Friday, 29 May 2015

Cadaverine

picture dedicated to DogWhisper

1. Introduction

The highest praise that our work can have is to have people who do not subscribe to our swinging theory, partly or totally, come to help us because they think our effort is honest to find the truth.

The discussions are quite interesting and intense as all discussions are between people who argue in good-faith.

Questions arise and from them counter-questions and both the questions and the answers serve for each side to test their own theories resulting in correction or confirmation of what was previously believed.

These discussions have been a great help for us to correct our path more than once and to help us make our progress on good and solid ground.

In return, we hope to have helped people to correct some of their ideas but we won't presume that, only they can tell.

Mutual respect ensures no one loses anything because of a correction. On the contrary, a correction is always an invaluable gain in the quest of truth.

In these discussions no one wants to prove the other side wrong. The objective is for each side to prove that they’re not wrong.

Nothing more gratifying than to write, or to read, “ah, now I see what your point is, let me think on that” after a fruitful discussion.

Our friends Sheharazade and DogWhisper are among these people

One point in which both disagree with us is in our belief that Maddie’s body was taken into Murat’s property on the night of May 3.

They say the body was never there because the property was searched with a very, very fine toothed comb by the authorities (forensic and other), and they found nothing.

But mainly the reason they think the body was never there is because both ERVD and blood dogs did not signal anything in that property.

Their logic is based on the following 3 convictions:

#1 - Cadaverine cannot be washed away, so once something is contaminated with the cadaverine then there will always be traces of it that will allow for its detection;

#2 - If Maddie left traces of cadaverine in apartment 5A, as she did, then she must have left traces of cadaverine in that property too, aggravated by the fact the presence of the body would have been further into the decomposition process, even if only by a few hours on a chilly night;

#3 - The ERVD dog is absolutely reliable and because it searched that property thoroughly and did not mark anything then there was no cadaverine in that property and that means Maddie's body could not have been there.

Based on these 3 convictions, both come to the conclusion that Maddie could not have been in Murat's property.

We agree with all of the convictions. As such we will take them, ipsis verbis, as assumptions in this post.

We will even add a 4th assumption: on that night cadaverine did NOT cross the mind of any of the participants. That means no specific care was taken to avoid cadaverine contamination that night.

But although we fully agree with their convictions, we don't agree about their conclusion, that there's proof the body was never in Murat's property.

We think that the fact that Eddie did not signal any cadaverine in Murat’s property proves only that there was no cadaverine in that property to be marked and that doesn't prove that Maddie's body was never there.

The objective of this post is to prove our point, having as a baseline the 4 listed assumptions.

This post was promised to DogWhisper a little after we published our “Planting a spy” post which we published Feb 13 this year.

DogWhisper, here it is finally.


2. What is cadaverine

We have to start with basics. We will try to keep it to a minimum.

Cadaverine is a compound formed during the breakdown in the human dead body of lysine, an amino acid. The technical terminology is that cadaverine is the decarboxylation product of that amino acid, lysine.

It is naturally produced in the decomposition of animal tissue.

It has an extremely pungent odour, strong and distinct. It is the major contributor to the smell of rotting meat.

To say ERVD dogs can mistake cadaverine for blood is wrong. Cadaverine is cadaverine and will only be cadaverine. An ERVD dog does not mark blood. When an ERVD dog marks a location it means that cadaverine is present there.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of blood also being present. If a blood dog marks also that location it means that both substances are present.

ERVD marked the cadaverine, the blood dog the blood. No confusion or mixing up of smells.

These dogs are specifically trained and work like radios where the dial is fixed so that it can tune only one station. There may be hundreds or even thousands of radio-frequencies flying about in the air but that particular radio will only capture and play that particular frequency no other.

The chemical formula for cadaverine is: C5H14N2

When one joins (in chemistry and biochemistry “joining” has a very specific structural meaning) carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) atoms in the right number and sequence, then one gets a cadaverine molecule.

The only ones that make the nerve endings of the  trained dog's noses tingle to this stimulus and this stimulus only - the ERVD dogs

There is no such thing as artificial cadaverine. There is artificially produced cadaverine and naturally produced cadaverine.


The video above shows 2 methods how cadaverine can be produced artificially.


3. Cadaverine, the substance

The Maddie case is filled with myths. Most have been intentionally planted to misinform and mystify.

For example, and related to this post, a notion has been implanted that both cadaverine and DNA contaminate easily.

It's as if all of us have microscopic sprinklers all over our body which spray bodily fluids in all directions wherever we pass, whether we're dead or alive.

One of the things that has led to some misconceptions about cadaverine is that it's generally unknown what the substance looks like.

It's imagined to be something like sweat, a transparent liquid that trickles and drips from a dead body and that soaks and drenches the area surrounding it.

But as can be seen in video above (at 04:38) cadaverine is not a liquid but an oily substance:


Please note the amount of energy that was required to artificially produce the substance.

We don’t need to be dead to produce body oily, waxy substances from our body. For example we all secrete sebum.

Sebum is odourless but its breakdown by bacteria can produce strong odours.

Our skin is oily. That's the reason why our fingerprints are imprinted when we handle things with our fingers. Our fingerprints are our oily individualised signature that we leave when we touch things with the tip of our fingers.

The fact that cadaverine is an oily substance means that it doesn’t drip like sweat.

Note that in the first few hours, although cadaverine is being produced mostly inside body, only that being produced by the skin contaminates surface.

The quantity produced at this stage is only paramount in making the skin of the dead body skin slightly oilier and nothing more than that. It doesn't drip. It doesn’t trickle down or create a puddle. It doesn't drench clothing.

Cadaverine contamination at this stage is made only by the direct contact of the skin of the corpse to the surface.

It is our opinion that clothing worn would be sufficient to block contamination. We will see later in the post evidence for this. 


3. Time & Dogma

We believe that Maddie died between 18:30 and 19:00 in the evening of Thursday May 3 in apartment 5A.

We also believe that she was taken around 21:15/21:30 by Gerry McCann from apartment 5A.


Here we have a dogmatic question. Many people do not believe in the existence of Tannerman, the man carrying a child that Jane Tanner alleges she saw crossing the street in front of her that evening.

We happen to believe that Tannerman is very real. That what Jane Tanner describes is indeed what she saw. Where she lies is from where she says she saw both Gerry and Jez talking and later Tannerman.

As we have explained in 2 posts “Tanner's abductor, a tale told by a special friend” and “The way I see what Tanner saw”, we think that the Tannerman episode is what Jane Tanner really saw that night from inside apartment 5A, where she is with her sedated daughter waiting for Gerry to take the body to a safe house and for him to come back, pick her daughter up and begin what would be known as the Smith Sighting.

She describes what she has really seen, which explains the very unusual, to say the least, the way in which the child was being carried (please revisit our post “A human being is always human”) but fails to realise that for her to say she saw what she did indeed see she would also have to have been seen by Gerry and Jez.

She did, in our opinion, see Gerry talking to Jez and then saw Gerry carrying Maddie and disappear in Rua Agostinho da Silva, heading East towards Murat's property.


In our opinion, the body was taken by Gerry McCann, on foot, to Murat’s property where it was kept up until around 04:00, when body was moved by car from there to the next location.

We believe that this location was the water treatment station located on the EN537 road that heads East to Lagos from Luz.

We believe this for 2 reasons.

The first it's because for us it's the only logical explanation for Euclides Monteiro to be considered a person of interest. As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked.

The second, as we explained in our post “Class Acts” the only logical reason for us for SY to have moved from the show it was putting on in the West of Praia da Luz in June 2014 to a single day search on the other side of town was to show to PJ that the water treatment station was a place of interest.

In our opinion, Euclides Monteiro received a call from the Ocean Club that night to allow the use of the building that night, most probably not knowing what would be stored there.

In our opinion the body was moved from Murat's property to the water treatment station at around 04:00:


This means that the body remained in apartment 5A for about 3 hours (18:30 - 21:30) after death and that when body taken from Murat's property 9.5 hours (18:30 - 04:00) had passed since time of death.


4. Volatile Contamination by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Smell is caused by the stimulation of the olfactory nerve by airborne molecules. These may be organic or inorganic.

The nerve endings in the nose are hit by these flying molecules and this triggers an identification process in our brain in which one first recognises one is smelling something and then, if that smell is familiar, identifying what one is smelling.

As an example of a known volatile contamination is the smell of tobacco smoke in one's hair and clothes. Or when one enters an hotel room for smokers. That unpleasant smell that non-smokers, and some smokers, complain about.

That smell is the result of tobacco smoke flying molecules bombarding its surface in such a quantity that they cling on to the fabric/surface, impregnating it with the substance up to a point when airborne molecules are also released from there.

Although cadaverine has a distinct strong, pungent and nauseating smell, under normal/cool temperatures, the body in the first hours does not liberate enough VOCs to produce a volatile contamination. Much is due to the fact that the body is “skin wrapped”.

We believe that Maddie’s body when both in apartment 5A and in the first location, or safe house, did not produce a volatile contamination and only contaminated with cadaverine when and where its skin directly touched a surface. Any other form of contamination is simply not realistic.

The debate on this post is about Murat's property, which we believe, as we've said to have been that first safe house. But the focus on that property has nothing to do with our beliefs but with the fact that property was searched by Keela and most importantly by Eddie.


5. Locations of cadaverine in 5A

In the discussions between us and Sheharazade and DogWhisper we have stated that the proof that the fact the ERVD dog didn't mark anything in Murat's property doesn't prove anything concerning the body having or not having been there lies in apartment 5A.

The reason for that statement is simple. Apartment 5A is the only “real estate” location (the Renault Scenic being the other) where the ERVD dog did mark the substance.

Understanding where and why cadaverine was detected there helps us understand why no cadaverine was to be marked in Murat's property (or any other safe house, if it wasn't Murat's property).

All this we remind the reader is under the following 4 assumptions: cadaverine cannot be cleaned, same kind of traces would be left both in 5A and Murat's property, ERVD dog is 100% reliable and cadaverine didn't cross anyone's mind that night.

This was what was marked by both blood (Keela) and ERVD (Eddie) dogs in the apartment 5A property:

“a) 5A

    21.16h [we believe to be a mistype as it makes sense to be 20.16h] * 20.30h * dog that detects cadaver odour

    at 20.20h the dog ‘marked’ the area of the closet of the couple’s bedroom;

    at 20.22h the dog ‘marked’ an area of the living-room, on the back of the couch, next to the window that faces the street;

    20.47h * 21.20h *dog that detects the “presence” of blood

    at 21.10 the dog ‘marked’ an area of the living-room, on the back of the couch, next to the window that faces the street, on the floor.

