Saturday, 21 April 2018

The help and the tennis - comments continue

The Big errmmm... Round Table!


As we have informed our readers, this post is to allow comments to continue as they have almost reached 200 in the original post, the limit Blogger has for comments per page.

Post Scriptum:

Anonymous 28 Apr 2018, 10:31:00 has raised the possibility of Colin Sutton’s interview having been in 2015/2016.

We will wait for Sonia Poulton to clarify that question, as in 2017 Colin Sutton is reported to have stated some conclusions he had about the case as we showed in our post “Sutton is the game, meddling is the name”.

Meanwhile we will leave the readers with photos of Sutton from the Poulton’s video and from his Sky News appearance in 2017:





198 comments:

  1. We usually get our help from Insane. This time we got it from the Meerkat.

    We encourage both to continue as not only on occasion they drop a useful gem from time to time, as the more they say they dislike the more they direct sensible and reasonable people in our direction. The more the naysayer’s say about us the more people want to read what we say.

    And what a help Meerkat’s comment was this time!

    So much so that it may have made us change our minds about the scenario at the moment when Maddie died by accident on May 3 2007.

    We maintain the physics of our prior scenario: as the result of the escalation of a heated argument an adult pushed by another adult fell on Maddie standing on the couch this projected her against the side-wall and breaking her neck. The distance of projection was too great to be justified by a domestic accident of Maddie falling off the couch.

    What Meerkat has done was to make us change the reason why we think David Payne was in the apartment.

    Meerkat has made us see that it was much more directly related with the VIP swinging than we had initially presumed.

    The help came in a form of a tweet:

    https://twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/984753113058988032
    “aleksandr orlov‏ @2for1Tickets
    Replying to @xxMichelleSxx
    I'd once likened coitus with K as like having it off with a folded deckchair! Nooo! But swinging is so trivial since forever! In the scheme of things it's like photocopying one's bottom at the office party. I knew you had a tribe in there as I saw you sneaking tapas into it...
    4:20 am - 13 Apr 2018”

    Why is Meerkat putting down Kate McCann’s physical appearance? Most people don’t like her and we would even say that the remainder left out of the ‘most’ loathe her.

    But this dislike or loathing is because of her personality, her public demeanour on all those occasions we have been forced to watch knowing she knows exactly what happened to her dead daughter and continues to pretend and portray that ridiculous role of the mother of a missing child. Missing isn’t untrue, it only becomes that when we know that they want us to believe that it means abduction.

    We all know she wasn’t and we all know she knows. That is why she’s not liked/loathed.

    If one abstains from that, if one can, it cannot be said that Kate McCann is a physically unattractive woman. On the contrary, on May 2007 she was a very attractive woman. And even though she has aged more rapidly than would be expected for evident reasons, we would say she remains to be, we repeat, physically an attractive woman.

    So why is Meerkat putting her looks down? Why was Meerkat making the contrary of the obvious as if it was obvious?

    One only does that if one wants to hide the obvious because that obvious is a liability. The obvious being Kate McCann being a physically desirable woman.

    Meerkat, by putting down Kate’s possible sexual attractiveness was just doing his best to make people feel have in the back of their mind that she was physically undesirable.

    Doing that told us that the fact that Kate McCann was indeed desirable was a perception people shouldn't have because it would be inconvenient for the truth. But, physically, we don't think that it's even arguable that in 2007 she was a desirable woman.

    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think you're seeing more into this than actually is. Some men find thin women unattractive. They like them with a bit of meat on their bones.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Textusa, KMC is a beautiful woman, though she doesn't move the way she would if she were aware of it. She has an unpleasant voice, hence she's the sois belle et tais-toi kind.

      Delete
  2. (Cont)

    So, this what we propose happened. Note, all speculation a possibility that we leave for readers to consider. Only Kate McCann and David Payne can say what happened and why.

    We now say that David Payne was not there for sex for himself. He went into that apartment to speak to Kate to concerning arrangements for the swinging that was to take place that night.

    Kate was an attractive woman who had been that week, shall we say, popular in the swinging parties and some VIP may have requested to David for her presence that night.

    David enters to inform Kate that her presence is required at VIP XXXX’s ‘little party’ at villa ‘RFGDR’ that night, tells her that he has informed XXXX that she would be there.

    But Kate may have had other plans, for example, she had been requested to attend another event, with VIP YYYY at villa ‘OKJLU’, which she had already agreed to attend.

    The argument started about which party she should attend. Neither wanting to lose face could agree to lose face to their ‘respective’ VIP.

    We would say that the argument went around which party she had to attend, which one brought more serious consequences by refusing. She probably stood her ground and David was not pleased. The argument escalated rapidly and the accident happened.

    To those saying that this may not be reason enough for someone to get angry and to lash out at someone or push them, arguments between civilised people are never planned to involve any sort of violence – pushing is a violent act – but when things escalate rapidly people do things they regret and we don’t know the importance were the reasons each of them felt for not standing down in the argument.

    Note, that in this scenario, things are even more connected to the VIP swinging than we have proposed up to here, in which David just wanted some and Kate turns him down.

    As there was no way to explain how Maddie could have died because of a domestic accident and they were FULLY AWARE that David’s presence there was indeed related with the VIP swinging event that was going on Luz and VIPs XXXX and YYYY in particular.

    That mindset made them and everyone else conscious of the need for a story to protect the reputation of the VIPs present.

    Note, in this proposed scenario, the children’s presence is irrelevant. They could be in the apartment or not. David could have known or not that they were there and most likely he didn’t lose a moment thinking about the children.

    What was to be discussed – which party was to be attended – could be perfectly well discussed in the presence of the children.

    The fictitious tennis court talk between Gerry and David was needed as we explained in the post: Gerry’s permission for David to be in that apartment was needed.

    Gerry, most likely was far away from the apartment and certainly not at the tennis courts.

    Thank you, Meerkat. Good job. Please continue.

    On our part, as promised, we continue to intervene in the case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have received this comment in the precious comments page:

    “Anonymous21 Apr 2018, 08:36:00
    https://www.prweek.com/article/656479/mark-warner-hires-bell-pottinger”

    We thought best to reply to it here.

    First of all, thank you Anonymous 21 Apr 2018, 08:36:00.

    Bringing the content over to the blog:

    “Mark Warner hires Bell Pottinger
    May 09, 2007

    Mark Warner, the holiday company at the centre of the Portuguese kidnap story, is using the Bell Pottinger Group for help with the crisis.

    Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD ¬David Hopkins.

    Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz. MD Michael Froh¬lich then referred the firm to his parent company’s crisis specialist.

    Frohlich and Resonate director Tricia Moon are helping liaise with the British Consulate in Portugal, the Portuguese Police and the Portuguese and UK media.

    They are working with staff at Mark Warner’s Kensington headquarters.“

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some have concluded that this situation meant a pre-planned event was about to take place.

      Others seem to see it as proof of a pre-planned faked abduction or the protection of a paedophile ring.

      The latter scenarios are abhorrent and even the loathsome Bell Pottinger being willing to involve themselves in such a grotesque plot seems unimaginable to us.

      We will have to add Bell Pottinger to the already rather large list of people who knew they were aiding a nepiophile who the paedo-theory pushers say raped and killed Maddie.

      We say this was to ensure that a VIP event went smoothly and discretely.

      We can leave it to readers to judge which scenario is most likely.

      Their presence in PdL means they knew exactly what was going on and they should be questioned by Operation Grange as to their knowledge of the situation - whatever people think that situation was.

      Delete
  4. From the Textusa FB page:
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1690616444368466&id=294140824016042

    Jill Williams Was it at this time when Kate ended up with bruising around her wrists and tops of her hands, I wonder 🤔

    Textusa In our opinion there are possible 2 scenarios:

    1st scenario - is that you are right and that bruises came from Kate lashing out at David which ended up she pushing him on to the couch;

    2nd scenario - is that after trying to save Maddie's life and grasping the full reality of the tragedy, she lashed out at David.

    Also, the bruises can be offensive, she beating David with her arms, or defensive, David defending himself and struggling to hold her arms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm more inclined to think it was someone restraining her after the child was moved from the apartment. KMcC was a fit woman with I'm sure very toned skin it would have taken some force to cause the brusing that was on her arms. She herself said it was caused by her pounding the wall after kicking and breaking the bed. I think that the time after she "raised the alarm" and when they finally called the police there was a lot of restraining of KMcC, eventually someone I think grabbed her by the arms so tightly that the pain would have focuses her to listen to them which in turn would caused the bruising we seen. At this stage she would have been told forcefully.......this is what is going down. Whoever done that used a mixture of extreme pain and a tone that let her know the serious consequences of her not co operating. The same person would have been very angry themselves. Such a scenario would bring about a resignation on KMcC part and calmed her down and we know that by the time the police arrived KMcC was siting in the bedroom alone but not hysterical. If we believe that while the alarm was being raised that Gerry was meeting MrSmith we would have had one angry man capable restraining his wife to this extent and besides would anyone else while he was there step up to the mark to restrain her

      Delete
  5. https://twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/987646157173161985
    Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
    So Payne has gone round to ask Kate to participate in a VIP swinging party later that eve but whilst he's there Payne fancies a bit himself! Kate rejects him & then a commotion occurs & Madeleine dies? Is that the gist of Textusa's latest offering then? #McCann
    3:56 am - 21 Apr 2018
    *****

    Sigh, could someone, somewhere make the effort to explain to Andy what “We now say that David Payne was not there for sex for himself” means?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Textusa you state "As there was no way to explain how Maddie could have died because of a domestic accident" If Payne or Kate accidentally collided with Maddie and knocked her off the couch as you suggest this would mean there would have been no telltale slap or strike marks on her. There was nothing to stop them claiming an accident. For eg they could claim that Maddie had been pretending to dive into a pool and had launched herself off the back of the couch or that she was hyper and had tried to jump from the couch and land on the window sill. They had a much better chance of having this story accepted than the incredible claim that she had been abducted, never mind the huge police attention and investigation that the abduction story would automatically result in. Unless they were stupid the best way of avoiding scrutiny and investigation was to keep it simple. Children die in freak domestic accidents all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree with that. Either denying or discovering a cold body sounds more simple and plausible to me.

      Delete
    2. In hindsight everything is simple and could have been done differently

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 21 Apr 2018, 13:19:00,

      One has to separate when decisions were taken that night, why and which under constraints.

      As Anonymous 21 Apr 2018, 14:40:00 says, when one looks back at what has done, one always finds better ways of doing the things one has done. Or as the Portuguese say, after knowing the numbers one can easily win the Euromillions.

      Before we get to what we believe to have been the 3 main decision phases that night, let us say that we think people are mistaking the reason for the hoax with the hoax itself.

      To put in plain terms, the lighting of a match can lead to a forest fire. The match is the reason it started but the disastrous damage is the forest fire. What we have explained above, was simply the ignitor but the hoax has long gone to stop being about what started it but to be about the hoax itself. It has snowballed into something so enormous that admitting to it, for whateverit may have started, has now become an international political crisis.

      No one needs to justify the lighting of a match but they do need to justify a forest fire. If it began only because a match was lit, that doesn’t change the disastrous damages that it produced later.

      Let’s now deal with the 3 stages of decision.

      The first one was to determine the seriousness of the situation. To see what feasibility the whole thing could be justified as a domestic accident.

      If you read our post “The Super-Kid” it would mean that there had to have been an explanation of Maddie having been projected 70 cm away from the couch. Add to that distance the one which she was inside the couch. If she was 30 cm, it would mean she flew 1 metre before hitting the wall. The more she is placed inside the couch the further the distance she was projected.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/08/super-kid.html

      The cushions of the couch do not provide such a kind of trampoline. Nor would the simple tripping of an adult onto her. In both these scenarios, the 70 com between the couch and the wall would be sufficient for her to fall in.

      The explanation had to be something that would justify the kinetic energy sufficient to have projected the child the distance she was. Not and easy explanation to find.

      Again, it is possible that they could have even so to try and pass it on as a domestic accident.

      But what if the police didn’t buy it? If they were caught in the minimal contradiction, suspicions would arise there would certainly be the curiosity about the reasons they were lying.

      To push it all as a domestic accident the justification had to be solid-clad, no possible risks. The Portuguese authorities would have to swallow it line, hook and sinker and then ask for more.

      The fact that the body was left on the same spot for enough time to impregnate the area with the substance that produces cadaver scent tells us that leaving the body as it was and call authorities dismissing it all as a domestic accident was SERIOUSLY considered.

      (Cont)

      Delete
    4. (Cont)

      But because of the above, it was decided no risks were to be taken. Then and there the second decision was made, to light up the match.

      No one then could have known if the match would burn itself out and simply become one of the many gazillion matches lit every day, or if it start a fire. And if it started a fire, it if would be a small, medium, enormous or of disastrous consequences.

      The third moment of decision, was when someone decided to throw gasoline into the fire and make it all a media circus.

      Note that the second and third are a consequence of during the first someone not wanting to take any risks.

      Could all have been smothered then and there? Possibly.

      We don’t really know what was really at stake and how pressured all felt not to take a minimal risk. The fact is that someone with deciding powers on seeing what was in front of him/her, decided to go for the abduction story instead of risking saying it all had been a domestic accident.

      Delete
    5. It shows that the abduction story was not their decision, and that it was not made in order to protect them against charges of manslaughter.

      Delete
  7. Comment we have received but have censored:

    "Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue":
    Quite apart from the fact that this is (censored), there is a fundamental error;
    claiming a domestic accident might have been accepted, with the whole thing put down to an unfortunate tragedy, whereas claiming abduction GUARANTEED a huge investigation which was bound to uncover evidence of this supposed swinging. Your entire scenario is utterly and fundamentally flawed. One does not cover up something by exposing it to MORE scrutiny.
    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00

      It simply shows the arrogance the British thought how the "native police" and the natives would react: they would believe what the British would invent, the natives would look for the girl, wouldn't find her, close the case and go on with their native lives.

      The "GUARANTEED huge investigation" was huge because the British made it huge. That makes it that To say they wouldn't decide on something because it would be huge a contradiction in terms.

      Delete
    2. Would we have heard of MMC without the alleged jemmied shutters and window spectacular story ?
      Had we right from the start known that one door was unlocked and the other open, we'd have suspected the parents of picturing a faked reality.
      Among the huge wave of compassion, and for Portuguese people this is not a vain word, mocking the MCs' very badly told story, a story to sleep standing (as we say in French) had to be strongly motivated.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00,

      Please could you give us a brief version of your theory, so that we can compare notes and readers can decide which one makes most sense to them.

      An accident during dinner needs some further explanation , if that’s the basis of your theory.

      Delete
    4. "One does not cover up something by exposing it to MORE scrutiny."

      Well, there is an old mass manipulation principle known as distraction strategy.

      While the news were all about the disappearance of Maddie, no one was interested in what else could have been going on in Praia da Luz.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry I had to delete because of a misplaced negation.

    I don't see what hindsight does here !
    Denial of reality is certainly a complex mental disorder and it would not be easy to explain that a child's body is already in rigor mortis when one calls the emergency service.
    Of course there's no evidence of either of those hypotheses but imo they'd be much more embarrassing than a domestic accident, even a violent one, supposing there's no suspicion of evil intention.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your theory depends on the willingness of hundreds of guests to commit perjury to help the McCanns. Are you expecting us to believe they were all a part of this VIP shagathon, and if so can you please explain why VIPs would be desperate to have sex with a load of middle class holidaymakers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question should be - Why does anyone have sex with someone? The simple answer is - Because they can.
      Millions upon millions of people have sex with other people because it's what humans like to do (consenting adults I'm referring to).

      Maybe you simply refuse to see the dynamics of a group of people who enjoy 'swinging.'

      Even VIPs like to have sex, and the discretion will obviously be a huge plus for Mr & Mrs VIP. 11 years later - none of them have yet been 'outed.'

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 21 Apr 2018, 22:07:00,

      Hundreds of guests - perjury?

      Where are the hundreds of guests who were interviewed?

      How can identical witness statements be accounted for?

      As for example the 2 tennis coaches. Did they coincidentally choose exactly the same words or were they given a script to follow?

      No response yet by Anonymous at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00 to the request to state their theory in brief?

      Delete
    3. Anon - Would you mind not telling me what my question ''should'' be?

      Again,Textusa, your theory depended on all the guests being swingers too. So please explain why a group of VIP swingers would be involved with a group of average, middle class holidaymakers? Please answer the question this time, rather than substituting one of your own

      Delete
    4. Textusa

      You say here that the two tennis coaches statements are identical. Have you a link to this? If scripted, which of three groups I list below does the provider of said script belong?

