verified that the month of January, particularly its second week, was fecund in events that I have already focused on, in a previous post. But the month of March, with the preambles and eclosion of Spring, has brought us some very interesting data.

On the first day of this month of spring, British newspaper ‘The Independent’ published an article about Clarence Mitchell that bore the title: “I am a decent human being. If I can help them, I will”. This article announced a conference by Mitchell at the Oxford Union “following in the footsteps of Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and [picture this] Kermit the Frog”. Don’t laugh, because I’m not making irony here. This sentence is from ‘The Independent’ on the 1st of March. Concerning the Muppet Show, I’ve always preferred the madness of ‘Animal’, the drummer, or the luxurious seduction of Miss Piggy (now, you can have a laugh!).

What was the purpose of these ‘news’?

a) To prepare the announcement of the extinction of the biggest source of income for the McCanns, for Mitchell and for Método 3 – Brian Kennedy;

b) To initiate a campaign to clear the image of Clarence Mitchell, preparing the ground for ‘other waters’;

c) To clear the path for Gerry McCann’s appearance in Parliament;

d) To prepare public opinion for the “circus to come to town”, or more exactly, to the village of Luz;

e) Because there were approximately two months to go for the – unfortunate – second anniversary of Maddie’s death.

f) And as such, a few surprises are expected!

Why and with what legitimacy do I state ‘Maddie’s death’? For the same reasons that Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell (yes, because Kate McCann has been strange and ‘firmly’ silent and has not been seen much, as I have been stressing lately) state ‘Maddie’s abduction’. But there’s an abyssal difference between both statements: one represents a theory that has authority in its arguments, while the other represents a theory that has its arguments in authority.

But, while we’re at it, and despite my personal opinion that the British newspaper has a lot less informative value than the popular Portuguese almanac ‘O Borda d’Água’, I must mention that I was absolutely stupefied about the manner in which this information was handled. I vividly recommend reading the abovementioned article in order to understand what MEDIA MANIPULATION is truly about, in a Society where I thought an ancient tradition of Civil Rights, Liberties and Freedom ruled. I confess that this last sentence is (almost) a plagiarism of a cretinous, ignorant, foolish and barbarously snob statement that was made by the Aide to an illustrious English Member of European Parliament, when referring to the Portuguese Judiciary Police’s incompetence. That sentence can be read in weekly ‘Sol’ dated November 13, 2007. I assume the ironical use of the (almost) plagiarism of Piers Merchant’s sentence and the consequences that may arise thereof, and I also vividly recommend reading that article.

Why?

Because the matter that I have just mentioned was picked up again by Gerry McCann this month. After travelling to the English Parliament ‘for the Englishman to see’ [Portuguese popular saying that describes something that is done merely for the purpose of visually impressing others, without any substance] – notice that this Chamber let pass ‘Gerry’s Lie’, which Duarte Levy has subtly and intelligently denounced –, the medic (I stress medic instead of doctor, in order to avoid confusion with another type of doctor, for example of the law) criticised the Portuguese Judicial Secrecy, disserting about its obsolete character, a result of laws that “date back to them being a Fascist government and subsequently a Communist one” which explains “why they do not function”. Despite the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, allow me to say this:

a) Does medical training, specialised in Cardiology, in British Universities, include optional classes in History of Portuguese Law in its curriculum?

b) In case it does, the teachers should be sued without delay over the manifest incompetence that they display in their teachings; if it doesn’t (as I would expect, even because cardiologists have better things to do than studying History of Portuguese Law), I’m a bit more reassured and I interpret that it was the sad result of some misunderstanding due to difficulties in understanding the Portuguese language, within the British couple’s assistants, because I’m absolutely certain that the Most Illustrious Lawyers who represent the McCanns in Portugal would never utter such an enormous STUPIDITY!

c) Even because Portuguese laws don’t keep innocent citizens in prison, or with supposed and light-headed ‘evidence’, and after realising their mistake, don’t repeat trials over the same crime, after its nullity was assumed by the Judicial administration, thus respecting Human Rights, contrary to certain European Nations (confront the case of Nicolas Bento, for example, which I’ll return to).

But as if this bizarreness weren’t enough, at the same time the most famous of all ‘spin doctors’ tries to recreate a theory in order to sustain the criticism over the spectacular media exposure, which at a certain time, he admits, he ‘tried to control’ under order (“hired in September 2007 to ‘salvage their reputations’”, those of Kate and Gerry; in ‘The Independent’, March 1, 2009): the British journalists were systematically drunk as they spent their whole afternoons drinking alcohol at the Ocean Club, begging him for news about the case, allegedly in order not to lose their jobs. As they got no news, they translated the news from Portuguese newspapers, thus justifying, from their point of view, the alleged defamation campaign against the McCanns.

This theory is particularly fascinating. Nevertheless, like all very fascinating theories, it’s too exaggerated, it lacks logics, and the facts can be explained in a more parsimonious fashion. Let’s see, Mister Mitchell:

a) Concerning the alcohol consumption, there would be much to say, but I’ll go no further than the frequent and witnessed abuses by the ‘Tapas Nine Group’ (these were proved by employees and by documents – dinner invoices) and consider that you are making baseless and defamatory accusations against a class to which you belong yourself and whose members cannot be generalised;

b) Concerning the fact that the journalists were “desperate” for news, I have to state, with factual knowledge, that you manipulated many of them, from the same group of English newspapers, and obviously in some cases there were threats of firing, at some point in time, but rather if supposed “defamatory facts against the couple” were published;

c) Some Portuguese journalists were threatened with lawsuits by famous Carter Ruck, which until today never became more than it was: threats!

With this, you mean to say that the Portuguese journalists defamed the McCanns in their Newspapers, and that the British Journalists, drunk and under the threat of being fired, translated those news that you find defamatory, and in this way ended up being condemned to pay financial compensations to the McCann couple, that diluted them into the ‘Find Madeleine’ fund?

Fibs, Mister Mitchell, Fibs!

Do you know why? Because if it were so, the McCanns would have to thank for those supposedly defamatory news, that through the translations by drunk journalists, guaranteed approximately ¼ of the fund that was supposedly created to search for little Maddie. In this case, then, and under your perspective, 25% of the fund resulted from defamation, alcohol, incompetence and the fear of losing jobs? I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. The story is much too long!

Concerning this interpretation, Dr Gerry McCann is more parsimonious. He recognises that Maddie “became a product and profits had to be maintained”! I absolutely agree with Dr Gerry McCann in this matter and I have already spoken about this issue and the ‘Relational Marketing’ of the Maddie product, the fidelization of some media’s customers (I wrote about this, for the first time, in June 2007). As a matter of fact, a recent statement, during a party congress, by a Portuguese politician who is involved in a paedophilia scandal, illustrates what I mean when I mention Relational Marketing (in due time someone will pick this theme up). But, as we say in Portugal, you can’t have the ball and the stick! It was Dr Gerry McCann himself who created this product, when, due to motives that have yet to be decoded, he informed some media on the fateful night of the 3rd of May 2007, thus forcing, even against the authorities’ advice, his daughter’s maximum public exposure, even though he was repeatedly warned about the danger that might represent for Maddie’s life.

Paradoxically, Dr Gerry McCann mentions he can’t forgive the Portuguese press for publishing news about the hypothetical death of Maddie. The question that I think should be asked is not whether one should forgive the press over such news or not, but rather, to try to understand the value of such news. Despite everything else, these news, as we could confirm when the process was made public, after being clumsily archived, had bases and very strong fundaments and didn’t come out by chance. Of course a ‘mole’ in the Polícia Judiciária was mentioned. That matter, I believe, will one day emerge from the muddy waters that we navigate. But the most relevant aspect is that the abduction theory has not presented any indicia or fundaments and Dr Gerry McCann continues to claim it. May Dr Gerry McCann be aware of something that may constitute a strong indicium, which he has yet to reveal to the Polícia Judiciária? I think that this is a very pertinent question.

But as the second anniversary of the unfortunate event draws closer, a new campaign has been developed: to place outdoors and posters with Maddie’s image, at the surroundings of the area where the little girl disappeared. THE CIRCUS HAS COME TO THE VILLAGE! I must say that I can see only one qualifier for this campaign: CLOWN SHOW!

The arguments for this action are hopelessly dishonest.

Why?

a) Because it’s not true that the populations in the area of Praia da Luz hasn’t been sufficiently informed and investigated; as a matter of fact, these populations have actively participated, as if it was their own child, in everything, Dr McCann, IN EVERYTHING, even beyond what they were asked to do. In this case, comparisons that were established with the cases of Natasha Kampush and Elizabeth Smart, among others, constitute an argument of dizzying frailty, apart from unworthily opportunistic, because they try to ride the impact, on public opinion, of the condemnation for life of Mister Fritzl, that unbelievable case of Amstetten! It is unacceptable, to say the least, to try to manipulate public opinion in this way, two years after the events of Praia da Luz!

b) Just like with those unfortunate and famous posters that joined the faces of Maddie and MariLuz, it would be convenient for the person who ‘designed’ the campaign to understand, once and for all, that there are rules for this type of initiative, beyond the decisions of the McCann couple and of Mister Mitchell and Associates;

c) It’s not true that there is strong indicia that Maddie may be alive and in good health. Even if faith could give us hope that Maddie is alive, simple common sense would make it impossible to think that a little girl that has been away from her family for so long, with the ignoble comparisons with cases like those described in the previous item, could be well and in good health. It’s counter-intuitive, to say the least. Once again, that issue is different if Dr Gerry McCann possesses any type of information that he has yet to share with the competent authorities.

d) Because it’s not likely at all that, after time goes by, the memory of some people may have improved to the point that they remember the claimed ‘key clue’ to find Maddie. Memory doesn’t improve with time, Dr McCann, except under very special circumstances that you, as a doctor, also know, which would lead us to consider only ‘certain persons’.

In truth, I understand the attitude of the population of Praia da Luz. To shred posters is simultaneously an action of legitimate indignation and of respect for Maddie’s memory, and not an act of vandalism like tabloid ‘The Evening Standard’ wanted us to believe. What name do these gentlemen give to the actions of so many of the English football fans that we usually call ‘hooligans’?

I am going to leave some questions searching for answers.

a) For what reasons does Método 3 continue to appear as the investigation team on the official Find Madeleine site?

b) For what reason does Dr Kate McCann appear to be less visible and less ‘active’?

c) For what motives, after having recognized that his family was “the focus of some of the most sensationalist, untruthful, irresponsible and damaging reporting in the history of the press”, does Dr McCann insist on a new media pressure, geographically located???

d) For what motive, stating that there should be “more control over journalists to the potential to ruin people’s lives”, did Dr Gerry McCann NOT pursue any legal process in Portugal, when he clearly could have done it according to Mr Mitchell’s statements, regarding the sources of the alleged news which were subject to translations?

I will finish for today, with two sentences by Dr Gerry McCann which, from my point of view, answer this and some other doubts present in this post:

“As Madeleine's parents we cannot and will not ever stop doing all we can to find her.”

“Someone somewhere knows where Madeleine is.”

