Saturday, 17 September 2011

Our Sincere Apologies



Beloved readers, As you know we’ve had here lately and persistently the contribution of someone who is obsessively interested in our blog as seems to have a direct interest in what is written here.

Clearly a Black Hat, we’ve come to know this person by an adjective which is quite aggressive in nature. Not talking about the person, but the actual adjective by which we identify this individual.

And it’s exactly for allowing into the blog this aggressiveness, one that constantly, and most likely purposefully, accompanies this individual’s comments, that we're here to apologise.

To disassociate ourselves from all the aggressiveness contained in that particular adjective by which this individual is called, we, henceforth, shall refer to this person as “The Character” or simply TC.

Not to be mistaken with Thomas Cook. In doing so we hope to contribute to the clearing up some of the pestilent air caused by all this unpleasant and disagreeable aggressiveness that has here settled.

Avoid the use of unnecessary violent language.  

Violence, as you know, is the most common weapon used by the weak. Bravado, in its essence, is nothing but a cover for fear. That alone says much about the intent of who has posted the referred comments.

The decision to post TC's comments was not an easy one, and many of them remain unpublished.

When we decided to publish those that we did, we did it for two reasons. The first was that we thought best to allow our readers to realize the constant abuse and insult that our blog is constantly subjected to, and the other, was for you to feel and understand all the despair contained in them.

This despair is for us a clear indication that we’re on the right path. TC’s comments bring nothing new, are abusive in their interpretation of posts and comments and rapidly slip into offensive generalizations.

They cling to every single possible flaw as if their life depended on it, in a desperate attempt to make a whole building crumble with a single firecracker. They’re unreasonable, because it’s impossible to quench the demands.

Not because they’re not answered, but because the answers are always deemed unsatisfactory regardless of their logic, reason and completeness.

This, together with the permanent bullying and intolerant speech, has dominated lately the comments in our blog in a very argumentative nasty way, and brought quite an unpleasant aggressive aura to it. TC’s comments are indeed off-putting.

It spoils our blog and dilutes excellent contributions from our polite readers, discouraging them from further participation.

This is obviously TC's intention, to drive away readership and readership participation. Some of our readers fell into this trap and have lapsed into arguing with TC. It’s completely understandable, as no one likes to see muddy feet in a spotlessly clean living room. Some of our readers have engaged in a quite passionate argumentation with said individual.

It is commendable for their dedicated protection of this space which is all of all of us, but has to be reprimanded for further contributing to allow this person to play his/her game. And the first to be reprimanded, are we, who published the comments, and myself, in particular, for responding needlessly to one or two of them.

Here we must pay a huge compliment to all those readers who remained calm and poised, and continued to post polite and useful comments, ignoring completely the turmoil set by TC's comments.

Thank you.

We were called to reason by our wonderful readers.

And when reason calls, we pay attention.

When one is wrong, the only acceptable way forward is by correcting the error as best as is possible to be done.

Thus our heartfelt apologies, as we've indeed allowed TC space to field his tactics that targeted our most polite and educated readers.

Life is hard as it is so we fully understand that there's no need to come here to obtain further anguish. So we blame no other than ourselves for distancing some of our readers.

But not all is bad, as TC has provided us with very valuable information. We’re talking obviously about TC’s recognition that the guests were indeed witnesses to a crime that involved the death of a little girl; about TC’s bringing on scene a very interesting guest, Mr. Philip Edmonds, who, as he says himself, not only photographs Maddie on May 3rd, but also says he was a “first-hand” witness to the events although he exits the scene in the early hours of May 4th.

Also about TC’s confirmation that the dog did react to blood in a spot on the floor located behind the couch in apartment 5A’s living room and  about TC’s very useful mix-up between oval and round table shapes.

But that is not all we've been provided with. TC has also led us, or better said, insisted, as you’ll see, that we go, down a particularly valuable path of information.

Without TC’s indication and insistence, I don’t think we would ever discover what we did. Let me tell you as an appetizer, that it is worth all the unpleasantness that our blog has been subjected to. But that is no reason or excuse to have allowed TC’s comments.

We’re fully aware of the fact that one can learn a lot from a car wreck, but that isn’t in any way a reason for one to drive a car into a tree.

Information can, and should, be obtained by much more reasonable and sensible manner, as we've done in the past and intend to continue to do.

We hope we can recover as quickly as possible all those readers that were driven away because of this unfortunate mistake, and hope that the possible damage done to the structure of our, yours and my, blog is not significant.

Yours respectfully, Textusa

Update on Sep18, 2011, 20:24:
From reading the feedback we've received, it made us have the feeling that our readers would like us to publish BH’s comments.

Not an indiscriminate publication, but one subject to the adequate filtering and censorship.

Let us tell you that your reaction pleases us immensely.

What pleases us is not what you’ve suggested, but that you suggested it.

In fact, some valid suggestions were against what is above written. What did please us is that you’ve revealed that we’re achieving what we’ve intended, and that was, and is, to have our readers be stakeholders of this blog.

You may not share ownership, but you’ve certainly shown sharing its best interests. You’ve demonstrated that the success of this blog is not ours, as in its authors, but is ours, as in Textusa family.

We will continue do a case-by-case analysis of comments, and publish those we deem constructive or revealing, censoring them if need be.

As we’ve said, we’re fully for freedom of speech and opinion, just not for freedom of insult. Our censoring will never affect content.

 Let us give you an example. One of the last comments from "The Character" (TC) that was published, was censored.

This is its original version (in bold, what was censored):
@ anon(and deranged) 2.12pm Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious. This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. This is nothing more than a bizarre theory, which you can't prove.  
@ Anon 2.35 Not implying anything. You seem to be doing quite enough of that to go around Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this? 
There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment. Reading this blog is at times like reading the deranged nonsense on the 9/11 sites, where people seem to believe in holograms and conspiracies and missiles. It's all nuts. This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. But do go on kidding yourselves, it's amusing.

This is the censored version we published:
@ anon(and (censored)) 2.12pm Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious. This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. (censored).  
@ Anon 2.35 Not implying anything.(censored) Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this? 
There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment. (censored) This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. (censored).

As you can see, only the insulting, offensive or aggressive language was cut out, leaving the relevant content intact.

Also it has become much less off-putting than certainly originally intended.

It would be naive of us to believe that TC is a single person, although it certainly does appear to be just someone who, unable to withstand the heat of the frying pan in which he voluntarily jumped in, has decided to lash out like a cornered animal.

From now on, any BH now knows that he either abides by the basic rules of education or accepts that his/her comment will not be published, or, if it is to be, it will be censored.

We also receive comments from readers who're not blatantly BH that we think best not to publish. Here is an example (by the way, it’s the only one we’ve withheld with reference with the present post this far): Can we stop this discussion about some idiot and get back to the real object of this forum please. You have a little girl still waiting for justice.

The reason for not publishing it (well, we’ve done it now, haven’t we?) is the unnecessarily aggressive language used.

If it’s from coming from a WH, than s/he should rephrase it. As we have no way of asking to have that done, we’re limited to not publishing.

It contains language we can do without, and its tone reveals a kind of support we do not seek or even want to associate with us.

If, as it appears to be, it’s from a BH, and most likely from TC, it brings nothing new, and seeks only to divert the attention away from him.

Hope this pleases who we aim to please, and that’s you, for we need your help in trekking this path.

One last note for clarification's sake, and that is to think, or even mention, that the TC acronym is referring to our friend Totally Confused is to be transparently abusive and ill-intended.

38 comments:

  1. Pobre cãozinho com um ar tão culpado .

    ****

    Fez bem aproveitar os abusos do tal invasor violento.

    Mas, sem dúvida o dito estava a tomar conta deste Blog.

    Dever-se-ia não só a uma intenção para minar os Vossos artigos.

    Mas, também as características deste "Invasores Violentos" são por de mais conhecidas por quem anda nas redes sociais e nos blogs correctos.

    São altamente imaturos, independentemente da idade, violentos, completamente mal educados e sem nada para fazer.

    Usam o bullying constantemente e são demasiadamente limitados.

    Nada mais fazem pois também eles sabem muito bem não ser necessário andar à busca da Vítima.

    Violência e dinheiro são os objectivos da campanha desses seres.

    Agradeço voltarem ao espírito genuíno que caracteriza este Blog. É que já cansava.......

    ReplyDelete
  2. Textusa, your apology was not necessary for me. I thought the comments from a particular person were very enlightening. As soon as someone gets aggressive to get a point across they are showing that point does not stand on its merit, it has to be forced.

    As for the abuse directed at other readers, that is just out of order and very juvenile. Everyone else is able to discuss controversial issues without resorting to emotional abuse directed at others with differing opinions.

    I have read here many times that Textusa et al and readers have accepted correction willingly and made a point of commenting they stand corrected.

    THAT person offered nothing apart from vague suggestions as to why things were or were not in the files based. I think the worst offence was the rude and arrogant bullying expecting readers to jump to his demands to produce 'evidence' and yet was totally unprepared to offer any himself.

    A school playground bully!

    Whoever this person is he is worried so must have some involvement in the events of May 3rd 07.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Text!

    Agree with Anon 7:07.

    One of the things that the BHs like to do is to create a environment of fear around Maddie. This is achieved by either threatening and insulting (we're the haters and trolls), or by pushing the message that we're lunatics (9/11 conspirators). I see them very offended whenever somebody accuses the McCs of harming Maddie, but I see no reference to you. They've understood that it is here what they most to fear, because you're unraveling the case, in a highly logical and objective manner that they can't afford to fight in any legal ground. They're hoping that one day people will abandon the this subject and hopefully try to find a way to shut down your blog. But I got bad news for them. I copy your posts with comments and pictures. I don't think I'm the only one doing that. If need be I can recreate your entire blog, and will do so if needed. This platform (the internet) is here to stay, and your blog will shame many, many people in the future, because future generations will look at each other and ask how on earth was this possible? After all we no longer live in the Middle Ages, or do we? If we do, then we are Robin Hood and his merrimen, arrows assuring that the Bad Knights "fear for their lives" whenever they have to go into Sherwood woods.
    No need to apologise. A great honor to stand by your side!