      If its true then why didn't the PJ put pressure on these clear and obvious liars to tell the truth or face the serious consequences?

      You can't have things both ways. You can't say most everything was made up and covered up by many Tapas 9, guests and OC staff but also say the PJ did nothing about it. Not to mention the unlikeliness of so many keeping quiet for so long (this never works, ever).

      The British side pressure would just make Portugal/PJ look both weak and toothless (why?) and a big part of the problem as to why we are still here 11 years later.

      As far as I see all three sides* come out of this as the bad guys in various ways.

      *Portugal authorities
      UK authorities
      All perps involved

      I just still can't fathom a reason for the "great sensitivity" that Martin Brunt and other media have mentioned very recently in respect of the one last line of inquiry of OG.

      My only thoughts are it either relates directly to the P word you are against or there are witnesses or people that have knowledge (no direct involvement) about what happened to Maddie that are themselves heinous criminals?

      Maybe they live very close to OC and have been bribed by certain people to help them or be exposed and so OG has been working to coax info from this group?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous22 Apr 2018, 10:15:00,

      1. About the 2 tennis coaches:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAN-STUK.htm
      “Questioned about the class times of G&K McCann on last Thursday, 3 May, he related that the mother of MBM had a group class at 09-10h00 conducted by Georgina; the father had a group class at 10-11h00 conducted by him.
      Later, at 15-15h45, the couple had a private class, together, conducted by him - and finally, GM participated in the men's social tennis event at 18-19h00.”

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Georgina_Jackson.htm
      “Questioned about the class times of G&K McCann on last Thursday, 3 May, she related that the mother of MBM had a group class at 09-10h00 conducted by herself; the father had a group class at 10-11h00 conducted by DAN.
      Later, at 15-15h45, the couple had a private class, together, conducted by DAN - and finally, GM participated in the men's social tennis event at 18-19h00.”

      2. “You can't have things both ways. You can't say most everything was made up and covered up by many Tapas 9, guests and OC staff but also say the PJ did nothing about it.”

      Not seeing why not. Will simply quote this passage from Mr Amaral’s book:

      “Chapter 3 – News of a disappearance. The first 72 hours.
      Subheading - Reluctance in investigating Maddie’s parents disturbs the investigation’s independence: the abduction thesis gains weight
      (Pg 64)

      “It’s discussed an eventual visit to this apartment and those occupied by the remaining friends. The idea was to locate Madeleine’s clothes, check if they contained vestiges of violence, mainly the clothes she wore when, at 17h35 of May 3, she returned home with the mother and the brothers. Someone raised the hypothesis of Madeleine having died in her apartment and taken from there to one of the others. It’s a possibility, but, at this moment, we don’t have clues that point in that or another direction. The reluctance in doing this diligence is felt. The British Ambassador has already met with the team directing the investigation. Politics and diplomacy seem to be hazing our initiative.
      - Listen, I think it’s important to do this diligence.
      - What? The clothes? You crazy? Let me see if I understood: you want to go to their apartments collect clothes for examination?
      - Yes… What’s the problem? Isn’t it the normal procedure?
      - Of course it is. But with this media folklore? I think I have never seen so many journalists together in my life. And I’m not exactly new to the police!
      - But what if there was an accident, if someone hurt the child intentionally, it’s the most obvious way of knowing since we haven’t found her yet.
      - No. That is making the parents suspects. It doesn’t please me. I think it’s premature.
      - Call it what you will, but that it’s a normal procedure, it is. I think you woke up with your feet uncovered [a Portuguese expression similar to the English “I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today”]
      All of a sudden, one can’t doubt the child’s parents. These have to be treated with diplomacy, it isn’t enough to respect their fundamental rights, the respect for human dignity, and the following of all constitutional and procedural principles. We have to withdraw from our thinking all and any doubt that their behaviour, on the night of the facts or in posterior moment, may arise."

      We are simply saying that like it’s happening with Operation Grange, the politics are determining what the police is doing. The only major difference is that in the PJ there was a man called Gonçalo Amaral and in Grange there isn’t.

      If there hadn’t been him, the PJ (who has a currently an open investigation, so obeying to what the political powers tell them what to do and when) would have obeyed to what the political powers tell them what to do and when.

      (Cont)

      Delete
    6. (Cont)

      3. “Not to mention the unlikeliness of so many keeping quiet for so long (this never works, ever).”

      If one is a stakeholder why would one snitch? One won't.

      If one is scared part of the bottom of the food chain, why would one snitch?

      And if one wanted to snitch, who would one snitch to?

      The difference in this case is that all those related with the victim are happy with the silence. It’s only us, the anonymous and common citizens who want the truth. The silence will only be broken when the politicians decide for that to happen.

      Until then, those interested in the truth matter little in the grand scheme of things.

      However, the truth matters politically. Those not familiar with the case – so not actively searching for the truth – are sick and tired the case of the shame the case is bringing to the UK, and these people matter because all have “vote” as their middle name. That and only that is what will make the politicians decide to break silence.

      4. If scripted, which of three groups I list below does the provider of said script belong?
      Portugal authorities
      UK authorities
      All perps involved

      Our opinion is that script was started by those in Luz, picked up and updated by the British authorities (we believe to have been 1 man specifically mandated for this task by the British government), with the acceptance of the Portuguese government.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 22 Apr 2018, 00:51:00 or Insane at 22 Apr 2018, 00:51:00,

      Thank you for such a wonderful question, as, once again, you are being so helpful. Will answer in due time as rather busy right now.

      Just wanting you to know that your question is not being ignored (how could we ignore such a helpful push?) and will be answered later.

      Delete
    8. Thanks for the detailed reply, Textusa. I will take it all in and may reply later.

      Can I ask you if you have seen/read Blacksmiths latest post? You get a personal mention and wondered if you had an opinion on it or Blacksmith as a whole?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 22 Apr 2018, 15:18:00,

      On October 13 2013, “Acts of faith” Blacksmith sets out his stall:

      “The Blacksmith Bureau had a single, polemical, purpose - to help Goncalo Amaral in every honest way it could....

      There are no conspiracy theories here, no belief in political interference, no assertions, no claims of inside knowledge..”

      We are therefore at odds with his beliefs as we do believe there WAS political interference. He has no time for our opinions, hence his inclusion of us in his latest post.

      He’s uncertain of whether our blog is closed or not, so he’ll need to keep checking to see if we are capricious in our announcements.

      He keeps deleting old posts, so it’s quite hard to keep track on what he believes at the moment. However, one cannot forget his farewell to Mr Amaral on Monday, 9 June 2014 “The Train Moves On”:

      “Well, Goncalo Amaral’s made his position absolutely clear in this latest interview, hasn’t he? He’s comfortable alongside Mr Tony Bennett, M/S Pat Brown and Joana Morais and perhaps he’s right.

      Unfortunately the little Bureau disagrees completely with everything he’s said, there’s no possibility of common ground and we wish him luck and say goodbye to Goncalo”

      Delete
    10. Blacksmith will have to admit that he shares with Textusa the same consideration for Gonçalo Amaral (in spite of "the train moves on", due to some transitory disappointment) and the PJFiles.

      Delete
    11. Anne Guedes,

      The main difference between us and Blacksmith is that he thinks Grange is doing police work while we think it's just the "police tool" the political power is using in the Maddie case.

      As far as we can see, Mr Amaral agrees with us. And again as far as we can see, neither have changed their opinion.

      Delete
    12. I think that Blacksmith considers OG does police work as far as their remit is to investigate an abduction. It could last until all protagonists die (us included), taking into account the frivolous and embarrassing basis on which OG started.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous 22:07, according to what I understand, the objective of those engaged in private activities wasn't to help the MCs, but to help themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they need to ''help themselves''?

      Delete
    2. I suppose they (not necessarily many people) wanted their private activities to remain precisely that, private. It suited them therefore to direct the focus on chasing an abductor instead of having POs studying a crime scene, carrying out an in-depth investigation and profiling the manner of death.
      I thought I understood this, but I might be mistaken.

      Delete
  12. https://amp.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/madeleine-mccanns-parents-deny-killing-or-being-negligent-of-their-daughter-on-sunday-night-20170423-gvqv5x.html?source=images&__twitter_impression=true

    Why does G only comment that M was beautiful. Why not say all my beautiful children?
    And he denies an accident.
    There’s a video link where he’s asked about killing M
    He can give an emphatic no, as he knows it wasn’t him who caused her death. Note that he responds to the question.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From Insane’s blog:

    “Not Textusa21 April 2018 at 10:43
    This comment was unpublished by Textusa and was in response to her comments about the British
    "Are you out of your tiny mind?
    This is not the days of the Raj, you know? You are not British, clearly. Could you keep your xenophobic, racist comments to a minimum, please?
    The investigation was huge because the case of a supposedly abducted child is always huge in any civilised country, as the recent case of Gabriel Cruz in Spain illustrated"
    Happy to publish any other comments she rejects”

    We acknowledge that we have received that comment from an Anonymous and that we didn’t publish it

    But this is from Insane himself in the first comment page:

    “Not Textusa15 Apr 2018, 13:27:00
    For clarity, I only post from this ID.
    As I stated in my pinned post, I confine my comments to my own blog to prevent Textusa using them here to generate traffic.

    Thank you”

    Not sure, but I think the expression you British use is… “liar, liar pants on fire?”

    If it isn’t, apologies, in Portuguese it’s: “it’s easier to catch a liar than a limping man”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless memory deceives: not much was heard when the xenophobic British tabloids and social media and others, accused the PJ of being incompetent and bungling. That Amaral was a fat boozer and also incompetent. That the Portuguese were described as 'sardine-munchers'. That Luz was a hot bed of freaks and sweaty dark skinned abductors. That Luz itself was a haven for pedophilia activity. No, didn't hear much.

      Delete
    2. What is xenophobic in stating the obvious fact that the British authorities forced the Portuguese justice into the abduction scenario? Please watch again the media conference of British Ambassador John Buck on May 4 2007, in the hours following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Watch it again and again. Doesn't it say very clearly that UK considered abduction as the only acceptable line of inquiry? Wasn’t that an official statement that anyone who would lie in favor of the abduction scenario would be placed under the protection of UK?

      Delete
    3. Anon @13:10 do you have a link,I can only find one on the tube no mention of abduction that I can hear.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous22 Apr 2018, 16:52:00

      Of course, he did not use the word “abduction”. These people use diplomatic language.

      For an ambassador, to say that UK Police liaison officers are going to be sent “to help and support the family” has huge implications IMHO. You be the judge.

      The simple fact that he spoke to the media on that day is significant per se, isn’t it?

      Here is a link you probably found already:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azj4CLORnlc

      Delete
    5. Anon @ 22:32, With you now,the big question is and always has been why abduction above all else.Who is being protected,nail that and its a home run if that is the case,yet after all this time not even a whisper!

      Delete
  14. Anonymous 22 April 2018, 00:51
    Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that sexual activity has anything to do with social mobility??

    ReplyDelete
  15. We recommend readers read this post from Blacksmith:

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id403.htm

    More timewarps The Blacksmith Bureau

    Posted by John Blacksmith
    Tuesday, 3 April 2012 at 17:02

    When the Yard detectives finally interview the Tapas group they won't be confining their questions to what happened between 8.30 and 10PM on May 3. The preceding two and a half hours or so also need more than a little clarification.

    We all know about nice Dr Payne's controversial visit to Kate McCann during that time and we won't deal with it any more today. Less studied, however, are the activities of other members of the group around the same time, particularly those surrounding the so-called "social tennis" event.

    This was scheduled for 6.PM at the Ocean Club and was to involve all four male members of the group, finishing, according to the instructor, at 7PM. Gerry McCann was already at the courts at six with the instructor, Dan. Kate and the children were in the apartment and the rest of the group were down at the beach in the Paraiso bar, a seaside café some seven to ten minutes' walk away from the Ocean Club.

    The men left the bar for the tennis courts, the others followed them afterwards, stayed to watch some of the tennis, and then everyone went back to their respective apartments to put the kids to bed and prepare for supper at the Tapas restaurant.

    Silence is golden

    So far so simple. So simple that it is very hard to see why the men, as well as the McCanns, were initially silent about this two and a half hour period. Summarising the May 4 police statements: David Payne had nothing to say about the period, even though it included a towel-wrapped Kate McCann and the striking "vision of angels" in apartment 5A; Mathew Oldfield had nothing to say either; Russell O'Brien, along with his partner Tanner the most obscure and slippery of the whole group, who spoke to the police last and knew what Tanner had said, mentioned nothing other than his return to his apartment at "around 7.15-7.30PM." From Gerry McCann, not a word about the whole period.

    The women were less tight-lipped. Dianne Webster, exactly as one would expect, was positively loquacious:

    "Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 15h45 and left at around 18h15 to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 19h00. The informant then went to the apartment with the small children and ten minutes later, her son-in-law, David, joined them. With her son-in-law's help, they bathed the children."

    Her daughter could hardly disagree, although whether these two statements were genuinely independent is another matter since the times, as you can see, are too similar for comfort:

    "On the day before yesterday, [this is a translation error for May 3] they slightly altered their routine - they went to the beach with the children and her mother Dianne. They arrived there around 15h45 and left at 18h15, and headed towards the tennis court until about 19h00. Immediately afterwards, the witness headed towards the apartment with her children, and her mother. Ten minutes later her husband David appeared. In the apartment her mother, helped by her husband David, bathed the children whilst the witness went jogging on the beach until around 20h00. Afterwards, she returned to the apartment and got ready."

    Rachael Oldfield, in contrast, said the same as Mathew: nothing.

    Finally Jane Tanner. And her statement was both relatively extensive and very interesting because in the course of a couple of paragraphs in which she told police that she was on the beach or at the Paraiso from 3.45 until 6.10-6.15, she said little more about herself but gave useful eye-witness alibis for all the men and Kate McCann:

    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  16. (Cont)

    Kate? "Around 5.15 she saw Kate Healy jog past the beach and wave." Gerry and the other men? Why, "when the witness, together with her friends and children returned from the beach at about 6.20 they passed by the tennis courts and saw all the men, including Gerry, on court. They stayed there talking to them for about 20/30 minutes." Gerry again? "Gerald behaved normally." Kate again? "She thinks [our italics] Kate was in the apartment putting the children to bed." Everybody? "At about 19h00 they all went back to their own apartments with the children."

    "All", however, didn't mean all at all, since O'Brien came back "later", time unspecified. And, surprise, surprise, she discussed her statement with Russell O'Brien who told the police that "He completely corroborates his partner Jane Tanner's statements for the rest of the day." Whatever that may mean.

    A new beginning…

    Clearly the police needed a lot more detail and on May 10/11 they attempted to get it, despite the absence of the Paynes and Kate McCann. Under questioning a consistent picture now began to emerge:

    • Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield left the beach for the "social tennis" between 6 and 6.15.
    • The remainder of the group followed some ten minutes later and stayed talking or watching the tennis until 7 when the women and children left for their apartments.
    • The independent witness, Dan, confirmed that the social tennis was over by 7PM. Gerry, who had played with the other three, left then. The other men left ten minutes or so later.
    From which we can see that:

    • O'Brien, Oldfield and Payne were only out of sight of the women and children for about ten minutes before and ten minutes after the tennis.
    • All the men were in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 and remained in them until 8.30.

    That was the end of the Portuguese questioning and everything had turned out straightforward enough – insofar as anything the Tapas 7 said was ever straightforward. Only Gerry McCann had mentioned Payne's visit to 5A, admittedly, but that may well have been because the latter didn't get the chance to give a second statement.

    Back in England the McCanns and their lawyers began building their defence to the Portuguese accusations, the details surfacing at intervals as their spokesman floated them in the media to see if they sailed or sank. Gerry and the group had little to say about the period in their Panorama "expunge it!" programme – which began as it meant to continue with the comical statement that "the McCanns' story has been the same from day one" – but what they did say confirmed the details they had given on May 10/11.

    Only in the late December Beyond the Smears article by David Smith, which the McCanns had used as a deliberate feed for their version of events, did the pair revert to coyness about the missing two and a half hours, highlighting only the Payne visit and introducing a mysterious tennis injury which had apparently stopped Gerry playing and left him "waiting around the courts" on his own after 4.30 that afternoon. Hm.