Good Night!


source: Câmara de Comuns, 29.03.2009


+/-

+/-

by astro

What a brilliant piece that was



Especially the "Muppet Show" comment

Maddie: in Portugal, an invisible inclination?


by Paulo Sargento*



(...) “As recently as this week, I heard former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral referring to the McCann couple as assassins of their own daughter – the theory that he defended during the investigations that he conducted and later published in a book. During two years, Dr Amaral had every means, all the time and conditions to prove his extremely serious thesis, or to discover what had happened to Maddie and whether she was alive or dead. He failed to do so, and after all the investigation’s deadlines ran out, it was closed without any conclusions, due to a lack of indicia of anything at all. But, undisturbed, the gentleman carries on, accusing the parents themselves of having killed their daughter and saying that he failed to prove it due to “political pressures”. Is this the kind of ‘justice’ that the Freeport investigators are preparing to reserve for José Sócrates, as well?” (…)

Miguel Sousa Tavares, in ‘Expresso’, 11.04.2009

First, I must state that I foster a certain sympathy for Miguel Sousa Tavares. I consider him to be an exemplary citizen, a Man with a spinal column and without any need to be politically correct, with opinions and filiations that are publicly known and assumed. But it is also due to this assumed sympathy that I must state that I failed to comprehend the paragraph that I transcribed above, which is part of an opinion article that is titled “How to fry a PM on a low flame?”

To me, that paragraph seems ill adjusted to the title and to the issue that it approaches, and Miguel Sousa Tavares is a writer and a columnist who is organised in his speech. I must also state that I don’t believe that José Sócrates received anything whatsoever in the Freeport case. What I fail to understand is what José Sócrates, the Freeport Case, the Maddie Case and Dr Gonçalo Amaral have in common. I also missed my opportunity to find out where Miguel Sousa Tavares heard “former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral referring to the McCann couple as assassins of their own daughter” and “undisturbed, the gentleman carries on, accusing the parents themselves of having killed their daughter and saying that he failed to prove it due to «political pressures»”. Despite reiterating my sympathy for Miguel Sousa Tavares, Columnist, Writer and Jurist, I must confess that it seems to me that he fell prey to an overly easy temptation: to embark on the Maddie case to defend the Prime Minister, blaming the Polícia Judiciária, in the person of Gonçalo Amaral. If journalist Fernanda Câncio had done so, I would find it wrong, but acceptable. That Miguel Sousa Tavares does it, without any kind of explanation, except for the one that he mentions when he questions “Is this the kind of ‘justice’ that the Freeport investigators are preparing to reserve for José Sócrates, as well?”, seems completely unacceptable and devoid of purpose to me. The use of fallacies that are well known to rhetoric and argumentation must be pondered, to avoid confusing excellence with vulgarity.

But unfortunately, there is more.

“Something strange is going on when one accuses the parents of a missing child of a heinous crime, without any evidence”

Paulo Pedroso, in a statement to SIC Notícias during the PS [Socialist Party] Congress

What does Dr Paulo Pedroso mean, with such a statement?

I confess that contrary to the sympathy that I confessed feeling for Miguel Sousa Tavares, Dr Paulo Pedroso does not arouse either sympathy nor antipathy in me. The fact that he is situated in a political quadrant that lies close to the one that I identify myself with, may be tainting my perception of the person in a benign manner. But similarly to what I said about Miguel Sousa Tavares, I failed to comprehend Dr Paulo Pedroso’s affirmation, within the statement that he was making for SIC Notícias at the time. Is it possible that he was riding one media-exposed case in order to counter balance another media-exposed case? It was hard for me to believe, back them, but today I feel compelled to accept that it may have been the case, judging from his statement when he launched his candidacy for the City Hall of Almada, where he anticipated that “no defamation will stop us” (SIC online, April 10). Thus Dr Paulo Pedroso has just proved to us that attack is the best defence, even if by proxy, warning us that the eventual usage of the Casa Pia Case does not scare him. But what does the Casa Pia case have to do with the Maddie case, and other media-exposed cases? As far as we know, Dr Paulo Pedroso has not been tried within the Casa Pia case, and has even been indemnified over the “defamation” that he says he suffered. Then, why is he pulling supposedly past waters into the matter, mixing them with others that, as we stated in a previous post, are too muddy to wash anything at all?

I would like to close this post with another equally incomprehensible situation.

José Manuel Barradas, the Director of daily newspaper “O Público”, stated during a ‘news review’ at SIC, at around the time when the Maddie case was archived, that he agreed with the McCann couple in their refusal to carry out the reconstitution that had been requested by the Polícia Judiciária, arguing that, after one year, it would be natural for people to find it difficult to reconstitute the events in a precise manner, thus potentially falling into contradictions, sustaining that if it were him, José Manuel Fernandes, he wouldn’t do it either.

The editorial line that has been followed by “Público” concerning the Maddie case speaks for itself, and therefore I’ll refrain from any comments. But if José Manuel Fernandes knows what a reconstitution is, will he now accept the one that Gerry McCann says he performed, two years later? Or will he be just as critic?

Invisible inclinations or mere coincidences?

See you in a bit!


source: Câmara de Comuns blog, 13.04.2009


* Forensic psychologist, university professor, author, commentator and blogger

What does this Miguel Sousa Tavares know I wonder....and who is he protecting!?

Ambersuz wrote:What does this Miguel Sousa Tavares know I wonder....and who is he protecting!?

his friend - SIc and Expresso owner - Mr. Balsemão

by Paulo Sargento*

With a documentary about the book “The Truth of the Lie” drawing close (which I strongly recommend to EVERYONE), the British media have massively come out to try to protect, more than ever before, the McCanns’ image. As a matter of fact, Dr Gerry McCann himself has admitted that there were “mistakes on both sides”, according to what Duarte Levy mentions, today, the 13th of April 2009, in daily newspaper ‘24horas’. Now why is that?

