Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014

Crowd perception

One comment from me regarding yesterdays court case:

The will to accept conspiracies in everything relating to this case is apparently not reserved for those that still read their tea leaves to decide on whether to hang their washing out, but seems to have affected studied lawyers as well.

Apparently all defense lawyers unanimously suggested that Scotland Yard - who take years and millions to finally decide on re-testing evidence from behind the sofa and the hired car - would be so organised and cunning to be able to orchestrate their visits to correlate with the hearings in the damages case. While both processes are subject to a heap of unforseeable events, like the break-down in the portuguese justice system or the dismissal of lawyers on the day of the hearing...

And almost everybody seems to nod their heads in consent and cleverly remarks that this is what they have said and known all along...

Now here is a list of the court dates and the number of correlating visits by Scotland Yard in Portugal:

12th September 2013 - nada
13th September 2013 - nada
19th September 2013 - nada
20th September 2013 - nada
27th September 2013 - nada
2nd October 2013 - nada
8th October 2013 - nada (Crimewatch had been announced on the 4th October, mobile phone records are new clues)
5th November 2013 - nada (Monteiro is in the news)
19th November 2013 - nada
27th November 2013 - nada (news about hope of a Joint Investigation Team)
16th June 2014 - nada (searches had ended on 11th June)
8th July 2014 - nada (questioning had ended on 2nd July)
10th December 2014 - BINGO


ONCE they were in Portugal at the time of a court hearing. This either shows extremely bad planning skills on the part of Scotland Yard or rather what can happen to crowd perception when enough numpties repeat after each other...


  1. Thank you for checking that out Johanna.

  2. Scotland Yard wouldn't be able to interview suspects or stage digs within camera range if the Portuguese hadn't reopened the case, and that happened at the end of October, 2013 if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that when there has been a long pause in the trial a week or so before proceedings resume Scotland Yard undertake a new initiative and they make sure the media knows about it. And your dates, which I'll assume are correct, do demonstrate a pattern. There was a long delay until the June 16, 2014 session, and Scotland Yard was on Portuguese soil with the media right behind them a week or so before the session started. Again just before the July 2014 session. And again we were informed on the weekend that Scotland Yard would be in Portugal and of course the trial resumed yesterday. And they will be there again a week or so before the January session of next year.

  3. The british review and investigation does not need an open portuguese case to issue rogatory letters and ask for investigative help. This is common practice in european law enforcement.

    IMO this is a classic twist of facts to make a conspiracy theory work. Another classic sign is that even if you show the facts - 1 hit, 2 near misses and 10 NADAS - this is still used and incorporated into the theory. So what use is it to argue at all, point towards the impossibility of coordinating two completely independent processes that have their own muddled and unpredictable timelines and question the actual BENEFIT of such an action?

    I am sure you can also fluently explain why Isabel Duarte gave up her right for closing arguments just to cover-up the conspiracy. :)

  4. Johanna, you're nitpicking. The fact is when we are told Scotland Yard is going to Portugal we can be sure the resumption of the trial is just around the corner. We were told by the Media that they would be in Portugal even before we knew the trial was to resume this Wednesday, if I'm not mistaken we were even told that they would show up this Monday. So if they had conducted the interviews on Monday you would be saying that's another nada. I've made predictions on Joana Morais blog as to when they will show up and I've been right. What I've predicted is: " a week or so before the trial resumes they will be on Portuguese soil."

    Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira:

    "This legal impossibility leads us to a truly inconvenient final question: since the international judicial cooperation is impossible when there has been a court acquittal or when a process is archived, is it possible that the reopening of the process had only the (deviant) purpose to enable the cooperation and place the police Portuguese "“at the service” of the British authorities? If so, then there was “manipulation” of the process. Nevertheless, without making conjectures, we can safely conclude that this case reveals a good deal of subservience, much to the detriment of our penal sovereignty."