    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  17. (Cont)

    Kate? "Around 5.15 she saw Kate Healy jog past the beach and wave." Gerry and the other men? Why, "when the witness, together with her friends and children returned from the beach at about 6.20 they passed by the tennis courts and saw all the men, including Gerry, on court. They stayed there talking to them for about 20/30 minutes." Gerry again? "Gerald behaved normally." Kate again? "She thinks [our italics] Kate was in the apartment putting the children to bed." Everybody? "At about 19h00 they all went back to their own apartments with the children."

    "All", however, didn't mean all at all, since O'Brien came back "later", time unspecified. And, surprise, surprise, she discussed her statement with Russell O'Brien who told the police that "He completely corroborates his partner Jane Tanner's statements for the rest of the day." Whatever that may mean.

    A new beginning…

    Clearly the police needed a lot more detail and on May 10/11 they attempted to get it, despite the absence of the Paynes and Kate McCann. Under questioning a consistent picture now began to emerge:

    • Russell O'Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield left the beach for the "social tennis" between 6 and 6.15.
    • The remainder of the group followed some ten minutes later and stayed talking or watching the tennis until 7 when the women and children left for their apartments.
    • The independent witness, Dan, confirmed that the social tennis was over by 7PM. Gerry, who had played with the other three, left then. The other men left ten minutes or so later.
    From which we can see that:

    • O'Brien, Oldfield and Payne were only out of sight of the women and children for about ten minutes before and ten minutes after the tennis.
    • All the men were in their respective apartments with their partners and children by 7.15-7.20 and remained in them until 8.30.

    That was the end of the Portuguese questioning and everything had turned out straightforward enough – insofar as anything the Tapas 7 said was ever straightforward. Only Gerry McCann had mentioned Payne's visit to 5A, admittedly, but that may well have been because the latter didn't get the chance to give a second statement.

    (Cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. (Cont.)

    Back in England the McCanns and their lawyers began building their defence to the Portuguese accusations, the details surfacing at intervals as their spokesman floated them in the media to see if they sailed or sank. Gerry and the group had little to say about the period in their Panorama "expunge it!" programme – which began as it meant to continue with the comical statement that "the McCanns' story has been the same from day one" – but what they did say confirmed the details they had given on May 10/11.

    Only in the late December Beyond the Smears article by David Smith, which the McCanns had used as a deliberate feed for their version of events, did the pair revert to coyness about the missing two and a half hours, highlighting only the Payne visit and introducing a mysterious tennis injury which had apparently stopped Gerry playing and left him "waiting around the courts" on his own after 4.30 that afternoon. Hm.

    …and another

    And so we come to the final effort of the investigation, the rogatory interviews, in which the Tapas 7 were able to fill in the details which had been absent in Portugal. The assembled police of two countries, well briefed about the progress of events on and after May 3 and with copies of the statements to hand, could hardly have been prepared for what occurred during that week of interviews. In short:

    • Payne, O'Brien and Oldfield all changed their stories. In unison. Now they stated that the tennis didn't start until 6.50 and finished at 8PM.
    • Two of the three made some attempt to reconcile the new version with the old; both failed, with Payne in particular being badly caught out by his interviewer.
    • Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster, to add to the developing farce, did not alter their statements, still saying that David Payne was back in the apartment by 7.10.

    This radical alteration in the timing of events was wrapped in various lengths of flannel by the interviewees as they attempted to make their changes less suspicious and more convincing. No wonder Rebelo flew home before the completion of the interviews! These absurd and often rather shameless alterations to their stories made it obvious that the seven – always excluding Dianne Webster – were not there to help seek the truth of events on May 3 but were simply covering their backs in some way or deliberately muddying the waters.

    To Rebelo the idea that any of them would chance returning to a Portuguese reconstruction with this lamentable record of their own evasions was out of the question, even before some of them were asked: clearly they would have to be forced – an impossibility under European Arrest Warrant rules. With his disillusioned flight home the Portuguese investigation was effectively at an end.

    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  19. (Cont)

    Nor was he the only one to react strongly to the new version. "It's getting warm in here," said DC Messiah at one point, clearly baffled and irritated at Payne's unbearably long-winded attempts to make the new timings fit the old. There are pages and pages of the stuff as Payne battles to soften the impact of his volte-face by stressing how late everything was running, how he had neither watch nor mobile phone to tell the time, how long and slow was the way from beach to tennis courts and from courts to apartments and on and on. If you cut out the rare statements of fact from the interview but leave in Payne's "uncertainties" you get an idea of just how bizarre Payne's answers were:

    "But you know...

    "Yeah, what sort of time, excuse me it's getting warm in here, what sort of time was that that you saw them?"

    "Err you know and err so that'd be the time that I'd have gone out there... you know err the, I've done a great deal... err well no because I mean like usually like... as far as I remember... err... err... I can't remember... Err well I mean we were probably, as I say... then we left the err restaurant and err you know, I hadn't got a watch on me, I hadn't you know I hadn't got a mobile... we left the restaurant err you know after six o'clock, so you know just working backwards… bit of time on the beach and then you know your meal, which would take an hour, which seems to fit in with the, you know... we left we didn't leave from the beach we left from the err restaurant... Err the, basically the err the children and the ladies that stayed behind, err just to finish off there and err and then we... we'll get up there... err there was Russell and Matt. As I say I can't, can't remember... you know, I can't remember... but I know I went and spoke to Gerry."

    "Yeah, and at what point did you have the conversation with him? Did he stop the game or did you speak whilst he was playing?"

    "I can't remember, I can't remember. I, you know, in my mind, you know, he stopped playing and you know but I can't remember..."

    The other interviewees are just as unconvincing, as readers can see for themselves from the transcripts. Some err and bumble along as they play for time regarding the crucial alterations to their year-old statements; others, like O'Brien, give up any attempt to remove the anomalies, leaving the transcript in a literally nonsensical state.


    Every picture tells a story

    Something was up between 6 and 8.30 The silence of virtually all of them in the first instance about these two and a half hours was suggestive enough; that was followed by suspicious near-unanimity six days later; and then, with a whole year gone, came this farrago, quite enough to make DC Messiah somewhat hot under the collar.

    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  20. (Cont)

    What was the need for the change? Why were they so riskily adding an extra hour to events, an hour in which the men were on their own? That's what we hope the Yard will eventually tell us. Once again the apparently naĂŻve but persistently untruthful Oldfield is right at the centre of a modified version. Once again Rachael Oldfield makes changes to her story to back him up, just as she did when she confirmed some of his more unlikely statements in the PJ interviews. Alongside Oldfield but out of sight of everyone else walks the enigmatic figure of O'Brien, just as he was to do at the critical hour of 9.30PM. And Payne, bumbling Payne, struggles to alter his testimony in order to fit in the visit to 5A by him alone.

    (Picture of CCTV of ParaĂ­so Resataurant with caption “Come on ladies”)

    When did the group become aware of the Paraiso CCTV pictures? Payne makes reference to camera timings but it is not clear which camera he is referring to. They blow open good old unanimous Version One. At 6.13 the three men are standing, clearly about to leave, presumably for the tennis courts. Fair enough. But what about the "ten minutes" or so interval before the others left? They were in fact still in the restaurant until at least 6.36 – fifteen minutes after Jane Tanner claimed to have watched the men playing – and would have arrived at the tennis courts at the same time as the men were just commencing play. If they weren't playing tennis then what exactly had O'Brien, Oldfield and David Payne been doing between 6.13 and 6.50, a period which just happened to include the supposed Payne visit? And if they were playing from 6.50 to almost 8PM how come Fiona Payne placed her husband back in the apartment at 7.10? Come on!

    If they had somehow been mistaken in unison in Version One and were correcting their evidence because they'd seen the CCTV timings then why on earth couldn't they tell Leicester police so? Why take the risk of looking once again as if they were obstructing the investigation because they had something to hide? And there are many other related questions: the Yard have their work cut out.

    Just after the rogatory interviews ended Rachael Oldfield spoke to BBC Radio 4. Had any of their stories changed between the Portuguese statements and the interviews, she was asked. "No, of course not," said the lady who'd once sworn to the PJ that MO returned to their apartment at 7.15. "How could they have done?" she added haughtily, "there was only ever one story."

    Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Textusa, please delete my comment at 13:17. This is more accurate:
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm

      The tennis coaches both said G participated in the men’s social tennis event at 18-19 h00.
      The statements were taken on May 8th at 16.20 and 18.30 respectively by the same PJ inspector Maria Ramos and with the same translator, Robert Murat.
      Inspector Joao Carlos has cctv pictures by May 8th, same day as tennis coaches were interviewed.
      The T9 may not have been aware of this, but I assume Inspector Ramos may have been aware of the Paraiso pictures.
      The next day, Inspector Paiva examined the Paraiso cctv pictures.
      Maybe this is why the rogatory statements tell a different story, as stated by Blacksmith.

      Delete
  21. We have received and published above the following comments “Anon” from Insane:

    “Anonymous 21 Apr 2018, 22:07:00
    Your theory depends on the willingness of hundreds of guests to commit perjury to help the McCanns. Are you expecting us to believe they were all a part of this VIP shagathon, and if so can you please explain why VIPs would be desperate to have sex with a load of middle class holidaymakers?”

    And:

    “Anonymous 22 Apr 2018, 00:51:00
    Anon - Would you mind not telling me what my question ''should'' be?
    Again,Textusa, your theory depended on all the guests being swingers too. So please explain why a group of VIP swingers would be involved with a group of average, middle class holidaymakers? Please answer the question this time, rather than substituting one of your own”


    Answer to Insane’s question: why would a good-looking, successful actor married to one of the most beautiful British actresses need to engage the services of a low level roadside sex-worker? We don’t know, please ask Hugh Grant.

    Also, while you’re there, do ask Mr Grant if he ever recovered from the damage that sex-scandal caused to his reputation. He hasn’t.

    Are we comparing the “group of average, middle class holidaymakers” to Divine Brown? No but Insane is and that is why his comments are so helpful.

    Insane’s comments allow us to get into the right mindset to fully understand what happened, or better, what was happening, in Luz that week.

    Unwittingly, establishes a hierarchy of the people present in Luz and he places at the bottom of that “food chain” a group mainly made up of doctors.

    Without revealing anything new we all know that one of the couples, the McCanns, owned and own even though mortgaged quite a house in Rothley. We wouldn’t call it a mansion but we can say with certainty that is not a house that the common Brit owns.

    That’s why we always refer to the T9 as being upper-middle class.

    But Insane’s comments places T9 so low down in the food-chain that to him it’s even unthinkable for the VIPs in Luz to consider having sex with them.

    Let’s define a common food chain: grass (primary producer), grasshopper (primary consumer), rat (secondary consumer), snake (tertiary consumer) and hawk (quaternary consumer).

    The T9 are the grass. Above them the grasshoppers. If the grass is upper-middle class, then a grasshopper can only be upper class. We will let readers imagine what social status a rat or a snake would need to have to rank higher in the food chain that Insane has so helped establish.

    Nowhere have we suggested the VIPs were desperate to have sex with Kate when we suggested they requested her presence.

    When a mafia boss orders someone to break the legs of the small dealer who owes him money, he’s not showing he’s desperate for the money. He’s simply asserting his power to those below and showing how merciless he can be when he’s displeased.

    Insane is very helpful as he shows the power imbalances we suggest were present.

    The powerful do not like to be displeased while those in the bottom of the food chain do all they can to please.

    Thus, Gerry’s “F off, I’m not here to enjoy myself” comment. The of those below is to please not to enjoy themselves. Like a chef when fighting for a Michelin star, not matter how much s/he enjoys cooking which evidently s/he does, working to earn that star has nothing with enjoyment but with but with doing what one enjoys to achieve one’s objectives

    In the scenario we suggested the grass (Kate) was requested by 2 different snakes (VIPs). The grass knows that displeasing either of those snakes would bring serious negative consequences.

    The argument between the David and Kate we suggest happened was about them deciding which of the 2 snakes they had no choice but to disappoint. To displease.

    If we are correct, which we may well not be, David as the organizer of that particular grass-level group may have thought he had the authority to tell Kate where she should be and Kate may have disagreed strongly with him. Thus the fierceness of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  22. From our FB page:
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1690616444368466&id=294140824016042

    "Linda Wilson - Seeing how fast her temper can rise in interviews where you can almost see smoke coming out of her ears, then I can see her putting her foot down if she has been summoned to a party if she doesn't want to go or has other plans. As Payne booked the holiday then it's logical to use him as the go between or errand boy and I can see how Kate would be popular in swinging circles to say otherwise would be a lie. Like you say whatever really happened inside the apartment we may never know, but Payne has behaved in such a subdued subservient manner that would only be accepted by someone who has something to hide. Why else would you accept the label of being a peadophile one must always remember his own children are old enough to read, research what went on in PDL. Personally I think they all did a great disservice and injustice to their children passing this burden of lies onto their shoulders, but then they never expected the files to be made public."

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is interesting indeed to ponder what may have caused an aggressive emotional incident between DP and K M which may have led to the death of Madeleine.
    There may have been a factor such as someone or both having consumed alcohol - which can often exacerbate emotions or aggressive behaviour. Also, we have to remember this occurred on the Thursday after several days of holidaying. In those days prior to Thursday afternoon, we may have had a case where David saw how popular Kate was and decided he wanted her badly. She may have rebuffed him on a previous evening. He may have known Gerry was not around and saw an opportunity. Having seen a comment on Facebook that he made about his wife (he referred to her as 'that'... something like ' and to think I married that' ) I get an impression that he might see women as trophies (could be wrong of course). If my own husband referred to me as 'that' I would be rather cross to say the least! To cause an emotional aggressive outburst between K and DP - in my view it must have been something quite emotionally hurtful and I would not be surprised if alcohol played a part. If I was in a group of adult friends taking a holiday, for me to have an emotional aggressive encounter with one of the men of the other couples, it would take a lot. Otherwise it would just be a shouting match or a few cross words. So I believe that something was said or suggested that was very personal and hurtful. To me, David appears to have aged in the same way that Kate has - i.e. excessively. Also, I think that David, unlike Kate, was not very physically attractive. Whereas Kate would be popular - I really don't think Dave would be attractive to the ladies. All these factors may play a part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 23 Apr 2018, 14:23:00,

      David Payne may not be attractive to some, namely to you, but his attractive wife obviously did find him so.

      Difficult to say if he’s aged like Kate because we don’t see him in the media these days.

      Also the narrative coming from the McCanns has always to be taken with care. We don't know how truthful the "that" episode may be. We don't believe it was.

      One of the problems faced between the rushed by pressure narrative and reality was that the bed we believe Maddie slept in was different from the one they said she had been snatched from as we showed in our post "Mistaken Identities".
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/10/mistaken-identities.html

      They had to come up with some sort of jealousy to justify Kate having slept in the bed nearest to the window and that for us is the reason why that story was invented.

      We believe the argument was, as Linda Wilson says, the perceived power David thought he had over the other elements of the group, in the case Kate, as he had been the one who had brought them into that exclusive event.

      Kate thought otherwise and things escalated.

      Delete
  24. We find very interesting this comment left by Meerkat on Insane’s blog:

    “Anonymous 21 April 2018 at 23:43
    "Meerkat has made us see that it was much more directly related with the VIP swinging than we had initially presumed."
    What? By me saying it has sod all to do with swinging? Repeatedly. Since forever.
    I hope you kept a receipt for that brain you three share, TeXTusa.
    aleksandr orlov”

    *****

    Apparently, if we were to believe him, Meerkat thinks of coitus with Kate outside the swinging scenario.

    We could even be made to think that Meerkat is justifying himself to Insane.

