Friday, 29 September 2017

The game continues

1. Introduction

Now that the Maddie case has escaped a planned death and is to continue we thought this week to do a very short post.

We will just say a few words - so unlike us! - about Operation Grange and then help it get on along by simply publishing a tweet and a comment.

2. The funding continues

So Grange continues.

After £100,000 because of compelling evidence and £85,000 because of a key witness, Operation Grange has now been given an extra £154,000.

That totals £339,000 since Whitehall took control of things. Quite a significant amount in these times of crisis and uncertainty.

One must ask 2 questions.

First, is why such a high figure when compared with the previous two?

Second, why not a round number (ending in a 0 or a 5) but such a specific quantity? One must wonder what substantiated the math that led up to this precise figure.

As we said in the comments on previous post, information must be allowed to settle before one is able to extract valid conclusions from it, however the first conclusion that can be taken immediately is this: the Bilton/Gamble offensive for archival (AKA as a BBC documentary) has been put in its rightful place: flushed down the toilet.

Not only has it surpassed its validation date beyond rotting, as it seems Whitehall is clearly stating it is to be ignored completely.

Or, in other words, Whitehall is saying that it is not convinced that the Portuguese investigation has nothing really - so it must have something - nor that Operation Grange is a “nothing-burger” - so it is something.

What is also important, is that with the flushing of this... thing, it means that to continue to pursue archival - as we are certain the other side will continue to try - they will have to come up with a new product.

That means a new plot and new actors. From where we stand, it seems the sources for either are starting to be scarce. 

Or are we going to see Gamble, Sutton, Murat, Stephenson and Foy again saying the same thing all over again?

Wouldn’t that just be a little too embarrassing even for the shameless?

As a first reaction, we would say Whitehall have given Grange more money to find the truth, not to help archive.

3. The Tweet

penelope @pennygeer
Kate McCann returns to where Madeleine disappeared to hunt for answers (link:…
3:20 PM · May 1, 2016”

penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer Mmmm! Mark Warner`s holiday centres were used as knocking shops when Maddie went missing, hence the ban on kids in many of their”

penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer restaurants, as the adults would openly wife-swap during the evenings! We went there by mistake (thanks to lastminute”

penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer .com) and even tubby old me spent the week trying to evade the randy upper-class men!”

4. The comment

A comment we received and replied in our post “Paedo v Nepio”:

Unknown 25 Sep 2017, 20:54:00

If I was a swinger (and I'm not) I wouldn't take the kids along, in the first place. While realising that there would be a bit of a stink, if discovered, it hardly compares with the enormous amount of time, money and scandal that his case has generated so far, so I don't buy into this theory, there has to be something more or someone didn't play by the rules.”

Our reply:

Textusa 26 Sep 2017, 23:31:00


Thank you for your comment.

Firstly, we find it fascinating how some people – we’re not only speaking about you – say they are not swingers, that they have never crossed paths with such a lifestyle yet are able to postulate with absolute certainty about what swingers would or would not do.

We have talked with some swingers (or some swingers have talked to us) and from what we have been told, our scenario is not only plausible but very likely.

Yes, we have talked to swingers. They are not monsters or sick depraved people with serious mental problems but absolutely normal people who have chosen, out of free will, a certain lifestyle.

Secondly, one cannot say “if it was me…” and have that constitute a certainty because what is relevant is not what one thinks one would do but what the circumstances were which made people to act the way they did. To say “if it was me…” to substantiate a conclusion about the Maddie case, then one must assume that whoever says that is someone who is willing to lie about the death of their own child, because that is what happened with McCanns. To say “if it was me…” is to establish a plausible comparison between oneself and the McCanns.

If a large group of people of the age of OC guests were on holiday with no children in sight, wouldn't that look strange?

Would it not draw unwanted attention, rather than be seen as ordinary families on holiday?

Children would not be involved in these activities. Children would not be at risk in any way.

Children were taken care of by the unusual number of nannies present at the time, who we believe were hired for that exact purpose.

It seems you totally disagree fully with those who believe paedophilia was at the heart of this holiday, because how likely is it that a large number families would meet to share their very young children for such an odious purposes?

And governments of different political parties would cover up such activity, given that it was recent and not historical child abuse?

We suggest you read our following posts:

Besides the 2 posts mentioned above, we would also recommend the reading of our post “The Best Answer?” when swinging was mentioned, not by Barra da Costa, before the PJ Files were released.


  1. Chaz on Best Friends says: 'This senior executive was there to engage in a swingers party'
    Is he talking about Edmonds?

    1. Anonymous 29 Sep 2017, 13:52:00,

      We don't believe he was at the table for dining that night, because dining wasn't happening that night.

      Chaz, who made the comment, may know the name of the person and the fact they were all in PdL for the reason stated, without necessarily being in the resort.

      The dining arrangements were well covered by the media from the outset, so Chaz may also have assumed they were all dining together.

      Chaz, wherever you are, can you enlighten us?

    An interesting observation


    Seems Portugal are taking the lead?

    1. Anonymous 29 Sep 2017, 18:19:00,

      Very interesting paragraph indeed:

      "He said the Scotland Yard team has been described as "minding the shop" while their Portuguese colleagues search for the illusive clues that would confirm the latest theory."

      So theory on the Portuguese side of things?

    2. Brunt saying the most interesting stuff. Usual platitudes from the Met.

    3. Would love it if you would kindly enlighten us as to what Brunt was saying.

    4. 11m pounds to get back to the point of summer 2007?

    5. Yep, what goes around comes around,the magical mystery tour taken by OG is back to the very beginning that Redwood never started from.

    6. How come Sky Brunt gets the additional information ? As an aside,
      The BBC news website shows timeline as follows and clearly shows that JT's sighting of man carrying child has been discounted:

      20:30 Kate and Gerry McCann leave their apartment to have dinner at a Tapas bar
      21:05 Gerry McCann checks on Madeleine and her siblings
      22:00 A man is seen carrying a child wearing pyjamas heading towards the ocean (E-fit images of the suspect were released as part of a 2013 Crimewatch appeal)
      22:00 Kate McCann raises the alarm that Madeleine has gone missing

    7. Anonymous 29 Sep 2017, 19:50:00,

      It seems to us that Brunt is saying that the UK is waiting for something from the Portuguese.

    8. This "official" timeline is in fact the TP9's third one. The PJ adopted it, though some time indications are refuted by certain testimonies like the Tapas waiters', and hypothético-deduced from data established by the own protagonists that none of them was involved in the disappearance of MMC.


    JillyCL @JillyCL·47m
    Replying to @Joyousb90 and @fredthefish10
    Sorry but I'm sick of people trying to implicate an innocent man, i.e Murat. He's been to hell & back because of the lying McCanns & Tapas7

    JillyCL @JillyCL·52m
    Replying to @fredthefish10 and @Joyousb90
    Now she claims the case involves swinging, not paedophilia

    JillyCL @JillyCL·53m
    Replying to @fredthefish10 and @Joyousb90
    In the early days, she wrote reams of lurid descriptions about 'what Payne & McCann did to Maddie'. IMO, her prurient interest was shocking

    JillyCL @JillyCL·1h
    Replying to @fredthefish10 and @Joyousb90
    Textusa also insists the McCanns & Tapas7 never had dinner at the tapas bar. Ridiculous!

    JillyCL @JillyCL·1h
    Replying to @fredthefish10 and @Joyousb90
    The Murats' cars were investigated by Eddie Cadaver Dog. ZERO alerts, just as there were zero alerts to anything Murat related

    JillyCL @JillyCL·1h
    Replying to @fredthefish10 and @Joyousb90
    That is bollox

    JillyCL @JillyCL·2h
    Replying to @fredthefish10
    Nope. I don't believe it. Textusa has far too much time on her hands. #SelfIndulgentBlog

    1. Time to involve her (=Textusa) since 2007 in seeking JUSTICE. Time to informe us, educate us.
      Showing us how it works with the MSM, celebrities, Prime Ministers, Ministers, powerful people, rich people, police etc...
      For years, Textusa have choosen to dedicate her time (and time is money)to defend democracy, Truth and Justice. Isn't it the job of our politicians ?
      I am so greatfull. Merci Textusa. For your time and the pleasure I always have to read your brilliant posts. It is a great, great job. You are courageos.= courageuse(s).
      From Brussel, Brigitte.