    ReplyDelete
  4. He(she) thinks, he accomplished his intents. In fact not. If he is being payed( as I suspect) to assault blogs where "mccann's affairs" are being questioned, to distract, he failed.
    I had some argues with him and his insults were in fact, a compliment. Means I achieved something, I touched a hot point. Due to his attempts, I re-read the files and payed more attention to some issues that passed unnoticed at the first time. Who pays him, was not happy ...he drove us in some direction, where the mccann's and who had help them have a very, very bad picture. After all, the dogs are reliable, the Fund is a fraud because the girl is dead and the Tapas 9 are bigger then just the people for who Payne
    claims, book the holidays.
    Due to his insults and constant absence of valid contra-arguments I realize that most of the guests on the Tapas list had also a child in the creche, special in the mini-club where Madeleine belongs to. The Patel, the Mann, the Williams, the Fox, the Hynd, etc. The Berry, who booked the holidays with creche included and were during the all week the first to drop their child in the creche ( 9am, including the 3rd of May),crossed with mccann's on the
    pick up time, some days... They managed to stay out of the Tapas list and were the few ones who eat from Tapas on May 4, using Take Away. They were lucky or they don't fall on the Rattrap?
    I noticed also that Madeleine was registered on the creche for May 3 morning but her twin brothers not. Why she had to be under the care of someone while her brother and sister not?
    Thank you, dear TC, without your insults I will not pay attention to so small details.
    Textusa, you don't need to say sorry. You let him to have his space using democratic rules. He use it to incriminate some people and do a big damage to mccann's business. As a naif guy, when he realized the error, he hit back with insults and threats. Not giving him a chance will be compared with mccann's, who silence and gagg everyone don't sing their song. You showed, you are different and even who insults you has voice and space in your blog. And what is more amazing and destroying them... You are doing everything for Madeleine, a little girl, they forgot long ago. We should remember, what is being discussed is the destiny of a little girl, not the business of her parents and their attempt to distract or conceal the truth. Any question, any accusation against the mccann's, a poster can made
    here, is nothing compared with pain and the stress Madeleine had suffered on her last moments. That is what is important, and that is what drives honest people to the Pj files to seek the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No need to apologise at all, Textusa. The comments of TC were most enlightening, although possibly not in the way he/she intended, and although an irritating distraction confirmed that you are definitely working along the right lines. I think it is certain that this person is either a paid lackey or someone who was implicated from the start. Whichever it is, well done and keep going - you are obviously on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not wanting to change your mind, or even disagreeing with you, but I looked at TCs comments as AGAINST the BHs. He's obviously an hot-headed person who reacts furiously to criticism (typical of narcissists) and didn't think before he typed. My opinion is that he's an embarrassment to the BHs who are now probably glad that you've shut him up for them. I suggest, if I may, that you continue to publish him, censoring his insults, get him irritated and he'll tell us a little more. I come here on a daily basis since I stumbled on your blog and I think what upsets most the BHs is that they're trying to pin the "loony conspirator" sticker on you, and they simply can't. Remember that the louder they shout the more sensitive was the nerve that was hit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Due to TC, I discovered that from April 28th 2007 until September, the OC must be called "Mccannland". How many mccann's around? I lost the number but not the curiosity, since some claimed not to be related- Ruth McCann, the owner of the flat, who by magical coincidence is from Liverpool. Pauline McCann, the Nannie. And the pharmacy from where the medicines prescribed to Brian Healey ( but under the care of Kate & Gerry) were brought, is also McCann and also from Liverpool. What our beloved Kate use to say about coincidences?
    Yes, so many coincidences cannot be coincidences anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 6:26,

    Due to TC, and TC alone (his teenage-like reactions), we've discovered something that Textusa hasn't mentioned in this post, and that is the possibility of this not being a 1 week trip. TCs reaction to the McCanns been seen by an independent witness during Easter that year, makes me look at that statement as credible, and question all that was given as supporting documentation by the McCanns and friends. And with friends I include England's highest authorities. If they could tell the police what to do, much easier would be to have an airline issue bogey papers.
    I think "In***e" is not feeling very comfortable right now, and is praying that Textusa posts something else pretty quickly so that the heat is off him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon @6:26, I found odd him treating Mr Hynd as "Alistair Hynd". One treats another by the first name when one is familiar with the person, or that person has become familiar with us, like Gerry, Kate, David, Russ, Matt, etc... Besides, the Hynds were being referred to as a family and not as an individual. The expected wording would have been "the Hynds decided to" and not "Alistair Hynd decided to". It might just be a detail, but I think it reveals proximity between these 2 people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with a poster above, who defend the TC comments to be published after removing the insults. It is about us, other readers, to drive our comments with intelligence and just react to his assaults, "qb". Preventing him to post is doing what we criticize the McCann's on their Facebook. Let him, have his space, his momentum and ignore his posts when they are useless. He wil end up more irritated. That's when his posts become relevant and amazing.
    I don't believe anybody went away from that blog, due to his comments/ insults. People just got tired/bored of all the Incompetence of the SY to see what is obvious. Pj, already peal the orange exposing the juice. It's about SY, to squeeze the juice and bring the criminals to justice. Everybody knows who they are and where they are. Millions of pounds is a huge number to review what was already half investigated and fully reviewed by top teams of Portuguese and British police. What is needed is the other half of the investigation which was prevented, starting with reconstruction of May 3, in loccu. SY is taking so long to do a so easy step that I just say THE REVIEW IS A WHITEWASH OF A CRIME AGAINST A BRITISH CHILD. SHAME, THAT WHO IS INVOLVED ON THAT, IS THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE THE MISSION AND THE POWER OF PROTECTING CHILDREN. Millions to do a whitewash, is insulting every UK resident and taxpayer who had to stretch his/ her salary to afford basic things. How many parents are struggled with money, watching their child's in an hospital with serious
    illness, unable to take them to a place where they can got a better treatment? Who cares about that children? Wasn't more useful if the Home Office had transferred the millions wasted in the review into the health authorities to help children who really need? Or why not... Transferring the money into police units in charged to prevent the crime in the streets or the bullying in the schools? Shocking the way, the McCann's act and are treated, like if they are the Queen of England or the President of USA. Why so high protection, when all the evidences show they are "persons of interest in the disappearance of their daughter" and should be investigated? Nothing new, nothing strange, nothing abnormal. The statistic as a science, proves the big probability of a child murder, falls inside his/her family or closest friends.
    The president of the FMI was accused of raping a hotel worker, was investigated and bring to court. Showing nobody is immune. Only the McCann's are special. A case to mock, if was not so serious, since a child lost her life and most of her basic rights, including the right of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quando penso nesta gente da "mccannolandia" e nos direitos que tem e tiveram, da-me uma especie de revolta. Quantos se pavonearam pelas ruas da Luz sendo ou nao sendo familiares directos da crianca desaparecida? Todos meteram ferias, Perderam Dias de salario para procurarem( procurarem nao, porque nunca nenhum foi visto nas buscas) uma crianca que legalmente nao lhes concedia nenhuns direitos? Estou a pensar no meu Caso especifico e no de milhoes que Como eu, quando faltam ao emprego tem de justificar com atestado medico ou Perder ferias e salario. Ja estou a ver a resposta da entidade empregadora se alegasse que tinha de ir para o Algarve procurar a minha sobrinha ou prima em 2do, 3ro Grau, ou a filha de uns amigos. Mandavam-me "catar" e faziam bem, ja que ferias, Praia e sol Sao direitos para os Meus tempos livres. Nao me digam que o pessoal da "mccannolandia" era todo trabalhador por conta propria e com um espirito tao solidario que torna ridiculos os pacotes alimentares que as vezes compro no hipermercado tentando modesta e anonimamente minimizar o sofrimento de alguem, atraves do "Banco Alimentar". A Tia Phill, o tio Brian, o primo Michael, o padre cujo nome nao lembro e outros comumente apelidados de "McCann's relatives ou McCann's friends" estiveram todos na PDL em solidariedade com a crianca desaparecida... Bem, engine- me na palavra. Nao e solidariedade, e sociedade. E nao e com a crianca, e com os pais da crianca. O que faz a differenca? Um Fundo montado 3 Dias depois da crianca desaparecer e que gerou milhoes na primeira semana. Quando a Tia phill foi para a PDL, ja sabia que em termos monetarios era mais rentavel do que ficar na sua humilde Casa nos Uk, com o emprego de sempre. Quem nao se lembra de a ver a arrastar-se com Kate pelos corredores do aeroporto da Portela a tentar vender posters onde se dizia que a crianca estava desaparecida( Como se o mundo nao soubesse) e em letras garrafais se via o que realmente lhes interessava- o anuncio do site e da conta bancaria, onde os mais incautos podium deixar uns Euros. O Negocio Correu mal e as duas senhoras fartaram-se de protestar contra a policia do aeroporto que proibiu a afixacao dos cartazes e a publicidade a tal Negocio.
    So recentemente li num Forum, que Gerry tem 3 irmas. Interessante, ha uma cujo nome tambem nao lembro mas que acaba em "ine" que nunca deu a cara por Madeleine. Porque sera? Porque sera que esta senhora se manteve sempre fora do circo?
    Desculpem o meu desabafo, mas este grupinho e um insulto para todos os que vivem honestamente e respeitam as criancas Como cidadaos de plenos direitos.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My translation of Anon Sep 18, 2011 10:59:00 AM heartfelt comment:

    "When I think of these "McCannland" people and the rights they have and had, it revolts me. How many strutted the streets of Luz being or not being direct relatives of the missing child? Did they all put in holidays, days of lost wages to seek (not seek, because none were ever seen in the searches) a child who did not provide them any legal rights to do such? I am thinking of my own case and that of millions like me, when absence from employment has to be justified by medical certificate or then lose vacation days and salary. I can already foresee the response of my employer if I claimed that I had to go to the Algarve to look for my niece or cousin in 2nd, 3rd degree, or for a daughter of some friend. It would be to, correctly, tell me to get that idea off my head, as holidays, beach and sun, are rights applicable to my free time. Don’t tell me that the folks at "McCannoland" were all self-employed and with a spirit of solidarity because that makes it seem ridiculous the food packages at the supermarket that I sometimes buy, for the "Food Bank" program, to modestly and anonymously minimize someone else’s suffering. Aunt Phil, Uncle Brian, his cousin Michael, the priest whose name I don’t remember and all other commonly dubbed ad "McCann's relatives or McCann's friends" were all in the PDL in solidarity with the missing child ... Well, I got the wrong word. No, it’s not solidarity, but (commercial) society. And it’s not with the child, but with the child’s parents. What is the difference? A Fund set up 3 days after the child disappeared and that generated millions in the first week. When Aunt Phill went to the PDL, she already knew that in monetary terms it was more profitable than to stay in her humble house in the UK, with the employment she always had. Who doesn’t remember seeing her drag Kate down the corridors of the Portela Airport trying to sell posters that said that the child was missing (as if the world didn’t know) and, in bold, what really did interest them - the announcement of the site and of the bank account, where the unsuspecting could leave a few Euros. That didn’t go well and both ladies much protested against the airport‘s police that banned the putting up of those posters and the that business advertising.
    Only recently I read in a Forum that Gerry has three sisters. Interestingly, there is one whose name I also don’t remember but that ends in a "ine" that never showed her face for Madeleine. Why is that? Why is it that this lady has kept herself off the circus?
    Sorry for my outburst, but this little group is an insult to all those who live honestly and respect the children as citizens with full rights."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anons Sep 18, 2011 6:12:00 AM and Sep 18, 2011 10:09:00 AM

    We'll take your suggestion into consideration. Regardless of our decision to publish censored comments, we'll always have to exercise, unfortunately, some degree of full censorship, otherwise the BH would fill up the blog with their comments. Rest assured that all and any comment contradicting (not insulting) our posts will be published. We here exercise fully freedom of opinion. We just don't subscribe freedom of insult.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello, good afternoon to all!

    Why should ALL of the BHs' posts be allowed even if of abusive content??? And why would the BHs have any objections towards having their comments subjected to the blog owner scrutiny and "censorship"???
    Isn't that what is done by ALL of the british media where the case is allowed discussion??? Have they complained about the censorship/monitoring done by the british rags on the readers comments on articles about the case? Have they complained about the many cases where such discussion is not even allowed??? - "Sorry, «your say» is not available for this story"...sounds familiar...? Just look at what has been going on with Martin Brunts' blog on Sky News, among many other examples.
    Do the BHs' blogs/fora publish one and all comments they get? Even the WHs ones? I doubt it!

    It's Textusa's blog, she sets the rules, for those who are not happy about it...good riddance, dears! You won't be missed!

    (two portuguese old sayings fit here like a glove:
    "a porta da rua é a serventia da casa" e
    "os incomodados que se mudem")

    Bless you, Textusa, for all your hard work! You really must have the patience of a saint!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bravo to anon Sep 18, 2011 10:59:00 AM!

    Yes, all the "extended" family, poor souls, consumed with grief and despair about Madeleine...so worried and desperate to search high and low, to turn the Algarve inside out, leaving "no stone unturned! But...in between searches(which never happened, by the way)...they treated themselves to free wine and seafood meals, courtesy of Mark Warner, and, a swim in the pool, a trip to the beach, getting a tan... according to some Ocean Club's workers they did not forget to pack their swimsuits!
    Would you have the frame of mind to remember to pack your swimsuit when one of your loved ones is missing, even if he/she went missing in a sunny seaside resort...?! I guess not! (unless they took the swimsuits to wear on their searches on the beach and in the pool...LOL!)

    And, if I remember correctly, Philomena McCann told they were all prepared to sell their houses to pay for the search...is Rothley Manor for sale yet... Granny Eilleen's irish pub, maybe...? Uncle John's...? Ermm, NO...? No need to do that when there are so many gullable souls ready to donate into the fund...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon. 18, 2:25,
    I understand your post but I think what makes this blog different and a "freedom place" is "balance". Letting the Bhs to post didn't mean giving them free space to insult who they want, special the owners of the blog. But preventing them to post it is doing exactly the same the McCann's and their media supporters are/ were doing during this 4 years. If we criticize that, we should not do the same.
    Let's say, 99 per cent of TC posts were to divert the attention of the issue under discussion, with insults, many ridiculous strategies, etc. 1 per cent was him falling on his own rattrap and revealing important information for the case. If what he reveals is coming directly from something he experienced, or for something he was told to, by who live the moment in locus, I don't know. But I believe, that case will last on the Net for as long as the time needed to be solved. And Internet will make history. I will be not surprised if in the future, a forum or a blog come up with important revelations forcing the British authorities to act. This is a case that fascinates trillions of people. Polices from across the world, and also psychologists, biologists, lawyers, drs and very intelligent people who can help Pj achieving the truth. I really believe, that was the real target Pj was looking for, when released the files: Open the discussion in to the public minds. I think, is the first time, a top police disclose part of the information from an unsolved case. Also for that, Pj made history. Like that blog. Madeleine has many anonymous people fighting for her rights without setting any Fund or asking any money. That also, made history. When did we see that in the pass? Only in big wars or huge catastrophes.
    I really think, Textusa has the feeling and the intelligence to separate the comments of the BHs, which can add something to the discussion, from the ones who are just to distract. From my side, as a follower of that blog, I have to react also with intelligence, reading the messages between lines and ignoring what is a waste of time.
    They have fear of that blog. We can see them going against T Benneth but saying nothing about Textusa. They know, any judge will pick Textusa point, if they insist with any threat against the blog and the case could reopened due to a parallel case, a mistake. They are trying to ignore what is growing in the Internet. And the journalists, who help them, most freelancers, have fears also. They are the weak part, even with all political support. Nothing survives, when based on a lie. It is just a question of time, patience and perseverance.
    Anon18, 10:09

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here is an excellent article which also mentions BH desperate behaviour.

    http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2011/09/deprivation-symptoms.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. totallyconfused18 Sep 2011, 19:35:00

    I don't believe I have ever posted anything negative on this blog. Can someoone point me to where I have?

    I have not posted anything here for about 7 to 8 weeks. I have never been to PDL.

    Many Thanks
    TC (or as I am known Totally Confused)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear TC (Totally Confused),

    I wasn't obviously referring to you, someone which we so much cherish!

    TC, in this case is referring to Insane, that now we're calling "The Character" (TC).

    Absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with you, my friend. Sorry for the confusion!

    ReplyDelete
  20. totallyconfused18 Sep 2011, 20:20:00

    Thank you for clarifying this issue. Perhaps it will not stop the INSANE individual who is trying to imply that you were referring to me by posting abuse about me on some UK websites.

    As always a supporter of this site and all relevant contributions I can make, you know I will!

    Kind Regards to All
    TC

    ReplyDelete
  21. After reading the updated. Agree with TC comments censored and published, if they add something to the discussion.
    TC(totally confused), I really laugh with your post. Off course, the TC under discussion have nothing to do with you.
    Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The fact that someone used The Character’s comments to try and make Totally Confused look bad SOMEWHERE ELSE, is the recognition by the BHs (best case, an “independent source” who dislikes Totally Confused for some reason) and confirmation that The Character’s comments are nothing but abuse. I praise your patience and tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Back to maddie case, I found that which could be interesting:

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t769-robert-murat-help-wanted
    The Berry travelled with McCann's and had a child on the same mini-club as Madeleine. Then, high possibility to have becoming friends of the McCann's. R Balu claimed he booked a dinner for him and his wife at the restaurant( Tapas, I presume because were talking about the Tapas) But because the Berry had no table, Balu gave their table( cancel the booking) and both couple decide to eat at Berry's flat doing take away from the Tapas.. Between 7:45-8:oo Balu and Niel went to the Tapas to order and bring their food. Between 8:15-8:30, they went back to Berry's flat with food and 4 botles of wine. Really amazing the speed of the Tapas workers for Take away when compared with orders made to the tables. Any way... Neil and Balu, on their way in and out of the Tapas must have crossed with some Tapas 9 going to their dinner. The statement says nothing about that but I found interesting the time they left the Tapas, 8:30. Wasn't the time Kate bumped on the Carpenters? The Berry's and the Balu's dine on Berry's veranda which is on the flat G-606.( anybody knows if that flat is near the 5A or in the street JT claim to have seen the egg man?). Balu said that at 10:00 theno heard some noise down ( means the Berry's flat is not at ground level) and they noticed the noise was because a child disappeared.
    Few questions:
    - Balu is not on the Tapas list for May 3 dinner. If he cancelled the booking, he cancel only after 17:45 (when he meet the Berry's). Why is his booking not crossed on the Tapas list, since we saw the Hynd crossed? From 17:45 to 19:00(when the dinners start) who do the bookings re-write a new list or Balu lie to the police?
    -The Berry's eat from the Tapas on May 4 doing again Take Away. Why now the Take away is registered on the booking list and not on the day before? Was it because on May 4 was delivered and on 3 was picked up?
    -the Tapas list seems to have a double function: booking and consumption register. If so, the 4 botles of wine picked by Balu on may 3 are part of the botles registered in the "gastos " for that night?
    Looks like, there is a big story surrounding the guests in the resort at that time. The way they meet each other and become very close, is suspicious. They all have a huge facility to make new friends and socialize with them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Witness Statement Date: 2007/11/14
    YVONNE WARREN MARTIN -PJFILES
    (Again back to May 3,4 and D Payne)
    .....
    "The witness has given a previous statement to this police force regarding the facts in question. ...
    She states that in the course of her contact with Madeleine's parents, described in detail in her previous
    statements, Kate told her that the child had been taken by a couple. During the meeting they had, the details of which are contained in her previous statement, she did not have the opportunity to ask in depth about this question nor
    about any other.
    With regards to the individual who was close to
    Madeleine's parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual
    intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. ...
    ....She says that about two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man, carrying a child, who had been seen in the Luz zone, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
    She first found them aggressive and their reaction after she showed Madeleine's parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they
    left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this.
    She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine's parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a
    dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the
    time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.
    She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list....."
    Here a witness describing the clothes of a "person with interest". GNR pictured also a cream trousers and dark jacket inside McCann's flat after the alarm. Means, two mens belonging to the same group wearing the clothes described by the Smiths and Jane Tanner. They were desperate playing the abductor character, probably in different streets and at different time( the abductor without the child-Payne and the abductor with child-Gerry).

    ReplyDelete
  25. They are scared about the future. Gerry saying to the Daily Star, he understands why people commit suicide.
    We also understand, the couples which child disappeared normally broke-up accusing each other. Why, they still playing that lovebirds game, hand by hand in front of the media? Because they have a pact, a shared secret that needs to be concealed. Together, they control each other movements. WHAT A CONDEMNATION....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry Textusa, to post something belonging to other forum and thanks to the forum who made that available for the big public. Deserves to be read to see the patience of PJ and the strategy used by Tapas 9 plus J Wilkins to ruin an important step in the investigation -the reconstruction

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2228-the-cancelled-reconstruction
    ( emails changed between PJ, Stuart Prior, the Tapas 7 and J Wilkins). They show an evil strategy to avoid showing to the police what they claim as a fact- the abduction. Wonder why one of them write a email saying ... " after one year of lies....."

    ReplyDelete
  27. TotallyConfused19 Sep 2011, 16:56:00

    quote
    They are scared about the future. Gerry saying to the Daily Star, he understands why people commit suicide.
    unquote

    Not to draw attention from the issue at hand, which must be where this child is, but the government of the UK accepts that over 39 men have killed themselves by just being accused of 'abuse of children'; for such a thing is so wrong. They were of course accused of horrible crimes; the worst you could ever throw at a person. I know the figure is higher and the amount to attempt must not be overlooked.

    Whilst I have my views, which I always make clear, if the Bronte-Cohen Sisters wish to edit me, that is OK with me.

    1) I want to know where possibly it could be right to leave children unattended after bedtime- who knows what could happen?

    2)Where is it right that people think it is 'better and safer' to leave them alone in a situation that is forgein to them- that is unfamiliar?

    3) Why can't people go on holiday and look after their children on a 'family holiday'? I took my oldest two on many Canary Island holidays: each time, I put them in the 'holiday club' so they could mix and play with other kids their own age...and make memorable 'paper masks'or play with kids their own age; NOT for my benefit, but theirs. On each holiday, they each went for 2 hours for two times. Otherwise, I did 'stuff' with them; day trips, the beach, playing in the pool. Why would I spend all that money for a family holiday to fob them off on others?

    Example: my best mate and I had both had between us 4 children in 5 years; we announced to our husbands-'Guess what- you two have to cope alone without us for 36 hours- we are going to a spa to get pampering- good luck boys'. We had a good 'blow out the cobwebs' girly 36 hours and went back to full time work and being mothers and wives.

    Did it kill our kids that the two dads had their own plan?..lots of beer, take out food and 'whatever kids'; not to my knowledge. (And they never left the kids alone) Meanwhile, we girls went for a spa weekend. And we took our girls with us 10 years later and left the 'men' to 'be men'.

    After the first '36 hour holiday' suddenly our husbands worked out what a hoover was and how to use one.

    I know point 1 is the most important to this site.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear TC,

    We’ve come, in this blog, to the conclusion that there was such thing as neglect with Maddie. The McCanns, like the remainder guests at the OC, did NOT leave their children unattended. The neglect scenario is the only plausible scenario in which abduction can be realistic, and the only one where guests, Ex-pats and OC don’t get involved in the events. So neglect is inexistent but is the clutter that the McCanns & pals have to push across.

    This said, you bring up an interesting point, and that is, for all effects and publicly, the McCanns are self-confessed child-neglectors. Yes, they say they’re very sorry, but have confessed to neglect (however fake it may be). Why then, doesn’t the Social Security act upon these parents? Because they don’t want add on their pain? The system didn’t care that much when it came to you, TC, did it?

    If the McCanns are child neglectors, as they “confess” they are, then they should be accountable for it, and punished accordingly as it happens with all other neglectors. If they’re not child neglectors, which we think they aren’t, then they have a whole lot else to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If neglect is inexistent there is no episode with the father coming back to check children and found Madeleine death because there was no checking schedule and kids were not alone.

    In your opinion when did Madeline die and who was with her at that time? Was an accident or was something else?

    I think that makes sense to start talking about what has really happened to her and who might help them to take her out of the resort.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is clear, there was no negligence.
    What were doing so many nannies around the OC immediately after the alarm, if they were not working? Obviously, they were taking care of some child's, while the parents socialize.
    From one post above, Balu said he and his wife don't spend time together with Berry's during the day, but socialize at night. Were only this two couple or this was a common behavior inside the resort? I found something very strange and odd. The resort hold a welcome meeting with guests when they arrive. I travel already to so many places , using different types of hotels, different packages, with kids and without kids, and I have never seen such thing. What is the objective of this welcome meetings? Explaining the rules of the resort? The activities? For that, a brochure is enough. I think( and that is only my feeling) that meeting happen to allow the guests to introduce themselves and make the " socialize easy". If so, why? Why they need to socialize for a week holiday? Is that the reason why some other MW resorts are in isolate places? Who choose this holidays was not seeking a rest or an opportunity to visit a new country and know the monuments, the culture and the environment surrounding the resort. They choose such holidays for adult issues. Is the only reason could explain everything: the nannies around at night, the all guests and employees compromised to help and play the game which cause less damages to all. Exposing the truth will be exposing what is behind and what is behind didn't involve only the Tapas 9, involve all the guests.
    Negligent parents, normally don't travel with their kids. They pack them into the house of a relative, special the grannies.
    They were not charged with negligence because the police cannot charge them with that. The police knows the girl is dead and died under the care of her parents, one or both. There is not a single evidence of negligence apart their words. Their words have zero value if they cannot be substantiated with an evident fact.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://bloggertouch.appspot.com/joanamorais/post/6188759107580706434
    (traducao de Joana Morais da video-reportagem do programa da RTP " linha da frente- depois de Maddie").

    Depois de revere com atencao ficam varies coisas:

    -3 funcionarias da mesma familia despedidas.
    - O argumento usado para o despedimento foi a crise causada em parte pelo desaparecimento da crianca. As functionarias alegam que nao havia crise quando foram despedidas porque o resort nao perdeu clientes. Entao o motivo foi outro.....
    -A funcionaria que limpou pela ultima vez o 5A disse duas coisas interessantes:
    1- O local por onde sairam os McCann, a varanda que dava para o jardim ( portanto era habito sairem por ali). Interessante que este e o local onde os caes CSI detectaram o odor a cadaver.
    2- a dado momento, quando a funcionaria explica porque ficou abalada apresenta um motivo interessante: " porque tinha acabado de Perder o marido ha um mes e logo havia de ACONTECER AQUILO no apartamento onde ela trabalhava". No contexto desta frase, parece- me que "AQUILO" se aplica a morte e nao a rapto.
    - O membro da comunidade inglesa que diz que e sua conviccao e conviccao dos seus amigos que Madeleine esta morta.
    - O ex-policia ingles que diz que nao gostava de ter estado envolvido na investigacao dando a entender que tambem e sua conviccao que Madeleine esta morta e dando Como certo que um dia o Caso se vai resolver. Um dia, alguem vai quebrar o silencio e contar a verdade. Ate la, Tera de viver com isso. A sua experiencia enquanto policia, mostra que e assim. Interessante que nao me parece que as suas palavras se apliquem ao raptor, senao ele diria, um dia Madeleine vai aparecer....portanto aplicam-se a quem viveu "AQUILO" dentro do 5A e que segundo Olegario de Sousa, Tera Sido dramatico. Quem viveu e escondeu, um dia Ira quebrar e revelar a verdade. Veremos se se fara justica ou se vai acabar re-arquivado por ter prescrito.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon Sep 19, 2011 10:08:00 PM

    I have been on a couple of package holidays with welcome meetings the first day. The staff tell guests all the activities are offered and get commission for all the people they can get to take part. Bookings for activities are taken as happened at The Mill. They tell guests about excursions to places of interest which they also get paid commission for each person who wants to go.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Brian Spiro is the lawyer the Oldfields consulted about returning to Portugal for the reconstruction.

    This is his CV.

    Work Department

    Business crime and regulation; serious and general crime.

    Position

    Partner specialising in ‘high loss’ business crime litigation, fraud and regulatory matters, including Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and HM Revenue & Customs prosecutions and investigations. Expertise in international law, including mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, environmental offences and breach of UN sanctions. Also noted for work in advising media organisations on crime and related matters and representation of high-profile individuals. Experienced in international consultancy work, including work on behalf of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Health Organization and the British Council advising on public law issues in overseas jurisdictions.

    Practice Areas

    Crime - corporate; Crime - general; Fraud

    He seems a strange choice in making their decision. Stranger still that the firm he worked for can no longer be found on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon 20, 8:28,

    I travel a lot and never saw or heard any package like that. Only when I was a student and travelled with school I use to see meetings like that. Were organized by my teachers, to ensure safety and basic rules, not by staff from the hotel. The only places I can found some similarities with a meeting, if we can call it meeting, is when I travelled to resorts where we can learn sky or diving.There, yes, each sky/ diving instructor normally do a small meeting with group he/she is in charged to. But this, for me, is not comparable to what guests from the OC reported on their statements. If that meetings were to inform guests about
    trips, etc, I have to assume, the creche service at night and the babysitter must be one of the first informations passed to the guests, with time available, price, and the nannies. Why the McCann's gave a so stupid excuse when asked why they left the child's alone? They said, to avoid leave the kids with strangers. Which strangers? The nannies introduced to them by the Resort and who use to take care of their kids during the day? Their answer was very stupid and I can just Understand it in a very special circumstances- they were questioned in a rush, without much time to think in a properly answer and they want in all ways, to pass an information that could bake a window opportunity for the abduction to happen. Negligence, childs alone....No matter, if what they say is ridiculous. At the time, the team of top advisers was not settled yet and they appear to the public like they really are: two narcissist liars,
    in troubles.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The strategy of the Tapas 7, well prepared and organized by The McCann's, their lawyers and Mitchell, to avoid the reconstruction, was evil. So evil, that one day, all Tapas children have the right to question it and imply the same conclusions as anyone with brain do.
    It's really disgusting the way they disrespected Madeleine and don't care at all about her. even while passing a message that she was abducted by a
    It is incredible to see on the emails they exchanged with Stuart/ Pj their conditions to attend something mandatory in all investigations around the world. They were witnesses of a crime and they wanted:
    - the McCann's arguido status lifted.
    -a written and signed warranty from PJ, they will not end up suspects in the crime.
    What is that? Since when witnesses can impose conditions? They almost accused Paulo Rebelo of changing the tone of his words. In fact, he was very soft and polite with who knows a lot and do to little to help a child.
    Wonder why after consulting their legal advisers, they all refuse to go back to Portugal. Most probably their lawyers have said to them, the same Pinto de Abreu said to Kate when she was made arguida- under the evidences( and the reconstruction is an evidence on itself if what they claimed end up impossible to happen), they will become arguidos.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...."Stranger still that the firm he worked for can no longer be found on the internet."

    A Karma. Everything the McCann's touch, end up destroyed. That is Madeleine making justice.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Insane reminds me of a poster named Garth on Sky discussion boards,he was a rude bully who could never answer a question using common sense,he would call us nutters or dopey etc for daring to disbelieve the fairy tale abduction.I too don't believe children were left alone,on that fateful evening someone psychotic was looking after the children,& Madeleine payed the heaviest price for it.

    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