    As if to explain how he didn’t commit the capital sin of the case, and if he did, he didn’t mean to.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Again from our FB page:
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042

    "Linda Wilson - One thing Gerry has always come across as to me is ferociously ambitious and has no problem treading on toes to get what and where he wanted to be. Even the accident and the death of his child proved too much of an opportunity to miss in trying to move up that social ladder.Kate IMO may not be as ambitious but there is no way she will not stand by her man and watching them in interviews especially when thrown a curve ball act in unison like a military operation. I can imagine in better times before the hoax them discussing strategy on how to work a room so they could move up the ranks to get more invites with vip's. Both the McCann's were originally from a lower social status but like many moved up, from my own experience these are where the snobs come from and some find themselves in social limbo because they find they belong to neither class while some just don't care. I liken the McCann's to great pretender's because nothing about their life from them,family,friends employee statements has any ring of truth in it everything is scripted and overkill. In fact reality TV projects and has more truth to it than the life these two want us to believe, which means only one thing. They have a lot to hide and they want and have done best to keep it hidden but the lid will not keep on forever.
    I'm not on twitter so have no idea what goes on on it but maybe insane should keep in mind another big Hollywood star who many said married above his league into political royalty when he married Maria Shriver but that didn't stop Arnie having an affair with the maid who then had his child, strange things us human beings"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Funny old wprld:
    https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/988504174773063680

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 24 Apr 2018, 10:28:00,

      Thank you! Bringing it over to the blog:

      "Carole Cadwalladr@carolecadwalla
      Hmm. Interesting play, Cambridge Analytica. Press conference announced for tomorrow with their new media advisor: the former Conservative parliamentary candidate for Brighton, Clarence Mitchell. Do remember that they 'never get involved in UK politics' etc etc.
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbfeCSlWsAArVnd.jpg
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbfeDpSX0AEyS1c.jpg
      12:45 pm - 23 Apr 2018"

      *****

      1. Political aspirations over?

      2. Which is part-time? This one or the one he got fired from but which he continued to work for, the McCanns?

      Delete
    2. https://mobile.twitter.com/PeritaRisus/status/988812131645710336
      Clarence's "transferable skills" are going down well at the #cambridgeanalytics press conference. #Bullyboy #McCann
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dbj3FllW0AE1RLm?format=jpg
      5:09 pm · 24 Apr 2018
      ******
      https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/988791471707951104
      Carole Cadwalladr@carolecadwalla
      Clarence Mitchell: ‘Cambridge Analytica were more than happy to help the ICO. They didn’t need to get a warrant.’ Journalist: ‘Well why did you spent four and a half hours in court arguing against it?’
      3:47 pm · 24 Apr 2018
      ******
      https://mobile.twitter.com/5hady_uk/status/988882572888498176
      shady@5hady_uk
      Catching up with clarrie on #CambridgeFacts #CambridgeAnalytica he looked ill tbh, read most of the 'facts' from script, bluffed, stuttered & stumbled throughout. easy to spot him lying, again. Now he's an expert in PR, missing children, data management, mostly bullshit!! #mccann
      9:49 pm · 24 Apr 2018
      ******

      The man so many for so many years sold as the brilliant mastermind behind all the manipulation in the British media, the man they said controlled all, determined even what Rupert Murdoch’s empire was to write about Maddie.

      Then, back in 2009, we warned people how was just a pathetic puppet:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2009/08/clarence-mitchell-luckiest-unluckiest.html

      Delete
    3. https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNewsTom/status/988802924020228096

      A comment here
      “It goes beyond reputation management“
      As did the Mc case.
      But he’s lost his cocky attitude and is floundering on this one

      Delete
  27. We asked Anonymous at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00 (censored comment) who we believe to be Insane, to give us his theory as to what happened to Maddie:

    “Textusa21 Apr 2018, 19:41:00
    Anonymous at 21 Apr 2018, 16:47:00,
    Please could you give us a brief version of your theory, so that we can compare notes and readers can decide which one makes most sense to them.
    An accident during dinner needs some further explanation , if that’s the basis of your theory.”

    We got no reply to this date.

    However he was questioned on his blog the exact same question:

    Anonymous22 April 2018 at 07:38
    Do you have a theory yourself of what happened to Madeleine McCann, NotTextusa?

    To which he replied:

    Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 08:43
    Yes thanks.

    We were not Anonymous 22 April 2018 at 07:38 who asked. We could have been but were not and if we were we would have absolutely no problems in assuming it here and now.

    What matters is that he also didn’t answer, we’re assuming because he thought it was us pulling his leg.

    But then this was followed by this:

    “Anonymous 22 April 2018 at 09:03
    Do you have a link to a blog post about it then or something?
    Cheers.
    Andrew. (Andy Fish)”

    Seeing that it was now Andy Fish asking (who could have been Anonymous 22 April 2018 at 07:38) and having seen how passionately Andy had turned against us, Insane felt compelled to answer. And he did:

    “Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 09:42
    Only an old one which is somewhat out of date. I can give you a quick precis?

    I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007. I think suggestions that she died earlier in the week are nonsense. I don't believe that there is any evidence of abduction and it is the equivalent of a 'diagnosis of exclusion' in medical terms, ie all you are left with when you have ruled out everything else. I think that people forget that with one or two exceptions any evidence given directly to the UK police and not under letters of request is a complete mystery, but we can assume that none of it is conclusive or sufficient to bring charges. I think Kate McCann's version of her suspicions that the twins had been drugged, the testimony of other witnesses and the failure to seek urgent assessment for them is medically and logically inexplicable. I do not think there was any storage of a body that night or any movement at a later date by car or any other means. I think any disposal was simple and expedient. I think Kate McCann's book reveals a great deal about her state of mind and serves as an attempt to address outstanding issues, failing miserably. I think the only way the case will be solved is if someone talks or if remains are found. I think both are unlikely. I think many people get to caught up in the minutiae and fail to see the bigger picture.

    And of course it goes without saying that I think Textusa's swinging theory is utter bollocks.

    Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 09:43
    *too”

    Finally, we have Insane’s theory which we will call “Insane’s precis”. Now it can be scrutinised. And we will do that.

    For now, we will let readers take it all in in their own time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So there are no doubts, Insane's precis:

      I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007. I think suggestions that she died earlier in the week are nonsense. I don't believe that there is any evidence of abduction and it is the equivalent of a 'diagnosis of exclusion' in medical terms, ie all you are left with when you have ruled out everything else. I think that people forget that with one or two exceptions any evidence given directly to the UK police and not under letters of request is a complete mystery, but we can assume that none of it is conclusive or sufficient to bring charges. I think Kate McCann's version of her suspicions that the twins had been drugged, the testimony of other witnesses and the failure to seek urgent assessment for them is medically and logically inexplicable. I do not think there was any storage of a body that night or any movement at a later date by car or any other means. I think any disposal was simple and expedient. I think Kate McCann's book reveals a great deal about her state of mind and serves as an attempt to address outstanding issues, failing miserably. I think the only way the case will be solved is if someone talks or if remains are found. I think both are unlikely. I think many people get too caught up in the minutiae and fail to see the bigger picture.

      Delete
    2. My take on Insane’s precis:
      She died on 3rd - I agree
      There’s no evidence of abduction - agree.
      They disposed of the body that night – I don’t agree. Not possible without a car or knowledge of area to do that. Disposal at sea ruled out by Harrison report.
      We don’t know all the evidence the police on either side now have - agree.
      The case won’t be solved without a body or a confession/ revelation of some sort - possibly not. But many of us want OG to continue, whereas Insane doesn’t commit to that.
      The twins were said by K to have been sedated and therefore suspicion on K (and G?) because they did nothing about having them checked - agree
      But I don’t agree on the reason for their sedation, which was nothing to do with leaving them alone to go dining. It was to facilitate what went on after M died.

      You avoid being specific about what you think happened.
      Presume leaving it open for a fall when the Mcs were out dining and because M also sedated?
      Nobody else helped them?
      Very vague answer

      Delete
    3. The twins were sedated and not medically checked - therefore M probably drugged and fell when parents out?
      But no blood from a fall that resulted in death?
      Cadaver scent was from an ancient burial ground? Or fertiliser?
      Eddie barking at the car. Why?
      Kate’s clothing, the cat...
      His scenario allows for the parents to hand her over to a third party, for whatever purpose. Or any other nonsense.
      He doesn’t say whether she could have walked out herself but no evidence of death in the apartment, according to him! No blood, no scent, no evidence of abduction.
      What’s left?
      He’s going to lose a lot of supporters hopefully.

      Delete
    4. The ref to K’s book showing her state of mind. What was that state? Some say the book shows she’s mad, some that she’s prone to violence, others that she can lie easily, so what is he suggesting her state of mind was and is he hinting that K killed M in some sort of frenzy? Without leaving any traces? Where, if not in the apartment?
      Where could she be hidden so quickly, undetected in all the searches, if nobody helped them?
      It makes little sense as an overall hypothesis. Without the details of how it was arrived at.

      Delete
    5. Who does he think the Smith family saw? Assuming he accepts they had no car that night and had to carry M, would it not be a strange coincidence that the family saw a man who looked like G, carrying a girl who fitted M’s overall description of it wasn’t G?
      If he thinks the Smiths were truthful about their sighting, the location of a body would have to be within G’s ability to get to the hiding place and back and therefore limiting a choice of place. And necessitating a further move as quickly as possible - by what means?
      Or does he think either they lied or they saw someone else, who just happened to be around at that convenient time?

      Delete
    6. Insane says no storage of body or later removal by car - so that suggests something like total destruction of evidence by disposal at sea, (not by throwing from a cliff) Hiding a body permanently in the church would require the involvement of others, which unless I’m mistaken, is violently disputed by this person.

      If you were G, on foot, without detailed knowledge of the area, who owned the land or who might be observing, where would you go to enable you to dispose of a body permanently, within a short timeframe? Just think about it and wonder!

      Delete
    7. Imaging myself as a first-time tourist with a body in a Portuguese village at night. It’s quiet, but you never know who is around, finishing their jobs for the evening. Land that looks uncultivated belongs to someone and can be brought into use at any time. Men go shooting across the fields and could stumble on a shallow grave - as one doesn’t take pick axes on holiday to dig hard ground.
      The sea washes in all sorts of items and there are fisherman out at night with small boats.
      Weighing a body down in the sea - with what? If he thinks it will only come to light if remains found as one possibility then he can’t believe disposal at sea was likely
      Even a disposal at sea requires a boat conveniently placed and not missed by the owner.
      The dustbins were checked by searchers that night. I wouldn’t use a bin anyway, because other people may use it after you.
      I can’t think of anywhere in places I visit

      Delete
    8. If not at sea because he talks of possibility of remains being found and a simple, expedient disposal does that mean he agrees with cremation theory? No, he can’t because that means other people involved!
      Roadworks were checked by PJ.
      Where did G find that pick axe so quickly if it was a burial?

      I’m trying really hard and honestly to find a scenario which fits his hypothesis but I just can’t.

      Delete
    9. One interpretation of Insane’s hypothesis is that it allows for G to have taken M to a nearby home, but not to be transported any further. Dangerously like the Birch garden theory, which was obviously nonsense.
      It would still involve somebody outside T9.

      Maybe he can clarify if he believes anyone outside T9 involved?

      PJ looked at the possibility of Russell O’Brien using a car because they suspected he had access to a car?
      Is this where the hypothesis is heading?

      Delete
    10. The waste bins weren't checked by searchers that night, only the following day, people were searching for an alive little girl who got lost. Except for one person who lifted one lid at dawn.

      Delete
    11. Anne Guedes, how do you know the bins were not checked? Because it's not in the files? That doesn't mean anything, people are likely to have checked bins for clues such as discarded toy or blanket if not for a child and not told anyone they did it.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous 11:16, I don't know, nobody said so and why would anyone check a bin for clue when finding a child is a priority and hiding herself in a bin is excluded ?
      May I remind you that, except for Mr MK who by chance heard GMC speaking on the phone and was gobsmacked by the paedophile story, everybody thought that the child had wandered off.
      Do you know many cases of predators losing time throwing their victim and/or her clothes in a bin?

      Delete
  28. Anonymous at 16:04

    The usual mix of using official or case file evidence as a crutch when it agrees with your own beliefs - “Disposal at sea ruled out by Harrison report” – thus giving a veneer of forensic respectability to your claims, and then coming out with a piece of creative imagination for which you cannot offer any evidence at all, because it doesn’t exist: “But I don’t agree on the reason for their sedation, which was nothing to do with leaving them alone to go dining. It was to facilitate what went on after M died.”

    Nice try.

    But your first crutch breaks anyway – because Harrison never “ruled out” disposal at sea, so you are either unaware of the facts or misleading people.

    Harrison’s short research project couldn’t begin to “rule out” disposal at sea, due to the impossibility of accurately modelling the myriad factors involved. It was beach burial that he discounted. His words were: “If a body entered the sea it could remain close to the shore travelling in an eastward direction until it returned to shore or became trapped in the sub surface rocks.”

    The word is “could”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best thing to do is to read Harrison report and decide whether s/ he was saying if disposal at sea was improbable or not.
      It seems improbable to me, but maybe this person is saying it’s possible in their opinion.
      They obviously think it’s possible she was disposed of at sea?
      Anything that clarifies a hypothesis is welcome.

      Delete
    2. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

      See para Offshore

      This is what I was referring to.
      Accept that not everybody would be deterred by the potential problem outlined.
      Like Anon, opinions are being expressed. Insane’s opinion that the disposal was carried out in the way he claims is just another opinion.

      Delete
    3. Look, I have no disagreements with your theory or criticism of you but people shouldn't muddy the waters by stating things as facts and then saying it was only an opinion. It wasn't. It was stated as a fact that Harrison had "ruled out" disposal, not found it improbable or unlikely or difficult. That is not true, whatever one's opinions.

      And stating something that is not true cannot "clarify a hypothesis": it destroys it.

      Delete
  29. Usually as soon as I read the names Insane and Not-Textusa, I run away, I only know that they are over-present on this blog along with a lot (or may be it's always the same one ?) Anonymous.
    But I read that precis (short as "precis" means) and I do agree with all the points.
    To Anonymous 16:04, I observe that the precis doesn't suggest a reason for the kids' sedation. I think they were sedated to erase their memories, a side effect of benzodiazepines. I agree that the body was disposed once and imo for good and I would be really gobsmacked if someone talked or remains were found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnneGuedes 25 Apr 2018, 00:22:00

      Please let me ask you some questions so I can make sense of the "precis".

      How do you explain the dog alerts in the car rented three weeks later?

      "Simple and expedient" disposal, "no movement at a later date": why then was the body never found in your opinion?

      What do you think were the reasons for the UK government to interfere with the investigation (unless you don't believe such interference occurred)?

      Delete
    2. Anne Guedes,

      About your “they are over-present on this blog along with a lot (or may be it's always the same one ?) Anonymous” we can only say that we cherish and appreciate all valid contributions from ALL our readers including yours.

      The reason why people choose to submit comments under “Anonymous” only pertains to them and we have to respect that, very much like we ask all our readers to respect our choice to remain anonymous.

      About Insane’s presence in the blog, 95% of the time it’s his doing.

      We can tell you that we have 1,000 unpublished comments, most of which are from him (and 99% of which under “Anonymous”). Add to these comments the hundreds we already published in a blog we called “Textusa’s Trash Can” so readers could see the abuse we received and which we have since closed because we were wasting time literally with trash.

      It’s interesting that we have had someone relentlessly dedicated to this blog from almost since day 1.

      He started being “dcb” in the early pink-forums and at first said he had a secret blog as discussion forum which we and our readers weren’t worthy of seeing, until he finally created his foul-mouthed blog.

      But beneath his swearing underlies a profound knowledge of the case.

      To have someone so knowledgeable dedicated exclusively against us has been for us a telling sign that we were on the right path.

      We have said in post that although we consider him to be a minion, we consider him to be a person of importance to the case.

      In fact, we consider him to be the other side’s person who is responsible to run their internet campaign. The reason why we think this, we prefer to keep to ourselves.

      His Not Textusa hat is only a part of his job, as he has lots of coordinating to do, as recent events have shown.

      His objective here is to harass tirelessly the blog to make it as off-putting as possible, so when you say “usually as soon as I read the names Insane and Not-Textusa, I run away” you are showing that he is achieving his goal.

      However, fortunately, we have lots of other readers who have seen through his objectives, understand his importance, and keep coming back albeit his efforts.

      He harasses the blog from the comfortable position of not committing himself to anything. And whenever he has done that, it has always turned against him. Why? Because truth works against him.

      Very interesting is to watch how bothered he gets when he sees the McCanns and others being accused of being swingers but has no reaction, even sees it as a possibility, of them being accused of paedos. In both scenarios, other people would have to be involved but only one seems to really get on his nerves.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with you Anne. I’m a huge Textusa sisters fan and I welcome Insane’s presence in the blog. His understanding of the files subjects their theory to serious scrutiny. Insane jumps on every word they write like a hawk. I see no other theory subject to such scrutiny and their theory continues to stand

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 10:10
      Here are my answers to your questions.
      Eddie alerted only at the driver's door, hence he was very likely alerting to the (porous) card key that very likely spent some time in certain pants that Eddie alerted to also.
      Imo the body became undifferentiated very soon after the "discovery"(though the original plan was the ocean, disturbed by the S family).
      I think that the UK authorities instead of practising criticism reacted emotionally and irrationally (the rumour "jemmied shutters/window" helped a lot). When they reckoned that they discredited themselves, they tried to hide it.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 11:41
      I'm certainly influenced by the names "Insane" and "Not Textusa" and I confess I ignore what is really at stake (I've a Twitter account but very few MC Case followers). I seemed to understand that there was some kind of personal conflict, a harassing person (Insane) and a systematic opponent (Not Textusa).
      I agree completely that a person who brings contradiction is most precious in a debate. What's the use of people who think the same as you ?

