Friday, 26 October 2012

Missing Ambassador ?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Birch Too Far":

Here is an updated list of Ambassadors for Missing Persons Charity from their website and Kate McCann is not listed - could they have dumped her?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Oct 26, 2012 9:26:00 AM

Well, Dear Anon, our first reaction was to agree with you and say, yes, it seems they did.

This is the Ambassador page at Missing People:

No, no Kate to be seen. Or shown.

We then went to see if her name was somewhere else in the site:

No, no sign of Kate. Not even in Honorary Friends.

But then we went to the homepage… and there she was !!

You do have to wait a while before she does appear among the various homepage banners:

Maybe she’s just a sort of a “special” kind of Ambassador. After all the McCanns do get special treatment from everybody, so we don’t find it strange that Kate is to get some of the same from Missing People.

Post Scriptum: 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Missing Ambassador ?":

Kate is an Embarrassador of Missing Persons Charity, that's what she really is!

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa
at Oct 31, 2012 7:08:00 PM

Sunday, 21 October 2012

A Birch Too Far

Remember our "Textusa's Phone Hacking Scandal" (TPHS) posts?

We did four of them, TPHS #1, #2#3 and #4, and then diverged from the subject because we found ourselves entertained with what we started to uncover about Mrs Fenn and the Three MustBeKidders from the Mockumentary, JW, TS and Derek Flack.

As we had already outlined the remainder of the Phone Hacking Scandal posts we just let ourselves be distracted with the new issues so these have ended up gathering dust in our archive.

But during the publication of these posts it was the time, if you remember, that our friend Advocatus lost the foothold he thought he had in the blog after a very carefully delineated “friendly attack”.

Realising that all his/her efforts were going, suddenly, down the drain s/he showed desperation. S/He lost all his/her flamboyance and coolness and went into incomprehensible and incoherent blabber. After all, all his/her efforts were being unbelievably lost right before his/her eyes.

In the height of his/her despair, you simply can’t imagine what s/he offers to do! Be our editor! To edit for the blog Irish to Scottish to English!

S/He offers him/herself to be part of the Textusa team!! I bet you didn’t think that possible, did you? We certainly didn’t.

S/He first does it through his/her alter ego, Anders7777, at David Icke’s blog which we don't want to provide a link to, or the respective thread, because we don't want to be seen to endorse it and with which we would in no way like to be associated with:

04-02-2012, 07:40 PM


Well here we are into phase 3 of some phone calls

this is what i am moaning about, basically

texrusa is really full of shit

instead of doing loust telephone 'dialogue' that i s supposed to be irish guys talking to a scottish bloke

we have some weird porto miasma

get an editor!!!

i would do it fot free

then textusa you only go half way

u can't half kill someone, or get then half pregnant, or maybe you 3 can?

dispense with the silly letters F, G, T et c etc etc

and name names

you won't answer my 3 simple questions, so you go into the dustbin

adios ladies

Albeit this explicit "adios" (which unfortunately will never be one, we've fully understood a long time ago...) s/he then reiterates, three days later, in an unpublished comment directly in our blog:

ADVOCATUS has left a new comment on your post "Textusa's Phone Hacking Scandal #3":

ADVOCATUS - it is simmple- cut the retarded s m t j m names etc, name names, if you want a copy-editor who can do irish to Scottish to English, ask me

Posted by ADVOCATUS to Textusa at Feb 7, 2012 5:20:00 AM

A desperate person does desperate things, sometimes unthinkable ones but most of the time they are just utter ridiculous.

Advocatus desperately tried to regain the “contact” that he thought he had earned with the blog with many unpublished comments as, it seems, it took quite a while for reality to sink in.

This post is about desperation. Sheer, pure DESPERATION.

We picked this comment from the character Birch from a thread in the Jill Havern's (JH) Forum:

Mr Tony Benett's trial

Stephen Birch Today at 6:46 pm

To the Forum

For those of you that are not familiar with being involved in High court trials, it will be difficult for you to understand what the individual is going through. It's a case of, if you have not actually been involved in a high court matters, either as the plaintiff or as the defendant, you will not have experienced the tremendous negative energy that surrounds litigation. It is destructive to body mind and soul.

