Spot the difference

Yes let us look at the breaking news, that the anti-McCanns are jumping up and down in the air about and shouting the McCanns are about to be slapped in irons.

First it was reported on Mercedes blog and then on Joana Morais blog.

So it is natural to assume as Joana Morais quoted Mercedes blog in her article the news came from there.

Right here are the pictures:

Mercedes blog

And now Joana’s blog

So spot the difference:

  • Joana Morais says: “The lawyer has, of today, 10 consecutive days to fulfil that order.”  Mercdes says:the immediate return of the Books in the hands of Isabel Duarte, a lawyer for the couple.”  Definitely no mention of the number of days, in the article that first broke on Mercedes blog.  So it is obvious Joana has added her interpretation into this news.
  • Joana Morais  says: “More news on this subject, on tomorrow’s edition of Correio da Manhã.” There is no mention whatsover of Correio da Manhã in the article on Mercedes blog.

So who is playing bloody games yet again?

Just one more thing:

  • Why would a Portuguese person contact a Spanish blogger about the Public Ministry not backing the McCanns claim against Dr. Paulo Sargento?

And I have searched the online edition, for Goncalo Amaral, Isabel Duarte, Madeleine McCann, Paulo Gargento and nothing.  Could this be old news being rehashed to cover up Paivagate? Makes me wonder, doesn’t it you?

Think I will wait for the paper edition to be scanned and posted up before I believe this.


Oh so it is not in CdeM it is in O Crime

So this begs the question why did Joana Morais tell everyone it is CdeM?  I think I will wait for the pages to be scanned before I believe this story or not.

Update 2

Now it was O Crime that allowed Goncalo Amaral to spout his mouth off about Porto being involved in the review.

The decision of that Prime Minister has been twisted. The McCann couple has spoken of a re-examination of the child’s “sightings”. When, in fact, what is known is that Scotland Yard, who were appointed to re-evaluate the whole investigation, has set aside the pseudo-sightings, focusing instead on the investigation process that remains archived. Elements from the Scotland Yard have been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto (Oporto because Algarve and Lisbon have already been involved), and what is known is that the “affair” is not going well for the McCanns.

And we know where that led, with the PJ having confirming what Goncalo Amaral said.  Talk about Judicial Secrecy, my god if Porto didn’t want the news to get out about them being involved in a Review alongside Scotland Yard, Goncalo definitely made sure it became public knowledge, didn’t he?

All I can say about that is this, if for operational reasons Porto and Scotland Yard wanted to keep a tight lid on the review and by Goncalo Amaral spouting his mouth off has led to the investigation being compromised, then I hope they throw the book at him and the key away.

Sometimes the Police like to keep a tight reign on things, especially if they are working on a lead that could involve a lot of  under-cover work and secrecy.


2 comments on “Spot the difference

  1. Wasn’t his official mantra “Justice works in silence”. Or did I miss something?

  2. I suspect they didn’t have enough room for the full title:

    Justice works in silence except when I want to open my gob

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: