Friday, 6 April 2018

The ambush

1. Introduction

We have now written many posts on the Smith sighting. We have absolutely no doubt in our minds that it was an intended encounter.  Smithman walked deliberately into the Smiths when he had plenty of time and opportunities to avoid them.

No one is able to judge what others decide in situations in which they see themselves put in. The same person can react differently in similar situations, differing only in state of mind between circumstances.

But there’s something called instinct. Saying that everyone withdraws their hand from a flame is not being judgmental but realising fact. As we are being factual when we say Smithman would have done all he could to avoid crossing with the Smiths if he was carrying a compromising (dead or abducted) child in his arms.

And because he didn’t avoid the Smiths when he could have perfectly well done so as we have shown, we have stated that this encounter was completely intentional on Smithman’s part.

Today, we are going to take that intention a step further. We are going to show that Smithman didn’t simply walk intentionally into the Smiths. He waited for them. He literally ambushed them.

2. The resurgence of the Smith sighting

Two people have recently brought back the Smith sighting to the attention of all. Those 2 people are Gemma O’Doherty and Anthony Bennett.

Gemma O’Doherty published in the paper edition of the Village Magazine on Feb 3 2017, “Maddie: did the BBC bend the truth?” (published online on Feb 9). In it she said that Martin Smith and his family maintain all that was said in 2007 and 2008 about this sighting and because they did maintain all the BBC had to correct the “innocent mistake” made by Richard Bilton in his documentary when he said that they had changed their minds about who they had seen.

Mr Bennett was told by the Met as a reply to one of his many FOIs he has sent, that Operation Grange was no longer looking for the man in the e-fits which surfaced in 2013 by UK Crimewatch. We will speak of this later in the post.

3. Four little words

We would say that Gemma O’Doherty’s article is divided between what she wrote (the majority of it) and by what she was forced to insert in it as the result of a compromise as we explained in our posts “Sutton is the name, meddling is the game” and “Very important concessions”.

The part of the article we say she wrote, is centred around the Smith sighting.

With it she confirmed the veracity of the Smith sighting - something only disputed by the very few who insist on inventing a new wheel, a square one. It is something we will return to when we speak about Insane at the end of the post.

We remind readers the Smith sighting is Smithman having encountered 9 members of the Smith family in 3 different locations in Praia da Luz.

The first was inside the Rua da Escola Primária where he crossed with Peter and his pregnant wife, the second on the corner of this street with Rua 25 de Abril where he crossed with Martin Smith, his wife and the 2 toddler grandchildren who were with them and the third with A. Smith, then a pre-teen who was with 2 of her cousins of similar age.

But it’s not only the veracity of what the Smiths have said and is in the files that Gemma O’Doherty has confirmed. She has confirmed the veracity of something that isn’t in the files and that the blog has been the only one saying it happened: the Smiths addressing Smithman.

It’s in this passage of her article:

“As he passed close by them on the narrow street, the child appeared to be in a deep sleep, her head placed over his shoulder and arms suspended down her body.

She was blonde, aged around four and wearing pyjamas. Despite the chill in the air, her feet were bare. Martin and his daughter Aoife noted that her skin was very white. The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, in beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top.

A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.”

It's something that we spoke about in our post “Three Little Words, Ten Huge Facts” whereby we stated having read the following in a Sky News article, this:

“Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

It happens that this page has been deleted by Sky News:

As we were the only ones ever mentioning this, it can only have been because of us that this page was taken off. It just goes to show that even then, in April 2010, some important people gave the blog more importance than the readership then would seem to indicate. But we have had proof of that as we showed in our posts “The proof Kate McCann reads Textusa” and “The proof the Ocean Club reads Textusa”.

Sky News, after reading us, understood the importance of what was said in that passage and quickly took it off. CNN has done something similar, when it deleted a video in which they showed some esplanade and tried to pass it off as Tapas. Unfortunately for CNN, we have screengrabs of that video in our post “The proof the Ocean Club reads Textusa

But Sky News wasn’t the only media running this story, as it also was mentioned in the Daily Mail article (appeared in paper edition only), by Sandra Murphy and Vanessa Allen published Jan 03 2008 “EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished”:

AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.

Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.

Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co. Louth, Mr Smith recalled the sighting, which is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the mans rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

He explained: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting.

"My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another.

"He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."

Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.


The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile, as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.

All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.

"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.

"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.

"I don’t know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."


"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.

"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.

"As we made our way back to our apartment in Estrella da Luz, we met a guy with a child that appeared to be asleep.

"It looked like a blonde child, and I thought she might be four years old, as she was the same size as my grandchild who was with us.” 

Please note that this was in January 2008, before Martin Smith’s memory would be jolted in September that year into remembering that the man he saw was Gerry.

“A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping” (Gemma O’Doherty), “when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep” (Sky News) and “my wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' (Daily Mail) give us the certainty that Mrs Smith addressed Smithman.

“Oh, is she asleep?”, are only four words but their importance is immense.

Firstly, they tell us there was proximity, Smithman wanted to come so close that one of the Smiths felt the impulse to address him.

Secondly, they tell us that Smithman stopped, he did not pass by the second group, made up of Mr and Mrs Smith and 2 of their grandchildren.

Thirdly, they tell us Smithman stopped, and stopped for a significant period of time, allowing Mrs Smith to ask him that question. Mrs Smith started the question with a “Oh”, as if the contact was prolonged in such a way that she felt the need to address that man holding the little girl who just stopped and stood there near them. And they thought he was rude, not because he walked away but because he simply didn’t answer the question while he stood there. Add crucial seconds, please.

Fourthly, they tell us that the Smiths assumed Smithman was not a local man as Mrs Smith addressed him in English.

Fifthly, they tell us that there was a direct vocal interaction between Smithman and the Mrs Smith, reinforcing the idea of proximity and time he stopped to allow talk.

Sixth, they tell us that the child was alive, as held her between him and the Smiths, so they could see her well, and it would be ridiculous for Smithman to do that if the child was dead. 

Seventh, it reinforces the fact that Smithman wished to be seen.

Eight, it clarifies that his heading for the stairs towards A. Smith after crossing with Martin Smith is far from innocent, as the natural reaction would have been to head away from the group, up Rua 25 de Abril.

Ninth, the McCanns not considering this sighting as a very important one, which they didn’t when they gave much more relevance to the Pimpleman sighting than to one in the 2009 Mockumentary means that by then, they knew that this sighting would compromise completely their version of events.

Tenth, by intentionally distorting in this Mockumentary where the crossing had happened and the way the child was being carried (one would never ask a stranger if the girl was asleep if  he was carrying her the Tannerman way but rather ask “is she ok?”), both of which are explained in detail in the various Smith statements in the files (which the McCanns so painstakingly and carefully took so long to translate) they have purposefully misled and obstructed justice. 

4. The Mockumentary alley

With that unnoticed passage in her article, Gemma O’Doherty has helped confirm that the encounter was intentional on Smithman’s part.

However, we have had another person helping with this and very much like with O’Doherty’s article passage, no one noticed his help. We’re talking about Richard Bilton.

But to understand in what way he has helped, we have to go back to the 2009 Mockumentary AKA Channel 4 Documentary “Madeleine was here” and see how it helped mislead in a crucial piece of information, which Bilton helped unravel.

We’re talking about the alley which the Smiths walked through before crossing with Smithman on their way home, that links the Rua 25 de Abril to the opening by Rua da Calheta where the Dolphins restaurant and Kelly’s bar, both used by the Smiths that night, are located.

Under the influence of the Mockumentary (we should have known better) and of a picture from the PJ Files, we erroneously discarded this alley in 2013 and 2014 when we wrote the posts “Intentional - Not debatable fact” and “Speed”.


In the posts mentioned we used the pictures above and as can be seen, we practicallyleft that alley  out. These pictures served as a baseline to illustrate how Smithman, had had plenty of time and opportunities to avoid the encounter in question.

In fact, in our post “Textusa is a liar”, written in 2010, the blog explained why it had disregarded the alley: “I didn’t tell you also that most of the path taken by the Smiths is a stairway. Quite a steep one at that. It’s not clear in aerial the view:”


Please note that in the photo on the right, taken from the PJ Files, there is a man walking up the alley. Apparently quite an irrelevant detail but as we will see later, far from being so.

And please remember these words we then said to describe the alley “most of the path taken by the Smiths”.

5. The myth of the dark Smith alley

This is how the 2009 Mockumentary portrayed that alley:

A dark one. A very dark one.

Together with that PJ File photo, where it seems to be a steep stairway made us assume that the Smiths would only have become visible to Smithman when they entered and started to cross the Rua 25 de Abril (red circle below) and that’s where we made our starting point for our calculations and deductions:

But, as we said, we had the help of Richard Bilton in debunking this in his 10 year anniversary documentary he made for BBC.

Not realising the importance that alley had (and has) for the case, he, unlike the 2009 Mockumentary producers, overlooked the necessity of darkening it and this is what happened:


One can see how it all is visible in the night:

The first myth, that of a dark alley, debunked. Here’s another picture taken also at night:

Anyone walking from there can be seen coming from the Rua da Escola Primária.

And we’re not talking about one person but of 9 people in 3 separate groups led by a pregnant woman feeling ill and walking slowly uphill.

Could the steepness of the stairs have hidden the Smiths, and they would only be visible when they reached the top of the stairs of the alley?

6. The myth of the steep Smith alley

I have been in Praia da Luz twice now. Once with the team in 2016, after which we wrote the “Praia da Luz” post and last year together with a friend.

In 2016 one of the places we walked was exactly the route Smithman walked in the Rua da Escola Primária and through the alley (repeated this with friend in 2017):

We saw immediately that the blog’s assessment of that alley, which we will call it the Smith alley, was completely and totally wrong.

The alley is far from being steep:

Seen from the other side:

Basically, it has 4 sets of steps:

The first with 3 steps, then 4, further down, 2 and then 7 steps after which one is at the same level as the Dolphins/Kelly's bar area from which the Smiths came from.

The second myth, that of a steep alley, debunked.

7. Line-of-sight

So, the correct drawing that we should have used in our posts would have to have been the one above. One taking into consideration the Smith Alley

One must remember that as from Rua Ema V Alvernaz, the Rua da Escola Primária is downhill all the way to Rua 25 de Abril, where the entrance of the Smith alley is located. This compensates the inclination of the steps in the alley itself.

As can be seen, a person standing at the T-crossing of Rua da Escola Primária with Rua Ema V Alevernaz, can see another person inside the alley with the exception of the area, a “blind spot” below:

8. Visibility

As shown, a person walking in that alley is visible from someone standing on top of the uphill of Rua da Escola Primária, with the exception of that blind spot, before and after it.

By using Google Maps, one can see above that there's an unobstructed view from the Rua da Escola Primária all the way down the alley into the Dolphins/Kelly’s area.

Again, with Google Maps, if one positions oneself in Rua da Escola Primária one can see the following:

What is interesting in this image is what one can see from there, all the way down the Smith alley:

From up the Rua da Escola Primária, Smithman one can the phone booth.

We have used Google Maps up to now but we as we said, we have personal experience. We walked the walk and saw what Smithman would be able to see and what he couldn’t.

And we confirm, my friend does as well, that one can see from the top of the uphill of the Rua da Escola Primária people crossing Rua da Calheta (double yellow arrow below):

One can’t if the people passing by the Rua da Calheta were men or women, as the angle was too narrow and the people crossing were quite far. But we could see people walking on that street passing by from where we were.

That means that Smithman could see clearly, with the exception of the blind spot, the Smiths when they were in the Smith alley.

Above on the left is a photo taken by my friend during my visit to Luz last year.

As can be seen, she captured 2 people in the Smith alley walking away from us and 2 people on the other side of the street about where Smithman crossed with Martin Smith and his wife.

The red circle represents where Smithman crossed with the first group, Peter Smith and his pregnant and feeling ill, slow uphill walking wife. In fact, if my friend started to walk down the street after taking this picture, it would be likely that s/he would have crossed very near, if not on it, the spot Smithman crossed with Peter and his wife with that couple seen walking up. The couple is going uphill, friend would be going downhill.

The purple that can be seen on the background is a bougainvillea across the street in the Rua da Calheta. The one where we could see people crossing but couldn't tell from which gender. Like we said, people walking in that street could be seen from where we were standing.

People walking in the alley would certainly not go unnoticed by Smithman.

Above, photos from inside the alley. Photo A on the right was taken from what we have called the “blind spot” and photo B was from where we say that Smithman could start to see Peter Smith and his wife in the alley, assuming they walked in front of the group there as well.

There’s no question that the Smiths while in the alley were perfectly visible to Smithman.

Long before he crossed with them, Smithman could see the Smiths inside the alley.

9. The ambush

We can say with absolute certainty, even considering the “blind spot” inside the alley, which we should,  that on the night of May 3 2007, Smithman was able to see Peter Smith and his wife as early as this inside the Smith alley:

This in turn proves what we wanted to show in this post: it shows that for Smithman to have crossed with Peter Smith in the ‘Smith 1’ location  - we repeat that his wife was pregnant, feeling ill and walking slowly and uphill - he had to have waited. He had to have waited and ambushed them.

Smithman saw the Smiths in the Smith alley. That gave him plenty of time to think and react.

We would speculate saying that he probably hid in the Unnamed Street but it could be somewhere else. Fact is that he had to have waited.

And only when Peter Smith and wife were inside the Rua da Escola Primária did he appear and walk down.

Add to this, that fact that Gemma O’Doherty’s article brought back to the surface of the Smiths questioning Smithman, then all becomes clear: not only did he ambush the family as he sought their engagement. No one with a dead or abducted child would do that.

10. The e-fits and their importance

We have little to add to what we have said about the reply Mr Bennett got to his FOI concerning the e-fits.

The reply he received: “These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.”

To this, we said this:

Textusa 1 Apr 2018, 12:37:00

Anonymous 1 Apr 2018, 11:18:00,

We are VERY encouraged by OG not using the e fits in an appeal.

Our view is that e-fits no longer used after Crimewatch as to do so would suggest there is still a man out there who is unidentified and asking public to name him - which would be akin to saying they don’t believe Gerry is the man Smiths saw. And putting innocent men in the frame.

And they are saying they are not searching for Maddie any longer.

We read this this way: no need to use the e-fits any longer, the information that they would help get, we already have, thank you.”

The fact that something is no longer being used, it doesn’t mean it’s useless. Far from it. It can mean, as we think is the case, that whatever use they were to have they had, there can be no more information they can provide, and the information they provided will be put to use in the appropriate time.

For example, we started this heading with saying that we had little to add to what we already had said but we deem what we had said before as very important.

Saying something is not any more important to obtain information doesn’t mean the information they have already provided isn’t important. It is.

11. Martin Smith and Insane

In our post “Very important concessions” we said that one of the outcomes of Gemma O’Doherty's article was that Martin Smith was now out-of-bounds.

So it was interesting to watch how Insane felt the need to go out of his way, not once but 7 times it was last checked, to defend Martin Smith against the attacks that are being made against the man by a few members of the CMOMM forum.

Unfortunately these few members are its core nucleus which weakens even further the credibility of this forum already debilitated with Gemma O’Doherty’s article and then completely shattered with that exercise of sending documentation to the Portuguese AG.

The arguments being advanced against the Smiths these few lack both logic and reason and seem to be made more in a desperate attempt to salvage some of the lost reputation than for anything else.

Besides illogical and unreasonable, they are lame and easily rebutted.

For example, anyone interested in the Maddie case can recognise Mr Amaral and state with absolute certainty that any other man is not him. That certainty doesn’t come from any personal relationship with him but simply because he’s now familiar to us. Implying that familiarity represents personal relationship is lame and easily rebutted.

We used Mr Amaral as an example but all of us have people we know who we have never or very seldom spoken to but are able to recognise if asked. Both Martin Smith and Robert Murat own properties in a small village in Portugal and there’s absolutely nothing strange about one saying that he had seen the other before and be able to recognise him if and when asked.

