Friday, 30 March 2012

A Child Abused

Hands up all readers that call the 2009 McCann reconstruction a Mockumentary?

Why? Because you don't believe the witness statements it was based on?

From PJ Files:

Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.
Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.


She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony (…)


After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn't need to walk down to the 'Ocean Club'. She didn't see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.


From her statement, on Monday, 30th April, 2007, TS is at Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, at around 08.00, to catch a bus to school.

As per page 800, TS was a student in the International School of the Algarve (ISA), located between Lagoa and Porches:

Upfront, one would expect for the school bus route, within the various towns where children are picked up, to be defined by the various stops chosen by the parents.

Private school transportation services are not cheap, so I imagine that the monthly expenditure of a child being transported from Luz to ISA to be significant, to say the least.

Paid for school buses pick up the children right at their front door for obvious reasons of practicability, comfort and safety.

Practicability because it’s less to walk, comfort because you and your child can wait inside and have her leave only when the bus arrives, which on a rainy day is priceless, and safety because you accompany your child up to the moment another adult takes care of her and in the afternoon you can wait and have that process reversed.

TS does acknowledge this when she says “has a stop on the street where she lives” in the afternoons. Why would ISA have two different bus stops for this particular child? We see no reason why.

Only for public transportation is one obliged to walk to a pre-designated location called a “bus stop”, in rain or sunshine. If you pay a private school for a transportaion service you should get a differentiated and personalized one.

It’s completely illogical, just speaking in terms of being a private school student, in this case from ISA, for TS to be at 08.00 at Rua Dr. Francisco Martins to catch a bus that departs at 08.15.

But it’s not there that it stops being illogical for her to be where she says she was for the reason she says.

Let’s assume that in the morning ISA’s hired transportation service doesn’t pick up TS where she lives but in a bus stop located near the pathway behind Apartment 5A, implied in her words when she says “after crossing, she caught the bus and went to school”.

One could say that the amount of children to be picked up in PDL is such that it justifies a centralized picking up/dropping off point and that would be near the crossing between Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and Rua Direita.

But then, why the different bus stop in the afternoons?

As we demonstrated in our post “Even Geographically, the Abduction Theory is Absurd”, to go in or out of PDL by car you have to use either Rua Direita or Rua Primeiro de Maio. Both these roads connect to EN125, which is MANDATORY to use if want to go either EAST or WEST.

So if the bus doesn’t make any sort detour inside PDL, which we expect it did but apparently it doesn’t (sorry ISA for this negative publicity, but it’s not our doing), then it’s MANDATORY that it follows the route EN125 – Rua Direita – Rua Primeiro de Maio – EN125, or the same route but the opposite direction, EN125 – Rua Primeiro de Maio – Rua Direita – EN125.

Logic dictates that the first would be used in the morning and the other in the afternoon and much more so if the bus also picked children up in Burgau.

So what we’re basically analyzing is what walking route someone would take from where TS lives to Rua Primeiro de Maio or Rua Direita whichever is nearer.

We know that TS, at the time says she lives in Rua Joao Reis, in Luz

This street is located as per picture below:

So TS would have two choices, either turn left at Rua do Ramalhete and head straight to Rua Primeiro de Maio, as shown in blue or turn right and follow the purple route to Rua Direita.

The purple route even has a shortcut as shown in yellow:

Neither option goes anywhere near Apartment 5A or the Tapas. This is the completely illogical path that TS apparently uses to catch a private school (the International School of the Algarve) hired bus every morning, and for which her parents certainly handsomely paid for:

So why was TS at 08.00, on a school day, walking down Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins?

Because she said she was.

That doesn’t mean that she was. And if she wasn’t, it means she lied.

This is a very sensitive post.

I can tell you it was not pleasant to write, but like when disciplining a child, what must be done has to be done

And it’s a child that we’re talking about.

TS, the witness mentioned in the post, was an 11 yr old child when, on May 9th, 2007, made her statement to the PJ.

And we have strong reasons to believe that she lied. Not only because of what is said on this post, but also what will be said in future ones.

It's difficult to accuse a child of making something up in such a serious matter.

But do remember that you, like us, think that the "Cutting Edge" to be a Mockumentary because you, like us, don't believe the witness statements it was based on.

Including that of a "credible" and "reliable" 11 yr old girl.

This post does put us in very difficult position because we’re showing the falsity in someone who wasn’t accountable for her actions.

But whoever put her up to this was, and is. Her parents to start with, and whoever else participated directly or indirectly in having a child go to the police and lie about the events involving the death of another child.

We said in our last post that the child that played TS in the Mockumentary was TS herself. What we didn’t say is that the TS you see, who is 13 at the time the video was made, is not the same TS who lived the events portrayed, as that TS was, as we’ve said, only 11.

You go tell a 13 yr old that she’s 11, and you’ll understand the difference immediately.

This to say that today, TS is a 16 yr old teenager, who certainly surfs the net, and most likely has read us from time to time.

And that is the problem. She, unlike me and you, doesn’t read the blog out of passion or curiosity, but out of need, out of fear.

She’s at that age when she’s fully conscious of what she’s done. But unlike all other participants she was too young to be fully conscious of what she was then doing, but too old to be ignorant of what role she did indeed play in this farce.

I hope her parents realize that when they accepted for TS to lie they placed a heavy burden on this child for the rest of her life.

The same thing goes for all those that convinced TS’s parents that it was alright for her to lie.

To have her lie to obstruct justice about a death of another human being.

And all was aggravated when they again agreed to have her participate in the Mockumentary.

Nobody could foresee, on May 9th, 2007, the worldwide phenomenon this would become, although even then, there were strong indications that we were before something never witnessed before.

But there’s no excuse for allowing TS to have appeared in the Mockumentary.

Time will pass, and the various participants will pass with it. But the last of the survivors will always be TS.

I say this was clearly abusing a child. At least one child was indeed abused in the Maddie Affair: TS.

To TS, let me make myself absolutely clear that although I’ve mentioned you in this post, and will mention you again in future posts, it’s my conviction that you’re absolutely blameless.

I truly hope that things get solved soon, so that all those responsible and accountable are still around and do face the nightmare that they created and are so cowardly running from.

In their running they’re just further weighing your already too heavy burden. If they are to stop this farce and face responsibility, almost all the weight would be lifted off your shoulders.

Once again, it’s up to them. I expect and want nothing from you, because, as I said and believe, you were a victim, and all victims deserve outmost respect.

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Edgar's Chronic Discrepancy Syndrome

According to Wikipedia:

Dyslexia is a very broad term defining a learning disability that impairs a person's fluency or comprehension accuracy in being able to read

Not wanting to offend those who indeed suffer from dyslexia, one must ask if Dave Edgar suffers chronically from such condition or does he simply not know his left from his right?

I’ll explain. TS, or Witness Two from the Mockumentary, states, as per PJ Files, the following:

“She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road”.

If you remember, Dave Edgar is seen many times in the video, giving precise and clear instructions to the various actors/actresses who play the various roles, with a big binder filled with pages of information with him, certainly fruit of careful and attentive reading of the PJ Files, so that he could correct and clarify, on the spot, any possible mistake, misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

We know that the person representing Witness Two’s mother isn’t a paid actress but a Brit volunteer

We don't believe the girl playing TS is TS herself. We think we know who she is, but as her role was played in innocence, we do not intend to say anything further, or publish comments naming her..

We have no information about the dogs, whether they were paid for or volunteered by some PdL resident.

Let’s then look at the footage on Witness Two:

Hmmm… didn’t she say “This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side”?

Is it me or there is a clear and obvious discrepancy between her words and where she’s shown?

Do you remember the other very relevant visual discrepancy, from Edgar, in the same Mockumentary? Here it is:

If was to elect two words that characterize the Maddie Affair, I would choose the same as you: Coincidence and Discrepancy.

Or are the discrepancies just coincidences?

Update: Having received the following comment:

“Anonymous said...

The witness clearly states they crossed the roads with the dogs as they passed the apartment. The film still you show is further down the road so they are on the correct side.

I do not believe the witness saw "the abductor" as there was no abduction but you are clearly wrong here.

Mar 28, 2012 6:43:00 PM”

I don’t see anyone crossing a road. Do you?

Sunday, 25 March 2012

It's All Baloney!

By May I
Pic from markstivers

Baloney: colloquial :rubbish, nonsense, balderdash, claptrap, drivel, garbage.....
Origin: possibly from Bologna sausage. A sausage made of lowly scraps of meat; symbolic of things filled with less than desirable nothings.

There are many examples of press reporting in this case which meet this description. I'll come to them later.
Kate's book concludes with Key Sightings and her belief that identifying the individuals reported by 4 unnamed witnesses could bring them closer to finding Madeleine. It's possible to identify those witnesses by cross referencing with the PJ files. All, with the exception of Witness 4, made statements to the police. Why is a mystery, considering Kate's statement that the timing and location of the reports being highly relevant to the investigation.

Witness Four noticed a man loitering on Rua do Ramalhete on Sunday April 29th 2007, between 8 and 9 am and saw the same man three days later on Rua Dr Gentil Martins, opposite apartment 5A. He was standing still and looking over in the direction of the apartment.
The first sighting had unnerved HER, although it is not clear why SHE was unnerved.
Who was she?
The description of witness four's sighting- tall, slim, very ugly with pitted skin and a large nose.
Wearing jeans. Portuguese appearance, approximately 1.78.m tall.

Witness 3 was TS, a young girl who made a statement saying her grandparents used to own apartment 5A. Her name isn't repeated here as she was only eleven years old at the time.
Her report is described by Kate as very precise and credible. Caucasian male- presumably a word used by the police rather than the child? 1.8m, wearing jeans and sunglasses. He had spots and was described as “ugly, disgusting even.”
Although TS saw the man looking at the apartment on Monday April 30th and Wednesday May 2nd, the only conclusion to be drawn is that Witness 4 was describing the same person as Witness 3.
Subsequently this suspect was referred to as Pimpleman in some press reports.

On March 4th 2010, press reports emerge of a young girl in a black wig, seen with two female gypsies, dirty and unkempt, in Carvoeiro . This was in September 2008.
The Telegraph 7:30 am by Caroline Gammell; reports that a British tourist who saw the girl was 100% sure it was Madeleine. This sighting resulted in a surveillance operation by the McCann's detectives and led them to a shack in an isolated orange grove. One of the suspects was an obese woman seen acting suspiciously outside the McCann's apartment on the 3rd of May.
Jean Godwin, 56, a retired care worker from Widnes in Cheshire described how the women tried to hide the girl's face. The child was said to be wearing a black wig and was thin and gaunt. Jean Godwin noticed her eyes in particular- the large irises in her eyes. ( note not a coloboma)

The investigators believed the red haired woman was a cleaner from a town north of Portimao.
She was also identified by Jeni Weinberger from Salisbury, who said she saw a woman of similar appearance outside the McCann apartment in May 2007. The 38 year old woman said she saw the woman sitting on a wall with a man.

As Dave Edgar's name is mentioned in this article, I assume he is the person involved in this investigation. Is this where the story of a “hellish lair in the vicinity of Praia da Luz” originated?
The man had a rag doll on the back seat of his car. When his car was traced the man was found to be a teacher in Portimao, who said the doll had been given to him by students.
In an e-mail to Leicester Police, the Portuguese Police reported that they had found NO links between the evidence they had gathered and the investigation of Madeleine McCann.

A source close to the McCanns however decided that it was one of the strongest leads investigators had come across and that the inquiry was ongoing.
Jerry Lawton of The Star, on the same day adds further details.
The investigators had disguised themselves as fruit pickers to stake out the shack ( You couldn't make this up!) The private detectives believed Madeleine could have been held here for months, just 30 miles from the spot where she was abducted. The Hellish Lair was only said to be 10 miles, but we have to allow for journalistic flair.

Jean Godwin says she was so concerned she couldn't sleep that night and got her husband to take her back to look again.
What exactly did she expect to see the next day? The scene re-enacted?
So worried about her 100% sure sighting of Madeleine that she went home to bed!

Len Port of Algarve Newswatch Tuesday Dec. 21st 2010 has a different take on the situation: "Maddie sightings and media madness"

Notice some differences in this report. Here the investigators posed as potential property buyers and the teacher said he had he found the doll, in good condition, in the roadway and picked it up.

Len Port denies it was a strong lead, as claimed by the McCanns:

“The “lead” merely gave rise to yet more sensationalist nonsense in the British press, causing deep humiliation and distress to Mrs Albino and two other innocent people with no connection whatsoever to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. …. This did not stop the British press from rushing into print with a load of baloney

He goes on to say that the accused did not have the income or connections to take legal action. What they actually wanted wasn't “compensation money so much as an apology

Returning to Witness 4 and Pimpleman. Kate no longer refers to the baloney story about the gypsies, but places great importance on a sighting where only Witness 3 has given a statement about “pimpleman” to the Portuguese police. Is Witness 4 Jeni Weinberger?
In our post where it was proved that Kate reads our blog, we showed a screenshot of a Channel 4 programme, where Edgar and Cowley use a whiteboard to review the sightings.

On 29/4 at 8am there is JW
This is Sunday
On 2/5 at 3pm there is another JW.

Paulo Reis, on 19/5/09, makes a very detailed analysis about the unnamed witnesses. The picture below is taken from his post:

On 2/5 at 3 pm is” probably Jeni Weinberger.”
So was Jeni Weinberger a witness to the 2 gypsy women AND Pimpleman? Were the woman and man on the wall identified as the cleaner and the teacher by Jeni Weinberger  or is it all baloney ?

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

The Proof That Kate McCann Reads Textusa

As you know, the “Cutting Edge”, best known as the Mockumentary has at 23:25 of its playing time, a segment dedicated to relevant sightings.

These were supposed to be the big NOVELTY from this video and were supposed to be what would decisively help solve the case quickly because it showed a new suspect: The Pimpleman, who had been seen by THREE different and independent witnesses on FIVE separate occasions.

Let us transcribe what is shown in the referred video:

Cutting Edge Witness #1 (1st Sighting April 29th at 08.00 / 2nd Sighting, May 2nd, at 15:00)

"Witness number one is a British Tourist. She first saw something strange four days before Madeleine disappeared."

“I was walking along the road with my daughter when I saw a man. I grabbed my daughter’s hand and brought her towards me, because for some reason he unnerved me.”

"She saw the same man again, this time close to the McCann’s apartment on the day before Madeleine went missing"

“The next time I saw him he was standing on the opposite side of the road to the apartment, he appeared to be watching it, he was about 5ft 10, slim built and wearing casual clothes, jeans I think, I would describe him as very ugly, pitted skin with a large nose.”

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on page 373, as Witness Four:

“On Sunday, 29 April 2007, between 8 and 9am, this witness noticed a man loitering on Rua do Ramelhete whose appearance unnerved her. Three days later, in mid-afternoon on Wednesday 2 May, the witness saw the same man on Rua Dr Gentil Martins, on the opposite side of the road to apartment 5A, near the car park across from the entrance to the Ocean Club’s pool and Tapas restaurant area. The witness said that the man was standing still and looking over in the direction of apartment 5A.

Description: Male of Portuguese appearance; approximately 5ft 10ins (1.78m) tall; slim build; ‘very ugly – pitted skin with a large nose’.

Clothing: Casual; jeans.

Portrait: Sketch number 2 in the Picture Section.”

Cutting Edge Witness #2 (1st Sighting April 30th 08.15 / 2nd Sighting, May 2nd, at 12:25)

"The second witness is a schoolgirl who lives near the holiday complex. Three days before Madeleine was taken, she was with her mom outside the McCann’s apartment."

“I was walking to the school bus stop, I go this way to school every day, as I was walking down the road near the apartments, I saw a man on the small path behind the block, my grandparents used to live in that apartment so I always look at it as I pass by. The man seemed to be looking at the balcony of the ground floor apartment. He was wearing a black jacket leaning against the wall.”

"She saw him again as well, the day before Madeleine was taken."

I didn’t go to school that day because I had an ear infection, I was walking up the road with my two dogs when I saw the man, he was standing on the road opposite the Ocean Club and he was staring at the apartment.

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on pages 372 and 373, as Witness Three:

“This witness is a young girl whose grandparents used to own apartment 5A. As this flat is familiar and of interest to her, her report is very precise and credible. She saw the same individual watching our apartment closely on two separate days. On Monday, 30 April 2007, at around 8am, she noticed a man standing on the narrow access path running between the apartments and the pool and Tapas restaurant area. He was leaning with his palms against the wall surrounding the garden area of apartment 5A and looking up at the veranda.

On Wednesday, 2 May 2007, the witness saw the same man near the car park opposite the entrance to the pool and Tapas restaurant area on Rua Dr Gentil Martins. He appeared to be just standing there and watching apartment 5A.

Description: Caucasian male; light-skinned; 1.8m (5ft 11ins) tall; slim build; aged 30–35; short cropped hair, thought to be light in colour. He had spots and was ‘ugly, disgusting even’.

Clothing: Thin, black leather jacket; light T-shirt; jeans with belt; trainers; dark, thick-framed sunglasses.

Portrait: Sketch number 1 in the Picture Section.”

Cutting Edge Witness #3 (One Sighting, May 2nd, or May 3rd at 11.30)

"Witness number three is a man with his partner from Cheshire, he gave a statement to the Police, describing a man he’d seen near the apartment."

“I don’t remember whether I saw the man Wednesday 2nd or Thursday the 3rd of May, but as we walked along the road I saw a man standing next to the wall by the parking area. On the opposite side of the road was a white van. I paid particular attention to him because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block. As I walked past him I looked at him and for a split second we had eye contact but then he just carried on staring at the apartment

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on page 375, as Witness Five:

“This witness was walking down Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins with his partner around lunchtime on either Wednesday 2 May or Thursday 3 May 2007. They passed a man who was standing by the wall near the car park opposite the entrance to the Ocean Club’s swimming pool and Tapas restaurant. The witness followed the man’s line of sight and reported that he was ‘staring fixedly’ at an area close to our apartment block, where a white van was parked.

Description: Caucasian male with dark skin; assumed to be Portuguese and not a tourist; aged 25–35; 1.7–1.75m (5ft 7ins–5ft 9ins) tall; medium build; short, thick, dark hair reaching collar-level at the back.

Clothing: Plain light-coloured T-shirt.

Portrait: Sketch number 3 in the Picture Section.”

As you can see, this is all documented both in the mockumentary “The Cutting Edge” and in Kate’s book. In this book, these sightings begin at #3, because, if you’ve read the book, Witness One is Jane Tanner and Witness Two is Smith.

Personally, and talking just about the Kate's book, I would order the sightings by the time they happened, like it's done between Witnesses 3 and 5; but I wasn’t the editor or author, so I'm just a reader limiting myself to noticing it.

This might seem irrelevant at first but as I told you, the way information is presented is almost as important as the information itself. The way in which the witnesses are sequenced makes it seem that it was done by order of importance, and as such, Kate seems to say that for her the most important sighting is Tanner’s, followed by Smith’s and so on.

As you’ll see, this criterion is far from innocent.

In the same video, in “Edgar & Co Control Room", there’s a board where all relevant information has been drawn up.

It’s nicely detailed and shown in a way that we’re not used to seeing, and that is putting Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins horizontally, which normally appears vertically. Right by Edgar’s head is apartment 5A (red circles):

As can be seen, Edgar and his team have identified on the board all the sightings referred by the 3 witnesses shown in the in the Mockumentary:

The Tanner sighting is added, which is natural, and the Smith sighting doesn’t appear, which is totally comprehensible because where it happened, Rua da Escola Primária, doesn’t appear on the board.

Kate, also has a picture with sightings, in her book on page 374, which I’ve replicated below:

The stars, according to Kate’s word on the same page, “indicate the locations of the sightings described in this section”.

On the same page, there’s another drawing above this one, where Tanner and Smith sightings were. This drawing isn’t relevant for this post, so let's concentrate on the one that is.

Let’s put Kate’s drawing above in the same position as the one on Edgar’s board:

The drawing doesn’t have as much information as the one in Edgar’s board but clearly there’s a correlation between them, as there should be, although she ignores the “Cutting Edge’s” Witness One’s first sighting (supposedly for the same reason Edgar omits Smith’s and that’s because the location falls outside the respective map)

Kate omits Witness One, as explained but has the upper hand on Edgar as she shows where Smith’s sighting happened, on the other drawing, the unimportant one, not on this one.

What? One is missing? You don’t say…

You say that there’s one that’s in Kate’s book, but NOT on Edgar’s board? Let’s then compare the two:

You’re absolutely right. There is one that is in Kate’s book, but NOT on Kate’s board. This one:

As can be clearly seen, inset, on Edgar’s board there appears one and ONLY one sighting in the pathway.

So what sighting is this that Kate sees but Edgar doesn’t? It’s Kate’s Witness Six, as per pages 375 and 376:

“On 3 May 2007, this witness was standing on the veranda of a first-floor apartment in the same block as 5A, overlooking the pool and Tapas restaurant area. Some time between 4pm and 5pm, she noticed a man coming out through one of the little gates leading from the terraces of the ground-floor apartments to the access path. His behaviour struck the witness as suspicious: he appeared to be trying to close the gate quietly, using both hands, and very slowly and deliberately checking in both directions before walking to the end of the pathway and on to Rua Dr Gentil Martins. The witness thought this was the first gate along the pathway from the road. If her recollection is correct, it was the gate to apartment 5B, where our friends Matt and Rachael were staying. That afternoon, Rachael, Matt and their daughter were on the beach at Praia da Luz with the rest of our friends. They were away from the Ocean Club complex from before 3pm until 6pm.

Description: Caucasian male; fair-skinned, assumed not to be Portuguese; aged 30–40; medium height; medium–slim build; very fair, cropped hair.

Clothing: Pale T-shirt.

Portrait: Sketch number 4 in the Picture Section.”

You know what sighting this is don’t you? It’s Carole Tranmer-Fenn’s (CTF) sighting.

So why does CTF’s sighting appear in Kate’s book but NOT on Edgar’s board? It seems to be a VERY IMPORTANT sighting.

It’s the nearest independent sighting, both in time and location, to the event in question isn’t it?

We were led to believe that the “Cutting Edge” was made after a very attentive reading of all documentation so it’s impossible for Edgar’s team have missed this one, isn't it?

Kate says that only after August 2008, when they had access to PJ Files, did they get to know about all these sightings. The Mockumentary was made in April 2009. Did the McCann team miss this sighting in all that translation, revision and attentive readings?

This particular sighting is mentioned, as far as we can tell, in the PJ Files, three times by two supposedly independent witnesses.

Firstly, on May 8th, 2007 by CTF, a statement that only the privileged are able to lay their eyes on. It isn’t part of the PJ Files but it’s mentioned in them;

Secondly, the first time it appears in the PJ Files, by Mrs Fenn, at end of August 2007;

And thirdly, exactly also where the May 8th statement is first mentioned, on CTF’s rogatory interview in 2008.

Quite hard to miss, isn’t it?

And yet, the McCanns, Edgar and his team and the script-writers for the “Cutting Edge” all missed it!

Or they might have thought it unimportant… but then why Kate’s change of heart from April 2009 and May 2011?

It’s also symptomatic that Kate lists it as the SIXTH and LAST witness, isn’t it?

Almost as if out of all of them, it’s the one that least matterslike if it’s meant to go unnoticed.

Also, it’s the ONLY sighting in the book where she questions the witness's correction and that she justifies the whereabouts of the apartment residents.

Why didn’t she apply the same criteria to the other sightings and say where they, the McCanns were when each of the other ones happened?

Why was it so important to state the whereabouts of the Oldfields?

But the important question remains: why does CTF’s sighting appear on Kate’s book, in May 2011 and but NOT on Edgar’s board, in April 2009?

I’ll tell you why, because Kate McCann, or whoever helped her write that book pays close attention to Textusa’s blog.


CTF’s sighting wasn’t mentioned ANYWHERE on the net (except the in the PJ Files where we found it), BEFORE we did on our Thanksgiving post in 2010.

Textusa’s Thanksgiving post, in November 2010, was the only difference about CTF’s sighting between the time the “Cutting Edge” was made, in April 2009 and Kate’s book’s being published in 2011.

We got our information from the PJ Files and nowhere else, because it wasn't anywhere else at the time.

This proves that Kate McCann reads this blog. And that she takes it seriously. So seriously that she felt the need to react to it in her book.

It proves that this blog has forced the other side to make a move, a major move, because now we have the recognition from the McCanns of a sighting of someone exiting the Oldfield’s apartment on the afternoon of May 3rd described as “Caucasian male; fair-skinned, assumed not to be Portuguese; aged 30–40; medium height; medium–slim build; VERY FAIR, cropped hair” and not your usual monstrously looking text-book abductor.

Is Textusa, maybe also “setting the pace” somewhere else? Say, in some HQ of some famous police force of some country out there?

And you thought blogs weren’t that important?

These days, it’s our opinion that they, be it on this case or on any other, they are your only voice.

On this particular subject, the Maddie Affair, we sincerely hope that Textusa will have decisively contributed in helping people realize, which we hope to be soon, that there were no Tapas dinners, no child checking and NO NEGLECT.

All simple and straightforward as we always said it really was, just a collective cover-up of something that unexpectedly went awfully wrong.

Then we'll see how human memory really does work.

Post Scriptum: NOW, we're going on the said break.

Saturday, 17 March 2012

"For English Eyes Only"

We know that anything related to Maddie is not in the least bit comical.

Unfortunately, it seems that the McCanns think otherwise. They seem think that they're Hollywood stars and that this whole thing is just a movie, and they have the main roles. Or at least they thought so back in 2009 when they made their stupid mockumentary.

In it, there are a lot of movie references. It’s quite natural because they did have to fill it up the time with something other than  whatever would help solve the mystery of their daughter’s disappearance.

Put yourself in their position. You, to make a “statement of innocence” have to make a movie about a mystery that you know perfectly there’s absolutely nothing mysterious about it. What do you do?

You create an indescribable something that, fortunately for all, only served to incriminate you, as the “sworn” statement it does represent, as it was made, AFTER you translated and read, attentively, the PJ Files.

What I would like to show you today, is how much a farce, that farce really was:.

In the above video, the unorthodoxy brilliant Monty Python’s demand, among other things, for a machine that makes a “PING” sound.

Something of absolutely no value, but that sure looks good on film.

Now look at the one of the boards that appears in the “Mockumentary”, in what is supposed to be “Edgar’s & Co Control Room”:

Can you "hear" the PING?

Here it is, very distinctly audible:


If they're the only two that could've written that up on the board, and who’re also the only ones supposed to be reading it, why do they have to remind each other, in writing, that all is just “APPROXIMATE”?

And what kind of margin of error are we talking about? One hour, or just five minutes?

Did they have a team of hundreds of other agents that we didn't know about on the field that could've read the board and get the wrong idea about what’s written on it?

Something of absolutely no value, but it sure does look good on film! A PING-MACHINE!

The Portuguese have a saying, that whenever you want to powder something up with something absolutely false, but it makes things look prettier that goes by “Só para Inglês ver”.

Translated is “For English eyes only”.

In the case of the popular saying, the word “English” is a generalization for “VIPs” (the choice of nationality goes back to the “unbalanced” alliance between Portugal and UK, as we've referred in a post quite a while ago), and the idea behind it, is to, through pretence, to fool a VIP.

To show what you don’t have as if you had it, to make the VIP think that it’s yours.

For example, a typical “for-English-eyes-only” situation is to receive a visitor with your the best tablecloth on the table, pretending that it’s always there, hiding the fact that you’ve just put it there and will take it away the moment the visitor leaves.

So, in that particular phrase, the Portuguese use the word “English” figuratively, as it’s not actually really the English that are intended to be fooled.

However, it seems, when the English use the Portuguese “para Inglês ver” phrase, it’s really, really the English that they really want to fool!