      Delete
    6. Anne Guedes (at 25 Apr 2018, 15:32:00),

      Sorry to butt in but would like to clarify 2 things from your comment.

      1. About the cadaver scent. Is it right that you are suggesting that Kate’s contaminated pants were so contaminated that the “cadaver” substance impregnated the material in such a manner that it filled up the inside of the pocket which then secondarily contaminated the key FOB and then that in turn tertiarily contaminated the door?

      2. About this that you say “though the original plan was the ocean, disturbed by the S family”, is it right to assume that you disagree with us and maintain that Smithman was Gerry carrying a dead child, even though we showed in our post “The ambush” that Smithman was able to see the Smiths long before he crossed with them (so he could have perfectly avoided them), that he zig-zagged between them while stopping by Martin Smith and his wife before heading towards AS and the alley?
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-ambush.html

      We would like to know in what you disagree with us as the described above seems a very unlikely, to say the least, behaviour for a man carrying a dead child in his arms.

      But, assuming that you disagree with us, even if he did the totally unreasonable and illogical thing, in what way did this disturb him to head for the ocean? He had passed the Smiths, so why stop then?

      Delete
    7. Dear Textusa, isn't it possible that Jerry had a specific place in mind and wanted to return as quickly as possible in order not to compromise his alibi? Then he may have decided that his delay hides more risks and has not deviated even though he had seen Smiths earlier.

      Delete
    8. Textusa,
      About cadaver scent, yes I think that the same VOCs that made Eddie alert to the pants after 3 months, contaminated the card key. About the porosity I asked Renault what kind of plastic stuff they used, someone even called me on the phone, they obviously wanted to know why I was asking this (I alleged some kind of allergy), but I couldn't be explicit and the person wasn't a technician, hence no result.
      MG showed that Eddie alerted to the card key and not to the air inside of the car, as the fact he only reacted in front of the driver's door (where the card key was) seems to indicate. I know they found GMC's blood traces on that card key, but I think that contamination through the pocket is more likely.

      Delete
    9. Textusa, on topic 2, I disagree with you mainly about the child carried by Smithman because I've almost no doubt that it was Madeleine and that she wasn't alive. It's more likely that Smithman was GMC than anyone else, but as the S family didn't look at his face and as GMC has everybody's face, I'm open to other hypotheses.
      Smithman was in a terrible state that I'm not sure we can figure out and feel. That imo explains why it took him some time to realize that the ocean plan had fallen through. The idea was basically to get the body back with the next rising tide, clean, i.e exempt of traces that could identify who had harmed the child. The S family would have heard of the body found on the beach and associated the child to the little girl they saw carried by Smithman.

      Delete
    10. AnneGuedes, that makes sense, but where did Smithman hide the body then and why it was not found?

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 18:28, I don't think that Smithman hid the body (thinking he would come later), what he was doing was unbearable and furthermore he had absolutely no choice, the paedophile thesis wouldn't resist the total absence of strange DNA on that body.

      Delete
    12. AnneGuedes, I didn't understand. He didn't hide the body, but simply put it somewhere and came later to take it, is that you want to say? And you think the paedophilia takes place in this case, but there is no strange DNA on that body?

      Delete
    13. The way I read it anon @ 20:12 is that the lack of any foreign DNA on the body before disposal would not lend it self to the paedo theory,no body and the paedo theory has legs for those that want it to.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous 20:12
      I don't think that Smithman hid the body, I don't think that he put it somewhere in order to come later and dispose of it (many think so).
      As abduction by paedophile seems to have been the first MC narrative, how would that match a body without any trace of strange DNA ?

      Delete
    15. AnneGuedes 25 Apr 2018, 15:32:00

      Thank you for your answers to my questions.

      I am not sure what you mean by: “the body became undifferentiated very soon after the "discovery"”. My understanding of your theory on the body disposal is that a very distressed Gerry decided to take dead Maddie to the streets of PdL with the intent to throw her at sea. I assume that he knew that the body would likely be found in the following days, but the autopsy would not rule out murder by a fictional abductor. Gerry on his way to the beach does nothing to avoid crossing with the Smith family, then feels some sort of panic, decides to throw his daughter in a trash bin, and quickly returns to OC. The body is taken by the garbage collectors next day or so, and incinerated without anyone noticing. Am I understanding correctly?

      Regarding the political role of UK, basically you are saying that the case has been deadlocked for 11 years because some high-ranking British leaders were initially fooled by the abduction staging and could not admit it. Correct too?

      Delete
    16. AnneGuedes, but if Smithman didn't hide the body, what happened to it?!

      Delete
    17. Anonymous 23:17.
      This is more or less what I think plausible.
      "Indifferentiated" qualifies the state we all sooner or later go back to ("all come from dust, and all return to dust").
      The same strong reason Smithman had to dispose of the body in the ocean still existed after he crossed the S family. He couldn't go back to the 5A and announce that he had discovered Madeleine. The police, who would have been empathic, had the MCs called an ambulance, would have certainly grilled Smithman bringing back a body.
      About the urban solid residues (RSU, that's how they're called here in Portugal), they are not incinerated, they produce biogas which provides energy for the electrical grid. They're collected every night (except for Sunday) and first compacted in a transfer station. Only after that the pads are brought to the landfill.
      Lots of people, not only in the political class, believed the dramatical abduction of a little girl, gently asleep in her bed, by a monster irrupting through jemmied shutters and window (a myth that you can find in the press even after Clarence M admitted there was no breaking-in).
      People hate to admit they have been cheated, especially emotionally, beliefs are more comfortable.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous 23:40
      Once the body couldn't be recovered, washed by the ocean, which would have both simplified the investigation and allowed the MCs to grieve, once the abduction narrative had to go on, its credibility strictly depended on the remains never to be found.
      When Jeronimo Salcedas left the Tapas he "heard a scream from a woman... He had never heard a similar cry. He cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother."
      JS doesn't say what time it was, but Dianne, back home about 20 minutes after the "discovery" "sat out on the veranda.. and just remember err Kate screaming".
      What made KMC scream (she didn't scream from the veranda, she ran for help) ?
      Imo we wouldn't be exchanging opinions on this blog, hadn't Smithman at 22:03 crossed the S family rua da escola primaria.

      Delete
    19. Look to tannerman,join the dots,which way was he/,she heading,I'll go driving in my car.Who was interviewed in 2014,quite a number,but join the dots,all imo of course.

      Delete
    20. AnneGuedes, so you think the scream of Kate is because she then heard from Smithman, that she would not be able to bury her child?

      Delete
    21. We would like to say thanks to everyone for their contributions to the debate about Anne Guedes’ beliefs in what happened.

      We are not persuaded by the tertiary contamination of cadaver scent in Scenic. It’s our opinion that if the pants were that soiled then the contamination would have been more widespread than signalled by Eddie and not only at the door of the Scenic.

      We are not persuaded by the bin or sea disposal theories.

      The sea: it requires a knowledge of the tides, something Gerry couldn’t possibly know. If it was an incoming tide, disposing the body would be useless as it would wash up back again. The only way to avoid this would be to avoid the body floating but with what?

      A man seen alone on the streets holding a live child can be unsuspicious (not the uncooperative body of a recently deceased child) but one on the beach wading in carrying an inert form would raise immediately suspicion if possibly observed by a dog walker or a couple on a romantic stroll.

      Bins: It requires the knowledge that the bins are emptied every night. Something we seriously doubt the T9 knowing. In most small towns, the communal bins are not emptied every night. Not because of safety hazard but economical use of the trash-trucks by the municipality. In some areas of Lisbon, the organic trash is collected every other day of the week, for example.

      Anybody could decide to empty their rubbish at night, who could predict which bin would remain untouched when bins are used communally?

      And when people search for a disappeared child they look in places they know beforehand it’s very unlikely for the child to be. No place is ruled out. For some reason the child could have fallen into the bin. Very unlikely, would even say impossible but if the difference between having the certainty is simply lifting the lid, one does lift it and look inside.

      Wouldn’t collectors next morning see the searches and be warned to check the bins? And it’s possible to see contents as they unload into vans.

      Even the McCanns, whatever we think of them, are unlikely in our view, to have considered this as a means of disposal. Gerry would have never abandoned the apartment without a clear and precise objective of what to do, where to go and what were the limitations and risks of doing it.

      We say the body was taken from apartment 5A to Murat’s property, where it was kept safely away from any prying eyes during the critical hours of searches done by authorities.

      Having personally been to Luz, we would say there’s no way the Smithman encounter would have happened accidentally. We have explained that in various posts. If people insist in believing that it was accidental, there’s nothing we can do about it.

      Delete
    22. But isn't it possible that things went wrong, and G just had no other way out? He just had to take the body somewhere, so the police would not find it, and he did not have time to think? His condition was such that he barely paid attention to Smiths?

      Delete
    23. Anonymous 26 Apr 2018, 12:44:00

      If one is carrying a dead body one has one's senses heightened not diminished. Impossible for him not to pay attention.

      Even if he hadn't, he would have walked in a straight line and not zig-zagged which he did and not stopped which he did. And after having stopped not headed for the place where there were other people when on his right was an empty street.

      Where is that somewhere in your opinion?

      Delete
    24. Unfortunately, I do not know. I just speculate.

      Delete
    25. Anonymous 12:44
      I agree with you. It never was a plan of course, the plan was the ocean as everybody would think (cf. Mark Harrison). Smithman had no choice at all.
      The content of the bins is never checked, unless a noise comes out of the bin, in which case they call the police, the collecting is all automatized. There's a little window to spot the compacting process, but they only use it if something goes wrong in the process.
      Between such an act of despair (which would have my compassion, in spite of all) and suing/destroying a police officer who guessed they were lying, in terms of revulsion I wouldn't hesitate a second.

      Delete
    26. Anonymous 9:41
      Yes.
      I also think that this is why the bible was opened at Samuel II, 12-16 when the PJ searched the MC villa : David doesn't accomplish the funeral rituals for his dead child.

      Delete
    27. Gerry is in panic but knows tide hours and bin collection schedules?

      Delete
    28. Anonymous 14:12
      The truck wasn't passing late in that low season, he might have heard it occasionally or not.
      The "experts" said it would have been stopped in the UK, a commissioner told me they wouldn't have in France.
      The tidal range isn't big in Praia da Luz.
      Is there any recording of a predator kidnapping a dead child, then burying it or disposing of it in a bin ?

      Delete
    29. Anne Guedes,

      Sorry, butting in again.

      You saying "The truck wasn't passing late in that low season, he might have heard it occasionally or not", even if he did, he couldn't possibly establish a pattern. You raise the possibility he didn't which makes dumping body in bin much more risky.

      You say "Is there any recording of a predator kidnapping a dead child, then burying it or disposing of it in a bin ?". It's irrelevant. What matters are the statistics of people who could look into the bin for various reasons, including looking for the child. No one passes a bin where a child might fit, looks at it and says, no, there's no statistics that support me looking into that bin, so I won't look.

      What if she wandered off, had the bad luck of crossing with a nepiophile who would have raped, killed her and dumped her in a bin?

      "The tidal range isn't big in Praia da Luz". It's the same as everywhere in Portugal. Outgoing currents pull things into the sea, ingoing push them out. He would have to know what tide was going on at that moment before leaving the apartment.

      As Anonymous 26 Apr 2018, 14:12:00, says, he's either in a panic or he's not.

      And, again, from PERSONAL experience on site, understanding distances and visibility 'in situ', even if in panic no man with a dead child in his arms would act the way Smithman did.

      Are you suggesting I shouldn't trust my own eyes?

      Delete
    30. Textusa, it is indeed very unlikely, but it is theoretically possible. Let's assume this is the only way to the beach known to G. He assumes that the police will arrive very soon and he must return as soon as possible. What would he do, would he bypass any random passerby, going into unknown streets?

      Delete
    31. Anonymous 26 Apr 2018, 15:55:00,

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/11/intentional-not-debatable-fact.html

      If he assumes he must return soon, why head towards the Smiths and not go into Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, which heads in the general direction of the beach? Or retrieve his steps and find a bin and return?

      Praia da Luz is not a complex town to understand. As we said, it's small and very intuitive. Impossible to get lost.

      Instead he heads towards the Smiths who he has seen coming from a distance, ZIG-ZAGS between them. STOPS in the middle of them. And then heads where there are more Smiths.

      It's not a question of probabilities. It's definitely wanting to cross with the Smiths.

      Delete
    32. Trash bins are not meant to hide bodies but to put trash in so are used frequently. If for more than one house then this use happens more.

      Delete
    33. Textusa, I think this does not make sense, because in fact GM has no alibi for the time when Smiths see Smithman. Later, he tries to create alibi for himself, but he does not succeed completely. A careful analysis of the PJ files shows that even part of the T7 does not confirm his alibi, and external witnesses deny it.

      Delete
    34. Anonymous 21:06
      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.
      Analyst 7792 Eaton
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm

      Delete
  30. https://mobile.twitter.com/McCannCaseTweet/status/988811739201388546
    Madeleine CaseTweets@McCannCaseTweet
    I'm glad McCanns have paid their court costs in Portugal Just wondering why they didn't pay out of the fund? They didn't want public to know they paid? Or will it show in next years accounting #EGO FYI - it only takes a phone call to the court all you need is case # #mccann
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dbj3CLZVAAU466P?format=jpg
    5:07 pm · 24 Apr 2018
    *****

    Picture attached says “* Secção NÂş Processo:1454/09.5TVLSB”
    And in handwriting “PAID”

    According to this the McCanns have paid. However, we wold like to see the entire document.

    We find it very strange for a Portuguese Court document to be not stamped with the word “PAGO” and instead have a handwritten “PAID” (in English) on it.

    This, in our opinion, needs further clarification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears she just printed the case number onto a piece of paper & wrote PAID on it!

      Delete
  31. On April 7 2018, so not that long ago, in a post called “Conspiraloons”, Insane published the following on his blog:

    “I promised you an article about the above phenomenon
    This is taken from the Urban 75 boards, because it is the best description I have ever seen. Many thanks to them
    Link to article is here”

    The “here” is http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

    From this article, he quotes the following:

    Conspiracy theorists
    AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
    Updated 29th April 2009.
    (…)
    4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.”

    So, it is quite interesting to see Insane say in his precis “I don't believe that there is any evidence of abduction and it is the equivalent of a 'diagnosis of exclusion' in medical terms, ie all you are left with when you have ruled out everything else.”

    Note, we are not against the use of the phrase “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”, Insane is. For him to use it is to be a shameless hypocrite.

    He says “I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007”. We would like to know on what he basis this statement. Again, what it is at question here is not what each one of us thinks but what this particular individual says he does.

    He has only given indeed a summary, however from former “participations” we know of things in which he believes in about the case:

    - He doesn’t believe there was blood, much less Maddie’s in the apartment. He says dogs are reliable but refuses to say what Keela signalled inside that apartment (while on Keela, a dog he states do be reliable, he also doesn’t explain what was that she signalled in the Renault Scenic)

    - He says, as a scientist he claims to be that the cadaver scent detected by Eddie in the backyard is from a medieval graveyard.

    - He says that the cadaver scent produced by a decomposing body does not come from any substance the body produces while decomposing but is simply a gas released by it and that it could have well wafted into the apartment and accumulated in the 2 areas signalled and was detected 3 months after by Eddie even though the apartment was rented more than once and often cleaned. On the subject of cadaver scent, he justifies its detection by Eddie on the Scenic and McCann belongings due to secondary contamination. A gas that wafts and then clings selectively to the McCanns.

    - He finds perfectly natural, justifiable and without any discrepancies Payne’s visit to the apartment.