    2. Textusa NEVER put forward a theory about paedophilia, quite the opposite.
      Swinging was always the main theory (more than a theory in fact) - as it's been for many years now. How is it 'ridiculous' that the T9 didn't dine at the Tapas bar but instead set it up as a ruse to allow 'abduction'... JillyC clearly hasn't read this blog for many years now. Murat is an obvious focus even as a bit player. One has only to read his various statements and that of his mother to notice there's something wrong with his 'non involvement.' When did the sniffer dogs give the all-clear to Murat's car? Words like bollox and ridiculous add nothing to her argument. On Twitter she seems to concern herself with the radio programme 'The Archers' but must have an alert system to allow her to snipe from the long grass. If one disagrees with her they're blocked. On she goes...

    3. Will will reply to JillyCL's accusations in separate comments:

      Reply #1

      “Sorry but I'm sick of people trying to implicate an innocent man, i.e Murat. He's been to hell & back because of the lying McCanns & Tapas7”

      To this, what we have to say is that if JillyCL has ever tweeted that the McCanns have not been cleared then she has a double standard.

      Murat, exactly like the McCanns has not been cleared so he cannot be called an “innocent man”.

      Does that make him guilty? No, it doesn’t BUT it doesn’t make him innocent either.

      To be clear, it was Mr Amaral who pointed the finger at Murat and not the McCanns and Tapas 7. He states that very clearly in his book.

      The other side, seizing the opportunity that this finger pointed by Mr Amaral offered, used the Tapas 7 (and not the McCanns) to bring in a bus and throw Murat under it.

    4. Reply #2

      “Now she claims the case involves swinging, not paedophilia”

      We have said for the last 9 years that the hoax around the Maddie case involved swinging.

      We have been the ONLY voice saying it.

      Until 2010, we thought that it only involved the T9 as a swinging group.

      Later we came to realise that the Ocean Club was also involved in the hoax, which made us come to the conclusion that the swinging was on a much larger scale than that of that small group.

      Oddly, when the swinging theory was contained to the T9, many welcomed it as it didn’t involve anyone outside the T9 but as soon as it started to involve others it suddenly became something ridiculous, not to say disgusting, gross and perverted, the usual arguments used to put people off it.

      We have never believed in the paedophilia theory and have stated that with total and absolute clarity. In public and in private.

      JillyCL's words makes it sound like we have changed our minds from first believing that Maddie’s death involved paedophilia and are now recently starting to believe it involved swinging.

      That is not the case and it’s up to JillyCL to know why she wrote such misrepresentation of our beliefs which we have expressed openly.

    5. Reply #3

      “In the early days, she wrote reams of lurid descriptions about 'what Payne & McCann did to Maddie'. IMO, her prurient interest was shocking”

      Another misrepresentation of what we have said.

      The only thing we have ever said that one of those 2 adults ever did to Maddie was to strike her once and in the spur of an uncontrolled angry moment.

      That is not “reams of lurid descriptions”.

      If we have never believed paedophilia was involved with Maddie’s death how could we ever write “reams of lurid descriptions about 'what Payne & McCann did to Maddie”?

      What JillyCL may be speaking of is of us saying that we thought David and Kate were surprised by Maddie while engaged in sexual activity.

      Yes, we said that in an early theory and we assume we did. I (then Textusa wasn't a team) came up with that theory in 2008 and have since said we no longer subscribe it. Bringing up now something we have long abandoned is something only JillyCL can explain.

      For many years now, having gained more insight of the information contained in the files, we now believe that not only there was no sexual activity between those two adults in that early evening of May 3 2007, as we now also believe that neither one of them struck intentionally, much less violently, Maddie.

      We think it was the body weight of one of the adults falling on Maddie that caused her to be projected from the couch.

      It was all just an unfortunate accident.

      The hoax spawned because no explanation could be given as to why Payne was in the apartment at that particular time and arguing with Kate when Gerry was away, allegedly playing tennis.


    6. Reply #4

      “Textusa also insists the McCanns & Tapas7 never had dinner at the tapas bar. Ridiculous!”

      We have never said that they weren't at Tapas, just that dining didn't happen that night. It was a set up.

      We find it really strange how anyone can think Maddie died that night and they all went out to eat but we can only speak for ourselves on that.

      What we have stated is that on all OTHER nights, there were no Tapas dinners.

    7. Reply #5

      “The Murats' cars were investigated by Eddie Cadaver Dog. ZERO alerts, just as there were zero alerts to anything Murat related”

      As we have said repeatedly, the dogs to not give false positives.

      But they do give false negatives, or to be specific, evidence may be there but for some reason dogs may miss it.

      With this are we saying, or have we ever said the dogs missed forensic evidence at Murat’s? No.

      What we have said is that there’s the possibility of the body having been in Murat’s property and not having left a single trace of its presence there, so nothing there for dogs to signal.

      We raised the possibility of A VEHICLE (not Murat’s car) parked in Murat’s driveway, having been used to keep the body between 21:30 and around 04:00.

      We even go as far as saying that if that car was indeed used and was found, it would have been very likely for the dogs to not have detected anything in it because there would no residues to be detected.

      We justify this statement with the absence of a 3rd site in apartment 5A that the dogs didn’t signal: the place where the body was cleaned before being put in the closet.

      Only 2 locations were signalled by the cadaver dog, the living room behind the couch and the closet but of these only one was signalled by the blood dog, the living-room.

      If people believe that body was taken from living-room floor directly to closet, then why didn’t Keela signal blood there? We say that happened because the body was taken somewhere else before in the apartment and cleaned up.

      In that spot the body left no residue because it did not touch directly its surface or taint it with blood.

      No residues or forensic evidence was left there and so dogs did not signal it.

      A body may be present in a place and not leave any residue.

      Dogs detecting SOMETHING means that body was there (like in 5A and Scenic) but detecting ZERO in a place doesn’t rule out a body having been there like JillyCL tries to make us believe.


    8. If JillyCL believes so strongly in Murat's innocence then we woud like to hear her explanation as to why there are blatant discrepancies in the statements of Murat and Carpenter concerning how they met.

      Murat says it was near his gate when Carpenter was walking up his driveway.

      Carpenter says it was when he was walking towards his apartment from the Tapas entrance, so no reason to use driveway in front of Murat's property.

      Murat is a fascinating character.

      He was simply had a real estate company. That doesn’t make him powerful or even influential.

      However, we have encountered loyalists to him who are fierce, resilient and highly dedicated.

      This loyalism may seem to many quite baffling but it may have a very simple explanation.

      Speculating, let’s imagine that Murat was the man “on the field” responsible for organising and coordinating the swinging in the area.

      We know that the Ocean Club “fattened” up in personnel as early as March. So, speculating again, we would say the swinging was on ongoing thing in that Spring of 2007.

      With that speculation, then one can easily also speculate how rich in numbers and names Murat’s database would be. If he was the organiser and the coordinator, that is.


      On May 5 Jenny M tells journalist Pires that her son is a suspect.
      Yet he goes on to translate for some of witnesses, including Dianne Webster. What's that all about ?

    10. There's a difference between the MCs and RM on the innocence topic, though the indetermination of the crime makes the concept of innocence very relative. What we know nevertheless is that the MCs tried to use the filing order as a certificate of innocence. RM didn't do anything like that. The filing order says clearly that due to the TP7 refusal of the reconstitution requested by the MP, the MCs lost the opportunity to eventually prove their innocence? Furthermore such a refusal would lead to the end of the criminal investigation. This didn't pop up as a surprise, the TP9 knew it before the TP7 decided not to collaborate.
      There's nothing of that kind concerning RM. He wasn't Tannerman nor Smithman. Unless you believe that MS lied and invented that Smithman looked like GMC to protect RM. But that's belief !

  5. It seems clear that over the years Sky have pushed a particular angle in terms of reporting the Mc Cann case (e.g. BRT, Troll etc). I have always thought that this was because someone high up at Sky was helping to protect a friend / friends and using SKY news Brunt as a means of helping to shape UK public perception of the case.
    However, if there seems to be a real possibility of the 'truth' emerging then will we see a change in how Sky starts to report the case? Wil there be a phone call saying' I've done all I can to help - you'r on your own now!!.... just wondering how it will pan out in real terms....

  6. Comment we have received and censored:

    “Stephen Quayle has left a new comment on your post "The game continues":
    Textusa, who do you think was the VIP that week? My theory is (censored). Or possibly even (censored) Unless this has been discounted before? Love your blog and totally believe your theory.
    Posted by Stephen Quayle to Textusa at 29 Sep 2017, 23:24:00”

    Stephen Quayle,

    We have censored your comment because we don’t want to name names.
    We don’t think there was a VIP but many. We guess you’re asking about who the top ranked one would be. We think we have a pretty good idea but we will remain calling him/her as the Unmentionable One.

    Hope you understand.

    1. I understand, would just love to know how close I am! Lol

  7. Does this site expect Portugal or the UK to solve the case Textusa? Will it be solved, what do you think as it is going on for a very long time?

  8. Interesting reporting from Sunday Times this morning:
    A £12m investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been granted an extra £154,000 because detectives are hunting a “person of significance”.

    A source close to Operation Grange — Scotland Yard’s six-year search for Madeleine — has said finding the person is one of the “critical lines of inquiry” that police hope may help to solve the mystery. Madeleine, who was then three, disappeared in May 2007 while on holiday with her family in Portugal.

    Last week the Home Office announced the funding that will keep four detectives on the investigation until the end of March next year. The source said: “It is as much to rule the person out of the inquiry as anything else.”The Portuguese investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance was criticised by the British authorities as being not fit for purpose. Scotland Yard began an investigative review into the disappearance in 2011.

    However, The Sunday Times understands that Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of key interviews with British witnesses, rather than conducting their own.

    Operation Grange has conducted no formal witness interviews with Gerry or Kate McCann or the seven friends they dined with on the night Madeleine disappeared.

    Colin Sutton, a former Met detective chief inspector, said: “I would conduct fresh interviews with all the key British witnesses. We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”

    The Met said the Operation Grange team would not comment while the investigation was ongoing.


    1. "Operation Grange has conducted no formal witness statements with Gerry or Kate McCann or the seven friends who they dined with on the night Madeleine disappeared" is the interesting part,lets not forget what Rowley said back in April and I quote

      "Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
      original investigation by the Portuguese" unquote.

  9. Is the Sunday Times reporting to pave the way for formal interviews of the Mc Canns and their friends?

    1. This is in the middle of the article, the less read part. Looking at the comments, it doesn't seem that people noticed that.

  10. I have just been catching up on comments... I am surprised to read Textusa's thoughts on what may have happened and didn't realise that you had changed your views. I know originally you theorised that DP and KM were engaged in sexual activity and Madeleine was disturbing this and creating a fuss etc and accidentally died following a blow. It was interesting to read your later thoughts on what may have happened. Do you have any posts on this that I can read, please relating to someone falling over Madeleine causing her to fall?

    "For many years now, having gained more insight of the information contained in the files, we now believe that not only there was no sexual activity between those two adults in that early evening of May 3 2007, as we now also believe that neither one of them struck intentionally, much less violently, Maddie.

    We think it was the body weight of one of the adults falling on Maddie that caused her to be projected from the couch.

    It was all just an unfortunate accident.

    The hoax spawned because no explanation could be given as to why Payne was in the apartment at that particular time and arguing with Kate when Gerry was away, allegedly playing tennis."

    1. I too was shocked that the theory that Kate McCann and Payne were engaged in sexual activity had been discounted. What is the evidence in the files to support that it was the body weight of one of the adults falling on maddie that caused her to be projected from the couch

    2. Anonymous 1 Oct 2017, 14:49:00

      We have not changed our minds, we have evolved our thoughts.

      This evolution in our thoughts are explained in our post “The Grey Area”

      We have simply widened the scope of the swinging from a small group of 9 people to a much larger group in number, importance and influence.

      To be clear we continue to believe that Payne’s presence in the Apartment 5A was motivated by sexual purposes.

      We believe that Payne did encounter Kate wrapped in a towel having just come out of the shower as she says (and is something Payne strangely forgets to remember).

      From there the rest is speculation. Both of what we thought then and of what we think now. What really happened only those 2 individuals can say, if they ever will.

      We have only brought up this speculation to justify JillCL’s saying that I “wrote reams of lurid descriptions about 'what Payne & McCann did to Maddie'. IMO, her prurient interest was shocking”-

      Then, just after GA had published the book and the PJ Files were being smuggled between internet users interested in the case (lest people forget, the files were not distributed to the public but only to the members of the media, who then would use them as they would see fit).

      It was very easy and quick to understand that Maddie had died in the living-room behind the couch.

      Very quickly I understood that the motive behind Payne being in apartment was of a sexual nature, an understanding that as I’ve just said we as team, maintain.

      Then, without having looked properly at the files, to be more specific the forensic details of the living-room, “had” to find a reason to myself to connect the dots of Payne being in the apartment for sexual reasons and Maddie having been struck, even if with unintentionally exceeded violence by one of the adults. The only feasible scenario, a completely speculative one as we proved to ourselves, was for the adults having been surprised by the child.

      Pure and assumed speculation and we are justifying the reasons why I came up with it, THEN.

      JillyCL calls it “prurient interest” but my conscience – which is the only thing that matters to me – tells me it was an honest effort to join up 2 pieces of information.

      Our most recent theory, which is as we have said, also speculation, is based on the forensic evidence presence AND the obvious fact that the lesions Maddie’s body presented was perceived at that moment it could not be explained by a plausible domestic accident.

      The forensic evidence being the fact that there was blood spattered in two walls AND the back of two couches.

      But as it’s speculation, we will not share it publicly with our readers.

      Anybody commenting honestly on the case and giving opinions about what happened are doing exactly that – giving opinions, based on what they have read and their interpretation of the facts and the statements of who they choose to believe or disbelieve.

      Hope you understand.

    3. Yes - understand completely- and thanks for your answer..



    One of the most seriously regarded sighting was in Amsterdam, 2008.

    Shopkeeper Anna Maria Stam told cops a three or four-year-old girl who resembled Madeleine, told her she was with a "stranger" who had taken her "away from mummy".

    1. Hi Textusa,the CMMoMM site has a picture of Anna Maria Stam alongside one Clarence Mitchell,relating to this story,enough said there then with regard to Clarence,anyone remember the film "it's a wonderful Life"the bell Rings when an Angel gets his Wings,eh Clarence?

  13. Colin Sutton seems to be calling into question the abilities of the translators at Scotland Yard, now why would that be? answers on the back of a stamp.

    [quote]But ex-Met Det Chief Inspector Colin Sutton said UK detectives should have re-interviewed them to determine if their original statements were accurate and if anything had been omitted that could crack the case.
    He said: “I would conduct fresh interviews with all the key British witnesses. We’re talking about interviews given through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them.
    “The room for error would be enormous.”[/quote]

    1. Just to add what about the ,erm,ah,erm,you know,erm,they you know,erm,rogatories Colin? lost in translation? really?

    2. It's clear that CS didn't read the PJFiles. Had he read them he would have noticed that the statements were finally retroverted to English, in order for the witness to eventually correct before signing (being committed the interpreter signs as well). There are some mistakes in the on line translated PJFiles (I correct them when they deserve it), but those pro bono translations aren't supposed to have been used by OG who requested its own translations. The third set of translations are the "professional ones", supposed to exist, have been paid by MF (who saw the bill ?) and kept for private use, an extraordinary behaviour since MF was fed by the public's generosity. Wouldn't one expect the "professional translaters" to publicly correct the mistakes of the pro bono ones ? All this in the interest of the search of course !
      Therefore CS is just and simply accusing translators to have done a poor job. Is this "know all" aware that whenever he pontificates he grows his discredit ?

  14. The game that is being played out is very clever using the general public to fight the battle of getting OG closed down, this hasn't worked so far but it hasn't stopped the MSM from trying to manipulate the public. Thank you Textusa for showing in many of your posts how this is being done.



    How on earth did they think she'd accept after they seriously edited her interview last time?

  16. Yet another non story from Lawton.....he has taken all the scary abduction tales and wrapped them around Mark Rowleys recent interview which was non specific as to what they were looking at. They really are getting desperate and expose themselves more readily as this farce continues......


    1. Hi Textusa,in regard to Lawton article,
      In 2007/08 the Metropolitan Police Service undertook an investigation throughout Europe,through Intrpol of a possible Paedophile gang to have been in Operation at the time of Madeleine's reported disappearance?
      The Metropolitan Police service concluded in 2008,they could not connect the disappearance of Madeleine,to a Paedophile Gang in Operation within Europe/Portugal?
      Now Ten Years later,what will happen if they suddenly uncover something they missed Ten years ago,where will that leave their credibility?
      Oh what a "Web we weave in Order to Deceive"watch those"Unturned Stones"AC Mark Rowley,you never know whats under neath them,Marc Dutroix?


    Dont print if you wish.....otherwise can you give an opinion on this.....i find it intriguing?

    1. Anonymous 4 Oct 2017, 00:11:00,

      We see no reason why we shouldn't publish this. It's factual.

      If these facts would in some way contradict anything we have ever said, not publishing them or pretending they didn't exist (which is something do that many many who write about in this case do with much of what we publish)would not only be intellectual dishonest as it wouldn't change the facts. Facts are facts.

      This blog post does not wander into the fantasy land of being able to pinpoint the location from where calls mentioned were made but that they were simply made.

      But these facts do not only not contradict us as they appear to support our thesis.

      First that the British police was acting against the PJ and not with it.

      Second, the very short duration of Gerry's calls seems to show that it is more of a cry for help that the receiving end of the call seems to be ignoring.

      We have said that the summer of 2007 had the following stages:

      - Stage #1 - Body disposal, until that happened, the McCanns and T9 were tolerated and their collaboration was needed,

      - Stage #2 - Prosecute the McCanns, thus the reason for the dogs having been allowed to come, for Mrs Fenn to suddenly remember to pile on negligence on the couple, the media campaign against the couple and for the McCanns to even have been made arguidos,

      - Stage #3 - Confusion, which went on during the 2nd and third weeks of September 2007 in which on realising that the McCanns couldn't be prosecuted on their own, no one knew exactly what to do, so the media continued to pound on the McCanns while the couple was brought to safety to the UK while it was being thought out what to do next,

      - Stage #4, the hoax, in which truth was fiercely fought and in which many fought as fiercely for 'truth' (the one that kept the focus the attention on the couple and the T7, plus or minus Murat).

      We believe that Gerry got to know all the contacts mentioned in stage #1.

      And we think the calls mentioned were during stage #2, trying to get help or understand what was happening to him and not getting any straight or helpful answers.

    2. Hi Textus,in regard to the telephone exchanges,"Facts",would a court of Law admit this into a court case of evidence of"Perverting a course of Justice,Misconduct in Public Office,that a UK Police Officer who was given the task to work in"co-operation"with a Foreign Police force on a criminal Investigation,may have deliberately acted in a way to destroy the case from achieving it goal,to solve the case?
      Without having access to the original phone calls and wether they were wire tapped,there may not be evidence to conclude what had ben discussed,but what it clearly shows is that the UK Police,were not acting in the best Interests of Madeleine McCann,but against the Portugal PJ to process the investigation?

    3. Anonymous 4 Oct 2017, 15:50:00,

      You are asking a legal question. This process is not being dealt with legally but politically.

      Only in the end will we know how the law will be applied to it.

    4. Hi Textusa 15.50 post,A Former chief Inspector of Yorkshire Police Force,Meredydd Hughes,Martin Grimes boss was contacted to as an ACPO
      appointed person by one of the child's parents,relating to DNA,LCI testing of Evidence,clearly shows,time and dates of contact between two parties,thousands of miles apart,but with One common Interest,Madeleine McCann's whereabouts,let us hope that the Portugal PJ are notified of these descrepancies during the last process,that the UK Police force do not have Portugals PJ's best interests at heart over this re-opening of the original case?

  18. About the "UNMENTIONABLE ONE" :

    ".....the public will only be satisfied with names and faces. Dates and places. And motives."
    (And I am in the public).

    + "To find closure on this subject the general public" (and me) "has to have its thirst quenched in what pertains to the following...."
    "6 questions....."
    In TEXTUSA : "Maddies pandoras box" + :
    "... any MADDIES'S PANDORA'S BOX, including the truthful one, will have to reveal names.
    The truthful one will reveal the names of those who were really involved while all others will only expose volunteers for the fall.
    .....The moment the McCann's are charged the MADDIE'S PANDORA'S BOX becomes the one and only. It cannot be changed.

    Her Majesty The Truth,

    "Your Government, commonly referred to as the U.K.'s Government is currently formed of"... people going around in circles again and again in circles turning in round again turning around in circles pertaining to this (Madeleine McCann's) case.

    (How should we rename this "Madeleine McCann's case" ? As poor Madeleine has nothing to do with all this case).

    Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Teresa May, at least you are not the "UNMENTIONABLE ONE". Sleep tight.
    Kate and Gerry McCann, sleep tight! Tapas 7/9/,Oldfield, O'Brian, Tanner, Webster, Payne, O.C., Mark Warner, Murrat etc... sleep tight ! You are not "unmentionable".

    Every day I go to work telling/repeating myself : " It is for Operation Grange, it is for Operation Grange, it is for Operation Grange, Grange,Grange..... It makes my day.
    Grange, you are not "unmentionable" . Sleep well.

    "Unmentionable One",
    how do you feel with this nickname ?
    Human ? Above the law most probably.
    Because YOU ARE THE LAW.
    God. Yes, you are God. You ARE THE LAW, The TRUTH, The JUSTICE.
    Finally, I have found you "Unmentionable One".
    Quelle chance ! Enfin !
    From now on I don't search anymore faces, dates, motives for me I HAVE found You "The Unmentionable One".

    And, "erm, you know, "crikey", mmmh, well, to be honest, erm, you know, hum, hum , .."God saves you know, Queens and Kings" (and me to in the general public).
    This time again, God, YOU HAVE DONE YOUR job very, very well :

    But GOD ! "To be honest" I WANT MY MONEY BACK, please. Can you manage this because, you know, ermm, ...
    And, if I dare, please, please, show the general public (and me)your beautifull face. Don't be shy.
    My name ? Anonymous. I am not a robot.

    1. "erm, you know, "crikey", mmmh, well, to be honest, erm, you know, hum, hum , .."

      We are only reading these responses. If anybody knows how guilty these people are its the officers who interviewed them in 2008. We have read them over and over and thought they were straight forward questions which should have been easily responded to (if you were innocent) but imagine if you never set at a BRT, said you did and then in a police interview were asked to describe it. Or if you didn't check on a child and were asked to describe what you didn't see in a police interview wouldn't you "erm, you know, "crikey", mmmh, well, to be honest, erm, you know, hum, hum"

      I hope that when this thing is finally exposed that the video recording of those interviews are made public to show the lengths these despicable people went to deny a child justice

    2. anonymous 10.57 DCI Mesiah, asks(DP)is there anything you would like to discuss that is relevent to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
      Reply by(DP) to DCI Mesiah,there is but I do not think that this is the Right forum or pertinent place to discuss it,
      DCI Mesiaah,well that's okay,end of Interview
      Top quality flight UK Police work?
      Ah but no collusion,it's just a big tiring investigation,where 7/9 people couldn't be arsed about completing a reconstruction of their whereabouts the little three year old girl had suddenly disappeared from her holiday apartment on 3 May 2007, but they all Refused to comply,Now Why would that be,Pact of Silence or unfair treatment of their very special friends kate,Gerry?

  19. The little girl and the seven abusers



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.