Post Scriptum: We'll be taking a blogging pause because of other commitments, and to observe what happens to GAs books and continue to follow the "review(s)".

Meanwhile, we'll leave you a teaser. What proof, beyond any doubt, do we have that Kate McCann reads Textusa, our blog?

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

The Grey Area


This, my friends, I deem to be the one of most important posts that I’ll ever write on the Maddie Affair subject.

It will be longer than usual, so be warned upfront.

It’s been a very a long road to come to this point, but before you get your hopes too high, I’m not going to tell you who did it, or even about what happened that night, May 3rd 2007. Although I do hope that I'll shed just a little more light on it.

The long road I speak of is the one we’ve walked together and that only now, may we speak of these things and I know you’ll understand me.

What I’m going to try to do today is to clarify where on the board do all the various players stand in this “game”.

Once you understand that, you’ll understand the reason for different attitudes and postures, and perhaps understand why some have had, apparently, a change of heart, and why others remain, although exposed of not being who they pretend to be, as if it wasn't their cover that was blown.

I do apologise, but I can’t avoid the use of the best prop at my disposal, which is the colour of the “hat” that each one of us wears, to explain what I’m trying to explain.

So what I’m going to try to do is explain what is effectively the colour of the hat each one of us, figuratively speaking, does wear.

I’ve only mentioned two possible colours, Black or White. And I won’t mention any other, because they’re the only ones that are possible. It's either Black or it's White.

Those openly Black Hatted are easily identifiable as they cling on to their pathetic arguments to deny what is evidently undeniable.

Let’s not waste any more time with them, and let’s put them aside right away as the disruptive liars we expect them to be. We just have to understand why they are the way they are, and hopefully at the end of this post you’ll be a little wiser for it.

Today, let’s talk only about White Hats. Or better still, about White Hats vs “White Hats”.

As I’ve said many times, there are many White Hats around that aren’t as immaculate as they appear to be.

Quantifying whiteness is like quantifying beauty, as its determination resides only in the eye of the beholder.

Before you call me crazy, you wouldn’t be the first and I’ll talk about that later, please reread the sentence and realize it does depends only on YOU to decide which colour YOU want to see a certain hat to be, which doesn’t at all mean that is the colour it really is.

One is unable to lie to oneself. We may try hard to convince ourselves that what we did, or didn’t do, had a justification but deep down, we know if we were right or wrong.

Each one of us knows really what's the colour of the hat one wears, so what I did want to say above, to be in accordance with the post’s intent, is that it depends on YOUR talent and perseverance to make OTHERS see YOUR hat the colour YOU want them to see it, irrelevant of the colour it really is.


Before I tell what I think separates us, let me first say what I think both White Hats (WH) and “White Hats”(“WH”) agree on.

We obviously agree that Maddie is dead, something that has already been discussed and agreed on time and time again.

At Textusa, we don’t like to discuss things that have already been discussed. Our words may be too direct, too upfront or too harsh, but we do try for them to be always about something new. Our writing style may not be the fanciest, but we prefer to remain such than fancifully write about what already has been written.

This where Textusa has made the difference and will continue to do so.

So on what do we, WH and “WH” alike, agree upon?

We agree that at the time of the events there were two major “blocks”, which I’ll call the first Block A (T9), and the second Block B (Help).

In Block A, we have the T9, the known group of 4 couples and their respective children, plus the mother-in-law of one of them.

Also included in Block A, are the apartments that these 4 couples rented for that week at the Mark Warner’s Ocean Club.

Why include the apartments in this block? Because they do interact with the various T9, as, for example, we’re all in agreement that when we say that the apartment next to the McCann’s is the Oldfield’s one, and because we all agree that it was in one of these, more specifically in Apartment 5A, that Maddie died.

As to the reasons and time of her death, there may be some disagreements, or at least, there isn't a wide consensus, so I’ll abstain from saying anything about it as we only want to speak on what we agree on.

Block B, is called “Help” because we all agree that the T9 got external help.

And we agree that it wasn’t just any kind of help.

The help they got, and that we all agree on, came from all referred inside Block B, both from the UK and Portugal. Obviously the list is not completely detailed.

Block B helped create and maintain as real the ABDUCTION theory to this day.

And it helped hide then and later dispose of Maddie’s body, it helped hinder the investigation sufficiently enough, and basically helped stall the whole thing into an incomprehensible something which is what it is today and which nobody now knows what it exactly is nor how to get out or, as SY now so well comprehends, even if it is possible to get out.

Lastly, very important that this be said, is that we all agree that Maddie’s death is completely isolated within Block A's boundaries.

No one else, besides the T9 adults, should be accountable for this child’s death, for whatever reason and in whatever manner it happened.

To clarify, all those outside Block A, such as all those in Block B and all those in the “grey area”, are NOT responsible in any way for Maddie’s death.

And that’s it; I think that’s all we all agree on.


Both in the title and in the figure, there’s a “grey area” between the two blocks which I haven’t called anything. But as you might imagine by now, is the whole crux of the post.

And I haven’t called it anything because that’s exactly where the WHs and “WH”s disagree.

Succinctly, all the disagreement resides exactly on how each one of the parties, the WH and the “WH”, want you to think what that “grey area” does represent and how it interacted, or not, and interacts, or not, with Blocks A and B.

Be aware that each of referred parties may want to make you believe what they want to believe for one of two reasons, either because they truly believe in their message, and wish to enlighten you, or because it just serves their purposes and that means that their objective is to deceive you.

So, depending on what one wants others to believe was, and is, the interaction between Blocks A and B, can one characterize the “grey area” and give it some sort of identification.


The Direct Link (DL) followers believe there was a DIRECT and NEAT link between the blocks, as shown:

The DL thesis defends that within the T9 there was someone with very good connections with UK's highest authorities.

The T9's connections were, and are, so strong and so relevant that they were able to "convince" the UK highest authorities to come in T9’s immediate rescue, and continue the intensity and commitment of help for the following days, months and years, right up to this day and foreseeable future.

That’s one huge amount of power and of influence any which you look at it, for someone in the T9 to have had, and have: to make UK’s powerful and influential move decisively in their favour to cover-up a child's death.

And the UK being, within the international community, a much more powerful nation than is Portugal, then all this power and this influence were, and continue to be, extendable to Portugal.

If one can make UK’s powerful and influential move decisively in one's favour, and if UK’s powerful and influential can, as they can, make Portugal’s powerful and influential also move in any way they’re “asked” to, then one can, indirectly but effectively, make Portugal’s powerful and influential move in a any way one wishes them to too!

Not many can boast about having such a stronghold on two Sovereign Nations, I can assure you. But, at least apparently, a person, within a group of upper-middle class doctors, could.

But let’s suppose that yes, that there’s someone in the T9 with such power and influence. It still remains a mystery from where does all this power and this influence come from (or even if it exists), as well as what connections exactly do they indeed entail.

This issue has been, basically, one of the most discussed about on the internet among the various "Maddie" sites, and probably will continue to be so. Firstly, because it’s of the interest of many that such a discussion be kept alive because they know it will never get anywhere, and secondly, it’s a very interesting subject to be discussed, as it involves all the mysteries of a juicy conspiracy novel.