Members in the forum have done a superb job in defending reason against these few members it must be said, so Insane’s job can hardly be qualified anywhere near outstanding or even good. He’s simply echoing the reasonable and logical arguments presented by the forum’s reasonable and logical members.

But he has come to Martin Smith’s defense 7 times, as if to prove how right we were in saying that there’s a before and a after Gemma O’Doherty’s article when it comes to this man.

About this ridiculous debate which has happened around Martin Smith in that forum, we would advise Mr Bennett and his close supporters to be careful with what is said.

If the fact that the Smiths collaborated with the McCann’s detectives in producing the e-fits - as far as we know it was the detectives approaching the family and not the other way around - means that they worked for the McCanns, then the same reasoning must be applied to Mr Bennett and the agreement he signed with the McCanns be considered that he also works for the McCanns.

Just because a person was pressured by the McCanns, like Bennett and Smiths, does that mean the person is working for them? Of course not.

12. Conclusion

No question that the Smith sighting was pursued by Smithman. This rules out him being an abductor or Gerry carrying a lifeless Maddie.

About the state of things, we would only like to repeat here what we said about Operation Grange continuing to be funded:

Textusa 27 Mar 2018, 18:35:00

So that we let our readers know where we stand on this Operation Grange funding.

We expected this funding. As we will expect the next funding in September.

But its publicity was a surprise. We sincerely thought that this time there wouldn’t be news about it. Above the surface things have been quiet (no major news, on newspapers or TV shows, about how Grange was useless) and with things progressing below surface very nicely towards truth (voices have been silenced, other voices have stepped up on their aggressiveness and some reputation cards have been played – as if it’s “now-or-never” time – and these reputations have taken serious blows) we thought Grange would simply continue on its right path.”

The Met has said that they no longer need to appeal to the public about the e-fits and the government has made it clear that it doesn’t mind going against the inflamed mob and will continue funding Operation Grange as long as it thinks it should.

Colin Sutton has come out - he says he hasn’t but has done very little to protest against seeing his name being abused and that tells he’s complacent with the use - protesting against this funding AFTER it was granted.

Sutton’s name was used apparently without his knowledge or authorisation and he does nothing about it. Interesting.

Sutton has the ability to protest when he shouldn’t, by doing so after funding granted is crying over spilt milk as it won’t make the government change its mind about what has been decided and to not protest when he should, when he sees his name being used, supposedly without his authorisation. Amazing.

Can any of the Sutton supporters quote for us where he has said that he refused to head Operation Grange? The nearest he came to saying something similar was to say that he was advised by a friend not to accept in case it was offered. Completely different. Such invitation was never made, or at least Sutton has never said that it was and one does need to be invited for something to refuse doing it.

A lie told a thousand times is easily taken for the truth by the ignorant. It’s up to each one to decide on which side of ignorance one wishes to stand.

Sutton’s voice was simply one that has found the imperative need to be heard at this particular time, and that makes one think that things are evolving quite nicely.

Please also note that this time Sutton no longer appeals for Operation Grange to question the McCanns, nor that it should start all over. This time he just says that it’s a waste of money, so close it.

Will the officers allocated to Grange stop receiving wages when Grange finally closes? We don’t think so. So, where is the money being wasted on? It’s not. Saying so is simply to stoke up the emotions of the, again, ignorant.

We would say that Sade Anslow has summarised best what are the real intents of those seeking with such determination that Operation Grange gets closed because it’s destined to get nowhere, when she summed up Blacksmith’s post the following way:

Sade Anslow * Blacksmith’s exasperation is this - why, after all these years. are people agreeing with the MSM, or think that the MSM is agreeing with us? They have lied, ridiculed and criminally conspired to hinder the investigation from the beginning. Whilst until now the slurs on Grange have been more subliminal, largely overshadowed by “support” for the “search for Maddie”, it appears now that someone is feeling the clock ticking, no room for niceties now. just get it shut down asap.

It's surely obvious - whatever they say, think the exact opposite. The most important part of this post is also beautifully simple - who could possibly want Grange to end? Who, with no care for the money spent or the time taken, could be so desperately afraid of it reaching a conclusion?”

Then after Sutton came the ‘McCanns by Kandhola’ who came out of in defense of Operation Grange and slamming Sutton.

Can the reader think of any better way of giving undue credibility to Sutton than by having the pariah couple speak publicly against him? Maybe only by adding Kerry Needham and “Paul from Wallsend, Tyneside” to the bonfire lit below Grange’s feet to vilify it.

Oh, Kandhola did just that? So transparent.

Add to this that the internet minions are absolutely clueless about what is going on and seeing some of them on seeing their hard-built reputation as antis being irreparably cracked, threatening to leave before they are exposed, one cannot but smile.

Lastly, after Nigel Nessling AKA Vee8 having been sentenced in November last year in an Ipswich court, we now had Karen Rosemary Ormiston, AKA Gwen James" sentenced in a Cardiff court to six months immediate imprisonment and subjected to a lifetime restraining order by the District Judge for the offences of harassment and malicious communications to which she pleaded guilty.

The shields protecting the protectors of the hoax are slowly coming off.

Post Scriptum:

We would like leave to the consideration of readers the sense of humour of some sick individuals:

Not Textusa, has considered funny calling the locations where Maddie's body was signalled by Eddie in apartment 5A as toileting spots:

His words: “The staff were getting wise to Textusa, and had drawn a map of her favourite toileting spots”.

Meercat, thinks it’s funny to compare the child carried by Smithman to some sort of snack:

Do notice who found this to be funny as well by liking this tweet.

(Update: Insane/Not Textusa has given his opinion about Meerkats sense of humour above: “It is funny. Perhaps if you weren't so far up your own arsehole you would appreciate it.”)

And, continuing with Meerkat, this is the picture we have used in this post:

And he decided to change it to this on his tweet:



  1. So is smithman a decoy carried by one of T9 ?....and if tannerman is known to Og....does that mean he wasnt someone we are familliar with?


    1. Bampots,

      Not following your question.

      Smithman, in our opinion, was Gerry carrying a decoy child, most likely Jane Tanner's daughter.

    2. What a crazy (and arrogant) risk Gerry took - but it seems like they got away with it. So far...!

    3. Bampots,

      Have inserted picture in post so hopefully things will be clearer.

    4. Anonymous 6 Apr 2018, 12:26:00,

      No risk whatsoever. Gerry has no distinct physical features, so describing him is to describe an average man. And Gerry had a solid alibi, he was allegedly seen by the Tapas staff at Tapas at the time.

      So, even if Martin Smith described him to a tee, it couldn't have, allegedly be him. And he made took all steps to avoid being himslef recognised by putting the girl between him and the Smiths he stopped by.

      Martin Smith saying then that it was Gerry would be taken by the police in much the same was Yvonne Martin's statement was taken when wiggling an accusation against Payne: ignored. They both had solid alibis.

      Things went South when the dogs came and when the first forensics arrived. But that was something impossible to know when the decision to make the decoy run was taken.

      Martin Smith remembering Gerry before he was made an arguido eould be completely different from recognising him after.

      In one case, he would be an average man, just like Gerry, who had had just abducted Maddie and in the other he would be... Gerry.

    5. I posted above on the go.....i wanted to infer Gerry as the OG statement they know who it was..... the quetion is do they think the same i wonder ?

    6. Bampots,

      That was our assessment and the reason why we were encouraged by what we read :)

  2. I still think Gerry was carrying Madeleine's corpse away from apt 5a and not a decoy child. Gerry waiting to be seen sounds absurd to me.

    1. Anonymous 6 Apr 2018, 12:35:00,

      Respect your opinion but could you please tell us where our reasoning is flawed?

  3. I've often surmised that the "original" plan would be an "abduction" alarm at 9.30pm and thus Tannerman was suitably timed.
    When Gerry met Jez, and Jez stated he never saw Jane (because her walk and sighting never happened), a big spanner had been thrown that required a revised plan.
    Thus an "abduction" alarm at 10pm was agreed and this required another "abductor sighting". Thus Smithman was born.
    It wasn't Gerry and it certainly wasn't Madeleine (her body elsewhere) as, if accosted, whoever it was carrying a (sedated ?) child could simply say she was sleeping, needed some air or some other excuse.
    Feasible ?

    1. Unknown,

      Disagree with you in the following:

      We think the Tannerman is a real sighting. Like Smithman, he was Gerry and this time he was carrying Maddie, a dead Maddie.

      We think the alarm was going to be set around midnight. When they would "return" to their apartments after having been rowdy, noisy and noticed at Tapas. The alarm at 22:00 was earlier than planned.

      Your last paragraph is absolutely correct in our opinion.

    2. I also think that Tannerman was a genuine sighting, imo Jane wouldn't have invented the cradling way of carrying the child.
      But I reckon an important point that is always ignored. Jane's narrative in the 3/4 night is very different from what she told the following day : Tannerman wasn't crossing at the junction, Jane wasn't walking up FGM. Even if there's some lost in translation, there was no comment about her passing by chatting GMC and JW.

    3. Perhaps I need guiding to another of your posts but why would Gerry risk being identified as the "abductor" in both Tannerman and Smithman scenarios ? I accept that he comes across as brazen and arrogant but stoopid also ?

    4. Anne Guedes,

      We believe she did see a man and described him truthfully, as she maintained she did.

      But she didn’t see him at the time she claimed.

      Nor was he unknown to her.

    5. DE F,

      Why would G take the risk of being seen?

      Because without an outsider reporting a sighting, the only witness to an “abductor” is Jane. How strange would that seem? No physical evidence of a break-in and one of the group the only witness.

      Of course it was a risk, but what choice did he have? The only thing he could do was try to ensure he had an alibi for the precise time of the sighting. A man who looked like him but wasn’t.

      Now, can you please tell us what is “stoopid” about that?

      He could have acted like the real abductor and on seeing the Smiths he could have turned around and ran. Or he could have veered noticeably towards one of the many possibilities he had to escape the encounter. But he didn’t.

      And that’s another thing that tells us the encounter was intentional: he had to make sure he had been seen and that assurance could only come if he contacted the “independent” witnesses who would materialise the abductor.

      Imagine Smithman turned, even ran away from the Smiths. In the front group, Peter could be talking to his wife about how she was feeling, encouraging her in continuing the walk back to their apartment or they could be talking politics, football or knitting, something that would have their attention then and no one would have seen that man running away.

      Note, they could BUT they also could not. Smithman had no way to know if they did or didn’t if he didn’t contact them and the only way to get that certainty was to walk into them. Even doing that, as it was proved, it wasn’t enough to make the family come forward to the police the next day.

      Question can be made about him stopping by Martin Smith and his wife. That is an assessment made by Smithman in the moment. It wasn’t planned. But having the girl between him and the Smiths mad him feel comfortable they couldn’t see him well, so he let that moment prolong as much as possible, making sure that they saw that he was a man carrying a young 4 yr old blonde girl.

    6. DE F,

      Posts on Smithman:

    7. I don't think she saw him at the time she said either. Up to there we seem to agree, though I fail to understand why her first narratives were discarded.
      About Jane knowing who was Tannerman, I guess we disagree, though I agree she knew.. Actually I think unconsciously she rejected what her eyes were telling her, because it was too much to bear.
      Jane didn't like GMC, but she attempted to fight that antipathy, especially because of the drama. It could be the reason why she made so many efforts to be convenient. It might be why the unfairness of GMC mocking her in the pseudo reconstruction made her cry.

    8. Am I right in remembering from one of Gerry's early blogs that he actually appealed for any information that could be provided by an Irish family, on the grounds that there were many Irish expats in PdL who might have been near the Irish themed pub at the right time? Evidently the Smiths didn't report the encounter as soon as he was expecting. That to me is proof, if any more were needed, that he intended them to see a man carrying a Maddie lookalike at the right time and to report it.

    9. Anonymous 19:01, you likely refer to 9.06.2007 entry in GMC's blog where he asks the Irish tourists for pictures etc.. Have you noticed that it was 3 days after the Drogheda Independent published the article about "meeting Smithman" ?
      Why appealing only to the Irish public ?

  4. Perhaps the reason for not replying to Mrs Smiths question was his broad Scottish accent, that would have been easily recognised.

    1. Hi anon 12.46,just as similar to the "Dossier" handed over to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,suicide,Death of Mrs Brenda Leyland who had to be exposed as a"Troll"(Anti McCann),Lake side woman had her voice disguised,Was she Scottish on the video?
      Thought to be sister of a family member,with rather large ankles?
      All part of the plan to escape from justice?

    InEz ShOoTa!@CaroleShooter
    This isn't just about the #mccann family, this is about plain old justice and a test of whether it still exists for children in this country.
    11:05 am · 6 Apr 2018

    Inez doesn’t like us – or at least in the past hasn’t.

    We respect and understand her dislike because we’ve understood it comes from a genuine concern against the suffering of the victims of paedophilia.

    We have found absolutely no reason to put her in the same basket as K9 and his 3 friends (one pretending to be 2 after time and time again being proven that he couldn’t pull the act off) who use paedophilia to engage emotionally people like Inez who are genuinely concerned with that heinous crime.

    That said, and irrelevant of Inez’s dislike for us, we fully subscribe what she has said above.

  6. Insane’s response to this post on Twitter:

    “I put the latest tExTUsa war and peace through The Starship Enterprise Universal Translator... #mccann:

    "Oh, is she asleep?", are only four words, but three and five are right out.
    Firstly they tell us she she already knew the gender of the child.

    Secondly, Smithman must have stopped because no one has ever talked to a moving person before, have they?

    Thirdly, whilst everyone kept moving, the huge sentence comprising "oh" would have taken at least a protracted time of an hour or so to articulate, which somehow equates with standing still like a statue, as if he couldn't walk and talk at the same time.

    Fourthly, they tell us that the Smiths assumed Smithman was not a local man as Mrs Smith addressed him in English even though the English/lrish abroad always address everyone in English, not being fluent in Portuguese.
    Fifthly, they tell us that there was a direct vocal interaction between Smithman and the Mrs Smith, reinforcing the idea that one had a mouth and the other ears.

    Sixth, they tell us that the child was alive, as held her between him and the Smiths, so they could see her well, and it would be ridiculous for Smithman to do that if the child was dead...

    Or alive. What was he supposed to be doing? Selling children off a tray like a cinema usherette?

    Seventh, it reinforces the fact that Smithman wished to be seen, in our strangely configured minds, ruling out serendipity, chance, likelihood, odds, inability of people to invoke a Klingon cloaking device

    There is an 8th, 9th and 10th but we realise by now most of you will be either: fast asleep, in a coma, laughing like drains, uttering oaths similar to "You must be feckin' mad!" , "What a load of shit!" etc.


    Insane can huff, puff and blow himself away saying he has no Twitter presence.

    All people have now to do is just check with who this tweeter mainly interacts with.

    1. Interesting he felt the need to darken Gerry out of the picture we put in post:


      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
      Replying to @2for1Tickets
      You're so cruel. You only wrote that summary of her wildly speculative deductions because you knew that she'd write it all out again. As she has done. (Maybe she has OCR software?) Also, why is the poor woman so obsessed with Insane? #McCann
      8:59 am - 6 Apr 2018

      A slight correction, we’re not asking readers to note with whom Insane interacts with, but most importantly with who he has.

      K9 is a minion. A minor minion.

  7. About G taking a risk
    What about those like anon 12:35 who believe he carried a dead M?
    Now that would have been a HUGE risk.

    1. Anonymous 16:38, why do you think it would have been a huge risk ?
      Do you know whether the observer of a motionless child carried by an adult in a normal way, at night in a badly lighted street, in a distance of 2/3m and without being able to see the face, could discriminate between deeply asleep, in a coma or dead ?

    2. Anne Guedes,

      Not wanting to in any way interfere with Anonymous 6 Apr 2018, 16:38:00 reply if s/he wishes to do so, we would recommend the reading of this post:

      The head of the human being is heavy. When dead, without the collaboration of the neck muscles, the risk of it bobbing out of control would be enormous.

      Not to say that a lifeless body/face, looks quite different from a person in coma (still alive, blood flowing) and asleep.

    3. Anne,

      I'm 16:38.
      It was about carrying a dead body.

      I suggest looking at photos of people carrying a dead person.
      I don’t want to provide links as it’s rather distasteful to use on a blog but there are images on shutter stock and other sites, then decide for yourself if you think it likely a person would carry a dead child in this manner.
      If one believes the dogs were correct in their indications and if one accepts that a body would have needed to remain in the same spot for around 90 minutes, then G would be carrying a child who had not just died around 10pm, but a child who had died hours earlier. Would that same child have looked and responded physically to being carried in the same way as a living, if sleeping child?
      It depends on whether the parameters set out here are accepted or not. If one rejects the indications of the dogs or the time needed for an odour to be detected, then one could argue Gerry/ Smithman carried a living child.
      If the parameters are accepted, then one has to decide on balance of probability, whether carrying a dead child in this position is feasible

    4. Textusa, you're right about the head "without the collaboration of the neck muscles" (3yrs old's head isn't that heavy though).
      I excluded the face, though one of the S family noted pale skin, which, not being a feature of MMC, was likely a step in the post-mortem process.
      Anonymous 16:38, the argument for deciding that the motionless child was dead (and not in a coma since some muscular tension remains) is mentioned by Textusa above : totally inexistent muscular tension. But the observer wouldn't note it. At least directly or would be aware of it.
      Who would feel this is the carrier, having to defy alone the gravity pulling down the carried body. That uneasiness would be noted by a good observer.
      I believe the dogs were right, but careful before generalizing the 85' that a certain dog managed to achieved in certain conditions (better than the 5A ones). It is wiser to stick to average 150/180'PI.

    5. Anne,

      Me again.
      I would say M did have pale skin, but the theory is that she wasn’t the child carried by G/ Smithman. The complexion of the child carried is, therefore, unknown.
      If the more conservative timings are used, then even more reason to say if the child carried had been M, she had been dead for a considerable time before being carried.

    6. Sorry to butt in such a interesting debate (thank you both) but would just like to clarify/correct/be corrected on something Anne Guedes has said: "3yrs old's head isn't that heavy though".

      No, it's not but proportionally to the body it's much bigger than an adult's head is to its body so more likely to move without control.

    7. Anne you question who did efits
      According to Adrian Gatton on twitter, who published links to efits with dates , Martin Smith efit was thinner-faced man and Peter, fuller-faced man, with both dated Sept 4th 2008.
      This suggests that Martin may have had side view and Peter a facing view of the man.

    8. Supposing that the child carried by Smithman was MMC (I can't find any reason not to believe that), as the pale complexion was noted in a scarce light and as MMC doesn't look especially pale on the tennis balls photo, I tend to think that the PI was at least 4 hours.
      Textusa, I see what you mean, but apart from that some adults are very tall with proportionally little head while some are small with a big head.
      If you look at the picture in the Midlands airport, when GMC is on the top step, he holds his (sleeping, but like a log) son's close to the neck, which he doesn't do once on the ground. It might have been that hand gesture that boosted MS's memory.

      Anonymous 22:17, MS had a side view of Smithman, yes, whereas PS saw him pass from his right to his left, but I'm not convinced that MS oriented those e-fits. He refused to do it when asked by Brian Kennedy. Why would he agree to do it for Henri Exton ?

    9. Anne Guedes,

      You say "Supposing that the child carried by Smithman was MMC (I can't find any reason not to believe that", the Jez Wilkins/Gerry McCann encounter gives you reason not to.

      The traces of cadaver odour in the backyard can only be explained because the body was placed in the flowerbed because the approaching of Jez was detected in time. In that situation, Gerry decided to hide the body and go outside and pretend he was just checking. He could not risk to be seen carrying a dead child.

      He decides that at 21:15 because of one person but then decides to risk all against 9 people, who he has seen coming from a distance, 45 minutes later?

    10. Basically I agree with you, Textusa. But the scent in the flowerbed could be explained slightly differently. The scent on the veranda, just in front of the parents' bedroom has also to be taken into account.
      Smithman, still on the veranda and hearing the sound of JW's pushchair, leaves the body there and goes out to meet JW. He knows he has to postpone. After JW is gone, he takes the body and disposes of it transitorily. Rain would explain that some of the scent (on the veranda) emigrated to the flowerbed, just below.
      The child carried by Smithman had no signs of having been laid in a flowerbed.

    11. Anne Guedes,

      The fact that the child carried by Smithman had no signs of having been laid in a flowerbed is just one more indication that she wasn't Maddie.

    12. I was expecting that comment, Textusa ;)
      You'll have to admit that the body could have been temporary laid on the clean veranda tiles.

    Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
    Replying to @umweltbuerger
    Which "antis" are threatening to leave? #McCann
    2:08 AM - 6 Apr 2018
    Mari Welzel‏ @umweltbuerger
    Mari Welzel Retweeted Canine Truth
    Hoping to follow up, I don't know any 'minions' who want to leave. Give us a hint, Textusa :) #mccann
    3:09 am - 6 Apr 2018

    Thank you for your support!

    However, we prefer not to answer who has expressed, in our opinion, the desire to abandon case.

    For some reason we wrote “Add to this that the internet minions are absolutely clueless about what is going on” and we would like to keep things that way.

    Let people become self-conscious. Those with clear consciences have nothing to fear, those with guilty ones, do.

    However, we might be tempted to answer that but only AFTER we see a reply from K9 about the Gaspar statements and about why he’s spreading that Sutton has refused to head Operation Grange when the man never has.

    K9 is one of those people who demands things from others but fails to provide them when asked.

    We are patient. We will wait.

    1. Hello Textusa

      Great to read your reply !

      I don't mind at all that you are not disclosing any names, it is all good. It is all the more delightful when the time comes :)

      I wonder if K9 is in a pickle ?

      Loving the posts and the continuation in the Comments.

      Kind Regards

  9. Do readers remember how Walkercan1000 insisted that Gemma O’Doherty never spoke to Mr Smith?

    Now, it’s Insane – who hollers he has never had a Twitter presence – calling Gemma O’Doherty a liar, this time in his blog:

    “Utter bollocks. One - the interaction [between Smithman and the Smiths] never happened, it was made up by a journalist.”

    A coincidence? We would say NOT.

    Oh, and Insane, are you sure you want to quote something from the files in which Mr Smith on January 2008 – a statement when he heavily pressured by whomever to be silent about the sighting – is contradicted by the freed 2018 Mr Smith?

    “He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor’s fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.”

    You are either calling Gemma O’Doherty a liar or Mr Smith. Which is it?

    We say 2018 Mr Smith, Jan 03 2008 Mr Smith and Gemma O’Doherty are telling the truth (and so did Sky News and the Daily Mail) and Jan 30 2008 Mr Smith was pressured to say the above. What say you?

    1. When Smith made that denial about photofits in Jan 2008, he hadn’t yet made photofits for Oakley as they are dated 4/9/08. His and Peter’s.
      He didn’t make any for the PJ as I understand, so his denial about that could be accurate.
      Why were Sky and newspapers quoting him if it wasn’t true. It wasn’t said by a source on behalf of family. Was that when pressure was applied? Possibly when Kennedy visited him?
      Did Gemma discuss with him what she intended to write? If so, Smith had the opportunity to clarify that the family never described talking to the man they encountered and that press reports were fabricated.
      Only Smith or Gemma can confirm or deny what passed between them.
      Smith doesn’t seem to have contradicted Gemma’s account. Surely he would have contacted her if she was repeating what other papers had been required to retract?
      And being the truthful journalist that she prides herself to be, she would, by now, have apologised for her error.

    2. I think like you, Anonymous 19/53, that MS would have refuted Gemma's words, hadn't she told the truth.
      It is uncertain who exactly helped constructing the 2 famous e-fits. There are good reasons, imo, to think that neither Martin, Mary nor Aoife did it. My feeling is that Peter and his wife provided the features' indications. As one was sick and the other worried with her being sick, it's not amazing that the e-fits aren't very expressive.

  10. Interesting tweet:
    Teddy‏ @TeddyShepherd
    Replying to @2for1Tickets @K9Truth
    Don't read [our blog] it's endless. Sex Prudery tag on my blog. Invariably focusing on Ameriki. Could this be a clue? #McCann …
    10:23 am - 6 Apr 2018

    Before we do some research on this, we would like to clarify something that has baffled us:

    Prudery? America is a bit like that (publicly) but we are the blog that defends swingers’ rights to do what they do without condemnation!

    And to clarify things somewhat right away:
    Teddy‏ @TeddyShepherd
    Replying to @veniviedivici @K9Truth
    But that is still not enough reason reason for the immediate and overriding involvement of dot gov. Madeleine, IMO, was pimped out by her parents for sexual abuse to someone of high Gov status who killed the girl one way or another. #McCann
    3:41 pm - 15 Mar 2018

    1. Are the pedo pushers expecting us to believe that swinging should be ruled out on their say so? Really? Maybe just maybe a government minister cabinet member was actually there swinging as well and that's why there was so much help sent so quickly. I know I may be wrong but at least its more feasible than the paedophiles did it that the public is constantly being drip fed.

    So K9 believes in the Wayback machine?? Or taking everyone back down that blind alley?

    1. Anonymous 6 Apr 2018, 23:47:00,

      Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog:

      "Canine Truth@K9Truth
      Replying to @TeddyShepherd, @leicspolice, and @metpoliceuk
      Whistleblowers could come from a variety of sources - (ex-)employees of Glenfield Hospital, local Freemasons, tech staff at CEOP/Wayback Machine, journalists etc.
      8:18 pm · 5 Apr 2018"

  12. Theres a copper or two spare, allegedly looking into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Cressida dear.

    "Scotland Yard admitted yesterday it had run out of detectives to investigate"

    Read more:

    1. Anonymous, 7 Apr 2018, 08:18:00,

      No, there are no coppers to spare. As the media has shown, the officers allocated to Operation Grange have been assigned other cases to work on.

      In fact, we doubt they spend a single minute on this case these days. They have all in "go" and "archive" folders, which are sitting on some desk waiting to be told which one is to be used.

  13. Hi Textusa,have you ever considered the possibility that Tannerman was Tanner herself,she saw GM and JW(which from her statement she admits to) but wasn't sure if JW saw her,hence the need for Smithman to muddy the waters.

    1. Anonymous7 Apr 2018, 08:23:00

      Between us we have considered and discussed the possibility of having been Tanner who carried Maddie to Murat’s property.

      We have decided against it because the description seems to us made by someone who has seen the person carrying Maddie in that odd manner rather than being the one doing the carrying.

      One of the reasons, if not the main one, we think Tanner describes all so accurately is that they hoped someone from some window would have seen Gerry and would be an independent witness corroborating her sighting. If it had been her, then that eventual witness would contradict her in case it was her and she had described a man.

      Then, it makes no sense for her to carry Maddie’s corpse, not her child and then come back and have Gerry carry her daughter in the opposite direction out of the apartment towards Rua da Escola Primária.

      We think what happened is that she made a Freudian slip because as her mother, she would normally be the person to carry her and not Gerry who did.

      Also, she could be meaning something that was etched in her memory, as she could have been the person who carried Maddie inside the apartment 5A from where she lay, to where she was cleaned and then to the closet.

    2. Understandable conclusion but its the non sighting of JT by GM or JW yet JT see's them,that knaws away,one or the other didn't occur.

    3. Anonymous 7 Apr 2018, 13:38:00,

      If Tanner was inside the apartment and looking through the windows to the street as we think she was, she would have seen the Jez/Gerry encounter and able to describe it, and not be seen by Jez or Gerry.

    4. Well, but why Gerry didn't tell that he had seen Jane then?

    5. "If Tanner was inside the appartment and looking through the windows to the street as we think she was".
      Which appartment ? The MCs' ?

    6. Anon @ 14:45.
      He didn't see JT or rather he couldn't be seen to be seeing JT,I beleive theres a possibility she was Tannerman having snuck out the front door,GM had to keep JW from seeing JT imo.
      Textusa what would be the point of JT being point in the building?

    7. AnneGuedes 8 Apr 2018, 02:30:00,

      Yes. We believe that Jane and Gerry stayed behind in the apartment while the rest of the group pretended to go have dinner at Tapas (hard to tell apart a group of 7 from a group of 9 if one is not paying close attention).

      We believe G took M's body to Murta's property, while Jane stayed inside. His trip was interrupted by Jez. She saw the whole thing from inside the apartment and reason why she confirmed the location of the encounter of G and Jez.

    8. How do you explain that GMC told Victor Martins that "at about 21.20, as his friend Jane passed close to the apartment (in the corridor along the front of the building), she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers." Staying in the corridor, Jane couldn't see FGM, only AdS street.
      In spite of being hearsay and in spite of possible lost in translation, the fact is that Jane, in her first description of Tannerman, didn't mention passing by GMC and JW standing near the patio gate.

    9. Anne Guedes,

      The passage you refer to is:

      “At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers.”

      In Portuguese:

      “Pelas 21H20, a amiga JANE passou junto ao apartmento (no corredor da fachada principal), viu um individuo com uma criança ao colo a passar no sentido descendente da via pública, no entanto, não reconheceu esse indivíduo, nem a criança, tendo apenas reparado que esse indivíduo aparentava ter entre os 30 e 40 anos, cabelo escuro e trajava calças claras.”

      The question here is more what is meant by “fachada principal” in these words. Technically it’s the side of the house where the front door, or entrance is. In the project drawings also known as “alçado principal” which would place her in the street, Rua Agostinho da Silva (AdS) and supposedly to have been able to see Tannerman, crossed with him.

      We believe this was an unfortunate choice of words by the inspector, putting down on paper what he thought to be the most visible side of the apartment, the one facing Rua Prof Dr Francisco Gentil Martins (FGM) where we believe she was only inside the apartment, in the living-room, and not outside.

      It’s factual she doesn’t mention initially Jez. Otherwise the PJ would have heard him specifically that night.

      In neither timeline presented is Jez mentioned

      So, we can only assume that the meeting with Jez, which had almost caught Gerry red-handed with a dead Maddie on his hands, was only later seen as a confirmation by an independent witness of the checking system and so was brought forward.

      What was overlooked was that Tanner seeing Tannerman had to be adapted to this. And led to the blunder we now know.

      If she was to invent a man she didn’t really see, would she have invented, or see be invented for her, a set of circumstances where the meeting between Jez and Gerry having happened without any conflict with her sighting?

      The problem is that the sighting happened AFTER this meeting (which it did) and without Jez no longer on that street it would mean that Gerry wouldn’t be equally there, so would have to be at Tapas or just coming back (to the storytellers, now they can see how things could have been done correctly) but the storyline was that Gerry was still out when Jane left Tapas and so such a messed up story ended up being the official one.

    10. I reckon that the report isn't clear, but there's only one corridor and it goes along the north façade of the building. From this corridor one can spot only AdS, certainly not FGM.
      Apart from that you admit that Jane made no reference to passing by chatting GMC and JW. Had she this in mind she would have questioned GMC about him spotting also Tannerman, wouldn't she ?
      You may be right, Textusa, but it is speculation.
      I only observe that Jane's story telling changed hugely between the night and the following day, not implying she built it all up (I'm convinced she saw Smithman, a terrible issue for a lady who feared to be abducted by the Spanish police). Imo this fact should be taken as much into account as GMC's storytelling of "everything open" changed into "everything closed". These are the details that made Lee Rainbow advise to follow the lead of the parents.. which wasn't politically correct.

  14. And guess who subscribes with Sutton, K9 and Teddy that Operation Grange is a waste of money?

    We have said this in the blog: "Will the officers allocated to Grange stop receiving wages when Grange finally closes? We don’t think so. So, where is the money being wasted on? It’s not. Saying so is simply to stoke up the emotions of the, again, ignorant."

    And Insane replies: "Cobblers. Police numbers are being cut across the country yet they find ludicrous sums to fund this farce"

  15. We inform readers that we have added a Post Scriptum to this post, about Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000-now-Meercat sense of humour and the respect he has for Maddie McCann-

  16. I just wonder why Mrs Smith spoke to a man '' who didn't look like a tourist'' in English. Surely she knew the odd word of Portuguese?

