Sunday, 5 June 2011

Gun With a Silencer, or Just a Smoking Gun?

My first words, go to our beloved readers (which exclude all those that come here to see if they don’t see, at least for one more day, what they don’t want to see, or be seen by others), and that is to apologise for my absence, but there are things in life much more important than chasing after criminals that everyone knows already to be that: criminals.

People have only failed to put their finger on what crime was exactly committed, and in that particular aspect, the Black Hat Machine has been brilliant.

Everyone knows the McCanns are criminals, but they’ve fooled the majority of what, and thus have reached the desired state of being wrongfully accused, as the accusation has nothing to do with the done deed.

That’s why good and honest people, like yourself, come here and try to understand what did really happen, through the methodical deconstruction of the immense web of lies that these (all of them not just the known ones) criminals have put between us and the truth.

Oh, and the not so good and not so honest people, also come here for the same reason, albeit with the opposite purpose of intent of the aforementioned, that meaning, to avoid at all costs, that you, good and honest citizen, understand what really happened.

My second words, go to Kate McCann. I would like to present her with my sincerest apologies. Kate, I’m incapable of reciprocating what you’ve done with us.

Your book proves that you read our blog very attentively, whilst, no matter how hard I try, I just can’t get through your book.

I’m stuck in between the two set of pictures, and just can’t progress. Not that I consider it a load of tripe, as many people do, because I really don’t. I honestly think it’s filled with immensely valuable information (which was quite a surprise), but as I know its content wasn’t meant for my eyes, so, reading it feels like eavesdropping on a conversation between you (and your “team”) and your “former friends” which I feel I am no part of.

Of the said conversation, that is.

Like reading private love letters where there’s little or absolutely no love at all between the parties.

I could've used the expression “like reading a diary..” but we all know that yours was anything but a diary, Kate.

The other thing that surprised me in your book was, although I’ve already said here many times that stupidity, unlike intelligence, is limitless; how you were able to surpass in stupidity (sorry to be repetitive, but the adjective is the only appropriate one, so I must reuse, as “asinine” doesn’t quite encompass all) the production of your infamous Mockumentary, back in May 2009.

In this book, each page is one huge treasure chest against you. Even the pics were unfortunate.

I must wonder if you people must be so much undermanned now, because that would be the only reason to let this thing pass. Couldn’t anybody see how big this mistake was? To say that you put your foot in your mouth would be an understatement. It is so big that, Kate, I honestly think you got had.
You were very, very unfortunate with the publication of this book. Almost as much as you were when, in your utter arrogance of not realizing that both the tides and winds had changed as of Nov last year, did decide to write a letter to David Cameron, thinking he wouldn’t react

Unfortunately for you, and thanks to you, he now has the upper hand, doesn’t he?

As you know, I do have other priorities at the moment, and so cannot dedicate myself to the blog as I used to, at least until life resets my priorities back to normal.

But let me just tell you two of the reasons why your book was an unquantifiable stupid, stupid move to make.

Firstly, you filled it with self-incriminating evidence.

Besides all the words, and there are many, that you write against yourself, your lame excuse of possible mistranslation doesn’t stick one bit.

One may mistranslate between a lettuce and a cabbage, when asked about a vegetable, but certainly there’s no possible confusion to be made between interstellar quantum physics and pink trainers.

And you imply too many a time for your own comfort that such confusions kept on happening, which basically means that they didn’t.

Secondly, how can I say this? When one threatens to spill the "beans" one has to be very careful how one does it. One has to very, very subtle.

Now, you’d read on this blog that we were on to the game you people were playing, so you should have been even more careful than careful. And you weren’t. Not even by a long shot.

The way you wrote the book, you’ve basically connected all the dots that needed to be connected. By threatening “them” that you could spill the said “beans”, you’ve basically have shown them to the rest of us.

And when you tried to cover a lie with another, you apparently forgot what information that this new lie further provides the rest of us.

And now, thanks to you, the “rest of us” besides now having the physical proof of yet another contradicting version of events from you, can easily see what “beans” are there with which you think you can threaten others with. And by simple logic, know who most likely are the "others".

 Silence is golden, didn’t anybody tell you that?