    Here is another "numptie" Doctor Martin Roberts, with his thoughts on Operation Grange, "Taking Stock"

    Look, I would be ecstactic If this endeavour resulted in criminal charges but I can't turn a blind eye to what I see. That doesn't mean I disrespect you're opinion or any other person's for that matter and one thing you will never see me doing is referring to anyone or any group of people in a derogatory manner because their views differ from my own. And if my views turn out to be right you can be certain that I'm not going to hound those people whose views turned out to be wrong, lol, although I suspect that if I'm wrong others will be less forgiving.

  5. Sorry for the "numpties". I love the word, it sounds cute and not derogaroty to me. Just a little bit off the logic...

    What I will never understand is why people are not content to analyse the facts and what is REALLY going on, what you can see. Why this endless speculation and interpreting and adding of things that are simply not there. They might be, but so might be god, or aliens, or proper entertainment on telly...

    There is so much in the files to discuss but people are spending all their time to hunt the alleged "fridge-quote" by Gerry. There is so much being leaked from the rogatories by the Portuguese, like the 7th rogatory going to be about forensics of the living room curtain and possibly the boot compartment. Why not accept that an investigation such as this, has to explore all possible aspects?
    No there has to be a whitewash or life would be dull...

    It has to be child abuse because "just" an accident does not fit the evil personalities of the parents. It has to be a cover-up by members of government and/or establishment because everything else would be an anticlimax after 7 years.

    I am not saying it might turn out one way or the other, but please give me some evidence. I read the files and observed the investigation and I don't see any evidence of a cover-up anywhere. And certainly no evidence to align two separate incidents with an unbelievable expenditure just to... well for what? What exactly do these dark forces achieve with this cunning alignment?

    I am probably too dumb to really penetrate the darker motives for such an act.

  6. The way a person looks at the world is influenced by how and where they were brought up and by their life experiences. If there was agreement on everything it would be a dull world. The reality is we are all speculating, we don't know how the child died and we can't be certain about what the intentions of Scotland Yard are or the Portuguese police for that matter; that's my opinion of course.

    This is a unique case. The first time I commented on it, way back in September of 2007, I was censored. I've never seen anything like it. Has there ever been another nation that has gone to the lengths that England has to crush debate, to distort the facts and misinform the public about a case of a missing child? When you think of it, you begin to realize that this couple has become a national symbol.

    Given what has taken place the last seven years, closer to eight, it's understandable why people are cynical. When has there ever been an investigation in which the public is told what the investigators are going to do next? Would Scotland Yard be involved in the first place if the McCanns hadn't asked for an independent review? What are people supposed to make of all these stories popping up in the papers of cases in which Scotland Yard didn't act on evidence that was provided to them? Do you understand why people are sceptical? Even Mr. Amaral is sceptical.

    I don't believe the McCanns wanted to harm their child, however for them to have disposed of their child's body they must have feared that the manner in which the child died could result in their other children being taken away from them or perhaps their medical licence being revoked.

    Dumb? No you're quite intelligent and you know more about the finer details of the case files than most people, much more than I do. Well, what can I say, let's hope for the best. After this latest trial session, my intuition tells me all will go well for Mr. Amaral.

  7. ""When has there ever been an investigation in which the public is told what the investigators are going to do next?""

    The leaks come from Portugal, not from the Met. They used to come from Rothley but they were mostly shut up. But now the contents of every rogatory letter is apparently known to portuguese journos.

    "" Would Scotland Yard be involved in the first place if the McCanns hadn't asked for an independent review?""

    Of course they had to ask, because they knew it was coming. We know from the letter/mail between Theresa May and the then head of the Met that there had been discussions for quite some time between the british and portuguese judiciary and the SUN frontpage was an extremely clever way of making it look like it was their doing.

    Both examples show that it is not as easy as people make it. And it is wrong to generalise, and dangerous. You have to look at the bottom of everything to be able to make up your mind.

    I can understand the Portuguese. Their collective pride has been harmed immensely with this case. They feel like a colony of the UK being treated like one. But that again is on the surface. Both police forces seem to be getting along nicely and the judiciary could make it much more difficult for SY. But then the critics will say that both countries are involved in a whitewash, again adjusting reality to their opinion.

  8. All speculation.

    "The leaks come from Portugal, not from the Met. They used to come from Rothley but they were mostly shut up. But now the contents of every rogatory letter is apparently known to portuguese journos."

    Possibly, however it's rather strange that although you say every Portuguese journalist knows the contents of every rogatory letter the first articles that reveal what SY is going to do next are printed in English newspapers and then recycled in Portugal. Didn't the Portuguese complain about Scotland Yard's use of the media?

    I think people including myself would be interested in seeing that correspondence between Theresa May and the Met that you say indicates that plans were a long time in the works to start a review / investigation. And if this is indeed true how on earth did the McCanns find out about it, surely not the Portuguese again? At the time the Porto review was made known, If I'm not mistaken, the national director of the PJ didn't even know about it. It seems that it was the sole initiative of the regional director of Porto.

    You've resorted to calling anyone who questions the motives behind Operation Grange a conspiracy theorist, a label used by the English media and Mr. Redwood himself to refer to those who doubt the McCann's innocence. And now I see the new tactic is to say that anyone who doesn't believe in Operation Grange is a disgruntled Portuguese whose opinions are irrational because of wounded pride. You definitely know that there are many people who are not Portuguese who realize that Operation Grange is not a proper investigation, according to Mr. Amaral that includes many English journalists. Speaking for myself a Portuguese Canadian I don't suffer from wounded pride. I'm proud to be Portuguese. And I'll tell you this when I mention Operation Grange to Portuguese people here in Canada many of them reply: "Is this McCann thing still going on, how long has it been now 6, 7 years?." And the people I speak with who actually live in Portugal don't have any clue to the extent the country and its institutions were dragged through the mud by the English media and they don't care; they have their daily lives to deal with. In fact Scotland Yard visiting Portugal has provided the Portuguese with a bit of comedic relief.

    I think what the problem is Johanna is that you regard this Scotland Yard endeavour as the last chance to have all your hard work in analyzing the case validated and therefore you have dug yourself a trench and will not allow yourself to consider the possibility that the purpose of Operation Grange is not to have a prosecutable case.

    I see that this exchange of comments will likely never end until someone desists, so this will be my last comment. All the best, bye bye.

  9. Don't tell me you have not seen this letter from May to Stephenson? Well it confirms what I have been saying from the beginning. You have to study the case. Knowledge prevents myths and conspiracies.

    Only one thing: Who is in a trench? Somebody who is informed and therefore keeps an open mind or somebody who pretends to know the outcome long before the conclusion without knowing the known facts let alone the unknown?

    I am sorry that my remark about portuguese pride and how they have been treated has been completely misunderstood by you.

  10. The letter from May to Stephenson states:

    "Following discussions between our ambassador in Lisbon and the Portuguese Judicial Police, the Government received an offer of co-operation with the police here."

    All that is stated here is that the PJ had been approached about the possibility of a review and that the requisite diplomatic assurance of co-operation had been gained. May is simply pre-empting an objection that Stephenson might have raised about the possibility of Portuguese objections.

    It says nothing about discussions having gone on for "quite some time". Even if that were the case, there is no information to the effect that you suggest that the McCanns "knew it was coming". Were they privy to diplomatic cables? Who was leaking in that case? The Portuguese?

    At the Leveson Inquiry it was put to Brooks that she had "blackmailed" May. It was one of the few times that Brooks was rendered truly uncomfortable. She preferred to say that she had helped "persuade" the Home Office. At no point did any witness come forward to suggest that irrespective of the "persuasion" talks were already under way to open a review.

    As Guerra said: "All speculation". I might add my own opinion, that of deliberate misrepresentation.

    Not unlike Leveson himself (that other arrogant lusophobe), you state as fact that "the leaks come from Portugal". Still speculation.

    Guerra is too polite. I think he/she understands you perfectly well...irrespective of the Portuguese "collective pride."

    " is wrong to generalise, and dangerous." Quite.

  11. ""All that is stated here is that the PJ had been approached about the possibility of a review and that the requisite diplomatic assurance of co-operation had been gained. ""

    And you think diplomatic talks at those levels were conducted in one day just to avoid the impression of blackmail? I am sure talks have been going on for weeks or months. The powers at that time at SY were certainly informing the McCanns about most of what was going on.

    The leaks went on for years from somewhere within the Met, but the leaking to british papers stopped sometime around the digs iirc. At least Clarence was shut up.

    Then the McCanns switched to their portuguese branch to distribute info about the investigation and the portuguese papers were now reporting first hand, even from the rogatory letters.

    A good example is the JdN from today that states that Murat was presented with 200 questions which he did not answer but refered to his previous statements to the PJ in 2007. This is extremely sensitive information and must come from somebody who was there at the station.

    I refuse to get this dragged into any kind of xenophobic discussion. I have always stood on the side of the portuguese investigation. I merely observe and try to comment unbiased. Both sides are leaking when it suits them, both sides had other interests besides the truth at some stage. I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence of a whitewash, that there is indeed strong indication of a proper investigation and that there is no correlation between Faro and Lisbon as seen in the list this blogentry was originally about.

  12. Johanna,

    Thanks for the reply.

    No, I don't think there was any attempt to avoid the impression of blackmail. Blackmail was the expression used within Leveson. Neither is it likely that discussions were conducted within a day; but that is still a far cry from what you suggested.

    What you suggest about "the powers" within the Met informing the McCanns is every bit as "conspiracist" as anything that Dr Roberts (for example) might say. In fact he is no conspiracist at all. He always retains the caveat of interpretation as opposed to "fact"

    My point is that we are all speculating to some degree or another. In whatever way we read the spin, Mitchel's relative silence etc. it is still all interpretation.

    Of course what you say about today's JdN is true. The Met themselves have a semi-permanent presence in Faro, and so we are still no nearer to identifying a source. What I find deplorable is that given the fact of these leaks, the Met could apparently find no other way to conduct these interviews other than to drag people (notably M Murat) through the onslaught of media - on a given day and at a given time. I don't believe that it was beyond the ingenuity of the Met/PJ to conduct this differently.

    You say that there is "no evidence of a whitewash". Well, it might surprise you!! I agree - to some extent. Nobody is in possession of the "facts" of this 'hot-potato' now being tossed now Redwood to Wall. But just as you say that there are 'indications' pertaining to a proper investigation, so too there are indications of a force that is struggling with a 'remit'. You change the meaning mid sentence: from *evidence" of whitewash, to *indications* of investigation. Indications should be the appropriate term used for both instances. We are all attempting to decypher the indications; and until we *know* differently, then nobody is in a position is so privileged as to say that they are the ones who "have looked at the bottom of everything." Not you, not Pat Brown, Blacksmith, not myself.

    I think that a lot of people need to take a step back (perhaps myself included). Ostensibly, we are all in this for the same reason. The issue of "conspiracy" is being used by some as means to divide, and thereby diminish our voice. Differing interpretations should be our strength not our weakness.

    Peace!! Have a good day...and keep going! X

  13. "You change the meaning mid sentence: from *evidence" of whitewash, to *indications* of investigation. Indications should be the appropriate term used for both instances."

    I agree fully, I never completely excluded the possibility that the whole exercise might just be a very expensive rubbishing of the original police files but I strongly oppose the complete certainty with which a felt majority now state this as fact.

    With this in mind I wish you a good weekend.