But this massive defence by the British newspapers is carried out through an attack, an ignorant and often lying attack, against former PJ investigator Gonçalo Amaral, with the same means. I have already stated that the traditional Portuguese almanac ‘O Borda d’Água’ has much more interest than most of the press that I’m talking about. Still, I wish to signal such media production as the reflex of what I am certain is the enormous fear that said documentary is causing on the McCanns’ side.

Dr Gerry McCann was in Portugal on the weekend before Easter, with the supposed purpose of carrying out a reconstitution of the events of the fateful night of the 3rd of May 2007. In practical terms, Dr Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Dr Mathew Oldfield came as consultants for the making of a documentary about what they want to say concerning what happened that night. That fact constitutes, as Karl Popper would say, a strong attack upon the falsifiability that is necessary for the scientific evidence, because it is deadly wounded by confirmatory epistemology. What does this mean? It means, very simply, that nobody can be a judge in his own cause, and that the documentary will necessarily reflect what the “consultants” think about the facts without any intervention of a contradictory nature. The same is to state that this is no reconstitution at all, because: the intervenients are not all present, those who came possess a theory that is not based on facts, one of them is verifiably inconsistent in her testimony (Jane Tanner) and the documentary’s script is not questionable by critical methodologies or by impartial observers.

As a conclusion, this is a FRAUD that will privilege, like an alleged reconstitution from the BBC, the figure of a supposed abductor who hides inside an apartment in front of the back entrance to 5A (and nobody saw him?), studies the family’s routines and those of the tapas nine (which is unlikely, given the high number of intervenients and the short number of days when that could happen – four), abducts Maddie within a relatively short time frame, exits through the window, carrying the little girl in his arms, under the testimony of Jane Tanner, and escapes through a cane field, according to the witness statement from two British citizens who have nothing to do with the case. I’m certain that emphasis will be placed upon two moments: when Gerry enters the apartment and ‘senses’ someone, and when Jane Tanner ‘sees’ the alleged abductor. The documentary’s atmosphere will be tense and will show the unfortunate and sad parents who will deeply lament that they were not at the right time, at the place where they should have been. It will bring us nothing new, just like the so-called new media campaign didn’t bring us anything. Another CLOWN ACT ‘for the English to see’.

In October 2007, in collaboration with Professor Pedro Gamito and his team (Diogo Morais, Jorge Oliveira, Tomás Saraiva, Miguel Pombal and Joel Rosa), I carried out a 3D reconstitution of the two hours that supposedly preceded the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann. With data available from four credible sources, two Portuguese ones and two English ones (‘Público’, ‘Sol’, ‘Times Online’ and ‘BBC’), without any previous theory, through the calculation of the index of concordance between these sources and with the intention of describing the events, we could verify that:

- The McCanns lied in their initial statements (from where they dined, it was IMPOSSIBLE to see apartment 5A and the distance that separated them from their children was 84 metres as the crow flies, 114 metres walking, and not approximately 50 as they mentioned);

- The number of comings and goings of the tapas nine members (14) in two hours, with the intent of allegedly checking on the children, produced, in average, time “windows” that were of less than 7 minutes without surveillance. But if we add the comings and goings of these people movements and the high probability of other pedestrians walking on that location, which was also visible from the buildings in front, where many people could be on the balcony, we verify that, according to Bayes’ theorem of conditional probability (taking as possible hypothetical events, two abductions in Praia da Luz, that week), the possibility of an abductor (either premeditated or acting on an impulse) having entered the apartment, taking the little girl, leaving through the window, leaving no trace, without being seen, would be lower than the possibility of a cat falling on a piano’s keyboard with five octaves and playing the anacrusis of the four notes of Beethoven’s fifth symphony. It’s obvious that the problem becomes more complex when it was the parents who mentioned the abduction, immediately and insistently.



But there was another problem. How long would it take for someone to hide the body at a location like the Church? The same team carried out a simulation where, along two alternative routes, someone who took a body by car, at a medium speed of 50 km/h (the maximum speed allowed inside an urban area), would need approximately 27 seconds to carry out that trip. If we imagine a time window of 7 minutes, we would conclude that it would be possible for someone to take Maddie to the church and to return to the Ocean Club within this time frame, even more so because some of the participants left the restaurant for periods over 20 minutes.



This is all for today, but I promise to return to demonstrate once more that the sightings were “fabricated” and that the e-fits are the most ridiculous production of this entire process.

Before I say goodbye, recommending to EVERYONE to watch the documentary that will be broadcast by TVI today, I leave you some unsettling thoughts:

a) Three months ago, on a cold Friday night, I was having coffee with a friend when we received unconfirmed news by phone, from England, that a sudden and critical deterioration of Kate McCann’s health condition had led her to a border situation. This kind of reference has been frequent in certain circles, without it being possible to confirm anything whatsoever, at any hospital. Nevertheless, Kate has been strangely distant and the twins have been spotted, but not their Mother. The allusions to “Kate’s depressions” have been another stumbling stone of this case.

b) Método 3 is no longer mentioned on the findmadeleine site. What happened?

c) The findmadeleine site now anticipates, on its homepage, new t-shirts of the failed campaign on Aldeia da Luz.

d) R. Murat has sued some Portuguese media, the McCanns HAVE NOT!

See you soon.


source: Câmara de Comuns blog, 13.04.2009


* Forensic psychologist, university professor, author, commentator and blogger


By Astro

Murat sued the Portuguese media?? I wodner why the UK press didnt report that!

by Paulo Sargento

Two years have been completed after the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, and we are led to believe that very little is known and a lot is yet to become known. Well, I have quite a different opinion: a lot is known already and there is still something to become known. But the post that I write today does not have the purpose to make a balance of the case, as these first lines might suggest. It does instead intend to unburden a few loose notes that, I believe, will very soon become the subject of deep analysis soon.

Firstly, a note concerning the health state of Kate McCann.

As I have already mentioned, there have been many rumours concerning Kate McCann’s emotional health. There were even rumours of an alleged suicide attempt. These rumours came from Her Majesty’s Land, from a source that usually doesn’t mess around. Of course I’m aware that the argument that I have just given is fallacious, inasmuch as the behavioural pattern of said source doesn’t guarantee the truth of the information. But the fact is that the information (true or not) arrived, as I had already mentioned, on a cold Friday night in December. Why do I return to information that I have held for a few months already? Because some indications concerning Kate McCann’s health state have been intensifying.

As a matter of fact, this issue of Kate’s depressive health state started being spread by her relatives and friends, namely during the period that followed the archiving of the process (late July 2008). From August 2008 onwards, Kate McCann started seldom appearing in public, with an almost full absence after Christmas. Her own mother stated that she felt lonely and rejected, even by her own husband, Gerry McCann. She was never again seen jogging or walking the twins. This matter increases in pertinence if we pay attention to the fact that Kate is apparently thinner, a fact that is visible in her trip to the United States, to participate in the Oprah Show.

Therefore, we ask ourselves: for a person who practises sports with great regularity, what problems may appear when that practise suddenly stops? An obvious answer: that person will grow fatter and will present symptoms of anxiety, due to the deregulation of endorphins (hormones that our body processes, especially with frequent practise of sports, which constitute a sort of natural anti-depressive). Now, what could we observe? Apparently, something paradoxical. Kate does not grow fatter, she even grows thinner, and according to relatives, she has been obsessed about reading the process, depressed and not even the twins have cheered her up (depressive signs, we could speculate).

Let’s recall the episode of the washing of Cuddle Cat, on the 12th of June 2007, which is mentioned in her diary. What meaning does that episode have within this story? It’s very likely to be the first expression of a grieving process, which can be compared with the fact that Kate apparently didn’t recognise her daughter in the age progression images that she was shown on Oprah’s Show. Why? Because in the first situation, according to her own words, Kate practically doesn’t admit that Maddie may return (cf. post about Cuddle Cat in this blog), and in the second one, the non recognition seems to signify Kate’s incapacity to picture an older Maddie, because her last image is that of a 3-year-old girl.

Therefore, whatever happened, shows through in Kate as an IRREPARABLE LOSS.

Alas, concerning this matter, Clarence Mitchell’s lapsus linguae, in his last interview with BBC is extraordinarily clarifying: when confronted with the possibility of an opportunistic abduction, after the child left the house on her own to look for her parents (a rather unwise theory, it should be said), the Spin Doctor said – “that didn’t happen, Kate knows it”. In short, whatever happened was certainly very hard and I’m not surprised that Kate is, in fact, suffering a severe emotional disturbance. I hope that the decision concerning the maintenance of pacts take into account the cost/benefit relationship of these sufferings. I know that I had already written about this issue but I felt the duty to explain the arguments, and to appeal for borderline situations to be avoided.

Secondly, a note about the alleged age progression portraits.

Duarte Levy, who was present at Oprah’s show, didn’t leave his credits to others (thank you, Duarte) and, as usual, diligently investigated with the FBI about the origin of said so-called portraits. The information that he obtained is that the FBI had no participation whatsoever in those “artistic” productions. This information is precious to explain what I have been trying to state concerning other allegedly forensic productions, like for example the e-fits: these are always fallacies that try to confuse the argument of authority (it was an FBI artist), with the authority of argument (it’s a production of unequivocal forensic value).

Age progression portraits must be based on rigorous methodologies, from a scientific point of view, and not constitute a mere based photographic manipulation. There are previous issues that are related to anthropometric concepts, with developmental, racial, sexual norms, phenotypical probabilities from the evaluation of the genogram, among others. But apart from this, there is a methodology problem: a post hoc construction without the use of the notion of an independent variable. Meaning, Madeleine could have many faces today, keeping her general traits: blond hair and blue eyes, with the small mark on her iris.

And the rest? Well, if we were completely honest and the so-called forensic production had indeed the purpose of searching for Madeleine, then we would have to act differently. I propose the following methodology: to create four groups of independent forensic artists, and “blind” (meaning, none of the investigators in any given group knows what the others are doing). Two groups of artists are given instructions to create, at least, three progression portraits of Maddie, based on the SAME original photo (of Maddie) and according to the same methodology that should take into account the abovementioned variables. Then, two other groups of forensic artists take the three portraits, from each group that created the progression, in a random manner, and are given the following instruction: “these children are six years old. Please, according to the criteria (that we described before), produce three age regression drawings, that represent these children at the age of three”. Of course, control or placebo pictures would have to be introduced (variations in the colour and shape of hair, eyes, etc., and the introduction of a drawing of another child). Then, the chief investigator (the only one that knows the methodology) should compare the regression photographs with the original Maddie photograph that was used as a model for the progressions, according to precise anthropometric concepts. The photo that would be the best match with the original might then constitute a good hypothesis of age progression.