An unwritten piece of paper, like silence, is limitless, but as soon as you write on it, you limit it to the information that has just been put on it.

And how you’ve limited yourself, Kate.  

The indescribably sick and ethically repulsive “coloboma marketing ploy” is but one example.

If you thought that by throwing even more clutter onto the already existing humungous pile of trash, you’d fool any of us, that makes only a bigger fool of you.

I’m sorry for not having now the time to dissect your book right now. But, unless you get arrested meanwhile, there will be time to do so.

Oh, before I forget, I would like thank you for writing it, and publishing it, although I fully understand why J. K. Rowling (who, if I'm not mistaken, does not deserve one word of thanks, after having put you, once again I hope I'm right here, in contact with her publishers...) put quite a safe distance between herself and your book.

She's a smart woman.

To the readers, I appeal to your patience. I promise that I’ll write as much as time will permit, but do warn that time will not permit much.

Bless you all


  1. I'd like to know why this book really was written and by whom.

  2. The Infamous DN has on his ART section, Kates book "Madeleine" advertised with words "rapto" and "testemunho". Most of the comments from the public are against the book.
    regarding the Pink trainers, I write a comment asking the DN journalists, who I believe covered Mccann's saga in PDL to search their archieved pictures and see if they have one with Kate wearing the pink trainers. Instead of advertising the book of lies, the paper will do a great job to help Madeleine justice if they start to disclose all the information. I believe, the Media is holding to protect the Mccann's. Where are the pink trainers, Kate? They disappear with your daughter? Suddenly this trainers become so important as the pink blanket, which also disappeared under a lot of mystery.

  3. Bom dia, A. ! Good day,Friend.


  4. I've heard or read somewhere that after a long time evading justice criminals end up wishing they get caught, to end it all. Is Kate near the end of her rope...?

  5. Textusa

    Thank you for taking some of your valuable time to re-assure us that you continue with your analysis of The Book by Kate.

    I am sure we will all bear with patience your absence for your priorities must be elsewhere at this time.

  6. This book doesn't do 'what it says on the tin'.

    It was meant to be truthful and to help find Maddie.

    It raises more questions than it answers by giving even more conflicting information and downright contradictions to the original statements.

    The first half is all about Kate McCann and what wonderful parents her and Gerry are. We hear little about Maddie as a person and some of the things she is supposed to have said come across as pure invention. But there again so does the whole book.

    There are no new facts but plenty of subtle undertones so who is this book aimed at? Certainly not her children! She comes across as being a very self righteous, easily angered person who has no respect for others, especially the police doing their job. She has to tell the reader what a nice person she is as a damage limitation exercise.

    No wonder her lawyer advised her to keep her mouth shut. It appears she only opens it to change feet.

    For Portuguese and other readers we have a British saying that people 'put their foot in their mouth' when they say the wrong thing.

    This book is a good way of explaining how money will be put into the fund but I don't believe the figures for sales reported today. Legal bills will be covered now but who is the real benefactor?

    Has anyone else read this book and feels it does was Kate said it was going to do?

  7. I haven't been able to bring myself to buy this publication yet, but I am so glad Textusa has and I am so looking forward to reading more of her thoughts when she has the opportunity and energy to write them down for us. Thank you Textusa. I will definitely buy a second hand copy as soon as the price comes down, and read it with Textusa's comments at the forefront of my mind.

  8. Textusa,
    Love your blog and you are quite correct when you say Kate reads it, I bet she does, because you are so close to the truth with the big table at Tapas, the stroller and all the other details you bring to the readers attention.

    It can only be a matter of time now before the mccanns are convicted they are criminals and we all know it, and SY will declare it.

    Thank you Textusa we have been reading your blog daily and we love it, so truthful and so much detail to research.

    Thanks Tex et al

  9. Anon. Jun 5, 2011 6:48:00 PM

    We, the portuguese have a very similar saying, our is "pôr a pata na poça", "put the paw in the puddle"! Kate McCann is in it with all fours...