    So, if no blood, no proof cadaver scent was from Maddie, no strange event reported during that day, where does his certainty that Maddie is dead and on the 3rd come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane’s prĂ©cis (!) is about zero point % of his entire output, and, at that was rather watery and lightweight, yet he has donated the rest of his energies in abusing, ridiculing, belittling Textusa who has picked through the evidence with remarkable skill and patience. Insane has also eviscerated others on his blog — to what end? And why?
      A small drop in the ocean for his prĂ©cis and a tsunami of abuse to everyone else…

      Delete
    2. David's visit is obviously an invention. GMC stated that David had checked once on his (GMC's) kids, which David rightly denied, he never left the table. When he was needed to spot Madeleine alive around 18h30, he might have felt it was "helpful".
      What I can't find is an explanation for neither Fiona nor David being heard a second time.

      Delete
    3. Insane has responded to this comment and says this at a certain point in time:

      “[quoting us]- He says, as a scientist he claims to be that the cadaver scent detected by Eddie in the backyard is from a medieval graveyard. [end of quote]
      No, that is not what I said. Do feel free to produce the quote if you are going to continue to make that false claim, otherwise remove it “

      We have quoted you, and it was recently. And you responded to that quote, confirming it:

      This is what we said in our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs”:
      https://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html

      “But then again we are before a SCIENTIST. One who has invented not only the “Playful but endlessly patient airborne molecule thesis” but also that of the “Maddie’s graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A lies, behold, on an ancient medieval graveyard:
      To a very direct and specific question: “If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there.”
      Insane, the scientist replies:
      “Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”
      All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.”

      In the post in YOUR blog on Jan 28 2018 as a response to this particular passage you said, confirming all we had said:

      “Which it is”

      About all the other quotes you demand, don’t worry, we will quote you when we feel it’s appropriate to do so, like just did just now.

      Delete
    4. Interesting the following exchange in Insane’s blog:

      “Anonymous25 April 2018 at 00:22
      Dear Not Textusa, I like your version and I think there is a lot of sense in it. Of course, some moments need further explanation. But it bothers me the following thing. Textusa may be wrong in some things but she tries to investigate the case honestly. Why did not you do the same? Why are you mocking the Textusa instead of posting your own analyzes and helping solve the case?

      Replies

      Not Textusa25 April 2018 at 09:54
      I do not believe that Textusa tries to "investigate" the case honestly at all; in fact, quite the opposite. I believe she uses the blog to roll out her own ideas which are not supported by any evidence at all. In particular, I dislike the way she attacks anyone who does not agree with her and the fact that when presented with incontrovertible evidence that she is wrong she does not amend her posts at all, she merely assumes a more entrenched position.
      I have been posting my analysis for years. Textusa withholds most of it. I have also posted elsewhere so many people are familiar with my opinions.

      It is naive of anyone to think they can 'solve the case'. That's the police's job, not ours, and certainly not Textusa's

      Anonymous25 April 2018 at 10:19
      Okay, I do not ask to jab, I want to get to know your analyzes. Where can I find them, can you guide me? The most important of them. I'm new in this case, I have not followed it over the years.

      Not Textusa25 April 2018 at 11:25
      Unfortunately, the place where I posted has now gone. I can answer questions and I have some analysis of the forensics which I can dig out.Is there anything you particularly want to know?”
      *****

      “I have been posting my analysis for years” BUT “unfortunately, the place where I posted has now gone”. How convenient.

      And we withhold most of your research? REALLY?

      Delete
    5. And this from Insane, from his blog, can only be considered brilliant:

      “[quoting us]- - He doesn’t believe there was blood, . [end of quote]

      There was no blood confirmed in the flat

      [quoting us]-much less Maddie’s in the apartment. He says dogs are reliable but refuses to say what Keela signalled inside that apartment . [end of quote]

      Keela is trained to alert to the smell of blood. Blood does not need to be present to trigger an alert.”

      Delete
    6. “unfortunately, the place where I posted has now gone”

      So now NT just has a blog reserved for insulting Textusa?

      Delete
    7. Priceless, from Insane’s blog:

      Anonymous26 April 2018 at 12:37
      ... Do you think the parents are guilty & with initial help of the tapas bunch, then tried to cover up the death of Madeleine by pretending an abduction took place? (I do)
      And how exactly do you think Madeleine died?
      Cheers.
      Andy.

      Not Textusa26 April 2018 at 13:27
      Hi Andy
      Put it this way - I hold her parents entirely responsible for what happened to Madeleine, regardless of precisely what happened. I prefer not to speculate on exactly what happened as I try only to consider the evidence, but I see no evidence of a violent death. Looking at all the evidence, an 'unintended consequence' would fit.
      I don't see any evidence of the rest of the tapas group being involved, either. I think they were probably all scared shitless that there could be consequences for them all due to the children being left alone and I think this was stoked up by the McCanns. I do think some of the group were subjected to manipulation by the McCanns, Jane Tanner in particular, but I don't think any of them would be stupid enough to take part in a cover up.

      I see absolutely no evidence of an abduction, just a simulation of an abduction. The description in Kate's book of the hours which followed defy explanation. That's where the answer lies, in my opinion.
      *****

      According to Insane, the scientist AND negligence believer, the Tapas 7 are innocent victims of manipulation by the McCanns, Jane Tanner in particular.

      Basically, the T7 know they are lying but aren’t “stupid enough to take part in a cover up”.

      Delete
  32. Unpublished Anonymous at 26 Apr 2018, 07:52:00,

    We're not publishing your comment because we are on watch-mode on both.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Identified published reader at 26 Apr 2018, 11:05:00,

    Exactly same reason and same subjects as Unpublished Anonymous at 26 Apr 2018, 07:52:00. We are evidently observing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does NT believe
    Smiths saw a man carrying a child
    That the man was G
    That child was alive or dead?
    He avoids any mention in his précis

    Do note Smithman wasn’t carrying a pick axe to ensure his hiding place was first and final location by burial.
    That only leaves sea and bins as a location unless G involved an outsider in his choice of location

    ReplyDelete
  35. Murat asserts that he arrives home at casa Liliana between 7.00 and 7.30pm on 3 May. His mother asserts that he arrived at Casa Liliana at the same time as her being 8.30pm. He "cannot account" for that discrepancy.

    So another hour on that eventful evening that cannot be properly accounted for.

    ReplyDelete
  36. https://twitter.com/McCannCaseTweet/status/989566819580039168
    What is "Unified Central" Textusa?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous26 Apr 2018, 19:25:00

      Bringing the tweet over to the blog:

      “Madeleine CaseTweets@McCannCaseTweet
      Replying to @AndyFish19 @xxMichelleSxx and 5 others
      Yes, it's paid. Unfortunately by the time I called today Unified Central was no longer taking calls
      Will try earlier tomorrow, it's tough with 8 hour difference
      I know it's paid, don't yet know how much
      11:08 am - 26 Apr 2018”
      *****
      Unified Central is Central Unit as is clarified here:
      https://twitter.com/QueenDPortugal/status/989600577058324480
      Isabelle The Heiress #1‏ @QueenDPortugal
      Replying to @AndyFish19 @McCannCaseTweet and 6 others
      Unidade Central ...lol ,spell check must have changed it That's where you call 213 218 900
      1:22 pm - 26 Apr 2018
      *****

      One has to wonder though what piece of paper was that one that appeared with the handwritten “PAID” as all is being clarified, apparently, by phone.

      Delete
  37. "I see no evidence of a violent death. Looking at all the evidence, an 'unintended consequence' would fit.
    I don't see any evidence of the rest of the tapas group being involved, either. I think they were probably all scared shitless that there could be consequences for them all due to the children being left alone and I think this was stoked up by the McCanns. I do think some of the group were subjected to manipulation by the McCanns, Jane Tanner in particular, but I don't think any of them would be stupid enough to take part in a cover up.

    I see absolutely no evidence of an abduction, just a simulation of an abduction. The description in Kate's book of the hours which followed defy explanation. That's where the answer lies, in my opinion."

    That's not far from what I think. What is a violent death ? One where death is produced by violence or a sudden accidental (unpredictable) death ? Whatever happened was unintentional. Everybody seems to agree on this point.
    I don't think that the TP7 were manipulated, I think that Jane TB who didn't like GMC and wasn't a fan of MMC felt guilty when MMC disappeared and tried to be "helpful" at all costs, even sacrificing logic.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ye gods,there is some bilge emerging,can't be any thing to do with a certain impending anniversary can it!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5663705/Spanish-father-says-Madeleine-McCanns-kidnapper-entered-daughters-hotel-room-Portugal.html


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/jim-duffy-i-wish-i-d-stuck-up-for-maddie-mccann-s-parents-1-4731117

    ReplyDelete
  39. Another one from Insane’s blog:

    Anonymous26 April 2018 at 15:45
    Well you did say you expect a post saying you discredit the dogs ��
    I think it's easy to see you are no Mccann supporter, bit of a shame that lots probably miss out on your thoughts (and humour) because of textusa saying you are.
    Out of interest, what are your thoughts on grange? Sorry if I've missed a blog where you might have already said.

    Not Textusa26 April 2018 at 17:34
    Oh, I'm used to it, believe me, she's been doing it for years :)
    Grange - well, Churchill once said about Russia "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma;" and I think the same applies to Grange.
    To, in effect, draw a line under the actions of the McCann group without further investigation makes absolutely no sense. I think the language used has been evasive, to say the least. However, any case against the parents or any member of the tapas group would be circumstantial at best, as there is no ''smoking DNA" to confirm the culprit. Does that mean, therefore, that they really are looking at everyone except them? Common sense would say ''no, surely not?'' but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, I can't understand why money is being wasted on such a pointless exercise. And no, they weren't asking if they were swingers! Maybe it's a decade-too-late equivalent of a door-to-door enquiry, trying to build up as full a picture as possible of PdL at that moment in time. It remains to be seen, I am giving it the benefit of the doubt just now, but I'm not optimistic
    *****

    1. This would be illegal. Only the PJ are authorised to question citizens of any nationality in Portugal. A LOR would be needed, which we haven’t heard of, and it would be PJ Officers do the questioning. Evidently this is false. This illustrates the “Imperialistic” view some hold: the British want to question, they can just walk in like in the times of the Raj and question, after all they are the British.

    2. He says he links with ex pats in PDL as the Met wouldn’t be telling anyone this. If this were to be true, which is not, it would either come from a British immigrant who has been questioned and who knows Insane or from McCanns themselves who have links with ex pats, as the only people who claim to be kept informed about Operation Grange are the McCanns. Even though this story is fake it’s to be noted that he is admitting publicly to links with PDL, which we don’t have.

    3. At least we now know he’s in WOM camp - waste of money. Together with Colin Sutton & others. This is what this question/reply is about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane keeps saying that we don’t correct anything that he points out.

      We have said, repeatedly, that when we are shown to be wrong we correct ourselves. And that applies to any reader, including Insane.

      This is what he had to say about #1 of the above: “Where, at any point did I say they were questioned in Portugal? I said they were people who were in PdL as ex pats “at the time”. That doesn't mean they are now.”

      That is correct and we stand corrected.

      He then says something that even though he denies it, we maintain what we have said. He says “At no point did I say I “linked with ex-pats”, nor do I have any contact with such. Nor do I have any links with PdL”

      In #2, there’s evidently a typo. It should read “He says he has links with ex pats in PDL” instead of “He says he links with ex pats in PDL”

      How else could he possibly say “but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats” if he doesn’t have links with the mentioned British ex-immigrants?

      Does he have sources inside Operation Grange?

      He doesn’t correct us on the WOM accusation we made.

      Delete
  40. The announced Poulton video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1M_CulIDrQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a heads-up that Colin Sutton features quite prominently.

      Delete
    2. We know that our readers are expecting a comment from us on the Sonia Poulton video released today.

      As we have said, we live in critical times on the Maddie case. At this point, we believe that our silence serves best the purpose of outing the truth.

      We prefer to observe: those in favour of the video and who should be in its favour up to the other end of the spectrum, which are those against it and who should be against it, passing through all positions in-between.

      We, unlike others do with our work, do not pretend we haven’t seen what we have. Those who do that only pretend they are looking for the truth.

      We have seen the video, as would be expected and have exchanged opinions about it privately. However, we prefer to see Poulton’s other episodes before saying anything in detail.

      However, one thing has to be said because it is something we have accused Colin Sutton of not doing and in this video he has done: ask for a reconstruction.

      That should be and is recognised by us. What he asked, how and why he asked it is something we reserve to ourselves until we give a detailed opinion of this supposedly initial video of a series.

      We can also inform our readers that this first episode has not made us change our minds about anything we have said so far. But future episodes might but for now we opt for silence.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps Colin Sutton read your last February 9 post, Textusa. He has yet to make a little effort to make you and others change our mind about him.

      “Madeleine McCann: Top detective tells Operation Grange to help the Portuguese police do a FULL reconstruction”.
      Actually he should say a "reconstitution" as it is ruled in the Inquisitorial Procedure. No actors, no TV !

      Delete
    4. I can't give you proof but I strongly suspect that the interview with Colin Sutton was conducted during 2015/16 if that makes any difference?

      Delete
    5. Anne Guedes,

      Departing from a possible immodest assessment of our importance, we find ourselves in a very “uncomfortable” position which is wanting to say loads but feeling that we shouldn’t.

      We base our that assessment on the fact that Kate McCann introduced the Tranmer-Fenn sighting in her book after they had “forgotten” to put it in the Mockumentary, Sky News deleted the page of the article in which Smithman was said to have stopped, CNN delete a video because in the footage one could see an empty space where there should have been the big round table and because they presented a fake Tapas esplanade, Ocean Club come up with 2 ridiculous tables to “replace” the infamous BRT and now Colin Sutton proposing a reconstruction.

      That said, we prefer to leave the game to the players. Remain observant. Of ALL parties.

      We trust fully that all of them have understood the messages that were to be sent and received. We trust both sides understood the impact meant and the impact obtained.

      But the fact that we will not speak, does not mean that we do not welcome comments about the Poulton 1st video of a series we are not certain when we will be able to see the rest. With this we’re not saying that the following videos don’t exist, we’re just showing ignorance as to when they will be shown as we think it’s something that should be clarified.

      One thing is the blog’s opinion which is what we write both in posts and comments, another is our readers’ rightful opinions.

      The recent debate with you, showed that. Readers are free and welcome to differ from the blog’s positions. We all get to say our reasons and then let readers decide for themselves. That has always been our position and will always be so.

      The only difference, is that on the opinions expressed by readers on Poulton video, the blog will abstain from agreeing or disagreeing. We will only intervene to correct facts.

      One good thing about this video is that we have Colin Sutton on video. No one can now say about what he says in it, not even himself, that he’s been misquoted.

      Same goes with what he had the opportunity to say but didn’t. But that we can only ascertain after we see the complete product.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 28 Apr 2018, 10:31:00,

      Can you please submit a "Do Not Publish" comment as to why you "strongly suspect" that?

      Thank you

      Delete
    7. Identified "Do not Publish" reader at 28 Apr 2018, 07:14:00,

      Absolutely spot on! The point you made about what should be appreciated and is not is absolutely significant!

      Thank you

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 28 Apr 2018, 10:31:00,

      Thank you for your Do Not Publish comment.

      We think your conclusion is pertinent although it could just be a coincidence.

      We see no reason for you not publish as it's a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

      If you wish us to publish, please submit a comment authorising us to do so, or better yet, just resubmit it publicly.

      All information is pertinent and useful.

      Delete
    9. If Anonymous 28 Apr 2018, 10:31:00 is correct, and the recording was made before all the quotes from Colin Sutton we have published in our post "Sutton is the name, meddling is the game" have a whole new different meaning.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/02/sutton-is-name-meddling-is-game.html

      And then the mentioning of the reconstruction wasn't because of us, of course!

      If Anon is right, that is!

      Delete
    10. I have no problem with it being published, Textusa.

      I'm sure if someone asked Sonia she would confirm when the interview took place?

      Delete
    11. The “do not publish” comment we requested:

      “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue":

      "Do Not Publish" (no option for this in the 'reply as' drop down menu?)

      I believe all of the documentary footage was filmed for the Untold Stories film that didn't get a broadcaster now re-edited into this new film.

      At 24:48 in the new McCann's and the Police film where she first meets Colin she is wearing a black jacket and dark grey jeans, the same as she was wearing in the Kate door stepping featured in the teaser trailer for Untold Stories published in early October 2015 (now deleted).

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 28 Apr 2018, 11:30:00”

      Delete
    12. We inform readers that we have now added a Post Scriptum to the post with the purpose of allowing readers to judge for themselves in which of Colin Sutton's appearances on video (Sky News in 2017 and in Poulton's video) he seems to be older.

      Delete
    13. Can I ask if you have asked Sonia directly about the interview date with Colin or hoping she reads the comments here?

