Friday, 24 May 2013

Mind your Ps

by May I 

How many waiters to serve 15 people?

David Pilditch wrote an article in the Express on December 17th 2007*, saying Portuguese police had quizzed a Tapas bar waiter for the third time

Reportedly, he gave a dramatically different account of events to the T9. He was said to be one of the trump cards in clearing up contradictory accounts, with an account of how Kate had raised the alarm from the balcony of her apartment. 

His other claim was that checks on the children were less frequent than half hourly. (This is what we refer to as the Total Neglect Theory  TNT -and just about as explosive)

ANOTHER waiter at the tapas- Jose BAPTISTA told the Express that only male members of the party had checked the children that evening. The paper has a photo of BAPTISTA and a woman, so Pilditch must know who this couple are.
*Sources Jose BAPTISTA, another waiter, Clarence Mitchell
  
The following day,  another article from Pilditch. 

Key witness goes on the run to protect his evidence.

The key witness is now in hiding after fleeing Portugal (we aren’t told where he fled to) after being sworn to secrecy and terrified that his identity would be revealed. He was afraid that he would come under pressure from RIVAL FACTIONS in this case (What we call BH camps). The witness was scared of British and Portuguese government influence in the probe. His friends claimed he was wary of the team of private eyes hired by the McCanns (presumably Metodo 3)

Robert Murat’s mother is reported here as accusing the investigators of bribing witnesses into changing their stories. Maybe she will be more informative in her forthcoming book.

Pilditch also refers to the waiter again as the TRUMP CARD for the police and their MOST RELIABLE witness. So it was the same person as he referred to the previous day.

By this time, Goncalo Amaral had been removed from the investigation, but the PJ files had not yet been released.

Moving backwards may explain why there was some confusion about 2 waiters; one called Jose BAPTISTA - the one with the woman in the photo, and Jose BATISTA.  Unless they are one and the same?

In another exclusive article by Pilditch in October 2007, Jose BATISTA - 45, accuses the McCanns or their 7 friends of being to blame.  “I did not think she’d been taken by an abductor. I told them (the police) it had to be one of family or a friend. It had to be someone close….  Batista is standing with his “partner” Maria Fernandes, also works at the Ocean Club complex. They are holding hands. ”

BATISTA surely must have been the guy on the run, as BAPTISTA was speaking directly to Pilditch about ANOTHER waiter in December. How strange then, to have 2 waiters with such similar names serving that night. (Sources: Jose BATISTA, Clarence Mitchell, close friend of couple)

The staff who are witnesses to the dining are: 
1- Jose Baptista, (PJ statement)
2 - the runaway waiter
3 -Jeronimo Salcedas- the barman - referred to as Joe by Oliveira. His father worked for the British Consulate and his mother a teaching assistant.  (PJ statement)
4 - Ricardo Oliveira, another table employee. (PJ statement)

So 3 or 4, depending on whether 1 and 2 are the same man.

Cenoura and David (Barroso?), who were listed as working on Thursday  finished at 6. Who is Cebola, who worked from 4-12pm, according to the rota? The night rota does appear to have been altered.

Strangely, Oliveira, in a second statement, where his memory recall dramatically improves, describes hearing noises from the balcony AFTER Madeleine is reported as missing and a search is underway.

There is a statement in the PJ files from waiter Joaquim Jose Moreira BAPTISTA. Unfortunately, his date of birth has been erased.

In his statement here, BAPTISTA clearly recalls the parents, but not their names, as they ate there practically every day. He says the men checked and their absences were for about 15 minutes, as he had to take food back to warm it on previous evenings.

Maria de Fatima de Sousa Fernandes was interviewed on May 7th. She was a table worker at the Millenium restaurant, where the McCanns and various other couples with children dined on April 28th . She was aware that they dined at the Tapas thereafter, as it was allegedly closer to where they were lodged (who told her this?)

The Sun refers to BAPTISTA as the waiter who said Kate left the children alone for 3 hours a night and his “wife” Maria, who remembered Madeleine as “a little angel…. quiet and as good as gold.” ( a very British expression) Presumably Maria Fernandes.

The Star refers to him as BATISTA, who said only parents or pals could have done it.

Daily Mail calls him BAPTISTA, who claims the friends shared 8 bottles of wine every night.  

IF he is one and the same waiter, then his story has changed and evolved, but he wasn’t on the run when Pilditch interviewed him in October 2007 AS BATISTA

And there is a statement in the PJ files, giving what is the official version of his story on MAY 6TH 2007 AS BAPTISTA. What he said here is not what he told Pilditch in October

There is no mention of an alarm call from the balcony or any comment about checking on that particular night. His recall is that the group of 9 arrived between 20.00 and 21.00 and that he received their food orders. Between 22.00 and 22.30, he was in the kitchen and was informed by a colleague that in the meantime, a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic.   

Are you confused? If so, was that the intention, either of Pilditch, or the people who supplied him with this information? He would be the best person to clear this confusion, as he quotes both BAPTISTA and BATISTA as his sources. 

It was his article on December 17th which carried the photo of the couple. The PJ also know who this man/these men are.

But, as we maintain the Tapas dining and the big round table are inventions, those who are witnesses to this event are not telling the truth.  


POST SCRIPTUM 

Having looked at the OC staff list we are now certain that the waiters referred to in the press as Baptista/ Batista are the same person.
 
The only other male Batista is the husband of Silvia, who was not a waiter.

155 comments:

  1. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4940145/rolf-harris-in-cop-quiz-no3-on-sex-crimes.html

    "ROLF Harris was back with sex-probe cops for a third time yesterday.

    The 83-year-old visited a police station to answer bail for the first time since The Sun last month revealed his arrest over abuse allegations.

    Senior detectives have been investigating Australian entertainer Harris for six months."

    Is Rolf Harris less important then anyone that was in PdL on may 3, 2007?


    ReplyDelete
  2. Textusa and her team at her best: striking blow after blow on the BHs!!
    The lies from people NOT linked to the T9 are so obvious and they can only mean one thing: a major cover-up. The McCanns would have to have an enormous power and influence to convince so many people to lie for them. Were they celebrities then? NO. Textusa has shown how many people have lied and the reason can only be to protect those that were there and they would only require protection if they were involved in swinging.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The waiters " parroted" what they were asked to, specially those from the Tapas. If there was no dinner, no independent witnesses to contradict them. I believe the Tapas was closed that night, maybe the all holidays at night. Why? Because from varoius reports, the weather was not so pleasant, was cold and because at the low season the hotels reduce their offers and their employees. Why keeping open a space that depends directly from the weather? I believe was open for lunch to support the pool and closed by the time the pool closed. That is what happen in other places in Algarve, even during the summer.
    The Tapas was choosen exactely because was closed and there was no independent witnesses to deliver a different story, but the game was so baddly prepared on the night that who was entitled to lie( forced or having no choice) got trapped on their own contrsdictions. It is hard to memorize a lie. Something you don't experience, never sticks well on your memory and sometimes on your desperation to try to make your lies real, you add more ingredients that make your story even more evident that was fabricated. The all involved suffered a lot from that syndrome, the " lie syndrome". Exactely like pinnochio, who got in more troubles on his attempt to convince others about his lies.
    Why the waiters lied? On the early days, I believe because they were scared of loosing their jobs. Why they keep silence now? Because they realised the dimension of their mistake and how the Mccann's and their team know that. Today they were scared of delivering the truth to the police because they know they could end up charged with covering up a crime and deliberately geopardize the work of the police . A very dificult and scaring position.
    When the Mccann's go to PDL, I believe the main objectif is to show that people that they still there to control the damages. They all still being intimidated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's proven fact that a considerable number of people have lied.
    That means that decision of reopening the case lies upstream.
    Those in the know should consider that history won't be forgiving unless they act fast.
    An example? Mrs Fenn. She will sadly be remembered for her part in this sad story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One waiter states food was identical at both the Tapas and the Mill, another the tapas was a-la-carte, the Mill buffet style, so not the same.

    One states the wine was included in the MW package, another they were given free liquors for being such good customers but there was nothing to pay,as it was all inclusive. Most odd.

    The waiters statements all seem to be concocted but the MW brochure printed long before 2007 states all meals in the package were at the Mill, most odd. No trip adivsor reviews mention the choice of Tapas or the Mill, most odd. There is no evidence whatsoever the Tapas meals were part of the holiday package, most odd.

    Unfortunately for the Macs and their friends there are still 2007 brochures in the public domain which may surface at any time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon @4, agree. Many must now be feeling really proud with their participation... NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  7. anon 3,

    I have always thought that the tapas was probably closed in the evening so it would be the perfect place for the swingers to use as a base and no other guests would be allowed in. Your comment implies exactly that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think these waiters and some other staff such as nannies were there purely to provide a service to the swingers club. These people are never mentioned by anyone else at OC. Mcs don’t even talk about the nannies let alone use their names. If my child had been looked after by someone else then you would at least say something....that you trusted them, they were good at their job, what they did with the children but there is no comment whatsoever.

    I’m beginning to think there was a parallel universe at OC, the swinger club and the normal guests. Nannies/waiters interviewed were not part of the general OC for apartment owners.

    ReplyDelete
  9. abbas,

    You've already stated here in the blog that you have sent a copy of the brochure to Scotland Yard.

    SY is, together with PJ, an institution that can, and should, act on it. We can't.

    What we can do is publish it for all to see.

    Is it possible for you to send a digital copy of it to our mail (textusadirect@hotmail.com)?

