Maddie and Joana again? Amongst the bad parenthood, the hazelnut liars and the alleged injustice of the dogs - 06.02.2009
Traduit par Joana Morais
The second half of January was, as I expected, very interesting.
Traduit par Astro
Concerning the joy that the twins are giving you, I must say that it sounds like the most genuine argument that I read in your post. To see one's children grow is one of the most wonderful things that one can experience. For that very reason, do take them away from the confusion and the pacts. Do you know why they ask about Madeleine every day? Because they fail to understand the concept of death as something irreversible. Because nobody made an effort to translate that concept for them to understand. Because, on the contrary, they try to sustain an illusion that the facts deny, or at least, allow to classify as highly unlikely (I dislike the expression impossible, but I reaffirm the Euromillions metaphor). The Twins suffer a Madeleine "bath" that will intoxicate their existence as persons. Please, do take them out of that "bath" and let them deal with their sister's loss. They won't remember Maddie as a person. Allow them to build a comfortable image of a sister they once had, and who will always be part of them, even if she doesn't return. A good part. Please, do understand this. What the heck, you, apart from being a father, are a doctor!
Duarte Levy has published an article in '24Horas' newspaper, on Monday the 23rd of February 2009, that many unsuspecting readers might think was a Carnival joke. But anyone who knows journalist Duarte Levy knows that, both in the 'blogshpere' and in the more traditional press, he is not a man to hide behind masks. Actually, that's the very reason why, showing his face throughout the high quality investigation that he carries out, he has experienced a few misfortunes, just like Paulo Reis, Gonçalo Amaral, Hernâni Carvalho and others who, if it wasn't for the excessive amount of events, on the same "targets", and within particular time circumstances, one might state that these gentlemen share the common fact that... "they're very unlucky". Within less than 2 years, these men have experienced more flat tires, car hits, unjustified detentions, persecutions, computer hackings, cowardly dog assassinations, phone threats, computer viruses, anonymous letters, forbidden document translations, thefts, robberies, meetings with mediums and threats to their physical integrity, than they had suffered in their entire lives. Their ages lie between 40 and 50. But it took only 21 months for the number of "unpleasant" events to reach, for some of them, and within this time frame, occurrence rates that are 50 times higher than the probability that they occur with to any common citizen within an average 80 year life span. Amazing, isn't it? And everything in silence and without (apparent) connections.
I retained two central aspects: that the satellites were turned towards Morocco and the existence of "spies".
Why did I retain the reply that the journalist was offered: "The satellites were all turned towards Morocco"?
Because this is a Mitchell Style reply. If we take a closer look at some of the questions and answers that appear, from a certain time onwards, in the Maddie case, we are faced with notable structural similarities, under the linguistic point of view (both in syntactical and in pragmatic terms). But, even more! While looking barbarously stupid, those questions or answers are absolutely contusing! Always! What do I mean? That they are obvious lies! Nobody believes that all British satellites (because they certainly don't own just one, and as a matter of fact, the number of objects that circle the earth is becoming worrying, namely since recently two satellites collided) were turned towards Morocco. Why? Because apart from the technical problems that would arise, there would have to be at least ONE acceptable justification for such an event. A State secret? This is where I state that the replies are contusing, despite barbarously stupid and appearing to treat us all as clowns (I beg the clowns, the real ones, whom I much admire, to forgive me).
How does one refute a State secret? Motives to point towards Morocco? Yes, of course! But they are top secret! And it had to happen in the 3rd of May 2007, of all days! What special event took place in Morocco at that point in time, for all of the satellites to be oriented into that location? As far as we know: NOTHING. NOTHING. But being a State Secret, the stupidity acquires contusion.
This type reply is typical, just like the justification for G. McCann's visit and so many others.
Allow me to say this: there probably is nothing that could be more irritating than to be forced to accept the contusion of stupidity!
But, there was a mention of spies?
Apart from the simple technique of anonymity that is permitted by the 'blogshpere' but which an attentive analysis of the timings and the "grammatical styles" unveils, we have a far more powerful trap: a new form of counter-information – the "Streisand effect".
The so-called "Streisand effect" has often surfaced on the internet. In Portugal, we have a more parsimonious popular expression: "a cat hiding with its tail sticking out".
So, what’s this so-called "Streisand effect"? This is a supposed effect that is produced when there is an attempt to censor something on the internet. In a simplified manner, given the structure, the number of people and the means that are available on the internet, if I want to prevent certain news from coming out, or if I try to censor it, the effect of said censorship is the exact opposite of what was intended, because it tends to replicate in every possible and imaginary manner, like some sort of cybernetic self-regulation.
But is it just us who know this? No! The "Streisand effect" is Poison and Antidote, an old espionage recipe. Do you know why? Imagine that I try to censor a piece of news in order to render another one innocuous? Imagine that after one undesirable piece of news is at risk of spreading, I place two or three other placebo pieces of news (but booby-trapped as pseudo-censors)? Is this possible?
Can you imagine how often this has happened in the Maddie Case? Numberless times, and almost always under the shape of CONTUSION THAT SMOTHERS STUPIDITY!
See you around!
Traduit par Joana Morais
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 this '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 above mentioned 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 Judicial Police's incompetence. That sentence can be read in weekly 'Sol' dated November 13, 2007. I assume the ironic 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.
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 logic, 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 fidelisation 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.
The arguments for this action are hopelessly dishonest.
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 opportunism, 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'.
a) For what reason 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 recognised 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."
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 Lawyer, 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.
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?
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 critical? Invisible inclinations or mere coincidences?
See you in a bit!
Dr Gerry McCann was in Portugal on the weekend before Easter, with the supposed purpose of carrying out a reconstruction 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 reconstruction 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 reconstruction 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 reconstruction 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.
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.
Rumours grow that Kate McCann would have tried to commit suicide - 17.04.2009
Evelise Moutinho - Lux Magazine
Traduit (de l'espagnol) par Mercedes
Judging by the reactions to the documentary by TVI, which again raise the suspicion of direct involvement of Kate and Gerry McCann in the disappearance of their daughter, a new question arises. What happened to Kate McCann? Since July 2008, when she was photographed in front of her home in Rothley, Leicester, England, Maddie's mother has not been seen in public. In an interview for Lux, psychologist Paulo Sargento says he has information that Kate McCann is mentally ill and would even have attempted suicide. "This is an unconfirmed report that a friend and I received from England about three months ago. It comes from an English source, independent, close to the investigation but not close to McCanns", said Paulo Sargento. "Not knowing for certain if this happened or not, the truth is that there is a high probability of occurrence. It is a statistical figure. Mothers who lose a child will, in a large percentage, attempt or commit suicide. It is a statistical and clinical fact. I will not say whether Kate has done it or not, but yes I have received that information. I have received it and, will not deny, it is in agreement with other information that came from the family, who say that Kate is very depressed, and spends long hours alone and doesn't talk to the twins ... This is more or less public, said the psychologist, who advocates the theory of accidental death and concealment of the body. In addition, late last year, Susan Healy, mother of Kate McCann, has revealed her misgivings about the health of her daughter: "I do not know how long she will endure this. I do not know how a human being can endure so much pressure. Sean and Amelie need their mother. But I'm afraid, very afraid. I do not know how to deal with this." Contacted by Lux, Clarence Mitchell, advisor to the McCann couple, vehemently denied the rumour that Maddie's mother allegedly tried to commit suicide: "Kate is okay. That is absolute nonsense. She has never done this or will do, because she believes her daughter is alive and if she did, she wouldn't see her ever again" he said, outraged with the news. Rogério Alves, a lawyer for Kate and Gerry McCann in Portugal, chose not to make any comment on the health of Maddie's mother.
Kate McCann found on the "Find Madeleine" website a way to continue to express her pain: "With the arrival of the second anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine, there is still much to be done. We continue to focus on our objective to find Madeleine and bring her safely home. As parents, we can not and will not ever stop doing everything we can to find her." At the same site, Kate had already confessed: "As a mother of an abducted girl, I can say it is the most painful and agonizing experience that can be imagined. My thoughts on the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has to suffer are unbearable. It is appalling."
During next week, Kate and Gerry McCann are expected at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington, United States, where they will be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. "I believe that Kate is going to the program with great difficulty and sacrifice, just to perpetuate the idea that the couple are still close, that she is unwell but recovering and will not give up the search for her daughter. It is my belief that this will be done solely for a question of image and will bring great emotional sacrifices to Kate," confessed the psychologist Paulo Sargento. The interview will be broadcast in the United States on the weekend of the second anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine who, in the next day May 12, would or will be 6 years old.
Traduit par Astro
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.
As I have already mentioned, there have been many rumours concerning Kate McCanns' 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 McCanns' 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 practice 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 practice of sports, which constitute a sort of natural anti-depressive). Now, what could we observe? Apparently, something paradoxical. Kate does not grow fatter, she grows even 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!
Traduit par Nigel Moore
Today, in Loures, a protocol was signed between police and judicial authorities and other public and private institutions with the aim of putting into operation an alert system for missing children, using a network based on the rapid and effective dissemination of information relevant to the recovery of those children.
Contrary to what one would expect, taking into account the relevance of the theme, the event was not given the publicity it deserved. Very little media space was devoted to it or even made reference to it.
However, two organs of the general daily written press, with different profiles (a more popular one, with a tabloid inclination, and a less popular and more politically correct one) echoed the "news" of the British tabloid "The Sun" with news which constituted a sort of requiem for shameful news campaigns, and whose central theme was the subject of appeals made to the European Court of Human Rights and Amnesty International. I refer to the alleged investigations that two private detectives (retired British police) are undertaking, on behalf of the McCanns, into a 64-year-old British citizen, Raymond Hewlett, who is subject to chemotherapy treatment for throat cancer which is in its terminal phase. Now, it is known, that neither of the two detectives have a search warrant from any institution, of any European state, to carry out such procedures. Also, it is known, that the citizen had already been investigated by the Portuguese judicial police (as recorded in the process) and was discarded as a suspect. So what interest does this citizen have for the Maddie process? The answer to this question lies in all processes of life which make the dying, suddenly, prominent, to the extent that they can be simultaneously safe scapegoats and eternal guardians of "bad secrets."
See you soon
Traduit par Mercedes et Dr Martin Roberts
Besides the petition sent today to the PGR, Ana Lima, advisor to Pinto Monteiro, confirmed to 24horas that an identical initiative had already been taken by a Spanish citizen, "but without prompting anything of investigative interest, for which reason it was archived."
In the recent document - to which 24horas has had access - Sargento bases his petition on the premise that "the couple were not correctly investigated" by either the Portuguese judiciary or the English authorities following the departure of Goncalo Amaral from the PJ's Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimao.
Before the dogs arrived
For the psychologist, it is revealing that Kate should wash cuddle cat before the two dogs, 'Eddie and Keela' - trained to detect cadaver odour and the scent of human blood - had arrived in Praia da Luz.
"I determined that the washing of cuddle cat, several days before the arrival of the investigative dogs, as well as the motive for such an act, were NOT made the subject of inquiry within the overall framework of the investigation!" wrote Sargento in the petition sent to Pinto Monteiro, emphasising the fact that 'Eddie and Keela', the dogs brought in from England, had effected a "positive identification of cadaver odour on the soft toy, but not on the bed, nor the sheets where it was found by the investigators."