As we just said, the T9 is mostly made up of upper-middle class doctors, so it is absolutely baffling how the "entire" UK came to their rescue like it did, with Portugal’s "full" cooperation to boot.

The DL supporters say that the cellphone records from this group from that fateful night, both the existent and mainly the inexistent, are the physical evidence of this direct contact between the blocks.

It’s a fact that there exists unquestionable evidence that records of phone calls made by the T9 were deleted. The DL supporters say that what was deleted was all the “relevant London-calling” and, and to prove that is that “London” did act fast and accordingly.

Truth is we don’t know to whom those calls were made to.

The DL supporters could be right, but they also could be wrong, and as you know, the word “could” isn’t a good one to use in any courtroom.

The most accepted theory, amongst the DL supporters, about the origins of the already referred power and influence of one, or more,  of the T9, is that it derives from one of the most ignominious phenomenon of present society: paedophilia.

Textusa’s blog, we assume, has a huge share of responsibility for this belief.

It was we who exposed Jim Gamble and his obnoxious leadership of CEOP, an agency that very quickly, and inexplicably, was deployed into PDL, as we pointed out in our English Stove post.

We do not withdraw a single word of what we’ve said about Jim Gamble and "his" CEOP, although we did credit him with a bigger influence in the Maddie Affair than he really did have.

It is then the belief, among the DL supporters, that the T9 have some sort “paedophiliac stronghold” over the UK highest authorities.

This is based, among other factors, on the following:

- Firstly, in an alleged and not very clear, neither in intent nor in content, identification of David Payne by a Social Worker, Yvonne Martin, who happened, by coincidence, to be holidaying in the area at the time, and by coincidence also, with her working credencials. She states that she allegedly recognized David Payne from somewhere, but can’t quite pinpoint exactly from where, and David Payne, according to the same source, seems to have been very furtive about this encounter, which, for the DL supporters is a clear indication that Payne had a history with the Social Services.

- Secondly, the clear support of CEOP for the McCanns. This agency acted in the exact opposite way it should have with the couple, if it should have acted at all as CEOP deals with online paedophilia crimes. But even if we’re to consider that it should have acted, it should have condemned the parents’ behavior and not be supportive of it. This agency’s most strangest of attitudes towards the Maddie Affair has been “justified”, by the DL supporters, exactly the possible connections that David Payne may have within the paedophilic crime world, where as we all know, or at least have been told, politicians abound (please note: paedophilia is a disgusting transversal plague across all professions and social classes, as far as we know).

- Thirdly, the Gaspar’s statement, whereby a couple, who’re also doctors, testify that they allegedly heard a conversation between Gerry McCann and David Payne, in which the latter used explicit paedophilic gestures about the first one’s daughter, Maddie.

- Fourthly, and less spoken of, but already said here, the very hasty appearance of CEOP agents in PDL.

Other theories have been spoken off, such as secret medical experimentations, enormous value estate dealings of obscure nature going on and, as couldn’t be avoided, the Freemasonry.

Even between the DL supporters the DIRECTNESS of this connection has yet to be explained or much less understood. It's just assumed as existing.

They believe that Maddie died, and to cover this unfortunate occurrence, the UK, either from the Isles, or from their Embassy, or, most likely from both, intervened DIRECTLY.

This DIRECT intervention of UK to help the T9, proves, in their opinion, that there was a CLEAR and DIRECT LINK between Blocks A and B.

For the DL supporters the “grey area” is to be just one vague something in the background.


The DC supporters shatter the DIRECT LINK defended by the DL supporters.

They say there was never any DIRECT connection between Blocks A and B.

They state that the linkage between the blocks was a very diffuse one and made by and through the “grey area”.

They don’t say that there isn’t anything linking Blocks A and B, but say clearly that the DIRECT connection between the T9 and the UK’s highest authorities, as stated by in the DL thesis, never existed.

As said, the DC supporters state that the link between Blocks A and B is the “grey area”. And it’s much more relevant the linkage between the “grey area” and Block B, than the one between Block B and Block A.

And, according to them, if today there’s any sort of connection between Blocks A and B, it’s because the “grey area” was the enabler of such.

While DL followers make the “grey area” to be but in an obscure, unnoticed background, something that’s much undefined and just out there, the DC supporters bring it to the foreground and attribute it the utmost importance, as it’s exactly from this “grey area” that all the connections have stemmed from.

This is how are the connections between Blocks A and B, according to the DC supporters:

Who is part of or what is the “grey area”?

It’s an amalgamated something whereby various sorts of people were forcibly joined together by destiny due to Maddie’s death.

It’s diffuse and diverse in numbers and personalities, unintentional in construct but very intentional in objective.

It wasn’t something planned to be but developed out of need the moment required.

That need was not to cover-up Maddie’s death, but to make sure all that was really happening in the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz at the time of Maddie’s death went unnoticed by all. And the only way found to do that was to... cover-up Maddies' death with a Maddie's abduction.

Its organization and control evolved daily according to necessity.

For the DC supporters, in this “grey area” are the following, in decreasing order of importance: Guests, Influential ex-Pats, Mark Warner’s Ocean Club, and other ex-Pats. In the Ocean Club are included ownership, management and part of its staff.

The DC supporters base their belief on, but not limited to, the following facts:

Firstly, the unusual and completely exaggerated number of guests, their heterogeneity in professional and social statuses, that were present at the MW Ocean Club during that particular period, which we know to be the low season tourist period of Algarve.

Secondly, the total disbelief in any kind stronghold on the part of any T9, a small group of upper-middle class doctors, that would make UK move on their behalf, like it did. (This is completely unrealistic. A secret of such magnitude would be of catastrophic consequences if revealed. Anything less, wouldn’t be enough to get the UK engaged the way it did. This alone makes this theory fall by its base for two reasons. The first, most obvious, is that anyone holding such a secret knows not to open his or her mouth under the penalty of not being able to close it again. Individuals who are unconscious enough to blackmail Sovereign States with such secrets have a tendency to quickly develop either severe and usually lethal health problems or sudden desires to travel to unknown destinations. Secondly, who would, in their right mind, make such sensitive information public? You simply just don’t call a newspaper and say, “listen, I can prove that X and Y are paedos…” or “listen, I can prove that the cloning industry is developing…” or even “listen, I can prove that the UK is developing a WMD that…”. The phrase listen, I can prove that…” said to the media has far too many caveats to be used by them, however truthful it may be...)

Thirdly, the innumerous discrepancies between statements and documents provided to the PJ by people seemingly unattached in any way to the T9. Statements like those from Wilkins, Najoua and Mrs Fenn, just to refer to three, and, in terms of documentation, the total absurdity of those “Tapas reservation sheets” or whatever they’re supposed to be, that’s how fake they are, and how we’ve shown them to be, on our various QUIZ NIGHT posts.

Fourthly, the inexistent Tapas dinners, which are not only not denied in any way either by any guest or by the Ocean Club, but are indeed confirmed by them, and even by a Quiz Night Mistress.