The way that things are now, the only thing that we’re producing is a potential error and information deviation. But could this be the purpose? Well, I don’t know. But I know that one month ago, the purpose was to carry out a local campaign (Aldeia da Luz) with Maddie’s photo at the age of 3, and now the purpose is to carry out a worldwide campaign (the programme is broadcast in 144 countries) with a photo that allegedly approaches Maddie’s present physiognomy. Which one is it, then? Who runs the campaign? Is it those retired Scotland Yard officers? Let’s wait for the next strategy. Until then, let’s watch the Oprah Show attentively so we can, as Duarte Levy said it, appreciate the McCanns’ Show. And a curiosity: do notice Kate’s clothing…

See you very soon!


source: Câmara de Comuns blog, 04.05.2009


By Astro

Kate doesnt have the legs to wear short skirts. She's got knobblers :jog:

SharonS wrote:Kate doesnt have the legs to wear short skirts. She's got knobblers :jog:

Sharon..
I love that expression "knobblers" never heard it before but I will be using it now.

Krisy22 wrote:

SharonS wrote:Kate doesnt have the legs to wear short skirts. She's got knobblers :jog:

Sharon..
I love that expression "knobblers" never heard it before but I will be using it now.

I've just watched the show. Is it true that cuddle cat was washed on 12th June? According to what they told Oprah it was 70 days after she went missing.

The interview with Oprah Winfrey, analysed by a forensic psychologist

Paulo Sargento looks at the McCanns with clinical attention. He understands the contradictions, he identifies the signs of pressure that they are subject to. Innocent or guilty, they can’t escape from the machine that has taken over their lives.

interview by Carlos Saraiva

You have been suggesting that Kate McCann may commit suicide. What leads you to conclude this possibility?

I don’t think she may commit suicide. I received the information, before last Christmas, that she tried to commit suicide and was admitted to a hospital in Leicester, although there was never any registration of entry.

But how did you find out? Is your source trustworthy?

Well, it’s an English source, the same that on other occasions transmitted things that matched the truth.

Anyway, after all these months, she has been showing signs of some seclusion, inhibition and greater sadness. She used to jog and stopped doing that. And there’s something that is rather interesting: people who are addicted to jogging, when they stop practising, they tend to grow fatter, not thinner, like in Kate’s case. That would only be possible in one case: if the person was, in fact, very depressed. The other issue concerns the reports from the family itself, which are counterproductive, like in the Channel 4 documentary, where they try to make us believe that everything is normal in that family, with Gerry working and Kate looking after the children. The truth is that she was no longer seen taking the twins to school, or going out with them for a walk. And there were even rumours from Kate’s mother that there were problems between the couple. This talk about Kate’s depressive state is not mine, but rather from the friends and relatives themselves, who say that she is obsessed with the process and spends hours reading it. As a matter of fact, an English newspaper mentions that she has been repeating that she’d rather be in a coma than suffering in the way that she does. This kind of signs help to make the information more credible.

Would you say that she is psychologically ill?

I can’t get into people’s heads, but considering the context, considering what is known and considering Kate’s speech itself, there is a strong possibility that she is suffering a serious emotional disarray.

Wasn’t that inevitable, independently of what one thinks happened to Maddie?

She knows that the child is not coming back.

How?

The washing of Maddie’s soft toy, on the 12th of July 2007, that Kate mentions in her own diary. It’s very likely that it is the first expression of a mourning process, which can be compared with the fact that she apparently didn’t recognise her daughter in the age progression portraits that she was shown on Oprah’s show. In the first situation, at least in her own words, Kate doesn’t admit that Maddie may return. And she alleges that the soft toy was very dirty and didn’t hold her daughter’s smell anymore, so she washed it. This may be interpreted in two ways: she either wants to conceal evidence or she is convinced that her daughter is not coming back. But I add yet another possibility that reunites both, which is, to hide the indication and not expecting the little girl to return. Of course the portrait is an artistic work and since then, new sightings started to appear. Kate is unable to project her daughter’s growth, which helps us to understand this woman’s grieving, regardless of her having had any participation in the events, or not.

Let’s talk about the McCanns’ interview with Oprah. From a psychological point of view, how do you evaluate the couple’s behaviour?

Image sanctification at the highest level. Notice that even Kate’s clothes were chosen for the occasion. Do you ever remember seeing her in a skirt?

Now that you mention it, I noticed the extremely thin legs…

Of course you did. She presents a different image, using a skirt for the first time, with a contents that is more maternal, more familiar more adequate under the point of view of a 40-year-old woman who has a daughter that has been abducted. All in all, fitting better with what the North American middle class likes to watch on television. But you noticed her very thin legs. Well, people who regularly jog get muscled legs, but once they stop practising and continue eating, they fatten. Well, if one stops practising and is depressed, one loses the appetite and grows thin. Note that even people who are not technically trained, do notice these small details. When I mention the suicide issue, it’s also a way of saying: watch this woman, because she needs help.

You were talking about the clothes that were chosen for the Oprah interview…

Yes, notice the almost tepid colour of the cardigan and the manner in which it matches the colour of Maddie’s clothes that can be seen on the screen behind the McCanns. Totally studied. The replies are automatic, as if they had been dictated by an advisor.

The questions were also kind…

They were prepared. I believe that the couple was paid to go there. And they only went, previously knowing the questions. They wouldn’t go any other way. Don’t doubt that. As a matter of fact, they had been invited before, and they only went now because Gonçalo Amaral is translating his book into several languages and a reply was necessary. The questions were prepared and the replies were rehearsed. Just analyse the grammatical style that is used in the replies to Oprah and check the grammatical style that is used in Clarence Mitchell’s press conferences. I’m sure you’ll discover major similarities. And on certain blogs, you can see the same resemblance. This is called media manipulation.

What do you think about Kate’s crying?

Her crying may be genuine. There is great pressure in the air.

But there’s a change in this behaviour, throughout the process. Kate starts out by not crying and is severely criticised for that, as if she didn’t feel pain, then there’s a reactive phase against criticism, and she cries, and now, on this stage, which is America’s most famous talk show, which is broadcast all over the world, she cries again. How do you evaluate this change?

Well, when we mourn, if we’re not confronted with our loss on a daily basis, we cry increasingly less and reformulate increasingly more the destructive effects of that loss. But if we’re confronted every single day, that is a huge pressure that ends up throwing us out of balance, and Kate on an emotional level, Kate is at the end.

In terms of worsening the depressive state, or mourning and returning back to normal?

In terms of worsening the depressive state, and, unfortunately for her, that will be at the core of the solution of this case, one of these days.

Do you think that when she “breaks”, the case will be solved?

Yes. I think this is about a sacrificial dilemma. Imagine a scenario where there is, indeed, a terrible accident with Maddie. The girl is found dead and the parents face a dilemma: let’s assume this, we call the police and confirm that this was an accident, but we’ll have to justify the other two children, why they were alone until that time. Especially because the couple wasn’t aware of the fact that in Portugal they were not subject to the crime of exposure and abandonment (they would only be so in case of intent). They had been here for four days and it wasn’t possible that they had had time to inform themselves. Apart from that, they weren’t sober. This has to be said, considering the consumption of bottles during dinner. Therefore, they have to decide swiftly between concealing a reality, sacrificing one person for the benefit of their lives, their careers and the twins’ lives. In a cost/benefit relationship, the choice of the greater good for the greatest number is often made by human beings. Although it may be merely an impulsive, not thought out choice, it forces for a pact to be kept, so it can result for a greater number of people.

And this, for me, is a likely vision of what happened that night. Please note that all of us, under more or less dramatic circumstances, are faced with these sacrificial dilemmas. It just happens that in this case, the sacrifice is too big, and if it was done in this manner, it is a crime.

I sometimes think that this case is on its way to becoming an unbearable enigma. I presume that you don’t share this opinion, given the fact that you believe that some day, someone will “break”…

That will happen for sure, there are too many people involved in the matter and that is going to happen.

But you spoke about the possibility that the child died, and a possible flight forward…

… that is a possibility.

Admitting that everything was a terrible accident, is it possible that one could interiorise that nothing happened, that she is alive, despite being dead, that she will return, although that will never happen. Is it possible, the contradiction between what one did and what one wants to believe in?

Yes, if we’re talking about people with psychotic features, which is not the case.

But could it be a case of social survival?

Precisely. That story of doing something and then believing one didn’t do it, it’s very complex. In some cases it’s possible, but we can only tell for sure by evaluating people. I don’t think that Gerry and Kate have the characteristics to create such a dissociation, whether psychotic or not, that at the moment they would confuse reality with a theory that they invented afterwards.

Who leads, from the psychological point of view? Is it Gerry?

He’s dominating and controlling, there is no doubt about that, but he has a major problem: he’s very impulsive. For example, I remember his reaction during an interview in Spain, when he was confronted with the possible death of his daughter. The man “freaked out”. In an admirable manner, Kate managed to calm down not only Gerry, but the entire film crew. She’s sitting in front of the cameras of a foreign channel, with ‘difficult’ questions. There are actors who are used to the media frenzy that wouldn’t have behaved so well. She is the key, she has been controlling through a more feminine strategy, careful to keep the relationships of status quo, not of rupture. In that sense, Kate dominates. Therefore, any weakness from her part is revealing.

Now with this issue of her failing, we have been seeing a succession of silly acts: the entourage gives foolish replies, they make ridiculous sketches, they arrange for five persons to say that they saw a guy with pimples, well…

But that’s the usual ‘folklore’.

This only means that when she loses control, everything around her is a folklore to try to hide that there are problems. This has only one purpose, which is to keep people busy in the newspapers and in blogs, running over each other. And everyone has forgotten to talk about Maddie already. Unfortunately, nobody cares about Maddie.

This has reached another level. We should use an old scientific principle: for as long as we have a simple enough explanation to justify a certain piece of data, we shouldn’t look for a complex one, because it may confuse us. And the situation of the child’s death on location, with the subsequent concealing of the cadaver, is the most simple one that allows us to understand most of the data. Going out to search for an abductor without consistency or data, is silly.

Independently of the psychological frailty, momentary or not, admitting that there was the child’s death, and in that case, a machination was put in place, we would be looking at two diabolical minds. It would take unusual mental strength to take this lie forward, wouldn’t it?

I also think it’s not only them. When it’s about survival, we adopt traces that are as adaptive as possible towards that goal, even if it conflicts with the current social norm. It may not be morally accepted, but it’s human. What I think is that they never imagined the media multiplication that this was going to suffer. They imagined that there would be some initial confusion, we were going to be seen as a paedophile country, they would rapidly become victims and things would stay that way. I’m going to mention one single detail: Gerry McCann went three months without writing in his blog. And during that period, almost nobody spoke about Maddie. I wrote in my blog that it was an attempt to extinguish a trademark, to extinguish a phenomenon. I’m not going to think that Gerry reacted to my message, but two days later he came to justify the silence, alleging that he had been working with the investigation team…

People ask: but if it was them, why do they continue searching? I think they aren’t searching for anything anymore, they are merely forced to keep up the media interest, they are “forced” to look for their daughter. Faced with external pressure, they have to do something, or definitely the spell will turn against the sorcerer and the whole thing falls apart. That’s why I say that the couple is now subject to such pressure that it must cause them atrocious suffering, but they cannot escape anymore. This machine cannot stop anymore. And that is why, when Kate is more fragile, new things always appear.

The advisor’s ‘gaffe’

Clarence Mitchell, a former advisor to the English government, has been the controller of information in the “Maddie case”.

The McCanns’ advisor committed an unforgivable ‘gaffe’ during an interview to Sky News. When he is told that a certain criminologist defended that Maddie’s abduction had probably taken place in an unplanned manner, that Maddie had wandered out of the house looking for her parents and a paedophile had passed by at the time and took her, Mitchell says an interesting thing: ‘that didn’t happen, that’s ludicrous, Kate knows it, she knows that didn’t happen’. Now, what can we conclude from this?

If she knows that didn’t happen, does she know how it happened?

That’s the first deduction. Why? We must admit that this theory dismantled another one, that of the open window and Kate’s fingerprints on the window. This leads us to think that there is always a cat hiding with its tail sticking out, that is to say, a set of contradictions that lead me to freely consider that Kate has in fact a serious emotional disturbance and that she tried to commit suicide. Even more so, because parents in this kind of situation, who lose their children under serious circumstances, approximately 80% become depressed, and among those, an important part assumes characteristics of seriousness that lead them to try suicide, or even to commit suicide. Therefore, the interpretation is parsimonious although speculative, but it is not as far from context as one may think.

“Gonçalo Amaral was exonerated because he ‘pressured’ Kate”

“There were many people saying that Gerry McCann was to become a Secretary of State for Health in the English government. That might explain something, but one must also look at the close relationship with prime minister Gordon Brown’s brother. There is no doubt that Gonçalo Amaral was not ‘marked’ on the day that he made that statement. Others said much worse. As a matter of fact, the aberration is how Dr Alípio Ribeiro keeps his post when he publicly assumes that the constitution of the McCanns as arguidos was precipitated. Gonçalo Amaral was exonerated because right on the first day, he started ‘pressuring’ Kate. And soon after, the ambassador arrives with a PJ top officer – I’m not going to say who that is – and nobody else is questioned on location. Gonçalo Amaral is ‘marked’ right away. The couple may have had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance, but they must be hiding something very important to justify this kind of interference.”


source: O Crime, 14.05.2009, paper edition

By Astro

good article

Kate will be under duress if she has to play-act the saga probably to appease Gerry. She could be under terrible stress as what will happen to her and the twins if she dare speak though.

lynn wrote:Kate will be under duress if she has to play-act the saga probably to appease Gerry. She could be under terrible stress as what will happen to her and the twins if she dare speak though.

Thats obvious as she only gets emotional when she is under pressure. I've not seen her get emotional when discussing her child going missing.

Anyone remember the weird "whoosh clunk" video?

The whoosh clunk video? Kate had an unusual click in her speech when talking near a beach in Portugal. There is a family in Australia who lost their son, Daniel, and even today, 6 years ago he went missing it is heart rending to see his family talk on TV. How can someone not get emotional when talking about a missing child!

Dogwood wrote:

lynn wrote:Kate will be under duress if she has to play-act the saga probably to appease Gerry. She could be under terrible stress as what will happen to her and the twins if she dare speak though.

Thats obvious as she only gets emotional when she is under pressure. I've not seen her get emotional when discussing her child going missing.

Anyone remember the weird "whoosh clunk" video?

Please dont remind me about Kate's whoooshing sounds

I wish I could read the original article in Portuguese, because I've the feeling the translation doesn't make justice to the normal assertiveness and eloquentness from Paulo Sargento - the danger of direct translations - but, he makes some good points.

I have no doubt Kate is an emotional wreck, but, who wouldn't be in her position? After all, she's a mother who lost a child. But, the question I ask to myself is "but what kind of mother is Kate'". Is she the type of what we call "a chicken mother", always around her children or is she the more distant type? To me, she looks a very distant one. She loves her children but she's very aware of fer failures as a mother. Let's face it, no mother in this planet would feel relaxed, knowing her kids were sleeping alone inside some appartment, in the middle of the dark, even if for five minutes. No, that part doesn't make any sense to me, and I will never buy the explanation "they're British". Being a mother goes far beyond nationalities.

And at this point, I have a particular impression about her. When I look at the eyes of Kate McCann, what I can read is that woman hides something. I can't say she hides the truth of what happened to Madeleine on that fatidic night - just because I wasn't there to be 100% sure - but, what she hides involves Gerry McCann, in my opinion. Her husband has a strange way of looking: he's extremely arrogant and full of himself, always with his nose up, like if he's trying to dominate everyone around him. Is this a normal attitude for a father who lost a child (and according to them, to the hands of the pervertest abductor on Earth)? Of course not! A normal father would shown sadness in his eyes and he would look the ground and not the clouds up in the sky. A normal father would have asked all the help from the locals of Praia da Luz, and a normal father would never invite a bunch of actors to go back to the "crime scene", working on a documentary that at the end, had nothing to show or to reveal.

Gerry McCann's past needs to be dissecated. There must be something in his character that may help to understand 60% of what happened the night of the 3rd May 2007. Note we're talking about a man who had a tantrum reaction (like a five year old child) when challenged in that interview for the Spanish channel. It was Kate McCann who stood calm, saying he would calm down and be fine, exactly like a woman who's a victim of domestic violence reacts. Don't we all know any woman who's a victim of domestic violence always defends her husband out in public?

In Oprah, she was always putting the hand on Gerry's thigh, trying to have him under control. Why does she need to make it? Kate, please tell us how he is as a husband? He's abusive, isn't he? And you want to hide it, don't you?