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  10. At last somebody in journalism is speaking out against the manipulative Mccanns. From todays Saturday Daily Mail pg.25. Amanda Platell wrote;
    " Two weeks ago the Mccanns were all over the newspapers after UK police revealed new leads in the search for their daughter Madeleine.
    So isn't it sad they are among a group of people who have complained about the royal charter proposed by a newspaper industry that has done so much to publicise their daughter's plight.
    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you"
    ....................

    The investigative journalistic tide of change is on its way concerning the Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon @ 10 - A criticism in a national newspaper of the saintly Kate and Gerry how did that get by the censor?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another brilliant article Textusa - I suspect this is where the abductor story will fall apart its the 'little people' that have lied through fear of losing their jobs and then as mentioned previously afraid to speak the truth. You have certainly hit on some valid points here, hope SY are taking note.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I could never see any logic in having evening dinner at the tapas bar, especially when on holiday its nice to be spoilt not sit in some cramped little alcove out of season it would have been a miserable place to dine.I never once believed they actually ate dinner at Tapas, they could have all met up at Tapas but definitely did not dine there. More lies.
    SY should find the waiters and reassure them that the truth needs to be found then take fresh statements from them, and then with that new evidence get the Tapas friends back to pdl for a reconstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Some in the UK have a taste for the macabre Swiss deceased. Necrophilia? It seems to be as well. So besides liars they are very close to the border line personalities.

    This is about another lie and outrage Daily Fail (news home)

    But 2007 PJ:


    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OTHER_DISAPPEARANCES.htm#58

    ReplyDelete
  15. Poor journalism


    http://stirthebeans.com/2013/05/25/poor-journalism/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Swingers? you must be joking! Who would take their mother to a swingers party?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The poor portuguese workers (waiters, cleaners, etc.) were so far the only "casualties" of this case...they were convinced, more likely blackmailed, to tell lies, to take part in the cover-up, or else...I bet threatened with loosing their jobs and never being able to find work anywhere else in the tourism industry in the Algarve if they didn't do as they were told, and, in the end what did happen...? They lost their jobs, they were the only ones left hang out to dry! But why have they kept silent about the whole thing to this day?! They must have been really scared into keeping forever silent on the matter, fearing for their and their families lives...?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Was Maddie snatched by monster who killed this little lookalike? That's the dramatic new lead uncovered by British detectives so why are the Portuguese refusing to investigate?"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330660/Madeleine-McCann-Was-Maddie-snatched-monster-killed-little-lookalike-British-detectives-uncover-dramatic-new-lead--Portuguese-refusing-investigate.html

    Toda esta situação ultrapassa os limites da tolerância.
    Já chega. Basta!
    Se alguém tem algo a dizer que possa contribuir, de facto, para o esclarecimento desta situação, que o faça.Já!
    Libertem-se dos grilhões da servidão que é a mentira.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Mccanns want immunity and as soon as they arrived back from pdl they set about getting lawyers and spin doctors in place to prevent them facing extradiction. Their actions are not those of innocent parents did Ben Needham's or Tia's or April Jones mothers consult CR - no they did not. Its about time something was done about the Mccann circus its nothing but spin, spin spin.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A sign of the new time: it's now the second or third day that I heard in all portuguese media, important people talking about " missing children", specially the one who were abducted( parental abduction) or just wonder off. Not a single word regarding Madeleine and I notice that all this people made very clear conclusions about the reasons why a child goes missing. None of this reasons falls on Mccann's story. All involved on Maddie cover up must be very annoyed by the portuguese and scared of what the new time could bring to them. When you lie, you never rest.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Curiously, both Baptista and Fernandes are SINGLE in the PJ files. In the marital status there is "solteiro" and "solteira" meaning single. Of course, they could have got married after May 2007, or they were partners (like Tanner and O'Brian, Wilkins and O'Donnel).
    Also, in addition to the P or lack of P in Baptista's name, in that nespaper article Maria Fernandes appears as Fernandez, with a Z, the spanish form. Lazzy and ignorant journalist who did not care to get his "star" witnesses names right...?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon #16,

    First, as you know, the phrase “who would?” isn’t one that deters us on our path to truth.

    “Who would?” is a question filled with prejudice and prejudice has been the basis behind the propagation of much of the clutter in this affair and because we’ve seen in this case many people do things, unconventional or otherwise, where “who would?” isn’t applicable as it was done.

    In fact, we believe that many feeling the heat approaching uncomfortably are asking themselves “how could I have done what I never thought I would do?”

    Second, about the content of your comment, we advise you to read further about swinging.
    You seem to be confusing swinging with group sex.

    While group sex may be a form of engagement of sexual interaction in a swinging event, it isn’t by all means, the only way.

    The much romanticized “car-keys-in-the-hat” game, whereby the random choosing of the car-keys is what determines the pairing up between members of different couples implicates the very opposite of group sex.

    And even in group sex one has to take into account the characteristics of the groups formed. It seems, from what we read, that the size of these groups is around 4 to 6. This has to do with many factors out of which we would highlight logistics and privacy.

    The formation of bigger, or much bigger groups we believe is what is called orgies. But like with the fictitious round table, one needs space to accommodate such, thus the logistics and privacy issues raised above.

    This said, Dianne W, if she took part in swinging, it’s most likely that she didn’t engage in sexual activity at the same time and place as her daughter Fiona P or Fiona’s husband David P.

    This, in the case of Dianne W was swinging in PdL. We have no indication of that or of the contrary. Dianne W, as any other individual, is entitled to both and active sexual life as well as the option to decide in which way she should enjoy that perfectly natural part of our lives.
    However there’s the possibility that she may have stayed elsewhere in PdL. After all who would sleep on a sofa bed for a week?

    We know that Dianne W had son in law’s friends who lent phones in PdL.

    This then would mean (don’t forget we’re raising a possibility and not making a statement) she would be part of a different group altogether from her daughter’s.

    It could be groups with same intent, swinging, or with completely different objectives such as friends reunited.

    The rightful question to be asked about Dianne W is why did she come on this holiday without her husband.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unpublished Anon at May 25, 2013, 5:06:00 PM

    Thank you for info on whereabouts of the runaway waiter.

    As you know, we don't publish addresses, but will keep it for reference.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ 17 Good questions, but you overlook the simple answer, which of course is that the poor Portuguese workers still kept quiet after losing their jobs because the idea that they were involved in a cover up is utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 24,

    If its nonsense, could you please give the reasons for the inconsistencies in their statements?

    ReplyDelete
  26. @24,
    Baptista/Batista had already made his statement to Pj when he told these stories to the journalist. He must have known the Pj would ask themselves why none of his stories appeared in that statement?
    Read the prologue of Collins book which repeats his elaborated story a year later. Now, that's nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thankyou textusa @22

    Who would, on discovering their child is missing:

    - invent a story of a forced entry into a locked apt?
    -Ensure this false story is relayed to the Brit/world media ASAP via family and friends allowing for maximum coverage?
    - Change the story within hours, to one of an unlocked apartment that the 'abductor could simply wander into?(but keep publicity of this chang to a minimum)
    - refuse to co-operate fully with the police investigation?
    - threaten litigation on anyone who dares raise reasonable but awkward questions? etc. etc. etc.
    This case, is full of 'who woulds'

    ReplyDelete
  28. The swinging was done in the apartments. The children were taken care of during the day in the creches and night by nannies.
    The Ocean Club was perfect for this. Separate apartments that ensured privacy from prying eyes.
    In my opinion, there would be a central location where they met and got into groups/couples and would go to the the apartments.
    That's why I think semen was found in the the children's room in 5A. They blamed this on poor boy but I'm sure that it's from an adult.
    I would say that the central point wouldn't be Tapas. I would think it was the adult pool that no hears or speaks about. Its no-children allowed policy would be perfect to enforce control in the entrance and only swinger guests would be able to go in.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I would like to speak on behalf of those that like myself are mesmerized with the blog.
    I just feel overwhelmed by the quality of both writers and comments.
    It's really intimidating and many times I do want to participate but feel I won't be up the standards set by all. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
    Sincere congratulations to all! Sheer brilliance by all!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Textusa,

    What's your opinion about this swiss man?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon #30,

    We don't move in accordance with other people's agendas. We move according to our own timetable.

    Clutter may have many meanings as you know and we don't want to meddle in a war that's currently raging in the UK.

    About it we've said enough for now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Swiss man story just shows the pj did their job and investigated. I think it was Spanish police who found no evidence in the van.
    I think our papers have given a scrambled version of all of the gossip they've heard and put odd facts together.
    The Von Aesch story would mean Maddie died at the time, unless he handed her over to passing gypsies before shooting himself. Not a story the Mcs will relish?
    The story has a similar theme to Hewlett the paedo with a van!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 25. not inconsistencies but outright lies!

    ReplyDelete
  34. @27 Exactly, and none of this involves nonsensical conspiraloon theories about poor Portuguese workers covering up.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I believe Dianne Webster went along to babysit the children, which were moved/gathered toghether into one of the apartments (not 5A) every night. In her rogatory she mentioned that her husband declined joining the group because "it was not his sort of holiday"...and she told she did most of the shopping and cooked lunches, but she quickly adds that it wasn't expected from her, she sort of volunteered. I get the feeling that she almost "let the cat out of the bag", almost admitting she went along to help take care of the children and cooking some meals.

    "4078 ”What did you do for lunch?”
    Reply ”Lunch I think we had that in the apartment err there was a Supermarket just down the road, which I think I went a few times and did shopping, err put some stuff in the house because obviously it was an apartment with a kitchen and whatnot. Err I spent a lot of time making sandwiches.”
    4078 ”Did you do the preparing for, because I understand a lot of people visited for lunch time because it was the biggest apartment?”
    Reply ”Yeah, yeah.”
    4078 ”So did you end up doing all the preparations?”
    Reply ”Yeah I used to err I volunteered, I wasn’t expected to but err but I can’t, I can’t, I wouldn’t say that was everyday. "
    ......................