I personally am an experienced litigator, having been involved in 4 high court matters against my partners for 4 years. During those four years, you eat sleep and dream pleadings. You relive each and every moment and action that you took in the past over and over and over, as you prepare for trial. The hours are irregular, with you sometimes having to leave chambers after trial preparation when the sun is coming up. You don't eat properly, and sleep is not a peaceful experience.It's like a living nightmare that won't end.

You always under pressure. You see the judicial system has certain rules, that require you to respond to the other sides pleadings by certain dates in writing. These pleadings and the ongoing responses to the pleadings occur under massive pressure. Each word in the pleadings needs to be checked and analysed to see what implication it has on the matter. In actual fact, the entire trial is run outside the court, with pleadings being finally bound and presented as a bundle to the judge.Then each side argues what's in the bundle, and the judge makes a decision. And you hope that he makes the right decision !!! His only human, god forbid he had a fight with his wife the night before your matter starts. I am not even going to breach the topic of postponements for a number of reasons, normally smack bang in the middle of your trial, when you getting the upper hand on your opponent. An example, the judge is suddenly called to another matter. So you come back 3 months later and pick up the pieces. You have to get your legal team to prepare again each time before you walk into court, more waisted costs. And you hope you get the same judge...........

The costs are enormous, not only are you paying your attorney or advocate on an hourly rate, but you also pay them an attendance fee, for appearing in court. Then there's the cost of printing coping and binding. These can literally run into thousands of pounds. Coping documents at attorney rates is enormous. Don't forget the other sides attorney's are also coping at attorney rates, which you will pay if you lose the case.

Coupled with this, is the fact that everything needs be copied and bound 4 times. One copy for the judge, one copy for the other side, one copy for your attorney, one copy for you, and if there are expert witnesses, then a copy for them. It's expensive , very expensive.

What makes it even more expensive, is your inability to work on anything else except the trial. So your legal practice or property company, and the income that you would normally generate ceases. You now begin to draw on your savings. In South Africa, I tell people, if you do not have R6 million rand spare in your bank account, don't litigate. That's about 500 000 pounds.

You see like Mr Bennett, I walked into the court with high morals and believing I was doing the right thing, but quickly learned that 90% of the time, the side with the most money wins.

Well why is that? Well just when you think you winning the case, the other side either dumps more paper/ pleadings on you, or brings side actions against you.Eventually you cannot cope.Without money and assistance, you collapse under the load.You cannot meet the time restrictions to deliver the pleadings and counter arguments.

I am not familiar with the entire merit of Mr Tony Benetts case, but I can assure you, his at a disadvantage to the Mc Cann's.They will out gun him in both money and evidence. Why, because all they need to prove, is that he bad mouthed them, and that's easy, they discover one phamplet he distributed, and the judge makes a ruling in their favour. Mr Benett on the other hand has a much harder case to prove against them. He one has to prove that they are guilty. Not an easy task, even for a seasoned litigator like myself. Mr Bennett will probably be referring to certain precident cases, to argue for freedom of speech etc etc. But unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

Like I said, I am not in a position to analyse the merits of the case, but my gut feeling tells me it's going to be very very tough for Mr Benett.

I really really hope he wins his matter. The reality is the system wins, not the plaintiff or defendant. The system was designed to look after the judges attorneys barristers, clerk of the courts, and legal secretary's etc etc. We that litigate are outsiders. When you like me become a seasoned litigator, you,ll learn that quickly. You go from standing for ideals and virtues, to becoming bankrupt and hating yourself from getting involved in the mess. It's reality. I have many friends who have lost their wives and family as a result of litigation.

And don't forget, if you lose, you pay all the other sides costs, that my friends, normally runs into millions.

The fact that Mr Benett is an attorney does not mean his at an advantage. In actual fact, although his represented people litigating, he might not be experienced at litigating himself. There's a difference. A person like myself, who is not an attorney, might have significantly more litigation experience than Mr Bennett. Secondly representing yourself, is also not always a good thing. You lack the abilty to be objective in the matter. You always need fresh eyes to look at your case, and look at all the angles. That costs money, serious money.