Fifthly, the fact that not one single photograph was taken of the Tapas dinners, either by any of T9 (although Dianne Webster says she did take some) or by any other guest in the whole resort. It would be expected that such a picture would surface sooner or later, as these dinners took place, allegedly, on various days, for almost a week.

Sixthly, the incomprehensible need to have to line up on the day to get a reservation at the Tapas restaurant, when evidence shows that on every night there were more than enough spare covers.

Seventhly, the exaggerated number of specific staff hired by the Ocean Club, namely in nannies and various sport monitors, for the low season tourist period of Algarve. Which, coincidentally, were relieved before the Algarve's tourist high season arrived. This collective hiring seems more befitting to a specific “special event” rather than done for the whole summer.

The DC thesis is an EXCLUSIVE of Textusa's blog, of its authors and readers in a joint effort. The fact that it’s so little echoed will be dealt with at the end of the post.


Irrelevant of each one’s supportive arguments, the main difference between the DL and the DC theories, is the relevance and intervention of the “grey area”.

In the DL, it’s of little, or no importance, although, here and there, it does have a minor intervention in events, whilst in the DC, is the most important.

Let’s look of what can be extrapolated from each one, taking each one's supportive arguments as true.


It confirms that the T9 were NEGLIGENT, as we have at least one independent witness, Mrs Fenn, an ex-Pat allegedly resident in the apartment above the McCann's testifying to that.

It allows this negligence not to be a TOTAL one as we have various witnesses, such as Wilkins and the Tapas staff, stating that when the T9 allegedly dined at Tapas, they allegedly had a child checking system in place. (This negligence can even be later totally denied because it seems that, by coincidence, the T9 had, on each one of the nights, one of them not feeling well, and stayed in the respective apartment, so, if needed, it can be claimed that there was always one adult with the children (but then one must ask why accept being called negligent all this time and not use such valid argument before in own defense? It’s completely absurd, but let’s not be too picky about it, shall we?). By coincidence again, the only night the whole T9 group felt healthy was on May 3rd)

It allows for the T9 behavior towards their children to be considered completely inappropriate, absolutely reprehensible, and adamantly condemnable. So much so that whenever one justifies one’s behavior for whatever reason within the Maddie Affair context, one is obliged to use “But I’m not the one who left/abandoned my children all alone in a strange apartment in a foreign land…”

It allows to smear completely the T9’s reputation, but theirs alone… According to the “WH”, it wasn’t due to negligence that there was abduction (remember, they also don’t believe in it), but that this whole mess is because the T9 are trying to cover up their completely irresponsible, egocentric and immature behavior, which may even have been the cause of Maddie’s death (e.g. a drunken and momentaniously irate Kate striking Maddie too hard, or, the most heard of, that they drugged the children into sleep so they would be quiet while they went out to get drunk, and accidentally overdosed Maddie).

It allows for swinging to have happened, but solely between the T9Dianne Webster being the group’s appointed “nanny” for the week.

It allows for Robert Murat to have been fingered maliciously by Jane Tanner, and is nothing but an unfortunate collateral victim.

As the T9 had no local help, it makes Smith see Gerry McCann disposing Maddie’s body.(Two options here, either the Portuguese priest had orders from his superiors in Lisbon who, in turn, had received them from the Portuguese Government who, in turn, has been “asked” by the UK Government (do throw in the Vatican, if you wish to do so, anywhere you like), and Gerry was heading for the Church, or he was heading for the beach, to hide the body there, before coming back for it later).

It allows for the Ocean Club to have an ambiguous, albeit victimized role in all this. The discrepancies we’ve found from them, both in statements and documentation, could be the result of them having had their arm twisted by those powerful people from “London” that made the OC “fix” and “see” things according to orders in order to fit to the abduction theory which “London” decided would be “The Official Version”.

And lastly, but very important, it allows for all the guests at the OC to be just guests and all PdL ex-Pats, to be just PdL ex-Pats, all perfectly innocent bystanders to a tragedy.

So, in broad lines, the DIRECT LINK between Blocks A and B allows for the “WH” story to be:

The T9, an obnoxious set of people, are guilty as hell. Faced with Maddie’s death, they called “London” for help.

“London” immediately mobilized all available means, and shamefully helped them, and in the process forced Portugal to do the same.

“London” decided that the “The Official Version” would be ABDUCTION.

The T9 were able, together with “London”, which quickly evolved into a “UK”, and the help of “Portugal” to first hide Maddie’s body somewhere, and later dispose of it, and have officially declared that the child had been abducted, all a lie, of course. (the way Maddie’s body is disposed of is as unclear as the origins of the T9 to influence UK the way they did)

“UK” and “Portugal” hampered the investigation, tampered with evidence, all in order to protect the T9, the ONLY guilty ones.

The guests and ex-Pats, are as innocent as you and me.

The T9 are NEGLIGENT, DRUNKS and some possibly PAEDOPHILES, and it’s unacceptable that they haven’t been brought to justice yet!

There are some variances to the plot depending on the specific “WH” you’re talking about, but pull a thread here, and stitch another there, and you’ll get the exact same “sweater”.


It implies that the Guests, Influential ex-Pats, Mark Warner’s Ocean Club, other ex-Pats and the T9 are ALL an integral part of the cover-up.

It’s more logical as only such a large and influential group would make UK act the way it did, and subsequently, as explained, put Portugal in the same boat

It implies that for such a large and influential group to participate in a collective cover-up, can only be due to a collective loss of something or a collective fear of some sort of consequences. The only likely scenario for such collective loss and fear, is a swinging event, hosted by the OC, with knowledge and possible participation of local ex-Pats. If this was to be known publicly, it would indeed mean a collective fear of loss of the various individual reputations, and its respective consequences that these sexually-related scandals usually have in the UK.

It allows for the cover-up to have been created to protect the larger group and not the T9. The T9 were only minor participants in the choir of this whole spectacle.

It explains why the same media that protected the McCanns, never, ever, let drop the neglect, rather continuously reinforced it, as part of drawing total attention towards the T9's sole responsibility for Maddie’s death.

It explains, for the same reasons, why there was a “paedophilia smearing campaign” against Payne, making the public think that he was the whole key to the evident secrecy, to the obvious hiding of what really happened and to UK’s direct intervention. The more attention the T9 got, the less attention the “grey area” got.

It allows for Murat not to be an innocent bystander, but part of the cast, and in whose house Maddie’s body was most likely first hidden.

It implies that Smith saw Gerry with a live girl his arms (as per the Smith’s description), a fac-simile of Maddie (most likely Jane Tanner’s daughter) so there would be a visual contact of an abductor that night, as part of the screen-play written, as we know, badly and in a hurry that very same night, by those of the “grey area”.

Explains why the same media who protected the McCanns suddenly dropped them like hot potatoes after Kate’s book publication… a book that points the finger directly to the “grey area”.

It implies that Mrs Fenn is not an independent witness but rather a “neglect reinforcer” to make sure there was no diversion of attention away from the T9.

It implies that the Ocean Club, as active player in the drama, was and is a cooperative part of the cover-up, by confirming voluntarily, through various statements, the inexistent as existent such as the Tapas dinners, the child checking system, the Tapas reservation line-up and the absurd sheets.

It confirms that there were no Tapa dinners.

It explains the exaggerated hiring of specific staff by the Ocean Club, namely in nannies and various sport monitors, for this special swinging event hosted by the resort.

It proves, with all of the above, that there was NO NEGLIGENCE, the foundation of the “Official Version”. The T9 behavior may be sexually questionable, but that is a totally private issue, but there’s absolutely nothing that indicates less than absolute normality towards their children.

Lastly, it allows for the DL supporters, the one opposing the DC theory,  to cry out for justice solely for the T9. As the “grey area” controls fully the events, only one of two things may result with this cry: either the T9 will get axed alone, which seems to be the scenario in the near future, or there will be no axing at all as has been the case, and continue to be so if the T9 are able to get, somehow, out of the tight spot they’re currently in.

It’s easy to cry out for justice when you have justice safely locked up in your basement, isn’t it? You can then even shout it out in the most convincing of manners, can’t you?


As said before, truth is unique. Pretending not to “understand” evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there.

From what has been stated above, there seem to be two different kinds of people who think the T9 are guilty.

Ones who think as the T9 have the sole responsibility for Maddie’s death they should be the ONLY ones accountable for it, and punished accordingly;

And others who think that although the T9 indeed did have the sole responsibility for Maddie’s death, this was NOT the most heinous crime that occurred that night, and so, yes, the T9 should be accountable and punished for Maddie’s death, but there are many others that are also accountable for the disgraceful circus that the death of this girl represented.

Some are after the McCanns, others after the truth, which includes the McCanns.

For the first, the DL theory, with its implications and consequences are perfectly satisfactory: only the T9 are axed.

For the latter, the DL theory is far, far away from the truth.

What you want the truth to be is a really different matter altogether as is how much of it do you need to quench your “thirst for truth”.

Do not be vain and say you want the truth. Like in the movie, do ask yourself first if you really can handle the truth. And also ask yourself can the truth handle you, the general public, knowing it?

Believe me, there are things, and now I’m not specifically referring to this case, best left unknown.

I, for one, prefer to know things in a general way, as too much detail hampers one mind with too much clutter and avoids one enjoying life as one should.

What I do not like is to be taken for a fool. And that what has happened with the Maddie Affair.

So how does one recognize a DL supporter?

The DL supporter will support, in the strongest terms possible, anything and everything that is to reinforce the T9 guilt, but will not allow any sort of debate, reasonable or not, about the “grey area”, Guests, Influential ex-Pats, Ocean Club and ex-Pats, no matter how much evidence points to their involvement (the Ocean Club is an exception here and there, as some discrepancies are too evident... but the information to be obtained from the OC is only true, if it's against the T9).

The "grey area" is, for the DL supporter it’s a completely out-of-bounds.


Because the “grey area” is to remain untouched, is to be preserved intact in the background from where it should have never been noticed.

But for the DC supporter, all is to be debated and challenged (although there’s a limit to the number of times the same issue has to be discussed).

Things just have to make sense, that’s all.

Next time you see a WH one one hand condemning adamantly the T9, but on the other vehemently denying any involvement from those referred as part of the “grey area”, even defending them as if they're kin, do look again at the colour of their hat’s lining.

It’s most likely to be spotlessly White on the outside indeed, but might be of a totally different colour on the inside…

But as we’ve said in our Tony Bennett post:

“There is a difference between BH promoters of neglect, which we fiercely fight, and those who believe it with sincerity, which we obviously respect.

We think the British Empire motto of Divide and Conquer should never be forgotten. It was highly successful in conquering empires. We don't want them to achieve unnecessary infighting.”

And in a comment to the Wide Open post:

“We don't claim to be correct in everything we write, but we are sincere in coming to the conclusions we reach and welcome corrections from our friends.

We also have to sift misinformation from those posing as friends.”

What we hope to achieve with this post, is to widen your horizons as to who, among those that pose as friends, may be a “WH”, or better said, a BH.


To ask for Justice, you have, obviously, first to be just and fair.

And believe me, in this Maddie Affair, it’s a very difficult thing to achieve, if not an impossibility.

Let me explain what I mean.

Stop your watches at the moment Maddie died, and let’s assume it was manslaughter, an accidental death.

Now determine who should be punished and with what.

Isolate those exact same people, and incriminate them, TODAY, for the exact same events.

Would the sentence be the same?

No, and you know it wouldn’t. Why? Because you have to add the fact that they were convinced (most likely willing to participate because they had, proportionally, as much to lose as all others) to participate in all the events that followed and have resulted in all this mess.

So asking only for the McCanns neck is hardly asking for justice, is it?

Are we exempting the T9 from responsibility? Obviously not.

As we said, Maddie’s death happened solely within the T9. But what happened afterwards didn’t, but we must remind the T9, especially the McCann couple, that they were a very active part in things having reached this state of affairs.

So Gonçalo Amaral, once again proves how wise he is when he says that someone will somehow find a diplomatic solution to all this.


As said the DC theory is an EXCLUSIVE of the Textusa’s blog

It was fruit of dedicated analysis of various public documentation available and internal heated debate.

It was written, and will continue to be done that way, very slowly, and in a very thought out way.

Always making sure that we had our foot set on solid ground before we take the next step, and never afraid to step back if the ground we thought firm, proves not to be.

We're fully aware that blog has broken ground.

We’ve proved that the Smith Stroller, or now generally assumed to be Gerry McCann, was walking around with a live little girl and desiring to be seen;

We’ve proved that the Tapas dinners didn’t exist, and shown how much information it contains that's compromising for many guests, at least those whose names appear;

We’ve proved that the watersports alibi of some of the T9 for the May 3rd afternoon was false;

We’ve debunked Mrs Fenn as an independent witness;

We’ve proved that the British Police withheld documentation from the PJ;

We’ve debunked that there are “Unpublished PJ Files” (however we're sure that there is many relevant documents NOT belonging to the files that are out there somewhere...);

And yet, not because it’s our blog, we see very little echoed out there of what we’ve proved here.

Strange, isn’t it?

We don’t even see our opinions debated. Just puerile insult or “just because” justifications for our blog not to be taken seriously

The largest insult catalog has been used more than thrice against Textusa.

However, we do see, that what we’ve stated before and were ridiculed for having done that, is being, little by little being taken as fact.

Little by little, people are realizing that here the pieces fall into place, and do not need to be forced or twisted to fit.

We here pride ourselves in discussing things openly between ourselves and then with our readers.

We’ve long got used to being a rogue blog, hardly mentioned and rarely supported (no offense beloved readers... you know who we're referring to).

That fortunately has given us the possibility to watch things from where we stand and understand both the subtle and non-subtle changes in some personalities that have occurred with some of the many intervening people of this saga.

As a very good friend of mine told me the other day, after 5 years, there are only two kind of bloggers about Maddie: those out of self-interest, with not a passion for justice, and those out of interest, and in some cases, even passion.

As always, we’ll leave it up to you what decision you make about us.