Friday, 26 August 2011

Doing a TANNER



(Aug 26th, 2011)

Jane Tanner is quite adamant when she describes the table the T9 used at Tapas.

She says it was ROUND. However impossible it is to join up ROUND tables to make up a bigger ROUND one, as she says happened, she's clear of what shape was the end result: a BIG ROUND TABLE (BRT), the famous table #211, the T9 BRT:

   
Kate McCann takes this one step up, and, through a drawing, confirms Tanner’s verbal description of the table, one perfect circle:
  And if there were to be any doubts about the shape of the thing, Gerry McCann, in moving pictures, describes, with his left arm, the shape (and size) of the table under scrutiny: ROUND as ROUND can be:
 
So we have 3 out 9 people who say they sat, night after night, at that particular table, describing it, and all say that the exact same thing: it was ROUND.

 But a few days ago, Guerra, a respectable reader, placed the following comment on the Tapas Quiz Night Question 5/? post: “I don't know if the Tapas gang did or did not sit at a big round table, but I would just like to relate my experience in dealing with big round tables. I worked a few months as a busboy during the summer many years ago when I was seventeen.
And I along with my work colleagues set up large banquet halls. I do remember setting up many many round tables. We each rolled a table on its edge as if we were rolling a tire. Then when the table was at the location we wanted it to be we would unfold the legs and prop it up. At first I had some issues with run away tables but I later became an expert at it.
If I remember correctly, the tables I rolled when they were on edge were as tall or taller than I am. I'm about 5ft 10 in. Mathematically, if 9 people are sitting at a table, and you allow 2 ft of circumference for each person then the total circumference would be 18 ft.
The circumference for a circle is PI multiplied by the diameter. So you should be able to accomodate 9 people at a round table of approximately 6 ft in diameter. That being said, if you look at the following video by Martin Brunt, he is sitting at a table that he claims the McCanns were sitting at and it appears that the table is not a true round table but more of an oval table, with round ends that were joined together.
Of course we can't be sure that it's the exact table that was used by the McCanns and their friends.”

The novelty about Guerra’s comment is that he brings into the “equation” a new variable, and that is the possibility that the T9 BRT may, in fact NOT be a BRT but a BOT, a BIG OVAL TABLE.

Looking at the video, the shape of table where Martin Brunt is sitting seems to be, in fact, oval and what isn’t questionable is that he clearly says that he’s sitting at the SAME table where the T9 sat on the fateful evening.

THAT table is, according to SKY NEWS, the famous T9 BRT/BOT.

Finally, we have visual contact!!!

And that is one huge step forward. From now on, if any other picture of the T9 BRT ever surfaces, they have to match THIS table. If they don’t, then either they’re fake, or fake is Martin Brunt.

And what Martin Brunt says to be the table #211, does appears to be oval.

Is the shape of the table that important? Yes, it is, especially if one is to analyses adequately the “Brunt table”, which we will, hopefully, in the next post.

Martin Brunt’s video encapsulates much, much more than just the shape of that particular object in that particular commercial facility.

It is very, very revealing.

What’s important today is the Black Hat’s attitude to this input from our reader, Guerra.

Insane, our pet troll, jumped gleefully like a two year old, when he finally realized, or so he thought, he could to disprove the blog with fact instead of the usual threats and insults.

So when an anonymous reader commented that restaurants worldwide don’t have oval tables, Insane just let it all rip: “"There's no restaurant in the world with oval tables!" Really? It took me all of 10 seconds to find several, including this one, which states: "Parties of 10-20 people can be seated at one large oval table." http://colesrestaurant.co.uk/private-hire/  
Oh, don't tell me - they're in on the conspiracy theory too! Do you have any idea how ridiculous you make yourself look?"

And with that, Insane just did a TANNER.

And what is a TANNER? A TANNER is a convenient and conscious change of one’s “convictions” not in accordance to reason but due to changes in direction in the winds of reality.

It’s a reactive, not proactive, process. It is not a change of mind after a thought-out process whereby one concludes, justifiably, that one’s initial opinion is wrong and must be changed under the penalty of useless stubbornness.

That is one commendable attitude, doing a TANNER is not.

It's changing one's opinion because what one said before just stopped making sense, and then changing it again, or not, because what we said first might start, or not, to make more sense then what we said after, and... you understand, what I'm saying. Quite confusing and totally shameless.

Doing a TANNER is to change opinion due to unreasonable reasons.

Who can forget Jane Tanner first seeing and then not seeing a blanket, being unable to see any facial features but then being able to detect afterwards small patterns in pyjamas, changing the colour of the abductor’s pants, then his hair length of hair, then… ?

Basically, it’s changing one’s opinion and being able to achieve only two things.

The first is to highlight the total falsehood of one’s initial version(s), and the second, to make a fool out of oneself.

That is a TANNER.

So Insane goes and searches enthusiastically the internet to prove that OVAL is a feasible shape for one of tables at Tapas, namely for table #211. It takes him 10 seconds, so he says.

What he does next is not a TANNER but a McCANN.

A McCANN is when one is allowed to resort to the most ridiculous of arguments and then argument away to the point of self-determined certainty that what is ridiculous isn’t ridiculous at all, or after all, which is ridiculous in itself, even if all is said with a straight face, a very difficult task that only few are able to master, and Gerry McCann is NOT one of those who has been able to, not by a long shot.

The same anonymous reader that was attacked by Insane, pointed out in response that comparing Tapas with Coles is like comparing the United States with East-Timor.

Both commercial facilities serve drinks, and both countries are bathed by the Pacific Ocean, and that’s it.

It’s just one ridiculous comparison.

But why is this relevant?

Well, when Insane goes after the OVAL look, by doing a TANNER, he thinks he's able, as we said, to disprove this blog. But what he does, is exactly the opposite.

When everyone, on the Black Hat side of things, clearly states that the table is ROUND, what does Insane goes and do? He goes after OVAL like a bulldog after a postman’s leg, and does a TANNER.

And when one does a TANNER one is only able to botch things up for one's side.

Desperate people do desperate things, and desperate things are never done right, like the Tapas "reservation" sheets never cease to show us.

What he doesn’t realize, is that if we were able to prove that the table was OVAL, it would please very much the authors and readers of this blog.

It would be further proof that the T9 were lying, wouldn't it?

He should have defended with all his might that the table was ROUND, and not OVAL!

There's no other option for Insane, but to defend that that table was ROUND.

To defend any other shape will just backfire.

The ROUNDNESS of the table, against it being OVAL, is the only option to confirm the reality of those Tapas dinners.

In this case, for him, defending what the McCanns have said is defending is own point of view. Defending the McCanns is defending existence of the Tapas dinners, and in turn, that is to defend the OC Staff and the guests, those who Insane accuses us of "falsely accusing".

See the cul-de-sac in which Insane got himself in? If that the table is to be OVAL it contradicts not this blog, but Tanner and the two McCanns.

When we’ve said, and we’ve said it many times, the table #211 is BIG and ROUND, and we said it because the T9 have said that it was so.

What we’ve also said is that the BRT, as it is so BIG and so ROUND, it never existed.

But the shape of the thing is certainly not from our authorship.

And he’s not only contradicting the McCann, for that would be "acceptable" for him, as he likes to call them “McScum”, but he’s contradicting other Black Hats, like the very much missed Sidmouth:
   
“Just read the thread. They are trying to figure out where the staff would have got a large round table from… it’s there right at the back of the tapas… there’s three of them from memory. They are used for the children's dinner from the creche so all the kids can sit on the same table or two tables if need be. There are also larger table up above the pegolas to the side of the tapas where children can also be seated… There are lots of different size tables there anyway. (snickering emoticon)”

So Sidmouth, from MEMORY, sees not one, but FOUR ROUND tables, and not a single OVAL one… No wonder Sidmouth disappeared shortly after we denounced this comment to the world. But what is important to retain, is that he who does a TANNER tells us much more about himself then he ever intended to say.

As Jane Tanner did realize that to the point of tears on that chilly evening of 2009, where what she said she saw, and saw, on the street she wasn’t but said she was, helping a friend that proved to be everything but that, said so much more about herself then she ever intended for us to know…

 
That’s what happens to people who speak too much, and out of turn…


Post Scriptum: Thank you so much for you comment, Guerra. Sorry to have associated your name with a Black Hat such as Insane. Your comment is very valid and pertinent, as we hope to show on our next post.

117 comments:

  1. Fascinating

    A couple of small points

    As has been pointed out to you already, the post in question wasn't made by me, as I'm quite sure you are able to determine from the IP address

    Secondly, the poster appears to be merely challenging the ridiculous assertion that there are no restaurants in the world with oval tables.

    Don't let it stop you making a fool of yourself, though

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon at Aug 26, 2011 7:34:00 PM

    As yours is the 1st comment on the new post I'm not sure what your comment refers to or even why you have made this comment.

    Please can you give more information? As a follower of this blog I'm confused as it doesn't seem to refer to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congratulations, Textusa, you have just shown that it's YOU who has DONE A TANNER! LOL!

    I clearly marked my post as from "NOT Insane", but you reply to your "pet troll Insane".

    Confirmstion that there is no start to your powers of observation/deduction. :D

    Here's a spade, keep diggng! :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Anon at Aug 26, 2011 7:34:00 PM

    Textusa will understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Insane/Not Insane

    There are things that are relevant, and others that aren't. You being who you say you are, ranks pretty low in my priority list. You being who you trying to represent, ranks pretty high.

    Thanks for the spade. Your inputs have been VERY useful. As you'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous said...

    @ Anon at Aug 26, 2011 7:34:00 PM

    Textusa will understand it.

    Aug 26, 2011 10:39:00 PM

    As this is a blog read by many and you can e-mail Textusa privately if you want to know or share something. I think there was no need to leave a comment we can all read if it means nothing.

    Is this a private issue between you and Textusa or something you feel able to share with the people who read here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon at Aug 26, 2011 10:39:00 PM

    Is this a private conversation or can you share it with us readers?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks guerra for the link of video.
    The video has many hot information and is quite relevant since was made when Amaral was already replaced by Rebelo and the McCann's were already in UK with support of the British media and all PR machine. And was made by Martin Brunt from sky news, which is also relevant. Finally Gerry blue bag. The same blue bag he pretended to not exist. Remember, they said nothing belonging to them disappeared apart their daughter. Seems that a blue bag disappeared and was not reported to the police by them. The video even goes far while saying the blue bag disappeared and Gerry played tennis before his daughter going missing. Means he had the bag during the tennis?
    The bag was big enough to carry a child body.
    Moita Flores also made a comment while questioned about the case, that madeleine is death and he will be not surprised if in the future a fishing net carries a bag with some bones inside. Is quite clear, the police connects the disappearance of the bag with the disappearance of Madeleine.
    I still not believing on any big round table or big oval table. The location where Martin Brunt put the T9 table looks different then the location described by amaral on his book. From what I can remember, he said there was a shade ( sun shade ) covering the view of the flat.
    Martin brunt also calls Gerry a liar, indirectly. He his saying the distance from the Tapas to the flat is much more then what Gerry said. Amaral said the same.
    Slowly, they are being exposed.
    There is also a missing piece, not disclosed by the police files- the menu of the Tapas. Was a la carte. Will be very interessant to see if the meals described by the McCann's to the police, were or not part of the menu.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will be interesting if the author of the blog "paramimtantofaz" could be contacted because he have been in the OC few days after Madeleine disappeared. Since he is a journalist, I believe he went to the Tapas bar. He could have pictures or a fresh memory to confirm or not the big round/ oval table. Just an idea.
    For me, the oval table was brought tthere, specially for Martin brunt video.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amaral on his book, pag.130 has the pictures of the place where the McCann's claimed they had the dinner. With number 1 he pointed a round table. The table is an outdoor table. If that was the table where the McCann's dine, is definitely not a big round table. Impossible to fit there 9 people. If those were the chairs, just 4 chairs can be accommodated on that table.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At Pamalam, same pictures available at Amaral book. Are outdoor tables located in a canopy. Most are square tables. We can see square ones joined to make a big table, and I think 2 small round tables which can't be joint to make a big round table. Martin brunt is seated on the same canopy because the chairs are the same. The table, if it is oval is not the same Amaral pointed on the book. Could be round and look oval due to the angle that was filmed. There is no big round table. I just imagine 10 people seated around the real round table...laughable. Are they having also turns on the seats? Only 4 chairs can be around that table. NC must have been on Gerry lap. And from the kitchen, I can imagine how the workers have seen the group to gave any accountable statement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why are you arguing about the shape of the table used by a group many of you appear to believe never ate there in the first place?

    It's easy to see why people scoff at this place - it reads like a 9/11 conspiracy site from start to finish

    ReplyDelete
  13. "the poster APPEARS to be MERELY challenging the ridiculous assertion"

    That's a definite TANNER. Trying to minimize what now is proven ridiculous. Now the table's shape is no longer important. If it wasn't, why search the net to prove someone is wrong about a minor thing? Even if he didn't think about the round vs oval, he was, by proving that there are restaurants with oval tables, to VALIDATE Brunt's video. That the table was real and not a prop as someone has already said.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon
    Aug 27, 2011 7:18:00 AM

    To answer your question, because it further confirms the FACT that they never ate there.

    The question is why you keep coming back, obsessively, to a blog you say has only ridiculous findings.

    Stop pushing the word "conspiracy", because it doesn't fit this blog or its readers. It's just another sad, pathetic attempt to discredit the blog and it won't work. When will you people give up, and instead of coming here, you go to the PJ and tell them what you know? That will be the end of your nightmares won't it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon Aug 27, 2011 7:18:00 AM, that's the nicest compliment that a BH has ever paid this blog!! You're admitting that Textusa leaves no stone unturned in her analysis of the details. Very true and very nice on your part, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  16. They left the apartment between 8:30-8:35 p.m., and headed straight for the Tapas where they arrived 1 minute later maximum. None of the group were at the Tapas because they were usually the first to arrive, but she isn’t sure this was the case every night. There was a couple there who they knew, Steve and Carolyn Carpenter, who belonged to Gerry’s tennis group. They talked with them for a few moments before sitting down. Meanwhile, while they talked to the Carpenters, the rest of their group arrived and sat down at a round table, where they sat every day. Order of arrival: Kate and Gerry first, then Jane, she thinks on her own, then Mathew and Rachel, then Russell, she thinks, and right afterwards David, Fiona and Diane. She makes a sketch of the table and says that both she and Gerry were not facing the apartments. Sketch attached.

    Dinner began around 9 p.m., and she thinks the nine adults were at the table. She ate steak and maybe sardines. She drank white wine and water.

    She doesn’t know if anyone took any photographs that night, however she thinks that Rachel took photos on one of the nights. When asked, she said that Fiona also took some photos but she thinks it was probably on another night. She doesn’t know whether Fiona had a camera with her that night. She remembers hearing a comment that night about a camera being forgotten, but she doesn’t know who said this or who the camera belonged to.-Kate Healey statement 6 sept 2007

    Kate talking about the round table and cameras. Then, if that dinners happen, they must have a picture of the table. Why was it not on her book?
    The food she could have dine is also interesting. A steak or sardines. How can somebody mistake a steak with sardines, adding the fact that sardines are normally part of a barbecue. Since this is a Tapas bar, I don't believe sardines are part of the regular menu.
    Guests on the Tripadvisor mention that the OC use to have a Portuguese night with a barbecue with traditional food and traditional dancers. Means, only probably on that days, the sardines are part of the menu. No party was mentioned for any witness.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BH are back again? God knows what worries you to drive your eyes and your fingers to a place you hate so much.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon Aug 27, 2011 8:05:00 AM, well spotted! And the Portuguese Night, say the reviews, was at the Mill, not Tapas.
    Sardines would be something they would find any day in the downtown restaurants, like Chaplins. She's probably using her recollections from there when she's telling the tale...

    ReplyDelete
  19. ''She ate steak and maybe sardines''


    ''The food she could have dine is also interesting. A steak or sardines. How can somebody mistake a steak with sardines, adding the fact that sardines are normally part of a barbecue. Since this is a Tapas bar, I don't believe sardines are part of the regular menu. ''

    Do you just say the first thing which comes into your head?

    How does ''steak and maybe sardines'' constitute any confusion between the two?

    And what does your speculation over whether sardines were part of the menu bring to the discussion?

    Just more nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Anon
    Aug 27, 2011 7:18:00 AM

    Rubbish.

    You are accusing the OC, staff, guests and PdL ex-pats of being involved in a conspiracy with the McCanns.

    Therefore you are most definitely ''conspiracy theorists''

    If the cap fits.........

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think this is a BRILLIANT post!! It’s forcing the BHs to side with the McCs.

    It seems a natural option, but it isn’t thanks to Textusa. Now, for the BHs, the McCs MUST be telling the truth, or if they’re lying, then the OC Staff and guests are implicated.

    If you served them (OC staff) or you had dinner on the same evenings and same spot as the T9 (guests) thenthe natural reaction to the BIG table being oval would have been of rejection. You’d seen the table yourself!

    So Insane should have concentrated his efforts in contradicting the possibility of being oval instead of going after one of us.

    Guerra, thank you for your comment, you were the one that called our attention to Brubt’s video. I’ve followed your interesting comments at JM, and you’re certainly an added value in our quest for the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Insane, Aug 27, 2011 8:39:00 AM

    Get you terms correct. What this blog accuses the "OC, staff, guests and PdL ex-pats" of is being part of a COVER-UP and not part of a CONSPIRACY. If you don't know the difference, we do. Now go and take your cap and put it on your barbie or action-man, whichever you like to play with.

    ReplyDelete
  23. From David Payne's rogatory interview which could indicate the involvement of Tapas staff.

    1485 "You mentioned early on, on the last interview as well, about a photo. You spoke brief about a photo you'd shown, you'd shown a photo."
    Reply "Oh yes, I mean..."

    1485 "Where did that come from?"
    Reply "Where did the photo come from? That's a very good question, I'm not sure whether it was from Gerry's digital camera or one of the digital cameras that we had there from my recollection. It was, sorry I can't, I can't remember exactly. I seem to remember it was one of the digital cameras but that's about as far as it..."

    1485 "Can you remember the pose in which Madeleine was on the photo?"
    Reply "I can't, no."

    1485 "Did you see the photo?"
    Reply "I did, yes. I mean Russell was probably the most instrumental in that side that we, he's very good with computers and setting that side up, so he specifically went off to do that. I mean we kind of identified early like I have, I have seen the picture and, but sorry I can't remember it." 00:07:03

    1485 "Okay."
    Reply "But Russell was, I say, that was where his strengths was and he went down trying to link up the computers and was good at that kind of (inaudible)."

    1485 "Where did the com, where did they link the computer up?"
    Reply "Originally I thought it had been done in the reception at the Ocean Club, not the Tapas bar, BUT THEN I REALISED IT WAS ACTUALLY WAS THE TAPAS BAR, sorry the other reception as you walk through into the Tapas complex there's a room just on the right there they'd got a computer and a printer there that's how they sorted it out."

    1485 "And Russell did that?"
    Reply "Russell did that yes."

    He stumbles over going to the Tapas bar to get a photo printed then covers his back by adding the other reception.

    More importantly why would they want a photo of a missing child at that moment in time? How many 4 year old would be wandering the streets at night. Any child found in unusual circumstances would presumably the one who was missing. Photos of missing children are produced a while after the event.

    How would a photo help a search on the night of the 3rd May?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Insane,
    "How does ''steak and maybe sardines'' constitute any confusion between the two?"
    Do you usually eat two main courses in the same dinner? So now the T9 are served twice?!? In a space of time around an hour?!?! That is not confusing?!? Those Tapas waiters were indeed fantastic!

    ReplyDelete
  25. More from Payne.

    Can this take part in the 'doing a Tanner' exercise?

    1485 "Okay. Moving on a little bit to Gerry and Kate, because they like, because you know they're into tennis aren't they?"
    Reply "They are."

    1485 "They seem to be playing tennis every day."
    Reply "Yes."

    1485 "Virtually. Do you know whether they took their own tennis kit out?"
    00:03:23 Reply "No they didn't."

    1485 "They didn't take the kit out?"
    Reply "No."

    1485 "But when I said..."
    Reply "Oh sorry when you say the tennis kit..."

    1485 "When I say kit."
    Reply "I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RACQUET AND BALLS THEY DIDN'T TAKE".


    1485 "What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?"
    Reply "He certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played..."

    1485 "Yeah."
    Reply "A lot of sport, if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, about as big as it got, a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, things that you could put a tennis racquet in."

    1485 "Yeah."
    Reply "There was NOTHING OF THAT SIZE YOU COULD HIDE A, A TENNIS RACQUET IN or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything..."

    ReplyDelete
  26. When an event occurs you remember every tiny detail and not to know what you were eating is one them IF you had eaten. Not only that there would be a written order AND a bill. T9 said meals were included in a package deal to avoid this?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon Aug 27, 2011 9:21:00 AM
    Truly amazing. The Tapas staff must hold the world serving record.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The fact that a cover-up existed and it involves at least the OC is clear. Well done Textusa and susters. You've presented a solid case, pity the authorities don't want to pick it up. Maybe one day, but for now, we have to thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A cover up involving a number of people is a conspiracy, numbnuts

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous said...