      Not sure how helpful the comparison is as one is informal in his own home without TV make-up and bright studio lighting.

      Delete
    14. Second part only when case complete?
      http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com

      Delete
    15. Anonymous 28 Apr 2018, 13:38:00,

      We're not sure if she reads us but maybe somebody on twitter could ask her.

      Agree is not easy to age people in a 2 year period.

      Delete
    16. No problem. I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account so will also have to wait and see if someone asks her. In the meantime I'm more convinced Colin's interview, along with virtually all filming, was done in 2015. The below link gives a good timeline but no specific reference to Colin's interview.

      http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/home2

      Also the below link shows stills from video of what was to be'Untold Story' that is now in the 'McCann's and The Police'

      http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/home1 (scroll down to see images)

      Delete
  41. DON'T TALK' Madeleine McCann parents Kate and Gerry ‘warned by cops not to talk about missing daughter’ on 11th anniversary of disappearance


    Scotland Yard detectives are said to have warned the couple it could hinder the ongoing £12m search if they discuss it publicly

    By Tracey Kandohla


    27th April 2018, 1:59 pm
    Updated: 27th April 2018, 3:26 pm



    Kate and Gerry McCann speak to the BBC on the tenth anniversary last year

    Loose Women producers were said to be “desperate” to secure an exclusive chat with the couple - also parents to 13-year-old twins Sean and Amelie -  to mark 11 years since Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

    A friend of the McCanns said today: “They were told it would be a softly softly discussion about how they are coping after all these years and how their twins are faring.



    "But Gerry advised them they would only do media if the police wanted them to, if it could help the search for Madeleine.

    "They told them it could hinder rather than help and specifically advised them not to

    “Interviewers always want to ask them about the investigation and why it has cost so much but they are not meant to discuss it for operational reasons.

    "They are, of course, kept fully informed of what is going on and will be the first to know if there are any significant updates."



    Heart doctor Gerry, 49, and former GP Kate, 50, have also turned down interview offers from a number of magazines and TV stations in France and Germany rather than jeopardise the investigation.

    The pal added: "They’re always bombarded with requests for interviews in the run up to the anniversary.

    “They are not trying to be awkward or evasive with the press, but if police don’t want them to discuss publicly their life without Madeleine they will not do so.

    "They really appreciate the fact the the Metropolitan Police are still committed to looking for their daughter."

    Scotland Yard and ITV both declined to comment.
    Last year Kate and Gerry gave a moving interview to the BBC's Fiona Bruce to mark a decade since Madeleine went missing from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

    Kate said she felt "guilty" over the huge sums spent on the search for her daughter when other families do not get the same publicity or money.

    In the past, fees from TV and press interviews, plus the proceeds from Kate's book, have gone to the Find Madeleine Fund to pay for private investigators.

    But they have also turned down "massive" offers if they did not feel they were right.

    The pal said: "One American TV station told them to 'name their price' to visit the family home and film Madeleine’s bedroom. They refused.

    “Their daughter’s pink room is a shrine to her, it remains unchanged since the day she vanished and no one, apart from family, is allowed in there."

    Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, still cling onto hope Madeleine - who would now be almost 15 - could still be alive and are buoyed by stories of other children being reunited with their families many years after going missing.

    The Sun Online revealed last month that Scotland Yard had received a new cash boost from the Home Office to carry on their search until the end of September.

    But the amount, rumoured to be as much as £150,000, is being kept secret amid fears of a public backlash after a rise in violent crime was linked to police budget cuts.

    The Home Office said: “We are not publicising the figure applied for by the Metropolitan Police and the amount given this time.

    "We remain committed to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.”

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6156218/madeline-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-warned-not-talk-11th-anniversary-disappearance/


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6156218/madeline-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-warned-not-talk-11th-anniversary-disapperance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If ANY of this can be believed -- after all it's written by the opportunistic, Tracey Kandohla. But why now? Why tell them 'not to talk' when it never happened before? Is Gerry lying when he says that the Metropolitan Police have told him to stay quiet because he/they feel a growing hostility from the public? Has Gerry witnessed his 'former PR' man eviscerate himself (for money) on TV last week? Or are the Metropolitan Police playing a game with Gerry and Kate McCann? Can we honestly believe that he and Kate are being kept up to date with the investigation? And why is the article mostly centred on how much money was offered, turned down, set aside for the parents if they'd talk? Despite the dressing, Madeleine McCann seems like an afterthought.

      Delete
    2. It sounds as though they need to explain why they are (uniquely on this anniversary) keeping a low profile. Also pretending Met police are keeping them informed but with information not to be divulged to the general public for the usual "operational" reasons. Hopefully this means we are approaching the end of this farce.

      Delete
  42. From Insane’s blog:

    Comment placed by Insane without anyone prompting him to do so, so not a reply:

    “Not Textusa27 April 2018 at 07:19
    I’m finding her rudeness to Anne Gueddes very annoying. She has this bonkers scenario of Smithman zig-zagging all over the place like a squirrel in a spin dryer, and ‘stopping’ despite this being completely at odds with the witness accounts. I don’t think Anne agrees and Textusa is basically trying to bully her into accepting her lunacy. It’s so typical of her.”

    Then this in a post called “Rounding-up the lies”:

    “[quoting us] 2. About this that you say “though the original plan was the ocean, disturbed by the S family”, is it right to assume that you disagree with us and maintain that Smithman was Gerry carrying a dead child, even though we showed in our post “The ambush” that Smithman was able to see the Smiths long before he crossed with them (so he could have perfectly avoided them), that he zig-zagged between them while stopping by Martin Smith and his wife before heading towards AS and the alley? [end of quote]

    Your false claim that he zig-zagged or stopped is completely contradicted by all the witnesses.”
    *******

    Insane,

    The Smithman zig-zagging is FROM the witnesses as per photographs that are in the PJ Files, showing clearly the 3 separate locations where Peter Smith, Martin Smith and AS say they see Smithman.

    About Smithman having stopped, it’s Gemma O’Doherty who says Martin Smith told her that. Could you please say who you are calling a liar? Is it O’Doherty or is it Smith?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insane’s response to Smithman’s zig-zagging:

      “Not Textusa28 April 2018 at 04:13
      From Idiot Textusa

      "The Smithman zig-zagging is FROM the witnesses as per photographs that are in the PJ Files, showing clearly the 3 separate locations where Peter Smith, Martin Smith and AS say they see Smithman.

      About Smithman having stopped, it’s Gemma O’Doherty who says Martin Smith told her that. Could you please say who you are calling a liar? Is it O’Doherty or is it Smith?"

      Absolute nonsense. The three points are all in a short stretch of the same street and the Smiths clearly describe him as walking in the middle of the street.

      The Gemma O'Doherty article makes no mention of Martin Smith describing the man as stopping, nor do any of the statements, quite the opposite in fact.

      So the liar is Textusa”
      *****

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1622.jpg
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1623.jpg

      The photos on these pages show unequivocally that none of the 3 locations pointed by the Smiths are in the middle of the street. All 3 are on the sidewalks.

      Uniting these 3 points, one does not obtain a straight line.

      Martin Smith says “States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.”

      Peter Smith says “States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.”

      To go from the right side of the street one has to pass the middle of the road. It’s in the middle of the road that Martin Smith sees Smithman first. That doesn’t mean he was walking in a straight line down the middle of the road but that he was passing the middle of the road when crossing it.

      As you seem to be a little slow, let us explain what happened as one would explain to a 4 yr old.

      Once upon a time, this man called Smithman was coming down on this street when a nice family was walking up it.

      Walking in front of this family was Peter. Peter sees Smithman coming towards him walking on the sidewalk on his right and this is why he says “the individual was coming down to his right”.

      Peter Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the right side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.

      After crossing with Peter, Smithman decides to cross the street, and so goes around Peter and crosses it to the other side and that’s why Peter says “going around the deponent in the middle of the street”. The deponent a word that the nice police used for reasons you will understand when you grow up but means Peter. What Peter is saying is that Smithman goes around him into the middle of the street when he crosses it.

      Behind Peter was walking Peter’s dad, Martin. When Smithman is crossing the street is when dad Martin first sees Smithman, who is in the middle of the street crossing after going around Peter and that’s why Martin says “he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street”

      Martin Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the left side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.

      Hope you now understand the meaning of “middle of the street” when both Peter and Martin Smith used it.

      About the photos and the 3 locations, please do ask a grown-up to show you what an arrow represents.

      Delete
    2. About Gemma O’Doherty, we asked “About Smithman having stopped, it’s Gemma O’Doherty who says Martin Smith told her that. Could you [Insane] please say who you are calling a liar? Is it O’Doherty or is it Smith?”. To this he has replied with the following:

      “The Gemma O'Doherty article makes no mention of Martin Smith describing the man as stopping, nor do any of the statements, quite the opposite in fact.”

      It’s not what we asked – who is lying, O’Doherty or Smithman? – not to compromise himself he gives the answer above.

      We wrote about Smithman having stopped in our post “The ambush”. In his reply post, on Friday April 6 (same day as post) called “The one with the Sky News” he had this to say about what we had said about the Smiths addressing Smithman:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-ambush.html

      When we said in the post: “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.”

      Insane says: It's not from a verified source and has to be treated as such

      When we said in the post: “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.””

      Insane says: “Again, unverified”

      When we said in the post: “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 [of Jan 03 2008]) give us the certainty that Mrs Smith addressed Smithman.
      “Oh, is she asleep?”, are only four words but their importance is immense. [end of quote]

      Insane says: “Okay - let me stop you there.
      Martin Smith denied speaking to these 'journalists' and took legal action against several news organisations. It seems as if the Mail was probably the source.
      As neither report now exists, and we know Mr Smith took action against the papers, I think you have to dismiss that report altogether. From the PJ files:
      [quoting PJ Files] 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. [end of quote]
      So I think you can stand down, Maria. Those articles have disappeared because they were bollocks, and not because Sky News is hanging on your every word, petal.”

      When we said in the post: “Firstly, they tell us there was proximity, Smithman wanted to come so close that one of the Smiths felt the impulse to address him.”

      Insane says: “They [the Smiths] didn't address him [Smithman]
      (…)
      Utter bollocks. One - the interaction never happened, it was made up by a journalist. Two - nobody reported Smithman having stopped, so stop making up bollocks
      (…)
      It never happened
      (…)
      It never happened
      (…)
      It never happened”

      (Cont)

      Delete
    3. (Cont)

      So, above, beyond doubt and with total clarity, Insane is stating that the Smiths NEVER addressed Smithman.

      However, Gemma O’Doherty, says in 2018 that “A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him [Smithman] 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.”

      She is saying beyond doubt and with total clarity, that the Smiths did address Smithman (we call the attention of our readers to the fact that the Jan 2008 Daily Mail article even quotes the words said).

      Gemma O’Doherty clearly contradicts Insane.

      By stating that it didn’t happen, Insane is making a serious accusation against Gemma O’Doherty: he’s either explicitly calling her a liar or explicitly saying that she is a very poor professional. He could be calling her both.

      He’s calling her a liar is if he means that she simply invented the story, implying she got it from Martin Smith when he said no such thing.

      Calling her a poor professional is if he means that that she picked up the story from the Mail/Sky News deleted articles and did not acknowledge her sources.

      If, according to Insane the fault lies with O’Doherty, we will leave it up to our readers to decide about the probability of a reporter who called BBC and had them correct a story would do what Insane is accusing her of doing.

      The accusation being that she would use a story that basically no longer exists – deleted from Sky News and Mail a very, very long time ago – and would do that just to spice up a story in which she had already enough seasoning with the “BBC scoop” after having spoken with Martin Smith so perfectly aware he would be aware she was making-up an event which didn’t happen, or that Smith had not told her.

      If the fault is not with Gemma O’Doherty, then it can only be with Martin Smith.

      In that case, Insane is accusing Martin Smith of telling Gemma O’Doherty a fictional story of something that didn’t happen, aggravated with the fact that it was something he had already denied – which we strongly believe he was then “convinced” to do that.

      The third possibility is Insane, once again, sticking his foot in his mouth. The encounter happened exactly as Gemma O’Doherty, Sky News and Daily Mail reported.

      We will leave it to our readers to decide which of the 3 possibilities is most likely.

      Finally, to be clear, making a comment towards a total stranger and EXPECTING a response indicates that the man has stopped.

      The expression “keeping his head down” does not imply movement but the maintenance of the position of the head from the moment the comment was made to when he walks away without responding towards AS.

      Something like “Oh, is she asleep?” requires a person to halt long enough for Mrs Smith to be able to utter those words to the man.

      Delete
    4. On this subject, please see comment from
      Anonymous 29 Apr 2018, 16:08:00 and our reply to his/her comment

      There is something we have said that needs to be corrected: the Daily Mail article is written AFTER Martin Smith gets his memory jolted in September 2007 but before the PJ Files were released in 2008, so, the Smith sighting and its details were not, supposedly, known by any others than the PJ and the Smiths.

      Delete
    5. Could it be said that Gerry was crossing and re-crossing the street. It certainly looks like he was heading INTO the eye of storm; the Irish tourists (the Smith family who had fanned out or followed each other or walked alone) whilst carrying a child? The walk up the street -- for the Smiths -- would have been steep enough, which slowed progress. Seems like Gerry deliberately crossed their path if he didn't 'stop' per se, he could well have stalled, slowed down with intent. Long enough to be asked a question. He wanted to be seen.

      Delete
  43. Is that a Z when the top horizontal segment is actually vertical ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne Guedes,

      Could you please clarify what you mean?

      Thank you

      Delete
    2. Well, Textusa, I don't know how to clarify, it would be easier to make a sketch. I wouldn't say that Smithman was accurately zigzaging, but it's certain that he changed direction to pass on Peter S group's left, instead of right, hence he had to pass on Martin S group's right. He then crossed and imo was heading to the church square (time was extremely short), not down the steps.
      All I guess is that he looked at his watch after Aoife and T crossed 25 de Abril. What he saw would be memorized for ever.

      Delete
  44. Could you extrapolate on the what he saw bit please Anne...

    Bampots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am assuming she means that the time GM saw in his watch would be ingrained in his memory and lead to the careful working out of the timelines prepared that night.

      Delete
    2. Anon 12:14, no, AnneGuedes meant that on 10 May 2007 GMC says he turned to alert Kate that it was time for her to go to see the children at 22h03. In fact, this has happened some time earlier. But GMC is trying to create an alibi to himself, because he knows exactlywhen Smiths saw him. I absolutely agree with Anne.

      Delete
    3. at 14:57 I reproduced the exact sentence, because it is very revealing : GMC gives actually 2 time indications (half an hour should have been enough).

      What doesn't make sense also is that Matthew neither left with KMC nor asked her or was offered by her to listen to his window(s).

      Delete
  45. Sometimes the unconscious plays tricks.
    "Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert K that it was time.."
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_901.jpg
    The tendency is to delay K's check and/or to extend it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So far was believed T7 lie that GMC was on the table before the alarm came out. But T7 does not really lie. The GMC has indeed been on the table. What part of T7 lie about is when the alarm was announced. GMC, KMC, DP, FP and RJO say KM leaves table to check children at 22.00 and later. But according to DW, MO, RMO and several external witnesses this happens a bit earlier, at some time between 21.45 and 21.55, and therefore the Smiths see Smithman a few minutes after announcing the alarm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, though I don't think that the T7 lied (were conscious they were lying), they just repeated what was said.
      The BBC (likely informed by Rachael who had a contact there) gives an interesting time indication:
      "Kate and Gerry McCann returned at about 2145 GMT to find an empty bed and the apartment door and window wide open."

      http://themaddiecasefiles.com/toddler-abducted-during-holiday-bbc-04-05-07-t2662.html

      Delete
    2. AnneGuedes, have you described your version of events somewhere? When and how MMC died, what were the movements of her body, did G&K have accomplices, and so on?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 18:52, I do have a blog, but without any version of events. My perspective is deconstruction or rather perhaps dismantlement, uncover shifts, confusions of meaning, implied postulates, omissions revealed by the statements themselves. The issue is not to reduce a construction to nothingness, it's observing how it was built.

      Delete
  47. Just a query because I've seen the same posted before and thought it was a simple typo.

    "When we said in the post: “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."

    Can you confirm it is the September 2007 incident where Gerry was walking down the planes steps having left Portugal you refer to here and not in September 2008 as you imply here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 Apr 2018, 16:08:00

      You are absolutely correct. And thank you for calling our attention to it.