(…)

f) garden belonging to apartment 5A (next to it, with access by the veranda and stairs)

    21.49h * 22.00h dog that detects cadaver odour

    the dog marked one of the areas of the garden, at the right-angle corner, at the vertical of the small balcony”

Eddie (cadaverine) clearly marks 2 very precise locations inside apartment: behind the couch in the living room and in the closet in the parent’s bedroom.

He marks a third location, outside, on the flower bed in the backyard.


We have then the following 3 locations where cadaverine was marked in apartment 5A. location A, living room behind the couch; location B, parents' bedroom in the closet and location C, at the SW corner of the backyard in a flowerbed.

We would like to note that Keela (blood) doesn’t mark either the closet or the flowerbed. In those 2 locations, only cadaverine was marked. Keela, in apartment 5A, only marks location A in the living-room.

This is the video showing how the dogs acted in apartment 5A:


Although the report states that Eddie (cadaverine) in the living room marks “behind the couch”, it's clear that Eddie is much more precise than that:


Eddie marks the area on the floor behind the couch at the centre or the wall where the window is.

In the parent bedroom Eddie points to the second shelf of the closet on the left:


For Eddie marked cadaverine in the backyard already after sunset (21:49 - 22:00). These are the images (thank you Nuala!):


However we have the information that it's at a vertical to the apartment like Mr Amaral points in 2012 in the “Querida Júlia” program:


As per photo from the PJ Files showing the area of the backyard:


With these pieces of information we would redefine the 3 locations (A, B and C) mentioned above as being:


We can conclude that in apartment 5A cadaver odour, or cadaverine, was detected in the following precise locations:

A – behind the couch in living room, at the centre where the window is;

B – on the 2nd shelf of the closet nearest to the wall in the parents’ bedroom;

C – SW corner of the backyard in the flowerbed.


6. Contamination

Location A tells us the body laid behind the couch long enough for cadaverine to develop and contaminate the floor.

This tells us that calling authorities was a possibility that was raised and taken into account as they let the accident scene remain as untouched as possible.

The decision to go through with the abduction simulation was not a sudden one. It was taken under pressure but not under panic.

All the pros and cons were discussed and the group, the one that made the final decision, thought that the consequences of calling in the authorities far outweighed risking simulating an abduction. 

For those who say Gerry wouldn't walk around with a child because he wouldn't risk being recognised, please be reminded that the biggest risk taken that night was to simulate the abduction. All other risks result in this one having been taken.

The fact the body lay beneath the window  had very 2 important forensic consequences.

The first is that it allowed for cadaverine to develop and for the skin to contaminate the floor. We would say that in this location only the cheeks of the face did the contamination.


The second is that the body bled all that it had to bleed there. Once the heart stops pumping, very quickly a body stops bleeding as there’s no pressure forcing it out.


Location B, the closet, because of its distance from both A and C, tells us the body was intentionally “stored” temporarily. It was put “away” in our opinion for 3 reasons:

- to clean the blood so that there would be no visible traces of the body having been inside the apartment, as Maddie was supposed to be abducted no traces of the body could be found anywhere inside;

- to keep it away from guilty consciences, namely Kate's sight so she could be more easily controlled and act according to the required circumstances as decided by whoever had the power to decide;

- to wait there for the darkness of night so that it could be taken out of apartment while the group was having “dinner” at Tapas.

As we said, we don’t think anyone thought of cadaverine at this stage.

When we say traces were cleaned, we mean blood. No one made an effort to clean cadaverine specifically but they did make a conscious and meticulous effort to clean up any and all traces of blood.

This means that from location A onwards the body was carefully handled.

To ensure that the body did not contaminate anything with any visible bodily fluid. Visible, so it doesn't include cadeverine per se.


Without any other information, these 3 locations “describe” the path the body followed within the property of apartment 5A that night: from A to B, from B to C and from C to outside the property towards safe house.

This path proves something we have spoken of before, and that is there was no volatile contamination. Eddie doesn’t mark anything in between these locations, mainly between locations B and C which happened last.

He doesn't mark because there wasn't anything to mark.

It was too early in the decomposition process (and nothing present like heat to cause it to accelerate) to generate enough airborne molecules of cadaverine to impregnate any object so no residue of it was left anywhere between the mentioned locations.

Much less was the body “dripping” cadaverine (nor blood) when transported between the locations otherwise a trail would have been marked.

In these first hours the cadaverine would only be making Maddie’s skin slightly oilier and that would not have been perceptible.

We repeat, in our opinion only direct between skin and surface would cause a contamination.


7. Closet



The closet gives us the first indication as to why Maddie’s body could have been in Murat’s property without any cadaverine being signalled.

From what Eddie indicated it seems the body laid on the second shelf of closet. As indicated by the arrow in the picture above.

What would happen if that second shelf was removed? For reasons of making sure no blood traces were detected, for example?


The shelf was not removed so we're just placing here the hypothesis and putting a very clear and objective question, if the closet looked like the one above (second shelf removed) would Eddie mark any cadaverine in this location?

He would not.

To those now responding that Eddie would mark the location because the body would have contaminated the volumetric area around it, namely the walls of closet, by volatile contamination we will say for now that they're assuming body would have to be reeking with cadaverine at this stage, having produced enough of it to generate such kind of contamination.

Anyway, we ask these people to hold on to their answer for just a little while longer.

For the rest of us, the simple removal of the contaminated object, in this case the shelf, would stop any detection because there was nothing there to be detected.

Note that we removed the shelf but it could have been simply replaced by another upon which no body had ever laid. No one would know the difference.

If one removes a contaminated object (replacing it or simply eliminating it), one removes all residues of cadaverine with it.

Eddie wouldn’t mark cadaverine in that closet but we would know that a cadaverine contaminating body had been there.

Was Eddie being unreliable? No, he simply can't mark what is not there even though it had been there before.

Eddie detected it there because no one thought of cadaverine otherwise that shelf wouldn't be have been there when he entered that room.

But not having cadaverine in mind it would be unlikely for someone to remove a shelf from apartment 5A as it is an integral part of closet.

What has the closet, or more precisely the closet shelf, to do with Murat's property?

No one likes to have a dead body in their house. Much less that of a complete stranger.

So if body was on Murat's property then we think it was laid on some “disposable” object (or at least one that didn't hold much affection) that could later be easily removed and destroyed.

This for 2 reasons, the first would be to be on the safe side and the second to erase any physical memory of the body ever having been there.

Neither reason has to do with cadaverine per se but both avoid Eddie the ERVD dog ever marking the substance in the property because it would no longer be there although it had been.


8. Location X

Location X is another thing in apartment 5A that shows clearly why cadaverine was not marked in Murat's property even if Maddies' body had been there.

We would even say location X it is what proves it.

What is location X?

Location X is where, IN apartment 5A to where the body was taken from location A, beneath the window and before it was put in location B, the closet.

The fact that no blood was marked in the closet means that the body was cleaned up and redressed somewhere in the apartment.

Where in apartment 5A is location X?

We don’t know and that's exactly the point.

The body, unlike we showed above, did not go directly from location A to location B. If that had been the case then the blood that had soiled that corner of the living room would be the same blood that would soil the shelf in closet.

The body was taken from location A to location X and only then from there, to location B.

In location X we say the body was undressed of the blood-soiled clothing, was cleaned and redressed into a clean set of pyjamas (the one Jane Tanner would later describe in such detail).

When the body was put in the  closet it was clean and ready to be transported out of the apartment. No blood contamination and cadaverine contamination happened only because no one thought of it otherwise they would have taken precautions to avoid it.

However, precautions were taken in location X to avoid any sort of contamination, unwittingly that of cadaverine. The focus, as we said, was to stop any blood contaminating the surface it was laid on.

Whatever was put between the body and surface, a towel, plastic, we don't know but was enough to avoid skin from contacting the surface. Without that contact there was no contamination. That's why we don't know where location X is.


Above we have signalled where location X could have been: the coffee table, the dining table, the kitchen counters, the bed in the kid’s bedroom or the bed in the parents’ bedroom. Any of these locations would serve the purpose. Some more practical then others, some more logical than others.

Logic and practicality would point to the bed in the parents’ bedroom. It would be the nearest to the closet and if Kate was taken to kids' bedroom, it would be away from her sight.

But the bottom line is that we do not know where location X is. It doesn't matter where it was waht matters is that we don't know that.

For pure graphical reasons, to describe what we think happened to the body inside the apartment we chose as location X the bed in the kids' bedroom. We could have chosen any other X from the picture above.


The body was taken from location A to location X, cleaned and then to location B where it was put on shelf waiting to be taken from the apartment.

What has location X to do with Murat's property?

If the same protection that was used in location X in apartment 5A and which protected the surface from any contamination (unwittingly also against cadaverine) was also used at Murat's property then no contamination would have happened there either.

If there was an undetected location X in apartment 5A as there was, then there's no reason for not having a similar one at Murat's property.

Once the body was taken away from either it wouldn't be possible to mark as it wasn't in apartment 5A.


9. The gate

The last piece of information from apartment 5A that can help us understand how the body may have been at Murat's without leaving there any vestiges of cadaverine is related to location C, the flowerbed.

It provides us with precious information about how cadaverine contaminates or how it doesn't (or didn't).

in blue, Gerry McCann, in red Jez Wilkins

The cadaverine there shows that the taking of the body out of the apartment was interrupted. We believe it to have been when (1) Gerry senses that someone is outside (confirming how silent Praia da Luz was and how out of context Maddie's alleged crying episode was) and (2) goes to the corner of the backyard where he lays the body.

At this point he may or may have not seen who was coming but he would have realised that this was an opportunity to have a witness who could later be used to confirm the “the T9 child checking system” and (3) so walks out to make contact which he does.

And what better way to be seen than by talking to the person you want to be seen by?

The “Jez Meeting” is as genuine as the Smith Sighting. Both have people who are unaware they're being pulled into the story, Jez in this one and the Smiths in the other, and both episodes have the same person, Gerry McCann, getting them into that story on purpose.

Gerry could have simply let Jez walk by and wait until he was out of sight but instead chose to come out and force that contact. Location C, shows clearly that if he had stood still there, any passerby would not have noticed him.

The only difference between the 2 episodes is that the Jez Meeting was a chance seized while the Smith Sighting was a thought out encounter.

The Smith Sighting could have been with somebody else other than the Smiths, it just happened to be them. If the Smiths weren't where they were, Gerry would have walked until he saw that someone had seen a man carrying a little blonde girl in his arms that night.

Back to the Jez Meeting. Gerry exits via the back gate and sees that it's Jez from “tennis” and forces the encounter.They talk. Jez has seen him and Gerry has told Jez that he's just out from checking the kids. Then (4) Gerry walks towards Tapas and Jez continues his way back to his apartment. Once Jez turns the corner, Gerry turns back and goes into the backyard to resume taking of body out of apartment 5A.

How is this episode relevant in terms of cadaverine contamination analysis?


It matters because of the gate. Gerry touches it with his hands at least 6 times:

1. to open and to close gate to go and talk to Jez;

2. to open and to close gate to retrieve body;

3. to open and to close gate to leave property.

Why doesn’t Eddie mark the gate? Shouldn't it be contaminated by Gerry's hands?

Now is the time when those who said the closet would still have cadaverine after the shelf was removed due to volatile contamination to step forward. If the body reeked of cadaverine to cause that sort of contamination then Gerry's hands would have been soiled with the substance after having carried the body from location B to location C and from picking up the body at location C and exiting the property.

One cannot say that in the closet there was a significant amount of cadaverine to cause a volatile contamination and at the same time state that afterwards there wasn't enough of it to contaminate the hands of who was carrying the body.

But one can say, like we say, that in either place there wasn't enough cadaverine to cause contamination outside the direct contact with the skin of the cadaver.

Gerry's hands were not soiled with cadaverine because they only touched the pyjamas and the fabric was enough to stop his hands from being contaminated.

Eddie does not mark the gate because there is no cadaverine there to be marked.

The gate also helps to shows how if the shelf from the closet had been removed or replaced, Eddie would not have marked the closet.

And it helps confirm that if the body in Murat's property, possibly contaminated an object removed from premises for reasons already said, then Eddie would not have any there cadaverine to mark.

 
10. The car

Up to this point we can say that 3 words prove why Eddie wouldn't mark any cadaverine at Murat's even if the body had been there. The words being shelf, X (as in location) and gate.

Note that this means that we also think that if the safe house was any other than Murat's property, it would have been equally useless to take the dogs there to mark anything. They wouldn't mark there as they didn't at Murat for the exact same reasons.

We could rest our case here but won't.

If the reader has noticed we have used always the term “Murat's property” instead of “Murat's house”.

We have done so for a reason and that is we don't think the body was ever inside Murat's house. We think it was only inside the property.

Why?

Because simplicity and logic.

Once decided to risk the simulation of an abduction three things were perfectly clear:

1. The body had to be taken as soon as possible out of apartment to a safe house;

2. The apartment could not show any vestiges of a dead body ever having been in there;

3. A second location after the safe house, to be decided, had to be found in order to take the body as far away as possible from the area during that night, as it would be too risky to have the body nearby the next day when police would be there searching for the girl. This meant, inevitably the involvement of a car.

The body had to be taken out of 5A to a safe house as soon as possible to give time for Gerry to go on his walk around town and be seen at Tapas.

The safe house had to be nearby because once the alarm sounded their movements would be under observation so anything outside a reasonable “search perimeter” was not acceptable.

The safe house would have to belong to someone who could be trusted;

Also if things went wrong, the body would have be near enough to be retrieved and placed somewhere it could be “found”. Somewhere near enough to make the scenario of Maddie walking out by herself credible. The only problem would be to justify the lesions but as a lost resort an insane murdering patsy could be “found” even if never caught.

The choice of Murat's property as the safe house seems to be the most logical choice to make in our opinion.

But the fact the body could not be nearby the next morning, implied immediately, the need for the use of a car, even if when decision made, its destination was uncertain.

So most likely a car, probably from the resort, was taken to Murat's property and parked there before the alarm waiting for the moment to be used.

It's in this car we think the body was kept while in Murat's property. Not in the house.

Once that car left the property it would have taken all cadaverine vestiges with it, making it unrealistic to expect Eddie to mark any cadaverine.


10. Conclusions

Does all of the above prove the body was at Murat's? No, it doesn't and the objective of the post was not to prove that.

The objective of the post was to prove that one cannot rule out the possibility of the body having been there just because Eddie did not signal cadaverine in that property.

Nor can one rule out any other nearby property.

Note that we never doubted the dogs' capabilities. We couldn't because we believe fully in them.

In our opinion it's wrongly said that ERVD and blood dogs do not constitute evidence. In our opinion they do. They constitute clear evidence that cadaverine and blood were found.

What they do not prove is whether that cadaverine and that blood belong to Maddie. That's up to forensics to prove. Not if there was cadaverine or blood but to who it belonged to.

With the forensic evidence we can see that existed in the PJ Files any forensics, as long as uncorrupted and not permeable to external influences, would do that fairly easily.

We consider both Eddie and Keela to be true heroes and propose that one day, when truth emerges, a statue of both should be made in their honour.

And placed in the backyard of aparment 5A.

140 comments:

  1. Tex sorry but have not read your latest post just been reading Russel Obrians interview he states something about being on a boating trip I am not sure whos boat he is talking about it could be Diane Websters or the Paynes just asking if you know anything about this got to go to read your latest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 09:19:00,

      If you're referring to the "sailing accident" then we believe the boat in which Russ and Matt were in belonged to Mark Warner, as it seems to have been a thing organised by that tourist operator.

      We dealt with the "accident" on these posts:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/11/holiday-time.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/12/in-emergency-call-112-when-in-hoax-call.html

      The importance we give it is the fact that both appear quite dry on the Paraiso pictures after enduring such an adventure just before.

      Delete
    2. No Tex it is Russell James OBRIAN and the lost dvd interview January 27th 2009 in it states Dianne Webster is Fionas mother we obviously met her through Fiona and Dave we have been for trips out on their boat id say we know Dianne quite well

      Delete
    3. Tex found it Dianna and her husband have got a boat they go on sailing holidays its in a statement to English police got a funny feeling Webster is not telling the whole truth she has been put out as old granny knows nothing not so lilly white after all always thought it a bit suspect what grandma would agree to leave grandchildren alone and sleep in a put up bed in the living room when their was a spare bed in the bedroom did she even sleep in Paynes apartment

      Delete
  2. Could that possibly be the car the mccann ended up hiring..and could the reason why km was covered in cadaverine be because she prepared maddies body and put cuddle cat there as a comfort to Maddie..you just make everything so straightforward genius is the word..where is the blue sports bag?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 10:00:00,

      The McCanns hired the Renault Scenic weeks after. That car has no relation with current post.

      Delete
  3. Just read the latest could x be the bathroom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 10:02:00,

      It could be. As we said, we don't know where it was and that fact that we don't is what is relevant about location X.

      Delete
    2. That was my initial thought, too. In the bath. Afterwards, any fluid could be easily washed down the plug hole.

      Come on, Scotland Yard, do your jobs.

      Delete
  4. Hi, can I ask why you think the Scenic was contaminated? Do you believe the body was moved once again once the scenic was rented?

    Would dogs still mark for cadaver after 8 years? I.e is it possible other dogs could have been used by the PJ since Eddie and Keels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 10:07:00,

      As said, the Renault Scenic has nothing to do with current post but answering partially your question there are three factors that immediately come to mind to differentiate this car from the car possibly used on the night of the 3rd:

      - degree of decomposition of body;

      - temperature when body inside car;

      - time of travel.

      Delete
  5. Eddie also alerted on the narrow balcony area outside the sliding window/patio door of the parent's bedroom. There was asection of railing removed from a low wall there evident in PJ photographs of apartment 5A. Copied........ Outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver smell, on the varanda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situation directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders. Taken from.........http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html. I disagree with the area of garden you show in your illustration, I believe it to be the area, thin strip of soil directly below this narrow strip of balcony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, he alerted on the veranda outside the parent's bedroom. The veranda is mentioned in one of the friends statements. Did the dog show interest outside the tapas restaurant, I know the tracker dog did. Read SB, the translator statement. Read both very carefully... To Textusa, I am one of those who do not agree with a lot of your theories but do find your analysis interesting.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 11:12:00,

      Vertical does not mean below. It means a right angle.

      If one would be standing on the balcony of apartment 5A and looking South, one would be looking vertically in relation to apartment.

      We have no report saying that cadaverine was found in the balcony.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 14:06:00,

      Could you please provide a link?

      Thank you.

      Delete
    4. Martin Grime report: Veranda mentioned 3rd section of page.

      themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

      Delete
    5. Effectively Martin Grimes in the report you mention, dated “August 2007” mentions the locations as:

      - Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
      the door.
      - Living room, behind sofa.
      - Veranda outside parents’ bedroom.
      - Garden area directly under veranda. Why Martin Grimes speaks of a

      http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2474.jpg

      We note that in parents’ bedroom it’s not closet but near the door. The video linked in the post, clearly shows Eddie marking closet furthest away from door.

      There’s indeed the veranda mentioned but with no other detail besides having been “outside parents’ bedroom”

      However, in the report of 31/07/2007, does not speak of any marking on the veranda. This was the report we quoted

      It is signed by 4 people:
      - Tavares de Almeida, IC
      - Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
      - Mark Harrison, UK
      - Martin Grime; UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert

      Silvia Batista, a manager of the Ocean club was also present but she was the “person who was in possession keys to the apartments and was only present in the opening of the doors”

      Mr Amaral, in 2012 for "Querida Julia", shows very clearly where Cadaverine was detected in the outside of apartment 5A and points only to the corner in the backyard we have shown in post.

      Pictures of Mr Amaral showing this can be seen in the Post Scriptum of this post:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/02/non-psychic-prediction-of-outcome-sys.html

      Delete
  6. Hi Textusa, another excellent post,Sisters be prepared for the S**T to hit the fan now!?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bronte , I have to congratulate you on this post. You made the understanding of a very complex matter accessible. I can only imagine the amount of research and technical detail involved in this brilliantly written post . I couldn't let this pass without a special Thank You! Xx

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love how you've captured the essence of how I see the dogs; as two heroes that should be immortalized and remembered for the noble and great work that they have done. Setting them on top of statues with their names engraved on plaques places them high as legends that should always be appreciated and respected for their great and thankless work.
    I love the thought and the work that's gone into it.
    DogWhisper

    ReplyDelete
  9. If Maddie's body was moved from 5a to Murat's property (not necessarily to Murat's house) and driven on to the water treatment plant, one wonders how long it was kept there, or elsewhere, and finally driven in the McCanns hired car to its final location many weeks later? And what of forensics taken in an apartment in Burgau once used by a Polish couple: 'One sample matched with Robert Murat while two others were identical matches to Jane Tanner.' (Processo n' 2007/000565/PT-B) These are actually DNA samples of Murat and Tanner.