Why I am telling you this, well the next time you ask me a question and I do not answer it, you,ll understand why. I am not going through what Tony Bennet is going through in a million years. Been there, done that, have the "T" shirt. It cost me 4 years of my life and a lot more.

No I,ll fight this battle strategically, and when the time is right, then I,ll go in for the kill. So please give me the benefit of the doubt, and don't make assumptions at this present moment because I don't come out guns blazing. When the Boers fought the English, they wore camouflage clothing and waited for the English to be in range. They had secretly put markers on the battle field, so the knew at what range the English were from them. Their rifles sights were set according to the distance the English were from them, shown by the markers on the ground. They did not go guns blazing from the top of the hill when they saw the English on the horizon, but waited patiently from the hill tops for the English to come into range. And that's what I am doing.

Tony I sincerely wish you well with your matter. The nightmare does come to an end, and you do grow as a person.


Stephen Birch

First, as we’ve said before, although there’s a significant difference of opinion about what happened to Maddie between ourselves and Mr Bennett, we’ve publicly given him our full support in his legal fight against the Black Hat Machine.

Second, someone without litigation experience should tell this experienced litigator that 4 litigation cases in 4 years sounds very unlikely and is a pill a little hard to swallow. One just has to look at how long Mr. Bennett has seen himself involved, by the will of the McCanns, in this single affair.

Even if they did happen as he says they did (I would be curious as to whom, where and when they did occur) from his words of caution to Mr Bennett one can only imply that he lost all of them because no words of encouragement can be read all through the letter.

Even his well-wishing in the end is followed by a pessimistic "don’t-worry-you’ll-come-out-a-better-person" pat on the back.

Assuming that he’s lost his 4 litigation battles, thus losing £2,000,000.00, amount calculated from his words, one must find very strange his steadfast willingness to embark on yet another possible litigation battle by meddling with the McCanns and their abduction theory

The comment above, written in a letter format, although directed to the forum readers is obviously to be read exclusively by Mr Bennett.

In all its friendly tone and language it’s more filled up with spooky figures than all those that JK Rawlings came up in all her Harry Potter novels put together.

Just check the following terrifying “devil & demons” :

“And you hope that he (the Judge) makes the right decision !!! His only human, god forbid he had a fight with his wife the night before your matter starts.”

“In South Africa, I tell people, if you do not have R6 million rand spare in your bank account, don't litigate. That's about 500 000 pounds.”

“You see like Mr Bennett, I walked into the court with high morals and believing I was doing the right thing, but quickly learned that 90% of the time, the side with the most money wins.”

“Like I said, I am not in a position to analyse the merits of the case, but my gut feeling tells me it's going to be very very tough for Mr Benett.“

“When you like me become a seasoned litigator, you,ll learn that quickly. You go from standing for ideals and virtues, to becoming bankrupt and hating yourself from getting involved in the mess”

“I have many friends who have lost their wives and family as a result of litigation.”

“The fact that Mr Benett is an attorney does not mean his at an advantage. In actual fact, although his represented people litigating, he might not be experienced at litigating himself. There's a difference. A person like myself, who is not an attorney, might have significantly more litigation experience than Mr Bennett. Secondly representing yourself, is also not always a good thing. You lack the abilty to be objective in the matter. You always need fresh eyes to look at your case, and look at all the angles. That costs money, serious money.“ 

Trying to be matey with Mr. Bennett but persuading him not to go to court, by the use of the most basic scare tactics like bankruptcy and even bringing in the wife for emotional blackmail.

Desperation, pure desperation. Can’t you just feel the desperation oozing out of each word?

Albeit with all his flaws, as the human being he is, one thing one has to recognise in Mr Bennett is his resilience. Although it was the McCanns who sought the legal conflict, he has shown to be absolutely resolute in facing the couple and all their supporting "legal machine", one that has terrified so many.

