Swinging FMS

Our post “Covering-up the Cover-up” got a surprisingly pleasant surge of visitors.  As we have said before, we’re unable to judge the popularity of each post before publication.

It obviously made us glad that the interest in the issue remains high, especially in times where the media and the chronologically erratic Portuguese justice system are, in our opinion unintentionally, tiring people out on this subject.

The media, in their effort to keep the issue alive, is running the risk of falling into the “drunk-at-the-party” technique in which one, through ridiculous, obnoxious and objectionable behaviour, generates pure revulsion. A drunk at a party is always as much avoided as his behaviour is deplorable.

Ridiculously continued and prolonged use of the word “imminent” together with the word “arrest” is an example of a “drunk-in-the-party” technique.

The randomness of the Portuguese justice system is producing the same effect. Only it’s not intentional but natural. And it's driving the UK crazy. What was planned to be an early October sentence, and so allowing a very happy Christmas for some and a very unhappy one for others, has simply becoming a never-ending story.

The British have had 6 and a half years to understand that schedule keeping is not one the system’s best characteristics. The Casa Pia case went on for almost a dozen years. For a case to drag through courts for years is not the exception but the norm.

It’s said that a criminal in Portugal is always sentenced. If poor, by serving his time in jail, if rich, powerful or well connected, by serving said time in courts and legal proceedings. The “rich” sentence is usually much longer than the “poor” one. The McCanns can already vouch for this truth.

It’s not only Britain that has had to put things on hold due to the unexpected timelines of the defamation trial. We have posts to publish waiting for the outcome too.

Albeit with all this, we were pleasantly surprised with the audience our “Covering-up the Cover-up” post got.

Also with the debate around swinging it generated.

It certainly made us revisit the subject. So we searched where the theme was being debated. Visiting to revisit the subject.

We found a thread on the Jill Havern forum called “Latest textusa blogspot”.

A thread discussing Textusa's swinging theory.

Unsurprisingly, we found it full of the expected clutter, untruthfulness and words that some posters put in our mouths that we have never said.

We think we should take this opportunity to clarify readers about some Swinging FMS (Frequently Made Statements).

After each of the first 33 posts of this particular thread we have placed a comment of our own. The numbering is ours:

____________________________________
01. Latest textusa blogspot

Tilly-flop on Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:46 pm

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/

Blog's comment:

The link provided above was to our post “Does Size Matter?”.

____________________________________

02. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

The Rooster on Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:59 am

Who is CG? Is Textusa saying that the forensic investigation into the stains in 5a identified the presence of a man, a 2 year old boy and MM? Am I not reading the report/ blog correctly? I await you thoughts CMOMM team. Thanks.

Blog's comment:

Strangely these pertinent questions remained unanswered.

After all, they are quite easy to answer: CG is a 2yr old boy, the son of Paul Gordon the head of the family who stayed in Apartment 5A (he’s named by his intials by us as he’s a minor).

No, the FSS doesn't identify any man as being present. It does speak of unidentified individuals (male and female) as possible DNA contributors to some stains.

It is clear in saying that stain #9 is from CG. One has to be attentive to see that it also says that stain #3 is from Maddie. But it is there on the FSS reports.

So, yes, Textusa is saying that FSS does say they have identified CG’s DNA in stain #9 and Maddie’s in stain #3.

We believe that FSS wasn't truthful about its conclusions in Maddie's case.

It’s our belief that all the stains on the floor, walls and couch near the window are from Maddie as, for example, it’s virtually impossible for CG to have left DNA 1.5 metres up in a wall near the corner of an inaccessible part of the living room.

If you are reading the report/blog correctly is up to you to tell us and not the other way around.

____________________________________

03. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Doug D on Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:56 pm

New blog up today.

http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/

'After each ridiculous episode the next ridiculousness to be used has to be more ridiculous than the last. There’s no limit to ridiculousness but there is such a thing as being too ridiculous. A threshold of absurdity that leaves absolutely no doubt about its non-veracity.'

Blog's comment:

The link provided above was to our post “Serial Journalism”.

____________________________________

04. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:06 pm

Great blog!

Blog's comment:

Thank you!

____________________________________

05. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:50 pm

Have just read this blog entry in more depth. I'm in awe of Textusa.
Anyone know more about Textusa and the link to Independent.

Blog's comment:

Once again, thank you!

We're supposing “the link to The Independent” to be the one we put at the end of our post “Rats”.

____________________________________

06. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:07 pm

Hi

I've spent a few hours sifting through Textusa's blog and I'm overwhelmed by his / her meticulous posts of such detail.
I'm absolutely convinced in his / her viewpoint and how it was arrived at.
I just hope that SY and PJ have read it and continue to read it.

For anyone who has not yet spent some time there (I'm sure most people here have) please just read the posts, and everything starts to make sense. All the
little areas that we puzzle over are clarified in detail. I'm so grateful that it exists and that she / he has devoted so much time to this case.
I feel I have so much more understanding now of why the cover up and how the body was concealed / Murat involvement etc etc.
Everything that has frustrated me in wondering why the Mc Canns are supported now falls into place.

Whoever Textusa is he / she has a phemonenal mind and attention to detail, and more than that, an understanding of th 'way things are'.

Thanks Textusa for my enlightenment 

Blog's comment:

Thrice, thank you!

Just one important clarification, as we don’t want our statements to be at all confusing: we have never said that Robert Murat has concealed the body in his property.

To conceal something, someone has to be looking for it and during all the time that we’re convinced that Maddie’s body was housed at Murat’s property (from 21.15 to 04.00) no one was looking for a body.

It’s our opinion that Murat’s property was a short stop between being taken to its final destination where it was concealed.

A minor but very important detail as we’ll see later on.

____________________________________

07. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:48 am

There seem to be some interesting ideas there, but its written in such a circuitous 'round-the-houses' way that I found it almost unreadable. Whats wrong with plain English and presenting ideas in a clear and organised way!? I'll carry on trying to penetrate it, but if anyone can recommend one or two 'key' posts from there, I'd be grateful.

Blog's comment:

Hard to recommend 1 or 2 out of 500+ posts.

However we have a few lists of links on the right column of the blog’s front page. You’re welcome to follow our suggestions.

If this was too convoluted for you to understand, we will gladly rephrase.

____________________________________

08. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:21 am

okay I've found a good overview:

http://textusatheory.blogspot.co.uk

Blog's comment:

No, we’re afraid you haven’t found a good overview.

What you have found was the blog’s initial theory back in 2008. First published as a comment and then as a post in Joana Morais on Sept 9 2008. Before this blog was created on Oct 29 2008. 

We have evolved since.

The main change is all adequately explained in our post “The Grey Area”.

Basically we initially overestimated the importance of the T9. They weren’t and aren’t important at all.

They were just the cause of the hurricane but never did any of them ever controlled its winds.

____________________________________

09. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

notlongnow on Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:53 am

Tried reading some of it last night.
Found a lot of it a hard read though,thanks for the overview.
Doesn't add up to why they would be allowed to run a fund though.

Blog's comment:

Not seeing how our thesis invalidates the creation of the Fund.

On the contrary, it explains why it got so fat so quickly and it wasn’t only from the anonymous and good-willed donor.

____________________________________

10. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

mysterion on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:06 pm

Can`t see it being a swinger thing. The author talks about David Payne being dominant. Of what I have seen, GM wouldn`t allow anyone have a sexual relationship with his wife. And to do it under the same roof as his 3 year old daughter with all possible consequences. MM could have run out of the apartment screaming, "A man is trying to hurt my mummy".
Surely swingers would arrange things so that children were out of the way.

Blog's comment:

That’s what you get when you don’t read the warning in the link you have provided.

It says clearly that the theory is no longer valid and yet you still base your comment on it.

We may concede that David Payne may have had some sort of dominant role within the T9 (that, however is not clear) but as we said the importance of the T9 amounts to very little and David Payne is part of that insignificant group.

Interesting to note how easily you judge a person’s character from just what you have seen.

Based on what can you say “GM wouldn`t allow anyone have a sexual relationship with his wife”?

We say the McCanns were swingers based not of what we see when we look at them. We say the McCanns were swingers because we think they were part of an organised swinging event we believe took place in the Ocean Club, at least during that week.

Some of the factors that make us think that we will refer in response to the comment from mysterion which follows yours.

We are very glad to see that you FULLY agree with us in that IF Maddie was to walk inadvertently into a sexual act between her mother and another man she would, as per your own words “MM could have run out of the apartment screaming "A man is trying to hurt my mummy"”.

That is basically what we always maintained, both in our intial theory and still to date.

We did say it may have been a playful interpretation on the part of the child of what she may have witnessed but what you suggest is perfectly plausible.

And yes, rest assured that the swingers (or those who were organising the event for them) did arrange things so that children were out of the way and tended to. That’s why so many nannies were present in the low season.

____________________________________

11. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:35 pm

There isn't any actual evidence for the swinger scenario is there?

Also, I think the author of the blog isn't taking into consideration that (at least some of) the 'high-profile' support came via the fact that the owners of the Ocean Club were very well connected politically and had considerable PR resources to call upon.

Blog's comment:

We do not understand why the poster claims we didn’t take into consideration the 'high-profile' support mentioned.

We clearly did. Our thesis revolves around the consideration that there existed a 'high-profile' support to those present in PdL, including the “owners of the Ocean Club”.

The question is not if there was a support but why there was such a 'high-profile' one.

And why would the ‘owners of the Ocean Club’ support, as they did, a couple involved in an event that caused them very damaging publicity (some say so bad that after this Tapas stopped offering meals that before people had literally queued up for them)?

Support a couple who showed clear signs of negligence, according to themselves?

Why didn’t the Ocean Club just show sympathy for the couple’s pain but making it clear that the tragedy was all due to their behaviour and certainly not due to any lack of security on the part of the resort?

We have never witnessed the Ocean Club defend itself in the many accusations we’ve read that it was a burglary heaven. Why?

However, if the Ocean Club was a stakeholder, as we think it was, in the swinging event, then it makes sense for them to support the cover-up the way they did.

But there are many factors that made us think that the Maddie Affair revolves around the covering-up of an organised swinging event:

i) the fact there was a cover-up of the death of a 4 yr old girl and in which her parents participated very actively in a manner that has puzzled the world;

ii) the fact that David Payne goes completely out of his way, on May 3rd around 18.15, to enter the Tapas complex, walk all the way to the tennis courts to ask a friend, Gerry McCann, about his wife for no justifiable or justified reason and when the woman in question, Kate McCann,  wasn’t sick (had just jogged) and had not asked for any sort of help in tending to her children. Payne seeks this encounter when he’s on his way to play tennis so why make this detour? The oddity of this encounter is reinforced by the fact that there’s a glaring discrepancy between David Payne and Kate McCann about its duration and location (DP says he went into the apartment, Kate says he stayed outside). This whole encounter suggests strongly that the “friendliness” between these two individuals was, at the time, not exactly standard;

iii) the fact the Tapas reservation sheets are absolute fakes (implicating the Ocean Club management), the fact the BRT never existed (meaning neither did the Tapas dinners, implicating staff), the fact that guest names appear on the fake reservation sheets, some of which confirmed seeing the fictitious BRT (implicating said guests) and the fact that the Quiz Nights at Tapas are absurd (implicating the Tapas Staff and Quiz Mistress) all point very clearly to the involvement of both OC staff AND guests in the collective lie;

iv) the fact that the nature of the guests present was heterogenic (both economically and socially), some of them we are sure more used to bigger luxuries than those offered by the medium quality and dispersed Ocean Club, which presented most of its sleeping facilities a significant distance from both the beach and its main restaurant;

v) the fact that the only big attraction PdL has is the beach, not exactly a welcoming place in late April/early May. In Portugal the beaches only start being watched as of May 1st, so many guests apparently were attracted to an unwatched freezing beach on the first days of their stay;

vi) the fact there was an excessive amount of supporting staff for a resort the size and quality of OC and especially for that time of the year, namely nannies. Seasonal hiring is made for June/July/August/September not April/May. Strangely enough, the nannies stopped being required towards the high season. These professionals, in our opinion, were destined to take care of the swingers’ children while they were entertaining themselves, away from them, obviously;

vii) the fact that the owners of the Ocean Club were very well connected politically and had considerable PR resources to call upon, quoting Research_Reader, but acted, like we said, contrary to their own interests;

viii) the fact that an ex-Pat, Mrs Fenn, is inconsistent about hearing a child cry for 75 minutes when other guests, the Moyes, hear the T9 at Tapas and say all is otherwise quiet and the T9, according to themselves, checked regularly on the children and heard nothing. The only person confirming this crying episode is Maddie herself, according to her mother who is not the most trustworthy of people. This crying episode, in our opinion, implicates Mrs Fenn;

ix) the fact that Mrs Fenn says she sees the McCanns on the terrace on the night Maddie disappeared when she is unable to see said terrace:

x) the fact that Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour, only comes forward to say what she has allegedly seen 3 and half months after events and when she does she puts on a show (denounced by the supermarket bags) for a SIC filming crew;

xi) the fact that there’s a picture of the Tapas complex said to be taken 2 floors above apartment 5A when it’s very clear it could only have been taken from the apartment Mrs Fenn says she lived in and was even photographed in (please note that about Mrs Fenn there are other details that we haven’t published yet);

xii) the fact that ex-Pats, namely Derek Flack and TS have lied about seeing Pimpleman and so have participated actively in the cover-up;

xiii) the fact that a guest, JW, also corroborates the existence of the fictitious Pimpleman who was brought to life in 2009, was never found and no one has been looking for him since;

xiv) the fact that a statement from an ex-Pat, Derek Flack (a man apparently with serious memory problems but amazingly remembers a white van he sees fleetingly) ties strangely very nicely with the one given by Gerry McCann concerning a guitarman who, by sheer coincidence, owned a white van;

xv) the fact that Derek Flack says he isn’t seen by Pimpleman when if this were to happen then Pimpleman wouldn’t be looking at apartment 5A but straight up the street;

xvi) the fact that some tourist resorts worldwide, like Pontins, promote swinging events to compensate their low seasons and end of April, early May is low season in Portugal;

xvii) the fact that the Ocean Club wasn’t exactly a profitable enterprise as per the JH thread “Would this account for the unprecedented high-level of political support”;

xviii) the fact that theres only ONE known thing in common between all these people referred to (T9, Ocean Club Staff, guests and ex-Pats): they were in PdL during the time of the events. Otherwise it’s really only a large heterogenous group with no apparent connection to each other;

xix) all of the above points clearly show that all the people referred to acted collectively when it came to Maddie Affair. They all participated in the cover-up.

These are just some of many factors which have led us to conclude that the only unifying factor that could bind all together and the only thing that could plausibly explain the motivation and involvement of so many present in PdL in a cover-up would be something that if known publicly would bring upon them a very significant and harming social stigma.

Something sexual in nature: a swinging event in the Ocean Club.

Note that nowhere have we ever used the word “illegal”.

____________________________________

12. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Portia on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:46 pm

mysterion wrote:Can`t see it being a swinger thing. The author talks about David Payne being dominant. Of what I have seen, GM wouldn`t allow anyone have a sexual relationship with his wife. And to do it under the same roof as his 3 year old daughter with all possible consequences. MM could have run out of the apartment screaming, "A man is trying to hurt my mummy".
Surely swingers would arrange things so that children were out of the way.

They probably wouldn't even take any children with them

Blog's comment:

Where would the children be left if not taken with them?

With family back home?

And what excuse would be given to others to leave the children in their care for a week?

Telling the family that one wished to spend a week in a worldwide known destination such as PdL? Where? PdL as in somewhere in the Algarve, Portugal?

PdL is not exactly a romantic getaway rating up there with Paris or Venice.

PdL is not exactly a congressional centrespot where business meetings abound.

And neither romantic getaways nor working meetings last a week. It’s a weekend or couple of days.

Suppose the answer to the “why PdL?” question could always be one “Oh, do shut up! It’s none of your business, so just take care of the kids, ok?”

Swinging isn’t illegal.

Swingers aren’t sick people. They are just sexually liberal minded people. Followers of a liberal lifestyle with which we may or may not agree with.

Swingers do not do their ‘swinging sex’ in front of their young children.

And they are human so not 24/7 having sex.

Absolutely no reason not to bring the children along if assured that when necessary they will be taken care of adequately and responsibly by professionals.

However there’s one big reason to bring them along: what better cover of ‘normality’ than a family having a holiday as a family?

____________________________________

13. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Clay Regazzoni on Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:40 pm

Research_Reader wrote:There isn't any actual evidence for the swinger scenario is there?

Also, I think the author of the blog isn't taking into consideration that (at least some of) the 'high-profile' support came via the fact that the owners of the Ocean Club were very well connected politically and had considerable PR resources to call upon.

I'm uncomfortable about the assumptions made about Payne too. Whatever skeleton is supposedly in his closet, it doesn't seem to have affected his career or his relationships.

Being extremely cynical/paranoid, how does anybody know that the real reason for the Gaspar's statements isn't more to confirm that certain individuals were indeed in Majorca that week, and not somewhere else? Has this ever been definitively checked out?

As for Yvonne Martin, you're back to the same question that hits you time and time again in this case - what are the chances? Payne must be at the same time both the luckiest and unluckiest bloke on the face of the planet.

Blog's comment:

It’s this blog’s firm belief that paedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with Maddie’s death.

We believe that both the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin were introduced into the case on purpose, with the objective to implement “paedo-clutter”.

It was one of two very successful clutter implementation campaigns involving this case, the other being neglect.

The “negligence-clutter” was introduced by the T9 themselves, the Tapas reservation sheets, the OC Staff and Mrs Fenn.

Make McCanns the negligents and Payne the paedophile and you have the successful formula of deceit to draw any and all attention away from guests, Ocean Club and the swinging.

Add to that a pinch of xenophobia against the Portuguese and your fortress becomes impenetrable.

We have no reason to suspect that David Payne is a paedo. We don’t consider the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin as credible witnesses.

Paedophilia, in our opinion, may be involved only much higher up in the food-chain where the favour-pulling happened.

____________________________________

14. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

SixMillionQuid on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:17 pm

mysterion wrote:Can`t see it being a swinger thing. The author talks about David Payne being dominant. Of what I have seen, GM wouldn`t allow anyone have a sexual relationship with his wife. And to do it under the same roof as his 3 year old daughter with all possible consequences. MM could have run out of the apartment screaming, "A man is trying to hurt my mummy".
Surely swingers would arrange things so that children were out of the way.

Someone was searching for 'swinger' related things on their computer before May 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_5.htm

This could be the Russian guy that had his laptop seized by the police.

Blog's comment:

It’s this blog’s belief that the ‘Russian guy’ was the IT support for the organisation of the swinging event.

____________________________________

15. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:35 pm

Well, I totally buy into the swinging scenario... it neatly ties up all the loose ends.

Below only my opinion and theory.
The reason for high level assistance being available
The reason why the body was not found (it was hidden in M's house )
It brings in the Murat and Malinka 'phone call' and association
It gives a reason why this little group of docs were herded into this holiday, out of peak season, in a complex (which they remained in nearly all week without going to beach much at all)
It explains why there little ones were at the creche
It explains the large amount of staff
It explains why so far, they have not been arrested
It explains their lies
It explains JT and the pact of the Tapas 9
It explains DP and the visit to Kate

Simply look at this collection of people - 4 attractive couples going to Ocean Club in May (when the weather is not excellent) organised by DP who has organised
previous ventures. They have doctor's salaries yet here they all are. They have all given inconsistent accounts and had meetings in Rothley regarding their pact of silence.
This is not normal. They are all hiding a secret. If they spill the beans then all of the careers & reputations are possible ruined. Any similar crime would have been resolved by now but
there has been such assistance to this group of people - and it is simply because the people who are supporting and assisting them have something to hide.  

Swinging is fairly common  - I wouldnt condemn anyone for it - not as its consenting adults... but those in high places just dont want themselves outed in
the UK media - hence Maddie's death had to be covered up.  Imo Murat holds the power to open this all up...

In the files - Murat's house and grounds were searched thoroughly.

Last edited by candyfloss on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : To add only your opinions)

Blog's comment:

HelenMeg is the proof that what we write is read and generally well understood.

Many, for reasons only they can explain, hide behind the excuse that the posts are too long and in circles. Pretending not to read, or not to have read. We know they not only have they read as they have also understood.

We don’t write in circles. What we write may be in apparently unnecessary detail but it’s because it was the necessary way found to explain the many complexities of this whole case.

The way we write is an option made to assure that a statement is always made on solid foundations.

Due to that, we are proud to say that up to now whenever we had to correct our hand it was never in something significant.

The exception to this being what is stated in our “Grey Area” post but that was an auto-correction.

Just one important clarification on HelenMeg’s comment above. We would replace “The reason why the body was not found (it was hidden in M's house )” with “The reason why the body was not found that night (it was hidden in M's house )”.

We believe that if the first location to where the body was taken was Murat’s property but it only stayed there the shortest time possible (from 21.15 – 04.00).

____________________________________

16. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:46 pm

But was there any evidence of Maddy and/or a dead body within the Murat property?

Blog's comment:

When the GNR dogs searched for Maddie, they were looking for a live girl, so Maddie's body could have been on the other side of the gate when they passed by Murat’s property and the GNR dogs probably wouldn’t have signalled it.

We believe that Maddie’s body was taken by Gerry, on foot, to a location nearby the apartment. We have 2 indications.

The first is the cadaverine signalled in the flowerbed, on the Southwest corner of the backyard, indicating soemeone looking into the street confirming the presence of someone coming, in the case Jez Wilkins, and laying the body down to walk out pretending to be returning to Tapas.

The second is Jane Tanner’s description of Tannerman. It’s so ridiculous that it can only be true.

If one was to invent a man carrying a child, one would never say it was carried across the arms, much less a mother.

Jane Tanner, when describing Tannerman, is describing what she really saw: Gerry carrying a dead body in the direction of Robert Murat’s house.

She does this for 2 reasons. The first, most obvious, is she can say what she has indeed seen without inventing details and the second is that when she says it, she doesn’t know if someone else standing on a veranda on one of nearby buildings also saw what she saw and could come forward any moment confirm or deny what she’s saying.

____________________________________

17. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

mysterion on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:48 pm

I agree A secret is being hidden, it is just that I don`t believe it is THAT secret. It is simply too weak in 2007. Affairs don`t bring the high and mighty down any more and it certainly wouldn`t ruin a doctor`s career. If they had been "at it all day" they would be needing a rest in the early evening, not more of the same potentially in front of the kids. All the women would have to make sure they were "available for sex" during that particular week.

Blog's comment:

To think there’s a secret being kept means, first of all, that something made one think exactly that.

At this point in time everyone who has got themselves familiar enough with the subject to think there’s a secret being hidden (those unfamiliar think it was all to do with negligence) has to have an opinion as to what they tend to think has justified the cover-up.

An opinion is just an opinion and one should not be afraid to express it. Just to leaving it as just one BIG unexplained secret is simply to mystify things even further.

We think a secret is indeed being hidden, and we believe swinging to be exactly THAT secret.

Your phrase “if they had been "at it all day" they would be needing a rest in the early evening, not more of the same potentially in front of the kids” is quite revealing about the intent of your comment.

Where have we ever said either David Payne or Kate McCann had been "at it all day"?

Where have we ever said that their possible sexual engagement was done intentionally in front of the children?

Your words demean swingers. Sets them to be depraved, irresponsible, immoral and sex-craved exibicionist perverts.

Behaviour deemed by British society as lewd, indecent and improper. 

Thank you for exemplifying in words the very real social stigma that befalls swinging and the main reason why those in PdL wanted that fact covered-up. It would certainly ruin the career of a doctor. And many other careers.

And you continue with your mysoginistyc “all the women would have to make sure they were "available for sex" during that particular week”. You seem not understand much about the body nor about human sexuality.

To limit sexuality to just a part of the female genitalia is to have a very limited knowledge of the matter, we're afraid.

Menstruation cycles can be programmed with enough anticipation as do female athletes to participate in sporting events.

____________________________________

18. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:55 pm

Also, hadn't one of the couples brought the mother along? Wouldn't that be a strange thing to do on a swinging holiday?

Blog's comment:

Very important comment. Very, very crucial.

It’s important because it exemplifies the contradiction in which those who defend that swinging isn’t reason enough to justify a cover-up get themselves into.

According to them swinging is not important enough to warrant a cover-up but is sufficiently disgusting to consider it inconceivable for anyone to bring along their kids or their mothers to such a thing.

It won't ruin a career but it's absurd to take mum along.

It’s either socially reprehensible or it isn’t. Either it's despicable or it isn't.

If it’s socially reprehensible then it warrants a cover-up, if it isn’t what’s the problem about bringing the kids and mum along?

We say there’s no problem to bring kids and mum along (as kids don’t participate in any of the adult activities nor are aware of them and mum can be or not be one part of the overall swinging group, which we call “60 of Us”) and that it is a very socially reprehensible thing and so warrants a cover-up.

But let’s look specifically at the case of bringing mother along.

The straightforward answer to the question is, why not?

Besides in those moments of sexual intimacy, mother’s presence is as cumbersome as the kid’s presence. It isn't. It's just normal family time. Just like back home when parents are not having sex in the same house their kids, and sometimes their mothers, live there.

In those moments, the kids are being taken care of and mother can be elsewhere.

DW could have simply come as a non-swinger tourist. Familiar and comfortable, or not, with her daughter’s liberal lifestyle.

For all we know she could only have learned about what was really going on after the tragedy. Just like we're sure many other families did.

We don’t buy very much the story of her sleeping in the living-room couch when there was a room available. Grandmother sleeping n the couch while grandchildren sleeping cosily in a room? Not likely.

We think she didn’t sleep in the apartment together with her daughter’s family. We think her trip to PdL was to visit a friend with whom she stayed.

But DW could also have come as swinger. There’s no age limit for one to seek the sexual fulfilment one desires.

Certainly there’s no need to share the same location for sexual intimacy with people you feel uncomfortable with for that.

Swinger or not, her only “sin” would be to know her daughter was having fun while her grandchildren were being taken care of by nannies.

One thing is certain, and that is on the night of the 3rd, DW seems detached from the remainder T8. As if she was forced to be there at Tapas and whatever was happening had nothing to do with her.

____________________________________

19. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:01 pm

Well I felt the same way initially until I read each and everyone of Textusa's blogs.
Now I see the whole pitcure it seems very straightforward

Please read this link re potential burial site of M's body - very interesting

http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/digging-for-madeleine/

Blog's comment:

This is where we and HelenMeg part ways in our points of view.

If we could we would really make an effort to find sufficiently demeaning adjectives to describe what we think of Mr Birch and his theory that Maddie’s body being below Murat’s driveway. However it would be a fruitless effort as we wouldn’t find it befitting.

About what we think about Birch’s body in the driveway we wrote the post “Just Silly”

About him helping Tony Bennett, the post “A Birch Too Far”

Enough about this character. Hope, once again, in very clear terms, make it crystal clear that we think he’s simply full of air.

____________________________________

20. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

dantezebu on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:06 pm

HelenMeg wrote:Well I felt the same way initially until I read each and everyone of Textusa's blogs.
Now I see the whole pitcure it seems very straightforward

Please read this link re potential burial site of M's body - very interesting

http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/digging-for-madeleine/

But if it was a swingers holiday HelenMeg, who would be protecting them and why?
Swinging isn't illegal. Doctors get up to all kinds of things. Don't forget they were once medical students.

Blog's comment:

Swinging isn’t illegal.

But one doesn't cover-up only what is illegal. One mostly covers-up what is embarrassing or what perceives is reprehensible by others.

British society deems swinging as lewd, indecent and improper and swingers are fully aware of that.

The comment seems to make it not reprehensible enough to justify a cover-up.

It’s not illegal and as we all know doctors get up to all kinds of things so swinging is not important enough to warrant a cover-up.

The question is why in that case does it seem to be so offensive to say that Ocean Club was offering a swinging week?

Apparently it’s normal and expected from doctors. According to this comment, this and all other sort of things. After all Kate does say in her book that her university choice was based on which one had the best parties.

We don't agree with this perception of doctors and not only doctors were present in PdL.

Swinging apparently is “just” a “normal thing” BUT one that one is simply being horribly disgusting if one brings along kids and mum.

As well as many other sexual activities between consenting adults it's a fact that it's very socially reprehensible in Britain.

So socially reprehensible that the mere possibility of having happened in PdL is simply not discussed.

It’s so socially reprehensible that “everyone” keeps an open mind as to what may be “the secret” to every possibility except when it comes to swinging. 

Swinging can’t be simply because it can’t be and that’s enough to detract it and “ignore” it. Conveniently we say.

The problem is that to avoid looking at it one has to avoid looking at the Tapas reservation sheets, the BRT, Mrs Fenn, Derek Flack, TS, JW, OC Staff’s “singing from the same hymn sheet” and Quiz Nights.

A lot of things to look the other way. 

A debate the “WH” will do everything in their power to avoid happening.

For bringing up swinging Textusa is a non-grata entity in many places. 

The reason why people pretend the blog doesn’t exist.

Because we bring into the picture many who really want to be left out.

Fortunately for us, we have grown a sustained readership that makes all that pretending simply ridiculous.

People do wonder why our subjects aren’t discussed in depth in the various forums or are just shrugged off as unimportant while at the same time witnessing evidently trivial subjects being literally taken apart and minutely analysed.

Did Tapas only have 20 covers? If not, why is Ocean Club management lying?

Did Tapas have a Big Round Table to sit 9/10 people? Why no photographs of it? If it doesn't exist, why did Tapas Staff lie? Why did the guests who say they spoke with any of the T9 while they were sitting at the BRT lie?

If the BRT doesn't exist, why haven't all those people who appear in the Tapas reservation sheets not have come forward to say that the group was never there?

If Derek Flack and TS are lying, why are they?

If Mrs Fenn is not being truthful, why is she?

If CG, a 2yr old boy, didn't leave stain #9 on the wall, why hasn't his father, Paul Gordon, denied it to this day? And what's this about his 45 minute bleeding episode? Why has he allowed himself in silence to be taken as linked to the blood stains found in the walls and floor of the living-room? 

Why whatever is said by any of the T9 is microscopically analysed down to hair-splitting precision while the statements of these "external" but present people are looked at with the care of a bulldozer?

The blog has been rogue in many things, swinging being one of them. With the exception of a comment made by a “Chaz” in October 2007 in the Yahoo Answers page, after September 2007 no one besides Textusa has discussed this issue adequately.

____________________________________

21. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

On the surface, the swinging scenario does appear to account for a lot of the facts. If this was a regular thing that the Ocean Club was arranging, and if there were lots of highly-connected people there that May who were indulging in this, AND they knew of even higher-profile swingers back in the UK I can easily imagine the powers-that-be wanting to cover it up. And it also might account for the nursery nurse apparently knowing the group and flying over at the same time, and potentially Murat and Malinka could have been involved.

Whilst swinging isn't illegal, the embarrassment would have been huge and widespread, and in combination with the death of a todler would have left and extremely bad taste in people's mouths.

The trouble is that its merely speculation. As far as I'm aware theres no evidence for it. And I don't think one of the couples would have brought their mother along.

Also I really doubt that the body was taken to Murat's property that night and then buried under the driveway. If that were so, why was there evidence that the body had been in the hire car weeks and weeks later?

Blog's comment:

All except the last paragraph has been answered. And the last paragraph has too.

And the poster agrees all we have said. And we agree FULLY with the first 2 paragraphs. Couldn't have worded it better.

Notice the effort to link Textusa’s name to Birch’s lunatic theory.

By doing that the objective is simple. Birch defends a lunacy. Textusa defends swinging. Birch is an idiot. Textusa defends Birch’s theory. Textusa is an idiot. Swinging is a lunacy because it’s defended by the idiot Textusa.

Believe us, it’s effective. It attacks not your conscious but you subconscious. And attacking in a forum where it’s known it won’t be rightfully challenged, it attacks the conscious too.

About the unconscious being powerful, let us exemplify. We know you think of us as intelligent people. How many of you have imagined us blonde? You haven’t simply because due to all the joking, your subconscious has linked being stupid with being blonde. You may know many intelligent blond people, like I do, but the point is when we create an image out of nowhere of an intelligent person we never use a blonde model to start with.  All because of stupid jokes you know to be stupid. That’s the power of messages directed to the subconscious. Simple and very effective.

About the last paragraph we don’t see any connection about Maddie’s DNA being found in the car and swinging. That is to befuddle people intentionally.

____________________________________

22. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:26 pm

Smoke and mirrors - red herrings  - the case abounds with it -
according to sources the evidence may have been planted in the car. Much better to have people going off at false tangents
regarding Huelva.. it may have suited purposes.

If they had high level support which they almost certainly did, then anything is possible.
We, the public, will be fooled at any cost

Blog's comment:

No comments to this comment.

____________________________________

23. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

dantezebu on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:28 pm

But they could have covered up or denied the swinging without covering up for the disappearence of Maddie.

Blog's comment:

The whole idea of the cover-up was to avoid any linkage between the swinging and Maddie’s death, so it wouldn’t have to be denied because no one would know it took place so no questions could be asked.

And your intial words do accept the covering-up of the swinging. We will even take them one step further.

It wasn’t as you say “they could have covered up” but that they did cover it up.

____________________________________

24. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:35 pm

HelenMeg wrote:according to sources the evidence may have been planted in the car. 

Wheres the evidence for that?

If we are just to dismiss any of the police evidence as 'smoke and mirrors' then there is no hope for even beginning to form a sensible theory about what happened.

Blog's comment:

As we said we don’t see any connection about Maddie’s DNA being found in the car and swinging.

But here we would like to make another thing very clear on where we differ with HelenMeg.

We don’t believe in ANY planted evidence.

Not in the apartment, not on clothing, not on car.

The DNA in apartment shows clearly how and where Maddie died. The DNA in the car shows that her body was, sometime, there.

To bring along the expression “the evidence may have been planted in the car” is to bring in the dreaded C-word: conspiracy.

We will tackle this later on in the post.

____________________________________

25. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

HelenMeg on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:38 pm

There are too many different parties who need to cover themselves.
If one goes down they all go down. For many its just a matter of reputation, but it matters.
If K and G go down then so do many others. Thats the problem.
K and G are no more important than you and I - it's just what they were a part of that week that matters.

I have now got total confidence that the partial truth will emerge - perhaps a diplomatic truth - but ether will be a conclusion of sorts.

Blog's comment:

We concur fully with this comment.

____________________________________

26. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

BlackCatBoogie on Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:45 pm

BCB, your post has been deleted as it could be libellous.

Last edited by No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Removal of possibly libellous statements.)

Blog's comment:

No comment, we respect the forum’s decision to delete the comment which we don’t know what it’s content was.

____________________________________

27. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

mysterion on Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:00 pm

Another problem with a cover up is that it has risk attached to it. That is the cover being blown so it has to be something worth the risk. Swinging just isn`t worth the cover up risk. I know that sometimes women are involved in paedo stuff but for it to be 4 women who are connected through doctor reason seems very unlikely. It is usually men so a stag type week would be more likely, not a family holiday.

Blog's comment:

We think we can consider we have covered the “Swinging just isn`t worth the cover up risk”.

To minimise the dreaded social consequences of being outed in a swinging environment is to simply NOT understand, minimally, Britain and its tabloid mentality. Or pretend not to understand.

It’s total hypocrisy but that’s reality.

Nothing makes Britain thrive more than a juicy sexual scandal. This can only be surpassed by the demonisation (most times rightly so) by anyone harming a child. Put the 2 together and one can only imagine the size of the scandal that Maddie’s death would originate if it would be known it happened in the middle of an organised swinging event, even if, as we think was the case, completely unrelated with the death.

Now please gather all your imaginative powers to come up with what would be the enormity of the scandal if the death of a child happening because she surprised mommy with another man in a middle of a sex act in the middle of a sexual holiday.

That’s why the swinging thesis is fought inch by inch by the “WH” as it’s the only thesis that involves them.

They, like us, have worked really hard to bring to justice those responsible for Maddie’s death, but, unlike us, forgetting that they are the ones responsible for Maddie’s death not having faced justice adequately to this day.

All because of a cover-up created and maintained by them and to protect them from being branded swingers.

The all-male stag week in PdL is so ridiculous we won't even comment.

____________________________________

28. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

BlackCatBoogie on Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:12 pm

BlackCatBoogie wrote:BCB, your post has been deleted as it could be libellous.

Oops sorry admins, forgot to add the usual disclaimers, will remember in future. Sorry  

Blog's comment:

No comment, it seems that BlackCatBoogie also respects the forum’s decision to delete the comment.

____________________________________

29. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Research_Reader on Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:46 pm

The trouble is, if we are going to posit some kind of group conspiracy (without any specific evidence) then there are multiple possible scenarios which you could claim which would all basically give you the same result:

Covering up illegal medical activity
Covering up illegal/dodgy business dealings
Someone with high level secrets that they can use as 'leverage'
Someone calling in a big favour to repay something they'd done in the past
Nuclear secrets (Gerry had been involved in some big medical study for the nuclear industry on potential cancer risks)
Paedophila
Any one of numerous other blackmail scenarios

and so on.

Blog's comment:

As expected, somewhere, somehow, someone had to slip in the infamous C-word: Conspiracy.

What is Textusa defending with swinging? Textusa, according to this comment, is positing “some kind of group conspiracy”.

Disinformation 101 says that if you want to clutter up something all you have to do is throw into the pot one of 2 words, preferably both, “conspiracy” and “paedophilia”.

They are natural brain-blockers. The brain directly shunts “conspiracy” to “lunacy” and “paedophilia” with “repulsion”.

If these words are able to infiltrate into any message it makes it permanently damaged.

The blog is victim of having its name linked with the word “conspiracy” although we have never used the term. It is not an innocent linkage.

In fact, in the Maddie affair, the C-word is completely misused.

Only one thesis of all the ones we have read can qualify as being a conspiracy and that is the sub-girl theory whereby Maddie’s death was PLANNED and she was replaced by another girl during that week, a girl who those present, albeit all the photos and world headlines, still think today it was Maddie.

In all other theories, and there are many, it’s consensual that what happened was a cover-up. A REACTION to the surprising and unplanned death.

A cover-up is not a conspiracy. One reacts, the other acts. One follows events the other creates them.

A conspiracy is a word very easy to say but a thing very, very hard to accomplish.

It has to have a clear, preset objective, it has to have a detailed planning, it has to have the collaboration of many, and it has to have the absolute trust of all participants.

The more participants there are the more likely the trust will be breached and it the less likely it will be executed according to plan.

You want to watch a conspiracy? Just watch any episode/movie of Mission Impossible.

Ever wondered why it had that name? Ever noticed that it always absolutely relies on all elements of the plan to be correctly and perfectly executed and timed?

Only someone with the intellectual honesty of a Birch can use the word conspiracy related to Maddie.

The comment does refer many possible cover-up motives.

We would like to see any of them substantiated the way we have done with ours.

We will speak about two for now. Scientific experimentation and dodgy business.

What possible high-level high-secretive experimentation would involve a group of middle-class doctors with no known relevant scientific or academic achievements but that would warrant a cover-up involving all of UK? 

Were they dealing with the same scientific secret when they had spent holidays together before? Was that the reason they were a group? Were the Gaspars also part of this “scientific-gang”?

About the dodgy dealings, all we can say is that it was Johnny English who burst, via a toilet, in a meeting presided by a wanna-be-king character played by John Malkovitch when Britain itself was to become a gigantic prison. Not seeing any lesser deal mereting a cover-up with the proportions we have witnessed.

As we have already said, to substantiate a thesis with a conveniently vague “We know there is A SECRET, we just don’t have the faintest idea of what it could be” is to intentionally mystify.

By the way a conspiracy always involves a group. One doesn't conspire with oneself. 

____________________________________

29. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

roy rovers on Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:14 pm

HelenMeg wrote:Well, I totally buy into the swinging scenario... it neatly ties up all the loose ends.

Below only my opinion and theory.
The reason for high level assistance being available
The reason why the body was not found (it was hidden in M's house )
It brings in the Murat and Malinka 'phone call' and association
It gives a reason why this little group of docs were herded into this holiday, out of peak season, in a complex (which they remained in nearly all week without going to beach much at all)
It explains why there little ones were at the creche
It explains the large amount of staff
It explains why so far, they have not been arrested
It explains their lies
It explains JT and the pact of the Tapas 9
It explains DP and the visit to Kate

Simply look at this collection of people - 4 attractive couples going to Ocean Club in May (when the weather is not excellent) organised by DP who has organised
previous ventures. They have doctor's salaries yet here they all are. They have all given inconsistent accounts and had meetings in Rothley regarding their pact of silence.
This is not normal. They are all hiding a secret. If they spill the beans then all of the careers & reputations are possible ruined. Any similar crime would have been resolved by now but
there has been such assistance to this group of people - and it is simply because the people who are supporting and assisting them have something to hide.  

Swinging is fairly common  - I wouldnt condemn anyone for it - not as its consenting adults... but those in high places just dont want themselves outed in
the UK media - hence Maddie's death had to be covered up.  Imo Murat holds the power to open this all up...


In the files - Murat's house and grounds were searched thoroughly.

Also could explain Murat's flight to PDL. Not that he was to be there to help cover up MM's

Blog's comment:

We concur fully with this comment.

____________________________________

30. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

Woofer on Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:25 pm

Portia wrote:

mysterion wrote:Can`t see it being a swinger thing. The author talks about David Payne being dominant. Of what I have seen, GM wouldn`t allow anyone have a sexual relationship with his wife. And to do it under the same roof as his 3 year old daughter with all possible consequences. MM could have run out of the apartment screaming, "A man is trying to hurt my mummy".
Surely swingers would arrange things so that children were out of the way.

They probably wouldn't even take any children with them

Agree - or one`s mother.

Blog's comment:

We would like to use this comment and pick up again the debate on whether it’s adequate to bring along kids and mother to a swinging holiday.

The main reason to justify the inadequateness of swinging occurring, due to the presence of kids and mum, is the very personal argument “I wouldn’t do it”.

There wasn’t swinging because I wouldn’t take my kids to such a thing. There wasn’t swinging because I wouldn’t take my mother.

We have already answered as to why we think it would be perfectly normal to have the kids to a swinging holiday. And why mother's presence wouldn't be ridiculous.

But now, we would like to highlight the “boomerang effect” of such statements. The ones that say “it wasn’t because I wouldn’t”.

This happens because they, the detractors of the swinging theory, judge the T9’s behaviour by their own.

The T9 woudn’t bring the kids and DW to a swinging holiday because they, the detractors, wouldn’t.

So the T9 are only capable of doing what they, the detractors, are able to do.

That’s fine.

But by using the exact same reasoning we can conclude that they, the detractors, think it’s absolutely fine to lie publicly about one’s own daughter's death and that it’s absolutely fine to set up a Fraudulent Fund based on that same lie.

Isn’t that what they, the detractors, accuse the McCanns of doing?

So if the McCanns did it it’s only because they, the detractors, would do exactly the same.

____________________________________

31. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

sonic72 on Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:15 pm

I don't think the swinging scenario holds any weight.

If hypothetically they were swinging, they could easily say they weren't, and there is nothing to indicate they were. I've never heard of families going on swinging holidays, and groups going swinging during the day whilst their kids are at the holiday creche. I've also never heard of groups of people leaving their kids home alone while they go swinging, and it couldn't be their own apartments at night time because they all have kids.

The grandmother that was on holiday with them would not have stood for them swinging around kids.

I don't think it's worth spending time on, but that is just my opinion.

Blog's comment:

Yes, IF asked they could EASILY say they weren’t.

And IF asked where Maddie was they could EASILY say she was abducted.

As we know they were asked the second question. And what did they say? That Maddie was abducted.

Do we believe them?

And isn’t all this fuss about us not believing them when they said Maddie was abducted?

So having them say something doesn’t exactly mean that they are to be believed.

But the point is that they weren’t asked about swinging. Not because authorities were told not to ask but because it was ensured that they didn’t know they should ask about it.

The poster says s/he never heard of “families going on swinging holidays, and groups going swinging during the day whilst their kids are at the holiday crèche”.

This can only mean the poster, to make such a statement has to a regular attendee of swinging holidays or know famalies going on swinging holidays. If s/he isn’t, s/he’s making an adamant statement about a subject s/he knows nothing about.

Unfortunately s/he doesn’t enlighten us.

Before this argument is returned against us, let us remind you that we have already justified as to why we think it’s EXPECTED to bring the kids along on a swinging holiday and cannot see why adults cannot be “swinging during the day whilst their kids are at the holiday crèche”.

By giving credibility to negligence (“I've also never heard of groups of people leaving their kids home alone”) is to not want to see irrefutable evidence as to there was absolutely none.

As to what grandmother would or would not stand for, one must wonders if such a statement comes from poster's experience with own mother and poster's swinging experience.

About the subject not being “worth spending time on” we hope that readers by now understand why you would say so.  

____________________________________ 

32. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:00 am

I certainly think that the swinging scenario on its own would not warrant a cover-up.

Blog's comment:

It’s an opinion. Your opinion and we have to respect it. As we hope you respect ours.

However we think that being a moderator brings an added responsibility not compatible with a statement of the sort “It’s not blue because I certainly don’t think it’s blue”.

Without any sort of justification it can be interpreted as wanting to shrug off the issue as unimportant and with no merit to be discussed.

 

____________________________________

33. Re: Latest textusa blogspot

tiny on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 9:19 am

sonic72 wrote:I don't think the swinging scenario holds any weight.

If hypothetically they were swinging, they could easily say they weren't, and there is nothing to indicate they were. I've never heard of families going on swinging holidays, and groups going swinging during the day whilst their kids are at the holiday creche. I've also never heard of groups of people leaving their kids home alone while they go swinging, and it couldn't be their own apartments at night time because they all have kids.

The grandmother that was on holiday with them would not have stood for them swinging around kids.

I don't think it's worth spending time on, but that is just my opinion.

You would hope so,but because none of the tapas and mccanns have told the truth we don't know what went on on that holiday

Blog's comment:

We disagree. 

There is enough evidence to conclude, in general, as to what happened exactly.