    Burgau is 4km from PDL. What were they doing there? Didn't the same Jane Tanner point the finger at Robert Murat -- perhaps knowing that it would come to nothing but help to divert attention away from what was really going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS first rate as usual!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 12:09:00,

      DNA found at Burgau was dealt with in final report before the case was archived.

      Only a maternal line connection was established. It wasn't established that JT or RM were the contributors of the DNA samples found. Doesn't mean it wasn't them; only that other people could also have been contributors.

      Delete
    3. I agree. But bizarre, in context. Even a maternal line of JT and RM found in an apartment 4km away. The same people who must have 'hated' each other if we are to believe what happened.

      Delete
  10. Will you be discussing the Renault Scenic at a later date? I personally think the hired car (the Scenic!) was perhaps rented twice by differing people and therefore used that night!!??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 13:09:00,

      We repeat, it's our conviction that the Renault Scenic had nothing to do with the events that happened on the night of May 3rd.

      Delete
  11. Moving me to tears,again,Textusa!!
    That Beautiful child,Madeleine,what they did to her,for their own sorry asses!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay, here is the starter for ten.

    Let's begin with the title of the post, shall we? Cadaverine. First clanging error

    The dogs are trained to alert to the presence of human cadaver. NOT cadaverine.

    Cadaverine is but one of the components of that odour.

    Second clanging error. In the early stages contamination with what you describe as cadaverine, and by which you actually mean cadaver odour, is only possible by direct physical contact

    Wrong - which you would know had you read a single paper on post mortem odour detection by dogs

    Shall we deal with those first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A trained human cadaver dog will not signal a living person or an animal (except pigs), but it will signal a recently deceased, putrefying or skeletonised human corpse. That suggests that the "bouquet of death" is discernible, but attempts to identify it have so far failed. Two of the by-products of decomposition, putrescine and cadaverine, have been bottled and are commercially available as dog training aids.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

      Delete
    2. Insane,

      We're eagerly waiting to be educated by you.

      Curious to know the "paper on post mortem odour detection by dogs".

      We only ask, if we may, not to be lead us and our readers down another "OCR path".

      Delete
    3. Sisters, you must be like a Red flag to a Bull with Insane(not textusa)perhaps you should have included thesis into the post as security, Carter - Rucked?

      Delete
    4. You have been educated by me. Many many times.

      I am waiting to your response to those two initial points. Anon at 14.05 has quoted an article which confirms my first point. If you haven't even read a single paper on post mortem cadaver scent detection by dogs, then frankly you shouldn't be blogging about it.

      The one leading readers down false paths is you, I'm afraid.

      But here is a clue for you. You will have heard no doubt of the ''carpet squares'' study. The PMI was less than two hours, and there was no direct physical contact between the cadavers and the carpet squares. I suggest you read it and then respond.

      Delete
    5. Insane we are not here to entertain you.

      Please state what would be different in terms of cadaver odour (as you call it) apartment 5A than it would be at Murat's property that would make Eddie mark cadaverine in the latter and not in the first.

      If you have failed to notice, let us explain: this post is about ERVD dog in Apartment 5A v Murat's property.

      Does the fact that ERVD did not mark anything at Murat's property rule out the body having been present there? That's the question we try to answer.

      From your words, you seem to reinforce the idea that whatever Eddie had to mark in that apartment he did, so no reason for not having done the same in Murat's had there been vestiges to be marked.

      Bottom line is that we say there weren't any vestiges and show that fact does not disprove body having been in that property.

      Delete
    6. Not Textusa 29 May 2015, 13:44:00 wrote: "The dogs are trained to alert to the presence of human cadaver. NOT cadaverine."

      A Burson-Marsteller operative (?) has spoken and now we understand.

      We understand that in terms of reputation management critique, recently deceased humans do not produce cadaverine (among other odours).

      Martin Grime, who actually trained the EVR dog stated: "The dog has been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination" (verbatim).

      "Dead body" scent? What does he mean? Odour? Cadaverine and/or other volatile compounds? What?

      OK. Let me make it really accessible to your IQ. I already know your understanding of Latin words (or "English" for that matter) is very poor.

      Let us assume that what the dog detected - besides cadaverine - was an odour, a psychic imprint, a biochemical signature of some sort, a "bouquet" emitted by the cadaver - so now what?

      We throw away the whole argument because you did not like or understood the usage of "cadaverine"? Shall we then assume you are a bigot?

      Delete
    7. Censored comment from Insane:

      "Anonymous 29 May 2015, 16:18:00

      Do go away, dear. You are very (censored) and rather obsessed.

      As Textusa has completely ducked the questions, I shall take this elsewhere

      Bye bye.

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 29 May 2015, 17:38:00 "

      Delete
    8. Addenda:

      The etymology of "cadaverine" is from the Latin cadāver (“corpse”) plus‎ -ine.

      In terms of usage, the word is often loosely applied to a number of on-going chemical transformations in cadavers.

      In scientific papers (which obviously was not the case here) "cadaverine" seems to be formally associated with a toxic diamine with the formula NH2(CH2)5NH2, which is similar to "putrescine".

      That said, "cadaverine" is also known in scientific circles by names such 1,5-pentanediamine and pentamethylenediamine.

      Capisce?

      Anonymous 29 May 2015, 16:18:00

      Delete
  13. Very interesting and thought provoking post. Yes, of cours,e there must have been a Location X for the body to be cleaned up before being placed in closet. They must have put the body onto something that they had available, such as a towel, shower curtain..depends perhaps upon how much blood. I would imagine they laid her down on a bed, as she must have been a substantial size and they would have wanted her to lie her down with care and dignity whilst they cleaned her and prepared her for being moved. How traumatic it must have been for them all.
    It's interesting you mention that calling the authorities whilst she lay in the living room was a possibility. Putting ourselves in their position, it was probably the first thing that they assumed - that they would have to tell the authorities. Evading this most natural of action must have been provoked by someone saying something. Our most natural reaction is to do the 'right thing'. Thinking of an evasion tactic would come second when someone voiced what they were all thinking.. i.e. ' if we tell the authorities they will see xxxx / they will wonder why XXXXX etc etc.
    The removal of body to first RM and then Water treatment plant certainly makes logical sense given the information we know. Although it still sounds risky that they considered a move at 4am.. wouldnt they have envisaged that the police might still be around in the early hours?
    I understand why they needed to get the body off the premises and RM's grounds were the logical place. But the move at 4am seems strange to me. I guess they thought everyone would be asleep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought GM/DP went out looking for Madeleine 03.00 hrs on the 4 May 2007, well according to DP's statement to Leicseter Police, DP stated at the interview, he had seen Madeleine at 17.00hrs along with GM,KM in the apartment 5a 3 May 2007.
      According to photographs, timed dates, etc taken at Paradisio with Tapas friends at or around 17.00 hrs?
      Cannot be in two places at the same time can you?

      Delete
    2. Ah Yes, he said he saw her ' for the last time' when he went to apt, approx 7pm and chatted to KM, GM not present, just the children and KM but Leicester Police said he told them he saw her 'for the last time' at 17.00 which of course is 5pm and that both GM and KM were present.So not only is it a different time, both of the parents are present instead of just one. And then you have FP, again from statement given to LP, that she was in the apartment at 7pm, when at that time she told Portuguese Police she went on a jog! And that is information from Leicestershire Police.

      Delete
    3. perhaps a word with Clarence will explain any of our misunderstandings as to the Tapas friends statements, as this was a long time ago, what a good job people were able to record events as evidence of facts stated by these persons to the interviewers!

      Delete
  14. É sempre com um enorme prazer que sigo os seus posts e procuro acompanhar a sua linha de raciocínio, Textusa.
    Muito obrigada por todo o tempo, trabalho e tenacidade que vem despendendo em nome da Justiça e verdade dos factos.
    Ao ler este seu post surgiram-me duas questões, de imediato:
    - Lembrei-me do saco de ténis de GM, aparentemente desaparecido. Será possível que o corpo de Madeleine tenha sido transportado no mesmo, a partir do apartamento e em direcção ao seu destino final?
    - No que diz respeito à preocupação em eliminar quaisquer vestígios de sangue, serão suficientes a água e o sabão? Em caso negativo, qual é o produto e de que forma o arranjaram tendo em conta que se não encontravam no seu local de residência?
    Terão feito compras nesse intervalo de tempo? E onde?
    Expresso-me em Português, porque é a minha língua materna mas não tenho qualquer problema em ler a sua resposta em Inglês.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 15:12:00,

      We think the tennis bag too small to hold a 4 yr old (would be around 1,00 metre tall). the legs of a body do fold but the volumetric problem remains.

      Plus we find very hard to believe that once having decided to go for simulation of abduction they would forget the body in apartment while calling the authorities.

      We believe the blue bag contained the materials used to clean apartment plus clothes worn by those who cleaned the apartment.

      No one better than doctors to know how to clean blood. Personally, I was surprised a few months ago at a funeral to hear from the funeral home staff (can't remember why topic came about) that one of the best things to use is window cleaning fluid.

      We think the whole "Australian wine" episode was to justify them going to Baptista Supermarket to get cleaning products required for the cleaning.

      Delete
    2. Thank you so much, Textusa.
      Concerning the blood cleaning, my question wasn´t about the cleaning in itself (water and soap could be suitable) but cleaning in order to avoid any blood trace.
      Being so, may be there was a remote chance of someone remembering something about their shopping activity on that specific day, May 3.

      Delete
  15. Am very tired as have been ill so please excuse me if I have misread /misunderstood. I understand the reasoning behind why the gate was not contaminated. If I am correct in thinking that there was a dog alert in the yard/garden area, how did that contamination happen? Thank you for ,as always , an interesting and absorbing read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 18:12:00,

      As we explain in post, we think the body was laid down on the flowerbed while Gerry went out to make contact with whoever was passing, who happened to be Jez Wilkins.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for reply, not wanting to be difficult, but if the p.j clad body did not contaminate Gerry's hands at that point, how did it contaminate the ground/soil if the reason for non-contamination was the clothing giving protection against the transfer of cadaverine? This is what I am confused about. The body was clothed whilst being laid temporarily in this area outside 5a?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 21:48:00,

      You are not being difficult at all and your questions are welcomed. Face would have been in contact with soil. Also hands and feet.

      Delete
  16. You had me thoroughly absorbed in this Textusa. Agree with all you all you say but just a couple of queries please. If there indeed was an "accident" it had to be a little earlier don't you think (you estimate 6.30-7pm)? I did read it takes about 90 minutes for the odour to be emitted. Everything must have been rush, rush, rush, I don't recall offhand any telephone calls made on that night in an effort to contact/involve RM and as we know GMcC wouldn't confirm whether or not he even knew Murat. I do understand that I am straying with that last thought , so no problem if you don't wish to address my query on this occasion. Insane needs to learn some manners, perhaps then we may read what he has to say, I no longer do but always read your replies. Great blog again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 19:33:00,

      We estimate time of death between 18:30 and 19.30.

      If body laid 90 minutes in location A, it means it would be picked up from there to location X between 20:00 and 20:30.

      Worst case, at 20:30, that leaves 45/55 minutes for cleaning of both the body (we don't think it was washed but simply cleaned) and the apartment before having it taken from location B to location C and from there outside.

      It seems to be more than enough time to do whatever was needed.

      Delete
  17. Fascinating post Textusa, thank you very much, that answered a few questions and particularly interesting is the link to Euclides Monteiro.

    When you say "Eddie marks the area on the floor behind the couch at the centre or the wall where the window is" that's actually Keela there in that shot from the video, alerting to blood.

    Also you say "We have no image of Eddie marking cadaverine in the backyard" but that's in the video you gave a link to here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4Uhoik6qI

    It's a bit dark, but at 4:02 it shows Eddie sniffing around in the corner of the garden and then alerting. It wasn't a strong alert, but an alert nonetheless.

    These dogs are my heroes too, they're amazing, and I believe in them 100% :)

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuala, thank you!

      How could we have missed that???

      Unforgivable!

      We will edit post to incorporate both the video and pictures of Eddie alerting location C.

      We will introduce the images of Mr Amaral pointing that location, in the vertical of the apartment.

      Thank you!

      Delete
  18. if Murat involved, why would Tanner point the finger at him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2015, 20:13:00,

      It was Mr Amaral who points the finger at Murat. All by himself with no need of any external help - although there was a lot of it with that purpose and not from any of the T9.

      We have detailed how suspicion falls on Robert Murat and the reasons why we think that happened in this post:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/02/all-worlds-stage.html

      About Tanner identifying him, Mr Amaral is very clear in his book:
      "Jane is peremptory in recognising Robert Murat as the abductor. Says she has no doubt due to the way he walks."

      Interesting to see how about a year later, in her rog, she says she didn't identify him.

      Delete
  19. Textusa thanks for your response, in your blog you say: "We believe that Maddie died between 18:30 and 19:00 in the evening of Thursday May 3 in apartment 5A" but I am truly not going to split hairs with you as I admire your work and investigation. I think 19.30 would be far too late as they went to the Tapas at 8.30pm.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We inform readers that we have edited current post now incorporating the following:

    - the video showing the dogs searching apartment 5A

    - pictures of Eddie marking backyard (thank you Nuala!);

    - pictures of Mr Amaral pointing to where the marking in the backyard was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have also corrected the picture showing Keela instead of Eddie when marking behind the couch. Our thanks to Nuala for pointing this also out to us.

      Delete
  21. You're welcome Textusa, glad to be of some help :)

    I'm sorry to nit pick but I also don't agree that Eddie alerted in the top left corner of your diagram of the garden, I believe it to be the top right corner.

    The still image from the Caso Maddie programme, and the photo you have below it taken by the PJ are not the same corners, the patio bricks are going in two different directions.

    The photo taken by the PJ is top right corner, and the still from the Caso Maddie programme is the top left corner.

    It makes sense to me, Gerry McCann hearing someone coming along the road, he would lay the child down either in the top right corner, or the bottom left, it makes no sense to cross diagonally to the top left corner, but anyway the PJ photo shows top right corner.

    Overall it makes no difference, fact is Eddie alerted in the garden, whichever corner it was, but you know me I have to say ;-)

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuala,

      Having seen in 2012 the "Querida Julia" footage, I remember being surprised by where Mr Amaral was pointing to, thus the screengrabs made at the time.

      But won't split hairs about it. If "our" corner of the backyard or "yours" what matters is that whoever laid the body there, we think it was Gerry, had the opportunity to stay put and remain unnoticed.

      There was no need to come out and encounter Jez unless that was the intention which we think it was.

      Delete
  22. I also see from the photo of the garden/yard area that the corner is close to a building where windows are visible and not the empty space of the passage next to the walled pool area. This to me is the opposite corner to the one indicated at point C, and indicates the far corner from the gate, but the one closest to the apartment I understand Textusa's reply to Nuala, however, regarding this.
    What I still don't understand is how Eddie alerted to this area on the ground if the body had been cleaned and dressed and there was no direct contact between it and the ground. If there was no contamination of the gate for the reasons explained re Gerry handling the body, there should have been none of the ground ? I am clearly misunderstanding something to do with cadaverine so would be grateful if someone posting here who does understand could explain as I am following this theory with interest and am the only one posing this question of what was there for the cadaver dog to alert to in the garden ! Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 May 2015, 11:08:00,

      We have already when answering a similar question from Anonymous29 May 2015, 21:48:00:

      "Textusa 29 May 2015, 21:52:00

      Anonymous 29 May 2015, 21:48:00,

      You are not being difficult at all and your questions are welcomed. Face would have been in contact with soil. Also hands and feet."

      Delete
  23. Do not want to detract from this insightful post but thought I'd highlight the latest comment to donation website
    http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
    £1,000
    MPS -
    12 mins ago
    MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, “Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will”. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. £1,000!
      "very large group of Brit, police officers"

      Another act that blows to smithereens any personal or individual vanity.

      This is one corporate act that makes us all so very proud to belong to the quest of truth without fear, malice or ill-will.

      Words cannot express our gratefulness to the MPS.

      Delete
    2. It's so heartening isn't it Textusa :)

      The biased UK MSM is going to struggle to label us tr*lls and haters after this.

      None of us have a personal agenda, all we want is truth and justice, as any decent person would, for Madeleine McCann and Goncalo Amaral, and also for Brenda Leyland.

      Nuala x

      Delete
  24. Unpublished Anonymous at 30 May 2015, 13:16:00,

    We understand your anger and indeed your response but the character in question does not merit the attention you're giving him/her.

    Hope you understand.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You have mentioned again on the GoFund!

    £5
    Claire Dunning
    1 hour ago
    Hi I am NOT a troll because I wish to support an honourable man against those who wish to cover up the death of a small child for their own ends. I have a few decent academic qualifications so dont believe I'm completely devoid of brain cells and certainly capable of critical analysis . I subscribe to textusa theory ( go read her blog for top rate analysis) - I dont wish any harm to the Mc Cann family - only for the truth to emerge so that a good man's life is not ruined because he did his job. Why would anyone want to call me a troll? The only logical reason would be to try and deter people from looking more deeply into this case and not believing the portrayal by MSM. So lets change the definition of troll to someone who wishes to critically analyse or challenge what one reads in the MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The first it's because for us it's the only logical explanation for Euclides Monteiro to be considered a person of interest. As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked."

    Could you please explain more about this man and why he would have given the keys to somebody in the early hours. Who asked for the keys?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 May 2015, 16:20:00,

      Please read our post "Person of Interest"
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/05/person-of-interest.html

      We don't know who called Euclides but think it had to come from inside the Ocean Club as only fellow ex-colleagues and the resort itself would have his number.

      Delete
  27. We would like to inform readers that for the current post we avoided trying to be too technical as to how cadaverine effectively contaminates.

    This was done on purpose because we wanted to keep away from discussions in that direction and the possibility of Murat’s house being or not a safe house used in the first hours after death not being discussed.

    We will deal with the technicalities of the subject but can say, for now, that a problem raised in the detection of contamination is that a living human being produces cadaverine.

    Martin Grime is clear that EVRD dog are not trained for live human odours, so won't mistake any odours produced by a living person.

    Grime also says his dogs showed no interest in pseudo-scents and it wasn't used as training aid for them.

    But this would take us deep into technicalities which, as we have said, wanted to avoid for now.

    We tried the best we could to keep things to basics, we simplified so readers could better understand.

    What is relevant for now is that 3 locations were marked in apartment 5A and a 4th one, location X, which we’re certain existed, is not. That unmarked 4th location means that it is possible for the body to have been where no cadaverine was left behind.

    Also relevant is that until proven the contrary, if one removes the object contaminated with cadaverine then one also removes all traces existing in it with it.

    Lastly, the gate proves that non-direct contamination is not that easy or, at least that straightforward.

    In the name of fairness we would like to warn Insane as it seems he’s being rather flippant and buoyant about it that “no direct contact” means only that no direct contact was made. He should go read what he advises us to read and understand what that phrase means exactly.

    Insane, by the way, shouldn’t you be taking an opposing position than the one you seem to be taking?

    In our opinion, you should, maybe, be showing how hard cadaverine would contaminate instead of making it seem easy and above all how right the dogs were.

    If you haven’t realised, you have confirmed the existence of cadaverine in the apartment.

    We imagine that you, using your fertile imagination, will come up with the possibility of Kate’s trousers having been in that closet and on that particular shelf (see, we haven’t forgotten about your DNA transporting jam) but it seems quite hard to be in your position and explain why there was cadaverine behind the couch and in the backyard.

    Kate’s trousers also there? Or diapers behind the couch and rotten sea-bass in the garden?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Textusa a very good blog. Thank you very much for such a very well researched and well presented analysis of the events of that night. I'm sure it was a very difficult blog to write as reading the concert proof of the period from the death of the wee baby made me quite emotional.

    What distrubes me is that you have proved using the evidence that the body lay there unmoved for 90 minutes immediately after she died. I,m presuming that she died immediately from a blow and I just cannot understand how a mother or anybody else who was there at the time wouldn't have immediately have grabbed the baby to them and especially being doctors tried to revive her. I would be interested to know what you thought of my theory that the mother had struck the child and she had fallen and died, the other 2 wee ones went into a fit of screaming and the mother had to take them out of the room. Between her own shock and trying to placate the children a period of time had passed. David Payne arrived a short time later but long enough to know that by looking at the baby that there was nothing he could do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 May 2015, 17:02:00,

      That would make David Payne a liar when he says he sees Maddie and the twins alive when he visits the apartment on May 3.