  10. Off course Kate is coming here few times a day to check what is going on.
    Contrary to the rest of the public, she did not need to work or earn a salary. The money stolled while she explore the image and the drama of her daughter, is ennough to pay a luxurious life and persecute who try to highlight or find the truth. Her first job is surfing on the Net and every guy they bring to the saga, just help us to understand better how they lie and why they need money. The money is to pay all the spin.
    I had a look on the promotion video of the book in DN. The guy, talking, is so unnatural, so fake. He is repeating what they write for him to be said. But what I found amazing is the end of the video promotion with guy saying more or less that:"They expect that in one year, when Madeleine turns 5, the book produce something to solve the case". WAW... Why one year and not just the next day, next week, next month? Because they are counting with incomes of the book during one year. Less then that, the business is not profitable.
    That incredible capacity to prepare things many months ahead and to perspond the day Madeleine could be found, is really amazing. Only who knows well the truth can play so well with circumstances.
    Kate, you are incriminating yourself in every step.

  11. I would never waste my money on this book of lies, but from what I have read in the media to me it would appear that Kate attempts to guide the reader into believing Maddie was taken by paedophiles who had been watching them for days. Her use of language is also rather curious!
    So considering what a proven liar Kate Mccann is I suggest what has happened to Maddie would be the complete opposite from what is stated in her book.

    So that brings us back to Textusa's theory that they were swingers, all involved together and an accident occured whereby Maddie died and they invented the neglegence to create the abductor.

    As Gaspars were friends of Mccanns perhaps they were 'encouraged' by Kate with that statement of theirs to reinforce the paedophile angle.

    Kate is looking harder and harder in her photographs and I believe she is the main manipulator in this saga.

    She has admitted she has a vile temper smashing up furniture and little respect for the police, a totally self obsessed woman. So far according to newspapers she has made 2 million pounds from this 'book' but who is protecting her and why?

    She tried to protect Payne i.e with the timings on his last visit, but mentions Fiona helping jog her memory for book, (warning to Fiona) Maybe the real relationship was Payne and Kate and the others are protecting these two because of their jobs and reputations. Don't believe Kate and Gerry get on they look distant and their body language says they cannot bear one another. She never mentions Payne he should have been made a suspect but she must have convinced police not to do this, but he still hung around with them why did Fiona not stay with Kate (female company and all that!!). Fiona and the others were quick to blame Murat, maybe Fiona influenced the others that it was Murat.

    Kate has enough money now to build a new life perhaps that was her plan with the book.
    Payne is the key to this, he also wanted to add something to his statement.
    SY should concentrate on Payne.

  12. I have to call Kate, the pink lady. The way she plays with that colour is relevant and has a very suspictious propose, according to my point of view. She was/is targeting the public. Trying to smooth the heart of the public to pass her message, and her lies. And that behaviour is not recent, starts in early May 2007, almost at the same time as Madeleine disappeared. Then, things have been meticulously planned. Strange, for a mother which daughter was abducted by a Paedo ring and use to be assaulted by very painful images of her daughter been ripped by that Paedos.
    I can see the Pink, cronologically coming to the eyes of the public, from the first to the last:

    . The pink Pyjamas Madeleine was wearing when spotted by Jane at the abductor arms. Trough the street light, could only be yellowish, but the magic Jane was able to see the pink and the pattern.
    . Pink- the Madeleine favorite colour. Kate told us.
    . The pink Cuddle Cat. I really don't believe, Madeleine ever saw or hold that Cuddle Cat. I had always the idea that the cuddle cat was the first icon Kate used to target the public to help her play the victim roll and give some taste to her lies. Later and following the same idea, came the yellow and green ribbons and rubber bands.
    The death scent picked by the dogs on the Cuddle Cat was probably due to transference from the body after May 3.
    .The pink blanket.
    .Madeleine picture in the tennis court( one of the first released) and in the swings, wearing pink.
    .The last picture near the pool with Madeleine in Pink.
    .The christmas video appeal 2008 where the twins are secondary irrelevant characters, but Madeleine was the center of the action and obviously, in PINK.
    .The pinkish Madeleine lollita
    .Kate pink trainers.

    What a boring monocromatic life that girl had. Living and dying in Pink.