    The fact that a cover-up existed and it involves at least the OC is clear. Well done Textusa and susters. You've presented a solid case, pity the authorities don't want to pick it up. Maybe one day, but for now, we have to thank you.

    Aug 27, 2011 9:41:00 AM


    Yes, strange that, isn't it?
    The problem is that the authorities don't want to pick it up because it's bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ''Anonymous said...

    When an event occurs you remember every tiny detail and not to know what you were eating is one them IF you had eaten. Not only that there would be a written order AND a bill. T9 said meals were included in a package deal to avoid this?

    Aug 27, 2011 9:31:00 AM''

    The meals were included as part of the package.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ''Anonymous said...

    Insane,
    "How does ''steak and maybe sardines'' constitute any confusion between the two?"
    Do you usually eat two main courses in the same dinner? So now the T9 are served twice?!? In a space of time around an hour?!?! That is not confusing?!? Those Tapas waiters were indeed fantastic!''

    Go away and look up what ''Tapas'' is, lamebrain

    ReplyDelete
  33. ''As this is a blog read by many and you can e-mail Textusa privately if you want to know or share something. I think there was no need to leave a comment we can all read if it means nothing.''

    Hell would freeze over before that happened.

    Try reading the posts if you want to get up to speed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous said...

    Anon
    Aug 27, 2011 7:18:00 AM

    To answer your question, because it further confirms the FACT that they never ate there.''


    Don't be ridiculous. Of course they ate there.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ''Kate talking about the round table and cameras. Then, if that dinners happen, they must have a picture of the table. Why was it not on her book?''




    I go out for dinner several nights per week. I am never seized with the desire to photograph the table...

    ReplyDelete
  36. ''For me, the oval table was brought tthere, specially for Martin brunt video.''




    *snort*

    ReplyDelete
  37. ''That's a definite TANNER. Trying to minimize what now is proven ridiculous. Now the table's shape is no longer important. If it wasn't, why search the net to prove someone is wrong about a minor thing? Even if he didn't think about the round vs oval, he was, by proving that there are restaurants with oval tables, to VALIDATE Brunt's video. That the table was real and not a prop as someone has already said.''


    Did you read the bit about ''challenging the ridiculous assertion''? do try to keep up, I know it's a struggle for you, but put some effort in

    ReplyDelete
  38. Aug 27, 2011 9:50:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:53:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:56:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:59:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:02:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:06:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:08:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:10:00 AM

    8 comments in 20 minutes. That is as good as a Tapas waiter!

    ReplyDelete
  39. '' ''That's a definite TANNER. Trying to minimize what now is proven ridiculous. Now the table's shape is no longer important. If it wasn't, why search the net to prove someone is wrong about a minor thing? Even if he didn't think about the round vs oval, he was, by proving that there are restaurants with oval tables, to VALIDATE Brunt's video. That the table was real and not a prop as someone has already said.''


    Did you read the bit about ''challenging the ridiculous assertion''? do try to keep up, I know it's a struggle for you, but put some effort in

    Aug 27, 2011 10:10:00 AM
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Aug 27, 2011 9:50:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:53:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:56:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 9:59:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:02:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:06:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:08:00 AM
    Aug 27, 2011 10:10:00 AM

    8 comments in 20 minutes. That is as good as a Tapas waiter!''


    Unlike most people who post here, I don't type with two fingers and my tongue sticking out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This person states that Textusa is a lunatic, yet monitors the blog incessantly. Why lose sleep if some lunatic accuses you of doing something outrageous? I wouldn't.
    Why lose sleep over what a lunatic has to say about other people? That's taking altruism to an absurd level. Umless, of course, Textusa is not the lunatic he says she is, and neither is he a "third-party"...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Textusa posts are worrying the BH. Some comments from the readers also.

    Off course the meals are important. The menu is important, so important as the table. If you claim you eat something that was not part of the menu.... A Tapas bar which serves everything....but no tapas. From where came the name?

    "steak and sardines"- odd. Even if it was " steak or sardines", will be odd. You cannot confuse two meals so different and it is very odd to have the two main courses at the same dinner.
    Agree with a previous comment. She must picked the meals from other restaurants where she used to go and stick it at the Tapas.
    How many waiters and facilities had the Tapas allocated to that group to cook sardines and steaks?

    The BH who post here, are showing some involvement on the story. Since one said, the diner happened, show us where was cooked the steak and where was cooked the sardine. Could not be both on a bar kitchen and the millennium was too far to bring coocked sardines.
    I' m enjoying the lost of the north of those BH.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What is interesting is that this cover-up involves a reasonable amount of people. That is a dead giveaway for a "lunatic" conspiracy theory. Or it would be if there weren't, as explained, TOO MANY unexplained and unaccounted for events and the conclusion is that there was indeed a collective effort to hide what happened. And the only possibility for so many people to be involved and keep a secret, is that there HAS to be something that if revealed will seriously damage EACH person's interests. So we're looking at a collective activity, either illegal or highly frowned upon by society. Illegal, I can see only drugs and real estate, frowned upon, only of scientific or of sexual nature. In drugs, real estate and scientific dealings, there are always some who have to lose more than others, and that means some would have to lose more than others. We've seen people "walk" away from the case, like Russ, but we haven't seen any of them come forward. They just remain silent. This, to me, means that they are as compromised as those that show their faces. I can only see something of sexual nature being what holds all these people "together". Here I completely agree with Textusa. All of them are involved, and all of them can't risk it being known. It explains the engagement that this person has with this blog. It's cracking all wide open, raising questions that they can't answer. Not because they don't know the answer but because they just can't. It's time we stopped discussing if there was a cover-up, as we all have come to realize that there was one, but to start to discover the whys. To link up the dots.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This person states that Textusa is a lunatic, yet monitors the blog incessantly. Why lose sleep if some lunatic accuses you of doing something outrageous? I wouldn't.
    Why lose sleep over what a lunatic has to say about other people? That's taking altruism to an absurd level. Umless, of course, Textusa is not the lunatic he says she is, and neither is he a "third-party"...

    Aug 27, 2011 11:11:00 AM
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    What is interesting is that this cover-up involves a reasonable amount of people. That is a dead giveaway for a "lunatic" conspiracy theory. Or it would be if there weren't, as explained, TOO MANY unexplained and unaccounted for events and the conclusion is that there was indeed a collective effort to hide what happened. And the only possibility for so many people to be involved and keep a secret, is that there HAS to be something that if revealed will seriously damage EACH person's interests. So we're looking at a collective activity, either illegal or highly frowned upon by society. Illegal, I can see only drugs and real estate, frowned upon, only of scientific or of sexual nature. In drugs, real estate and scientific dealings, there are always some who have to lose more than others, and that means some would have to lose more than others. We've seen people "walk" away from the case, like Russ, but we haven't seen any of them come forward. They just remain silent. This, to me, means that they are as compromised as those that show their faces. I can only see something of sexual nature being what holds all these people "together". Here I completely agree with Textusa. All of them are involved, and all of them can't risk it being known. It explains the engagement that this person has with this blog. It's cracking all wide open, raising questions that they can't answer. Not because they don't know the answer but because they just can't. It's time we stopped discussing if there was a cover-up, as we all have come to realize that there was one, but to start to discover the whys. To link up the dots.''

    What total and utter drivel.

    No-one has ''come forward'' because this ''cover-up'' doesn't exist. It is a figment of Textusa's overactive imagination.

    If you seriously think there is a conspiracy of a sexual nature binding together a group of holidaymakers from the UK, the owners of a holiday company, all their staff, fellow unconnected holidaymakers and a sadly departed member of the ex-pat community in her eighties, then you are in need of as much help - and medication - as Textusa

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous Anonymous said...

    This person states that Textusa is a lunatic, yet monitors the blog incessantly. Why lose sleep if some lunatic accuses you of doing something outrageous? I wouldn't.
    Why lose sleep over what a lunatic has to say about other people? That's taking altruism to an absurd level. Umless, of course, Textusa is not the lunatic he says she is, and neither is he a "third-party"...''

    Oh, I'm afraid she is. Completely away with the fairies. She just has a talent for manipulating simple-minded individuals like you.

    As to why I comment, it pisses me off to see all of you libeling innocent members of the public and drawing attention away from the real issues in this case. You are all so ridiculous, you are the best friends the McCanns could have. All they have to do is point at you and claim the people who disbelieve them are nutters, and sadly, you bring a truth to that lie by the ridiculous crap you come out with on here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gerry is very keen to point out to Textusa where she is barking up the wrong tree. Either this is very altruistic, not wanting her to waste her time, or .....?

    Incidentally, why would anyone want to "hide" a tennis racquet in a sports bag? Was this another Freudian slip, and it was something else that was to be hidden? Maybe like a tiny little body.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Come on BHs.... How do you explain Kate being Kate Healey, going to PDL as Kate Healey and
    Coming back as Kate McCann? She said, the event in PDL and the journalists changed her name. She forgot a small detail, who signed the check-outs of Madeleine from the creche on May 3 also changed her name, since signed KMccann. No any of her friends claimed having picking up Madeleine. If was Kate or Gerry also made a so obvious mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "there is a conspiracy of a sexual nature binding together a group of holidaymakers from the UK, the owners of a holiday company, all their staff, fellow unconnected holidaymakers and a sadly departed member of the ex-pat community in her eighties"

    You almost got it right. You forgot to insert the ex-pat community other than Mrs Fenn. They're also involved.

    Don't you understand that with YOUR inexplicably exaggerated zeal with Mrs Fenn reputation you're implicating the woman up to her neck on this? Every time YOU mention her name, because it's YOU mentioning it in the middle of your rants, it makes more likely that she's deeply involved in all this. She was asked to lie, and you promised her that it would be alright, so now you're sticking your neck as far as it goes for her. It I were Textusa, I would go back and do a double, or triple check on this character.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I've just read it. Hey, Textusa, could you send a Christmas card to Gerry for me this year? That is if isn't in jail by then...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon Aug 27, 2011 12:08:00 PM

    Could you please clarify what do you mean with "Gerry is very keen to point out to Textusa where she is barking up the wrong tree".

    You're making a connection, but I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ''
    You almost got it right. You forgot to insert the ex-pat community other than Mrs Fenn. They're also involved.

    Don't you understand that with YOUR inexplicably exaggerated zeal with Mrs Fenn reputation you're implicating the woman up to her neck on this? Every time YOU mention her name, because it's YOU mentioning it in the middle of your rants, it makes more likely that she's deeply involved in all this. She was asked to lie, and you promised her that it would be alright, so now you're sticking your neck as far as it goes for her. It I were Textusa, I would go back and do a double, or triple check on this character.''