    And she also mentions they had a bigger apartment than the others (!?)

    ..."I was obviously staying in the same apartment as Fiona and Dave err they’d got a larger apartment err which meant they were on the first floor as opposed to ground floor.”"
    ...........

    "4078 ”Yeah, and what everyone else has said then, you are the only ones on the first floor.”
    Reply ”We were the only ones on the first floor, we had the, we had a bigger apartment than the others, err which is what Dave, Dave had originally err asked for anyway because he wanted to have err a separate bedroom I think for the girls, although they were in cots, and err I, I just slept on the err there was a folding bed in the liv, the sort of living room area, and that’s where I slept, although there were two beds in one of the bedrooms, that’s also where Lily was sleeping in her cot so I didn’t err didn’t want to sleep in the same room as her.”"
    ..................

    Well, if she slept in the living room on the couch, the childen in one bedroom and the parents in the other, that, in my book makes two bedrooms and a living room, exactly like 5A, the McCanns apartment! David wanted a room just for the girls, who slept there in cots, but that room had two unoccupied beds. How was that apartment bigger than the others??? Obviously, in that specially requested "bigger" apartment there was no 3rd room available for Mrs. Webster...who chose to sleep on the couch because she did not want to sleep in the same room, note this, NOT with her grand-DAUGHTERS, Lilly and Scarlett, plural, but she did not want to sleep in the same room with...Lilly!!!

    Or was it because that room was occupied by ALL the children of the group at nights and she looked after them...?











    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon #24 / #34

    The intent of both your comments was noted. We let your “utter nonsense” and “nonsensical conspiraloon” pass. For a reason.

    You were asked an objective and concise question by Anon #25., which was for you to provide some sort of reasoning “for the inconsistencies in their statements”. We believe that Anon #25 meant the statements of the “poor Portuguese workers” (we stand corrected if this isn't the case).

    Your answer to this question would justify why in your opinion it is a “utter nonsense”.

    When you made your comment #34, you explicitly ran away from answering this, we repeat, very objective and concise question, making it very clear to all that you lack reasoning to substantiate your statements.

    Please do answer Anon’s #25 question. It is very objective and very concise.

    Your silence will be taken as public recognition that you agree with the content of the post which basically implies that the “poor Portuguese workers” lied and lied repeatedly.

    The reason they did that, being “poor Portuguese workers”, can only be explained because they were told to lie.

    If you have any other explanation, we’re waiting to hear it.

    Your silence, as said, will confirm that you, like us, think that the “poor Portuguese workers” were directly involved in the cover-up, the only explanation that makes sense.

    Thank you Anon #25 for your question.

    ReplyDelete

  37. Anon #35


    Let me see if we understood you clearly.

    What you say is that one couple invited their mother and mother-in-law to take care of not only their children but of them and other of 3 other couples for a full week and she would sleep on a couch in a 3 bedroom apartment?

    It seems slave work to us…

    What we can’t understand is why Dianne W would sleep in the living room after the 3rd room would be emptied when the children were returned to their parents and respective apartment.

    Could you please enlighten us?

    To clarify other readers, we think the children were looked after by childminders.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Even the established conspiraloon sites scoff at Textusa's nonsense. Of course, that's partly because she is so inconsistent

    ReplyDelete
  39. With the publication of comment #38, I think it's sufficient to prove our point.

    This is exactly what we mean about their inability to present a reasoned counter argument.

    From now on, we will continue with our policy of not publishing pointless comments.

    ReplyDelete
  40. DW to look after all children? What a nightmare for the poor lady. Imagine all that children at this age locked in the same room outside of their normal environment? The all street will be awake due to tantrums and cries from the little gang and DW will end up her holidays in real need of a doctor to treat her nerves. She was there to enjoy her holidays, not to experience nightmares, taking care of all this children. That was nanny duties and that's why so many nannies were there under contract.
    Mccann's friendship with some british residents, raise doubts about the real reasons of that connections. Only the swing can explain that friendship. Even if the Mccann's were the champions of making new friends easily, it is hard to believe that this friends came to them in a so short holiday, in a foreigner country, due to any special empathy or popularity. They shared the same hobby and that connection it is for me a strong indication of the type of holidays the group was experiencing in PDL. Following my feelings, I go with the Chaplins being the meeting point to organize the swing, which happened probably in different locations, not only inside the resort.
    The nannies were in charged of the children. One has to ask if those nannies have the skills needed to take care of this children. What happen if a child got an accident and dies while the parents were somewhere in an unkown location dueing swing? What the resort will do, if not sure about the qualifications of the nannies and the legal/ illegal conditions of having such workers? What the nannies will do? What the parents and all involved in the swing activity will do? THEY ALL LIE TO COVER UP AND BLAME OTHERS. the best story to invent in that circumstances?- An abduction done by a stranger coming from nowere. This is written in mannuals dedicated to explain this type of crimes. Mccann's and their supporters, are no exceptions. They follow the normal behaviour of anybody caught in a dramatic and very unpredictable situation. They panic and they tried to reduce the damages, since the death was a fact irreversible. on that moment ( sorry to shock some), the death of Madeleine became a small fatalaty compared to the monster that could be uncovered if the police knows the real reason of the holidays and what the resort was promoting without providing skilled people for collateral damages. Even if the swing was not illegal. One is to do it in your private house for free, the other is to promote that type of holidays having money involved because those people payed for that holidays. They don't know the reaction of the police and they don't know the law in Portugal regarding that activities. Probably to promote that holidays, the OC will need a special license and kids will be not allowed in the Resort. That's what scared all parts and tight the Mccann's on the cover up. It was not their choice. Was imposed by the circumstances. If the swing was confirmed by the police on that night, next day all the Tapas 9 previous holidays and their helpers, were investigated. Probably other guests ( including VIP) will be exposed without control. All MW resorts across Europe will be investigated and exposed. On their accounts that was much more serious and damaging then the lies they delivered to the police or the decease of Madeleine. They tried to controll the damaging dominoe effect of the truth, if revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Textusa, #37,

    No, there was not a 3rd bedroom, the Payne's lodgings were exactly the same as the other couple's apartments, two bedroom apartments, that's why I find it strange their mentioning of having a bigger apartment.
    I think Dianne had to sleep in the living room, not because she chose to, but because the 2nd bedroom was used as a collective nursery, for ALL the Tapas kids. Remember, in apartment 5A there were no DNA samples of Madeleine to be found, either in the bed or bedroom she supposedly slept in for the whole holiday...where did she sleep...?

    ReplyDelete
  42. All the children together at nights...it would not be too much for Mrs. Webster to handle, if she had the help of a nanny and the children were given something to help them sleep soundly. With those extra "helps" she did not need to be in the apartment all the time.

    There was a particular nanny that seemed to develope a closer bond with the McCanns, maybe with the whole group, Catriona Baker, I think, the one that according to a neswpaper article:

    ..."within 24 hours Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff."

    ReplyDelete
  43. Censored comment received:

    "Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mind your Ps":

    @25 I don't know the reason for any inconsistencies. Neither do you, and neither does Textusa. (censored).

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 12:45:00 PM"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon #41

    You don’t know how many bedrooms the apartment had. Nor do we know and we don’t want to know because we’re certain that Dianne W did not babysit the T9 children.

    First, if she did, why hide the fact? Because Maddie was abducted? Then the scheme wouldn’t have been a clear one would it?

    Please don’t say that Maddie was put in a separate apartment because she was a difficult child because that would be saying the person responsible for babysitting wouldn’t babysit the child that would most require the care. Not that the others didn’t.
    Second, it’s not a question of number of bedrooms. It’s a question of who is doing a favour to who. And how one is treated for doing a favour.

    If I were to be asked to tag along with my daughter and her husband for a holiday in which I was required to spend the nights taking care of their kids you can bet that I would have I nice room to sleep on before I agreed to go.

    No way would I sleep in the living room and my grandchildren in a bedroom.

    Throw in that I wasn’t required to look only after their children but also of those of their friends, all very young. Me sleeping in the living room? No way. But that’s me.

    Thirdly, taking as fact anything that is said to have been done by any of the T9 is not exactly reliable to say the least.

    Fourth, the absence of expected vestiges of Maddie in Apartment 5A has got to do how methodically that apartment was cleaned and not with the hypothesis that Maddie didn’t sleep in her room. If that was so, one could also argue that she didn’t use the living room or the bathroom.

    And talking about vestiges, why none from the Heals who we know, by their own words, to have been there? And all those that contaminated the apartment... but whose contamination doesn't appear reflected in the files?

    Lastly, if, how illogical it may be, if Dianne W did babysit the children… where do you think the other 8 adults had their various dinners?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon #42,

    By bringing Catriona Baker into the "equation", you're bringing in Ocean Club Staff.

    And yes, we think that the Ocean club were and are directly involved in the cover-up.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Mccanns and their friends put all the children in child minding facilities every day so why would the evenings be any different. Young children on holidays love the day time that is their time for playing on the beach and exploring to put them in a creche all day shows the contempt the party felt for their children and how selfish they all were. In the evenings the group would have used child minding facilities. This group is a selfish group of people hard hearted and only interested in their own gratification.
    There was no negligance that was introduced when they set out their time line and the invention of the abductor. None of them bothered to search for Maddie they were too busy getting their stories straight for the pj and Sky news.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dear DO NOT PUBLISH reader at May 27, 2013, 8:14:00 PM,

    We have noted with pleasure and pride that you follow attentively every word we write to the finest detail.

    It only confirms that your "overlooking" other details we«ve written is intentional as we knew it was.