    If the pink was so important for your daughter, why apart a jumper I saw you wearing one time in Oprah show, You KATE, NEVER WEAR PINK DURING THE MONTHS YOU SPEND IN PORTUGAL,EVEN AFTER KNOWING YOU WERE FILMED ALMOST EVERY DAY BY A TV? Why you did not came in Pink to the TV interviews? Could be a good "homenage" to your daughter, since you believe she did not went to any harm and is able to read your book. She will be able, also, to see you in TV during your interviews wearing her favorite colour.
    The pink obsession had a strategical propose. Sticked to the saga like a maskotte, helped you to spread your lies. Like if a lie, in pink, can create an image of some credibility and become true.
    Now, trough your book, we know there is a pair of trainers, buyed to went to PDL where you planned to spend a week holiday. I can't imagine me taking new trainers for a so short holiday in a place where the must is the beach. Maybe a new pair of flip-flops. Maybe you know since the beginning of your holidays, that a pair of trainers will be more useful then a pair of flip-flops. After all, tennis and jogging is what resumes your holidays, you said, not the beach. Are they missing, the pink trainers? I can't find any reference about them, on PJ files or GNR repports. Could you be wearing them when you raised the alarm? Any way, I don't believe, they were pink. But they are certainly, an important piece of information that SY have to look at during their review. And I will be not surprised if one of that days, while answering the questions of an inquisitive journalist you says, regarding the pink trainers, "the ABDUCTOR TOOK THEM."
    The pink trainers, same as part of the book, have a strategy behind it- GIVING AN EXPLANATION FOR ANY EVIDENCE THE POLICE COULD FIND/Found.
    Remember Mitchell words: "There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found".
    Was the pink, Madeleine favorite colour or your favorite colour, Kate? Children at her age tend to wear the colours the mums choose for them. Normally, when mums have children so close in the age, they tend to stick one colour to each child. It happen to some of my friends who have twins and did not like them to wear the same- they choose a different colour for each twin. Good for their personnality, they said, and for us because we can easily recognise them trough the colours.
    Just a small apart- While writing that post I went to Mccannfiles to see the draws/pictures you Kate said, Madeleine made before wenting to PDL. No surprises on the colour, a lot of pink. Even if at her age, children tend to choose very bright or very dark colours ( black is very common) and tend to colour everything with same colour or choose very few. Madeleine was able to separate objects and parts of the body on her piece of art. What is amazing to me is how a 3/4 years old can colour so perfectly inside the lines? even in the very small details like the face or the hair? It is so easy to catch a lie, Kate. For me, the pictures/draws you delivered long ago to the press, saying they were from Madeleine, could never be done by a 4 years old, no matter how intelligent, clever, talentous, the child is. You cannot bypass the Piaget stages of a child development. One more error, we cannot dismiss.

  14. I also believe the main circle to understand what happened to Madeleine lies on these two couples- The paynes and the Mccann's. Jane was the clown used to play the witness roll while her partner add some chilli to the menu with one of their childs vomiting.
    Why Fiona went to Lisbon with Kate? Why David Payne adopted a so low profile since May 3 2007? Contrary to the mccann's, he make a huge effort to pass unnoticed. We can't see him on any Mccann's events, not even to raise money.

  15. SY should put pressure on the Paynes to break this pact of silence. Kate and Gerry won't say anything but once the others start talking that won't matter.
    Why only one baby monitor for this whole group.
    Were the Mccanns and Paynes children sedated and left together with one baby monitor whilst the Mccanns and Paynes wife swapped?

  16. Jane Tanner made a fool of herself with her eff man and bundle man descriptions, and now with this Murat V Tanner case.
    Is this just to keep Jane Tanner quiet and she was used by Kate and Fiona prompted to say she saw an abductor and that it was Murat.

    The Paynes are not getting any money from this book, Kates keeping that for herself, the police should reinvestigate the Paynes, find out what Payne wanted to add to his statement, go back over everything with them. It is not acceptable to have a pact of silence with a police homicide investigation who do they all think they are.

  17. I don't believe the Paynes did not got money from the book. I think, the Fund and the book was/is also to feed the all tapas. That is the only way to keep all of them quite and silenced.

  18. If the police checked all the bank accounts of mccanns and Tapas that would probably be quite revealing, and it would be quite easy to do because of money laundering banks are more thorough with people opening accounts so they could do a check via all their national insurance numbers as to what money they have invested and also where it is invested.
    Then SY could decide what to do about the fraudulent fund and where the money has been going from it and to whom. Follow the money and you always find the answers.
    If people are being paid for their silence there will be a paper trial.

  19. I was rather struck by the phrase I saw reported on another site where Kate says of Mrs Fenn that she was speaking dismissively of the child's loss as though it was the case:

    "... that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf"

    So KMC is using this phrase in the context of the disappearance of her child.

    It's NOT a colloquial phrase in English. She could have said "as if someone had spilt some milk" which would recall the phrase "no use crying over spilt milk". That would have sounded more colloquial. But she doesn't - she uses these precise words...

    Excitable children are often said to be "full of beans". And here
    she is talking about a "falling" incident in the context of her child's disappearance.

    It also invites one almost to fill in a corollary - "Rather than that a child had..." etc.

    Odd...but perhaps quite instructive.

  20. Anon @ 8.37pm

    You are so right.

    I have always believed the fund will be their downfall. The accounts just do not add up!

  21. wowser

    Well observed. Also makes me think of the expression 'spill the beans'. A very British way of saying to let the truth spill out.

  22. I believe Scotland Yard, Mccanns and others often come on here to see what is being said, looking at Textusa blog stats visits 119,879 and 34 visits today, these people are not commenting but observing, this shows how significant this blog is.

    I also notice on here and other sites that detractors comment to change the course of the conversation, I believe Textusa has probably covered exactly what happened to Madeleine.

    SY check out the fraudulent fund where has all the money gone, get Payne in for some serious questioning and break that pact of silence.

  23. It is possible Maddie had a fall, hit her head, suffered a nose bleed, they tried to resuscitate her and failed, perhaps she had been sedated as Amaral believed and this is why they did not want an autopsy.
    Amaral believed that the body had been refridgerated because of what they found in the body fluids from the scenic and the body disposed of in the sea.

    It is odd that her body has not been found there must have been many searches maybe it is still in a freezer somewhere in PDL or nearby and was transported from one freezer to another, I know this sounds morbid but Kate often goes back to PDL unannounced. They would be afraid of her body turning up perhaps someone is paid a lot of money to do this for them Tapas 10 ? and mccanns are caught in the middle themselves.
    A freezer in a basement (forgotten about) no one would think of looking for her in such a place and there would be no chance of her remains being discovered in that situation. If her remains were found it would mean an end to the fraudulent fund, online store and glitzy lifestyle.

    SY need to look at money transfers mccanns or the 'mccann company' have been involved in.

  24. What a silence from team Mccann. Not a word about Rui Pedro case which is going for a court trial, 13 years after the crime.
    The oportunists Mccann's who jumped like lions on Jaycee D. and Natasha K. cases, remind in silence on Rui Pedro abduction.
    Sometimes the silence speaks louder and is revealing a lot.
    You can't sleep Kate. The millions you could raise trough your book are not enough to buy a resting bed. Soon or later, your case will reach the court with you having finaly to testify in court, the last steps of your daughter on her last day/night. I can see the judges having your book in one hand and your first statements in another hand to help them elaborate the questions that will catch you.
    Statements, contradictions, absence of alibis, were enough to build a case against Afonso Dias. A child cannot disappear in the air without leaving no traces. And the traces are much more then ADN or FORENSIC EVIDENCES which can be easily manipulated to be dismissed.
    What can't be manipulated, is the contradictions on all Tapas 9 statements, the timeline written on Madeleine activity book and all information you delivered on your book and on some of your interviews. ENOUGH TO BRING YOU TO COURT.

  25. Follow the Money from the Fund and the SMS and phone calls. Even Mitchell needs to be investigated and most of Mccann's relatives and friends.
    I will be not surprised if Madeleine remains will be found in UK.
    A British girl disappeared. PJ said the crime was all British. More then 4 years after, and after many sights across the world, not a single sight in UK? Strange... Why they need to keep UK away of the all saga?