    And that is exactly the sort of comment that conveys to anyone reading this site what complete nutcases most of you are. Try to get a grip, for God's sake. Whatever happened to that poor child, Mrs Fenn didn't have a hand in it. Grow up, and stop being so bloody ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think your picture of Jane Tanner quite rightly shows how ridiculous her statement is.

    ReplyDelete
  52. aug 27, 1:20,

    Who said Mrs. Fenn had an hand on it? You? From that blog, nobody. She had no hand on it, considering that "it" is the disappearence of the child. But she help the Mccann's to bake the negligence and that has no importance at all if she reported the crying immediately to the police because a child crying is quite normal. But she reported it weeks after and she exagerated the lenght of the time the child was crying, which raise suspictions. If the child had cried for so long and she, as a neighbour in a hotel, had done nothing to understand what happened, this explain a lot about her personality. she did not get bothered with child but was quite curious to come to the balcony and spy what was going on with her neighbours when Kate raised the alarm. How long was Kate shouting to disturb Mrs.Fenn? When are you BH going to understand that you cannot have it on both ways. The lazy lady, 1 or 2 nights after, was quite active. I'm saying 1 or 2 nights because there is also inconsistencies about which night she heard Madeleine. BTW, 3 of May, was not the day she went out of the flat at 6 0'clock and spent some hours out? How convennient for a lady that claims to be at home most of the time. She was out on the crucial day during the crucial hours. From 6 to 9, is when the police believe the girl died. Another acidental coincidence, like many others. Unfortunately, I'm too old to believe on Santa.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The meals were included as part of the package.

    Said by Aug 27, 2011 9:56:00 AM

    YES, meals were included in the package but ONLY at the Mill. AND for those who took a package holiday.

    This BH is not going to get much sleep tonight being so stressed out that people he doesn't know who behaved suspiciously are being discussed.

    No-one gets so excited about strangers rights and they are capable of speaking for themselves if they feel wronged. Mrs Fenn's family could do the same.

    Why don't they?

    The rudeness shown by this person speaks volumes. If he really believed all the readers were weak minded individuals he would show some tolerance. If the discussions are as off the mark as he says he is expending a lot of energy on nothing.

    Staff or guest?????

    ReplyDelete
  54. Insane
    Aug 27, 2011 9:57:00 AM

    You said “Go away and look up what ''Tapas'' is, lamebrain”.

    Let’s see what “Tapas” are:

    This is what Wikipedia has to say:

    “Tapas is the name of a wide variety of APPETIZERS, or SNACKS, in Spanish cuisine. They may be cold (such as mixed olives and cheese) or warm (such as chopitos, which are battered, fried baby squid). In select bars in Spain, as well as some parts of North America and the United Kingdom, tapas has evolved into an entire, and sometimes sophisticated, cuisine. In Spain, patrons of tapas can order many different tapas and combine them to make a full meal. In some Central American countries such snacks are known as bocas.
    The serving of tapas is designed to encourage conversation because PEOPLE ARE NOT SO FOCUSED UPON EATING AN ENTIRE MEAL that is set before them. Also, in some countries it is customary for diners to stand and move about while eating tapas”

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapas)

    Not exactly STEAK or/and SARDINES, is it?

    More the like the opposite, for people who don’t wish to have a full meal. And yes, both STEAK and SARDINES are considered full meals in any Portuguese restaurant.

    Here you can find some recipes for Tapas:
    http://www.atapear.com/recetario-de-tapas/orden-alfabetico

    and for Portuguses appetizers:
    http://www.petiscos.com/lista_receitas.php?catid=16

    From experience, the most requested Tapa in Portugal is “Ameijoas a Bulhao Pato” or “Bulhao Pato Clams”. There are other, such as Pipis, Picapau or Mexilhoes.

    If you say that a STEAK may qualify as an appetizer in the UK, is up to you. Will think you’ll have a harder time to convince anyone that SARDINES may be that too in the UK.

    At least try and do some research before you try to dominate a conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anon @ Aug 27, 2011 4:15:00 PM

    You are equally as disgusting as Kate McCann, in denouncing a woman who is no longer around to defend herself. Shame on you. In fact, you are worse than Kate McCann - at least she didn't accuse Mrs Fenn of a crime, like you did, you coward. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.


    Anon @Aug 27, 2011 5:38:00 PM

    Meals at the Tapas WERE included, no matter how much you bleat to the contrary.

    Maybe Mrs Fenn's family are as yet unaware of the disgusting remarks you make about their late relative - maybe they are too busy grieving their dead relative to be bothered with a rabble of vicious deluded bitches on the internet.

    As for going easy on you because you are so weak-minded, maybe I would - if you weren't also so damn mean-spirited.

    You have spent months - all of you - libeling innocent people, accusing them of being involved in the death of a child, purely for your own entertainment and to bolster up a completely preposterous conspiracy theory.

    You utterly disgust me. These are real people with real lives whom you are calling criminals. Spiteful, evil bitches.

    ReplyDelete
  56. In six months time, you will still be bleating on about ''steak or sardines'', you sad act. Get over it. This is about a little girl. Not your obsessive-compulsive disease

    ReplyDelete
  57. "In six months time, you will still be bleating on about ''steak or sardines'', you sad act. Get over it. This is about a little girl. Not your obsessive-compulsive disease"

    That's one perfect TANNER. Full marks for you!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oh, it's not "steak or sardines". Please read it again and DON'T DISTORT IT. It's "steak and sardines". That makes a two course meal, and that is a VERY RELEVANT detail.

    ReplyDelete
  59. One thing is certain, Insane, you monitor this blog LIVE!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anon Aug 27, 2011 6:47:00 PM
    You forgot Prawns, Crab, Ham, Fresh Cheese, Goat's Cheese... Portugal is a Country of Food, Sun & Fun!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Waw, insane 27, 6:49!
    I'm anon. 27, 4:15. Your insults are a compliment for me. In fact I get used with your over- reaction against most of my posts. Means, I'm hitting something and while I'm enjoying watching you, you are loosing your control.... Without offering any factual or intelligent argument. Calling us "evil bitches" give more adjectives to yourself then what you actually realize.
    We are not accusing anybody. We are questioning strange behaviors. There is no conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for you, since that seems to be the only argument you use to try to divert our attention from the main posts and threat and made accusations to the authors and the readers of
    that blog. Too weak, too poor. In fact your attempts are working against you. You are trying to take our attention out of the OC, their workers and their guests, and we are bringing more factual information direct from the investigation that leaves the people you are trying to protect, more exposed and more weak.
    Amazing, when you start posting on that blog, you said you believe the McCann's are involved. Over the time, we are watching an amazing metamorphoses: to protect some you are protecting the McCann's.
    I'm not accusing mrs. Fenn, but I found strange her behavior. I'm suspecting that behavior with all respect her decease deserves. The fact that a person dies did not erase what that person have done. The way you use her name or heir family to suit your own agenda, that yes, is an insult to her. She and her family, are the only ones who don't care anymore about that case. If she helped the cover up... is done. Is the pass and has no effects on her or on her relatives life. Crimes are not transferable andvshe cannot change her statements. Contrary to her, some others have a lot to fear and loose. Instead of heading to PJ to tell the truth, they prefer to waste time in the Internet, threatening and insulting who don't buy fantasies and voluntarily fight for one of the fundamental rights for a child- JUSTICE.

    fut

    ReplyDelete
  62. Insane, keep giving us the spade, we will dig until we found the truth. I believe, not only you monitor that blog. The police too, to watch your reactions. Kate is a good example for a common sense: " trough the mouth dies the fish". You too!

    ReplyDelete
  63. I wish a very nice night to the Textusa´s Blog Team !

    And to all Good People with G and P.

    ******

    To scum imatures , i can wish sweet dreams.Sleep is good.

    ReplyDelete
  64. An extract from a report from the newspaper "Sol", 30 June 2007:

    "One of the employees that was on duty that evening does not remember a lot of movement: "I only remember a tall, grey-haired man getting up once from the table". It was Russell, who, two days earlier, also had attended dinner.
     
    An aerobic instructor from the resort entertains the dinner guests at Tapas with a `Quiz'. At 9.30 p.m. the game ends, and Gerry invites her to their table, where she stays for half an hour. During that time, as she later confided to friends, nobody left the table, but one of the chairs was vacant. Najova Chekaya refuses to talk to Sol. And Russell, when the questions start to surround him, loses his sympathy: "I have nothing further to tell you. I am not going to dishonor the promise I assumed with Kate and Gerry. They want to control all information that is disclosed".

    The quiz night was 2 nights before May 3, but what is relevant is the reaction from Russel, when Felicia Cabrita ( journalist) start posing questions surrounding him. Any doubts, there is a cover up?

    ReplyDelete
  65. ''We are not accusing anybody. We are questioning strange behaviors. There is no conspiracy theory.''

    Horseshit


    Textusa, and many of you, have openly accused various members of the public, other holidaymakers, PdL residents and the resort owners of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up the death of a child. You have accused witnesses of lying, of being involved in behaviour that required then to cover it up. It may not have occurred to you scum, but thanks to the release of the files the names and often the addresses of these completely innocent people are in the public domain, so your lies are potentially extremely damaging.

    What is more you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for making these false claims. Nor do you have any right.

    If you don't like having that pointed out to you, well that's just tough shit. Don't do it.

    You are a fool. Completely taken in by a fraudster

    ReplyDelete
  66. ''Anonymous said...

    Insane, keep giving us the spade, we will dig until we found the truth. I believe, not only you monitor that blog. The police too, to watch your reactions. Kate is a good example for a common sense: " trough the mouth dies the fish". You too!''

    They may well be monitoring it, to collect evidence of the harassment of innocent parties by a group of menopausal harpies. Do you never for a moment pause and think about what you are doing to those people - people who's only ''crime'' was to be in a resort at the same time as the McCanns, or to eat in the same restaurant, or to serve them dinner, or report a crying child?

    What low life scum you are

    ReplyDelete
  67. 27, 11:02,
    Calm down or you are at high risk of having a stroke. Now you have a problem with menopausal harpies? Where they are? I'm happy at my thirties, really enjoying all your comments. You seems so similar to all the characters that react badly when the question/doubt, falls out of their basket.
    You are accusing people of accusations that just exist inside your brain. That blog and his readers has a main objective, knowing the truth. That's What drives us. What drives you? The voluntary defense of people you don't know? You insult others while defending people you don't know? What a charity dear. In fact, you are the one who keep bringing to discussion the OC guests and workers, generalizing.
    Like all the secrets, not many people get involved but for any secret, two people are already too much. A secret cannot be kept forever, because it raises curiosity inside the general public and give no relief to the small Pierrots who ,accidentally or not, get involved with it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. ''Do you never for a moment pause and think about what you are doing to those people - people who's only ''crime'' was to be in a resort at the same time as the McCanns, or to eat in the same restaurant, or to serve them dinner, or report a crying child?