    Our conscience is crystal clear. Unlike yours.

    What didn't you understand about we are not publishing/censoring POINTLESS comments?

    Life is too short to waste any of it in trying to reason with people allergic to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  48. No DNA from Madeleine in her bed (were the sheets and pillow changed before the police arrived?) and the McCanns also did not give the police Madeleine's comb/hairbrush or a toothbrush, those personal items never showed up! Of course, she could have shared the same comb or hairbrush with the twins, but a shared toothbrush?! No way!
    After a visit to England, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day. Not even from Madeleine's "sweaty sandals", that Kate proposed as the possible source of contamination for any DNA from Madeleine found in the hired car.

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6537-5a-forensics-taken-04-05-07

    Despite the aparent "deep cleaning" of the apartment, there were still plenty of other people's vestiges...but NONE from Madeleine...quite a "surgical" clean up!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Poster #48 is singularly clueless, I'm afraid

    There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed, which they should know if they have in fact read the files.

    Why do you publish such unsubstantiated nonsense? It rightly exposes you to complete ridicule

    ReplyDelete
  50. Text, read again your post at 44. You seem to contradict your post at 22 with regards to 'judgemental' modal verbs.

    Whadya think?

    ReplyDelete
  51. in tomorrow's UK tabloid Daily Star.small item front page.....Maddie suspects named.

    faites vos jeux mesdames et messieurs

    place your bets ladies and gentlemen..

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anon #50.

    Could you please explain as we may be able to respond if we can understand what you mean?

    We know what modal verbs are but can't understand the point being made. Please do clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anon #49,

    Glad to know that you agree and subscribe that we should censor or not publish comments with unsubstantiated nonsense.

    Believe me, we try our best to please you.

    However comment #48 is far from being that.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No, comment #48 is completely unsubstantiated nonsense, as is your post #44

    Perhaps you could provide a reference to where in the files it says the police could find none of Madeleine's DNA on any of those items? Perhaps you could also provide a reference to indicate where any of those items were examined for Madeleine's DNA?

    Yet again, you are betrayed by your own stunning ignorance, Textusa. If you are going to run a blog of this nature, you should possess at least a rudimentary understanding of the forensic science involved, something you clearly lack.

    While we are on the subject of unsubstantiated nonsense, perhaps you could give your justification for your ''theory'' posted on this blog that Madeleine was killed by a named individual?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Text@52
    I think what I mean is that you tend to dismiss anon @22 for a subjectively judgemental use of the word would as in 'who would . . .?', then do the same thing yourself. 'No way would I sleep in living room'; 'I would have a nice bed'.

    I know people who would sleep on a couch quite happily - me for one.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Maybe the reason why police didn't recover Madeleine's DNA from "Madeleine's bed" was because " that bed pointed as Madeleine's by her parents" was not her bed. Maybe, she never slept on it. Then, there is nothing to recover from her there. That absense of forensic evidences is per si a strong evidence against the story delivered by the Tapas 9.
    The cleaner talking to a portuguese TV said she last cleaned the flat on Wednesday and the beds have being in a different position. Why they changed the beds for their last night? And why putting 2 beds and 2 cots on the same room making the circulation so difficult?
    Just from a practical view, no parent will set a room like that to put 3 children so small that could disrupt the sleep of everyone, so close. The room was set for the police on an attempt to fit their abduction story, but they failed many details- the absence of evidences was just one.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon #54,

    Your comment will be replied in a forthcoming post.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon #55,

    Linguistic analysis of meaning is more the speciality of Blacksmith or Dr Martin Roberts,

    What I said, and maintain, is that to disregard someone having done something on the basis of the question "who would?" is absolutely wrong.

    I said I wouldn't sleep in a couch in the living room, you say you would. Each opinion is to be respected. Nor doesn't mean that a person wouldn't sleep in a couch because I said I wouldn't nor that a person would sleep in the couch just because you said you would.

    I presented my reasons as to why I didn't think Dianne W slept in the couch.

    But left a question still answered, in case she did sleep in the couch, which was, where did the adults dine those days, while according to you the children were being taken care by DW or, as is our opinion, by OC's nannies?

    But many other questions can be asked:

    Says DW:

    ..."I was obviously staying in the same apartment as Fiona and Dave err they’d got a larger apartment err which meant they were on the first floor as opposed to ground floor.”"

    Questions:

    1- Why would it be obvious where she was staying with them?

    2 - Why does she say ‘they’d got a larger apartment’ not ‘we’ if she was ‘obviously staying in the same apartment’?

    3 - Why would being on the 2nd floor mean it was a larger apartment, not it matters?

    4 - If bigger apartment as she says, then it had to have 3 bedrooms because when DW speaks, the number of bedrooms in 5A are quite well known. “Bigger” can only mean more bedrooms than the other apartments. So why sleep in the living room if there was a spare room?

    Also:

    "4078 ”Yeah, and what everyone else has said then, you are the only ones on the first floor.”
    Reply ”We were the only ones on the first floor, we had the, we had a bigger apartment than the others, err which is what Dave, Dave had originally err asked for anyway because he wanted to have err a separate bedroom I think for the girls, although they were in cots, and err I, I just slept on the err there was a folding bed in the liv, the sort of living room area, and that’s where I slept, although there were two beds in one of the bedrooms, that’s also where Lily was sleeping in her cot so I didn’t err didn’t want to sleep in the same room as her.”"

    Questions:

    1 - Who else has said they were the only ones on the first floor?

    2- Were all the other apartments empty then?

    3 - If David Payne wanted a separate bedroom (she thinks) for the girls, why not also one for DW?

    4 - What plague has Lily got than granny wouldn’t sleep in the same room? Why only Lily mentioned?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Why can't you reply to it now, Textusa?

    After all, you only need to provide references to support your claims and substantiate your theory about how Madeleine - according to you - met her fate. You should have those already in order to make the claims you have. Not make the claims regardless and try to justify it when you are challenged to provide evidence. Do you think in court a barrister is permitted to say ''we'll get back to you on that''?

    It's about time you understood the difference between you saying something is true and you proving something is true.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anon #59,

    Are we no longer on the subject of no DNA being in PJ Files with regard of Maddies' personal objects?

    Since when did the subject change?

    Just because you said so?

    You really are used to bullying your way around aren't you?

    About our theory about Maddie, read the blog.

    If you don't agree with something, rebut it. Say what we've said is wrong and WHY you think it's wrong.

    Just saying it's wrong because you don't like what you read, doesn't work here.

    Especially coming from a person that never exposes it's own arguments to checkable references or debate.

    No, we're not in a Court, so, you're absolutely right that we can't OFFICIALLY PROVE anything.

    We're expressing an opinion (which is something you won't do) and leave to our readers (growing in numbers much to your despair) to consider what logic and reason has proven or not.

    As we've said before, when we here say that something is proved, we're simply stating an opinion

    That is all we can do as we don't have any judicial power of the subject, nor do we want to have it.

    An opinion that is open to be contradicted with fact, reason and logic.

    About us answering when we think where and when is best and appropriate to do so, it's simply up to us to decide and to know why we've decided to do that.

    We understand your anxiety is linked with fear of what is coming. Don't need to be. In that, it won't be different from other posts we've written.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Is that the best you can come up with in the hours you have had?

    Let me spell it out for you

    There is no indication anywhere in the PJ files that any attempts were made to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed. This is further confirmed in a letter from the lab to Mr Amaral.

    So on what basis does poster #48 claim that police were unable to recover her DNA from these items, when it is absolutely clear they never attempted to?

    You cannot claim you have proved something and simultaneously claim it is just an opinion. It is one or the other. In your case, mostly the other.

    As regards your theory about Maddie's ''demise'', read the blog, you suggest. I have. The blog contains absolutely no evidence of these claims whatsoever. In effect, it is simply your mad theory. You have never supported it with any evidence at all.

    So let's be clear - what you state in these pages is opinion and conjecture. None of it has a factual basis. The FACTS, Textusa, prove the opposite to that which you claim.

    Incidentally, you might as well leave out your random personal attack at the end. You are impressing no-one

    ReplyDelete
  62. Me thinks someone is rattled and hopping mad. For myself, I would love to see 61's counter-argument or a clearheaded view, at least, after he/she stops flapping up and down.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I know I posted this link earlier but I do so again. Especially relating to the fact that by Kate not resuscitating the twins when they were in such an unresponsive state that she had to put her finger under their nose is a criminal act, especially as a doctor. I think this booklet should be everywhere. And I think they got info from here. http://ebookbrowse.com/what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-pdf-d137350359

    ReplyDelete
  64. 61,

    Here we go again, same old vague song: "the blog contains absolutely no evidence of these claims whatsoever. In effect, it is simply your mad theory. You have never supported it with any evidence at all".
    Never to the point. What hasn't exactly Textusa supported without evidence? FACTS. In what facts exactly hasn't she supported her theories?
    Let's start with this post.
    61, has or hasn't Textusa proven with this post proven that the BAPTISTA/BATISTA statements are inconsistent?
    Yes or no.
    I don't want to know, if he's inconsistnt, why he's inconsistent. That's not the question It is to you answer if the inconsistency has been proved.
    After this one I'll ask many other "yes or no" questions.
    As a reader don't think I find off-putting your remarks. On the contrary they're like beacons showing the sisters are on the right path!