    1. That was a rhetorical question, wasn'it ?

    2. If you had been in PdL, Anonymous 8:50, you'd observe that, in the streets, portuguese people spontaneously talk to you in English, even if you don't look like a tourist and, when questioned in Portuguese, answer you in English.

    3. Well thanks for clearing that one up. It was a genuine question . I've never been to PDL and it was decent of you to answer my question without sarcasm or abuse. Thank you AG.

    4. You're very welcome, Anonymous 8:50/18:48, this was my experience, rather unexpected, after 24 hours spent in PdL.
      In these not well lightened villages, when you cross someone at night, usually you say something, anything, just in order to show you're friendly. What counts is the intonation of your voice.

    Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
    Just politely messaged Textusa to let her know she is falsely accusing others of being this "Insane" character they're obsessed with, and got a boat load of abuse. Have your little know-it-all fit mate, but if you don't correct your mis-info, then you're knowingly lying. #McCann
    9:31 am - 7 Apr 2018

    We never reveal private conversations even to defend ourselves as it’s a fundamental principle of PMs is that they are private.


  18. Your ego is so massively over inflated that you refuse to admit you're wrong - instead opting to tell me I "know fuck all". Only I do know Text, as do many others. I messaged you with a perfectly polite PM, and you acted like a complete diva. All hail Textusa and their superior mind. I know the person who owns the Meerkat account, personally. They're not Michael Walker, yet you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, because it would cast doubt on your other 'outings' of Michael Walker.

    It's a pity your aims are to promote yourself as the all seeing, all knowing, almighty, far outweigh your aim to present the truth.

    Still, what would a mere peasant like myself know, as you so eloquently put it - "fuck all".

    Confused‏ @bitconfused90
    Replying to @TheBunnyReturns
    Whos insane ment to be. I read that blog awhile back but couldnt understand it
    1:11 pm - 7 Apr 2018
    Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
    Replying to @bitconfused90
    I'm not 100% sure - Textusa claims it's Michael Wright, who they say is also Walker/NotTextusa and just about anyone they can think of. What I do know, is that contrary to their claims, none of those people are the Meerkat account.
    1:21 pm - 7 Apr 2018

    To be very clear, we have never claimed in the blog or on FB that Insane/Walkercan1000/NotTextusa is Michael Wright.

    We do not reveal personal details of people who are not in the PJ Files or that have not given their names to the media to use them in the case.

    Even if we thought he was Mr Wright, and we're not saying we do or we don't, we would never take the initiative to reveal that.

    We may have, because we have seen in on Twitter, his name being mentioned and associated to NotTextusa/Walkercan1000 and we may have reproduced such tweets here but then it was to preserve the integrity of what was said in those tweets, the responsibility of that association being of those who made it in them.

  20. You did claim that the Meerkat account was "Insane" "NotTextusa" and "Michael Walker" though. I contacted you privately and politely to let you know that wasn't true. Included in your patronising response was "you know fuck all".

    You also told me once that Tigger was "Insane" "Walker" and "Not Textusa" as well - that was also absolutely wrong. I've spoken to Tigger as well, and they're not these people either. I assume you were confusing Tigger, with Tiger Loaf, who was the pro McCann - Paul Castello, a close friend of George Madden. Madden has, in the past, boasted of having 15 twitter accounts. If you're looking for suspects, then despite me knowing "fuck all" you might want to start there, and perhaps also look at conversations between Madden and "Wahootie"

    Sorry for not falling in line and being a humble sheep, but I'm not one for worshipping others blindly. I've supported you for years, but if you're wrong am I just to sit, nod, and say "Superb piece" to everything you write? Not going to happen. I shall leave it there, and give you the last word.

    Take care.

    1. Pseudo Nym,

      WRIGHT. W-R-I-G-H-T. Not Walker. We have stated many times we believe Insane and Walkercan1000 (Michael Walker) are one and the same.

      You stated we claimed he was Michael Wright.

      By the way, please quote us where we have said that Tigger was Insane.

      What you offered/proposed/said and what I answered and why is private so we, as we said, won't comment.

    2. Apologies, you said they supported Not Textusa and Walkercan - which is untrue.

      I can admit when I'm wrong, can you?

      Reply away mate, you won't get another response from me. I shall leave you in your little bubble of always being right, and others knowing "fuck all".

    3. Pseudo Nym,

      These are the contributions of Tigger to Not Textusa’s blog:

      tigger18 June 2015 at 11:00
      I don't believe for a moment that M's body was ever at the Murat's. Or that there was swinging, I've been told pampas grass features in this activity. I've no idea how.

      I would expect the mattress, not the bedding which would have been changed several times, to retain some odour, in line with the carpet tile experiment as quoted by you. (Will read it..soon) .

      I thought the blood under the tiles - I'd have to go back and look - was definitely in the Portuguese report. I know that none of the traces found could be analysed.

      Not on topic, but how do you feel about Dr. gerry's take on DNA? In the Swedish interview he says: 'of course there was DNA from Madeleine in the car, because both our DNA was there!'
      Would I be right in calling it the 'smartie ' theory of DNA? Not an allele in sight?

      Yes Vogel... I did it for archaeological sciences then wisely chose metallurgy..after getting some very strange results from tests. Fun bit on DNA: analysed by US archaeologist having found it on very early stone tools - turned out to be their own.

      tigger18 June 2015 at 00:11
      I read with considerable pleasure. very instructive. Will have a look at the paper. Organic chemistry not my forte and got rid of my Vogel soon after exams.. Mu tutor analysed 3000 yr old residues in 'poppy' jars, found they contained opium.

      Only one thing, iirc blood was found under the tiles behind the sofa, but too degraded to type.(bleach?). The pattern of the bloodspray on the wall and curtains would be consistent with resuscitation attempt.

      No reaction to bed on which Cuddlecat and pink blanket rested makes it likely that Cuddlecat was contaminated after 10pm 3/5/07. Which is interesting. But thanks to Textusa that is easily solved as it may well be one of the places where the dog did not alert for the same reason it did not alert in Murat's property or all those other places the dog did not alert plus all the ones it didn't even check out. Yep! Narrowed it down to planet earth.

      tigger24 June 2015 at 10:35
      It is clearly a CF (coded reference) to the POB (place of burial),- of what we do not know , the bottom line needs to be decoded, possibly dipped in lemon juice and we will have the solution. The right hand leaf is a cunningly hidden pointer, (nearly an arrow) so once decoded the drawing needs to be laid on the map and right where the point of the RHL (right hand leaf) is whatever we're looking for.
      The word so cunningly hidden at the bottom looks like Fottas and why that sinister floating leaf? We all know that.. ..
      Head falls on chest... fattos, Fatwa, sickle at the end ...zzzzzzz


    4. (Cont)

      tigger8 July 2015 at 05:29
      Gosh! Maddie was killed in the UK, body brought to Luz - let's discuss. Only if I'm trying to take my mind of an immiment death sentence to be carried out on my person. Anything will do then.

      There was no conspiracy to kill the child, the amateur way in which the traces of a death were more or less exactly not covered, the idiotic and ever changing excuses, the need to have the McCs accompanied by minders about everywhere but especially when asked questions by the PJ, the need to keep the child alive in the press whilst her own parents were neither searching nor expecting ever to see her again, the change in her status (after the big internet/fund success) as 'findable' and even in the care of a friendly paedo capable of standing up for herself... the list is endless. Not so much conspiracy as unwarranted political support - for agendas other than their own imo. Collateral beneficiaries the McCs imo.

      Let's not discuss Murat's garden, please! Textusa may have 50 intellects all put together but that must be a tight fit and
      the output reflects the inherent problems with such an arrangement. They appear not to agree with each other on anything at all....

      tigger8 July 2015 at 04:57
      Phew! I needed that. I have a theory - according to Textusa: 'four DEAF adults' - well they were swinging all week.. plus the IMMENSE silence is a clue. Yep, deaf. Solved.

      tigger20 August 2015 at 04:13
      I'm a little confused ... so the swinging can also include husbands acting as a pimp for their wives and if the wife is not happy with his choice, rape is a possible consequence? '(see Big Book Ref below)

      Does that go with the happy swinging theory so familiar to us all now?

      Would it not have been better for all these activities to take place whilst the children were safely in the creche?
      Surely the whole point of the swinging holiday would be that no toddlers would be wandering into the bedroom?
      It's just not safe to give Textusa access to a dictionary - as she already has the Big Book for Holiday Swingers - with diagrams and pictures and everything, Including advice on 'What to do in an Emergency..!
      Published by : (actually nottextusa might fill that in...)

      tigger30 August 2015 at 03:11
      Must admit, I thought this big round table thing could be explained (having seen it drift past and noted it as one of the many occasions when the T9 were unable to describe anything much - shutters open, closed, conflicting statements )by most of them having gone on to happy hour Chaplin's bar which might have had one or several. But it's pretty immaterial anyway, and I'm perfectly fine with round tables anywhere. Can't see any point in turning it into a teak-centered conspiracy. Now there's a thought..

      btw. I can't find your post on the little doodle - have you taken it off? I hope not as I'd quite happily read it again - and again.


    5. (Cont)

      tigger26 September 2015 at 03:17
      I did my best on the latest one - review courtesy of NT yet to come- but we're back with nepiophiles and swinging and Payne and somehow this intrusive elephant:

      Only an elephant can lift up an elephant. The myth that a mouse makes an elephant jump is just that, a myth.

      In the Maddie case, the jumping elephant was the entire UK. To make an elephant that size jump whoever was on the other side of the lever had to have enough “weight” to make it happen.

      Or another elephant? lifting an elephant with a lever could be done by a mouse if the the lever is long enough, but Archimedes is possibly a step to far for this limping metaphore. Tin hats at the ready.

      tigger8 October 2015 at 04:02
      Thanks! I shudder to think of the sequel. I often retreat to the blissful sanity of Dr. Roberts, right back to 2009 and the early analyses.
      Textusa is a bit like - is it the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland? or is it Humpty Dumpty who uses words that mean exactly what he wants them to mean.. .

      tigger23 October 2015 at 06:49
      Thank you! I enjoyed that! - one of them bit me... Ah! - Cockney plods digging up the countryside..

      Tigger25 October 2015 at 01:23
      Yes, I recall that it's of the utmost importance which hand you use to lift a bag out of the boot - Textusa's fatal disability - possibly a form of dyslexia - to read to the end of a sentence. Like you, I consider it one of the lowest of the low tricks.

      Lost in interpretation you might say.

      tigger24 October 2015 at 13:44
      Can we have a list of all Textusa's acronyms? We only have NoN this time but at times the blessed tracts of her chaotic theories are scattered with them like raisins in a fruitcake and speaking of fruitcakes - Now Mrs Fenn has lied as well.

      I remember that Mrs. Fenn post - involved something about shopping bags, which proved in an entirely rational Textusa way that Mrs Fenn had never heard any crying.

      I love reading these annotated blogs, my favourite is still the doodle, Thank you.

      tigger4 November 2015 at 12:02
      From the 18th September post:

      Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde incarnated but without the split personality. That is the “Jenny Murat Stall Effect” or JMSE.

      Thought I'd put it here as an aide memoire. Surprised that Textusa hasn't yet proposed that the JMSE was set up solely for the purpose to mislead people .. O wait, she did..


    6. (Cont)

      tigger1 November 2015 at 05:31
      It looks perfectly fine to me. A couple of foreign women who had already been interviewed by the PJ may have been given Murat's phone number by him, if he was the translator at their interviews or even if he was not.
      Or, seeing how - OmysaintedauntIjustremenbered..- Mrs. Murat senior might have given it to them, having set up a stall to help people as I recall. Textusa had a lot to say about the - what the hell was that acronym? - purposely set up stall which really had another purpose altogether... OK, I seen no problem if these ladies got the phone number from Mrs. M either.
      There's no evidence that Mrs. Fenn phoned Murat - ever! She gave the name of the person she phoned.

      Btw. O'Brien had Murat's phone number on his mobile at a very early date, on the morning of the 4th iirc.

      So what's so strange about these people having been interviewed and then recalled something which might or might not be of interest? What's so suspicious about them finding a known translator who'd already done work for the PJ?

      tigger18 September 2015 at 03:40
      Not about the above which I couldn't find but the latest offering of Textusa where a new and highly recommended post would explain all, but I stumbled at several fences and now languish at Beecher's Brook:

      For example, we would like to know why the Tapas staff lied about there having been the Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights within the paedophile theory, to just name a known one.

      - has completely baffled me, it's going to take most of the weekend to fit Tapas dinners into a paedophile theory - do paedophiles not eat Tapas dinners?
      Then there's the JMFS and it comes up everywhere, scroll, scroll - more JMFS. I will wait for the review - those red islands containing reason and Tourette's syndrome in equal portions.... (it does set mine off as well ...)

      There's one thing though, Kafka would have been right at home with Textusa's mindset.

      tigger20 February 2018 at 12:57
      This cult is fast reaching the point where all the true followers volunteer to follow Textusa to Planet X by taking poison.

      tigger17 March 2018 at 06:11
      To add: it’s not funny but downright unethical that there are still people who will do anything to get an audience and promise to reveal great secrets about the disappearance of a sad little girl just 4 years old. For no other reason than to make themselves look important and interesting.


    7. (Cont)

      tigger17 March 2018 at 06:06
      This is the one I was thinking about: now we have to explain the importance of the first premise...
      P1: All elephants are pink.
      P2: Nellie is an elephant.
      C1: Nellie is pink.
      Soundness here is lacking because the first premise, "All elephants are pink", is incorrect. It is important not to confuse validity with soundness.

      tigger 17 March 2018 at 00:00
      Yes, nr. 18. It’s a clincher! They were there - all of them. Why didn’t we think of that before? Can somebody construct suitable syllogisms for Textusa? This reminds me of the misconstructed one and states that all mammals are elephants.

      tigger 6 April 2018 at 23:31
      Makes me long for the days when she wrote about simple things,such as a drawing of a flower on the Tapas sheet. Textusa's Delphic oracle at its best. That creative writing course has really paid off I thought at the time.

      tigger 6 April 2018 at 12:51
      I'm just recovering from the thought that 2 yrs ago I was in PdL and how lucky I was not to run into T . Her mate may well have been the one who decreed that 'walkway' was not an English word and 'alleypath' was le mot juste.. The only conversation I ever whooshed to save her blushes.
      Ambush - seems to be misunderstood here. It implies hiding before the act. There is nowhere to hide in that street. The point where they passed each other can be found in the PJ files. Ffs leave the Smiths alone!


      Please see how many people outside Tigger who comment in Not Textusa’s blog. Not very many.

      We think it’s safe to say that Tigger is quite the supporter of Not Textusa. On what do you base your assertion that is untrue?

  21. Ignore Thompson. He's a self-serving fool who can't identify his own arse in a line-up of ten. He's still banging on about PG while not asking Warren the womanizer for that key evidence.
    Tbh I'd not touch his anti-hate with someone else's barge pole. Agenda driven, self-serving (at best) wannabeadonis who is quivering at anyone with an intellect above his... the local primary school are on guard for the latest attack.
    Best ignored, as are his simpering apologists for his erratic and damaging behaviour.
    Did he really take to Twitter to cry about someone telling him in PM to fuck off for his high and mighty attitude and unsolicited comment? Oh, deary me.

  22. How very brave of you anonymous.

    1. What has Warren got to do with anything?
    2. Text didn't tell me to fuck off.
    3. My message wasn't high and mighty.
    4. Did you really take to Text's blog to cry about me?
    5. Did you, Textusa, feel this Muppet's comment was on topic, or simply allow it because I politely corrected you, and you couldn't hack being wrong?
    6. I don't see Tigger supporting Walker anywhere on your lengthy quotes. You say walker is NotTextusa, but as this blog alone shows, you couldn't out the cat at night.

    All of the above are rhetorical questions. The answers are obvious.

  23. So, things are absolutely clear about what happened between myself and Ben Thompson (Pseudo Nym) today. Ben Thompson is a public name. Not revealing or outing anyone. He chose to let his name be known publicly, we have chosen anonymity.

    He is admin of a FB group, Justice for Madeleine. That group, for some reason, since our Gemma O’Doherty’s posts, probably disagreeing with our opinion about Colin Sutton – to which they are entitled – have decided to react to our posts since then with insult.

    Not dissent but sheer insult. No valid argument about which one could agree, disagree, debate.

    It’s their right to insult us, which is something we will not dispute.

    And it’s also the right of their admin to support those who insult us.

    However, it’s also our right not to have to put up with that. Not a question of ego, simply of self-respect.

    Just like I found to be unacceptable to remain in the CMOMM FB page for reasons we have expressed in a post, I decided to leave Justice. It’s been a while now.

    It was a personal decision, didn’t make a fuss about it nor called for any attention to it.

    Today, Mr Thompson, after having dissed and supporting the insult, decided to day to go to into my PM on FB, politely as he states, and start to talk to me as if he hadn’t been part of the needless dissing, as usual on length and writing style.

    He said “X”. An X made up of many words.

    What that X represents is private and I will not reveal. Have not said up to now if he was wrong or right about what that X meant. I simply didn’t and don’t care. Mr Thompson may call it ego, I call it self-respect. I don’t engage with people who simply insult, privately or publicly.

    Now, getting to what Mr Thompson has revealed publicly – and which I won’t confirm or deny if mentioned privately but am only commenting what he has said publicly – we have strong reasons to believe Meercat is Insane. Various reasons to suspect that. In much the same way we have reason to believe that the Walkercan1000 account is no longer managed by Insane.

    That said, we also had strong reasons to believe that “Anon” was also Insane and we were wrong. And once we realise that we are wrong about Meercat being Insane, we will come and recognise we are wrong.

    To clarify the list of who we have said Insane is, is made up of the following: Not Textusa, Walkercan1000, Meercat and Anon. We wouldn’t call that an extensive list and we have recognised being wrong about Anon being Insane.

    But we will come to that conclusion for ourselves, if that is the case, without the help of people who insult us and then waltz in as if they are owed some sort of loyalty on our part.

    On our part, we have put a stone on this issue. We thank Justice for all the support they gave us until we stepped on Colin Sutton’s toes.

  24. What an absolutely ridiculous comment! He makes far more sense than this speel of rubbish. Pot kettle black.....did you read this before posting?

    Clearly there is no intellect above his here with this string of nonsensical rubbish and I can certainly say he makes a lot more sense. For a start he can string a sentence together very well.
    No apologies necessary for someone with more integrity than you. Someone who is simply pursuing the truth. Of all the people pursuing their own is not Ben Thompson.
    Your opinion is worth zilch.

    For a blog claiming to support privacy why are all these messages posted on here?

    1. Anonymous 8 Apr 2018, 01:25:00,

      Can you please show us where we have published anything that is private?

      We have quoted a blog and Twitter. Both are public.

  25. Why does it matter who these accounts are? Walker or insane etc? It’s all insane if you ask me!

    For the Record Neither Ben Thompson or Justice for Madeleine as a group have insulted you. We always share your blog however we can’t guarantee our members will agree to all the conclusions you put in the public domain. They may share heir opinions as they have done. Justice is and always has been a respectful group, led by Ben Thompson, his admin do not allow disrespect of anyone so please do not state such untruths. Thanks

  26. really thought this blog was about giving some facts on the madeleine case .. so far all i can see is slandering of those on twitter and admins off groups and bizzare theories of smithsman and tannerman ,,,you say you do not publically mention names or use pms to discuss things , you have done though , I am horrified at this blog and you should be ashamed of yourself , you could of spoken on pms but chose this route ..

  27. Textusa, firstly I'm disappointed to see the whole of justice admin accused of insults or supporting insults when that is not true and I've certainly always supported and respected you.
    I told you yesterday that I know Ben to be right about his correction regarding Meerkat, but understood it was your right to not wish to discuss it with him due to previous grievances. I had hoped you maybe thought enough of me to accept that same information from me, but obviously not.
    But now this has been laid out here for all to pass judgement, when this could have remained a private matter. As I said, it is your choice who you talk to and you refused to do that privately. So I can't see a valid reason to display it here other than encouraging more attacks on Ben, as demonstrated in the comment allowed by Anon 23.06. Yes everyone has a right to reply and yes Ben tweeted about it, but only because you wouldn't resolve it privately. That's out of order. You either don't wish to converse with someone whatsoever or you do - encouraging others to attack on your behalf is what it looks like.
    There's really nothing else to say as it's something that really could have been dealt with privately.

    1. Sade,

      We only spoke out because Ben put it on twitter.

      Public attacks can only be defended publicly.

      We had no wish to make it public.

      Please ask Ben to share the exchange with you privately with our blessing and so you can see the context of the exchange before you make any judgement.

      We also give our blessing to him to show the PM to his admin team.

    2. And Sade,

      If you do have the opportunity to read the exchange, please note that the eldest sister has reprimanded me for using a swear word, even under provocation, and even where it’s not directly addressed to another person.

      So your reprimand is not required.

      She has been known to swear herself but maintains only in the most extreme circumstances.

  28. I think the point is that it WAS being dealt with privately, but who was first to post the so-called 'grievance' online?

  29. This comment is informative.

    We will not accept any comments – except for corrections which we may have made when transcribing the screengrabs a friend of ours has sent us – in favour or against us.

    This is simply to allow readers to make up their own minds about whether my decision to leave the Justice for Madeleine group and my decision not to talk to Ben Thompson about the case, about football or about knitting was right or wrong and we ask them to keep their opinions to themselves.

    We would like to note that we respect all opinions even those showing lack of respect for us. It’s their home and it’s not our place to judge what happens there.

    We only exercised the right of not wanting to be a part of it. We were not kicked out, we left. As the Portuguese say “quem está mal, muda-se”.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. In response to an unpublished comment received we have decided to delete the conversations of those criticising us as we don’t want cause them embarrassment by publishing their comments on our blog.

      Whether they choose to retain them on the group is up to them.

    aleksandr orlov‏ @2for1Tickets
    To TExtUSa: I am not Walkercan/Insane/NotTextusa. No one has even heard of "Insane" except you. NotTextusa I find very funny; has you down to a T. As does Ben. A very smart individual way out of your league. Your walls of text are tortuous, tenuous convoluted nonsense. #mccann
    1:45 am - 8 Apr 2018

  31. We would now ask readers to get back to the post.

    For all those who state they believe in Smith sighting, most seem to believe it’s Gerry carrying a dead child.

    We don’t, even if it’s a minority view. We would appreciate any reasoning which contradicts our post but that seems to have been lost in the heated exchange about something private that should have remained private but unfortunately it didn't. Let's move on.

    1. I assume you mean it IS Gerry, but not carrying a dead child, instead carrying a child who is asleep and alive?

    2. Anonymous 8 Apr 2018, 16:11:00,

      Yes, that is what our opinion has been and that we have expressed for a long time now.

    3. The first sighting “Tanner-man” the way that the child is being carried suggests a dead child and I think this sighting was not intended.
      The “Smithman” sighting and the way that child was being carried suggests a live child. This sighting was intended to endorse the abduction of a live findable child.
      I consider this sighting to be true and believe the Smiths have no reason to lie.

    4. A problem with the child 'alive': Who in their right mind will send an innocent little child out into the cold night without a blanket as protection, to satisfy the couple's abduction story?

    5. Someone acting like an haste?


    6. Anonymous 8 Apr 2018, 21:08:00,

      We think we have explained that in this post:

      But so we understand you, do you believe a man holding a dead child waited to walk into a group of 9 people?

    7. Textusa Sisters, Thank you. The child was alive Jane Tanner is obviously the mother !

    8. Anonymous8 Apr 2018, 21:08:00

      It seems to me that someone desperate to simulate an abduction could do that "in his right mind".

      By the way, interesting to note that the Daily Mail article of Jan 3 2008 states that the child was wrapped in a blanket while it seems that the Smith never said that.

    9. Just to avoid any confusion these two posts are mine :
      Anonymous8 Apr 2018, 21:08:00

      Anonymous9 Apr 2018, 10:15:00

      just to add:

      (Smithman couldn't possibly have been carrying the dead child who according to reports had a broken neck ?) Now we can better understand a (maybe very nervous) JT standing around waiting for the return of her little girl. They even included her sighting :The Tapas scribbled timeline (9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - sees stranger walking carrying a child.) It seems JT is more involved than the eye can see.

  32. I've found no reason to doubt that the Smith sighting is genuine. About identifying Smithman it can't but be a matter of opinion.
    All we know is that Smithman could have been GMC, as he is the average man and, as Analyst 7792 Eaton noted (though the PJ final report doesn't take it into account), "in the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later".

  33. One of comments above which I think needs addressing is that G would have to hang around waiting for someone to see him. But he may have chosen the route most likely for him to be seen and at a time people would still be around.

    If a body, he could have waited until later before raising the alarm, after night crèche kids had been collected, and say they had still been drinking at the tapas?
    If carrying a body theory, he couldn’t have got very far and back again before raising alarm, so where was the body? All areas were searched that night including the beach - no time to dig. Why did he choose a time when people likely to be around rather than later?

    1. Hi Textusa,if you can trust the words from the "Sworn statements",the PJ files have four specific people in close proximity to Apartment 5a,Ocean club between 21.25 and the Smith man sighting,22.00,there are doubts as to where Mr McCann was at around 22.00pm,Taps Restaurant staff?
      If a"Stand in decoy"was used to collaborate a "New" sighting due to Jez Wilkens,wrong place at the right time (JT,Abductor 21.25 moment),3 Adults,Gerry,JT,Russell O'Brien, unwell Daughter,quote,(RM)"I am just a simple ordinary Guy who has been caught up in the biggest fu*k on this plannet"Patsy,3 Tapas members?
      Mr Smith stated (RM) Not the person/Father carrying a child on their shoulder 3 May 2007,the "Official"claimed day of abduction!

  34. In Insane’s latest post against us – we would note that once again, on seeing 2 antis “fight”, Insane takes sides, the last time it was for K9 and now it’s for Ben Thompson – he finishes with this:

    “No doubt you will go crawling back to the same group [Justice for Madeleine] in time. More fool them if they tolerate you and your megalomania again”

    To this he got the following comment, which seems to be from someone with responsibility in that FB group:

    “Anonymous8 April 2018 at 14:39
    Succinct and bang on the money - I can guarantee you they won't be getting back in, nor will they be missed. For a very long time Textusa has shown a complete lack of respect for anyone else's views in a public discussion group (what with everyone being beneath her), attempting to shoot the members down with verbose, vacuous and nonsensical comments.”


    Now that Insane and Justice for Madeleine are besties, we have a favour to ask.

    Not for us but for the case. Could someone from that group ask him what did Keela signal in apartment 5A?

    We have tried, but he wouldn’t say. Maybe now that you have sided with him, he can confide in you.

    1. Hello Textusa, You are doing well. Thank you for showing us the odds who may be against your posts because you are getting closer to the motivations and actions of those involved. It is good to know who is pro at the same time trying to push their ideas ahead as anti

    2. Are you classed as a "pro" for not agreeing with everything Textusa says about this case?

    3. The overview is so clear that all of this is aimed at destroying the blog and gaining ‘anti’ supporters for Ben et al. It’s not really about content and I guess they are just looking for a window of opportunity to jump in and cause problems.

      This just means the blog is a threat and the information is scaring them. If there was genuine disagreement they would calmly state their opinions or just ignore it.

    4. Anonymous9 Apr 2018, 11:06:00

      There seems to be a recent coordinated attempt to dismiss Textusa's blog as dogmatic. This is grotesque. I have followed this blog for 7 years, and can testify that it is common practice for the blog readers to challenge Textusa's opinions. I have done it myself in several occasions. Never did I see Textusa rejecting objections without providing detailed arguments. I can also cite several occasions where Textusa inflected or corrected her position.

      The reason why I am still here after 7 years is that I have no doubt whatsoever that Textusa is a genuine truthseeker.

      So, if you don't agree with everything Textusa says, please don't whine and enlighten us with your thoughts. I am sure that most followers of this blog will appreciate that, as well as the ensuing discussion.

    5. Let’s be clear here and stop something that is starting to be insinuated here: that Ben Thompson is a pro.

      Let’s separate emotion from reason and say what is factual and what is emotional.

      Emotionally, what separates us from Mr Thompson is that we found unacceptable to continue to be part of a FB group of which he’s admin, after he expressed what we had written was a waste of time.

      Again, we do not contest that opinion how much we may, and evidently do, disagree with it. He’s entitled to disdain what we write and we’re entitled to not appreciate his disdain and for after having shown it, thinking I would welcome him as if he had said nothing.

      And because of that lack of appreciation we also have the right of not wanting to maintain any sort of friendly relationship with Mr Thompson as we fully understand that after I refused to interact with him, that he also feels the same.

      As things have escalated out of control, I have shared with team the entire private conversation and outside being reprimanded for using a swear word within context, I have faced no criticism and they have found the exchange to be quite interesting and reason they keep encouraging me to encourage Mr Thompson to share it with those supporters closest to him.

      I and Mr Thompson are 2 people who due to circumstances have fallen out.

      That’s the emotional part. Let’s get to facts.

      We see, at least at this point in time, no reason to claim Mr Thompson to be a pro pretending to be an anti. And refuse such suggestion as valid.

      Not even his latest cosing up with Insane which we think to have been a huge mistake on his part.

      He thinks that Walkercan1000 is not Mr Michael Wright. We have never claimed we did, as he has recognised, nor will give an opinion about that. We have reasons for not doing so.

      We say that Walkercan1000 is Not Textusa. Mr Thompson seems to think otherwise. He’s entitled to his opinion, as we are to ours.

      Once we think that Walkercan1000 is Not Textusa and since Tigger – a name Mr Thompson brought into the discussion, not us – is a huge NT fan, we say that by association Tigger supports Walkercan1000.

      Walkercan1000 and Not Textusa have basically 1 difference: the first says the dogs are useless and the second that the cadaver scent dog is wonderful (however the scent he picked up inside the apartment is not from the apartment) but the blood dog should best go play playstation because we are still to know what Insane thinks Keela signalled inside the apartment.

      However, Walkercan1000 and Not Textusa share one very important thing: they both STATE there was NO BLOOD found in the apartment.

      We think Meerkat is the twitter handle that Insane now uses, after having had the Walkercan1000 account taken off his hands (he was allowed for 4:40 minutes to re-use on March 11 but that was to achieve an objective). Mr Thompson believes, even states he has absolutely certainty that is not the case.

      His certainty has been noted.

      We maintain, for reasons that we won’t reveal, that Insane uses that handle so we have no reason, at this stage, to correct our hand. If ever we have, we will.

      About those seeking to discredit to blog by saying that anyone who disagrees with what we say is a pro, we can only say that @caroleshooter on Twitter has clobbered us silly, and we don’t consider her a pro at all.

      And in this post, we have examples of dissent from pros and not pros.

      A pro: “Anonymous6 Apr 2018, 12:35:00, I still think Gerry was carrying Madeleine's corpse away from apt 5a and not a decoy child. Gerry waiting to be seen sounds absurd to me.” Presents no reason for disagreement, only disagrees to discredit the blog.

      An anti disagreeing: “Anonymous8 Apr 2018, 21:08:00, A problem with the child 'alive': Who in their right mind will send an innocent little child out into the cold night without a blanket as protection, to satisfy the couple's abduction story?”. Disagrees, presents the reason why s/he disagrees and allows for the blog to argument in its defense or change its mind in case the disagreement has reason.

    6. - Are you classed as a "pro" for not agreeing with everything Textusa says about this case? - To answer your question, Anonymous 9 Apr 2018, 11:06:00 Can you imagine how uninteresting it will be if we cannot state our point of view, our reasoning, we get stuck and stale and can 'go home' to our own thinking :) Textusa Sisters refer us to other solid posts to check their thoughts and we agree or not. A lively exchange is healthy. We are all motivated to continue with this task for as long as it takes in good spirits. How good is it that we can have exchanges here on this blog.

      Thank you for the space Textusa Sisters.

  35. Textusa I'm not the anon who asked the question about a parent sending their child out on a cold night to allow for a fake abduction but I did go back and read the self evident fact sedation blog it's very very well explained. Infact nothing else only sedation would explain what happened. However when reading it people ( myself included) imagine a wee innocent child firstly being sedated and secondly being carried out in a cold night and they cannot relate that to something they would allow to happen. What people need to realise that these were exceptionally stressful times and all those caught up in it ( tanner included) were talking about life changing decisions. If we consider which people reading this blog do believe that a mother in the immediate aftermath of her beautiful wee daughter dieing allowed this disgusting charade to be inacted then Tanner allowing her daughter to be carried for 10 minutes in the cold for the same purpose is not so unbelievable.

    1. As you say, these people were under enormous stress and had to make decisions in a short space of time -probably panicking and suffering anxiety about their reputations / custody of remaining children, careers etc etc. They would not make 'Perfect decisions' and they would tend to go along with the strongest most influential members of the group. Bearing in mind that the group included Consultants, who are used to making decisions and are used to being unchallenged in many cases, tend to be treated as Gods in hospitals, and often arrogant, I am guessing that it would be very hard to go against what someone like GMC decided was going to happen... In hindsight I think that many of them now wish they had simply told the truth - because after a relatively short amount of time they would have been able to move on - and even better their children would not be saddled with this.

  36. Unpublished identified reader at 9 Apr 2018, 09:36:00,

    Have checked both unpublished and spam comment boxes and have not received any comment from you! Will be paying attention.

    1. Thank you Textusa. I think Anonymous 08.11 has covered what I was trying to say anyway, so no need to resubmit I think!

  37. I don't think that WalkerCan1000 is NotTextusa.
    I don't think that Meerkat/Orlov is either of the above.
    I think that WalkerCan1000 is M. Wright.
    I have no idea who Insane is I've never heard the name mentioned anywhere else apart from on this blog as the nemesis.
    I don't believe in the Swinging.
    I don't believe that the OC employees and half of PdL were in on the cover up.
    I don't believe that a decoy child was used by Smithman.
    I do believe that Smithman was Gerry McCann with a recently deceased Madeleine.
    I don't believe that Gerry was waiting to be ambushed.
    I do believe he was on his way to hiding the body when he was spotted.
    I believe that he went out later and with help hid the body again.
    I don't believe that Madeleine was kept in Murats car.
    I don't believe that Murat had any involvement in the death/cover up.
    I don't believe Mrs Fenn was a liar.
    I don't believe that Madeleine was killed by David Payne and Kate McCann falling on top of her.
    I do believe that Madeleine died in apartment 5a on the 3rd of May.
    I do believe sedatives were involved and she had a fall.
    I do believe in the dogs findings 100%.
    I do believe that Madeleine was neglected and maybe separated from the other children.
    I don't believe that Paedophilia was involved directly with the demise of Madeleine.
    I do believe that Goncalo was was pretty much right with everything.
    I do believe that Operation Grange is genuine.
    I do believe that between themselves and the Portuguese they will solve it and probably have solved it.
    I do believe that it's a political decision as to when to proceed with it.
    I do believe the McCann, their Tapas friends and others who assisted will all face the consequences.

    1. Anonymous 9 Apr 2018, 13:37:00,

      Just to start.

      From your words, you believe that Smithman while transporting "a recently deceased" (please allow time for the cadaverine scent to develop and fro the body to have been cleaned up) is it safe to say that you believe he walked all the way down Rua da Escola Primária knowing the Smiths were there and insisted in crossing with them?

      Peter Smith and his wife did not materialise in that first crossing point. Where did you think was Smithman when he first saw them, taking into account that from the middle of that street it’s visible all the way down the alley from where the Smiths came from?

      Then, why do you think Smithman, carrying a dead Maddie, her head on his left shoulder, crossed the street to the other side from there to where Martin and his wife were, so near them that they, as the good Irish that they were, decided to talk to him?

      And why do you think, if he was carrying a dead Maddie, did he not then, after crossing with Martin and his wife, turn right up the Rua 25 de Abril but instead, crossed again to his left, retaking his initial trajectory and heading directly towards a group of 3 teenagers?

    2. Sorry to jump in. I am just an anonymous reader. With all due respect, what you believe has no relevance if you cannot substantiate it with evidence. Please state the facts that make you disagree, in particular, with what is said in this post: why do you believe that Gerry was carrying a diceased child and why do you believe he unwillingly bumped into a group of tourists on his way to hide the body wherever you believe he did hide the body. Everyone here will be grateful for valid arguments.

    Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
    Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16
    Interesting that you claim to know the details of my contact with Text, given that it was via PM, although we shared many private conversations since 2014, and supported her until she falsely accused a friend, it was hardly an HFWL scenario. Tomorrow is another day. Goodnight :)
    5:57 pm - 8 Apr 2018

    This is a serious accusation.

    Mr Ben Thompson please say who is the friend you allege I’ve falsely accused and say very clearly what was the false accusation you allege I’ve made.

    1. Part one:

      This will be my last reply to you Text, as I'm slowly losing the will to live.

      Firstly I will address your last question, the answer to which I should have thought would be pertinently obvious, given that it was what kicked all this toing and froing off in the first place.

      To quote you:

      "This is a serious accusation.

      Mr Ben Thompson please say who is the friend you allege I’ve falsely accused and say very clearly what was the false accusation you allege I’ve made."

      I am at a loss as to why you would ask this, given that this was the message I sent you on Saturday evening (my words so there's no breach of privacy)

      "Hi. Firstly, how are you? Well I hope.

      Just been reading your latest blog. I see you've come to the conclusion that Alexsander Orlov "the meerkat" on Twitter, is the Insane character. I can guarantee 100% that they're not. I've known the person behind the meerkat acct for over 4 years. I've spoken to them personally, worked with them, and know exactly who they are. I'm sure you'll understand me keeping their identity to myself, as I'm not one to break a confidence. I thought it best to pm though, as I don't want to get involved in a public debate over it. Just hope you take me at my word, and correct the misinfo."

      Given that you also claim that "Insane" "Not Textusa" and "Walkercan" are the same person, I'm sure your readers will understand why I contacted you privately to try to address the matter. I know very little of the "Not Textusa" character, other than a few blogs I read last night of theirs. I only looked having been notified that I (without being named) featured in their latest piece.

      The person who owns the Meerkat account, has been a very dear friend to me to me for over four years. You might not like their humour, you might not like that they mock your blog - indeed they asked me if I would like them to ease off on their ribbing of your pieces. Had you listened to me, or even absorbed any of what I said, I may well have suggested that be for the best.

      The Walker account has:

      Accused many antis of being paedophiles.
      Threatened people with legal action.
      Tweeted death threats.
      Lied about the case on a repetitive, perpetual, and daily basis.
      Disgustingly mocked Brenda Leyland, (an anti that everyone should be aware of after her tragic death) and her family.

      That being said, and given my close friendship with the person you falsely accused, can you blame me for attempting to correct you?

      You however, told me "you know fuck all".

      You didn't ask for any further information on what I may or may not know (having already decided in your own head, that I know "fuck all") regarding the Walker account. A shame, as having done my own, and observed the research of others, I do possess pieces of the jigsaw, and could have helped you, had you of course truly wanted to get to the truth.

      The reason behind your stance, being that you feel you were insulted in our group.

      You simply cannot see that what people had been saying in their comments, was perfectly reasonable. You have of late indulged in an obsessive need to include references to the Walker account, shoehorning them into a string of blogs, the subject matter being totally lost on many amongst an ocean of quotes from someone many are either uninterested in, or do not understand the history of. That is why many were turned off by your musings.

      It had nothing to do with your views on Gemma O'Doherty, Colin Sutton, or anyone else you choose to blame.

    2. Part 2

      Text, we supported you week in week out, always promoting your blogs, and giving members the option to read them, we did that for four long years. Not everyone in the group agreed with all that you wrote, many won't have even clicked the link, as happens with all blogs, but we supported you, and your right to be heard. Until last night, I even promoted your blog on my own.

      From sheer stubbornness, ego, arrogance, call it what you like, you couldn't accept the fact that with the ongoing inclusion of the Walker nonsense, people were simply not interested - after all, the majority of people just want facts, or theories based around the case. You took members' comments to be insulting - they weren't, they were honest.

      That is why you didn't welcome my correction, and that is why you had what I described as a 'diva fit', when I contacted you politely, something we've both done since we first had contact four years ago.

      You chose not to discuss the matter further, and so as I told you I would, I used a public platform to let it be known you were wrong about my friend.

      You say my accusation was serious, but it was true.

      Your accusation was far worse, potentially dangerous, and absolutely untrue.

      Having been a victim of dangerous and false accusations myself, perhaps you might now and have a better understanding of why I contacted you. Had you left your bruised ego hung on the peg and at least heard me out, instead of displaying a patronising and petulant response, none of this would have happened, and you could have carried on discussing your theories on the case.

      To conclude, as I will not be returning without a full apology:

      You falsely accused a good friend, and staunch anti of being the most disgusting pro McCann troll around.

      You were completely wrong to do so.

    3. Pseudo Nym,

      You have chosen to reveal parts of the PRIVATE dialogue which fit your agenda. We hope that by now you have shown the entire conversation to your close supporters.

      You seem to not have read what we wrote in our comment at “8 Apr 2018, 00:37:00”:
      “Today, Mr Thompson, after having dissed and supporting the insult, decided to day to go to into my PM on FB, politely as he states, and start to talk to me as if he hadn’t been part of the needless dissing, as usual on length and writing style.
      He said “X”. An X made up of many words.
      What that X represents is private and I will not reveal. Have not said up to now if he was wrong or right about what that X meant. I simply didn’t and don’t care. Mr Thompson may call it ego, I call it self-respect. I don’t engage with people who simply insult, privately or publicly.”

      The words ABOVE you picked from what you said in the entire conversation are indeed the “X” we mentioned in that comment.

      What you fail to understand is that X could have been about Meercat as it could have been about whether the Shape of the Water deserved to win the Oscar for best movie because “I simply didn’t and don’t care”.

      What I cared for then was to see someone who was admin, not to say its main admin, of a group that you say “supported you week in week out, always promoting your blogs, and giving members the option to read them, we did that for four long years. Not everyone in the group agreed with all that you wrote, many won't have even clicked the link, as happens with all blogs, but we supported you, and your right to be heard” after having insulted me, coming into my FB PM.

      As admin, you said “I’m not even going to bother. I’ve had a scan and the weekly obsession with Walker is a complete turn-off. Total waste of time, and exactly what they want. Disappointing,” as a reaction to one of members having said “Phew, a bit long winded, do we really need to read all that to get to your conclusion? a couple of sentences could have explained your point. maybe it’s just me, way too much to digest, my brain is aching”.

      “I’m not even going to bother”, “weekly obsession”, “a complete turn-off” and “Total waste of time” are not criticisms but insults. Insult does not need to use rude wording. Your right to exercise it, my right not to like you doing it.

      So I found it, honestly quite insulting as well you greeting me after that with an “"Hi. Firstly, how are you? Well I hope.” And, as I said and right or wrong, I couldn’t care less what you said next

      So, stop saying that this is about me not wishing to correct myself or not. It’s all about me preserving my self-respect.


    4. (Cont)

      About Meercat being or not Insane. First, we find it strange that you have befriended a person with a sick sense of humour like comparing Maddie (the girl carried by Smithman being or not her, was meant to represent her) as a snack, with someone who to this day says s/he has no theory as to what happened to Maddie (by coincidence, very much like Insane) and who is very friendly on twitter with known pros like Cerb32. But, your choice and we are no one to approve or disapprove of the friendships you choose to have, nor you to do same about ours.

      However, we would like to note something from your words: “ "the meerkat" on Twitter, is the Insane character. I can guarantee 100% that THEY'RE not. I've known the person BEHIND THE MEERKAT ACCT for over 4 years. I've spoken to THEM personally, worked with THEM, and know exactly who THEY are. I'm sure you'll understand me keeping THEIR identity to myself, as I'm not one to break a confidence” and “The person who OWNS the Meerkat account, has been a very dear friend to me to me for over four years. You might not like THEIR humour, you might not like that THEY mock your blog - indeed they asked me if I would like THEM to ease off on their ribbing of your pieces.”

      Plural. More than one person, according to you many use that account. Unless you are one of THEM (the Meercat people), you have no way to know if someone uses that handle that you don’t know.

      They, or that person who OWNS the account, may be your friend(s)s as you say but as recent events have shown me, personal and close friends can turn out to be not that trustworthy after all. A personal experience which you may or may not want to learn from.

      Cannot see where we saying that Meerkat is Insane is potentially dangerous.

      Interesting of THEM (the Meercat people) to come to you to ask you to spare us from their attacks. We have never asked to be spared of attacks. We’ve simply turned our backs on those who do.

      There’s a huge difference between disagreement and attack. Disagreement we encourage, attacks we ignore.

    5. Good Lord! The usage of "they're" "their" and "them" in this case isn't plural, just me not revealing their gender. I describe you as the same.

      You'll also note that I said "the person", is that plural as well?

      You really are making a fool of yourself. No wonder you get mocked.

      Many people know who (singular) owns the Meerkat account. What if some idiot believed you when you say they are "Walker". After the behaviour of the Walker account, as listed above, are you honestly saying you don't see how that could be potentially dangerous?

      You say you ignore attacks, yet you allowed an outright attack on me, on this very blog from an anonymous fool.

    6. Did you write one of those words each and share the pressing of the full stop? The Meerkat account is one - which ironically enough, is what you can "do"

    7. No, but each one of us can put a comment here and the name "Textusa" appears. As anyone can do the same with any blogger or twitter account as long as access to it is given.

      Does that answer your question?

    8. Comment from Zora McCartney on FB:

      "Zora McCartney I can 100% confirm that the meerkat is not insane or anyone else with an antagonistic or pro mccann mindset. I hope you can trust me on this, if that is what it is still about. Personally, I never think it’s a good idea to try to out someone else. Seen it too many times, where the accuser is convinced they are right, later to be proved wrong. Best kept private imo. Other than that, my only advice would be to ignore this tittle tattle and move on. It’s tedious and off putting and, apart from a very small number of people who live and breathe it day in, day out, no one really cares. Your blog (and your central theory) are obviously not for everyone but I’m pretty sure many of us have learnt a lot from it nonetheless and, clearly, a number of people look forward to your every post. All this petty, peripheral shit doesn’t matter. Turn off comments for a while and have a breather! You won’t miss anything! I’ve seen too many great contributors lose it after obsessing over trolls, fake ids and the like. Take care x"

    9. Having been approached both publicly and privately, we have now come to the conclusion that we can’t be absolutely certain about the accusation we have made that the Meercat twitter is used also by Insane since his Walkercan1000 account has been taken away from him.

      And as we never force the pieces of a puzzle to fit, we prefer to set aside for now this piece.

      Time will prove if it indeed fits and we have failed to give it that final twist or if it does not. If we find that only that last twist makes it fall into place, then we will return to it.

      We have now corrected the Post Scriptum to this post accordingly.

      The thought of Meerkat not being Insane leaves us particularly sad.

      Sad, not because we may have been wrong (please note that with Anon we assume completely that we were wrong) but because while we hoped there was only one person with a sick and disrespectful sense of humour about Maddie McCann, there are 2: Insane AND Meerkat.

      That is something that any decent human being can only feel very sad about.

      Meerkat being Insane, would explain why Gerry McCann was darkened out of the picture we used to illustrate the encounter between Smithman and the Smiths as well as the style used in the text associated with that doctored picture.

      For us, it means an end to this issue for now. We will no longer be accepting any comment on it.

      Unless we find significant reason to do so we won’t return to it.

      This episode, like so many other recent ones (maybe too many making it difficult to digest them all) has been very enlightening, instructive and are helping to understand better this very tangled web.

      This, it must be said, has been very motivating for the blog from the support we have received. Both in comments but also sent privately.

      Many thanks to all who have expressed such support, and we can only promise that we will continue to move forward the best we can.

      Our last thanks goes to the wonderful readers who didn’t let themselves get distracted with this and kept the focus on the content of the post: that Smithman ambushed the Smiths.

    10. From the eldest sister:

      "We have already said no further comments will be published but we could say any critical comments which are valid will be taken on board"

    11. Eldest sister.

      A pro: “Anonymous6 Apr 2018, 12:35:00, I still think Gerry was carrying Madeleine's corpse away from apt 5a and not a decoy child. Gerry waiting to be seen sounds absurd to me.” Presents no reason for disagreement, only disagrees to discredit the blog.

      Why am I called a 'pro' for believing that Gerry was carrying a deceased Madeleine and why am I discrediting the blog for not agreeing with your own thesis?


    12. Anonymousv10 Apr 2018, 12:33:00,

      Answer to your question: because you said it "Sounds absurd" without justifying why.

      We will give you the opportunity to justify why.

      1. Do you believe that Smithman while transporting "a recently deceased" (please allow time for the cadaverine scent to develop and fro the body to have been cleaned up) walked all the way down Rua da Escola Primária knowing the Smiths were there and even so insisted in crossing with them?

      2. As Peter Smith and his wife did not materialise in that first crossing point. Where did you think was Smithman when he first saw them, taking into account that from the middle of that street it’s visible all the way down the alley from where the Smiths came from?

      3. Also, regarding question 2, where do you think Peter Smith and his wife were when Smithman first saw them?

      4. Why do you think Smithman, carrying a dead Maddie, her head on his left shoulder, crossed the street from the left side where Peter and his wife were to the right side where were Martin and his wife were, and be so near them that they, as the good Irish that they were, decided to talk to him?

      5. Why do you think, when at the corner near the pharmacy, after crossing with and being addressed by Martin and his wife, if he was carrying a dead Maddie, he did not turn right up the Rua 25 de Abril away from the group but instead, crossed again to his left (retaking his initial trajectory) and headed directly towards a group of 3 teenagers?

      Hopefully you will answer these questions, so we can understand the reasoning behind your “sounds absurd” statement and allow it to be scrutinised.

      If you don’t answer them then it shows you are indeed a pro.

      We’ve had many disagreeing comments.

      As we have said, we don’t think all disagreeing comments are necessarily from pros. Most, fortunately, aren’t.

      What we like to see is a reasoning behind the disagreement as that helps us to reconsider where necessary.

    13. Abusive disagreement from people who comment always causes me to consider where exactly they are coming from.
      If people find the blog boring or long-winded, then I have no problem if they decide to stop reading it. Your style isn’t everybody’s cup of tea.
      On the other hand, if you made short posts that were easy to read, without backing up the theory with all the facts you could muster, you would be justifiably criticised for stating an opinion without evidence.
      But even though people say negative things without justifying, I don’t think that makes them a pro. Just somebody who won’t take the extra time to say why something is absurd or whatever other disparaging word used.
      Personally, although I have never done so, I wouldn’t go on a blog or forum whose theories I disagree with and say their theory was absurd, without giving reasons for my opinion. I either read them and keep my opinions for private discussions where I can have them or I never read the blog again.
      I suppose that’s why the question of motivation arises when I see disparaging words like absurd used.
      Why the need to say that? Just stop following the blog.
      But we need to hear reasoned dissenting opinions and agree only publish when they are reasoned, otherwise the real pros just use the blog to be insulting and offputting and to provoke.

    14. Anonymous 10 Apr 2018, 14:09:00,

      Eldest sister agrees with your comment and so do I.

      Not seeing third sister disagreeing!

    15. Anonymous 9 Apr 2018, 14:14:00 (my post)

      See the reason why I'm not keen on engaging in a one-sided conversation.

      Anonymous 9 Apr 2018, 13:37:00 (my post as well)

      Just my OWN thoughts but not asking anybody to agree.

      And for the record, I didn't say Gerry carrying a decoy child WAS absurd. I said it SOUNDS absurd.

      And if you really think I'm a 'pro' for suggesting that, then sadly, you really have lost the plot!

    16. Personally I like the fact that your blog goes into the smallest detail, putting forward a watertight argument and appreciate all the hard work that goes on behind the posts. It’s all well and good people saying “no don’t agree with this or that” but please put forward a counter argument so both Textusa and the readers can see where or why there’s a disagreement and are able to either accept, correct or reject.
      I look forward to Fridays and a new Textusa, something I can consider through the weekend, (yes I have read it more than once!) I’m more than disappointed when you don’t publish. So Text, keep searching, keep digging away, the truth is buried in there somewhere. As for those that find it too in-depth or long winded there are other sites they can visit. I need to see all the evidence and reasoning on any one particular subject in one piece. I visit past posts often to cross reference with the newer posts, the blog is easy to navigate and very informative. Thank you.

    17. Funny the reasons they come up with for not answering your questions Textusa.

    18. Anonymous10 Apr 2018, 14:39:00

      On the contrary, you look very keen on engaging in a one-sided conversation: stating your opinion but refusing to take into account any evidence that goes against it.

    19. It's not funny when you don't have your posts published as the sisters don't agree, anon 15:41. (2 yesterday, 1 today and others a while back when I TRIED to have a discussion)

      So what really is the point?

      Personally, I think who McCann farce smacks of last minute desperation in a sink or swim scenario. A deceased Madeleine had to be removed out of the apartment and I think Gerry did that to hide her somewhere and that he did. And again later on. I believe time was of the essence and that's why IN MY OWN OPINION that I think it SOUNDS absurd that Gerry would have a sedated child on standby to use as a decoy and also have the time to wait around in the hope of seeing a family leaving a bar and then 'ambush' them? Hoping of course that they didn't really see him properly but just saw enough (man carrying a child) to notify the authorities at a later date to reinforce the abduction scenario.

      Just because I don't agree with the sisters on everything and the fact that I have drawn my own conclusions from reading the PJ files, doesn't make me a 'pro'.


    20. ** The **

      Not ** who **


    21. To clarify readers,

      One reason we say sedation disproves negligence are the blood spatters. For us, they show someone was present at the time of Maddie’s death.

      This anon, presented medical documentation which stated that a tracheotomy done under adequate medically controlled conditions provoked little bleeding.

      We responded by saying that the conditions under which the tracheotomy performed on Maddie (meaning she was not alone at the time of her death) was done under pressure and certainly not with the right instruments.

      Anon replied that there was one of the T9 doctor specialised in tracheotomie, O’Brien if not mistaken, and he could have done that medical procedure without being there any significant blood splattering.

      Anon was just confirming that Maddie was not alone when she died as he was forwarding a very unlikely hypothesis. 2 doctors see a child suffocating. According to our theory, it was Kate and David Payne, according to the sedation theory defenders, would have been Kate and Gerry who by coincidence on arriving home, would have seen Maddie suffocating and fighting for her life.

      According to this Anon, these 2 doctors (Kate/David or Kate/Gerry) looked at each other and decided not to do anything, ignore their own medical education and let things stand as they were and go call O’Brien, and while that one went to find the “tracheotomy specialist” the other who stayed behind just looked at a suffocating child.

      As we found this theory to be ridiculous, we suggested to Anon that s/he write a blog about it and let it be scrutinised by others.

      He took offense at this suggestion as can be seen.

      About his unpublished comments. They were apparently these:

      “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":
      This place is becoming like CMOMM and Textusa is becoming like Tony Bennett. Paranoid and on the offensive if posters don't subscribe to their theories. CMOMM is a farce which has zero credibility and this place is heading in the exact same way sadly.
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 9 Apr 2018, 12:39:00”

      “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":
      Probably Orlov @2for1Tickets who you're accusing of being Insane / Walker / Not Textusa at a guess, without a shred of evidence to back it up?
      He/she definitely isn't and maybe if you were actually on twitter conversing with people rather than copying and pasting their tweets all the time, then you would know this. Just a suggestion.
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 9 Apr 2018, 14:54:00”

      “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":
      Hi. Just wandering why you have chosen not to publish 2 earlier posts of mine (again) around 2 ish?
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 9 Apr 2018, 18:54:00”

      The first comment falls clearly in not “providing any any useful commentary”.

      The second, we wanted for Mr Thompson to answer the comment himself, which he did.

      The third speaks for itself.

      About his reply, Anonymous10 Apr 2018, 16:11:00 please quote us where have we said Smithman”would have a sedated child on standby to use as a decoy and also have the time to wait around in the hope of seeing a family leaving a bar”

      What we have said is that on seeing a family in the alley, in which they happened to be there BY COINCIDENCE, he waited and then ambushed them. We say that when Gerry left the apartment with a sedated decoy child was for him to be seen by SOMEONE and not by the Smiths and SOMEWHERE in Luz and not specifically in the Rua da Escola Primária.

      The Smiths just happened to be those who fate chose to be at the wrong time and the wrong place.

      Now, please answer the questions.

    22. Err... before I respond to that, can you just point me to the correct blog (pref post times as well) so I can have a look again. At what I actually said and also what you exactly said. Just to refresh the memory.


    23. Anonymous10 Apr 2018, 16:11:00

      "and others a while back when I TRIED to have a discussion"

      Shouldn't you be the one remembering it?

      But let's do the following. Before you lose your memory again and while its still fresh, as it's in current posts, why not you answer the questions about Smithman right now?

      That way, it will avoid both of us looking for this post again in the future.

    24. You say you “TRIED to have a discussion” but were not allowed to discuss. This happened in our post “Post for comments”:

      These were the PUBLISHED comments (have deleted the interventions by Not Textusa):

      Initial comment, we DON’T believe to be from the Complainant Anon:
      Anonymous8 Jan 2018, 16:56:00
      If there was no neglect, then it was impossible for an abduction to take place. The children were therefore minded at all times. The McCanns have been willing to promote neglect as part of their alibi -- think about that for a moment -- because it was a lesser crime and made abduction 'possible'. Abduction was something they engineered themselves to get rid of the child and to sway to the wishes and pressures from interested parties - the sole purpose of which was to keep quiet about what they were all doing in PDL spring, 2007.


      Textusa8 Jan 2018, 20:41:00
      Anonymous 8 Jan 2018, 16:56:00,
      The blog has defended that for years.
      The blood spatters that were found in the living room of the apartment contradict any negligence thesis.
      Someone had to have been present at the moment of death.


      (First comment from Complainant Anon)
      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 14:18:00
      An Anonymous has submitted a very relevant question about this subject but misplaced by accident on this comment section.
      As agreed, we are bringing her/his comment over to it's rightful place:
      "Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 11:38:00
      A drowsy (sedated) Madeleine fell off the sofa and hit her head on the tiled floor when nobody was about (left alone). An attempt at resuscitation where she was later found (behind the sofa) failed. Madeleine had died. An abduction plan was hastily formed to now save themselves (sink or swim).
      Thoughts please? Thanks."


      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 14:28:00
      Anonymous 9 Jan 2018, 11:38:00,
      The answer to your question lies in the heart. Once it stops breathing, there’s no blood pressure.
      Not only does the blood stop circulating as it stops being oxygenated. This makes it to become more pasty and darker.
      One way of determining if a wound on a corpse is post or pre-mortem is the colour of the blood as unoxygenated blood is much darker.
      Another is by the quantity of it outside the body, as if not pumped out by a pumping heart, then it seeps out and is not spurted and the longer the death has occurred, the less blood seeps out.
      The fact that there are blood spatters means that she suffered a wound while still alive, that her heart was still pumping.
      There are 2 possibilities, either she suffered such an injury alone or had her throat perforated to unblock her airways while struggling for breath.
      The first scenario is not possible as the splatters appear on 2 walls, on the floor and on the back of 2 couches.
      If she had fallen behind 1 of the couches, then that same couch would serve as an obstacle for the spray to have reached the other couch and wall.
      The only explanation is the perforation of the throat. She struggled for breath and someone with medical experience tried to free her airways.
      She was laid and for that to have been done and so the space around her would have been summarily and quickly cleared by pushing aside the couches, and so leaving their backs in a direct, and unobstructed line to where she lay.
      The fact there was a splatter means that her heart was beating when the perforating was performed. So, someone MUST have been with her at the time of her death.
      The only possibility of negligence to fit in this scenario, would have been for when the fall happened to have coincided with the arrival of someone at that precise moment, or very, very shortly after.
      No one, much less a doctor, tries to resuscitate a body presenting no sign of life and no one tries to free airways when there’s are no signs of a struggle for breath.


    25. (Cont)

      But, for someone to have arrived when she fell that would mean the T9 would have not left the kids alone for the night as they were supposedly to have done every night because one has to fit in the time to walk in, realise she had fallen, see her struggle and try to resuscitate her, have the blood splattered all over, decide on the hoax, clean up the apartment and any traces of her death and sound the alarm at 22.00 while giving the idea to the Tapas staff that all was being a normal dinner.
      Sedation is simply not compatible with negligence because the blood-spatters say very clearly that someone else was present the moment Maddie lost her life.
      Besides, if she had fallen on her own, the fall could have been explained via a domestic accident as all stand-alone falls can. Only falls that are for some reason caused by an external force cannot be explained that way.


      Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 15:56:00
      I'll come back to it again later (busy at the mo) but quickly regarding your last paragraphs..
      Maybe a drugged-up Madeleine was barely alive then when she was found earlier in the evening behind the sofa. Medical help was summoned (tapas males - insert names) but the resuscitation attempt / emergency tracheostomy (blood splatter) failed and therefore she sadly did NOT die alone (as you say)
      The earliest 'commotion' was heard around 21:15/21:20 and the Police first arrived at 23:00/23:05. So there's a bit of 'time' to stage the scene and clean / clear up whilst at approx 21:55 Gerry went off to hide a deceased Madeleine somewhere (to later hide again).
      A domestic accident couldn't be explained away if traces of some form of sedative (not prescribed) were found in her body (hence why the body had to go).
      Quick thoughts on the above? Thanks


      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 16:14:00
      We will wait for the rest of your considerations but please when you do, could you please clarify what you mean by "earlier in the evening behind the sofa"?
      Is that around 21:15/21:20 you speak of - which we imagine the "commotion" you refer being Gerry's visit to the apartment?


      Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 17:15:00
      Hi. Yes, I was going to expand and add a bit more meat to what I said, but that was a quick summarisation of it..
      "earlier in the evening behind the sofa"....
      Precisely that. Could she have been found at say 21:15 when the commotion started?
      Or before? Just theorising and I appreciate your input whilst I'm doing so.


      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 18:53:00
      Anonymous 9 Jan 2018, 17:15:00,
      Let’s first clarify what is being discussed before we veer off in possible other directions: sedation v negligence. We will also, and have discussed other issues but we need to clarify this point as much as we can.
      You seem to agree with us that there was an impromptu tracheotomy (or as we have called it, the freeing of the airways) and so we assume that you also agree with us that someone was present in apartment 5A at the time Maddie died.
      Now, we are not aware of any scenario in which a tracheotomy is required in a scenario of sedation. What we have read is that a tracheotomy may affect the effects of a sedation during a surgery but haven’t read anywhere where a tracheotomy was required to have been done as a result of an ill or carelessly applied sedation.
      The explanation is simple and understanding. Sedation does not cause lesions and the only thing that may obstruct the trachea is the tongue. That can be reached through the mouth and pulled out, and unless the victim is under an epilepsy attack, will cooperate.
      This, to say that if whoever was present and saw the need to perform a tracheotomy as a last ditch to save Maddie’s life, that means her airways were blocked with something other than her tongue. Something that could not be reached by the mouth, so the result of an internal injury.


    26. (Cont)

      Could sedation be responsible for her to be drowsy, walk out of her bed, climbed on to the couch, reached for the window and fell between the couch at the exact right moment someone was arriving at the apartment?

      Then an overdose of sedation cannot be exactly blamed for the above, if it happened, which, we repeat, we don’t. And if it had, as it was a stand-alone accident could perfectly be explained as a domestic accident at a time one of the parents was in the bathroom and the other in the bedroom, just to invent something off the top of our head. At the most, an “underdose” of sedation would. As she would still have been able to get out of bed, walk across the living room, climb on to the couch, stand on it and try to reach – for what reason we cannot understand – the window.
      But you place this accident around 21.15 – 21.20, when do you allow for the time needed for the cadaver odour to develop in the living room? Were they washing up around the body? And when did they put body in closet and in the backyard according to you? After they raised the alarm at Tapas?


      Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 19:47:00
      Yes, I agree in that an impromptu tracheotomy took place (I see no other plausible explanation for said blood spots found). I think Rachel inadvertently gave that away with her 'group of Doctors - would know how to resuscitate' comment! So some sort of medical procedure took place, when Madeleine was found.
      I'll agree to disagree in why the sedation can't be part of that & why a drugged up M who maybe had a serious fall/concussion to the head (and now unconscious/sick) wouldn't need said tracheotomy in an emergency. If the Docs had been consuming alcohol which impaired their judgement, then that was another 'disaster' which kept on accumulating!
      I personally think that Sedation had a massive part in Madeleine's demise and yes, it of course it could be responsible for her to be drowsy, walk, climb and fall. Not necessarily at the time somebody entered but she was fighting for her life until she WAS found!
      I still don't understand how (sedation) could be easily explained away in a domestic accident when possibly there was inflicted injection marks on her body (a theory/anesthetists).
      It happened prior to 21:15 and by that point she was dead. The earliest reports of commotion at said time were heard by someone shouting/calling "Madeleine, Madeleine" Maybe in reference to an already deceased Madeleine. (At that point not all the Tapas lot knew - and I don't think DW got the memo until much later).
      Could she have been left there from 21:00 ish (behind the sofa) for approx 45 mins (cadaver alert time), now wrapped in a missing blanket & shower curtain before then deciding what to do? Body cleaned up and Gerry then 'gets rid' by 21:50 ish. The shower curtain, towel is stuffed into the blue bag, hid in the wardrobe to get 'rid of later'. Except they are preoccupied with clearing/cleaning/staging that they forget. The bag later is removed with all the cleaning stuff etc in and at some point is left in the flower bed briefly whilst the coast is clear etc...
      Enough before I bore you!!
      Thoughts again? Appreciated.


      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 20:37:00
      Anonymous 9 Jan 2018, 19:47:00,
      "It happened prior to 21:15 and by that point she was dead. The earliest reports of commotion at said time were heard by someone shouting/calling "Madeleine, Madeleine""
      Could you provide a reference to this statement please?


      Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 20:47:00


    27. (Cont)

      Textusa9 Jan 2018, 21:15:00
      Anonymous 9 Jan 2018, 20:47:00,
      So readers are clear:
      ""Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine, Ocean Club guest S.C. and his wife left the Tapas bar to go home: "We walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance"."
      These words are from Stephen Carpenter.
      Since we are talking on medical terms, we would say that Mr Carpenter suffers from an acute and severe allergy to truth:
      That claim is absolutely meaningless, not to say false.


      Anonymous9 Jan 2018, 21:18:00
      Interesting to read the theories on this. Certainly the most appropriate doctor in the TAPAS group, in terms of experience to perform such a procedure, would appear to have been Russell, due to his experience in emergency medicine.
      Emergency tracheotomy
      There are two different procedures that are called tracheotomies. The first is done only in emergency situations and can be performed quite rapidly. The emergency room physician or surgeon makes a cut in a thin part of the voice box (larynx) called the cricothyroid membrane. A tube is inserted and connected to an oxygen bag. This emergency procedure is sometimes called a cricothyroidotomy .
      Read more:
      would the doctor have required a tube and other materials?
      Also, this would probably have taken place earlier ion the evening at around - say- 7pm ish...
      It probably accounts for the use and emphasis of use of washing machine -refer JT's rog interview:
      4078 “And then what happened next?”
      Reply “Erm, so I think the waiter has took Russell’s, because Russell’s food was there, so they said ‘Oh we’ll take that away’ and they kept that, they said ‘Oh we’ll take that away and keep that warm’. So I’d finished mine quite quickly, probably, I think I was a fair way through or it didn’t take another four minutes or five minutes, and then I went back, erm, to find Russell sort of, you know, with, Evie was awake and I think he’d put her in the bath, because I think she had been, I think when he’d been in she had actually been sick, so he put her in the bath and he put the sheets all in the washing machine that was in the apartment. Because that’s another thing about the sheets, but we’d been doing washing all week, because you know what it’s like with kids, you end up with, so they were in the washing machine. Erm, yeah, and then he, so I then, we were probably in there together for, I don’t know how long, five minutes of whatever, and then he went back to finish off the rest of, erm, well finish the rest of the meal”.


    28. (Cont)

      Anonymous10 Jan 2018, 14:50:00
      Hi. It's me again that was 'theorising' yesterday. So do you have any other thoughts about what I wrote (apart from not agreeing with the earliest 'commotion' reports as per files).
      Anon 21:18 made a good post regarding Russell. So do you think it's a possibility that said scenario could've been played out earlier in the evening then?


      Textusa10 Jan 2018, 17:06:00
      Anonymous 10 Jan 2018, 14:50:00,
      We think it takes much longer than 45 minutes for a corpse to develop cadaverine to levels up from which a cadaver dogs signals it.
      As we said in our post from February 2010 “Gonçalo Amaral is a liar”:
      “You see, he pinpoints Maddie’s death at 21:20, the exact time my good friend Jane Tanner sees my other good friend Gerald McCann talking to some Jeremy fellow.
      According to Amaral, Maddie died, falling between the couch and the wall upon hearing her father in this conversation on the other side of the window.
      What Amaral seems overlook is to explain the smell of dead bodies in two separate locations of the apartment, plus the body’s disposal, witnessed by a family, all under 40 minutes, time between the referred conversation and the alarm set off by St. Kate of Rothley?”
      You have presented your arguments we have presented ours, and now we will allow readers to judge from themselves what we both have said.
      If you feel you require to further push your point of view, we invite you to start your own blog where readers can debate it fully with you.
      Thank you for your contribution.


      Anonymous10 Jan 2018, 17:09:00
      I've looked up some info on this emergency procedure
      and bleeding doesn't appear to be an issue in terms of splattering (sorry .. but I think the fact there were blood splatters in so many locations is key)
      High-risk groups
      The risks associated with tracheostomies are higher in the following groups of patients:
      children, especially newborns and infants
      Early complications
      Some of the complications that can occur during or shortly after a tracheostomy are outlined below.
      It's common for some bleeding to occur from the windpipe (trachea) or the tracheostomy itself.
      This is usually minor and improves within a few days, although in some cases it can be significant and a blood transfusion may be necessary.


      Textusa10 Jan 2018, 17:11:00
      Just to clarify to our other readers, that post was written as we said, on February 2010.
      Then we thought that Smithman was indeed Gerry disposing of Maddie's body, reason why we wrote "plus the body’s disposal, witnessed by a family".
      As our readers know, we have now for long believed that Smithman was Gerry McCann carrying a very much alive little girl in an effort to be seen - as he was - so the abductor could be made real.


      Textusa10 Jan 2018, 17:17:00
      Anonymous 10 Jan 2018, 17:09:00,
      The articles were not written considering such a procedure to be done on the floor of an apartment without any medical instruments nor did it consider the certainly enormous pressure under which whoever performed it was under when doing it.


    29. (Cont)


      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Post for Comments":
      Hi I've been thinking about the tracheotomy. I suspect it was performed by Russell although I believe that the other doctors present would also have been capable of performing this procedure. I have looked up what is required when performing this operation:
      How to Perform an Emergency Tracheotomy
      This procedure, technically called a cricothyroidotomy, should be undertaken only when a person with a throat obstruction is not able to breathe at all-no gasping sounds, no coughing-and only after you have attempted to perform the Heimlich maneuver three times without dislodging the obstruction. If possible, someone should call for paramedics while you proceed.
      What you will need
      A first aid kit, if available
      A razor blade or very sharp knife
      A straw (two would be better) or a ballpoint pen with the inside (ink-filled tube) removed. If neither a straw nor a pen is available, use stiff paper or cardboard rolled into a tube. Good first aid kits may contain "trache" tubes.
      The website information goes on to state - there should not be too much when do you think the blood splatters actually occurred? Are you thinking the procedure itself caused the blood splatters? I was ... until I have read that the operation actually does not cause too much blood ... will read up some more if I can..
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 10 Jan 2018, 17:04:00


      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Post for Comments":
      I dont agree totally as everything I've read states that it is an emergency procedure and you may have to use instruments at your disposal such as sharp knife or razor blade/ball point pen straw etc. This indicates that the articles acknowledge you will be somewhere without medical instruments. I am not saying that the procedure was not performed or did not cause bloodsplatters - just that the more I read the more that blood is not expected to be a big issue.. and blood splatters not expected. Is it not possible that the fall from sofa caused the bloodsplatters? I would think that the tracheotomy may have certainly caused blood on floor tiles etc but less likely to have caused blood on walls at some height.
      I also think that in this case, someone of good experience performed the procedure (Russell or another doctor with surgical experience) and so it would have been done with some expertise.
      Interestingly I also read the following (albeit from Wikihow) nsl
      This is an extremely dangerous procedure. It carries a high risk of death or other injury to the victim if done incorrectly.
      Only perform the tracheotomy as a last resort when all other procedures have been exhausted and there is no medical professional around to do it.
      Be aware of legal implications if the tracheotomy is unsuccessful. You do not want to be sued or blamed for a person’s death.
      If possible, try making sure the tube you use is clean. Otherwise, an infection could occur, creating more serious complications.
      Things You'll Need
      A sharp knife, scalpel, utility knife or X-acto knife
      A soda straw or ball point pen
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 10 Jan 2018, 17:45:00


      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Post for Comments":
      Start a blog? I was just asking some questions and hoping for some feedback & discussion on certain theories etc.
      Is that not allowed on here unless everyone agrees solely on what you say happened?
      A genuine question?
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 10 Jan 2018, 18:58:00


      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Post for Comments":
      Hi. Do you normally ask posters to start up their own blog when they are asking questions in a polite and respectable manner?
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 11 Jan 2018, 20:27:00


    30. (Cont)

      As can be seen, you were given more than a chance to expose your points of view. We remind that the point being proven was whether sedation ruled out the possibility of Maddie dying alone or not.

      Do not think that this is to allow to continue the discussion about tracheotomies. A fall by itself would not allow the splatters found in two walls and the back of the couch next to the window because the couch itself would have blocked the spray on one of the two walls, and the body itself would serve as obstacle either against the wall or against the couch.

      This is to show how false is your claim that you were not allowed to discuss in the blog.

      Now, again, please answer the questions put to you on this post.

  39. Just to finish.

    I'm just putting across basic points on what I believe. As in my own opinions. With respect, The last time I tried to engage with you about time of death / possible tracheotomy etc a while back, you basically told me to sod off and write my own blog and refused to publish subsequent posts.

    Not going through all that nonsense again. We can have a difference of opinion but ultimately want the same conclusion I hope. And that is truth and justice for Madeleine.


  40. After catching up with comments - I believe it was as simple as - 'we're going to stage an abduction' - we better give the story some credibility and stage 'a man running off with a child'. Who else would be keen to act that out except Gerry? So he acted out a man carrying off a child. It seemed a good idea at that time. As the father of the 'soon-to-be-missing child' he was never going to be accused of stealing his own child...
    He just wanted a few people to see him so it would give some credibility to an abduction in Praia da Luz.

    He borrowed an appropriate child with the permission of her parents...

    To me that sounds a perfectly logical action to take given the circumstances they found themselves in and the type of people they were.

  41. Text. I can't be arsed with your bollox! I don't agree with you on certain things! Like the majority do. I agree with some and I have always said that!

    If you want a discussion on a level playing field in which is the only place I comment on now (apart from a few recent comments on here), then come say hello on Twitter!

    Andy Fish! Or Andrew.


    1. Andy or Andrew,

      We don’t do twitter for reasons we’ve already stated.

      It’s also not a good format for presenting theories, so
      you won’t find us there. Which some may be thankful for.

      You’re not obliged to read any of our b.....s but happy if you continue to do so if you find the occasional nugget of information useful.

      We’re frankly puzzled that so many who disagree with us continue to bother reading the blog.

    2. Andrew what TeX have to say is far more enlightening than any thing SY have to say,which in the case of SY is less than zero,burglary gone wrong my arse,still they played that card and lost,now its wait for some obnoxious (not anonymous )politician to pull the plug.

    3. I also find it very surprising that these people who don't agree with you carry on coming here to read what you have to say. I certainly don't waste my time frequenting sites on that basis. They must have plenty or too much time on their hands if they are so willing to take up their time to visit here simply to pour scorn on it. Or perhaps they just cant do any better themselves.

      The truth is, there are far more here that find the posts interesting, well reasoned, based on excellent interpretation of the police files. It is apparent that you only search for the truth and that you don't try to bend facts around your theory. Your theory is derived form the facts. Its good enough for me so I'll continue to follow it and learn a lot.

  42. Hello again,

    Just to clarify on the former comments that you brought over yesterday as requested.

    I just wanted to highlight which were not mine.

    And they are these ones:

    Anon 8 Jan 16:56
    Anon 9 Jan 21:18
    Anon 10 Jan 17:09

    The comments not published were not mine either.

    The rest obviously are from me.



    (Alright H above - Hope you're well)

  43. Textusa Ive seen a lot of disruption on other blogs where proper discussion around issues was stalled by insulting people who had little to say about anything. I always figured they didn't frequent yours to the same extend because you were too intelligent for them. Looks like they reckon it's about time they attempted on you. I think you are well fit for them so I don't think there is a need for me to jump in and say what a great informative blog you have. TBH I don't really discuss the case with people anymore unless they have read your blog.

    So getting back to the case I would like to ask about what you think happened after it became obvious that the child was dead that the attempt to clear her airways had failed. Obviously the child continued to lie on the floor for at least 90 minutes to allow the odour to develop and there was some talk of the couch being moved. I wondered was that to hide the body I case anybody entered the property who shouldn't have. Do you think there was some people amoung the group who considered calling the guards and therefore didn't want to move the body. It's ironic really because if they haven't left her lying there the odour wouldn't have developed and the dogs may not have detected it

    1. K,

      We think we explained this back in the day, exactly to explain how the time required for the cadaver scent to develop would fit in what we speculate to have happened that evening.

      We considered that the time required would be 90 minutes. However please take into account that Maddie’s body would not have been wrapped up in a blanket like the bodies in the Oesterhelweg paper” experiment, like we showed in our “The reliability of the cadaver dog posts”. Her feet and legs, hands and arms and face would have been in direct contact with the floor.

      We place death at around 18:30. That means body laid as it was until 20.00. Just with that, it allows for an hour and a half for the decision process to have taken place.

      The first “registered” timed movement that we have of the body is at 21:10/21:15 when we believe it was laid on the flowerbed when the encounter with Jez happened.

      That leaves from 20:00 to 21:10, for the body to have been moved, the corner of the living room-cleaned (not meticulously as attention would be drawn and centred to the kids’ bedroom, front and back doors of apartment), body cleaned and prepared to be taken away.

      If one pushes, again we repeat that we are speculating, the decision process up until 20:30, it allows 2 hours for a decision and half an hour for 7 people to undertake what we have stated. We are taking 2 out of the equation, one being Kate and the other whoever was responsible to be together with her at all times.

      If we take Dianne Webster out, who would show that she was not very collaborative with the hoax, we’re left with 6 able adults.

      So we say that the decision process had 3 stages.

      Firstly, the panic/informative period. Body lay where it was while the important and relevant people were informed and arrived at the scene.

      Secondly, debate of options. One of which would have been to call authorities and because of it the body lay where it was.

      Thirdly, feasibility. Abduction option decided AND approved. But then, body remained in place while an analysis in terms of materials needed (which were obtained and brought there) and who had to do when and where was decided, was then the body moved. In our opinion.

      Hope to have answered. Please remember, all speculation.

  44. Unpublished Anonymous at 11 Apr 2018, 19:15:00,

    You don’t seem to know much as you supposed. Sorry if recent developments haven’t gone as expected.


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.