      What we meant to say was that the Daily Mail article was written before the PJ Files were made public in 2008, so, supposedly, unaware of the Smith sighting, much less any of its details.

      Once again, thank you.

      Delete
    2. No problem. I'm surprised certain people didn't jump on it to embarrass you.

      Delete
  48. Sajid Javed is the new home secretary who will no doubt keep allowing the funding for the OG mystery.The cloudy replies from a couple MP's to the questions from Poulton at the end of her recent offering shows its further up the food chain imo, one of them I believe said it was an abduction.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The latest addition to “Team anti-Textusa” seeking solace in Insane’s blog:


    “john blacksmith29 April 2018 at 17:43
    For the same reason that she claimed you were talking about Portugal when you described Grange officers - who obviously only interview in the UK - talking to ex-pats who were in PDL in May 2007. From which she built an incredible Staircase to Havern of false inferences about your behaviour.

    I am not being abusive when I say that, exactly like Bennett, she cannot actually read. Like him she is able to go through the motions of reading perfectly well; like him, when she says a sign saying "Platform One straight ahead" she understands it. And both can converse verbally with others.

    But when a factual and explanatory text on a subject that interests them is placed before them, something goes wrong,as psychological testing would prove within twenty minutes. They are both quite quick to read and grasp the basics of an argument - too quick, much too quick:in contrast to most "normal" readers of their educational and cultural background, their brains establish the message of the sentences before the words have actually been understood.

    That is why I don't believe either of them set out to deceive. The problems come when people pick holes in their blatant misreading of the authors' intentions and at that point both of them cross the line into outright lies, literally hundreds and hundreds of them, as your post above demonstrates.

    Once that line is crossed we are in serious psychiatric territory and, as with other subjects where the deeper you go the rottener it gets, I have no wish to discover more. How they reconcile the utter dishonesty into which they have wandered with their own self-image, how they function, given their disability, with people intimately close to them and just what they make of the nexus of love and its ramifications, I haven't the faintest idea: if their partners understandably left them a suicide note, for example, they'd misread that too and ring the f******g fire brigade instead of an ambulance. Bennett, certainly, has misread Tugendhat's High Court judgement about him in exactly the same way, as anyone can confirm for themselves - not a good idea if you want to learn from experience.

    There is nothing to be done with such people, literally nothing.

    *****


    “The problems come when people pick holes in their blatant misreading of the authors' intentions and at that point both of them cross the line into outright lies, literally hundreds and hundreds of them, as your post above demonstrates.”

    The “post above” doesn’t even mention the misreading we made of Insane’s words, which we corrected immediately as soon as we took knowledge of our error. In fact the “post above” was written after our correction because it quotes from it.

    The “post above” is only Insane trying to prove that Smithman walked in straight line in the middle of the road and that he didn’t interact with the Smiths.

    One can only infer that Blacksmith subscribes fully to the straight-line non-interacting Smith sighting.

    If one day Blacksmith has the patience, we would be grateful if he would list the “literally hundreds and hundreds” of “outright lies” we have said. It can be in groups of 10, we are patient and not demanding.

    What Blacksmith says above, links very nicely to something we are currently writing and which we consider, as we will say when we publish it, as the most important thing we have ever written about the case.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Please don't take offense, but there seems to me to more arguing between bloggers than discussion about the case.

    This really bothers me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 Apr 2018, 14:38:00,

      Respect fully your opinion but we believe that establishing what FACTUALLY happened exactly in the event known as the Smith sighting is very important.

      We have presented facts. The counter-arguments are personal attacks which shows that for some reason those who say we are wrong are unable to fight us with facts.

      When they do present facts in the counter-argumentation, we present facts backs and it simply shows that they have not presented facts but have cherry-picked words and called them facts, which is only trying to be deceiving.

      We do our best not to engage in any inter-blog fight. But we have the right to defend ourselves when attacked. We do not start them.

      Please note that other readers have provided very useful and factual inputs which we have either adopted or, if we don't agree with them, have, like we have done with the attacks, responded with facts explaining our disagreement.

      Delete
  51. The blog’s view on Sonia Poulton’s video “The McCanns and the Police [part 1]”:

    We waited before commenting on Sonia’s documentary, to give it proper consideration and to see if part 2 was due to follow. Now that we know that part 2 won’t be released until investigations in the UK and Portugal have been completed, we give our initial opinions.

    The documentary gives a good overview for anybody new to the case and goes further than most of the UK MSM have been prepared to do. We also appreciate that she had to work under legal constraints. There are some valuable nuggets of information which we found helpful and some factual errors. We would have liked to see something about the dogs, Eddie and Keela, in an episode relating to the police, but understand that Sonia felt it was a subject in its own right.

    Considering it was produced by a non-professional camera crew and research team, it’s a competent presentation and we have no problem with Sonia asking for financial help for future productions if it helps in the search for truth. Journalists have to be paid for their work and independent journalists may need a source of income to pay for production costs associated with travelling and filming.

    One important factual error was Sonia’s statement that Smithman was observed running, when the actual words were “walking “(Aoife) or “walked normally” (Martin), or “walked normally with a fairly quick step because he was coming downhill” (Peter)”. But Sonia did draw attention to Gemma O’Doherty’s article, where Mr Smith stood by his statement that he was 60-80% sure the man he saw was Gerry McCann and the withheld e fits, which was welcome.

    The other main error was her description of Operation Task being led by Goncalo Amaral when, in fact, it was, according to the Operation Task Debrief, led by Leicester Police.

    We were pleased she mentioned “… a belief amongst some that the children were actually never left alone and that the issue of neglect is an alibi for something far more sinister…”.

    She refers to online theories and it is a theory we have always promoted, but we don’t attribute it to anything more sinister than an accident in the apartment. We presume Sonia may be referring to theorists who maintain the alibi was either to conceal a deliberate act of murder or the involvement of a paedophile ring, which would indeed be sinister, if true.

    Sonia reveals that she had seen a restricted document prepared for the British Home Office, but doesn’t specify which document. We speculated what it might be as a result of something said by Colin Sutton later in the documentary. We’ll come to that and thank Sonia for bringing this to our attention.

    Another error, based on a common misunderstanding, is her reference to Goncalo Amaral’s libel trial, when it was actually a hearing for damages. Libel is a criminal offence in Portugal and would be heard in a criminal and not a civil court. To her credit, however, Sonia does give an outline of his eventual victory and the Supreme Court judgement.
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/07/no-longer-libel-so-dont-call-it-libel.html

    An interesting comment from Sonia is that Operation Grange became “... a live murder inquiry in 2013” which would mean that the belief Madeleine was dead informed their operational proceedings. We presume she had good reason to use those precise words.

    Sonia also includes the important fact that the Madeleine Fund is a limited company and not a registered charity. Important because many people who have contributed may not be aware that this is the case, as some journalists and the BBC have previously made the basic error of misrepresenting the status the fund.

    About what we find the most interesting aspect of her documentary - Colin Sutton, we will address in the comment which we deem to be of the utmost importance, and that we have already said, may be the most important thing the blog will publish on the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All you write here is pretty fair, Textusa.
      Imo the EVRD dog issue shouldn't have been kept apart and at an undetermined distance in time (unless it has been suggested in that first part), especially because Eddie's alerts were the crucial element that made the PJ change drastically the orientation of its investigation.

      Delete
    2. But not once have any British officer commented on them since the inception of OG,it cannot be ignored for ever unless it really is a stitch up.Why not slip the question into the likes of Sutton he's opinioned enough to answer or maybe not as the case may be.

      Delete
  52. Textusa, I’m not interested in coming here to comment; the gap between us is far too great.

    But, out of fairness to you, I will say publicly what I was going to add to my post on NT about you and Bennett but left out.

    Whatever accusations you may have made about others – I don’t know because I've only ever read your blog a few times – rightly or wrongly, you do not strike me as an essentially malicious person who actually takes pleasure in hurting others in the way that Bennett does.

    That is quite manifest in his prolonged persecution of innocent individuals but is also there in the sly, feline way that he outs people or “accidentally” lets drop little gobbets of gossip about them, particularly women, Hutton and Poulton being obvious recent examples.

    I have never sensed or detected that particular moral depravity in your writings and, having linked the two of you in my post, I owe it to you to say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Textusa, I’m not interested in coming here to comment; the gap between us is far too great."

      But your differences with Not Textusa are less?!?

      Delete
    2. John Blacksmith has responded… in Insane’s blog.

      An Anon placed this comment there:

      “Anonymous29 April 2018 at 23:03
      What irony. This from someone who talks in riddles, nudging his way through his 'empty cupboard' and comes out with nothing but a wink-wink say-no-more. Suddenly one 'mis-reading' becomes hundreds of lies!? Blacksmith, you've found your spiritual home.”

      To which John Blacksmith replied with the following:

      “john blacksmith30 April 2018 at 04:09
      Anon (of course, what else?) 23.03

      I won't hog NT's space by arguing with you: I gave that up on the net many years ago. I refer you - or rather others since you won't change your mind - to the paragraph which NT originally wrote. These are the facts:

      1) For whatever reason you wish to insert, Textusa read something that was not in NT's post. She didn't "misinterpret" it because NT's statement was quite unambiguous: he was talking about Grange officers and said nothing about them questioning people in Portugal. It came from her head, not NT's.

      2) She then treated that misreading as a fact and proceeded to deduce from that untrue belief a number of inferences, which were listed. They were all completely untrue and, again, they all came from her own head, not from anything NT wrote.

      She now has to either accept what she did and apologize to her readers or lie and bluff and ignore her way out of it. Guess which is happening?

      It is a basic rule of inference that a statement without supporting evidence of truth, such as textusa's claim in her paragraph, can never, ever, lead to truthful, i.e. correct, conclusions but only further away from the truth into the jungle of deception by your own imagination.

      I have never seen a better example of this than textusa's paragraph. It should be in university text books.

      You may have the last word; I won't be saying anymore to you.”

      Delete
    3. Let’s be clear.

      Fact #1 - Insane/Not Textusa placed in his blog the following comment:
      “Not Textusa26 April 2018 at 17:34
      Oh, I'm used to it, believe me, she's been doing it for years :)
      Grange - well, Churchill once said about Russia "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma;" and I think the same applies to Grange.
      To, in effect, draw a line under the actions of the McCann group without further investigation makes absolutely no sense. I think the language used has been evasive, to say the least. However, any case against the parents or any member of the tapas group would be circumstantial at best, as there is no ''smoking DNA" to confirm the culprit. Does that mean, therefore, that they really are looking at everyone except them? Common sense would say ''no, surely not?'' but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, I can't understand why money is being wasted on such a pointless exercise. And no, they weren't asking if they were swingers! Maybe it's a decade-too-late equivalent of a door-to-door enquiry, trying to build up as full a picture as possible of PdL at that moment in time. It remains to be seen, I am giving it the benefit of the doubt just now, but I'm not optimistic”

      Fact #2 - From the above we came to three conclusions which we listed in our comment at 27 Apr 2018, 11:02:00.

      Fact #3 – The first conclusion was wrong: we said Operation Grange would have to have questioned people in Luz. In this matter we misread the comment. We assumed the error in our comment at 28 Apr 2018, 11:19:00. So we believe this falls under your “accept what she did and apologize to her readers” category.

      Fact #4 – We said that the above means that Insane/Not Textusa has to have links to people former immigrants in Praia da Luz or in Operation Grange. We said “how else could he [Insane/Not Textusa] possibly say “but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats” if he doesn’t have links with the mentioned British ex-immigrants? Does he have sources inside Operation Grange?”. As we haven’t apologised, this can only fall under your “lie and bluff and ignore her way out of it” category. Blacksmith, please explain where we have lied or bluffed.

      Fact #5 – We said that Insane/Not Textusa was “in WOM camp - waste of money”. The camp of those who say Operation Grange is a waste of money – which we find it really odd for you to side with Insane/Not Textusa of this one. We came to this conclusion because of his words “, I can't understand why money is being wasted on such a pointless exercise”
      This conclusion is also based on the following comment we put in our post “The ambush”:
      “Textusa7 Apr 2018, 13:11:00
      And guess who subscribes with Sutton, K9 and Teddy [who calls you, Blacksmith. a shill (https://twitter.com/TeddyShepherd/status/979416210575122433)] 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"”
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-ambush.html
      As we haven’t apologised, this can only fall under your “lie and bluff and ignore her way out of it” category. Blacksmith, please explain where we have lied or bluffed.

      Delete
    4. We never lie, which is to assert something knowing it isn’t true and with deliberate intent to mislead.

      We may make mistakes, misinterpret or overlook something in error, but we do not lie.

      Even if it means admitting an error makes us feel annoyed with ourselves or giving our opponents something to gloat about.

      We leave posts and comments which we might prefer not to, to show the history of our errors or changes of opinion.

      Lying does not advance the search for truth and would set us on a path we couldn’t return from.

      We keep a lot of private information between ourselves, even if we could use it to our advantage. We don’t even wish to out anything we know about our opponents.

      We each have been given information in confidence which we won’t even share between ourselves, as we promised the confidante it was between them and each one of us.

      Even those we may have fallen out with. Or who have fallen out with us.

      We have no wish to be cruel for the sake of cruelty. But we’re human and express anger, maybe inappropriately sometimes, but justified in other cases.

      Comments sent as don’t publish won’t be published.

      We have reasons to keep ourselves as anonymous, but those we trust know who we are, either as individuals or a team. Some we have met or spoken to personally.

      If or when this case is ever resolved and we find we have been wrong on anything we have written about, we will make full admissions and apologies. Whilst sincerely believing that won’t be necessary.

      For those who have faith in our honesty - thank you.

      Delete
    5. Blacksmith goes to Not Textusa to insult Textusa,
      Comes to Textusa to grovel to Textusa and insults Bennett,
      Goes back to Not Textusa to insult Textusa

      Has a blog but doesn't allow comments there. What a character!

      Delete
  53. John Blacksmith, I have read your blog over the years.
    I would like you to answer Textusa's questions about where she has been inaccurate.
    |Failing to do so other than the above comment is not really doing much in your favour.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh, John Blacksmith, you're concerned about the 'innocent individuals', but you do not mind NT to call Textusa 'idiot', for example. What a hypocrite!

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think NT, JBS etc are trying to dismantle Textusa’s blog, her journey for truth. I don’t agree it’s about fighting between blogs. It’s difficult to ignore, because behind it is intention to influence the outcome of the McCann case
    Note that neither NT or JBS haven’t really told us anything insightful over the years but seem to pour energy into derailing the case in their favour.
    They knock down but present no alternative.
    It’s search and destroy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Textusa they are coming at you from all angles! I have always found you to be consistent and truthful. You always hold your hands up when you have made a mistake. It’s those that continue when knowing they are wrong that I have no time for. I suspect you are too close to the truth for the comfort of many.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mr Sutton is a busybody.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detective-calls-for-new-spy-in-bag-inquiry-c0wkktdq2

    ReplyDelete
  58. I've been a regular reader of Textusa's blog for a few years now .Always certain that Textusa I'd searching for the truth.I don't think there is another blog where such thought and forensic detail of words and actions of the players has been scrutinised in such detsil.Textusa's theory has evolved from those words,actions, information available and every move made by the media has been considered and explained .If textusa is wrong they will admit it and explain why.Textusa has not been stuck with a theory or neither tried to convince others without explanation like some blogs have done.Textusa's last few blogs have become a crescendo of every tiny step the blog has walked through.There's no need for Textusa to defend their blog ,the evidence of what of how they come to a conclusion is here and there's every chance it's precise.

    ReplyDelete
  59. “Do not publish.....” identified reader at 1 May 2018, 11:03:00

    We share your suspicions and have even more reasons to be even more that we cannot reveal other than saying that one of them was that we found extremely “opportune” Insane jumping on a bandwagon that was not his nor should have knowledge that was passing.

    We keep saying he’s extremely helpful but thankfully he insists in “not” believing us.

    Currently we are debating within team on what we should do. If to act, to sideline it for now and just send a message or pretend we haven’t realised. We have to see and decide what serves best the interests of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Textusa is under enfilading fire; blacksmith and his operation grange [no feedback allowed] execrable excuses for no operation grange action and not textusa with his ‘don’t mention the swinging’ and the ‘dogs don’t detect Mcann cadaver’ (but yes dogs can detect drugs, bombs etc at airports) but it is all of no avail. The truth will out.
    Keep up the good work
    Tiocfaidh ar la. justice will prevail for Madeleine McCann RIP

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa