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.
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 Gaul [Gaulês]! 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?
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.
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 McCann 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