Birch “asking” Mr Bennett to give up is as reasonable as Advocatus “offering” to be the blog’s copy-editor to do Irish to Scottish to English.

But they have reason to be desperate. Really desperate.

This is what Mr. Bennett has said, on the JH forum, about the current status of his case:

“I can't say what is in the judgment, but what I did report from the hearing was the judge's suggestion that this should be the sequence of events:

A. Trial on the issue of whether I breached the undertakings, but with no penalty being decided even if I am found to be in breach, followed by 

B. Full libel trial, with a jury, followed by

C. The committal trial reconvening to decide what penalty, if any, I should face.

Did you read the magic word?


That’s why they are desperate. So desperate.

Mr. Bennett, we wish to send you some words that further enhance your fortitude and determination. You seem to be on the high road that you fought so hard to be in.

I would say that we would do like the the Boers who “waited patiently from the hill tops for the English to come into range“, but they did lose two wars, so quite an unfortunate choice as example, so we will indeed wait, not on top of hills, but sitting in our comfortable couches and see what excuses the BHs will come up with to avoid facing the said JURY while sipping our tea.

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Black Hat Tactics - Class Review

Re: Physical items mentioned in Madeleine's disappearance

Aquila Yesterday at 10:08 am 

The forum has been flooded recently (it's a tidal flow) of newer members. There are genuine newer members who will take forever to read all the information already written and wading through the statements and discussions is a real feat. IMO there are so many newer members who are disruptive and shut down every topic. You only need to see the handful of old hands posting nowadays to show clear proof of the downturn and the intention of sabotage by the new kids on the block. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sadly there is imo an onslaught of potty stuff which detracts from the essence of the forum.

For anyone new to the forum the first natural thing to do is to look at current posts and engage. We are reduced at present to someone from South Africa with a whizz machine and a spiritual desire to find Madeleine in a garden in PDL. Talk of things other than Madeleine's disappearance has increased because we are imo being swamped.

I began this list of physical items in the hope it could be put into a search on the site and be a signpost to direct newcomers who are genuine and to show the hard work that people have done.

There isn't much happening in the search for Madeleine at the moment. No high profile press releases, all quiet on the Western Front so to speak. There is however, imo a concerted effort to derail the forum in these 'quiet times'. 

We picked this comment up from a thread on The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann (

The content of the comment is exclusive to the referred forum and is about the poster Aquila’s opinion on disruptive tactics that the forum has, according to him/her,  been subjected to lately.

As such, we will refrain from making any sort of judgment about its content, as it would be unethical on our part to do that here, as much as we think it is when that is done about us somewhere else.

However, we have dedicated some of our work to disruptive behaviour. So, in these purposefully overall “cluttery” times we’re living in (we say this as the current disruption was also tried here), we thought appropriate to make today a Class Review on Black Hat tactics:

On November 4th, 2008, The Employees.

On November 27th, 2008, What is Information.

On April 13th, 2009, The Snipers

On May 15th, 2009, The T9 Virus.

On January 24th, 2010, Unbelievable

On May 19th, 2010, The Sewer Video.

On May 24th, 2010, Bullying.

On May 29th, 2010, Lies and Protectors.

On November 8th, 2010, Clutter.

On November 15th, 2010, What is Fact

On February 27th, 2011, Myths. 

On August 26th, 2011, Doing a Tanner.

On February 3rd, 2012, The Friendly Attack.

On February 25th, 2012, The FOAF

On June 9th, 2012, The Professional Disrupters 

On June 28th, 2012, Reason as per Black Hats  

As you can see, we’ve been outing for quite a while the various Black Hat tricks & tactics and have ourselves been subjected to quite a lively and significant variety of them but we still remain here, three old coots who refuse to give up the habit of our 5 o’clock tea and scones.

Lastly we would like to remind you what we thought, back in October 30th, 2008, which is what we still think now, is the real importance of blogs.

Saturday, 13 October 2012

Top of the Posts

I’ve heard from people from the music entertainment business that when they’re producing an album there’s never a certainty which will be the song, or songs, that will be the most successful in an album while it's being recorded and produced.

Certainly the artists do have their favourite songs which they sincerely hope that the public will feel passionate about them as much as they do.

Times are that that happens and times are that it doesn’t.

Also there’s a "reciprocity" of this phenomenon. How many times we simply adore a particular music in an album but that it seems to go unnoticed by the rest of the general public? One person doesn't make a song  popular no matter how much one really loves it nor how much one is certain that one is the only one that really understands it.

Fortunately. the popularity of a song is in fact so dependent on so many random factors that otherwise we’d continuously be witnessing an unsurprising regular output of unsurprisingly brilliant tunes evenly distributed over different albums with the pragmatism of a play-list of any modern radio station nowadays.

Same happens with the posts in our blog. Some we expect a certain response and we don’t get it while others are surprisingly popular.

As we’ve said before we don’t write for popularity. Yes, we enjoy knowing our posts are read but in terms of knowing the word is being spread despite all efforts from our adversaries on the contrary, most of which pretend not to feel about us what they really feel. About us and about the subject that the blog deals with.

Fortunately for the three of us, we have among many others, one common trait: none of us seek glory, much the opposite thus our steadfast conviction in our anonymity.

As one of our hubbies has said (you can disregard Fred on this one because it wasn’t him) “you can be rich but it doesn't stop you dying”.

So although material well being is indeed important in our lives as anyone else's, we seek only the richness of having lived a meaningful and honest life filled with true friendship and non-hypocritical values. In that aspect we’re a ruthlessly ambitious lot.

Lately we’ve had a surprise with one of our posts.

After just 199 days after it was published on March 25th this year, it has, on October 10th, become the most popular post of the blog:

It baffles us to why. 

Or maybe it doesn’t.

Update: As expected, today, October 17th, the Baloney Post has become our first post to reach the 2.000 pageview mark.


Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Planting Evidence

By May I.

The first rule of planting evidence- there must be evidence to plant.

Search and rescue dogs are greatly respected by the British public, but it seems the McCanns do not share this confidence. From the outset, various doubts were expressed: the dogs were unreliable, they were detecting residues of blood from meat, the dog handler had influenced their responses and even that the evidence could have been planted.

Specialist dogs are highly trained, at great expense; their tasks are often very specific. For example, a dog trained to detect illegal currency being taken out of the country is trained to detect only amounts above the legal level. Of course it can’t count, but it can detect quantity and only alert to illegal amounts. As the dog works only for a reward from its handler, my understanding is that a reward for an incorrect alert would immediately confuse the dog and would undermine any extensive training.

A dog called Isla is being employed on a current search. Last year, she was judged the most gifted canine in the UK for tracking missing people. She is able to track “human air scent” from a dead or alive person from a quarter of a mile away. Her owner says “She’s outstanding at picking up a trail of skin cells.”

Kate’s first reaction when presented with the information that the PJ had a lot of evidence against them and that if Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of the car was how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. This had been suggested by family members in the media, but at the time of writing her book, Kate must have realised that this suggestion was preposterous. On page 253 she writes that Gerry realised that no-one had planted forensic evidence to implicate them as there wasn’t any evidence. All they had, according to Kate was “the signal of a dog trying to please its instructor.” Of course, any dog alert is only an indication , not stand alone evidence. Martin Grime made this clear before the start of his search. “ The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dogs’ alert indications must be corroborated to establish their findings as evidence.” But surely the fact that the blood and cadaver dogs alerted to property relating solely to items and a car used by the McCanns is highly indicative of something incriminating in the eyes of the PJ? Did they not have every reason to focus on the McCanns?

In her book on page 267, Kate refers to State of Wisconsin v Zapata 2006 CF 1996 in relation to research undertaken about the dubious success rate of cadaver dogs. Not the most appropriate reference it seems, as Eugene Zapata pleaded guilty in October 2008, to the charge of homicide by reckless conduct in connection to his wife’s disappearance 30 years previously.

Next year, we will probably see the outcome of two cases where search and rescue dogs, including body recovery dogs were used extensively and with every faith in their reliability. What conclusions will the Scotland Yard review team reach about the evidence found by Eddie and Keela? Is the only possible conclusion that Martin Grime unconsciously influenced the dogs on the numerous alerts – apartments, toy, key fob, car, items of clothing? Why has he continued to work on other investigations since, at considerable expense, if his dogs are so unreliable?

Who to believe: Eddie and Keela or The Mccanns?

Monday, 8 October 2012

Strangely Familiar?

“Pick a recent murder investigation and analyse who was first viewed as a likely suspect, and I can almost guarantee you that some local, regional or national "other" figure would have been the most immediate suspect.

But we know for a fact that in nearly all cases a murder victim and the perpetrator are either related, or known to each other. Indeed, that's why our clear-up rate for murder is so high – consistently around 90%: because, frankly, you don't need to look too far for the likely culprit. Most murders are "self-solvers".

That reality is also true for child victims of murder – most children are at risk from their parents, carers, step-parents or someone known to the family of the child. On average since the early 1970s, only six children per year have been abducted and murdered by strangers, and while that is still six children too many, this sad statistic is put into perspective when we remember that two children a week are murdered within the home.”

We remind you that for legal reasons any comment mentioning anything related to with the cases of April Jones or Tia Sharp will NOT be published.

The blog is solely about the crime of obstructing justice that the authoresses of the blog are absolutely convinced was committed in PdL back in May 3rd 2007

Sunday, 7 October 2012

April Justice

Believe it or not, I haven’t followed the April Jones case. I decided to detach myself from it, not because I didn’t feel for the poor girl but because I didn’t wish to get caught up in the collective emotional whirlwind that events such as this one do stir up.

Fortunately we’re still outraged whenever a life is plucked away from such a young soul.

I let myself get “informed” by the readers reactions expressed in their comments, so I don’t know under what circumstances were charges brought against Mark Bridger.

During these last few days I was much more interested in the McCann effect that overshadowed the case from minute one.

First, as I said about the Tia Sharp case, in this one right away the “McCann Curse” showed its ugly head, its fangs and claws turned to its favourite and I must repeat myself, only prey, the McCanns.

Like predicted, they couldn’t support April and they couldn’t remain detached from the case. They neither came forward nor stayed back.

Having a spokesman speaking on their behalf about their own child is inexplicable but one can make an effort and justify it with emotional distress but to speak through one about a tragedy that has befallen upon others is either assuming royal status or recognizing the impossibility of showing their face.

Second, the McCann effect produced a collective scepticism about every possible “marketing” stunt (or ploy) that was tried.

Everyone’s memory was jolted back to 2007.

It’s been over 5 years and we all saw how that exaggerated circus remains fresh in our collective mind. And we collectively rejected the spectacle, questioned its content and form and were suspicious of its actors.

Why? Maddie and all the falseness around her came to mind.

Thirdly, we’re seeing murder charges being brought upon a person without a corpse. I will not, obviously, discuss any details, such as the particulars of dogs, about the April Jones’ case. I’m stating publicly known general facts and not making any sort of judgment about any of them.

But I will not avoid questioning Dr. McCann’s certainty that justice is obliged to produce a body to charge someone with murder-

Fourthly, the question that is on everyone’s mind: how long will the UK be able to maintain the McCanns status of exception?

With each case, and unfortunately others will happen, it will only enhance the fragility (as well as arrogance and shamelessness) with which was put together the whole argument to proclaim innocence upon those whose guilt is transparently evident.

The steadiness of their whole defence is inversely proportional to the embarrassment caused whenever the McCann name is mentioned in ever so similar cases or when Maddie is “brought” in for evident comparison reasons.

The Maddie McCann case has unquestionably benchmarked these kind of cases. No way around this fact, much to the despair of the McCanns and the Black Hats.

As said and explained, no comments about the April Jones case will be read and not published

Post Scriptum: We'd like to thank you for all the comments you readers have sent after we said they wouldn't be published. We read all with interest and will be following with further posts in due course, where comments will be published as usual.