Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Black Shoelaces


I read and keep reading people, good and honest and who seek wholeheartedly justice for Maddie, and that in this blog we designate them as White Hats (WH).  The main argument used by the WHs to seek prosecution against the McCanns is due to the fact the couple THEY LEFT their children alone in a strange apartment in a foreign land.
 
To sum it up, according to the WHs the McCanns were NEGLIGENT.
 
I also read and keep reading people, not so good and not so honest and who seek to stop wholeheartedly any justice for Maddie, and that in this blog designates them as Black Hats (BH).  Those people who want you to go on looking ourt there for a girl they know is not missing. These people also saying that there’s NO reason to prosecute the McCanns on the grounds of NEGLIGENCE, as they had full safety assurance of their children by regularly checking them, within a “good parenting distance”.
 
To sum it up, according to the BHs the McCanns were NOT NEGLIGENT.
 
So it seems, at least at first sight, that anyone who states that the McCanns are NEGLIGENT, is basically ATTACKING the couple’s interests in conveying their “abduction” theory.
 
By opposite effect, defending that the couple was NOT NEGLECTFUL is to be SUPPORTIVE of the "abduction" theory.
 
I couldn't explain it in simpler terms.
 
As we here, believe and defend that the McCanns, as well as thet the remainder Tapas, WERE NOT NEGLECTFUL, not even a little bit, that should imply that we're a “pro-McCann” blog, right?
 
Some have already accused us of just that, of pursuing a hidden agenda to help the McCanns.
 
The insults to my sanity have abounded, and, unfortunately, have stopped being entertaining, to become just dull and boring.
 
One does have to have some patience, and put up with this futile silliness.
 
By the way, to say, as an insult, to one really crazy person that he/she is "crazy", plus/minus some other colourful adjectives, is a stupid exercise in itself. If you just stop to think about it, such a person, by definition, lacks the reason or the judgment to grasp the meaning of the insult, so doesn't feel insulted, which is the whole objective of the insult.
 
Calling anyone not crazy, “crazy” is as useful as wetting a puddle of water, as he isn’t, so is the supposed insult not applicable. Simple logic, but as we've seen, there are people who are "allergic" to logic, so we expect the insult continuance.
 
But let’s see what does the Maggot World have to say about this blog:
 
 Re: Textusa meltdown
by preciousramotswe » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:57 pm
 
Just look at what that crazy creature wrote in a comment on its own blog: “Mrs Fenn did what she had to on the night of May 1st, and that was to do nothing, because she heard nothing. What she shouldn’t have done and did, was to go to the Police and lie about events that didn’t exist. Mrs Fenn is a piece of “clutter” that this blog has already set aside, like the body disposal and negligence, so your attempt to bring it put it back in our path, is as useless and futile as was the one to whitewash CEOP.”
 
And this was in reponse to a thoughtful and mild comment on the need to protect children, which sicko completely misconstrued! I do hope Sargento has been alerted to the mad dog out on the prowl, he might like to either round it up or confirm to the pound that it isn't one of his.
 
 
Re: Textusa meltdown
by Winter » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:18 pm


Post Scriptum: Black Hats, I'm still awaiting for your answer as to the question "what is for you indeed FACT in terms of how was Maddie's room's window found by Kate?", or are you going to be like BBC and pretend that you don't know I'm asking, and do like they're doing about the "Amaral's F-word slander" footage?


The thing is some idiots will believe it.

In bold, is where this blog is quoted.

So what are the things that I've said and that “some idiots” will believe in?

First, I say clearly that Mrs Fenn heard nothing on the night of May 1st, and that she’s LYING when she says she did.

Second, I say there was no body disposal. Obvious to those who read this blog, but to newcomers let me explain that, when I wrote that, I was referring to the Smith Sighting. Mr Smith was not a witness to the carrying of a cadaver, but to that of a transportation of a very ALIVE little girl.

Third, I say that there was NO NEGLIGENCE with the children that week.

Fourth, I say that a reader that placed the comment was trying to clutter up our line of thought by whitewashing attempt of both Mrs Fenn and CEOP.

That, my friends, is what I said and that you’re either supposed not to believe in, or if you do, you’re an “idiot”.

Careful, before you get upset with me, it’s not me saying it, it’s the Black Hats.

Let’s abandon the fourth thing I said, as both the said reader and his/her intentions are completely irrelevant and isn’t because of them that you’ve been branded an “idiot”. I must remind you that you're ONLY "an idiot" if you believe in the first three things I said.

Let’s just focus on them shall we?

I’ll start with the second, I thought that by stating that there was NO NEGLIGENCE, we were favouring the McCanns. NO NEGLIGENCE means good parenting, that simple and straight forward. Apparently not, as it per own Black Hat wording.

Now to the first, dear Mrs Fenn, the backbone of the “negligence theory”. Without her, there’s NO NEGLIGENCE, as she’s the only witness who questions the effectiveness of the “checking system” set up by the McCanns and friends, here known as the Tapas 9.

She states that she heard a child cry for one hour and fifteen minutes all alone in the apartment below hers, which, coincidence would have it, was the one where the McCanns were staying.

And she is quite clear that it wasn’t a baby crying, but a toddler. By logic and exclusion, it could only be Maddie.

I thought that by clearly discrediting this witness, it would unquestionably question the whole NEGLIGENCE thesis, thus confirming that the "checking system" was indeed sound and effective and only an abductor who had attentively observed this group's routine could overcome it.

If Mrs Fenn is to be proven a liar, then the more solid and justified the “abduction” theory becomes.

So much so, according to some, the fact that I dared say that Mrs Fenn lied, it was the equivalent Jonestown of the White Hats, the Armageddon of us ever seeing justice for Maddie.

Well, it seems that the Black Hats are quite outraged for me having called Mrs Fenn a liar.

Go figure that.

They simply cannot recognize a friend when they see one, can they?

Lastly, I also thought that by proving that the little girl, who was carried by the man designated as “McStroller”, was ALIVE when she was seen by Mr Smith, that would be highly helpful to the McCanns in the construction of their “abduction theory”.

ONLY a girl very much ALIVE, there and then, can justify and reinforce the alleged fact that Maddie was abducted.

No, the Black Hats don’t seem to agree with this either.

And when I say that these three things are “clutter”, or distracting facts to draw us away from what we here perceive as reality, I do have to prove them as inexistent, and if they’re inexistent I’m then leaving, apparently, an open path for the McCanns to explore in their pursuit to prove that they were NOT NEGLEGENT.

Once again, it appears that is not what the Black Hats want.

So, from what you can read above, what the Black Hats REALLY wanted me to say was, first, that the McCanns were NEGLIGENT; second, that Mrs Fenn is NOT LYING, thus aggravating the already referred NEGLIGENCE and, third, that the Smith Sighting was the disposal of a body, so the girl in the man's arms was NOT ALIVE.

The fact that "McStroller" carried a cadaver means that not only that there was NO “abduction” as also implicates Gerry McCann as seen disposing of Maddie's body, and that is what the Black Hats appear  now defend, deosn't it?

That is what you have to believe in, according to the Black Hats, if you don’t want to be branded an “idiot”.

But... is it only "apparently" that they want you to believe, or do they REALLY want you to believe in all these facts that, this time really apparently, seem to be against them? T

he fact that there was NO NEGLIGENCE, that Mrs Fenn was LYING and that the little girl was ALIVE in the Rua da Escola Primária, are three things, as we've shown, that will be very prejudicial to the McCanns and Tapas, and very favorable to finding the truth.

So they really, really are trying very hard for you not to believe in them.

They’ve even resorted to calling you “idiots”

Their problem is that they have a White Hat using their own arguments against them, because, effectively they are against them.

They have no option other than to start to trip over their own Black shoelaces, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Saying they support what they were supposed to be against.

As the Portuguese say, “it’s easier to catch a liar than a limping man”.

All this before what the Wik*leaks revealed yesterday.

About that I wonder what Black Hats want you to believe about that cable?

Do they want you to believe that UK Diplomats LIED blatantly to their US counterparts, and LIED to incriminate needlessly the couple, or do they want you to believe that the Britih police had evidence that in fact incriminated the McCanns?

They simply can’t have it both ways, can they?

Oh, I know, it must have been Wik*leaks that forged that cable just to upset the McCanns.

Evil, evil people those “leakers”, almost as much as us, the White Hats.

But let’s come back to NEGLIGENCE.

There was no NEGLIGENCE that night, but PRETENCE of NEGLIGENCE that could only be half-justified by the infamous "checking-system" written up on the pages of a children’s book.

Twice.

A risky strategy, but what other scenario would allow an "abduction" to take place? None whatsoever.

It couldn't happen if someone was there 100% of the time. Mrs Fenn is the only "independent" witness that there wasn't someone always with the children. If Mrs Fenn has lied, there's no abduction, is there.

Why did they need to stage an abduction? A rhetorical question, as rhetorical as asking why do the BH need for a damning statement from a supposedly WH, Mrs Fenn, to be true...

16 comments:

  1. Eh,eh,eh...
    that's why I never liked shoes with shoelaces...tricky, nasty things...sooner or later, no matter how careful you are and how much you make sure they're always properly tied, the little buggers will find their way into entangling themselves and make you fall flat on your face!
    Oooops...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh go and get some therapy, you mad old bat.

    Much more of this and you are in serious danger of disappearing up your own arse

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a strange world that some parents would rather promote themselves as neglectful, boozy and selfish to hide what really went on.

    It is laughable that anyone would go along with the abduction fairy tale but only by telling everyone they were 'neglectful' allows them to tell that story.

    Some trade off!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sem fim à vista..................

    Encontrei isto :

    http://ukanswer.co5.biz/do-you-like-me-believe-that-the-mysterious-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-will-remain-a-mystery.html

    Do you, like me, believe that the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine Mccann will remain a mystery.........?

    Dec
    15
    2010
    ……..forever?

    I don’t believe it will ever be solved and we will never know the truth.

    ****

    E, também encontrei muitos títulos dizendo

    " Portugal NÃO QUER REABRIR"!

    Penso que até estavam em inglês............

    Thanks,

    MC

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have always been wondering why the McCanns never showed sincere regret regarding the neglect ('we made a terrible mistake', a diagnosis), misleading the public that got excited about neglect, McCanns' red herring.
    Agree Textusa, neglect was the scenario allowing an 'abduction' took place.
    How will they explain this to the twins? They have to read their mothers 'account of the truth' I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was always puzzled by Kate saying' why did you not come when Shawn and I were crying...' what parent would admit to such a statement especially in view of their circumstances - BUT it gave strength to the abduction theory - the mccanns are guilty and should be thoroughly investigated they know EXACTLY what happened to their daughter. Well done Tex another brilliant article - one day the truth will out ....it always does!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The case should be re-opened, transparent, end of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Textusa - you are brilliant and best wishes to Ironside.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The mccanns have never shown any remorse for their actions - they never ask for the case to be re-opened,but they sue anyone who disagrees with their fairystory abduction theory, denied the credibity of the sniffer dogs in detecting the scent of death in their apartment, neglecting their three children and have made millions from their fraudulent fund....what an evil pair they are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When I read about the south african couple - the bride was murdered I thought at the time reading his statement he was not as innocent as he was making out, same goes for the mccanns, the south african bloke made the mistake of hiring maxwell clifford to protect his image, similar to what the mccanns did with carter ruck, they think if they employ these expensive types of professionals they will be protected but it does not look good that they need these people and this is what the mccanns have done all the way through they have paid for expensive lawyers and the like not to find their daughter but to protect their reputations and image which in itself is an admission to their guilt. The mccanns are guilty, everything is now a matter of time... patience is a virtue! Thanks Tex and best wishes to Ironside xx

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Idiots know well who are the idiots and why. And I'm not talking about the idiot supporters who did not do a little homework to get well informed.
    Something very weird hapenned to the little girl that make this people choose to be idiots instead of telling the truth.

    The window, the nasty window, who was able to "retrieve" Kate fingerprints and nothing from the abductor or the girl. Kate must sue the window. So nasty as the Cuddle Cut, able to retrieve death evidences. Same with her shirt and trousers. All packet togheter to see 6 cadavers and again packet togheter to go to PDL.
    The poor lady was seen many times in PDL with such trousers and tshirt, and every minute with Cuddle Cat. They said, they went to PDL, apart other things, to cook breakfasts and some other meals. The police found out that they also spent time washing clothes, including the Cuddle cat. The 6 cadavers seen one time in a rush, did not went away with all this washes and joggings and etc. What a Karma. Kate must sue the cadavers. Some people are haunted by ghosts. She is haunted by death evidences.
    Then, WHO IS THE IDIOT?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The crying supporting the negligence, allows:

    - the abduction to happen.
    - a high chance of the abductor to be in the room scaring the childs, a night before.
    - Madeleine alive on that special morning, when Kate claim to heard from the little girl, the fantasist story about the crying.

    There is more idiots in high positions. Who have responsibility in the portuguese justice is acting as an idiot when come to the press saying that the case was correctly shelved. He has no courage to say what we know long ago- THE CASE WAS SHELVED ONLY DUE TO LACK SUPPORT FROM THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES TO ALLOW THE INVESTIGATION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN UK SOIL. The time the perpetrators spent in Portugal was not enough to full understand and discover the nature of the crime.
    I hope Wikileaks found more evidences to show up the all mess this idiots with power went on, to pervert the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part I

    I was reviewing Pat Brown older posts and I would like to share some scenarios with you: (At one point Gerry said: "…the guilt we felt at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN."

    Let's analyze further. There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.

    First of all, Madeleine couldn't have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor. It would have taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle with her, climb out a window, and carry her off.

    Secondly, she wouldn't have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN, or KIDNAPPED.

    TAKEN is an interesting passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and Kate trying to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN, just feels less awful. But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddie may have been taken from life and Gerry and Kate may feel guilt over the MOMENT that occurred).

    Alternatively, if they really did have help moving her body and Kate really did scream "THEY have taken Madeleine," maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN from the room and hidden elsewhere. Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the children and why the doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the "feeling" Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the whole thing up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part II

    If the MOMENT refers to a time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine suffered a serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not there at that MOMENT because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might have been able to administer medical care and save Madeleine’s life.

    Worse yet, if the McCanns were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring to feeling bad about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed her with sedatives before going out for the evening.
    The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are responsible for the results of their actions. They only anger they should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying to find out what happened to Maddy, and the only horror they should feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought to their innocent little girl.

    But the McCanns apparently feel negative emotions toward themselves over only one issue:
    "…not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.").

    This was well caught. What’s your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ms Fenn was also the witness, who claimed she had disturbed a burglar in her flat 2 weeks before Maddy disappeared.
    I looked up the medicine the McCanns had in their villa. Amantadine, Stalevo and Pramipexole. All 3 are treatments against Parkinson disease.
    The McCanns claim, the medicine belonged to Kate's Dad. but why were they in their bedroom then?
    Does Mr. Healy suffer of parkinson?
    Amantadine can also be used for deprivation of cocaine.
    Pramipexole is also used to treat anxiety disorders and depressions.
    One thing, that milders depressions is endurance sports such as jogging, swimming etc.
    I wonder, is that the reason Kate is so keen to jog? Is that part of her treatment?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your assumption that 'pros' will like your demented reasoning about various things because it 'fits' our ideas about what happened to Madeleine shows only the shallowness of your thinking. I don't grasp at someone else's suggestions because they fit a preconceived idea of what happened. That is what many others have already made the mistake of doing with this case. I accept only evidence which is soundly based, from credible witnesses, and I will not accept gross and fantastical assertions and conspiracies in order to make my dieas fit.
    Madeleine WAS abducted. I don't need to make Mrs Fenn out a liar, or the parents to be perfect, to find evidence for that.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa