Sunday, 19 February 2012

Desperate Disinformation

Joana Morais, has as we’ve said, placed a post on the “Até à verdade” episode aired by SIC on Saturday, 11th Feb.

Joana has recommended, in a comment there, that our post on the subject should be read. That is one compliment that didn’t go unnoticed, or unappreciated.

We noticed though that one comment in her blog to the post said the following:

“I disagree with Textusa. It seems apartment 5A from where I am looking. OK the place has been redecorated and refurbished since. May be she holding the map the other way around (snickering emoticon)”

It even provides a link to this picture:

This is a screenshot, taken from the video, where the bathroom door can be clearly seen in relation to other parts of the apartment:

From what we’re able to see just from this one picture, is roughly the following:

Could someone now tell me how should I turn the picture referred by the snickering anon so that I can obtain walls A-B-C?

And where is the doorless passage?

This comment proves only one thing, and that is the BHs desperate shamelessness. If they are not supposed to see an elephant, they will be "unable" to see one even if it’s sitting on their lap, and will even have the utter gall of saying that out loud, shamelessly. And snickering while doing it, as if to say, “it’s so obvious that if you do see any different than the way I do it’s because you’re just stupid… ehehehe”. I call that desperate disinformation.

By the way, this is the front door of the filmed apartment. Any similarity with the one in 5A?

Maybe if I turn it upside down, the wall behind will just go away?

Why are the BHs so desperate to disinform, on other fora, about our blog?

Update: A couple of comments were received in reaction to this post. One in Joana Morais (published) and another here (unpublished). I’ll leave both here for your consideration and appreciation.

On Joana’s:

“Anonymous said... 38


@34 "I disagree with Textusa. It seems
apartment 5A"

Now 34 you have caused a storm in Textusa's tea cup by ignoring the simple fact she doesn't suffer stupid males easily. Now, you know.

My advice to you is; leave Textusa to her own methodologies - not all of her rumblings are exactly regrets! She is lady with a gentleman's, left-sided brain.

The point I am driving at Anon 34 is that the apartment (where the filming took place) is NOT
apartment 5A. Obviously.

If you were looking at the sitting room the WC would appear on the right, not left. You didn't look properly did you 34? and now Textusa has made mince meat of your persona - "snickering Anon!" (snickering emoticon)

Now seriously, I happen to know someone who works for SIC and who knows someone (technical staff) who knows someone who was involved with the programme so I am in a position (fingers crossed) to explain what happened.

My source told me that the actual session with the mediums did not take place on location. Ocean Club did not allow the crew to film in
Apartment 5A (occupied at the time) and for the sake of the mise-en-scène or "visual description" another (similar) apartment was chosen.

A bit of cheating admittedly until you realize

Mediumship or "Remote Viewing" for that matter, does not need you standing on "location" in 3D space! It can even be done over the phone!

3D space correlations are irrelevant in hyperspace, the "M-field" (M for mind) where extra-physicals inhabit and/or sensitives (or remote viewers for that matter) somehow tap into.

In other words, the fact that the apartment was not 5A (and was only included for the sake of description, "to tell a story" as it were) does not mean the information Brian Robertson and Simon James come up with was necessarily made up "to suit the script."

I still believe SIC should have informed the viewers of this. Failure to do so was rightly perceived as an insult to their viewers' intelligence and make them an easy target to sophists like Textusa. If in doubt ask Rosiepops... (snickering emoticon)

Incidentally, I have just e-mailed Robertson & James and as soon as I hear from them (if I do) I will post it here. Might even send a cc to your friend Text in

(blushing emoticon) Now 34 you can go and wash your feet. Textusa is looking at you! (snickering emoticon)

19/02/2012 15:37

On Textusa:

“Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Feb 19, 2012 8:18:00 PM

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Desperate Disinformation":

Hi Textusa! It was me, not BH(?) who posted the offending bytes - So sooorrry!

For some strange reason my memory retained the door as being on the other side in which case the "criticism" would have stood. I should have looked properly before touching the keyboard, shouldn't I? What can I say? I stand corrected.

Keep up the good work and don't be derailed by silly comments like mine. Glad I could be of service, though. :)

Anon @34 at Joana's Morais.

And for the sake of clarification of said in “…to sophists like Textusa”, this is what I got for what the word sophist means:

One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.

A scholar or thinker.

Any of a group of professional fifth-century b.c. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.

One of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were itinerant professional teachers of oratory and argument and who were prepared to enter into debate on any matter however specious

A person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound (from Latin sophista, from Greek sophistēs a wise man, from sophizesthai to act craftily)


  1. It's very strange the BH reaction to this. It seems that they want for this to be 5A, when they should be fighting this fact. The psychics say that they feel that there was Maddie's blood inside the apartment, so to demonstrate that they're in the wrong apartment should be something exploited by the BHs. But it seems that they want us to have the idea that this is 5A!! The silence about this mistake on the part of the BH is deafening. We would expect that would be jumping around in joy with the discovery that those who say they feel there was blood inside couldn't get their facts straight. But they aren't. If what Tex is saying is working against what they want, then Tex is right. They want to have Maddie's blood inside because it NOW serves their purposes. Unfortunately for them Textusa is always one step ahead.

  2. Now we seem to have a death, drugging and the abductor tidying up after. If he killed her why risk carrying a body? Oh, I know. If he takes the body the family will be blamed. Now how to explain the car, clothes and cat?
    Covers neglect and traces in the apt as well as a reason to declare her officially dead and stop the publicity and fundraising? But it makes it a ludicrous scenario and that's what comments about Donal Mcintyres theory said. Some asked if he was taking the p*ss.
    Someone is trying to ram those jigsaw pieces together in the McCann camp this time?
    It also fits in with Ks book and the tea stain on the pj's.
    They want her declared dead so SY can say they can take it no further? Only the Portuguese can search for her body?

  3. The discussion is now not IF the McCanns are guilty, but on how to they're guilty throwing in as little as possible all those around...

  4. ceceya someEh, eh, eh...poor desperate BHs..."cada tiro, cada melro", "cada cavadela, cada minhoca", "quanto mais fundo cavas mais te enterras"...
    pronto, esgotei os ditados populares!

    Bravo, Textusa and Sisters, don't take any crap from those "filhos da fruta"! Oh, another "ditado popular" comes to mind: "não deixem que vos façam o ninho atrás da orelha"!

  5. Sorry, in my comment @:Feb 19, 2012 11:19:00 AM,
    I don't know what happened, how those words "ceceya some" got there, before the initial "eh, eh, eh".Obviously it make no sense, I never intended those to be there. Gremlins at work in my computer...? It has been playing up lately...sorry once again!

  6. "They" are active in Pat brown's blog too. Here's a comment left in Pat's new entry in her blog:

    "Pat, with all due respect this has been discussed ad infinitum. This has not shown anything of interest really.

    The shutters may have been opened by someone going in through the patio door don't you agree?

    The abductor/s could then pass Madeleine out and both disappear into the shadows of the night. Back in 2007 there were bushes around the apartment and not such good security lighting.

    I would also take issue over your first blog which stated a busy road? In Praia da Luz there is no such thing as a busy road and especially out of high season and at 10pm at night.

    Too many unanswered points still.

    I am disappointed after this build up!

    February 18, 2012 1:44 PM"

  7. But images can be seen outside of 5A apartment and show how much is needed much repair. The door is very damaged.

    I have the idea that you see in the video the departure of GA and HC in the LDP and the OC.
    ( i think is here: )

  8. I think can be not like

    " I have the idea that you see in the video the departure of GA and HC in the LDP and the OC. "

    but: GA and HC at PdL and at OC.

  9. The BHs are geting scared by the evolution of the case. They are trying to retain the case only on the Tapas 9 but the evidences are showing every day the size of the group was much bigger then that. They don't know exactely where the avalanche stops, but they know, an avalanche is on the way, ready to swallow who plays/played on it.
    I found it very difficult for the portuguese justice to keep the case going like it is, after April. No matter, the apparent blackout on papers, the case is under discussion in cafes and everywhere, due to the TV programes who have an audeience much bigger then the papers.
    Before, there was only blogs and the police saying something on the story was not matching. Now, there is people with authority, people with experience in high crime, saying the same. The BHs don't know how to danse under the new songs. Mitchell and the Mccann's are more and more isolated on their lies. To save their skins, they will try to blame others. They start already with the small pigeons, the workers of the OC, who due to their condition were off course, small players or innocent. Let's see what happen when one of that pigeons start spell the beans and talk about what he/she saw and what he /she was asked to silence or dismiss.
    It is clear, the flat used by SIC if is in the OC was not the 5A. The 5A to be transformed on that one, needs to be rebuild. That one, looks more a flat from the Oceanico properties. More modern and more luxuous.
    We just need to see the information on some papers to realize the 5A had no major work or decoration. Not long ago, papers were reporting the wish of the owner who wants to sell the propertie and get ride of an haunting place. Clients are not renting the 5A and no potential buyers interested on it. Then, why the owner should waste money doing major works on the flat?
    That anonimous on JM remind me another guy who is posting on Pat or Jill Blog, regarding the shutters who raise but didn't stay up. He/she is trying to pass the idea of an abductor holding a piece of wood to keep the shutter up. How ridiculous they all become. Funny to watch the movie.

  10. I think that it was you Textusa, with your all aboard post, that turned the tables around. You warned then that you weren’t going to limit yourself to the T9. Then with the post about Fenn’s niece you proved your point. You pointed your finger at Fenn and the Leicester Police.
    Before, you showed the strange relationship between Jim Gamble/CEOP and the McCanns. A governmental agency supporting self-confessed neglectors.
    The BHs understood that you are able to fill in the gaps. They saw how you paid attention to detail with both Gerry the stroller and the Tapas sheets.
    They had to find a solution, and that’s what they’ve been trying since then.
    Joana Morais first, then you, have shown how really important social networks have become.
    You are the one that has broken this case and I’m sure that SY follows your blog very seriously.

  11. Anon Feb 19, 2012 1:24:00 PM
    Thank you so for your kind words. But we wouldn't have got very far without the support of our readers, would we? We are the ones that have to thank you!

  12. Interesting tweets from Pat.........

    PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatBReply

    Coming soon: The evidence does not support Jane Tanner´s sighting. #McCann

    4m PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB

    However, I HAVE learned specific details first hand and these details matter. #McCann


    PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB

    Not all my conclusions are ªbombshellsª or never previously noted by myself or others. I´m building the probable sequence of events. #McCann

    PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatBReply

    I am comparing what I have learned in Praia da Luz against all the interviews and crime scene photos which is what is taking time. #McCann
    From candifloss on jill forum

  13. Jillhavernforum is being under attack of some BHs. One even guesses that PM(the guy who raised the shutter on Pat video), means Petermac and the said Peter lives closeby.

  14. Certainly, the blog of Joana Morais/Astro (2) always has been and is important. They suffered a lot also with menaces.

    But I come back to say: Paul Reis was the blogger who was, as early as May 2007, the PdL. And to him we owe a lot of information. For those who do not remember or do not know, at that time his life was in danger. It was the first to be targeted later:

    "..... Paulo Reis, Gonçalo Amaral, Hernâni Carvalho e outros, que, não fora a excessiva quantidade de eventos, sobre os mesmos "alvos", em circunstâncias temporais particulares, poder-se-ia afirmar que estes senhores têm em comum o facto de... «terem muito azar». Em menos de 2 anos, estes homens têm tido mais pneus furados, atropelamentos, detenções injustificadas, perseguições, devassas informáticas, cobardes assassinatos de cães, ameaças telefónicas, virus informáticos, cartas anónimas, traduções de documentos proibidas, furtos, roubos, encontros com videntes e ameaças à integridade física, do que tiveram durante toda a sua vida. As suas idades estão entre os 40 e os 50 anos. Mas, bastaram 21 meses para que a quantidade de eventos "desagradáveis" atingisse, em alguns deles, taxas de ocorrência, neste espaço de tempo, 50 vezes superiores às que têm a probabilidade de ocorrer em qualquer cidadão durante uma vida média de 80 anos. Espantoso, não? E tudo em surdina e sem ligações (aparentes).".........25.02.09 artigo de Paulo Sargento.

    With Paulo and Joana we have had a lot data.
    After, in a very good hour, Sister Text. joined the net to a dismounting of the farce.
    Each has its place but are complementary.
    I am also grateful to all three because all they struggle for truth and justice.
    And never forget the Spanish Blog: Hasta que se sepa la Verdad.

    Yes SY can come here and learn all about the M.´s case. SY must know how to think .... better they must learn how to think. is a compendium.

  15. "Anon @34/38 at Joana's Morais", wouldn't be obvious that your memory would be refreshed after searching for the picture, copy and paste the link on your comment? Why try to make it look like it was an impulsive act when it's clear it wasn't?

  16. Someone mentioned Paulo Reis, and there's a detail about this freelance reporter that I never quite understood...I read that at the very beginning of the case, in the first days, Paulo Reis BELIEVED the McCanns were telling the truth, that they were completely innocent. Later he changed his mind, he made a 180 degrees turn and became one of the couples fiercest critics. OK, it must have happened to a lot of people, as the story developed, they started to "smell the rats", what I never understood is at what moment and what details made P.R. change his mind. Did he ever blog about his reasons? Did he ever reveal what caused the change? I tried to find if he had ever wrote anything about it, but had no luck.

  17. Both responses, written by the same person, reveal a lot about its author.

  18. I am the " someone " !

    Look to:

    Ao ser, que aqui está muito preocupado com as emoções do meu Amigo Paulo Reis- jornalista e freelancer- pergunto: caso estivesse lá naquele dia de Maio de 2007 em que eles, o casal Mc, falaram para o público o que sentiria?

    Se as lágrimas apareceram nos olhos de P.R. foi por ver dor pela perda definitiva de uma Filha.
    Dói ou não dói a morte de um Filho?
    Eles tinham acabado de a perder de vez.

    Dói a qualquer Pai ou Mãe.

    E, o que ali aconteceu foi empatia= PR colocou-se na dor de perder pela morte um dos Seus Filhos.

    Andei à procura de mais imagens daquela dor, naquele dia. ........ não encontro.

    Façam a procura de dor GENUÍNA e, mostrem já que só os vejo a sorrir, a pedir dinheiro e a viajar.

    Quem não deixaria de ter pena deste casal ?
    Eles , para mim, não são merecedores de pena; a Menina, sim!

    E quem critica PR faz parte de cren= cretinos.

  19. I do NOT criticize Paulo Reis, I too admire his work, I merely would like to understand, to know what was the turning point for him, that's all! What made him stop and think: "humm...this is not quite right...there's more to this story than meets the eye..."
    I was not following the case in detail , in fact, at the time I did not even have my own computer in my home, and, when later I got one and started to read the many blogs about the case, a friend directed me to Paulo's blog. Later on I was surprised to know that he had not always challenged the McCanns version of events, and am surprised to this day.

    No evil intentions on my part towards P.R.,
    ...however, this I don't understand:

    "Quem não deixaria de ter pena deste casal ?
    Eles , para mim, não são merecedores de pena; a Menina, sim!"

    A bit contradictory, no? On one side you say: "who wouldn't feel sorry for this couple?", to immediately follow with: "They, for me, are not worthy of pity; the little girl, yes!"
    On that night of the 3rd of May NO ONE knew they had lost their child for good! The child was missing, supposedly abducted, she could be found and retrieved. But, yes, in those brief moments the Mccanns faced the cameras outside the apartment and made the appeal, they really looked distressed, shaken, miserable, oh, but I am not entirely sure it was for the shock of having lost their child (which they and only they at the moment knew she was lost for good, she would never come back), but because at that moment they were still in very unsteady ground, things might still go very wrong with the police, they didn't know what to expect, the first 48 hours were the worse, I believe that it was Kate who said she was sleeping fine after that time. In those first 48 hours they were not so sure of themselves and their "protectors", they were still much at risk of it all back-firing on them.
    Paulo Reis felt moved by their fragility...? Ok, I can understand that, but then later...what turned the tables...?

  20. Fotografia dos chorosos McCann à saída da igreja da Luz,no Dia da Mãe, 6 de Maio de 2007:

    Compare-se com as fotos à saída da mesma igreja no dia 12 de Maio de 2007! Sorrisos rasgados de orelha a orelha, no dia em que Madeleine completaria 4 anos! Por esta altura já eles estavam mais tranquilos, assegurados de que estavam "safos"...o que não tinham a certeza nos primeiros 2 a 3 dias após o desaparecimento.
    Esta, quanto a mim é a verdadeira razão da expressão torturada das primeiras fotos, aqui:

    (5 May 2007 - Media reports/videos)

  21. Anon Feb 21 2012 2:00:00 AM
    ("the first 48 hours were the worse")

    Excellent post, thank you.

  22. Poor old Bren is struggling to spread misinformation on her blog about the shutters and Pat Brown's findings.

    "Well done Pat, you have proved exactly what Gerry McCann said in his statement. So a recap with regards to the witness statement Gerry McCann made on the 10th May 2007 to the Portuguese Police, he said:

    Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside."

    How ridiculous is that ststement and her defence of it? G saying his child has been abducted and he goes to play with the shutters ?????
    That is not even considering him destroying the crime scene. There would only be one reason for destroying any crime scene and that if he was involved in the crime.

    Own goal to Bren!

  23. Ironia das ironias: Rogério Alves, ex advogado do casal a falar na TVI (Você na TV) de casos graves de negligência sobre Crianças.......
    vários tipos de negligência: os causados por falta de informação aos Filhos; as " negligências mais graves por intencionalidade"; as distracções.

    Ironia das ironias. Parcial ou imparcial? Conseguirá ser imparcial ou o caso, para ele é para esquecer'

  24. A diferença no estilo dos dois comentários estará no grau de intelectualidade dos 2 blogs?

    Um, que relata e publica notícias e,
    o outro, este, mais intelectual , que faz questão de raciocinar por si próprio.

    O comentador com problemas de mostrar que se adapta aos dois estilos? Que se adapta a qualquer estilo ?

  25. "Then he closed the external blinds!"
    BEFORE the police arrived (or even maybe before the police was called)??? This is tampering with possible evidence! And this was done not only with the window but with the whole apartment, it seems like the entire population of Luz was let in to trample all over the place! A group of 9 professional peolple and not one of them thought it was vital to preserve the crime scene!
    How convenient, eh?

  26. Pat Brown has left Portugal, she "twitted" from Heathrow. She is sad to leave but her trip was productive and has much to share.
    Can't wait to read more on her blog,I'm itching!
    Patience is not my forte!

  27. Sorry to say that, but up to now, I don't see nothing really new from Pat Brown findings. I hope, she really find something that seriously can twist this case and challenge the Portuguese justice to reopen the case. Otherwise, her trip, will be what the Portuguese call" a mountain that delivers a rat".
    My big curiosity is not with what she achieved or not, because I think that case is quite easy to understand and GA is right when he says, " if we could forget the name of the girl, the name of the parents and just look at the facts, the facts speech by themselves". Means, with the same evidences, many people were convicted. My big curiosity with Pat Brown trip, is to know if she manage to do everything she wanted to do. Did she manage to talk with OC employers, since the case seems to be twisted by Kate, on that direction? That, is more important then the light on the street or the shutters who were discussed long ago. 90 % of the Portuguese have this shutters and know well the noise they make while opening in a properly way, imagine when forced from outside. The shutters from the 5a were old and overheated by the sun ( according to the police) then even if they could be raised, there is no way to do it without damaging them and leave traces on them. If Gerry raised any shutter, could not be from the 5a. No evidences from him were found there. He probably raised the shutter from other flat to test his theory. Even, if so, he forgot a basic detail, the window slides to the side leaving just half window available for the abductor and Madeleine. Impossible to pass there, unless the abductor removed the two windows and come back to fixe them.
    Other curiosities: did Pat Brown manage to enter the OC and the 5a without the manager of the resort making many
    troubles? Did she speaks with people from the supermarket in front of the OC? Did she went to the Tapas and talked about the Tapas list? And to the Millennium? And what about the creche record and the Tennis lessons? Did she went to Chaplins ? Did she receive any letter or any call from ID or Carter-Ruck?
    I hope she reserve some answers for my curiosities.

  28. We've received a significant amount of comments about Paulo Reis.

    I've decided not to publish them yet, for two reasons. First, and foremost because I believe both parts involved are good meaning people, true WH, and second, because I truly believe that all has been ignited by a misunderstanding.

    Anon A, placed a legitimate question, by asking if anyone knew what fact had possibly made PR change his mind about the McCanns. As I said, it's a legitimate question as we all were, even for little, on the McCanns' side. I, for example, when I first heard the news I felt sad, and thought that a fun-seeking couple had been careless and someone had taken a tragic advantage of that fact. I was quick to change my mind, because I felt that Kate's lack of expected anguish was an indication of a somewhat badly told story. But that was me. I can't nor will speak for PR. Nor will Anon B. But most likely his story is similar to mine, as mine is similar to so many of us.

    Anon B, misread Anon A's words, and thought PR was being attacked. And reacted in his defence. Anon B had previously referred to PR as one of the people who should be credited for the Maddie case be kept alive, so, naturally, holds PR in a very high opinion.

    Anon A then reacted to Anon B... and so on. Things just lost control and meaning.

    Anon A $ B please understand my attitude in keeping this private. Anon A, your last mail, was really heartfelt and emotional, so, if you allow me to publish it censored (taking out only the parts directed to Anon B) I would be delighted.

    Anon A & B, let's "put a stone" on this issue, shall we?

    Thank you

  29. Anon @ 9.02 and 2.42

    How is Bren going to backtrack on that? We can all imagine the scene if it was for real. Your child is missing so you fiddle with the blinds? We all know that wouldn't enter our heads until days later. We would be on our hands and knees searching and calling until we were exhausted and then still carry on.

    How pathetic, we are supposed to buy into the BH nonsense of believing G would behave like that if. You couldn't keep a straight face making these things up, well you could in desperation.

    Only someone who wanted to create a scene would spend time playing. Desperate disinformation.

    I wonder how Regrets and Ramblings will come back on this?

  30. Anon Feb 21, 2012 8:10:00 PM, don't forget the gloves. Gerry was so busy pulling the shutters up and down that he forgot to leave his fingerprints there!!!

  31. It probably didn't matter G did not wear gloves even if he had touched the window, CRG took care of 'cleaning' matters.

  32. I hope Jill Havern doesn't mind me sharing this with Textusa readers but it made me laugh so much I would like to think others could share the joke. There is little else amusing about this sad case.

    "Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

    Post wgbrother on Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm

    candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

    THE RESPONSE from wgbrother.

    Wood doesn't mark metal or stone very easily. Sorry to burst that bubble.
    And are you forgetting that the abductor is suspected of having been in the area before and would have had the opportunity to recce the place. The wood would not need to be a precise length. Six inches either way would make little difference. And yes he could have carried it away. That might go some way to accounting for his odd carrying position."

    Are we now going to be given a description of a possible abductor carrying a log to add to Tanner's list? As for the 'odd carrying position' why didn't Tanner mention the log in relation to the child he was carrying? Maybe it was down his trouser leg? Second thoughts no, that would make him walk with a stiff gait.

    I must go and find the kleenex, I laughed until I cried!

  33. The only thing the window proves is they lie since minute one to the police. If they lied, a rat needs to be smelled.
    After that, there was only lies, Inconsistencies and strange attitudes to bake their lies.
    The first behavior that makes me doubt the couple, was the attitude regarding their friends. They only consider one option, the abduction and simultaneous they claimed they were checking the child's on a joint check with their friends. When we look to the schedule of the checking, we see that in fact, were their friends who checked the mccann's child's, since Gerry just went once and Kate went too late, when the child had already disappeared. Under that situation I didn't understand why the Mccann's never suspected the Tapas 7. If the abduction was really a scenario to be considered, if the kids were alone and if their friends were involved on the supervising of the kids, they must suspect their friends. Basic. Any parent under such circumstances will suspect the friends, no matter how strong was the relationship. The way the Mccann's dismissed that possibility or the possibility of an abductor known by the family and the child, on the first days, was absolutely strange and speaking more then the story they wanted to pass. For me, there was no child's alone, no checkings, no Tapas dinner, no negligence. Imagine how ridiculous and unpractical is what they presented to the police: you are in a dinner with 8 of your friends and every couple of minutes, one leaves to check the children... Annoying, disturbing the group and all other guests in other tables. What is the use of having a dinner together when there is always somebody absent? And what makes you choose that situation when there is babysitters available in a very suitable price ? Exactly the same babysitters who use to take care of the child's during the day. Odd enough?

  34. Anon @ 10:36,
    I laughed as well. Wgbrother carried on with many ridiculous posts defending his wooden stick and even guesses that PM was for Petermac . For me he was a BH, who very actively tried to disturb the conversation until another BH arrived to the scene, CEdwards. That one was disturbed by the Lichens he/ she can't see on a picture he/ she presented, but has a strong purpose of criticizing GA and the work done by the police.
    Let's see if the wooden stick become or not, part of the updated book from Kate.

  35. Textusa,

    Feb 20, 2012 12:06:00 PM

    Feb 21, 2012 2:00:00 AM

    These were my ONLY posts about Paulo Reis and his change of heart, if any more came through those are not mine.
    I completely understand and agree with you, the subject is finished from my side. I do not want to turn this into a "ping-pong match" between two posters deviating from the subject of your post.
    Sorry for the trouble I created, it was not intentional ,I assure you.
    Thank you for all the hard work you and Sisters do in keeping this blog, which I'm sure costs you many hours stollen from your family lives, THANK YOU!

  36. Anon.,Feb 21, 2012 8:10:00 PM

    "Your child is missing so you fiddle with the blinds? We all know that wouldn't enter our heads until days later."

    Yes, weird, strange people, hum?
    And I add, your child is missing and even before you call the police you have the coolness to sit down with your friends and put together a timetable of events, who did what and when!
    Strange people indeed...

  37. Anon.,
    Feb 21, 2012 10:36:00 PM

    Thank you for that, it made me laugh too! The stick down his pants! Or, as I'm imagining, under his armpit, like a french carrying a baguette home!
    There really is a lot of desperation going around in some sectors...

  38. wgbrother sounds very much like honestbroker who posts on BH blogs. He comes up with ridiculous, incredible scenarios and excuses for team Mc behaviours. His desperation leads him into flights of fantasy, some very amusing. His conclusions are always that he has proven the facts according to his theses.


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.