    What low life scum you are ''

    Amen to that. I fear you are only talking to Tex though, and they are completely beyond reason.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If you don't like having that pointed out to you, well that's just tough shit. Don't do it.

    You are a fool. Completely taken in by a fraudster

    And yet the dogs would beg to differ.

    Thats the fundamental problem and very crux of the matter , we don't believe a word the M say , there is no evidence of an abduction!. I am afraid, Gerry says is totally insufficient , the shutters were lie one day one and so it has continued ad nuseum for 4 years

    ReplyDelete
  70. "...or report a crying child".

    Mrs Fenn DID NOT report anything. She, almost THREE months afterwards, said she heard a child cry, two nights before.

    Isn't that that "strange behavior" for you? For me it is. Only for those like you that don't wish to see that way that it isn't.

    You seem desperate and scared. Are you one in the S&S sheet? Your anger and foul mouth make me feel that you're directly involved in this, so I'm betting that you're a guest and either you've seen your name pop up, or you're afraid that it will pop up soon.

    ReplyDelete
  71. ''Calm down or you are at high risk of having a stroke. Now you have a problem with menopausal harpies? Where they are? I'm happy at my thirties, really enjoying all your comments. You seems so similar to all the characters that react badly when the question/doubt, falls out of their basket.
    You are accusing people of accusations that just exist inside your brain. That blog and his readers has a main objective, knowing the truth. That's What drives us. What drives you? The voluntary defense of people you don't know? You insult others while defending people you don't know? What a charity dear. In fact, you are the one who keep bringing to discussion the OC guests and workers, generalizing.
    Like all the secrets, not many people get involved but for any secret, two people are already too much. A secret cannot be kept forever, because it raises curiosity inside the general public and give no relief to the small Pierrots who ,accidentally or not, get involved with it.

    Aug 27, 2011 11:36:00 PM''

    What an utterly predictable response.

    The sheer dishonesty of you people is almost breathtaking. The accusations you have made can be read by anyone looking at this blog - you even seek to defend them, and claim you are seeking the truth

    No you're not.

    You have fallen in with a manipulative fraud who has led you the merriest of dances. This theory of hers is ridiculous nonsense and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

    You claim you aim is to get to the truth, yet you seem determined to try to get there via as many lies as possible.

    What is wrong with the voluntary defence of people I do not know? I seem to remember that's why we send troops to various troublespots around the world. You seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to stand by and allow vicious untruths to be perpetuated about individuals simply because they are strangers to me. We clearly have differing ethical values.

    What you are doing on here IS EVERYONE'S problem as you are perpetrating the myth that anyone who disbelieves the McCanns is a raving lunatic.

    The really baffling part is that in your comments about two people being too many to keep a secret you reveal that somewhere deep down you must understand that a conspiracy involving hundreds, to which you subscribe, is completely ridiculous.

    So here is my challenge to you


    Come up with a single piece of evidence - and I mean evidence, not some fantasy bollocks based on tapas reservation sheets - that supports either Textusa's central theory, or the ridiculous notion that there is a cover-up involving all these people.

    Evidence, please. Not theory, not hyperbole. Just evidence

    ReplyDelete
  72. ''Amen to that. I fear you are only talking to Tex though, and they are completely beyond reason.''

    Ain't that the truth

    ReplyDelete
  73. ''And yet the dogs would beg to differ.

    Thats the fundamental problem and very crux of the matter , we don't believe a word the M say , there is no evidence of an abduction!. I am afraid, Gerry says is totally insufficient , the shutters were lie one day one and so it has continued ad nuseum for 4 years''

    Christ, the stupidity.

    This has nothing to do with the dogs, or what the McCann's say, don't you understand that?

    Disbelieve the McCanns all you like - I do. But that does not give anyone on this blog the right to harass and libel members of the public who have done nothing wrong. You have no right, and it makes you just as bad as the McCanns.

    How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment

    ReplyDelete
  74. ''Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "...or report a crying child".

    Mrs Fenn DID NOT report anything. She, almost THREE months afterwards, said she heard a child cry, two nights before.

    Isn't that that "strange behavior" for you? For me it is. Only for those like you that don't wish to see that way that it isn't.

    You seem desperate and scared. Are you one in the S&S sheet? Your anger and foul mouth make me feel that you're directly involved in this, so I'm betting that you're a guest and either you've seen your name pop up, or you're afraid that it will pop up soon.''

    Mrs Fenn did report what she had heard - it was just months before she was formally interviewed. In any case, what gives you the right on here to suggest that what you regard as ''strange behaviour'' is evidence that she lied for and on behalf of the McCanns?

    As I have stated repeatedly, I am not involved in this case in any way shape or form, just a bystander who is disgusted at the damage you are all doing to innocent people and to the effort to find out what actually happened to Madeleine.

    It would seem however it is more important to you to support your lunatic theories than to try to find out what did actually happen

    ReplyDelete
  75. "...or report a crying child" to "Mrs Fenn did report what she had heard - it was just months before she was formally interviewed. In any case..."

    Do I see another TANNER? Yes, I do.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why do you keep saying that Textusa is disbelieving the McCanns? What good comes to the McCanns when Textusa says that it is Gerry with JT's very much alive child that the Smith's saw?
    Textusa is putting the OC Staff and guests in the same horrid pot WITH the McCanns, as far as I can see. I haven't read anything where the McCanns are pulled out of the picture. What I see, is the OC Staff and guests be put into that picture.
    You ask for evidence. It has been presented to you in this blog. Saying no, no, no, no, won't make it go away.

    ReplyDelete
  77. ''Aug 28, 2011 10:18:00 AM
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Why do you keep saying that Textusa is disbelieving the McCanns? What good comes to the McCanns when Textusa says that it is Gerry with JT's very much alive child that the Smith's saw?
    Textusa is putting the OC Staff and guests in the same horrid pot WITH the McCanns, as far as I can see. I haven't read anything where the McCanns are pulled out of the picture. What I see, is the OC Staff and guests be put into that picture.
    You ask for evidence. It has been presented to you in this blog. Saying no, no, no, no, won't make it go away.''

    What are you on about?

    It's the fact that she lumps the OC staff and guests in with the McCanns which is the problem - can't you read?

    There has been no evidence presented in this blog - just theory and invention.

    Show one piece of evidence which connects the OC, their staff or the fellow guests to any cover-up

    It should be easy enough for you if you claim it has been presented in this blog. My guess is that you can't and you won't. I am expecting the ''go and look for yourself'' response.

    The onus is on Textusa and this blog to prove her mad claims - not make the accusation then demand that people prove is didn't happen that way. That's how it works in civilised countries

    ReplyDelete
  78. You want evidence?

    Evidence A. There's no reason for for the existence of wo identical lists of same guests in separate pieces of paper, one nothing to do with the purpose of reserving dinner.

    Evidence B: There's no reason for 4 people to be seated in a table for 9/10 when there were tables for 4 available.

    Evidence C: According to the reservation sheets, there were 47 places to be reserved. A OC Staff says there were only 20. A guest, Kate McCann says there were only 15. Someone is lying. Who?

    ReplyDelete
  79. "It's the fact that she lumps the OC staff and guests in with the McCanns which is the problem - can't you read?"

    Where in that is there a disbelief of the McCanns that you so much are claiming to divert the attention from the OC and guests?

    ReplyDelete
  80. ''
    Aug 28, 2011 10:47:00 AM
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You want evidence?

    Evidence A. There's no reason for for the existence of wo identical lists of same guests in separate pieces of paper, one nothing to do with the purpose of reserving dinner.

    Evidence B: There's no reason for 4 people to be seated in a table for 9/10 when there were tables for 4 available.

    Evidence C: According to the reservation sheets, there were 47 places to be reserved. A OC Staff says there were only 20. A guest, Kate McCann says there were only 15. Someone is lying. Who?


    Oh behave !! Is that seriously your evidence?

    Don't talk such utter crap - apart from anything the allegations were made months before Textusa and Sina J turned their lunatic attention to that piece of paper.

    There is absolutely no evidence in what you have just quoted to suggest the involvement of the OC, guests or PdL residents in a cover-up - can't you see for yourself how ridiculous the whole thing is?

    The list is a duplicate of the dinner reservations for FOUR NIGHTS after Madeleine disappeared. It's just a copy of the dinner register. Anyone who reads more than that into it needs psychiatric help.

    You are making completely unfounded accusations against innocent people - and named innocent people at that. You are a cowardly, vicious spiteful and deranged group of individuals who are in need of medical intervention, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  81. ''Where in that is there a disbelief of the McCanns that you so much are claiming to divert the attention from the OC and guests?''

    If you can translate that into English, I'll answer it

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Oh behave !! Is that seriously your evidence?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

    How long will it be until you say "Alright, we'll call it a draw"?

    Have you no sense of shame or decency?

    ReplyDelete
  83. '' ''Where in that is there a disbelief of the McCanns that you so much are claiming to divert the attention from the OC and guests?''

    If you can translate that into English, I'll answer it

    Aug 28, 2011 12:14:00 PM
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "Oh behave !! Is that seriously your evidence?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

    How long will it be until you say "Alright, we'll call it a draw"?

    Have you no sense of shame or decency?''


    Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

    I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

    I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anon @Aug 28, 2011 12:40:00 PM

    How appropriate!!

    I think Insane should be called SIR INSANE from now on...

    ReplyDelete
  85. ''How appropriate!!

    I think Insane should be called SIR INSANE from now on...''


    Why don't you make yourself useful and try actually answering some of the questions, rather than coming up with inane quips?

    Where is this evidence you claim exists? A copy of the dinner register four days after the child disappeared is proof of nothing whatsoever, so what else do you have?

    ReplyDelete
  86. “I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved.”

    That has already been answered by a reader, on Aug 27, 2011 11:57:00 AM:

    “Why lose sleep if some lunatic accuses you of doing something outrageous? I wouldn't.
    Why lose sleep over what a lunatic has to say about other people? That's taking altruism to an absurd level.”

    You just can’t get one right, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm Anon Aug 28, 2011 10:47:00 AM.

    I'll rephrase Evidence A: There's no reason for for the existence of two identical lists of same guests, who arrived 4 days after Maddie disappeared, in separate pieces of paper, one nothing to do with the purpose of reserving dinner.

    Please don't divert and answer what is asked: why are there TWO lists?

    And don't forget again to discredit the other two. One, the one about the discrepancy of numbers involve DIRECTLY the OC Staff. Having only 20 covers was the justification for the T9 doing a block booking. The sheets show there were 47, and FREE tables. This clearly shows the involvement of the staff.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Some passages from reports made by Felicia Cabrita to the newspaper Sol and the titles she gave:
    ( for who don't know, Felicia Cabrita is a Portuguese investigative journalist who exposed for the first time the paedo in Casa Pia). She is a feared journalist for all who live out of the law and is used with defamation libels( which she normally win). She has a very incisive eye and is used with insults coming from the supporters of the people she is exposing.)
    (WITH CHEERS TO INSANE, WHO WITHOUT READING THIS WILL NOT RESIST TO DELIVER SOME MORE INSULTS AND ASK EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT OUR QUESTIONS)

    "Madeleine Case - A Pact of Silence SOL- 30 June"
    "Madeleine's parents and the friends with whom they spent their holidays in PDL are suspects in the inquiry. There are contradictory versions about the night of the kidnapping, and an assumed pact of silence in the group."..."A few kms from Lagos, in the Ocean Club resort at Praia da Luz...At the reception, which leads to the Tapas restaurant, there is nobody. Getting inside is easy. A Portuguese waiter, but with a British 'behaviour', strikes the first blow on the
    journalist's plan: "We only serve dinner to the club's
    clients". "What about a drink?". He says yes."...
    "From the same table where the group of nine had dinner on that evening, one tries, in vain, to observe the apartment's front - a ground floor apartment that faces the restaurant. A linoleum screen on the side of Tapas and the
    corridor of bushes that follows the limits of the apartment's
    back yards prevents any vigilance to that level..."One remembers the words that the mother, Kate Healy, is supposed to have said to a friend (and that the husband, Gerry McCann, did not know): "I had a bad premonition
    about my children, when I found out the Ocean Club had no baby listening service"...."At the Tapas bar, from bartenders to staff from the Kid Club, criticism is whispered:
    "We have a creche where they left their children for most part of the day, where they could be until 11.30 p.m. without spending another Euro. They could also have used
    our baby-sitters, who stay with the children in their rooms until 1 p.m. In this case, they would have to pay an extra fee, but these people looked like they could afford it", an employee comments, concluding that "this was a very
    strange group, that never stayed with their children". CONT

    ReplyDelete
  89. CONT: CONT "..."The story of Madeleine looks like a tangled ball of wool..." In the creche, the girl's picture is taken: "She was shy and had some difficulty in adapting to the group. She always stayed close to the English children she already knew"..." Before 8 p.m., Madeleine and her siblings, who seem to function like a clock, are already asleep. Half an hour later, the group of friends meets at Tapas. The staff remember that they only leave at midnight: "They were very lively and drank a bit too much. I didn't even realise they had children, because I never saw them around"..."This is the beginning of a story that will change in many chapters."..."A few minutes later, Mathew Oldfield enters the room, sees the McCann children fast asleep, and notices nothing out of the ordinary. It is at 10 p.m. that Maddie's mother discovers her daughter has disappeared. The window was wide open and the shutters were up.
     To the GNR, who were in the area with sniffer dogs to search for the child, this is a highly unlikely scenario. One of the military assures: "This is an extremely silent area, where there are practically no passing cars. That shutter was very difficult to lift from the outside, and would have made a lot of noise. It would have been a lot easier to use the door, but there were no signs of a break-in".
    This was just one of the reasons why the group became suspicious in the eyes of the investigators...Russell O'Brien knows he could be summoned back to Portugal for a
    deposition anytime. Over the phone with Sol, he tries to keep his British phlegm: "It is normal that we are suspects, and the DNA test is a consequence thereof. We were the closest people involved"..."The conversation always comes back to the same issue: the night of the disappearance. The account of that last dinner has disparate versions among the group's members."..."Gerry changes his version several times, but he maintains that the door to his children's room was open. Matt revokes his first statement: when he entered Madeleine's room, the door was open and there was more light, as if the shutters had been raised. Here starts to develop the theory that there was already someone inside the apartment. Which reinforces Jane Tanner's version (that she saw a man carrying a child)."..."But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. Jeremy Wilkins - "It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice", Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states...Although the area is scarcely lit, and the situation did not make her (Jane T) suspicious at the time, she describes the beige trousers, the dark thick jacket and the black classic-style shoes in a detailed way. Once again, Jeremy disagrees: "If that happened, I would have likely seen it".CONT

    ReplyDelete
  90. CONT: CONT: " "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves"...."The director of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro confirmed with Sol that "we do not discard the possibility of having the family and friends as suspects". This is always done "without neglecting other clues. Everybody who was at the resort at the time are suspects

    The McCanns public collection- 7 July 2007:
    "At the entrance of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, the journalists who participated in the press conference, that was held by Madeleine's parents for the Portuguese media, encountered a plastic box to collect donations. A small text, signed by Kate and Gerry McCann, invited everyone who entered the resort to contribute. This gesture was not appreciated by the members of staff, who claimed that the resort "is full of collection boxes. This box is just one of many ways that Maddie's parents found to collect money for the 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' fund – which counts with almost 900 thousand pounds already (one million three hundred thousand euros). Justine McGuinness, the McCann's new public relations, guarantees that the collected money "is being managed by a group of independent people", and subject to "very rigorous rules that are imposed by British law to all charities". Still, McGuinness refuses to explain who are the "highly qualified lawyers and managers" that are managing the fund, just highlighting that they are not remunerated, and offered as volunteers."
    "Callum McRae, the author of the site( McCann's findmadeleine site) says it was the couple’s idea( the porducts on sale on the site). Speaking to SOL, McRae explains that the child's aunt, Philomena McCann, asked him to create the internet page, just two days after the girl went missing. "She knew exactly what she wanted", says
    Callum McRae, who created the contents in just one day.
      The McCann's internet page also publicises several fundraising events, all taking place in the UK, and some planned over 60 days ahead...SOL, McRae, who was a student of Madeleine's aunt in highschool, did not want to specify whether his work on the site is paid by the fund or not: "I'm not authorised to speak about that"....CONT

    ReplyDelete
  91. CONT: CONT: "This week, Kate and Gerry moved into a villa outside the Ocean Club, but are still visiting the resort. "They come here every day to drop the twins at the creche", a member of staff reports. Kate and Gerry, who are now staying at a villa with a pool, never had to pay for their stay at the resort. "They were not even handed a bill", the same employee of the Ocean Club says, noting the couple's detached and somewhat "arrogant" attitude."


    No clues against Murat- 13 July, 2007
    "PJ suspected a connection between Robert Murat and one of the McCann’s friends...Judiciaria keeps Robert Murat as a main suspect anyway, and has been exploring the possibility of connections between him and Russell O'Brien, one of the members of the group of nine. But the only connection seems to be the fact that Murat went to Exeter, in England, where a sister of his lives, and where also Russell and Jane live, ten days before the child vanished."..."among several dozens of witnesses, only the couple's friends and one female employee of the Ocean Club saw Murat in the vicinity of the McCann's apartment on the night that Maddie disappeared....Not even the GNR agents, the first authority that arrived on location, remember his presence that night, and guaranteed they only saw him on the next morning."..."The three friends of the McCanns who have returned to Portimao state the contrary. Fiona Payne and Rachel Mampilly assure they saw Robert Murat at the Ocean Club around 11.45 p.m., while Russell O'Brien says he saw him around 1 a.m. These guarantees were given after Murat was constituted an arguido. Because before, when they were confronted with the possibility that they might have seen anything suspicious on the night of the disappearance, they said nothing."

    Looking for Maddie's body- 4 Aug 2007:
    " "There are strong signs" that Madeleine is dead", police sources have told Sol."..." The English dogs do not contradict the clues that were detected by the sniffer dog that GNR sent to the location, on the day following the English girl's disappearance. It's an animal that only follows odours, and that "detected the movement of the child from the room to another point inside the apartment", according to a source with the Guarda. The same source said that "based on that signal( from the GNR dog), it was not possible to conclude whether the child was alive or dead – because a sniffer dog will smell both the living and the
    dead"..."Yet, outside the house, both through the windows that faced the Tapas restaurant – where the McCanns had dinner with their seven friends – and through the main door, "the dog( GNR) lost the trail, as if the child had exited, for example, rolled up in a blanket", that source said."...CONT

    ReplyDelete
  92. The phrase from the post at 2.29

    The director of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro confirmed with Sol that "we do not discard the possibility of having the family and friends as suspects". This is always done "without neglecting other clues. Everybody who was at the resort at the time are suspects

    This will not please Sir Insane if he thinks the PJ are making a libelous statement that includes EVERYBODY who was at OC.
    That would include ex-pats, OC/MW staff and all the guests.

    Will this bring on yet another tirade of abuse from a certain person who has no hesitation defaming Textusa.

    ReplyDelete
  93. ''I'm Anon Aug 28, 2011 10:47:00 AM.

    I'll rephrase Evidence A: There's no reason for for the existence of two identical lists of same guests, who arrived 4 days after Maddie disappeared, in separate pieces of paper, one nothing to do with the purpose of reserving dinner.

    Please don't divert and answer what is asked: why are there TWO lists?

    And don't forget again to discredit the other two. One, the one about the discrepancy of numbers involve DIRECTLY the OC Staff. Having only 20 covers was the justification for the T9 doing a block booking. The sheets show there were 47, and FREE tables. This clearly shows the involvement of the staff.''



    Utter horseshit.

    ReplyDelete
  94. ''“Why lose sleep if some lunatic accuses you of doing something outrageous? I wouldn't.
    Why lose sleep over what a lunatic has to say about other people? That's taking altruism to an absurd level.”

    Good to see you acknowledging that Textusa is a lunatic. The penny seems to have dropped

    ReplyDelete
  95. CONT: CONT: ..." A journalist with the Daily Express – who has repeatedly contacted Sol searching for new information on this case – recognised this week that it is "difficult for an English newspaper to adopt a critical tone concerning Madeleine's parents...The Daily Express cited, in one of its last reports, the news that had been published by Sol, describing it as a "hate campaign" against the McCanns. The same journalist ended up confessing that "it's the only way we can transmit your data"....
    "The 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' fund is not recognised by the Charity Commission, the entity that regulates all beneficient activities in the UK. "In order to be considered a charity, the fund would have to be constituted for the benefit of the public, and not to benefit one individual or a specific case", a source from the comission explained to Sol. According to the same source, the Charity Commission decided not to accept the request that was made by Madeleine's parents to register the fund, after analysing the
    purpose of the collection of donations: "The McCanns failed to prove that they are collecting money to help other cases that are similar to Madeleine's"..."The information that was collected with the English authorities contradicts the statements made by the McCanns' public relations to Sol, in our edition of July 7. Then, Justine McGuinness assured that the money that is received by Maddie's parents "is subject to very strict rules, that are imposed by British law on any charity fund". At that time, the spokesperson for Kate and Gerry even explained that the decision to establish a fund was born from the need to
    "ensure that everything is done in a transparent way".
     Confronted with this inconsistency, Justine McGuiness corrects her initial statement: "The fund is not considered a charity, but it aims to comply with the high standards that are demanded by the Charity Commission".
     McGuinness does not explain why she did not clarify this from the beginning, but she guarantees that her role in the campaign to find Madeleine is to "be Gerry and Kate's spokesperson, and not the Fund's". ..."According to a source from the Charity Commission, this juridical status means that the money that is collected by the fund "is not exempt of taxes in the UK."CONT

    ReplyDelete
  96. CONT:.CONT: McCanns talk to Portuguese on Friday Sol- 8 Aug 2007:
    "After the interview for the BBC, the McCanns plan a new contact with the media, promising they will not exclude the Portuguese journalists this time. According to the couple's public relations, David Hughes, Gerry and Kate "are planning a series of events" to mark the 100 days that
    have passed since little Madeleine disappeared, next Saturday. One of those moments will be, as Hughes explained to Sol, a "collective interview, with several media" that will also be attended by Portuguese reporters "from TV and press". The revelation is made after the new attitude of Maddie's parents towards the media was criticised by Portuguese journalists"..
    "The McCanns have been giving interviews to 3 English TV stations since 3 p.m. in a private villa in the Meia Praia area, near Lagos, answering questions from the British journalists. A video reporter from ITN, one of the TV stations that interviewed Kate and Gerry McCann today, talked to portuguese journalists that were on location and
    commented that the interviews had been planned for two weeks. The interviews for three TV stations - BBC, Sky News and ITN -....last for one and a half hours.
    ...Yet, portuguese media only heard about the exclusive interviews to English journalists today, although they have contact with the McCanns spokespersons every day. In spite of not having been invited, Portuguese journalists
    went to the place where Kate and Gerry give the interviews, hoping to talk to the couple, or at least to
    understand why they changed their attitude towards the Portuguese media....During the trip between Praia da Luz and the villa in Lagos, the three cars that were accompanying the McCanns split in different directions in order to lose the Portuguese journalists. The English media guaranteed that the interviews will be released to the Portuguese media, but with an embargo until 7 a.m.
    Friday. Portuguese journalists had no opportunity to ask questions to the couple, and did not manage to ask any questions through the three British channels. "CONT

    ReplyDelete
  97. The possible involvement of the remainder of the tapas group is utterly irrelevant. The issue is the false accusations made against other holidaymakers, residents and the OC staff. You could have saved yourself all that cutting and pasting.

    I think you will find that the PJ didn't make unsupported statements accusing all those people of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up the death of a child.

    Like Textusa did.


    Really, is this the best defence you can come up with? It's a pretty poor effort. But then, you are thick enough to have been taken in by Textusa, so I guess I should set the bar pretty low

    ReplyDelete
  98. CONT: CONT: "Under the magnifying glass- 4 Aug 2007:
    "The tests that were made this week on the car that was used by the McCann couple, indicates that the police believe that Maddie's body may have been moved from the place where it was initially hidden, over the last two months."..." authorities bet on the reconstruction of the route that was taken to hide the body. During this week, the PJ and elements of the English police - accompanied by the Cockers that SOL surprised on the beach and in a valley that is close to the resort, last week - performed several diligences inside and outside several houses. The
    authorities seem to have concluded that Maddie's body is buried in the vicinity of the apartment that was occupied by the McCanns, or was thrown into the sea."..."The English dogs marked the death inside the apartment. And Portuguese dogs did not find any trace on the outside....Pinto da Costa, a forensic doctor, who says a
    perfume on the body is enough to lose the dogs."
    "It is in these four hours - between the time the McCann couple picked up their children at the creche and the time Kate noticed her daughter was missing - that lies the solution to this mystery. This is also where the inconsistencies are found, between the versions that are reported by the couple and their friends. "
    ..." Matthew met Gerry McCann when both doctors worked together at a hospital in Leicester. Matt has a pending accusation for medical negligence in that hospital, after a late diagnosis resulted in the death of a patient."..."After studying at the same university as David Payne, O'Brien met Jane, with whom he has two children. The friendship between Russell and David is so strong that he chose him as his wedding godfather when he made his relationship with Fiona official, in Italy. Coincidentally, Jane and Kate became pregnant at the same time, as the O'Brien couple's oldest daughter is exactly the same age as Maddie."..

    New contradictions in Maddie's case- 18 Aug 2007:
    "The version that the McCann couple and their group of friends have been giving about what happened on the night that Madeleine disappeared, is shaken by new testimonies that were collected by Sol"..."Mrs Fenn told Sol that, on the night before she disappeared, Maddie cried for quite some time, calling out "daddy, daddy!". Also the table waiters that were working in the resort's restaurant -the Tapas, where the group of friends had dinner that night - didn't notice much movement of checking on the children. One of them guaranteed to Sol that, since the beginning of dinner (which started between 8.30 and 9 p.m.), only two men got up, almost simultaneously. One of them was Russell
    O'Brien....During the short hour that dinner lasted, the group asked for, and consumed at their table, eight bottles of red wine and six of white wine, according to the restaurant's records....CONT

    ReplyDelete
  99. CONT: CONT: ."Aurelio Guerreiro, the owner of a bar at the marina in Vilamoura, was close to being involved. His testimony to Sol confuses the McCanns' time version. Sometime between 0.30 and 1 a.m., Aurelio got a phonecall from an old customer: Pat Perkins, the human resources director from a public English organism. She calls him, upset: "She told me the daughter of British friends of hers, who were holidaying close to Lagos, had disappeared over 3 hours ago, that they were completely alone and that nobody was helping them to search for her".

    Kate McCann had just informed her parents of the tragedy. Pat, who lives in Liverpool, confirms: "I was at Kate's parents' house at that moment. But I have nothing further to add".

    Guerreiro tells what he did after Pat called him: "I understood she wanted me to go meet them, but I was an hour away from their location, and I could not close the bar, I decided to call the police". After PJ in Portimao confirmed to him they already knew about the case, Aurelio phoned Kate, at the number that Pat had given him: "An Englishman picked up. He thanked me, and contrary to what I expected, he didn't ask me for anything". Minutes after this phonecall, Gerry asks for the priest from the Luz parish to be called for him - but the Ocean Club staff members refused, given the time it was. Gerry, given the fact that the priest didn't appear, asked another element of GNR to show him the way to the church. "...."The path that the English dogs followed 2 weeks ago, in the surroundings of the apartment, exclude the possibility that the child was abducted and is still alive. The dogs walked the only two paths that Maddie's family and friends knew.
    One of them leads to Luz beach. The Irish citizen Martin Smith, a local resident for years, told Sol that on that night he crossed ways with a man who was carrying a child with the characteristics of Maddie. That path was searched by police and other people. Six days after the disappearance, Gerry, who was accompanied by an unknown individual, also seemed to participate in the searches, but on the opposite side of the way the dogs walked. "CONT

    ReplyDelete
  100. . CONT: "According to a member of the Ocean Club's staff who was helping out as an interpreter that night, between the group of nine friends and the GNR, the McCann couple didn't stop calling journalists. They were moving influences in the British media, where they also have relatives. Around 6 a.m, Sky News breaks the first news. The abduction idea is launched. "

    Policia Judiciaria reconstructs crime Sol-15 sept 2007:
    "If Maddie was in fact murdered, the McCanns could not have hidden the cadaver alone – which means they had to have the help from a third party.".." PJ wants to verify the only routes that the McCann family and their friends knew, which derived from their daily routine. The first leads to a vacant terrain, behind the Millennium restaurant; the second one was usually made to go to the beach. Both routes have already been trailed by the sniffer dogs."..."Before the dogs went onto the terrain, an airplane which is equipped with temperature and infrared rays cameras made a complete 'sweep' of the area from the Ocean Club until the cliffs. The infrared cameras detect the existence of land shifts (in England, they have detected cadavers under cement) and the temperature cameras are used to detect changes of temperature in the earth (given the fact that decomposing bodies register more elevated temperatures)."..."As Sol could discover, the dogs detected cadaver odour behind a couch in the apartment's living room, close to a window that leads to the resort's back area.
     
    This window had curtains that were removed and analysed by police, and a small blood sample was detected. Both the curtains and the wall where it was located at, had been washed. If the information that the Irish citizen gave to Sol three months ago is confirmed, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, and Smith noticed no blood stains...."
     ""People are saying they always walked hand in hand, and that he squeezed her hand when she talked too much".

    ONE HOUR, WAS THE DURATION OF THE DINNER, ACCORDING TO THE WAITERS. HOW CAN KATE GET 2 SO DIFFERENT MAIN COURSES IN A SO SHORT TIME?
    They lie trough the all mouth and who help them lies along with them. Why? Because they received money from the fund or because they help them that night?

     








     




     

    ReplyDelete
  101. Aug 28, 2011 2:45:00 PM

    You have been given a chance to say something constructive but have so far contributed abuse. It's juvenile and unproductive.

    As you have your own blog, which we really don't want to know about, then I suggest you post comments there where your attitude will be welcome.

    It is noticeable that you never mention wanting to seek the truth of what happened to little Maddie. If fact you never mention her at all.

    As it is the intention of this blog to find the truth of what happened on 3rd May(and readers do consider various possibilities) I suggest unless you do have something to contribute that you stay away. It is giving you stress beyond credibility if, as you say, you do not know any of the people involved or are part of OC or MW staff.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "If you can translate that into English, I'll answer it"

    I think this sums up the kind of we're up against.

    The kind of person that the UK opted to defend, and making itself to be publicly humiliated.

    To the all the Portuguese readers who make a significant effort to contribute in a language foreign to them, I for one thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anon Aug 28, 2011 6:21:00 PM

    Second that!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Well done Sisters!

    ReplyDelete
  105. This is the first time I have commented here, but I wanted to thank the Anon who posted the Sol article. I don't see how anyone could read that with an objective eye and not draw the obvious conclusion. What struck me was learning that when they were staying at the villa they dumped the twins at the Ocean Club crèche every day. They were surrounded by friends and family who could look after them while they were busy giving interviews to the press and organising the fund, and you would think that their mother would not want to let them out of her sight, let alone send them back to the place where it all happened. Truly there is cold blood running in those veins. Personally, I don't think there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion to this matter, the powerful interests that have been present from the very start will see to that.

    For anyone who is British and under the age of thirty, that Sol article is what is called investigative journalism, a symptom of a free press. A journalist tracks down the facts and details, and lays them out in a form known as reportage. We used to have that occasionally in the UK, but not any more. If there is one thing that people can learn from all this regarding, to coin a phrase, the wider agenda, it is that we do not have a free press (or media) in Britain. In this case they have acted en bloc, serving up variations on the 'Kate's anguish at abduction hell' theme while absolutely ignoring or dismissing the realities laid out so methodically by Felicia Cabrita above.

    The investigative journalist in the British media is as relevant today as the fletcher is to the armed forces. Now there is just the official view, deviation from the Ministry of Information press release is unpermitted. In to this void of veracity, for the time being at least, steps the citizen journalist. In this era, of what I suspect we will one day look back on and call the free internet, conscientious individuals with no vested interest other than a nagging desire to right wrongs, can piece together puzzles and take up the task so egregiously neglected by the Fourth Estate. Textusa and her kin are such examples, and I would like to add my support to them for their diligence and steadfastness in the face of the screaming beast.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sina J and Textusa you have been very tolerant so far and Insane does not impress me as a searcher of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  107. As Sina J said, we've put a stop to Insane's comments. We have since received another. As it is a befitting FINAL comment of the character because it sums up Insane's opinions, which is more than he is done in previous posts, we've decided to publish it. It will be up to the readers to read, understand and come to a conclusion. The blog is to continue to be an Insane-free blog. As it has quite a lot of wording, we'll publish it in a separate post.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Insane's post:

    "Blogger Sina J said...

    ..... It is noticeable that you never mention wanting to seek the truth of what happened to little Maddie. If fact you never mention her at all.

    As it is the intention of this blog to find the truth of what happened on 3rd May(and readers do consider various possibilities) I suggest unless you do have something to contribute that you stay away. It is giving you stress beyond credibility if, as you say, you do not know any of the people involved or are part of OC or MW staff.''

    I have often wondered what your motivations is - I guess you are just as thick as the others.

    Contributors to my blog - an intelligent bunch, it has to be said - see you and this blog for what you are. A group of witless liars intent on promoting yourselves at the expense of innocent people.

    The really laughable part is that I have said and posted many constructive things, many of which you have been too cowardly to publish, probably because they would show up your desperately poor research. Like that second list of diners, on the S&S notepaper - you made false claims about certain of those diners, which I corrected, but perhaps you are just too much of an egotist to admit you made a mistake. Why don't you go back and look again? You have confused one of the people listed with another individual with the same surname who stayed there the previous week. I posted the correct copy of the register, but you ignored it. Sadly, all of this gets posted to my blog, so my contributors can see what a fraud and a liar you are.

    Don't kid yourselves that you are ''truthseekers''

    You started off with a theory of what happened to Madeleine, and have tried to construct a case around this. If anything doesn't fit with your central thesis, it is rejected or ignored.

    So here are a few home truths for you

    You and the other idiots who contribute to this blog are providing assistance to the McCanns, by making it appear that those who do not believe them are all nutcases

    Textusa's central thesis is just that - a construct. It has no basis in truth whatsoever.None. Nada.

    The inclusive tariff at Mark Warner's allowed people to take dinner at the Tapas, limited covers were available

    The obsession with a table sufficiently large enough, be it round or otherwise, is completely ridiculous. As are your further claims about what size groups were placed on various tables. The Tapas group dined at the Tapas. Get over it.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that the OC staff or management, third party guests or local residents were involved in any conspiracy to cover up Madeleine's death, or that they were involved in any way. Nor do you have any justification for your cruel comments about Mrs Fenn, Robert Murat, his mother or any other resident of PdL.

    In summary, your claims and theories are as ridiculous as those put forward by the whackjobs who believe the US government blew up their own citizens and flew holographic planes into the WTC which they then felled in controlled explosions.

    The McCanns do nothing to discourage blogs like yours - do you know why? Because every day you convince people that they are right when they say they are persecuted by mentally ill posters.

    You can publish my posts or not - it's immaterial. Any laughable crap you post on here will be pulled to pieces on my place in any case. All the false claims you have made against innocent third parties have been logged and recorded so that they can be passed on at the relevant times.

    I think you will find that when you are called to account for the lies you have published about innocent people, endlessly bleating ''tapas booking sheets!'' and ''we are getting to the truth'' is going to fall some way short of saving your bacon.

    Go and find something useful to do with your lives, preferably without hurting other people the way you do at present.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Aug 28, 2011 5:18:00 PM "

    ReplyDelete
  109. Thank you Ross and I do hope we hear more from you.

    ReplyDelete
  110. He/she is one of them and is very scared. The last post is a confession on itself and reminds me another guy- Marcos Aragao Correia, who tried to destroy Amaral with the despicable excuse of defending a crap criminal which judges had no doubts, she is guilt. He, it was obvious what were the motivations: The easy money and the publicity. End up running back to Madeira and I have serious doubts if he will escape untouched because one day the case will be reopenned.
    It is clear, they had a 10, 11 or 12 Tapas, who help them that night. Must be somebody close to the location or in loccus and somebody speaking english to avoid been lost in translations but knowing portuguese. Insane, knows portuguese and the way he/she talks about the lists he/she is not the waiter who bring the food to the tables, or who is cooking at the kitchen. those are small characters which cannot play a big roll. they are too danger, too risky to have them involved. As we can see in SOL articles, most of the workers from the OC were criticising the Mccann's. Some lost their jobs, probably due to the dificult to close their mouths specially to inquisitive journalists. But those were the minor players who could suspect something but know nothing. Who knows, must be close to the top and is now very scared. Isn't interesting seeying Insane saying Madeleine death?
    From his/her post, is quite clear how Insane hate the Mccann's. He must have his/her reasons for that. They leave him/her under that situation and still pressuring, which better word is threatning.
    Textusa blog is a space of free opinion. Mccann's refused to do the reconstruction and prove their innocence. The case could be solved by now and that blog, like many others, without any reason to exist. They choose to remain suspects and leave all the people who shared the space and the moments they spend in PDL under the same suspiction. As PJ said, all are suspects untill they can be cleared. I believe, many were cleared already by what the police knows and is not in public domain. Few remain attached to the circumstances without credible explanations to justify some stranges behavior. There is not a logical reason to have 2 lists of the same guests and one in a so strange papers. Gerry already prove how he wants to control everything. O'Brien told it to Felicia Cabrita and the words of the owner of a bar in Vilamoura are one more proof. They moved the world that night, before the alarm. Too much for who don't get bothered with search and wait until the sunrise to go out, was too cold and too dark.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Does this comment posted mean what I think it means?


    "How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment

    Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM"

    It's this bit that puzzles me "and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed"
    Or am inreading it wrong

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thank you for spotting that Angelique!

    It about says it all, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  113. From The Last Post......

    "You have confused one of the people listed with another individual with the same surname who stayed there the previous week"

    And who would this person be????? The one who wanted 2 weeks childcare but only stayed at OC 'one week'?

    ReplyDelete
  114. "...All the false claims you have made against innocent third parties have been logged and recorded so that they can be passed on at the relevant times.

    I think you will find that when you are called to account for the lies you have published about innocent people, endlessly bleating ''tapas booking sheets!'' and ''we are getting to the truth'' is going to fall some way short of saving your bacon."- insane

    Too much for who just witness a crime .... Too much for who pretend to look like a Samaritan by defending unknown people. Too much bothered for a so small detail, the lists and the round table.
    We know why the McCann's don't touch Textusa. Because they don't want to publicize a place where the truth is being exposed. They want people away from here and from Joana Morais and are trying to use the libel against Tony Benneth to scare who touch their abduction fairy tail. In van....a secret can't last forever.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Angeligue,

    Not only does he say it TWICE on
    Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00:

    "How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain BECAUSE YOU WERE WITNESS TO CRIME, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE CRIME YOU WITNESSED? Just ponder on that for a moment"

    as he says it again on Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM:

    "I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - IF YOU WERE A WITNESS TO A CRIME and some deranged cow on the internet accused YOU OF BEING INVOLVED. You are all a complete disgrace."

    Why is he so worried about the reputation of those he says offended by Textusa who arrived 4 days after as he says? According to him they couldn't possibly have been WITNESSES.

    Notice how he often uses DEATH and CRIME.

    It's plain to see why he has such a keen interest in all this.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anon @ Aug 29, 2011 10:31:00 AM

    They're going after anyway who has earned a cent on this. And that is what they're attacking, not facts. They can't discuss facts. And if there's anyone who's made a bundle out of this, it was them.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I went back to Insane's post. The all post is a self- confession as Angelique pointed out a very important sentence. But I get curious with some other passages as well:

    ..." I have said and posted many constructive things.....Like that second list of diners, on the S&S notepaper - you made false claims about certain of those diners, which I
    corrected.....You have confused one of the people listed with another individual with the same surname who stayed there the previous week. I posted the correct copy of the register......

    .....The inclusive tariff at Mark Warner's allowed people to take dinner at the Tapas, limited covers were available.....

    ....There is no evidence whatsoever that the OC staff or
    management, third party guests or local residents were involved...."

    - Which second list is Insane talking about?
    - "You have confused one of the people listed with another individual with the same surname who stayed there the previous week"- what is that? Confusing one people(person) with another individual( person) with same surname? How can he says that without knowing those people? Up to now, I saw on the S&S list one surname which could have been wrote with a mistake - Newman. But I was thinking is the same individual and who wrote the list made a spelling error. Now Insane is saying there is two individuals with same surname and one stays in the resort one week before. Waw! What a coincidence! And a big WAW!!! how he knows that if such information is not on the police files? I didn't remember to see it on the files. But he didn't stops to surprise me... He said, he provide a correct list. Where is that list and how can he have a correct list? Is it a bluf? If not, where he found the correct list? Is he talking about the Hindy, which name was crossed on one of the lists?
    - And what about that part on his post ..."local residents were involved"- why bringing the local residents if we are discussing a guests list? There is residents on the Tapas list. Or there was residents there that night which names are not on the list?

    Off course the shape of the table is relevant, specially because Kate and Tanner made a huge mistake. The table they describe on their statements is not the same they show or somebody show to polices and journalists as the T9 table. That is available at Pamalam and you can see it while clicking on Tapas/ bar photos. is the same in Amaral book and the place (canopy) is the same in Martin Brunt video. BUT YOU CANNOT SEAT 9 PEOPLE AROUND THAT TABLE AND YOU CANNOT JOIN 2 TABLES TO MAKE A BIG ROUND TABLE. Even, if the T 9 were special guests, I don't believe the Tapas brought a special furniture to that guests on that special week and the table was removed immediately after the alarm. Journalists have been there, with an accurate eye, and they will have described the table with some adjectives, like " different", " big", if was different then the others. I revisited many articles from the first week and not a single journalist reports any difference between the tables. Then, must be the table available in Pamalam. On that table you can have people seating around with drinks, but not with food. This bring me again to what I believe... The Tapas was a meeting point for May 3 and not a dinning point. That's why Diane W. Did not get bothered with alarm and just left the table 5 minutes after.

    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