Clueless... or NOT

While some commentators are very analytical language wise, to a point of astounding precision, others use words without apparently knowing their meaning as they not only use them abusively as they withdraw from them conclusions, obviously to their own conveniences, and absolutely wrong.

This is a comment we received from a Anonymous #48:

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

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

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 8:40:00 PM”

Anonymous #48 used normal and educated language as can be read. The abusive language came from a very heated reaction to this comment from another poster, Anonymous #50:

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

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

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 27, 2013, 10:03:00 PM”

Let’s start with the word CLUELESS. Or its use, or misuse of the word by Anon #50.

It seems to us that #48 is far from being clueless in his/her comment.

In fact, what #48 is in fact doing is to highlight one very relevant clue of the case. It’s noticing and noting the existence of the clue, so, by definition, unlikely, not to say impossible, to be clueless about that particular clue.

So to saying someone is clueless when mentioning a clue simply doesn’t add up.

But is the clue mentioned in the PJ Files?

We’ll say for now that it isn’t, just for argument's sake. If one is to take the spirit of comment #50, at least as we understand it to be, then it isn’t, which, as you’ll see later on, isn’t exactly so.

At least we know that it isn’t written anywhere in the PJ Files that there was an attempt to look for Maddie’s DNA from the child’s most obvious sources, nor in her personals objects and neither in the objects used by her daily or recently.

So, let's believe that it's true that these objects aren’t mentioned in the PJ Files.

So up to here, Anon #50 seems to have logic on his/her side.

But before giving reason to this BH, let’s remember that up to here we’re only discussing the use of the word “clueless”

The question is if something is NOT a clue just because it isn’t mentioned in the files?

Of course it is a clue.

There are many clues we’ve seen that aren’t in the PJ Files.

In fact, we would dare say that the majority of the clues are outside the PJ Files as we today know how conditioned the PJ was when investigating. So many important clues that we now know were withheld on purpose by the Brit police from the Portuguese police.

No, these “outside clues” aren’t in the fictitious “Unpublished PJ Files” and we’ve already debunked their existence here.

We do believe that these clues are indeed in files, other than PJ Files, with names such as SY Files or Leicester Files, or any other possible names they may have and that have been maintained literally hidden in secret up to now and not, we would like to emphasize this, unpublished.

These secret files have no relationship whatsoever with the PJ Files besides having the same theme: Maddie’s disappearance.

The reason we say this is because we’re certain that PJ has absolute no knowledge of their content and lest we forget, the PJ Files were written by the PJ.

But these hidden files are filled with clues. Filled to the brim with important and relevant clues. With very, very relevant clues. So relevant that we’re sure that they’re the clues that will one day solve this whole sordid affair.

The blog has discovered some, of which we’ll only now name two: Carol Tranmer’s first statement and JW’s (or Jane (B)Wond as we called her) two statements.

All three are filled with clues and none are mentioned in the PJ Files.

So to say that someone is clueless just because a clue isn’t mentioned in the files is being clueless about what clueless means.

So from here on this post, I’ll call Anon #50 Clueless, the true clueless commentator.

But is Clueless as clueless as as s/he appears to be up to now? No, of course not. S/he’s much, much more clueless than that.

Clueless is so clueless that s/he doesn’t even know how clueless s/he really is being.

Let’s now focus on the content of the Clueless’ comments.

If you read his/her many comments in that particular post, you’ll notice that s/he’s absolutely convinced so strong is his/her conviction.

S/he does repeat again and again the same challenge leaving no margin for doubt in the rest of us that s/he's absolutely certain of what s/he’s saying: there was no attempt to collect DNA from Maddie's personal objects.

And challenges the blog to prove otherwise.

Clueless makes a real effort to keep that challenge alive. As if s/he has finally found something that has put us into a corner and now won’t let go of it until he can squeeze every last drop out of it.

But Clueless, as clueless s/he is, didn’t have a clue that it was nothing that s/he was holding to.

The importance behind Anon #48’s question was NOT whether they found DNA or not those personal objects, but WHY didn't they look into those obvious personal objects for DNA...

Or better yet, it's to try and understand why weren't these obvious objects handed out by the parents instead of an “imported” pillowcase?

Clueless says clearly “There were no attempts to recover Madeleine's DNA from any of the items listed”.

In other words, the PJ wasn’t bright enough to use Maddie’s personal objects. Blame it on the PJ incompetence, that’s what Clueless has to say!

Well, it seems that we have a person who disagrees with Clueless and isn’t any of us here in the blog, authoresses or commentators.

It’s Mr Goncalo Amaral, in his book, on the night of the disappearance:

 “…on the night of the disappearance, with dogs from the local police.. We get them to sniff a towel, which according to Kate was used to dry Madeleine after her bath."

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try and pick up Madeine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35 when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins.

Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

I'm sure this check is necessary.

- The clothes? Are you mad? If I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take the clothes to have them analysed?

- Yes, what's the problem? It's perfectly normal in cases like this.

- Of course, but with this media hype.. ..."

This just goes to show the British authorities’ level of obstruction right from the very start.

So it seems that the PJ did indeed attempt to collect samples from Maddie’s obvious personal objects.

Clueless… I guess you’re wrong on this one. But are you just wrong or are you absolutely wrong?

You see, not only there seems to have been an attempt, as the PJ Files show clearly there was more than an attempt.

It seems that Maddie’s hairbrush was indeed analyzed,

SJM 36 was Maddie’s hairbrush, tested by Andrew Palmer 09/11/07. No hairs found on it or pillowcase, so her hairbrush WAS tested.

From the PJ Files in Outros Apensos 01 Volume 2  pages 327 to 333:

"Examination and results 

Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her."

The origin of the hairbrush is not mentioned. It could be one also brought back from UK, together with the pillowcase (although there’s no mention of that) but logic dictates it would be a brush from the holiday.

We also suppose that tops SJM 2, 4 and 5 were from holiday and not brought in from Rothley

That is various clues about a Maddie’s personal objects that are mentioned in the PJ Files.

Strangely, no hairs on the brush! A very interesting clue indeed.

But does make one wonder, like Anon #48 does, why weren’t the other objects analyzed too?

I think it’s sufficient to reread Mr Amaral above.

As can be seen Clueless is indeed all-round clueless.

Clueless is part of a team, which we call team Insane, that as you know attacks viciously the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic the other a clue.

The tactic is to constantly imply that we’re barmy conspiracy theorists.

It's only real and effective weapon that our detractors can use against us and that is to follow religiously the Portuguese saying “Agua mole em pedra dura tanto bate até que fura” or “Soft water repeatedly hitting hard rock will eventually break through it”.

This is done by using time and time again the word “conspiracy” to define the blog’s editorial guideline.

This technique is often wrongly minimized.

Because what seems ridiculous at first with a constant and steady beating into one’s skull of the idea, like when you say a lie a thousand times to make it true, makes the ridiculous appear sensible after a while and before one knows it one has assimilated it as reality.

It’s very, very effective.

By repeating the word “conspiracy” together with others like “nutters” they will ingrain the idea into the reader’s minds that is what we are, no matter how many times we justify to the contrary.

Many have come here under that exact influence and have left without adequately reading our words.

Once the idea “absorbed” it will be irrelevant how well we show why we think we’re before a cover-up and not a conspiracy.

These people seek only disruption and not reason so we’re certain that they’ll continue to use the word conspiracy at every opportunity they have, just like they have done in the past.

Fortunately for us, in our “Mind your Ps” post, Clueless got him or herself into such frenzy (or ist despair?) that ended up making a priceless “conspiracy” comment:

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

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.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:49:00 AM”

Followed by the continuing comment:

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

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.

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 10:50:00 AM “

To which we replied with the utmost sincerity:

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

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 from translating the definition of what you just did: "Com a verdade me enganas".

I don't have words to express my gratefulness.

Posted by Textusa to Textusa at May 30, 2013, 11:45:00 AM"

Don’t you just love the “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.”? If isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

As we said, Clueless’ team attacks the blog from time to time with two constants, one a tactic, which we have just spoke of, the other a clue.

With this latest intervention, Clueless has once again confirmed a very interesting clue that we’ve come to realize in this affair.

That clue is the quick and tenacious way of responding whenever we publish anything that has to with either the Ocean Club personnel or PdL ex-Pats.

The “PdL BH Faction”, as we call it, is always very attentive to the blog.

Yet the real clue is their double standards when it comes to what is written/shown in the blog.

Take this comment from Clueless: 

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":

What on earth are you on about?

The only person who suggested that the quiz night was on the 3rd was Collins, presumably because he had read it in some tabloid rag which got it wrong.

His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy.

That's the problem when you rely on rubbish in newspapers. textusa 

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 6, 2013, 11:22:00 AM"

One of our readers has provided the best possible reply:

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Lady Vanishes":

@45

"His entire book is put together from newspaper reports and his own poetic licence, and he didn't need the permission of the McCanns or Mitchell to publish any old rubbish that took his fancy."

So "any old rubbish" is ok to print but not anything which may come somewhere near the Truth?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jun 7, 2013, 6:36:00 AM"

Indeed.

Insane Team, besides being the only ones that insist that the Tapas sheets are real and reliable when the rest of the world can see clearly that they aren't, being the only ones insisting that the Tapas dinners took place when the rest of the world can see clearly that they didn't, being the only ones that insist the Big Round Table existed when the rest of the world can see clearly that it never did and being the only ones that insist on so many other things that defy logic and reason when the rest of the world can see clearly that these things are neither logical or reasonable, they also have a double standard on what deserves, according to them, legal action and on what doesn't.

Mr Collins's "Vanished" is a rubbish that, according to Team Insane, doesn't need permission from the McCanns or Mitchell, nor, apparently, from the Ocean Club and ex-Pats as Mr. Collins does include them in his "insightful" non-fictional novel (or rubbish) but on the other hand whatever we write here is subject to permanent libel threat and even under supposed tight surveillance from many a child protection agency.

As far as we know, we don't know of any legal action taken against Mr Collins, and we do believe that he has profited from all the "rubbish" from his book.

Fascinating double standard to say the least.

We think natural for this violence against us to exist as we were the first (and only ones up to now) to put out the swinging hypothesis and who have consistently debunked the clutter involving those outside the T9 (Guests, Ocean Club and ex-Pats) and so this faction has to react immediately when feeling their toes stepped on.

We believe that this particular group is looked upon by the other BH as the one's responsible for things to have gotten completely out of hand as they have.

We think that is so because they seem to have been the ones who came up with, approved and implemented the absurd “Abductor Theory” and with it assured, at the time, the other BHs present that it would be suffice to solve the crisis to the best of everyone’s interests.

It wasn’t so.

On the contrary.

In fact, with a little less imagination and they wouldn’t be in this mess. They and all those they promised that everything was under control and that no one would ever know what was really happening, which, as we know was of absolutely non-criminal nature.

Time has demonstrated that they have far from shown that everything was under control. We know it wasn’t their entire fault.

Yes, had they been less xenophobic, misogynist and arrogant they might even got away with it but it was fundamentally the resilience, tenacity and determination of all those of us on the internet that stopped that from happening.

But then again it was all the unrestrained xenophobia, misogyny and arrogance that we all of us witnessed incredulously that further motivated us all to seek the truth. So in a strange way, truth has to be grateful to these people.   

Their excessive imagination imprisoned them forever to their absurdly fantastic storyline. That’s why they react fiercely.

That’s why there has to be a Big Round Table, Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights at Tapas.

That’s why the Ocean Club staff has to be truthful.

That’s why ex-Pats can’t lie.

If any of these elements crumble, they will have failed.

Just to give you an example of when this group doesn’t react, the post, "The 60 of Us", very popular, where we mentioned the Jensen sisters wasn’t attacked at all.

Are we to believe that the Jensen sisters are less than Baptista/Batista “a poorly paid Portuguese worker”?

We believe that the “PdL BH Faction” is quite worried at the moment. In our opinion it should be.

We think the train has already left the station and is heading right towards them. They’re in the hot seat right now.

The reasons as to why we think that is so, in our next post.