  26. If Maddie was placed in a freezer, maybe Kate went on her own to the house three weeks after she vanished and removed the original blanket and whatever else maddie was wrapped in, she would then have been 'rewrapped' in bin liners and left in the freezer.

    Kate places the pink blanket and other materials in scenic takes them back home and burns them, but maddies cadaver, hair from the blanket is left in the scenic, also on the key fob and kates clothes and cuddlde cat remember kate always carried cuddle cat around with her !!

    She could have done this on her own whilst gerry was making some distraction somewhere else.

    Murat could be part of this as he had access to properties in and around PDL or maybe they have other friends living in that area that helped them.

  27. Anon June 6 - 11:46. I hadn't thought of the "spill the beans" connotation, but that is certainly v. relevant here!

    As with many phrases of the McCanns, this reference is odd and seems to be an echo of something else.

  28. After Mrs Fenn heard Maddie crying I believe the next night the mccanns increased the dose of sedatives they were giving her to ensure that she did not wake up and this is what killed her. Also the twins were sedated because Kate put her hand under their noses to check their breathing.
    Perhaps all the children including Tapas children were sedated and as madeleine got older her medication was increased.

  29. Anon @ 9.12 - I agree with your post I think Kate uses innocent colours especially pink to appeal to the public, and also your point about trainers is very valid because all luggage is weighed and trainers weigh more than flip flops and if she already had trainers why buy another pair, and trainers are cheap to buy in UK but expensive to buy abroad.
    Good post very observant.

  30. Anon
    Jun 7, 2011 9:54:00 PM

    Mrs Fenn did not hear Maddie cry.

    Nor was Maddie sedated in PdL.

    Those two issues have been "clearly" clarified in this blog.

  31. TO ALL

    Please notice the very telling and relevant article in June's VARIETY:

    The Dark Arts

    About Rupert Murdoch, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and the Metropolitan Police aka Scotland Yard.

    And why, therefor, the Mystery of Madeleine Mccann can and will never be solved (by the MET)

    Greetings to all


  32. Tex,

    this is quite an interesting link

  33. Textusa

    Who was the child that cried for one hour and an half? And who knew about is and brought the subject to daylight?

  34. Kate does not reference any of her 'facts' as sources in her book.

    We were taught to always reference the, date... Kate appears to have forgotten to add the important references at the end of her book, and without this section this book is just Kates opinion, based on Kates opinion, nothing factual to support any references.
    In other words..the book is pure fantasy, but a very good example to students of how NOT to write an essay.

  35. Anon
    Jun 9, 2011 9:27:00 PM

    As we all know, by demonstrating it, that Maddie wasn't heard crying by Mrs Fenn, you must be talking about my granddaughter, who a fortnight ago did, in fact, cry for one hour and a half (unlike Maddie that was supposed to have cried for 75 minutes, and not 90...). Her teeth are coming out, poor thing. About who knew about it, the inner family did, especially her mother. Now about whoever brought that to daylight, I must insist you go and inquire Black Hat Central, as although I'm fully aware that I'm being watched, didn't realize that it was that intimately..."

  36. Portia

    Jun 8, 2011 2:50:00 PM

    Is this the article? It's in Vanity Fair:

    Going to print it to read later, when I have the time, and see what you mean. Thank you.

  37. To Anon June 8th 2:50:00

    Excuse me. I stand corrected.
    It is Vanity Fairs June edition.

    Really shocking piece in connection with this whole sorry affair.

    Thanks for correcting me.

    Btw. Finding the Daniela Prousa book sold out at the major bookstore at Aix la Chapelle, I ordered it from a Belgium store a couple of weeks ago. No word as yet.
    Promising to at least summarize it in English, I am still awaiting the books arrival.

    Keep you posted.


  38. I notice Kate does not produce a photograph of the 'big round table' the tapas friends all sat at, it is surprising how little photographs they took on this holiday considering they only met up with some of these couples a few times each year.
    Perhaps this book would be sufficient for the case to be re-opened.
    The mccanns have committed many crimes firstly their refusal to assist with the invesitgation into the disappearance of their daughter, and their deliberate setting up of the on-line store and fraudulent fund when they knew Madeleine was already dead, they have defrauded so many people.
    Well done Textusa, you have brilliant research to detail.


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.