      Delete
    2. I think like you said he may have been to the apartment for the reason you said and seen the 3 children as he decribes. Happy and content and in a state where he felt that him and kate could slip off for their fun together. I cant see that if the children weren't in a contented state that they would have slipped off to another room for some fun time. The child could have interrupted them which made her angry and most likely him angry also and he left. Then as you said she started to jump up and down on the chair shouting what she had seen. That's when it happened and possibly then with shock and trying to control the other children she didn't immediately reach for the child. She may even have feared for the safety of the other 2. Maybe she has an uncontrollable anger issue that leaves her in such a state that it took a while for the anormaty of she done to register. He may have been returning to the tennis court when he or returning to see if she was ok after initially storming out after the child interrupted him when he calmed down and changed. Might explain why he said he can't remember if he called in with her before or after he had been in his own apartmeny. You know the non existent witness you refer to in this case who he can't be sure if they seen him going in on the way down or the way back. Textusa's I would never be able to consider any theory passed they drugged her and went out for the night and found her when they got back without your brilliant analysis but there has to be a reason why if there was 2 of them there that 1 of them didn't distrub the scene. I can picture him being the spineless twat that I think he is refusing to touch the scene after he was sure she was dead in case it incriminate him should they have called the authorities but if he was there at the time I think he would have tried to revive him. I think that Rachel saying that if she had been bumped on the head there was doctors there was the brain leaking that David Payne told her that by the time he came on the scene it was obvious there was nothing he could do to revive her.







      Delete
    3. I have to say textusa I think that this post that proves that the body lay undisturbed for 90 minutes after the accident happened suggests that gerry McCann wasn't at the tennis court. I think at 1 time you suggested that he may have been playing golf and that probably makes sense now.The e mails which says that Fiona Payne was in mccann apartment at 7pm suggests that she was called to look after kate, the couch was pushed back to cover the body and it took a while to locate gerry McCann at the golf course. By the time he got back whoever was called to make the decision would have been there with enough authority to stop him moving the body until the decision about the abduction was made. I think if he had come back within a few moments of it happening nobody would have been in a clear enough mind to stop him picking her up and holding her to him.

      Delete
  29. DO NOT PUBLISH at 30 May 2015, 17:20:00

    Thank you for the link!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting piece from a forum today....will keep the poster anon. Interesting to read though.


    What were the Leicestershire Police doing in PDL?

    The Leicestershire Police arrived in PDL on Saturday 5th May 2007. The PJ were not informed of their presence in Portugal until Monday 7th May 2007.

    This is a matter of public record.

    These Leicestershire Officers met with the Macs in the Macs holiday apartment on Saturday evening 5th May having no idea if the Portuguese Police regarded the Macs as witnesses or suspects.

    They had no Portuguese Police Officer with them. This breaks every policing protocol. The Macs gave the Leicestershire Officers a list of questions and directions to give to the PJ that they, the Macs, wanted answered into what direction the investigation should take.

    This also breaks every policing protocol and beggar’s belief in any investigation.

    Home Office rules state, a Police Family Liaison Officer (FLO) has no power or authority to question witnesses, or officials abroad and the host country has to grant permission for the officers to be in the country. This was granted on Monday 7th May so what were these officers doing that weekend?

    Authority for operations in Portugal would need the signature and approval of the Home Secretary, John Reid and the Leicestershire Chief Constable for risk assessment and insurance purposes. So did the British government authorise the trip and deliberately not inform Portugal? Or are these rogue Police officers? The answer can only be guessed at.

    FLO should only be sent to assist operational needs and never to perform the role of chaperone which Kate, in her book Madeleine, states is exactly what they were doing. As of Saturday 5th May, as Portugal had not asked for direct on the ground British police assistance in Portugal it is reasonable to assume they were there to assist in a cover-up.

    Did they really fly in Saturday 5th May, or were they already there? Were all these lurking strangers, paedophiles ready to strike, or Police and Social Workers, gathering information?

    Then on Sunday 6th May, we have Robert Murat flagged up as suspicious, by Lori Campbell who has lied to protect the misdeeds of Leicestershire Police; the proof of which is a matter of public record. (A further detailed post to follow).

    The Leicestershire officers were liaison officers, not secret service, so why did they not deal with her suspicions and notify the PJ directly but of course that would show immediately they were breaking Portuguese law by conducting an operation without authority.
    The lack of urgency by the Leics Police is either a complete dereliction of duty or they knew Madeleine was already dead.
    What did they do that weekend? They did not speak to the head of the Portuguese Police investigation, Gonçalo Amaral to inform him of their meetings with the Macs, that is for sure.

    The British authorities behaved in a devious, dishonest manner, working to an agenda undermining the PJ and Dr Amaral at every opportunity. There is evidence that the British Government and British Police actively assisted and continue to assist the Macs avoid justice, why is that?

    This is not for the Macs benefit but to hide the truth of who, why and what, people were doing in PDL that week.

    Will the truth of the stupidity of the Leicestershire Police and the Labour Government, ever be revealed? A lot of it has already been revealed, thanks to the PJ files and the power of the internet.

    But one thing is for sure, Dr Amaral has been shit on from day one, by his international police colleagues.

    There must be many decent police officers who know the orders they were given were a travesty and given to hide the defects of others, its time to tell the truth .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 May 2015, 10:57:00,

      Very nice piece indeed.

      Having been victims of quoting without acknowledgement in the past we would ask for you to please provide a link so author and forum do get the rightful recognition.

      We have come a long way since Nov 25, 2010. Then, when we were the first to denounce how Leics police was not playing the game according to the rules in our post "My Thanksgiving turkey to you all", we met with the usual resistance the content of our posts usually meet.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/11/my-thanksgiving-turkey-to-all-of-you.html

      It has taken a long time but our work is starting to bear fruit.

      Delete
  31. http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/f3-operation-grange-pj-investigation

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thought best to bring over this comment from the GoFund:

    £50
    Robert Steveson
    13 hours ago
    I am a lecturer in Law and we often debate the case of MBM . So many young students are now researching the case with the original translated case files. Their research is outstanding and these young students demonstrate a real passion for truth and their dislike of the BS printed in the MSM. Students now realise that the truth is now via twitter/blogs and the British MSM is worthless. So sad to see such dreadful misinformation and corruption in the UK. I'm ashamed when I look at Mccans/ missing people/ Jim Gamble/ Gordan Brown. WTF is going on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Today, I'm sure that the fund will reach the target!
      What a wonderful feeling!
      It took only 32 days! And the comments! Wonderful and sincere comments!
      MSM cannot ignore this.

      Delete
  33. A few questions:

    1, Wouldn't the water treatment plant have been searched early on (it was only ~1,000 metres from 5A/Murats)

    2, Will the Scenic be the vehicle that removes the body from the water treatment plant or another vehicle.

    3, if yes to 2, it would mean the body would have been there 3+ weeks minimum which seems very hard to believe.

    If these can't be answered yet could you say whether you'll be doing another post about these issues and when?

    Thanks.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 May 2015, 20:38:00,

      1. No it wouldn't. For the same reason why Rua das Flores Negras, 27 wasn't searched. What would be the reason to search either of them?

      Within 1,000 metres radius from 5A/Murats many properties, not say all except the resort's apartments, were not searched inside and in those the Murat's is included.

      By the way, Rua das Flores Negras 27 doesn't exist, we have just made it up.

      We are certain every single inch of the the terrains around the water treatment station were searched in the following days but outside the Ocean Club apartments we don't think any property was searched except from visual inspections from the outside.

      2. No. We don't think the body was even 24 hours in the water treatment station. There had to be found quickly a place to refrigerate the body and slow down it's decomposition. Any movement in or out of the water treatment station wouldn't raise any sort of suspicion because no one would no better if it was or wasn't a vehicle related with the service provided by the station.

      The Scenic was only rented by the McCanns much later and we have no reason to believe that in those first days it was linked to the case in any way.

      3. It's a no to 2.

      Very unlikely to write a post about it as although we do have ideas as to where the body went next we have nothing to back up that opinion and so would be pure speculation. We are only certain the body was frozen to slow down to the unstoppable it's decomposition process until the day it was disposed of.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for answering.

      I am surprised the water plant wasn't searched ever. Though if the body was moved again within 24 hours I guess it is moot.

      I know the Scenic only became a part of this case around the 27th May but am just wondering how and when it was used given the evidence in it.

      Just really shocking so many risky body moves were done at all and some when the place was teaming with police and media.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 31 May 2015, 22:38:00,

      UK ensured that the right pressure was put on PJ from the start.

      Moving the body presented no risk at all. There were a lot of "friendly" houses as time as proved and no one was searching cars.

      Also there were friends to keep whatever movements were needed to make unnoticed.

      Delete
  34. http://www.gofundme.com/legal-defencepjga

    Over the target amount!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done all, we have taught the world a lesson!

      Delete
    2. I hope people realise what we all have really achieved.

      We have shown the scorpion that the ants, us, will win 10 out of 10 times when provoked.

      The people have now literally paid to see the truth. To ignore this reality is an insult to the people.

      We have shown that the scorpion shall not pass. Not through us.

      It’s up to the scorpion to decide if it backs down and choose another path or if it persists in confronting us.

      Delete
  35. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 31 May 2015, 23:06:00,

    We believe that happened in 2012. Unless you have information we don't have and that will show otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Have you based any of this on fact, because it all looks like guesswork at best.

    Also, why would Mark Warner management conspire to cover up the death of a child and then involve an ex-employee they had sacked? That's completely ridiculous.

    Can't you see how preposterous this is?

    Then you say ''Very unlikely to write a post about it as although we do have ideas as to where the body went next we have nothing to back up that opinion and so would be pure speculation.''

    But it's all speculation, so why not a bit more?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how a dog marking cadaver scent in the closet of 5a, behind the couch and in the flowerbed outside suddenly becomes all guesswork 'at best'. Funny, too, how another dog marking blood scent on the wall behind the couch also becomes guesswork. Perhaps you should 'go with' the guesswork a moment and follow the odour of corruption and deceit into this whole sorry mess?

      Delete
    2. I have seen an article from jillhavern forum,Richard D Hall, Merther Tydfil show.
      In the article, Richard states an E-mail from a relative of PJ officer that alludes that someone from Interpol was present in Apartment 5a Ocean Club before the GNR showed up 45 minutes after the alert(22.14pm) to them of a disappearance of a child 3 May 2007?

      Delete
    3. "But it's all speculation".......I think you show where your loyality lies.....I take it the speculation you refer to is the fact that MW used a ex employee to assist them....you are not in the least bit preturbed that this blog proves that GMC carted the body of a dead child around an apartment and out into the night.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 1 Jun 2015, 13:50:00,

      We have no knowledge of such e-mail. However we do note that a "relative of PJ officer" sounds very similar to a "source close to the family".

      Delete
    5. I asked you a question, Textusa, are you going to ignore it?

      Why would Mark Warner management conspire to cover up the death of a child and then involve an ex-employee they had sacked?

      I would appreciate an answer

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 1 Jun 2015, 21:40:00,

      We haven't answered because we have never said Mark Warner management contacted, directly or indirectly, Euclides Monteiro and don't know from where you got that idea.

      Delete
    7. Then can you explain what you meant by this?

      ''In our opinion, Euclides Monteiro received a call from the Ocean Club that night to allow the use of the building that night, most probably not knowing what would be stored there.''

      You also said
      ''As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked.''

      So perhaps you would explain what you DID mean?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 1 Jun 2015, 21:40:00

      I asked you a question, Textusa, are you going to ignore it?

      That's very demanding. No-one's obliged to answer your questions.

      And when you start a post by saying that everything is guesswork at best, when it clearly isn't, I'm not sure why you would expect your question to be answered frankly, because you already have a closed mind to any answer.

      Nuala

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 1 Jun 2015, 22:37:00,

      We meant:
      "In our opinion, Euclides Monteiro received a call from the Ocean Club that night to allow the use of the building that night, most probably not knowing what would be stored there"

      And we meant:
      ''As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked.''

      You seem to be mixing-up (which is quite revealing) Mark Warner management with Ocean Club management.

      Mark Warner did not manage the resort (or did it during that "particular" time of year?).

      Mark Warner was simply one among other tourist operators in the Ocean Club. Coming second to Thomas Cook, if we recall correctly.

      Delete
    10. Stop splitting hairs. and avoiding answering the question I'll rephrase it, shall I?

      ''Also, why would Ocean Club staff conspire to cover up the death of a child and then involve an ex-employee they had sacked? That's completely ridiculous. ''


      Delete
    11. Anonymous 1 Jun 2015, 23:16:00,

      Splitting hairs is your technique not ours.

      Telling Ocean Club from Mark Warner is a HUGE difference. A VID (Very Important Difference).

      But now, as you insist, will split hairs. Ocean Club staff doesn't sack people. For some reason management (a word you used) is management.

      Delete
    12. Unpublished Anonymous at 1 Jun 2015, 23:18:00,

      It's us who do the moderation in the blog, not you.

      Delete
    13. To readers, an important clarification. There is no evidence that Euclides Monteiro was sacked by the Ocean Club management.

      Him leaving the Ocean Club and starting to work for the water treatment company was, in our opinion, a professional upgrade for an unqualified worker that he was and not the result of any sacking.

      Delete
    14. Monteiro's wife made no comment about him being sacked, only about his previous history.

      Delete
    15. In reply to Anon;22.57 1 June 2015, this person must have gone to the same charm school as insane?

      Delete
    16. According to police sources in Portugal, he was sacked from the Ocean Club
      http://www.mccannfiles.com/id467.html

      So I am going to ask the question again - why would the Ocean Club conspire to cover up the death of a child and involve a worker they had sacked?

      I would appreciate an answer, not this ducking and diving. You present your posts as factual, so I am querying the 'facts' - do you have a problem with that?

      Delete
    17. Anonymous 2 Jun 2015, 11:40:00,

      First, fail to see where is the proof of Euclides being fired.

      Second, asking a question and answering it yourself with "That's completely ridiculous." is not expecting any sort of answer. Much less when followed by a "Can't you see how preposterous this is?"

      Third, as Anonymous 2 Jun 2015, 10:32:00, says, Euclide's widow does not speak of any resentment felt by Euclides towards his former employers.

      Fourth, it's a fact that PJ considered Euclides a person of interest. This came after being reported that it was investigating phone records.

      Fifth, Euclides lived and worked nearby. His social life continued as previously and not seeing any reasons for the friendships he made during his time in the Ocean Club not to have continued as well, keeping in touch with him.

      We believe that when all involved were facing the problem as to where to hide the body away from any nearby location, someone from the Ocean Club (only ones to have his number) remembered that Euclides worked for the water treatment and there the body could be hidden without the risk of being searched the next day and suggested calling him.

      We think the suggestion was accepted.

      We don't know what were the details of the favour asked but we think he accepted (only he knows why) but doubt they told him it was a body.

      Why was Ocean Club staff involved by the Ocean Club management? We have given our opinion before: their guests' reputation management.

      Delete
    18. So the answer to my original question " is any of this based on fact?" Is basically No, then? You "think" this is what happened, but you haven't any actual proof at all, it's just a story you have invented.

      I which case, shouldn't you be honest about it and make that clear?

      Delete
    19. Anonymous 2 Jun 2015, 14:26:00,

      The parrot is dead.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

      Delete
    20. About the sacking:

      Same day from The Mirror ....The Portuguese daily Correio da Manha said he had been fired from the hotel and may have been seeking revenge. Yet further down the piece....Correio da Manha claimed that he had left the Ocean Club on bad terms and said that his possible motives for snatching Madeleine are under investigation.

      Jerry Lawton next day....Portuguese police believe the 40-year-old may have snatched the youngster in a grudge attack after being sacked from the holiday resort where she was staying.
      Then also says .....The flat is a 15-minute drive from the town of Lagos where the man was living at the time after being axed as a restaurant worker at the holiday complex a year earlier.
      .....It described his departure from the resort as "fractious" and added: "The motives that could have caused the ex-employee to kidnap the youngster are still being investigated.

      The Star.....It described his departure from the Ocean Club as "frictious" and added: "The motives that could have caused the ex-employee to kidnap the youngster are still being investigated."

      The Sun.....The man, 40, had been fired but phone records show he returned to Praia da Luz, Portugal, the night the three-year-old disappeared in 2007.

      BUT if the police said this....

      Portuguese police declined to comment last night.A spokesman would only say: "A secrecy order placed on the reopened case and our professional secrecy prevent us from making comment on the media reports."

      Why would they then comment on a suspect’s supposed sacking and give information away?

      Delete
    21. Suspect of Maddie's abduction was pardoned - Correio da Manhã
      CM was able to find out that the immigrant then went to Lagos, where he ended up building his life with his wife, a Portuguese citizen. In 2007, at around the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the man had been fired from the Ocean Club resort's restaurant in Praia da Luz. He had a motive for the abduction and the means to carry it out. He knew that the little girl's parents and their friends dined out until late, he knew the routines of "surveillance" to the bedrooms.

      How the heck was Euclides supposed to know this?

      Delete
    22. Euclides' brother in law:

      "It wasn't as if what happened there with him losing his job destroyed his life.

      "He got work elsewhere soon after. He was working at the time he died. He is not around to defend his reputation so others have to do it for him.

      Delete
    23. It seems Portuguese police are not very kind to Euclides or is this only idiot reporting?

      Daily Express:

      THE new suspect in the disappearance of Madeliene McCann suspect 'a violent thug who was a threat to children' had a violent past and a track record of "suspicious behaviour with children", according to a Portuguese police profile revealed yesterday.

      Delete
    24. There are multiple reliable sources confirming that Euclides was sacked, so I am struggling to see why Textusa is denying it.

      As he was sacked, I can't see why he would do them any favours, especially a pretty big one, is hiding a body. Plus, there was a huge reward on offer.

      I also can't see where the claim that "they were the only people with his mobile number" comes from? Are you saying, Textusa, that the only people who had the man's number were his former employers? Sorry, but that makes no sense at all!

      Delete
    25. Nelson Rodrigues, 32, a barman and waiter at the Ocean Club for two years, worked alongside Monteiro in 2006.

      He said yesterday: "On the surface he was a nice guy but there was something not right with him.

      "He would turn up to work with bleary eyes, sometimes he didn't seem like he was all there.

      "And things were going missing about that time – laptops, jewellery, mobile phones, anything that was lying around."

      Mr Rodrigues said police were called after Monteiro was accused of stealing tips. He was searched, but nothing was found and he protested his innocence.

      So he was reported for a 5euros theft but not items of value?

      Delete
    26. Anonymous 2 Jun 2015, 18:36:00,

      Quote from our post "Person of Interest":

      "Let’s list all possible people of interest to the case who may have called him that night.

      We can only see the following: one of the T9, Murat, Malinka, an ex-Pat or someone from the Ocean Club, management, a worker, such as a receptionist or an Ocean Club worker who had Euclides’s number

      Anyone else, for example a local friend, would not fire up a red flag on Euclides and make him to the PJ a person of interest.

      And this is where the fact that Euclides was a nobody is very, very important.

      Only the Ocean Club management and possibly an Ocean Club worker friend would have his number. Not seeing any reason for any of the T9, Murat, Malinka or an ex-Pat to have the number of Euclides, a nobody."

      No need to say it doesn't make sense to you, We know that if we say that tomorrow is going to be Wednesday you will say that it's guesswork.

      By the way, the press reports do not confirm anything. There are so many discrepancies about the man that we don't even know where he had his fatal accident.

      Finally, although the Norwegian Blue supposedly likes to rest, he's not taking a nap. He's dead. Repeating he isn't doesn't change the fact that he is.

      Delete
    27. Unpublished Insane at 2 Jun 2015, 21:43:00,

      Enough is enough. Your technique of filling up the blog with pointless repetitive negative comments is over.

      However, we seem to agree on one thing (if we understand you correctly) and that is Maddie died on May 3rd.

      Please explain why you have come to this conclusion and the facts and/or evidence you have relied on to reach this conclusion.

      Unless you are able to enlighten us, we won't be publishing any more of your comments.

      Any regular readers wishing to read your opinions should know where to find them.
      On your blog where you are free to swear and insult to your heart's content.

      Delete
    28. Insane is really worried about this! If you were wrong he would be smiling smugly to himself feeling amused. He would never post about this if he wasn’t fire fighting.
      When you take a step back you see how hard he is working for his employer. Anyone not connected to the problem would not get involved like this.

      Delete
    29. Insane says that Maddie is dead?????

      Delete
    30. Anonymous 2 Jun 2015, 22:26:00,

      Yes, apparently he does (scroll down to comments):
      http://nottextusa.blogspot.ie/2015/01/well-textusa-has-returned-to-fold-at.html?m=1

      Delete
    31. Not Textusa21 January 2015 at 13:29
      Thanks
      I don't discuss theories on here as a rule. I think she's dead. I think she has been dead since 3 May 2007. I do not think there was a massive conspiracy. I do not think it will ever be solved unless someone talks or her remains are found.

      Would be fascinating to hear why Insane thinks Maddie is dead (I think). No 'massive conspiracy' yet case solved only if 'someone' talks!? Doesn't want to show its hand, but quite willing to knock Textusa down, as if it's all a game. Or else it's been paid to disrupt. (Please do not publish if you'd rather not see contamination on your wonderful blog)

      Delete
    32. Read post on Insane's blog you linked
      He says you have 4,000+ followers, congratulations
      You should return his "And you are very transparent, my dear. Bye bye now" more often

      Delete
  37. http://portugalresident.com/gon%C3%A7alo-amaral%E2%80%99s-appeal-fund-reaches-its-%E2%82%AC25000-target%E2%80%A6-and-keeps-going

    Posted by portugalpress on June 01, 2015

    Gonçalo Amaral’s appeal fund reaches its €25,000 target… and keeps going

    In a whirlwind month, the fund set up by a young single mother from Birmingham to support former “Maddie cop” Gonçalo Amaral in his appeal over record damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann has reached its €25,000 target.

    A total of 1,555 people have raised the money, giving multiple messages of encouragement.

    And in Portugal, the Project Justiça Goncalo Amaral blogsite has acknowledged the huge boost to its ongoing efforts.

    But the truth is that “quite a bit more money is needed” Leanne Baulch, the 22-year-old behind the gofundme appeal set up in UK told us.

    “I think what is needed is around £40,000,” she told us this morning, against the background noise of her toddler daughter yodelling “Hello!” into the Skype microphone.

    “I want to keep this going,” she explained.

    As we spoke, Leanne’s initial target had already been surpassed by £375.

    Meantime, the PJGA website in Portugal has itemised all monies received so far to help the former police inspector finance his appeal against damages that would see him forced to pay the McCanns over €500,000 - money he has always explained he does not have.

    According to the PJGA’s latest posting, the £25,000 raised by Leanne’s appeal has been boosted by €5,643 raised via PayPal along with a further $90 dollars.

    The site affirms that all the money will be going to “cover expenses related to the defence of Gonçalo Amaral with regard to the civil action presented by the McCann family”, and it adds that a new message will follow when an appeal has been presented.

    The saga centring on the McCann’s distress over Amaral’s book The Truth of the Lie has been ongoing for almost six years - with the couple maintaining that Amaral’s theory that they faked their daughter’s abduction caused them “devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain”.

    natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/445625/Madeline-McCann-Portugal-appeal-25K

    Sick trolls raised £25k for McCann cop's court appeal

    SUPPORTERS have given more than £25,000 to help a Portuguese ex-police chief fight a libel payout to the parents of Madeleine McCann.
    By Jerry Lawton / Published 1st June 2015



    It was revealed that 1,559 people, including trolls, have pledged donations via a website to Goncarlo Amaral’s appeal against a £357,000 order.

    And one four-figure donation is allegedly from members of the Metropolitan Police in London, which is conducting its own probe into Madeleine’s disappearance in Portugal in 2007.

    The donation to Mr Amaral’s fighting fund on website gofundme.com was credited to “MPS”, believed to refer to the Metropolitan Police Service.

    It is claimed the money came from “an anonymous but very large group of British police officers” said to be “outraged at the way in which a senior investigating officer has been treated”.

    Mr Amaral was ordered to surrender the cash by a Portuguese court after accusing Kate McCann, 47, and Gerry, 46, of covering up their missing daughter’s death in a book about the case.

    Leanne Baulch, 22, from Birmingham, said she launched the fighting fund in a “quest for justice” because Mr Amaral couldn’t raise the money.

    She said cash had poured in from “all over the globe”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Despite the "sick trolls" title, the article publicizes how Mr. Amaral is greatly supported not only by the portuguese but by the british as well", and by british police men and women!!!
      Also notice how he is referred to as MR. Amaral, the "ex-police chief", not the disgraced cop and such (http://pinkypropaganda.blogspot.pt/2010/03/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html)

      Delete
    2. A good idea from Perform for Justice @ the gofundme for Mr. Amaral:

      £14
      Perform for Justice
      27 mins ago
      Don’t forget the upcoming Grand Event starring Kate on bike. “… as the eighth anniversary of our daughter Madeleine’s abduction is upon us, I’m even more driven to help prevent or lessen these devastating crimes against children and the suffering which consequently ensues.” Let’s be ‘more driven than ever’ to support the one and only man that ‘consequently’ searched for her missing daughter with a small or less small donation, 5 days in a row, from the 13th of June on. A commitment for justice.

      Delete
    3. I'm happy to do this maybe all the blogs and forums could publicise this.

      Delete
    4. Let us hope that no person's behaviour lets them down if they protest against Kate, Fiona, bike ride participants etc,I would suggest that if you feel the need to "Protest" just turn your back on them as they ride past, please do not give the MSM a chance to let them try and beat you using the T word, we already know who the T word belongs to eh MB,JG and the lovely fragrant Clarence! B*** S**t.

      Delete
    5. That's why 'Perform for Justice' could be an answer, IMO.

      Delete
  39. DO NOT PUBLISH at 1 Jun 2015, 22:52:00 and 23:33:00,

    Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Unpublished Anonymous at 1 Jun 2015, 23:49:00,

    We think we decoded most of what you sent, but not sure about the message you are trying to convey.

    Can you clarify?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Unpublished poster at 3 Jun 2015, 21:16:00,

    The most fascinating thing about stupidity is that it's limitless.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 1.5 million page views.

    Congratulations Textusa :)

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Second that Nuala!
      Congratulations team Textusa, you rock!

      Delete
    2. 1,500,000
      What a beautiful number!

      Delete
  43. Why do you believe Madeleine's death was accidental? An accident is something unexpected and if it's result means you've lost your child, would you behave like the McCanns did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 Jun 2015, 16:48:00,

      We believe there was no intent in killing Maddie so her death was something unexpected.

      Unfortunately many people die on the road due to reckless or even irresponsible action from others.

      Those responsible for these deaths are accountable for the unexpected and tragic outcome of their actions and are punished according to the law.

      Delete
    2. What you describe, in your ''theory'', is not an accident. You describe an assault leading to the death of an individual. In the circumstances you describe the charge would be, at the very least, Manslaughter.

      An accident would be someone falling off a chair. You describe, in graphic terms an a worrying amount of detail for someone making it up, that the person you accuse

      ''must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter''

      What you describe is, therefore, not an accident. It is an assault, leading to an unlawful death. ie, Manslaughter. It has nothing to do with intent. Intent would make it murder.

      Let's see if you publish that

      Delete
    3. Insane,

      We have been over the accident v manslaughter debate with you.

      Yes, we think it was manslaughter, so an accident. If it wasn't we would call it murder and we don't.

      Before you split hairs about the law with us, please use Portuguese law. Portugal was where the death is to have happened and under which it is to be judged.

      You call the act of an adult slapping in a disciplinary action a child an assault. We abhor violence on children but would not call that act an assault.

      We don't see any unnecessary graphic detail in our description.

      We don't see any reason fro not publishing your comment. Only one. We have said this to you:

      "Please explain why you have come to this conclusion and the facts and/or evidence you have relied on to reach this conclusion.

      Unless you are able to enlighten us, we won't be publishing any more of your comments."

      So, can we have from you what are the reasons you think Maddie is dead?

      Delete
    4. I really would suggest you research what constitutes Manslaughter and what constitutes an accident, as you clearly still do not understand this, as is apparent in this sentence:
      ''Yes, we think it was manslaughter, so an accident''

      You seem to be completely unable to understand what constitutes an accident and what doesn't. Accidentally reversing a car over a child is an accident, although it could be reckless or negligent depending on the circumstances

      Striking a child is not an accident. The lack of intent to kill does not render it an ''accident''
      You are the one that needs to consult the Portuguese penal code as you are clearly totally clueless. The imaginary crime you describe could even be classified as Aggravated Homicide under their penal code.

      I am very concerned by your description of a violent assault against a 3 year old child as ''disciplinary action'' and ''not an assault''
      What you described was a violent and severe blow delivered by an adult male to a small child for the purpose of shutting her up. If that in your book amounts to ''disciplinary action'' I would suggest you immediately remove yourself from the company of any small children.

      You say you ''would not call that act an assault''

      You described a man hitting a child hard enough that she 'flew across a room' and ended up dead.

      And you don't think that is an assault????

      I am not going to quote the graphic detail, other than to say you dredged up and described two specific sex acts you imagined the characters performing, and how you imagined Madeleine would describe these. If you don't think that was unnecessary then, again, I suggest you get yourself looked at.

      You don't seem to understand how evidence works. If you put forward a theory, it's for you to provide evidence to prove it. It does not automatically 'stand' until such point as someone disproves it.

      I note your attempt to change the subject. I have never suggested Maddie was other than dead, for the perfectly obvious reasons that no trace of her has been found in 8 years and the signalling of cadaver odour in the last place she was seen, which whilst not conclusive is certainly indicative.

      Now, having dealt with your diversion, can you please explain why you think that the assault you described as follows:

      '' (he) must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter''

      ......you now describe as ''a disciplinary action''?

      Is that how you think a 3 year old child should be disciplined? Hit by an adult hard enough to send them flying across the room?

      You say you abhor violence against children, yet wouldn't describe that as an assault. I find that a very worrying admission on your part

      Delete
    5. Insane,

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

      Involuntary manslaughter is the nearest description of what MAY have happened. It's for a court with the facts and witness evidence, not a blog, to decide whether the act met these conditions or not.

      In Portugal, we think it would be homícidio por negligência sem dolo (negligent manslaughter without intent).

      But we leave it to the courts to decide what the exact charges would be. We are not the judge and jury.

      We limit ourselves to give the opinion that death was not intentional.

      Describing somebody's disciplinary actions against a child does not condone them.

      We don't condone harsh parental discipline when describing what may have happened.

      Delete
  44. Unpublished Anonymous at 17 Jun 2015, 19:16:00 and 19:17:00
    Thank you but we won't publish anything more on that subject.

    We will wait for the conclusion of the debate going on about the issue but the fact the company in question has sent 2 contradicting letters seem to undermine the accuracy of many things we have seen claimed.

    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