    ReplyDelete
  65. I think anon is pretending to take the comments personally as an excuse to be offended. I think this BH has been well trained by his team and is trying to start an argument. The reasons could be to provoke Textusa into saying something as being fact so he is able to debunk it or just to keep the blog occupied so it doesn't move on to what he doesn’t want exposed. Whatever it is this person is worried by Textusa.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hello 61,
    Why are you so scared with the opinion of some here? Who you want to fool with your comments?
    I know it is YOUR'S MAIN WORK DISCREDIT THE WORK OF THE POLICE AND LABELL THEM WITH INCOMPETENCE, but unfortunnately for all of you, it is common sense and mandatory that any investigation starts with the police "CHECKING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSING PHYSICAL EVIDENCES, which includes DNA".
    I read all files available and all books (except the Kate lies) but don't need to go any further then GA book and the detail he published there to see what was going on with the DNA. GA published a small detail very relevant if we consider the time ( few hours after the girl being missing) and the effort her parents put on her recover when there was high chances to rescue her if she was really abducted or just wondering around lost. "A BATH TOWELL" was the object the Mccann's suplied to the police to be used by rescuing dogs looking for her scent. Why a bath towell where her scent was dilluted with water and probably contaminated by the scent of the soaps and not the clothes and shoes she wore on her last day?
    Did you forgot that the parents on their baked story, officially told the police that the girl had a bath before being abducted and disappeared wearing a pajama? Where went her last clothes? To the laundry which was already close? On the pocket of the abductor who was so meticulous that manage to take the girl leaving no evidences of himself and cleaning the evidences of the girl and the all flat? Or did the abductor came back to the flat to pick the girl clothes? If the Mccann's were not able to provide that clothes to the police on the first hours, means there is more missing staff then only the girl but they did not reported it as missing items to the police. " Why?

    By a kind of magic, which fills that saga on every corner, the Mccann's used the same Maddie dirty clothes to justify and excuse what the dogs found on the boost of their car rented 20 days after the girl went missing. If that clothes were goood enough on evidences to excuse and dismiss the work of the CSI dogs, months later, why they were not good enough to be used by the GNR rescuing dogs, when the scent of the girl was much fresh and the clothes full of evidences? Don't tell me that was not written anywhere that there was no Maddie last clothes. The police did not made available all information hold on their meticulous investigation, but what else could we imply from a towell provided to rescue a girl? Maybe, you can highlight us on that instead of tryng to fool us with yours subjectivities.
    Gerry want us to believe there was an abduction, without a single evidence, just because he says it. I want you to explain to my little and poor brain, why a towell was provided to the police entitled to rescue the girl, by the same father who was so confident of his daughter being abducted by a Paedo? Which was the criteria?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Oh do pipe down, silly minions, I'm not interested in whatever knicker-twisting frenzy you have gotten yourselves this time. So run along now with your ''Oooh they sound rattled'' comebacks, if that seriously is the best you can manage.

    #64 - of course there are inconsistencies in some of the statements. That's nothing whatsoever to do with my point that posters are making claims which simply are not supported by the evidence, as I have previously outlined with respect to the false claims about DNA evidence.

    #65
    When your ears re-emerge from whichever orifice is currently muffling them you could perhaps explain which specific words or phrases indicate to you that this is a matter I am taking personally. You can also explain why you are so scared by the thought of Textusa providing answers which are there to be rebuffed.

    As you were, ladies.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 67,
    Why are you monitoring the blog minute a minute? What scares you here? What tides you here?

    ReplyDelete
  69. 61, thank you for your reply.
    If you don't mind I'll call you 61 and please call me 64.
    As said I didn't ask why there were inconsistencies and the discussion of Maddie's DNA is between you and Textusa and I won't meddle. It seems that the ball is on her side of the Court and as the blog is hers I guess you'll just have to wait it out or convince her to answer. That's between you and her.
    What I'm trying is to clarify what you said and that was that Textusa hasn't ever substantiated her theories with evidence.
    From your words I see that you agree that Textusa has proved with this post that BAPTISTA/BATISTA was inconsistent in his statements.
    Next question if you don't mind.
    Has Textusa proved or not in her Swan Lake - Act 3 post that Martin Brunt and his crew forged the image of the table where the Tapas sat the night Maddie disappeared?
    Once again, not looking for reasons, just want a simple yes or no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Poster #66.

    You are incoherent. Try again in Portuguese.

    I notice not one of you has been able to answer my questions

    Where in the files is there any evidence to support your claims that the police checked a load of Madeleine's belongings and could recover none of her DNA?

    That's the claim poster #48 made, and Textusa before her. This is a false claim. None of her clothing or personal belongings underwent DNA analysis.

    If you believe you are right, provide a source. Simple as that. Pages of insults and bluster is not a source.

    ReplyDelete
  71. #68

    With the greatest respect, you are a moron. That is all

    ReplyDelete
  72. #68

    My conversation with Textusa was around the DNA evidence. If you have nothing to contribute to that, well you really have nothing to contribute

    I think you will find my words were that of course there are inconsistencies in some of the witness statements. It would be suspicious were there not to be.

    Of course Textusa has not proved the image of the table is forged - frankly any of you who believe that need some serious help.

    I suggest you all grow up a bit, observe how textusa never answers the question, and start formulating some answers of your own, rather than following some deranged bint who is already under investigation by the authorities for claims she has made on here

    ReplyDelete
  73. 61,

    Thank you for your answer.
    Not being able to see the unnatural flicker of the table and absurd lighting does take some hypocrisy but if you want to be one, is up to you.
    It shows the kind of person you are. Someone that follows "insult and bluster is not a source" with "you are a moron"!
    When it comes to prove
    I have many questions for you.
    Has Textusa proved that there were many more than 20 covers at Tapas? I think she has.
    Has Textusa proved that there was no Big Round Table? I think she has.
    Has Textusa proved that there wer no Quiz Nights at Tapas? I think she has.
    Has Textusa proved that the waiters lied? I think she has.
    Has Textusa proved that Mrs Fenn has lied? I think she has.
    Has Textusa proved that Pimpleman is an invention? I think she has.
    And many more things that I think she has PROVED.
    I disagree with you. I think Textusa has always answered all the questions. I'm sure she'll answer yours.
    But then I see a table being forged and you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Textusa, #58,

    According to Fiona and David Payne, only Lilly slept in the 2nd bedroom, all by herself. The younger daughter, Scarlett, slept in their bedroom in a cot, so, it seems that the 2nd bedroom David insisted upon having, was not exactly for the girls, as Dianne claims it was...Dianne says that David asked for a bigger apartment, because she thinks he wanted a bedroom for the girls, but later on she says that that 2nd room had two beds, and that's were Lilly slept, and she didn't want to sleep with her!

    This is all so weird, with two bedrooms available why would one be for the couple, and the other one just for a 4 year old child?! A 4 year old who did not use one of the two beds available in that bedroom , but slept in a cot, as her 2 year old sibling, who slept in her cot in the parents bedroom?! And the other adult in the party had to sleep in the fold out sofa bed in the living room! What's the logic in those sleeping arrangements? If the children slept in cots, why not put both in the parents room and let the grandmother use the spare bedroom, or, if it is true that David's reason for wanting a bigger apartment was to have a separate room for the kids, then why only one of them was put in that room? Is it logic to have one child in one bedroom and another child in the other, rooms that were separated by a bathroom between them, and then monitor BOTH children with ONE baby-monitor which had to be placed OUTSIDE, on the floor, beween those rooms?! Wouldn't it make more sense to have both children together in the same room? Either in the parent's room or in the 2nd room? Wouldn't the baby monitor work better if it was inside the room with both children?
    Maybe it's just me, with my warped logics...

    From Fiona's rogatory (asked to describe the apartment):

    " 1485 “Okay. So just to talk through it then. You have got the main, the front door here?”
    Reply “Yeah”.
    1485 “To the right is a kitchen”
    Reply “Yeah”.
    1485 “And what was that, sorry?”
    Reply “The dining room table”.
    1485 “Dining room table”.
    Reply “Yeah”.
    1485 “To the left you have got bedroom two?”
    Reply “Yeah”.
    1485 “Who slept in bedroom two?”
    Reply “That was Lily, she had a cot just there, there was Lily and there was a window”.
    1485 “Okay. And bedroom one?”
    Reply “Bedroom one, there was a big double bed, Dave and I, and Scarlet was in the corner in a travel cot”.
    1485 “Okay. Where did your mum sleep?”
    Reply “Mum slept in the living room, there was a sofa bed which she sort of pulled down and generally put that there I think”.
    1485 “Right”.
    Reply “Yeah, at night-time”.
    1485 “And which room would the intercom be in?”
    Reply “The intercom was actually placed literally in between the two, this is the door to the bedroom there and it was placed there”.
    1485 “On the floor?”
    Reply “Yeah, on the floor, just between the two rooms”."


    David Payne's rogatory:

    "1485 ”Okay so we have bedroom one and we have bedroom two.”
    Reply ”Yes.”
    1485 ”Which bedroom did your children sleep in?”
    Reply ”Err in…”
    1485 ”Or which did you designate for them to sleep in?”
    Reply ”Yeah we had err Lily err was in bedroom one and…”
    1485 ”That’s the one nearest to that door there.”
    Reply ”That’s correct.”
    1485 ”Yeah.”
    Reply ”And Scarlet was staying in with us in bedroom two. Err and as I say Dianne was in the lounge err on a, on a, you know the sofa bed.”"

    ReplyDelete
  75. How has she proved there were more than 20 covers? The restaurant clearly seated more than 20, that has never been in dispute. They provided limited covers for diners on a MW inclusive package. I see nothing to suggest that Tetusa has shown otherwise.

    She has not proven there was no big round table. Provide proof if you think it exists

    She has not proven there were no quiz nights. Provide proof if you think it exists

    She has not provided any evidence whatsoever that the waiters lied. Provide proof if you think it exists

    She has not provided any evidence whatsoever than Mrs Fenn lied. Provide proof if you think it exists

    Pimpleman was ''invented'' by whom?

    Saying something has been proved does not make it so. So far you have not provided evidence of a single thing you claim. Not one.

    Use your commonsense. You are clearly not an idiot. Why would a vast number of unrelated people - holidaymakers, resort owners, employees, police, members of the church, retired ex-pats - lie for a couple they didn't know? Don't trot out the ''swingers'' rubbish, I'm sure you know as well as I do that is utterly fatuous.

    Now prove that they lied. Show any proof whatsoever that these people lied, that they created a sophisticated elaborate back story to cover up the unlawful death of a girl they didn't know.

    The reason you can't provide any proof is because none exists. Just because you believe Textusa doesn't mean any of it is true. It just means you are an easy person to con.

    So far, Textusa doesn't seem to be able or willing to answer any of my questions, does she? Have you asked yourself why that is?

    ReplyDelete
  76. The bath towel...What I can't get around my head is why/how the police (GNR, I think) accepted that item as a suitable source of Madeleine's scent to beggin with!!! That was hardly a "personal" item of Madeleine's...it could have been used by the twins too, considering they seem to share the same comb and toothbrush, I bet slopy Kate also used the same towel for all her children! It could even be the same bath towel she wrapped around her sleek body during Payne's 30 second/30 minutes visit...
    Why did the police take the towel instead of insisting on being given the clothes/shoes the child wore that day? Surelly they hadn't alredy all been thrown into the washing machine...
    Mr. Amaral was right indeed whe he said that this case had had "muita política e pouca polícia", too much politics and too little police.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Textusa,

    "some deranged bint who is already under investigation by the authorities for claims she has made on here"

    So now YOU are under investigation! I wonder how he KNOWS this??? Proof please.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anon 77,

    ;-) didn't pick that up, thank you!!!
    We're back to authority threats are we?
    I ever hardly agree with John Blacksmith but this bit in http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.pt/2013/05/they-tried-oh-how-they-tried-but-they.html and even if he's speaking about GA and the McCs, it just seems to fit this anon: "whining and intriguing tell their own story."

    ReplyDelete
  79. NOT Insane's proposal for a new comment form warning:

    “Comments are moderated, and pretendy censored if necessary.

    Comments are welcomed, unless they question the barmy Textusa theory, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, transparent demonstrations that Textusa makes it up as she goes along, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse, or offensive to Textusa's ego.”

    ReplyDelete
  80. I'd be happy to.

    I will of course have to kill you afterwards, but presumably you agree with me that this is fair enough.

    Textusa has been under investigation for some time, and by a variety of agencies, because of complaints made about the contents of her posts and in particular her abusive conduct towards an underage witness.

    Testusa was informed that this was the case and advised that she should make her posters aware of this and that they too were the subject of the investigation. She chose not to inform you.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bint is a very sexist and derogatory term for a woman. It reveals a rather misogynist backward mind.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @80

    I've been reading and just enjoying you poor show.

    Am I at this computer, or is it my wife? Am I at home or at a friend's? Am I at work or in an airport?

    Don't be daft.

    And who says I want to hide that I'm following Textusa? The only abuse I've witnessed about an "underage witness" has come from you lot when you convinced TS to lie. Shame on you!

    ReplyDelete
  83. #81

    What really makes me laugh is that you took issue with ''Bint''

    But not ''Deranged''

    ReplyDelete
  84. #82

    Yes, it was just that kind of accusation which led to her being investigated in the first place.

    I'm sorry if this is a difficult one for you to get your head around but making false allegations, in public, about a readily identifiable child witness, as you are doing and as Textusa did before you, is child abuse and regarded as such by the authorities, hence the reason why an intervention was made. I'd advise you to desist from making any further allegations of this nature

    ReplyDelete
  85. Eu reconheço aqui muita linguagem e frases de uma rede social conhecida.

    https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%23mccann&src=savs


    Estas frases repetitivas e insultuosas são característica daqueles que , a todo o custo, defendem o casal e querem evitar que a verdade dos factos venha a público.

    Eles também inventam imensas coisas pretendendo dar a entender que estão em contacto com o Primeiro Ministro e com a nossa Procuradora Geral da República.


    Muitos desses comentaristas aqui ficam registados para memória futura.


    ReplyDelete
  86. Insane,
    Isn't there anyway around you to tell you how ridiculous you're being?
    The BH must really be proud of you.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @85

    Please show us all where are the lies from Textusa:
    http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/edgars-cronic-discrepancy-syndrome.html
    http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/child-abused.html
    http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/04/not-even-alice-in-wonderland.html
    http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/04/in-previous-post-not-even-alice-in.html
    http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/04/mockery-within-mockery.html

    ReplyDelete
  88. #83,

    Glad to know that you laugh at your own sexist and derogatory expression. It tells a lot about you.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Any of you prepared to actually provide proof of that which you claim, then?

    Because all I see here is me challenging what has been claimed, and you all being completely incapable of defending yourselves. It's a really poor showing.

    Let's go really slowly.

    Let's start with the claim by #48 that the police were unable to recover Madeleine's DNA from her belongings.

    Now - provide evidence of this. That surely should be ridiculously easy for you, Off you go....

    ReplyDelete
  90. 61, thank you for your multiple replies. They reveal much more then what you desire to. On top of all, also reveal one typical behavior that adjectives all the cover up gang- xenophobia against the Portuguese. Who has not your "spectacular QI", your " brilliant and absolutely knowledge of the truth", " your pointed nose to smell a moron" and " your accurate eye to spot the poor intelligence of others", could only be one nationality - portuguese.
    I love that part " pages of insults and bluster are not a source". Are you refering to GA book , which was analised by 3 top judges who arrived to the conclusion that what was there was nothing else then what was in the investigation? Sorry, I forgot.... What is the intelligence of 3 Portuguese judges compared to yours?
    66 seems to have touched your nerves.
    Yes, the police could not refuse evidences provided by the main sources in a crime. They cannot refuse a towell if the towell was what the parents could provide to be the source of the scent of their daughter. Police could not refuse that but they will take note of that detail and interpret it under the light of a experienced and clever investigator. That is one more evidence against the Mccann's and who help them with their lies. That's why you don't like it and instead of answering 66 about the last clothes from Madeleine, you choose a pirouette with an insult.
    I will add one more question, after all this years, why there is no pictures from Madeleine on her last day with her last clothes? Do you want us to believe that the picture they delivered with Madeleine around the pool was her last picture with her last clothes? If so, why she was wearing a summer dress in a cloudy day in opposition to the tennis picture and the swings picture, where she appears dressed more appropriated to the weather claimed for that week? Leave the insults and pirouettes and clarify our doubts. After all, you are much more intelligent and accurate then all of us, together.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "...but making false allegations, in public, about a readily identifiable child witness, as you are doing and as Textusa did before you, is child abuse ..."
    Well, are you talking about the Mccann's only, or a out the all gang that help them with the cover up?
    Reviewing the all saga, including the media contribution, the behavior of the prime figures after 3 of May was all child abuse and "potential abductors " abuse. How many innocents were dragged to that history by the Mccann's and their helpers, having their pictures exposed in the media with total impunity? They are allowed to do whatever they want to keep their business "on" only Who question their attitude and contradictions has to shut up and be quiet.
    Do you want a better proof of abuse then that?
    The time is killing your strategies.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Agora vêm as intimidações e ameaças a Textusa e seus leitores. Uma tipica fuga para a frente dando um tiro no pé.
    Quer o(a) estomado(a) anónimo (a) dizer-nos que é em Textusa que a SY anda a gastar os milhões disponibilizados para a revisão? Os contribuintes britânicos vão adorar saber que em vez de procurarem a desaparecida estiveram colados aos PCs a tentar localizar os incrédulos espalhados por todo o mundo.
    TB nunca teria sido tocado se na sua honestidade não tivesse cometido o erro de publicar uns panfletos e ir distribui- los para a porta dos McCann. Teve a coragem que os Media do seu país não têm. Foi só este erro que o armadilhou.
    Que anda aqui alguém muito atrapalhado com as consequências das mentiras que deliberdamente debitaram à policia, anda. E o mais incrivel é que a dita Pessoa não parece chatear-se muito se as culpas cairem só em cima dos McCann. O problema começa quando se questiona a participação de outras personagens nesta tragicomédia.

    ReplyDelete
  93. #90

    Write it in Portuguese. It's incomprehensible for the most part in english. Far easier for you to write in your native tongue then the sense of what you are saying is not lost.

    I see not one of you has provided any evidence yet. I'll assume it's simply because you can't.

    No point throwing any old rubbish into the mix. It's perfectly simple

    Poster #48 made claims about the DNA evidence. As did Textusa. Both of them are wrong

    I want them to either demonstrate the truth of what they claimed, or accept that they were wrong.

    I'm not interested in your ramblings about summer dresses and last photos, nor your rather odd assertion that the police have to accept whatever items the parents handed them. Do not be ridiculous. They could have seized anything they wanted.

    Now either provide the evidence I have asked for or go away

    ReplyDelete
  94. #91

    Textusa was reported to the authorities because of her abuse of a child witness and the abuse of other contributors of the same witness.

    I'm not interested in what the McCanns did or didn't do. The person who held an identified child witness up to ridicule, who claimed that she had been sexually abused, who accused her of perjury - that was Textusa, along with whichever of you agreed with her and joined in.

    Textusa was informed in writing at the time that this action was being taken, and told that she should inform you all. This was to allow you to have a rethink and remove those comments.

    She chose not to tell you. Why don't you just ask her?

    Have you any idea what that kind of behaviour could do to a child? You claimed she was a victim of sexual abuse. You claimed she had lied in her evidence. You identified her.

    Did it never occur to you how much you placed her at risk? All of this was pointed out to Textusa at the time. She threw you all under the bus.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'm sorry,but i've stayed at the OC,and i can assure you there was no swinging,just hundreds of families enjoying the resort and sun,also why take the kids in the first place if it was a swinging holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  96. #95

    Of course there wasn't. But as Textusa's central theory depends on it, they will defend the idea to the end. Without their claim that the resort was a centre for high level VIP swinging the rest of Textusa's mad theory falls apart.

    Expect to be accused of being ''in on it''

    ReplyDelete
  97. 87:

    eu tenho a certeza que não foi ao 85 (eu ) a quem quis responder.

    Agradecia a rectificação.

    ReplyDelete
  98. You do really have a troll team totally dedicated to you Textusa!

    ReplyDelete
  99. trolls are pro couple mccann who avoid the real truth about what happened to Madeleine.

    trolls pro couple are always with hate and misinformation.

    Those who fight for the truth and Justice for Her, Madeleine, are not trolls

    ReplyDelete
  100. There you go, #95

    Didn't take long, did it?

    ReplyDelete
  101. @85, sorry my mistake.

    I meant Insane @84. He advised (threatened) me not to mention the underage witness again so I went to the links "Debunking the Mockumentary" that Textusa has put up and picked up the links to TS, the underage witness that Insane is referring to and challenged him to show us all where Textusa has lied or abused the girl. He says she's easily identifiable but I'm not seeing how more so than she is in the Mockumentary.
    I'm sure that TS, if she's reading this, must be very happy that Insane brought her name up out of nowhere.
    My apologies @85.
    Waiting for you to tell us where exactly Textusa is wrong about TS, Insane.

    ReplyDelete
  102. To 90 or 61 or so on....

    "Write it in Portuguese. It's incomprehensible for the most part in english"....

    If so, why you get so bothered by something that has the most part "incomprehensible" and you were not able to understand?

    Your posts show you are part of the group who involved a child on Madeleine story- TS. We can understand why are you so scared and why you spend so much time here, trying to discredit every other posts. It is impossible to feed a lie for so long. What a job.

    ReplyDelete
  103. #95, how can you assure about everything that happens and doesn't happen in a place where you happen to be just on holiday?!?
    What a lame coordinated comment... coordination confirmed by Insane's comment #100... how childish.

    ReplyDelete
  104. 101: many thanks.

    85

    ReplyDelete
  105. #101

    Textusa identified the girl

    She claimed the girl was a victim of child abuse and the article was accompanied by a photo of a child cringing in fear and the words ''because things went awfully wrong for daddy's friends''

    She accused the girl of lying in her statement

    She stated that the girl was told to lie by her parents

    She accuses the child of covering up the death of another child.

    She does all this not on the basis of any evidence at all, but to fit her ridiculous theory.

    It is for these reasons that Textusa and this blog was reported to various child protection agencies and that you were, and continue to be, investigated and monitored.

    Textusa was informed of this. She chose not to tell you

    ReplyDelete
  106. #102

    Yet you feel perfectly at liberty to make your claims about somewhere you have presumably never been and despite the huge weight of evidence to the contrary.

    And why? Because Textusa said so

    ReplyDelete
  107. Let me explain to you how evidence works

    You think someone is lying

    In which case you present your evidence and allow the jury to decide.

    What you don't do is claim as a certainty that they have lied because it suits you to do so, then demand that someone proves otherwise.

    Textusa made the claims. It's for her to prove, not others to disprove.

    It was her claims that led to the blog being on a child protection watchlist

    ReplyDelete
  108. Insane,
    Now Textusa is on a child protection watchlist?
    Wow! British, Portuguese... or Interpol? Also in the CIA dark list?
    You've said more than is bearable to read that "she chose not to tell you". Has it crossed your mind why she's now publishing you saying that time and time again?
    Other than the fact that it shows how ridiculous you're being?
    You really must think you rule the world, don't you?
    Do you really take yourself seriously?
    Give my best regards to Julius Caesar, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  109. "It was her claims that led to the blog being on a child protection watchlist".

    What a joke. If a child protection spends a second watching Textusa, did not deserve to be considered a child protection and did not deserve a single Pound or Euro that falls on his account.
    There is nothing wrong on that blog. She did not made up stories. She debunked the stories other delivered to geopardize the work of the police. That is the problem, for all the Insane.
    When they planned their campaign to fool the police, the public and hide the truth, they never put blogs like Textusa on their equation. They forgot that somewhere could be some people thinking, debunking and refusing to swallow their fantasies.
    Textusa was pointed by Paulo Sargento on the TV, as a reference on Maddie investigation. Then who is monitorising Textusa apart of you Insane and all involved on the cover up? Which Child protection? Because I'm ready to complaint about that child protection and his poor work on the defense of the childs rights.
    I know, you are not able to provide us the name of that child protection or is it the Findmadeleine's Fund?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oooh dear, what a lot of bluster and hot air.

    Textusa was reported to the authorities because of the abuse perpetrated on this blog against a child. There was also considered to be a legal issue concerning harassment of witnesses which can carry a substantial jail term.

    Rather than flailing around at me, perhaps you should take it up with her. Only she knows why she kept you in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Child protection watchlist" ...." substantial jail term"....
    You must be desperate Insane. Your dream become a hilarious dellirium.

    ReplyDelete
  112. #111

    Want to risk it, dear?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  113. I just hope that Textusa holds herself under torture and doesn't reveal the names of all her readers at the hands of her torturers in Guantanamo!!!
    But that list would include Insane, wouldn't it? How would the authorities differentiate between Insane's IP from that of any other? Will he just show an informer card when they come knocking on his door? Or does he have a some sort of special IP protection given to him by the "child protection watchlist"?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Still no-one prepared to help #48 out with evidence that the police were unable to recover DNA from Madeleine's belongings?

    Come along, ladies. I have been waiting longer than a SY review

    ReplyDelete
  115. #112,

    If there was any risk involved I would say yes. As there isn't your question goes without reply. Want to call your bluff?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Crikey Moses,
    we're all in the shit!
    Best we shut up shop and move on,eh?

    ReplyDelete
  117. I'm first! I'm first!
    Save me a place on the first lifeboat!!!

    ReplyDelete
  118. #113

    Who do you think reported her? Amongst others, of course.

    Don't you worry yourself dear.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Insane, please tell my mommy I loved her!
    Will you spare me if I promise that I won't ever come here, you, oh powerful one?

    ReplyDelete
  120. O vosso Blog é o único activo e é um Blog diferente pois causa o medo no lado dos "fans" do casal mccann e da realidade que os rodeia.

    No twitter em #mccann all

    Eu vejo toda a provocação ordinária que também começo a ver aqui da parte desses "militantes da romaria à senhora da provocação".

    São ordinários, mal educados e sem nível algum . Parecem fazer parte dum grupo de peixarada sem piada alguma.

    Haja paciência para os desregrados e malucos.

    ReplyDelete
  121. One of my favourite English authors has to be the brilliant PG Woodhouse. I'm quite a grumpy kinda guy, but old PG could really make me guffaw aloud. I didn't think anyone would ever surpass PG's for comical pomposity. Seems I was wrong.

    Charles Dickens, too. He did a great line in Idiot Useless sons who flunked law school but retained some authoritive-sounding, legally-loaded big words to impress the stupid. Always good for a giggle.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I imagine that some Black Hats are pulling their hairs off their skulls this moment in utter disbelief with what they're reading here!!! One loose cannon gone completely awry...
    Anyway, eventually all dogs do get tired of yapping away.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Where's the evidence of Dianne Webster's return flight details, for the 5, May 2007?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Well I know I shouldn't say it but the posts have been extremely entertaining.

    @ 121 you have hit the nail on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  125. #95,

    Why take the kids in a swinging holiday?!
    I don't know, as I also don't know:

    WHY take the kids in any kind of holiday only to dump them in the creches everyday, all day, and spend little to no time at all with them!?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Depois das multiplas contribuições de Insane neste blog, atrevo-me a traçar parte do seu perfil:

    - Vive na PDL
    - É de nacionalidade inglesa
    - Percebe Português
    - Estava na PDL a quando dos acontecimentos de 3 de Maio
    - Conhecia Mrs Fenn
    - Conhece TS
    - Ao contrário de 99% dos aficionados deste blog não vem aqui para se deslumbrar com a análise incisiva de Textusa.
    - os seus posts denotam ansiedade e medo.
    - aprisionou-se perpetuamente na sua consciência, no dia em que resolveu alinhar numa mentira.

    ReplyDelete
  127. 95,

    Why they take kids to a swing holiday?

    To fool their own family and their colleagues.

    Which excuse they could gave to travel in group and not taking the kids to a resort near the beach with good weather? A second honeymoon for all of them?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Swinging (very popular in Britain, check check it out on the internet) is the most logical explanation for all. The reason to cover-up, the dumping kids in creche, the excessive nannies, the week-long holiday without any other logical activity than tennis (too cold for watersports).

    ReplyDelete
  129. Huffington Post
    "Madeleine McCann : Photograph of missing girl found in scam device"

    Samuel and Joan Tree from Dunstable Bedfordshire and Simon Sharrard from East Finchley, N London on trial at Old Bailey for selling fake bomb detectors. In the handle of one dismantled detector was the image of Madeleine McCann! I can hardly believe a more bizarre story can emerge in this case. But here it is.
    Gary Bolton from Kent is also due to stand trial on similar charges in July.
    Other areas of the country where similar arrests have been made are Portsmouth and Somerset.
    I'm interested in following these cases and the backgrounds of these people and will keep you posted. I'm interested in why an image of Madeleine was found. Maybe it will be explained at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Some of you people must live incredibly sad lives if all you can think about is your obsession with swinging.

    This entire blog, and Textusa's entire premise, is built on lies. She has clearly attracted the right clientelle for the most part as the bulk of you would believe literally anything she told you.

    Why don't you step back a minute and get a grip?

    What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories and provide alibis for a group of people they had for the most part never met and to whom they owed nothing. That hundreds of people who didn't know them and didn't owe them anything were prepared to risk long prison sentences themselves in order to cover up for people they didn't know. That multi-national TV companies would join in, fabricating footage for the express purpose of ''proving'' years later that there was no ''big round table'' and what's more they would go about it so clumsily that the ''forgery'' would be immediately spotted by a group of middle-aged layabouts watching a youtube clip?
    That the catholic church and the governments of two nations would collude together to cover up the homicide of a small child at a holiday resort?

    Does it ever occur to you, even for a second, that you have been taken for a complete and total ride by this lunatic?

    That the reason she claims the Brunt video is photoshopped is precisely because it blows one of her loony ideas out of the water?

    Because to believe as you claim to do, you would also have to believe that:

    Every holidaymaker in the resort was ''in on it''

    Every local resident was ''in on it''

    Every member of staff at Mark Warners was ''in on it''

    Every member of the british consulate staff plus the ambassador was ''in on it''

    the catholic church was ''in on it''

    Every member of staff at the tapas was ''in on it''

    All the nannies, sports coaches, ancillary staff were ''in on it''

    every member of the ex-pat community, even those in their 80's was ''in on it''

    sky news were ''in on it''

    Martin Brunt was ''in on it''

    The police forces of two nations were ''in on it''

    The forensic labs were ''in on it''

    All these people. In on it. In on what you simultaneously claim was an accidental act of brutality committed in the heat of the moment and with no pre-planning involved.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Cont.....Tell me something. The statements of many of the witnesses corroborate each other. These statements are further corroborated by documented evidence such as the tapas booking sheets.
    The people who were shown at having booked tables duly turned up and testify to that. Those who decided instead on a takeaway testify to that. Those who had tables booked testify to seeing the ones who didn't, waiting to pick up their takeaway meal. Other holidaymakers eating with them corroborate this. None of these people are in any way able to alibi the McCanns - if anything their statements merely clarify what they themselves were doing that night and who they saw. So who created this complex back-story? Because if you claim that the tapas wasn't even open, and the tapas dinners never even happened, then you need to explain who came up with the interlinking back story and why.

    You won't be able to, of course, because it does not exist, but even then none of you have the wit or wisdom to come up with a scenario that fits.

    And swinging?

    Let's leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no indication that the place was being used for that purpose. Why would hundreds of people - yes, hundreds - perjure themselves and risk long prison sentences for conspiracy to cover up a serious crime, lose their jobs, homes, livelihoods, children and families rather than be ''tainted'' with an activity which isn't even illegal?

    Textusa's central theory is nuts.

    Because it's nuts, she had to invent even more ridiculous ones to support the first.

    Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.

    And frankly, you are all too dim to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Father Hubbard is on it also, trollProMcCann 130

    And the Anglican Father was called to 5A first night: the couple middle age who entered in flat. Don´t forget this because they know very well .

    ReplyDelete
  133. ANGLICAN FATHER DAVID HEAL AND HIS WIFE PAM WAS THE FIRST PRIEST TO BE CALLED
    "We feel so much for Maddie's mum"

    Because

    They know, the middle age couple, they know!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Insane,

    Never thought I would say this, but thank you.

    You've summarized it all almost to a tee, besides the blabber against me, but that is comprehensible coming from you.

    I would advise the readers to read these comments very attentively.

    Do replace the exaggerated "Every" in the sentences of the first comment and replace them with "some" or "many".

    Then do the magic trick and replace the following sentence :

    "What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories"

    with:

    "What Textusa is saying is that tenths of connected people, participating in a swinging event, all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories to react to an unfortunate mishap in which a child lost her life in order to protect their own reputation. These tenths of connected people activated as fast as they could all their connections so that the just fabricated story would be enforced officially and in doing so got hundreds of people involved in one of the biggest cover-up of western civilization."

    Insane, I know you understand Portuguese so I'll refrain to translate the definition of what you just did: "Com a verdade me enganas".

    I don't have words to express my gratefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  135. You are a real piece of work, textusa. You no more believe that pile of garbage than I do. You are merely taking advantage of the fact that you have a readership so spectacularly dim they make a pot noodle look like an emeritus professor

    ReplyDelete
  136. Is one of your pet lunatics accusing the parish priest and his wife of something, Textusa?

    Do tell, I could do with a laugh

    ReplyDelete
  137. Dear 130,
    Take a break. You put yourself under the risk of having a stroke.
    Who said all the guests were involved? - you
    Who said all the OC workers were involved? - you
    Who said all the residents were involved ? - you
    Some were involved. The Tapas workers and nannies, and the guests involved on the Tapas sheets together with some other guests and residents who voluntarily delivered statements to the police.
    Who said those people did not know each other before that?- you
    The world is quite small for who share the same hobbies and there is some indications in the investigation pointing for a fact: they all love to spend holidays at MW resorts across Europe. If was not the service and the top quality of the accomodations ( there is criticism regarding that), what else tides those guests to MW holidays? https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=503841556356558&id=126894987384552&set=a.126895770717807.28294.126894987384552&refid=7&_ft_=qid.5883683417301163363%3Amf_story_key.5221970319040251562#!/photo.php?fbid=503811893026191&id=126894987384552&set=a.126895770717807.28294.126894987384552&refid=13&_ft_=qid.5883683417301163363%3Amf_story_key.5221970319040251562
    Gerry seems very disturbed when a journalist ask him if he knows Murat. He replied saying "I will not answer that". If not, why don't just say "no".

    ReplyDelete
  138. Quanto mais cava, mais se enterra...
    The more he digs, the futher he buries himself...

    ReplyDelete
  139. #137

    Hundreds of people. Hundreds.

    Show any evidence at all that these people knew each other or colluded. You are happy enough to accuse them of serious crimes, put your money were your mouth is, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  140. #138

    Yes - that is precisely what textusa has done

    ReplyDelete
  141. Insane @136

    Laugh as you will.
    The Hubbard's controlled the church for cerimonies under closed doors. Why? if in Fatima hundreds of thousnds respected in silence the McCs sufferance, then PDL would have respected them in church if the cerimonies were genuine.
    The Hubbards came by "coincidence" to PDL just after Maddie was gone.
    The Hubbards were helped settle in by the mother of a just kidnapped child! Wasn't there anyone else to help them?
    Susan Hubbards participated actively in the Mockumentary? Why?
    Susan Hubbard was Kate's companion in her latest visit here.
    Laugh as you will.
    The Hubbards were sent in to "help". You trying to laugh it off won't change their particpation in this mess.
    The more you speak the more guilty you look and the more people you confirm that are guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Insane,

    You've served your purpose and very nicely so as I've complimented.

    You never give any theory of your own, thereby evading any challenge, you never provide a counter argument or references to the issues you dispute and you conveniently pretend to not see something even if it's glued to your face.

    Now I must ask you to pick up your toys (threats, abuse and misogyny) and invite you to leave.

    We've had enough of your nonsense, so will now adopt your imperious tone and say unless your comments meet our standards, they won't be published.

    ReplyDelete
  143. It is clear Insane is an insider. I go even further, he or she have been involved on the games of May 3 and on the moccumentary. And the sexist way he/ she believes we are all old ladies, she must be a lady. Men's did not use such type of sexism in a lady blog, even if they disagree.
    Insane, are you related with TS or with Mrs Fenn?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Hubbards - when they arrived in May 2007, it wasn't their first time in PdL they were there in 2005 as he was a locum for a short term. Came with 2 children.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I am anon 95,don't put me in the same category as Insane,i don't believe for a minute Madeleine McCann was abducted,i'm just saying i saw no such suggestion of swinging at the OC,there were many families with children,why take them there if they want to parcipate in swinging.We found the oc staff very nice & helpful,no way were they involved in the disappearance of Madeleine,what happened to her was as a result of the actions of her parents.By the way i believe Madeleine died on that holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Anon #145/#95
    Are you the same person who made comment #59 in the post 60 of Us? Very similar comments.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Anon 146,yes i am,though i don't believe the swinging angle,because i can't see it some how,we went in August,maybe swinging was confined to off peak seasons,April/May.I personally think something else binds Tapas group together.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anon #147,

    Nice try. Drop the act.

    ReplyDelete
  149. If Insane's objective was to convince undecided minds I think he did a great job! If anyone had doubts, Insane's obsessive rudeness against Textusa only shows how he fears her for being spot on!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Textusa,wow,that "lady"needs to see her Dr(!!!)ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  151. #130 Don't forget the Portuguese judge, who refused to permit the PJ to bug the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Insane has reminded me of Austin Powers. After Carter-Ruck admitting that it would be impossible to obtain from Blogger personal data he comes here with completely absurd and outdated threats and has apparently stopped his watch at the time Jim Gamble was the head of CEOP!!!

    ReplyDelete
  153. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4946847/mark-bridger-guilty-april-jones-murder.html

    "Former slaughterhouse worker Bridger was also found guilty of the youngster's abduction and intending to pervert the course of justice."

    So, in Britain, like with in Portugal with the Cipriano case, you don't need a body to charge and convict someone.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Textusa should be known as "The blogger who changed Occam's razor into Occam's hedge trimmer"!

    ReplyDelete
  155. Insane,

    Your question about Maddie's DNA has been answered in our most recent post:
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/06/clueless-or-not.html

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa