Friday, 13 April 2018

The help and the tennis

1. Introduction

There is something in the case that is consensual that it is unclear and that to us is absolutely key.

We would even go as far as to call the person involved, close him in a room and ask him the question he was asked before and to which he has given a very vague and unclear answer to say the least.

That person David Payne and that question would be “about what EXACTLY you intended to help Kate McCann with when you went to the McCann apartment at around 18:30 on the evening of May 3 2007?”

And until he gave a clear answer he wouldn’t be able to leave the room. And if he asked for the presence of his lawyer, then that would be arranged.

And we attribute the extreme importance of clarification of this particular thing because, like water and olive oil, this offered help and tennis simply don’t mix not matter how hard one tries.

2. Tennis court and swinging

A close friend of mine asked me one day what had made me first thing of swinging in relation to the Maddie case.

I told her “David Payne’s trip to the tennis courts, that is what triggered swinging in my mind”. And to this she replied with an incredulous “…and from just that, you came to the conclusion of swinging??”

Yes, the reader read it right. It was not his visit to apartment 5A but the one he made to the tennis courts that made me certain that swinging was at the base of the case, although then, I naively thought that only the T9 were involved in the events of May 3.

Then I had not realised that it was not only them but most guests as well, the Ocean Club management and part of its staff, Mark Warner management and staff and British immigrants of Praia da Luz and around Lagos who were also involved in the hoax.

I do believe that my friend to this day continues to think that I jumped to a rushed conclusion but I only answered honestly because it was that tennis court talk between David and Gerry that made me see that it was swinging they were trying to hide.

Why, is what we hope to explain in this post.

3. The McCanns and the Pope

And to make things worse about my friend thinking that I had made a premature conclusion out of nowhere about something, I’ll share with readers what was my state of ignorance about the case when that lightbulb moment happened.

The Maddie case had caught my interest like with the rest of society and followed it with the average interest of the average citizen.

Very soon after Madeleine disappeared, I thought the parents were lying.

But what clinched that they were lying was the Pope visit.

Before Maddie disappeared, on April 23 2003, Pope John Paul II received, inside the Vatican the President of one of the most known Portuguese football clubs, FC Porto, Mr Pinto da Costa.

Mr Pinto da Costa is a charismatic personality in Portugal. Since April 17 1982 he is the longest President of a football club in functions in the world. Then, in Portugal he was known as the “Portuguese Pope”. So, this visit of the “Pope” Pinto da Costa to Pope John Paul II made the news all over Portugal.

But, however charismatic or popular in Portugal Mr Pinto da Costa is or may be, in the grand scheme of the world, he’s was just the President of a Portuguese football club, even if that football club had won international titles.

When the McCanns met the Pope Benedict on May 30 2007, they were the parents of Maddie the allegedly abducted 4 yr old girl in the Algarve, then the world’s most well-known human face and the human being who was being most looked for in the entire world.

Yet, unlike it had happened with a President of a Portuguese football club, the Vatican protocol had the Pope meet them outside, very, very briefly and all quite awkward.

And the McCanns didn’t appear at the Vatican impromptu. Their visit had been announced in the media and Maddie was on almost every front page of every newspaper in the world. And yet, the Pope only met them outside.

That, as a TV watcher, confirmed to me that the Pope knew the parents were lying. For some reason all refs to this encounter have been removed from the Vatican website.

4. The moment of rage

Fast-forward to when Mr Amaral published his book.

That means that between the visit to the Pope and then, I never went online to search about the case.

In that time, like the majority of the Portuguese, I felt that the Portuguese simply had conceded once again to British pressure by not charging the McCanns in September, by letting itself be humiliated by allowing the couple to leave the country, by beingsubmissive when kicking Mr Amaral off the investigation in October and by archiving the case in July.

So, until then I was simply, right or wrong, one more fatalistically resigned Portuguese citizen who witnessed, once again, Portugal bow to the external British pressure.

One day, not sure if in July or already in August, I was in a big commercial outlet and saw Mr Amaral’s book on sale.

I picked it up and like anyone who picks up a book that has pictures for the first time, I went straight to them.

And when I saw the picture of the Tapas esplanade with an arrow pointing to a flimsy small table saying that it was the location where a group of 9 was having dinner, I immediately sensed that the case was much more than I thought it had been.

And when my eyes ran over the drawings (later would see them as pictures in the PJ Files) of Chapter 11 (pgs 122 to 130) I was furious.

The British had not only humiliated the Portuguese by having the couple flown off but had joked with them. Clearly no one had been abducted from that room and saying that someone was could only be insulting a person’s intelligence, or in the case, insulting an entire nation.

I took it as blow as the huge and humiliating joke at the expense of the Portuguese that it was.

That made me go on the internet where I found the case.

5. Mr Amaral’s book and Praia da Luz

Those who have the original book, know that there’s only a small map of Luz on the 4th page in which the Ocean Club appears as covering the area that goes from the Baptista supermarket, including its parking lot, all the way up to Blocks 4 and 5.

No reference whatsoever to where the tennis courts are but one could deduce that they would be inside that enclosed area that appears in the photo illustrating where Jane says she saw Tannerman, without know how big that area would be.

So, after reading the book, the only detailed information then out about the case, all the data I had about what had happened in that crucial end of the evening of May 3 was that this man, David Payne, had come from a beachfront restaurant called Paraiso (which appeared in one of the pictures) and on his way to his apartment to to change into tennis gear and collect whatever he needed to go play tennis suddenly decided to take a detour, enter the closed facilities where the tennis courts were located, go there and talk to a man, his friend, who was allegedly playing tennis there, and ask him if he could go help that man’s wife in their apartment and after obtaining that permission he went and did just that.

To this day, we are still don’t know what kind of help Payne offered and that Gerry accepted.

And then and there, I knew it was swinging. Not because of the question but because tennis courts were involved as well as 2 men, one playing and the other not and the absence of an objective reason for that encounter to have ever happened.

6. The permission

That, and that alone, in my mind, shouted swinging.

Before being accused of having a filthy mind let me explain my reasoning: the only reason David Payne and Gerry McCann would have together come up with such an absurd story (later we will see how really absurd it is) could only be that they wanted to legitimise Payne’s visit to Kate.

Why the need for that legitimisation?

If Fiona Payne had asked David to pass by 5A for some milk or sugar for the next day’s breakfast or plastic plates for next day’s lunch, for example, would David have gone to the tennis courts to ask Gerry for permission? No, he wouldn’t. His presence in the apartment had been legitimised.

He would have walked up, knocked on the door, asked for whatever and left. And no one would find that strange.

But no one remembered then to come up with such a simple explanation for his presence in that apartment.

When those deciding had to come up with some reason for David having been in the McCann’s apartment, their brains were so filled with adrenaline , showing all was done in haste and under pressure, that their judgement was clouded and weren’t able to see how simple it would have been instead of inventing the permission by the tennis court absurdity.

The invention of that absurdity showed that someone thought that a legitimisation was needed to ‘normalise’ the fact that a married man had been in a married woman’s apartment without the presence of their respective spouses.

And if there was that need for that authorisation from that woman’s husband, then it could only be because someone thought them being seen together without it, would appear that they were engaged, or attempting to engage, in some sort of adult interaction.

Only that could justify the need for David to have a “written” note of approval from Gerry for him being in that apartment and it not appear unusual.

And the fact that Gerry gave that “written” approval, rules out a possible affair between David and Kate.

The public permission from the woman’s husband to show normalcy could only be that the intended/attempted adult interaction between her and David was of his knowledge so a scenario of wife-swapping/swinging.

Knowing how falsely prude British society can be about sexual scandals it was evident to me swinging, or attempted swinging was the heart of what was being hidden.

And that permission by the tennis courts was what THEN sparked me into thinking that swinging was the big secret.

THEN, I didn’t know that Barra da Costa had mentioned swinging, I didn’t know there was someone saying it online before the files were released as we showed in our post “The best answer”, I didn’t know that the only common word that was forensically searched for on all 9 apprehended computers was “swing”, I didn’t know that St Phunurius was a nearby property locals told the PJ held sex parties which was visited by the police because it was in some way linked to Robert Murat, I didn’t know that there was a woman who tweeted that she witnessed a promiscuous environment when she booked there by accident, I didn’t know that there were too many nannies for an off-season resort, I didn’t know the guest booking sheets had been doctored, I didn’t know the creche sheets had been doctored, I didn’t know… I didn’t know… etc.

I didn’t know all this but I felt convinced that it was all about swinging.

So, the answer to my friend was summed up into the following sentence: “I knew it was swinging because of a permission a married man needed to have at some tennis court from a woman’s husband to be with her in their apartment without giving any reason for being there.”

7. The particulars of a tennis court

And the fact that the permission was sought after and given in a tennis court, any tennis court, was what ignited in my brain that this whole episode was absurd.

As I said, I didn’t know the details of the inside of the Tapas area, much less the details where the tennis courts were in relation to it, so in my mind I pictured a tennis court, any tennis courts.

I imagined there would be 2 or 3 with a fence around them.

The particularity about the tennis game is the space it needs to be played.

Not talking only about the court itself but the space around that it needs for the game to be played according to its rules.

They state, if we’re not mistaken, that a ball has to bounce completely outside the line to be considered as out.

So, for the game to be played it has to have enough space outside the markings to allow for a ball hitting the line if only slightly and be played between that moment and where it is to bounce on the ground again.

The player receiving the ball has to have space that allows swinging his/her racquet and continuing the play.

For that reason, tennis courts have normally a distance of 6 metres at each end and 3 metres to the sides.

The dimensions of the court are 24 metres in length and 11 in width.

So, the fencing around a single tennis court is a rectangle with the minimum dimensions of 36 metres by 17 metres. Like it happens at Tapas:

That makes tennis not to be exactly a game in which one can easily communicate for chat on the side with a player playing it .

The player has to come to the fence and unlike collective sports like football, rugby or field-hockey, where a player can come quickly to the side-line to be asked something and the games continues without him or her, in tennis there are too few players.

That means that if one of the tennis players has to stop and come to the fence even for just a quick talk, the game is interrupted and the other player(s) have to wait until s/he to returns.

To prolong such a conversation is disrespectful to all the other players waiting, so not exactly the right location for a man, out of the blue, to go and interrupt to ask a player if he can go help his wife, without having a major reason, such as an emergency, for doing so.

The permission story was just too absurd to be true, in any tennis court.

8. The particulars of the Tapas tennis courts

But, the absurd becomes laughable when one gets to know the tennis courts at Tapas.

As everyone now knows, the 2 courts are on a different level in that space.

It was only after being inside the Tapas area that one can really understand how out-of-the way from the rest of the space that these courts really are.

They are at the farthest corner away from the main entrance to the area.

The entrance to the space is almost hidden and made up of a stairs with 13 steps. The difference in height between the top and bottom of stairs (rest of Tapas area and tennis courts) is around 2.0/2.1 metres.

A not that important detail is that the 2 courts are not level with each other as can be seen above.

The one furthest from the Tapas bar was is about 30/40 cm higher than the one nearer. Making the difference of heights between the kids’ area and the courts to be about 2.0/2.1 metres to the one nearest to the Tapas bar and 1.70/1.80 metres for the other.

We don’t know on which court was Gerry playing in. The only indication we have is that 14:30/15:30 he played on court #2 and even then, we don’t know which one that is.

So, this is the scenario.

David on his way to the apartment decides to significantly detour out of his way into the Tapas area. Inside that out of the way area, he heads to another out of the way area there, the tennis courts, to ask a man who is on the other side of the fence, about 2 metres below who is feet 6 metres away if he could if he could go help the man’s wife, without giving any reason why she would need this help, and the man below and apparently far away, gives his permission without knowing exactly what he has given permission  for.

Or if Gerry came close to the wall:

Does this make any sense?

No, it doesn’t but believe it or not, it’s the official version of events.

It only makes sense if it was what we say it was: an invented story clearly seeking a justification for David Payne having been inside the apartment together with Kate without either Fiona or Gerry being there.

9. Where’s Gerry?

But besides the absurdity there are 2 sets of circumstances that may surprise the reader surrounding this absurd absurdity.

The first is that there’s no way for David to know that Gerry is playing tennis.

This is what Fiona has to say about what she knew of the whereabouts of Gerry that afternoon:

“When they were asleep, I think that day, I know Dave had been talking about trying to go wind surfing because the weather was better. I'm just trying to recall. I think mum had tennis possibly, I think I just stayed at the apartment, Dave possibly, sort of halfway through the afternoon, while the kids were still asleep, went off to do some wind surfing and I think Matt and Russell had already gone down to do, to take a boat out a bit earlier, so the men were sort of out of the picture, and I don't know what Gerry was doing. Erm, as I say, mum, I can't remember whether mum was with me or not, she possibly had played a bit of tennis, I think she might have played a bit of tennis with Jane, I don't know, I can't comment on them, but I was around, I was around the apartment'.”

We will later see that she states that the men had scheduled to play tennis at 18:00. So, possibly Gerry could have been playing tennis but he, just like David could have been late and, for example still be in his apartment together with Kate.

So, David, enters the Tapas area assuming that Gerry is there but running the risk of him not being.

And how is that important? Well, besides him making a needless trip inside the Tapas area, doesn’t logic dictate that if Kate needed any sort of help, Gerry wouldn’t have left the apartment in the first place? To help her with whatever she needed?

No, instead, we have a man who without knowing if the woman’s husband was indeed playing tennis, assumes he is and then offers to help her with something that her husband saw no need to stay home to do himself.

10. Hurry, to be or not to be?

But the second set of circumstances is the most fascinating.

What few people realise is that when Payne remembered to go help Kate for reasons only he knows, he was in a hurry… to play tennis.

Again Fiona Payne in her rogatory:

“Erm, and then I remember it getting to tennis time, because it was men's tennis that night and the men had all rearranged the time to suit us and it was getting towards six o'clock and, you know, they were going to be late, so I remember saying 'Look, you better go because it's not fair, you've moved the time then you'll be late'. Erm, so I think that, that was sort of approaching five to six. And we were toying with the idea of getting the kids ice creams for pudding and then thought oh we probably don't have time, but then we decided well, you know, why don't you go off and go to your tennis and we'll just give them their ice cream and follow on. And so I think they left probably about, you know, that being Matt and Dave and Russell, around five to six, six o'clock time. And the, you know, the wives stayed behind with the kids, they had ice cream and then we followed on about ten past six and we just walked back up to, to watch them play a bit of tennis and give the kids, you know, a little playtime. Erm, and I don't think we stayed there that long that night because the kids were pretty, pretty tired. Erm, I'm trying to think, I'd say probably by seven o'clock we were, me and my mum headed back with the kids to start bath time. Erm, and Dave, we left him playing tennis for a bit longer. Erm, I think we'd bathed the kids by the time he got back, probably ten minutes later. Erm, and then I went for a run that night, after the kids were bathed'.”

We see no such change in the tennis booking sheets, with the exception of seeing that Gerry was moved from 15:30-16:30 slot to an earlier one 14:30-15:30:

Gerry who then was playing tennis again when David at around 18:15 remembers that he wants to help Kate and that he has to have Gerry’s permission.

Gerry must have loved tennis (a vice he seems to have abandoned) certainly more than he did like any other sport!

So, at 18:15, David was Payne in a hurry prompted by his wife to go and play tennis but he decides to make rather a prolonged pit-stop by going inside the Tapas area, to the tennis courts, shout at Gerry he wants to help Kate, gets his agreement shouted back, heads for the for apartment 5A, stays, according to him, there for half an hour and according to Kate, a few minutes.

He only says that he admired the beauty of the children and does not register seeing an adult woman who only had a towel around her but most importantly never gets to, in any way, explain what he did all that time he says he was there nor in what way he helped Kate.

Reading the above, as others had started without him, one would think he had abandoned the idea of going to play tennis.

But that was not the case. Far from it. After this significant and prolonged detour, that’s what he decides to do: go and play tennis.

Something he had been in a hurry to do at the start of all this.

Is this a badly written script? No, to call this a script would be a huge insult to all script writers including all those with no talent.

11. Conclusion

Anyone know any synonyms of absurd?

Do use them ALL please to qualify this episode.

Note, this is not ill-playing a horrible script. This is the script itself. The only bad playing in it is the discrepancy of the time Payne spent in the apartment. The rest is played as “written”.

And that time discrepancy is just another indication of a hastily concocted story. They didn’t account for a question about how long visit lasted? Of course they would.

The ridiculousness of the entire thing shows that this invention was rushed. It was done in haste and under pressure. It they had time and not a hundred other things to focus on, the would have come up with a minimally credible story.

Note, only the excuse was invented. Because if there was a need to concoct so hastily an excuse for David having been in the apartment, it was because he had been there.

Note, as we said, this is the official version. We see many people interested in analysing the wording and body language used by the McCanns and very few questioning the lack of clarification about this help Payne offered Kate that evening.

Post Scriptum:

“I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known.
He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.”

So, it was at 17H00 and Gerry was present.

Interesting isn’t it?

So much so that we are going to put it as a Post Scriptum!

(translation  from here and page from here)

Post Scriptum II:

This is the surprise that Ocean Club had especially for me last year at Tapas:

On octagonal table for 8. Not even for 9 or 10. Not even round.

But BIG.

Where no similar object has ever been photographed:

Clearly put there to convince guests who are not familiar with the case that it was the table where the T9 allegedly had dinner.

If this doesn’t show the dinners never happened and how compromised with the hoax the Ocean Club is, nothing will.

We took at as a homage to the fictitious BRT and to us. Thank you, Ocean Club.


  1. A good read. Thank you, Testusa Sisters. Gonçalo Amaral also mentioned that David Payne needs further investigation. If it hadn't been for the PJ Files and GA's book we would be stuck on 3 May, 2007 with the many myths and lies of this - as it becomes clearer - a swinging Tapas group, covering up the death of a child.

    An accident happened earlier in the week, 'we let her down' complications resulted in a death.

    1. Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 11:19:00,

      We do not support the theory of death earlier than May 3 or that Maddie died as the result of a sedation which went wrong, as you may already be aware.

      Maddie was not left on her own. The dining scenario was an alibi, as many commentators are starting to recognise.

      Even those who may disagree with us on other issues.

  2. Where and with whom was Gerry McCann while D. Payne was with KMC in 5A ?

    1. Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 12:34:00,

      We have no idea who Gery was with, as we don’t know.

  3. You say that Payne's visit needed to be explained because he had actually been there. It seems much more likely that it was concocted because he wasn't there and in fact nobody but Kate and Gerry could place Madeleine alive after she left the tapas tea. David Payne makes sue to stress that all the McCann children looked healthy and happy and that Kate showed no sign of any frustration or problems while coping with 3 kids bedtime routine alone. It seems obvious that when they discovered the police were looking at the time period between tea and the alarm, the McCanns realised that they had no witness outside of themselves to claim that Madeleine was still alive after 6 o'clock.

    1. You believe the children had tea at the tapas. It would have been like a chimp’s tea party and a nightmare keeping them inside away from the pool. Not only that but why would tapas provide toddler friendly food? The tapas teas are as real was tapas dinners for 9, teas were at the Mill. At best it would have been a meeting place for people to collect their kids. of this group but nowhere does it advertise tapas teas with OC child care.
      The whole creche thing is nonsense for these kids, normally kids would be collected from the creche where they are secure. The creche was used for normal OC guests of all nationalities during the high season and T9 & other swinger kids were looked after privately when resort hosted swinging.

  4. Tennis Court #2 is the court furthest from the Tapas Bar

  5. The more elaborate you make a story the less believable and truthful it becomes, now if if they had said he got changed into his tennis clothes and called for Gerry and found he'd missed him then that sounds plausible and no one would have batted an eyelid. They then had the option of Kate was struggling so needed help even maybe he followed the others down to the courts or being so late he gave it a miss, none of those cause suspion like the running man story they put out.
    Sometimes giving too much detail can be your downfall and one thing that struck me is Kate and Gerry's statement about the evening of the 3rd that jumped out at me. They both say they sat and had a drink before going out and where Gerry is more vague ie beer or wine Kate actually specifies it was a New Zealand wine. My first thought was well you wouldn't have been drinking that if my ancestor had planted the first wines groves there to was is ready available in a small resort? I was only ever briefly in Pdl as we called after we'd been out somewhere else as my in laws loved it there, but I do remember as a small fishing village but this was over twenty years ago. I've no idea how big the supermarket is there and I am not a wine drinker but family and friends are and even though other European countries we have visited usually stock their own made wine as a preference over outside countries, especially until you get into the very large supermarkets. Sorry for the waffle as we know they are lying but the point is was that wine even available in that resort to drink? If not that's another hole in their so called story, it niggles me just like the Gaspar statement.

    1. Anonymous 13:39, I was also curious about the New Zealand wine, so I checked in the Batista (middle size) supermarket (in 2011), and, yes, they sold wine from there, double-price (9/10 euros). Nevertheless Gerald might have thought that Portuguese wine would do.

    2. AnneGuedes thank you so kindly for your reply. Even though I had family ties to the wine I just found it so odd to give such a descriptive explanation to what she was drinking. Well what she says she was drinking but I'm pretty sure they were running around like blue are flies by this point staging the abduction.The story might have worked better if they had left the details of the trivial stuff like this alone and honed their story telling skills on the hoax. This pitiful story has overkill written all over it people are not interested in nonsense crap about what you were drinking when you can barely describe your daughter to the public without spouting lies.I myself nearly lost my oldest as a newborn I cannot fathom how these two were able to function like they did as I carried that fear through after I had my second child until I knew she was safe.

    3. I agree that these details have a fishy scent. Lying isn't an easy business !

  6. Anonymous at 13:16
    I am inclined to agree. It would have been easier to say nothing of a "visit" rather than invite the investigation that it has.
    And the reason that they had to "invent" this sighting is that she had already come to harm

  7. Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 13:16:00 and DE F13 Apr 2018, 13:46:00,

    The question that we want to highlight in this post, is then why involve Gerry in the plot?

    We have already given one, which would be for David to go ask for something for the next day from Kate under the request of Fiona.

    Another would be him going to knock on the door and ask Kate if Gerry had an extra pair of socks he could wear for the tennis as it was the end of the week all he would have was used ones,

    And if this story was just to show that Maddie was alive at that time, then no need for Kate to just out of the shower, and her saying it was a few minutes and him saying it was half an hour.

    And why not use a woman of the group when making up a story for that? Why not Fiona?

    The point of the post is that David, or whoever invented the reason for David being in the apartment felt the need to include Gerry in it and the only way they saw it “feasible” was to have him play tennis and David on his way to play tennis decide to stop before playing tennis to go and talk to Gerry and ask him to go to his wife.

    It seems to us a story much more focused on having the police know that Gerry knew and was ok with David having been in the apartment than with Maddie being seen alive at that hour.

    We have dealt with the need of inventing this story in our post “The importance of the inexistent witness”.

    1. If the issue was evidence of life at the end of the afternoon, why wasn't it sufficient GMC telling DP visited and DP telling it as well ? Why doing it ?
      Just say you did it. In the perspective of the performative function of language words do not serve first thing to represent what they're speaking about, to account for it, but to act on the reality, and sometimes even to act by representing it.

  8. In the circumstances, and seemingly pivotal to the events of 3 May, I've often wondered why neither David Payne nor Kate McCann were re-interviewed by the PJ, as the others were, on or around 10 May.

    1. DE F,

      Very interesting question and one that has fed that false urban myth that there are unpublished PJ Files.

      And before getting to the crux of your comment, and to set aside this myth, are we to believe that if either David Payne of Kate McCann had given some sort of damning statement that the PJ were not “allowed” to use (something so completely illegal in Portugal that it’s even quite insulting even to just mention it) that Mr Amaral would have been silent about it in his book or now?

      There are no second statements from either because they weren’t heard the second time.

      We believe this happened because, as both were indeed crucial as to what happened and it couldn’t possibly be afforded any more discrepancies between the statements of these 2 (who were the only ones able to further clarify what really happened in that encounter) it was ensured that neither was heard again by the PJ.

      With Kate, it was easy as there supposedly was nothing she could say to enlighten the police that Gerry couldn’t, so hearing one would be like hearing both. So it was either arranged some social event or then it was asked for the police to respect her grief, as Gerry was entirely available to all.

      As to David, then the encounter was not seen as suspicious at all. Both parties involved had agreed it happened and the only relevant discrepancy was the time it lasted but that could be dismissed as one thinking that it lasted longer than the other. There was nothing then to fire a red flag to the police about this encounter.

      So, both were kept far out of reach from the police. With loads happening and with so many throwing false leads at them, the second hearing of both simply did not happen.

      On hindsight, the fact that they were kept away from the police tells us that this meeting is indeed pivotal to the case. That’s when and where we think Maddie died by accident.

    2. The original PJ 4 May statements appear to be an overview from each person as to their recollection of the holiday in general whereas the 10 May statements were much more targeted (as they would be, the PJ having done such a sterling job in a short space of time, and with UK intrusion, in sorting a lot of wheat from chaff).
      Thus the 10 May statements were about individuals movements on the day in question, 3 May. So why not DP & KM and not necessarily just about their evening encounter.
      Incidentally, I'm currently in the camp of an incident prior to May 3 but I'm open to all discussion and hence my greater attention to this forum.

    3. DE F,

      Besides your last paragraph (in which we agree to disagree and fully respect your disagreement) we fully agree with what you wrote.

      But for them to have been heard, they would have to be present for hearing.

      Now it is simplistic to say that the PJ would simply order them to be in the facilities at a certain hour and they had no choice but to be there.

      However, reality shows otherwise. One just has to remember the resistance Mr Amaral encountered to use the clothing Maddie had on the holidays to get DNA samples.

      It was a resistance shown by his own hierarchy and not by the British.

      So we believe that both Kate and David were called to be heard on the 10th as they should, however the reason was given for both not "being able" to be there, Mr Amaral and his team just had to accept it and hear those that were "available" to be heard.

    4. Not only David and Kate escaped a second hearing, Fiona also. When she was heard on May 16 it was strictly about her allegedly spotting RM on the fateful night.
      The PJ might have found it unnecessary (GA doesn't explain why the Paynes weren't interviewed again), but the LC sent a questionnary to David and Fiona...

  9. well reading that its i swingers hotel which i don't doubt one bit, with the little bits and pieces here i have seen wrote, but to me it looks like david payne was asking permission if he can have a bit nookie with his wife.

    debbie lee perry

  10. If Gerry consented for David to go and have some nookie with Kate then when, where and with whom did Gerry have his bit of fun? As I very much doubt he would let his Mrs receive a portion without having at least a double portion himself and really getting his monies worth.

    When did all this swinging allegedly take place? Was it in the day or night, or both? Was it just between the Tapas group or was the whole Ocean Club involved in it as well?

    1. who says gerry didn't have his portion, he probably had it night and day and im sure he got his moneys worth, and yes the tapas knew, it was a swinging hotel, everyone knew staff and employees

      debbie lee perry

    2. I suggest that a closer look be taken at the times of "tennis" lessons and matches as it appears that, mostly, the men played tennis whilst the wives/partners er, did what ?
      Perhaps one reason for the confusion over who took the tennis balls photo and when ?

    3. All the staff and employees knew? Even the ones that lost their jobs in the aftermath?

      And yet nobody has ever spoken up about it ever. Really?

    4. "And yet nobody has ever spoken up about it ever. Really?"
      To who would they speak to?

    5. well of course thry knew would lose rheir job either way, tourism was ruined after the mccanns holiday, and if you had read textusas post a lot of people knew it was a swinging hotel, and why soeak out know, oh by the way john i used to work at a swinging hotel. mark warner organised off season hotels for a meeting place for swingers in other words swinging holidays in my opinion
      debboe lee perry

    6. Would like to see some proper evidence of a swinging holiday & that everyone working for the OC & half of PDL were in on it...


    7. Without attributing a particular theory to Anonymous questioner (16:10 and 16:40), it’s interesting to note that the same issues are not addressed when discussing the paedo ring cover up theory: who was sharing children? Were all OC guests involved....?

      Nor with death before 3: was no one able to recognise that the child who was used to pass as Maddie wasn’t Maddie when her face went public? Were all the OC staff and guests involved in not “recognising” the fake Maddie?

      We are never going to commit to guessing who was involved with whom in consensual adult activities and even if we knew identities, which we don’t, we would never make them public, reason why it’s useless to ask don’t ask us to speculate in such issues.

      However, Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 16:10:00 seems to be familiar with the McCann’s intimate life “I very much doubt he would let his Mrs receive a portion without having at least a double portion himself and really getting his monies worth.

      We find loathsome for people to judge who should have sex with who based on their opinion of what others look like and as well on their opinion that they would find disgusting to have sex with some of the people involved.

      It would be interesting to see these if these “sex-approvers” who rate people on whether anyone would have sex with them, would submit themselves to a "beautymeter" and see if they would pass the beauty test themselves.

    8. M,

      Please detail what you consider to be "some proper evidence of a swinging holiday" and which would realistically be found and that would convince you that it was.

      When you do that, we will answer your questions.


      From Sept 16 2007:

      “Several Portuguese lawyers and journalists, along with a uniformed police officer from the National Republican Guard I spoke to outside the Ocean Club apartment, told me solemnly not only that the McCanns and their friends were "swingers" who had taken their holiday together to indulge in group sex (an assertion made repeatedly by the Portuguese Press), but that "everyone knows" that its tolerance of orgies is the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort's main selling point.

      One afternoon I decided to test this proposition, approaching two holiday reps there, dressed in their red Mark Warner sweatshirts. "Er, is this a good place for swingers, then?" I asked.

      They looked at me in total bafflement. "Swingers?" one replied.

      "Look around you, sir. Most of our guests are retired, or families with children."


      As if staff approached about a highly secretive meeting place would tell a journalist what was going on.

      Lots of staff at lower levels of OC / MW probably not informed either.

    10. Several years ago we had a five day hol at butlins it was low season and we were told when we booked we had to be off camp at twoish as the whole camp was being privately hired out after this. My brother had been going for years before this with his kids and this had been the case a few times before. As he knew some of the staff he asked one who it was for and their reply was the Jehovah's witnesses. Taken aback my brother remarked about how that would be a fun weekend not,he was even more shocked when they informed him they were right party animals and boozed into the early hours. While they are not banned from doing such things it is supposed to be in moderation but what this does show is what is unknown by the public. My brother has witnessed some arriving for the adult weekends and was less than impressed,yet Butlins promotes itself on family holidays so Warners running weeks like this does not shock me.

    11. Out of season the whole of Praia da Luz is like a home for the retired and always has been. May is out of season. The Ocean Club is no exception. The McCanns' group would have been unusual, pre-school kids being the only ones not at school.

  11. Thanks for this post Textusa. Really interesting. I too agree that the key point was to make it known that DP had permission from Kate's husband to be in the apartment. That was the need that drove them to give the story about asking permission. It does sound absurd - really really absurd. In fact was a big mistake. They sort of over-egged the pudding - which is what people do when they are under pressure. I think there are other instances where they have also done this. Which is perfectly natural for people under pressure to provide 'reasons' for things that they thought would look odd. They were so anxious about hiding the swinging activities that they were focussed on giving explanations for anything that they thought hinted at swinging. Once you see that - it all starts to become very clear! The cleaning of the apartment - so so so clean.

  12. So if David went to Kate for some swinging activity, surely the kids would not have been there.

    1. Reason why Kate refused him? Maybe he expected children still with nannies?

    2. Su and Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 19:46:00,

      Thinking about it, we only have Kate and David's word that all the 3 kids were in the apartment and awake at the time.

      We don't know what the arrangements for the kids were. Payne could have expected that by then the kids had already been handed over to the night nannies, freeing the adults for the night's entertainment and the twins could be still napping and had delayed this.

      What seems clear to us, is that Payne had the expectation of something to happen to which Kate opposed and they argued about it.

    3. Whatever happened between them to cause the fatal accident to poor Madeleine has led to Payne being tied in and visibly punished just like the McCann's on forums due to the fall back statement of the Gaspar's. IMO it's about time these two were rounded up and sent to Portugual to answer why they left it nearly two years to report they knowingly knew a child was being abused yet did nothing. In fact the silence has been deafening where these two are concerned which speaks volumes to me.

    4. Anonymous 13 Apr 2018, 23:29:00,

      We don’t believe Maddie was being abused by DP, her father or anybody else.

      We do want an answer to the question as to why the Gaspars, or Mrs Gaspar in particular, would make the suggestion she did, yet do nothing about it and continue to meet with the McCanns.

      That in itself suggests Madfie was not being abused and Mrs Gaspar knew it.

      We believe the Gaspars should be questioned by the appropriate authorities. Not “ rounded up”.

    5. Textusa I'm with you when it comes to the so called abuse. The Gaspar statement has becomes another one of those forum myths that is continually brought up and quoted but never debated much to my frustration and that is where the rounded up came from. If I was the Gaspar's I would want to set the record straight once and for all because imo it makes you as guilty as the ones you are accusing nearly two years later. I do wonder if the outer circle would have agreed to get involved protecting the inner circle if they had know then the PJ would release the files to the public, I very much doubt it and that's why I said the silence is deafening because the files show the dishonesty and lies told especially if you can think outside the box and not be a pitch fork sheep that many groups herd their members into.

    6. Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 11:54:00,

      Fully understand but one cannot allow those throwing sand in our eyes to get to us.

      Truth is like olive oil in water, it always surfaces.

  13. ''
    Textusa13 Apr 2018, 18:49:00

    Please detail what you consider to be "some proper evidence of a swinging holiday" and which would realistically be found and that would convince you that it was.

    When you do that, we will answer your questions.''

    I'm sure you know what constitutes evidence, Textusa.

    Witness statements
    Written evidence that the place was used for swinging, eg brochures, adverts
    Accounts from other swingers
    Not a single holidaymaker, resident or employee says it was a swingers event.

    1. Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 04:08:00 (M?)

      Ha ha – You forgot to add to that the group photo!
      And that at the end of the week there would be an award ceremony where Best Male Swinger, Best Female Swinger and Best Couple Swinger would be given a certificate.

      Maybe to be expected swinging refrigerator magnets on sale in the souvenir shops in Praia da Luz?

      And road-signs with arrow pointing out directions to where swingers were to head on arrival?
      We asked for realistic evidence.

      What organisation specialising in family holidays is going to advertise such holidays in its brochures?!

      Imagine the teasing families would receive when they announced they were going on holiday with a company – let’s call it Jolly Holidays – who advertised all-inclusive family holidays and swingers in the same brochure!

      Teased by family and friends: “So that’s what you’re up to is it? “, as they protest they’re just going for the family bit.

      The whole point of elite swingers, as Natalie Rowe pointed out in her book, which we quoted from, is the complete discretion required of the participants and how they were blackballed, as she called it, if they breached confidentiality.

      Let us quote her again like we did in our post “The paedo-offensive”:

      “From Natalie Rowe’s book, “Whipping up a storm”, when she refers to her friend Stephen:

      “…he was into swinging and took me with him to Paris, to a secret, exclusive and expensive club (the annual membership was several thousand pounds) called Cleopatra. Everyone seemed completely respectable, well-heeled and with reputable careers.... [skipping here explicit details].

      Stephen also took me to an even more exclusive get-together in a huge chateau about 45 minutes outside Paris. We drove through huge electronic gates into expensive grounds. This swingers club was for judges, lawyers and politicians- nobody could be a member without being recommended by another member and then going through a thorough vetting by the club. Members, who were sworn to secrecy, could bring a guest but they had to take responsibility for the way they behaved. Anything against the rules and you were immediately black balled.””

      As if any of the witnesses in this case would announce “We were there for a swingers’ holiday.”

    2. Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 04:08:00 (M?)

      About “Not a single holidaymaker, resident or employee says it was a swingers event.”

      In terms of a holidaymaker, we would say this constitutes someone saying there was swinging indeed:
      Which we screengrabbed and have put in our post “The game continues”

      In terms of residents, we would say that what we showed in our post “Maddie & Swinging”, locals told authorities that sex-parties were being held in St Phunurius.

      Also in this category, one could include whoever gave the Best Answer which we showed in our post “The Best Answer” post, where swinging is mentioned before the PJ Files were released.

      Then we have this quote from the Daily Mail of Sept 16 2007, that we have already quoted in this post:
      “Several Portuguese lawyers and journalists, along with a uniformed police officer from the National Republican Guard I spoke to outside the Ocean Club apartment, told me solemnly not only that the McCanns and their friends were "swingers" who had taken their holiday together to indulge in group sex (an assertion made repeatedly by the Portuguese Press), but that "everyone knows" that its tolerance of orgies is the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort's main selling point.

      Barra da Costa mentioned swinging in May 2007.

      The PJ searched specifically for the word “swing” in the 9 computers seized for forensic analysis

      Is that sufficient?

    3. Jane Tanner mentioned it and Jez Wilkins other half Bridgette also wrote an article about it. Both denied it was going on yet if it wasn't or were not there for the swingers holiday like some of the other holiday makers. Think about it they would be no need to deny or mention anything you have no knowledge of going on in any hotel. IE many hotels run conferences,weddings kids clubs in fact all sorts of things while they have other guests, who are generally unaware unless its something that they use or are interested in. The point I'm making in is if something happened in one of these clubs, conferences that you were not involved or even aware of you would have no information to give or hide. Yet these two came up with denial and explanation non involved people would not need or feel the need to do this the answer would be simple in I had no idea anything happened or was going on.

    4. Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 12:48:00,

      Thank you. Lest we forget Richard Bilton raised and dismissed swinging allegations in the first Panorama programme.

      The post "Panorama or Propaganda" shows how reliable that programme is for an independent presentation.

    5. Anonymous 14th April 12:48
      Totally agree - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

    6. No, it isn't.

      A tweet from 2016 which also claims there was a ban on children in restaurants, which we know is false, what turned out to be a false claim about a quinta which was nothing to do with Ocean Club and a quote from a tabloid?

      That sounds like no actual evidence at all

    7. Textusa14 Apr 2018, 14:42:00
      Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 14:34:00,

      Please provide evidence for your claim that "there was a ban on children in restaurants".

      Who says that St Phunurius has nothing to do with the Ocean Club?

      The PJ went there under an investigation about a crime that happened in the Ocean Club. The correlation btween the 2 was made by the PJ and not by us.

    8. The claim about the restaurants is in the tweet you posted!
      The pj found no connection to the St Phunurius quinta - that's in the files.

      So stop stalling - do you have any actual evidence, yes or no?

    9. Insane,

      You asked for a guest speaking of swinging. We gave you one:
      “@pennygeer Mmmm! Mark Warner`s holiday centres were used as knocking shops when Maddie went missing, hence the ban on kids in many of their restaurants, as the adults would openly wife-swap during the evenings! We went there by mistake (thanks to and even tubby old me spent the week trying to evade the randy upper-class men!”

      And yes, we would agree that kids would be banned in the restaurants in the evenings when the “openly wife-swap during the evenings” happened.

      How do you know this to be false?

      The PJ didn’t make the connection between St Phunurius and the case because they failed to make the connection between swinging and the real hoax that happened because if they had, we would not be here discussing it.

      What’s your excuse for the police searching for the word “swing” in every computer?

    10. Insane,
      You do realise that the more you protest with your ridiculous arguments the more you prove Textusa right, don't you?

    11. Is that your answer to anyone who asks a question - they must be ''Insane''?

      A random tweeting claiming something a decade later is not evidence.

      The PJ ruled out the Phunurius quinta

      They also searched for child abuse terms in every computer - does that mean that was going on?

      This is all stalling

      Where is the evidence for swinging?

      Oh - and if the restaurants banned children, why could people using the tapas been a high chair for the kids, and why are children mentioned in the booking sheets?

      Admit it - there IS no evidence

    12. We're still waiting for you to tell us what would be for you REALISTIC evidence of swinging.

    13. I think that's a No

    14. No, Insane, it's not a no.

      It's this:


    15. If swinging was a crime...evidence would constitute facts that would hold up under examination in a court of law. Anonymous is right. All this is hearsay and circumstantial. Its a theory..nothing more nothing less.

    16. Anon,

      Indeed swinging is not a crime, so asking for evidence of it is ridiculous.

      But have to disagree on fact/hearsay.

      The tweet is a first hand testimony. It can not be truthful and it can but it's certain that it's not hearsay.

      St Phunurius is not hearsay nor is the search for the word swing in the 9 computers.

      Barra da Costa and others stating that there was ongoing swinging, that we agree can be considered hearsay.

      But hearsay is not necessarily something false.

    17. But not evidence either. And theories do require some. I am not in dispute but neither to me is there evidence that tapas troop were indulging...even if swinging. Circumstantial. For example if i am in a nightclub were drug taking is rife does it mean by being there i am taking drugs too? Because that is what it amounts too. And as for the computet search swinging is one of a group of terms looked for...i think what they found is of more importance than what they looked for.

  14. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 14 Apr 2018, 11:44:00

    We not only see no reason for not publishing your comment as we think it gives quite an insightful personal vision (in our opinion a correct one) of this episode.

    This said we ask you to allow us to publish your comment.

    In case you authorise, we request that you give a brief summary of what you wrote so that we are sure we have the approval from the right person.

  15. I agree with your reasoning that David and Kate were in the apartment when Maddie died. I agree that they made up the story that David went to see Gerry on the tennis court to ask permission to go and help Kate in order to legitimise them being together in the apartment without their respective partners. But why do you think they had to legitimise them being together in the apartment? They staged the abduction to happen later in the evening so why did they have to publicise David's visit to Kate? Do you think that was in case someone had witnessed David there or going there? If so, I would have thought it was only one of the fellow guests. I am just puzzled over this need to broadcast the David Payne visit to Kate. Or had they already mentioned this in their statements previously and thus saw a need to legitimise the visit afterwards and then made up the 'asking permission of Gerry' bit... Hoping you can make this make sense for me!! Thanks

    1. Anonymous 14 Apr 2018, 14:15:00,

      We have dealt with the need of inventing this story in our post “The importance of the nonexistent witness”.

    2. Thanks Textusa for pointing me back to this post:

      Well worth a read - absolutely. Has clarified much for me! Thanks again!


    “I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known.
    He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.”

    So, it was at 17H00 and Gerry was present.

    Interesting isn’t it?

    So much so that we are going to put it as a Post Scriptum!

    1. Post Scriptum now published.

    2. It can't have been at 17.00 as he was still in the restaurant

    3. 1485 "So we're saying around about six o' clock ish, would that be about right''
      Reply "Err well I mean we were probably, as I say, windsurfing I was windsurfing around two to four o' clock, then we had the girls come down so there was some playing on the beach.'
      1485 "Yeah.'
      Reply "Then we went for something to eat and 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, all we had was the camera which you know as I say the time on that suggests that we left the restaurant err you know after six o' clock, so you know just working backwards''
      1485 "Yeah.'
      Reply "The time that I thought we'd finished you know''
      1485 "Yeah.'

      So he is on beach solo surfing watching the "lads" sail thwn meets up with the ladies for dinner..on camera ....gets back at 6 ish

    4. Same link i posted above.. Bampots.....

      1485 "And what was Gerry doing''
      Reply "Err Gerry had been, you know, playing you know tennis already, he was having a good err game and I think there was you know, and there were a couple of the other tennis players who had specifically gone out there on a Mark Warner holiday to play tennis and you know Gerry was, you know, getting a lot out of the week from the tennis and made friends with those people and he was having a good game with them. Err so you know he would basically be playing tennis.'
      1485 "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''
      00:31:48 Reply "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 if I'm perfectly honest.'
      1485 "And how long did you stay and watch the game for''
      Reply "Err all I remember is I was having a, you know, a brief conversation with Gerry, err you know and then you know I went back, I didn't actually stay there for too long because of the time, you know, was ticking by err but again these are, you know''
      1485 "Afterwards.'
      Reply "Yeah, recollections rather than you know whether there was anything in between, there could well have been.'
      1485 "Yeah.'
      Reply "So where were you going then' Presumably you weren't going to play tennis were you' When you left the beach, what was''
      Reply "Yeah, oh yes that was always the intention and that's what Fiona was saying, look if you're actually gonna do anything tonight you'd better get yourselves up there and it's getting quite late so that was, you know, that's the reason we'd all gone ahead because we waited till the children had finished eating and err got in the prams and got up there, you know it takes another five ten minutes on top walking back with them, err then you know we'd have lost the opportunity. Err again, presuming that you know the tennis was usually around six thirty, that if you know, if we're leaving the restaurant you know, quarter past six or whatever, around that time, that you know if we'd leave it much longer with it taking ten minutes or whatever to walk up just to start the tennis at half six, you know we were already cutting it fine and I think as it transpired we were playing tennis till you know even beyond there, it was quarter to seven, or around then and err you know if we'd have left it much later then we just thought well it's gonna finish, so.'
      00:33:29 1485 "Right, were you going for a lesson or were you actually going to play''
      Reply "We were gonna play, there was obviously me, Matt and Russ, and Gerry was making up the four, fourth err person.'

      So he walks from restaraunt to OC with the lads for an intended foursome with Gerry...this is comedy gold....cont

    5. Sorry these post are long....byt the point is how can some throw in such a short statement after giving this biblical statement.....

      1485 "But he was already playing''
      Reply "Yeah he'd already been playing and that's partly the reason that he kind of like threw in the towel early and said ah you know I've had, enough's enough, I've had a good day and err but then we managed to get Dan, the pro, just to play a bit with us err you know so that made up the four ball err just for a little while.'
      1485 "So your four''
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "Was yourself, Matt, Russell and''
      Reply "Well it started off with Gerry and we had a bit with him and then Dan played a bit.'
      1485 "And Dan, Dan replaced Gerry then did he''
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "How far through the game was that''
      Reply "I can't remember.'
      1485 "Sets wise''
      Reply "Err you know whether we played one, you know again this is just, yeah usually we'd play a set and then change over so most likely it would be Gerry played a set and then left, that was most likely how it happened.'
      1485 "Okay, and it was at what point that Gerry said to you go and, would you mind checking at Kate''
      Reply "Well I mean coming back from the beach I'd got no equipment to play tennis you know, etcetera, so I had to go back to my room to you know change into stuff appropriate for playing tennis in, and err so he knew that I'd walk up that by and past so he said oh why don't you err, you know can you just pop in on the way, the way up, so it was on the way back from me picking the stuff up.'
      1485 "Right, so you've walked past, you've walked past Gerry's apartment to get to yours.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "Got changed''
      Reply "No, you know it was, again whether it was, in my mind it was on the way up that I'd popped in to Kate but it could have been on the way back, again, I'm sorry.'
      1485 "No, it's okay.'
      Reply "For my vagueness.'
      00:35:21 1485 "But either way you'd have had to walk past because you go the roadside don't you''
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "So you'd have had to walk past Gerry's''
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "Front door twice wouldn't you''
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "Is that right''
      Reply "So, the reason why I think it was more likely that I did it on the way there was because I've called in through the err patio, it kind of made more sense that I'd have walked in through the gate and then up through the you know where the sliding doors are to say I'm here, rather than going up to my apartment, coming back down, coming past the apartment and then coming in the sliding doors.'
      1485 "Yeah.'
      Reply "Because what I would have done is I'd have got changed and gone downstairs and then knocked on the front door because that, you know that would have made more sense rather than going all the way round and''
      1485 "Yeah, course.'
      Reply "So that's in my mind why it makes more sense that it was, that that was on the way up.'
      1485 "Right, so how long did you spend in your apartment before, I know you, I appreciate that you can't recall whether it's going or coming.'
      Reply "Yeah.'
      1485 "The likelihood is that it's on the way.'
      Reply "Yeah.'

      Do i read that right. .. he acrually managed to get a partial game in with Gezza ??

    6. 1485 "Did you have your own racquet''
      Reply "I didn't, no, I was using the, err Mark Warner's racquets.'
      1485 "Mark Warner's, okay. I just want to revisit the going and seeing Kate before we move on.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "Alright, and the reason why I've kept it separate is because I want you to just think now.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "And imagine, remember what you saw.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "Did you open the door, slid door' Or was it already open' Or''
      Reply "Err I think it was already open, I think it was already open. Err you know, as I say, I walked up there, Kate was you know I say looking very relaxed and err I say a comment to her I said well crikey it's early, early for them to be getting ready you know for bed, as I say she said ah no, I've had such a good, you know such a good day and afternoon err so you know, and Gerry's just obviously finishing off playing tennis and err so you know hopefully try and get them down and as I say we were just, you know I, I know, it does sound bizarre but I just looked at the three of them and I couldn't, you know they were just so well presented and so clean and immaculate it was, you know I was, and you know they just looked such healthy children, err you know, there's, there's you know nothing that normally''
      1485 "Yeah.'
      00:38:36 Reply "Triggers in my mind like that but it was just how well that they looked and err''
      1485 "Try to remember where in, where they were in the apartment.'
      Reply "Err, I mean the, the time that I was there err you know all, all of them err all the children and Kate were in the, err as soon as you go through the patio doors err you know they were all in the immediate area you know in front of you, err that was the area that they generally, you know when I saw them, so I didn't, no I didn't go any further into the apartment, you know it was just a conversation that I like, you know walked into the, you know through the French doors, I went into the lounge err you know the open plan area and err you know just had a brief conversation, you know things started off by as I say, saying about the, how well they looked and you know, it's early to get them ready for bed and then I said oh Gerry's, you know just finished over there, we're going over to play a bit of tennis, err I probably said is there any problems with that and she said ah no, no fine, you know carry on, and err you know perhaps a bit more of a conversation err but you know it, it wasn't many minutes that I was, was there.'
      1485 "Yeah.'
      00:39:55 Reply "But err certainly enough time just to see, you know, certainly the apartment, there was nothing that was untoward, that was you know err the children all looked extremely happy, there was no, you know signs of any problems with err you know Kate, you know or indeed the relationship that Kate had got with any of the three children. None of the children had been told off, none of the children looked like they were you know in trouble for anything, you know they were err still all talking and playing around. Err so you know it was just a very err transient you know that I'd gone in there, but as I say it just struck me how well they all looked.'....

      God he has finally got to see Kate and Maddie.. tho no Gez in this can this epic statement equate to the few words about seeing them all above....either that is sh#te...or this is convoluted sh#te.
      Theres lots more on the link


    7. Gez also thinks DP went alone to see Kate...

      ---- The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB by the short-cut and at the secondary reception they asked the lady employee if there was a vacant tennis court they could reserve. They were told there was a vacancy between 14H30 to 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.

      ----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.

      ------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.

      ------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.

      ------ During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.

      So DP visit after 18.30 according to GM. Ending before 7pm


    8. Funny how these people can be in two places at the same time because that looks like Kate at around 5:30 bobbed down in the left corner wearing the double hoodies that she wore again just after the ahem abduction.Also if my eyes are not tricking me Gerry is also there sat at the table until around 6:15 so it's no wonder none of the statements makes sense.


    Welcome to Mark Warner where you’ll find a wide selection of refreshingly brilliant all inclusive holidays made for people like you.
    Snow or sun, ski or sail, single or couple, family or group of friends - a Mark Warner all inclusive holiday has something for everyone.

    Our renowned Beach Resorts and Chalethotels are situated in a choice of premium locations, where fine dining is all part of the package. We even supply the wine at no extra charge*.

    Free sports, activities and tuition are a major reason our guests come back year after year. Our Summer Resortsoffer a great selection of free sports both on and off the water, whilst on the slopes our Ski Hosts are on hand to show you all the best runs in resort.

    Mark Warner Family Resorts offer award-winning childcare and a selection of Kids clubs to suit all ages. With daily sports and exciting activities all safely supervised by our nannies and play leaders you can enjoy your holiday, knowing the kids are enjoying theirs.

    At our Adult Only resorts, singles and couples can choose to be as active as they want during the day, with plenty of opportunity to make new friends and party the night away.

    Whether booking your holiday, looking after your children, cooking you delicious food and taking care of you on the waterfront or the slopes, our friendly staff are united by one common goal: looking after you.

    *Wine is not included at our resorts in Egypt, Mauritius and Sri Lanka

    “you can enjoy your holiday, knowing the kids are enjoying theirs”
    “At our Adult Only resorts, singles and couples can choose to be as active as they want during the day”
    “Whether booking your holiday, looking after your children, cooking you delicious food”

  18. Why is it not seen as possible ( by some) that swinging could take place alongside child abuse? There is nothing about the first one that precludes the second.
    We have the Gaspar statement, Payne's odd statement about his visit and Goncalo Amaral saying they had heard of male members of the group collectively bathing children on other holidays and this was of concern to them. With this in mind, it still remains a possibility ( to the P.J. that Payne went to 5a to try and get access to the children at bath time, or did have access to them.
    There is a stereotype people have of child abusers and people tend to think they are people that are only attracted to children, this is not true. The FBI has some interesting information on the profiles of abusers. There are sadistic abusers (think Jimmy Savile) who get pleasure from the suffering their abuse causes to others, their victims are not just children. They seek bigger and bigger thrills sexually and end up abusing children and even killing. There are abusers that abuse because their situation allows it and they get a thrill out not being caught. So these people would not be adverse to a bit of swinging or group sex with adults, strangers etc. in fact they will commonly engage in it as it is 'risky behaviour' that feeds a need to feel as if they are getting away with things which feeds their ego. It is also quite common for child molesters to seek out other families and engage in activities that get them access to children. I suppose group holidays with lots of children might be one of these scenarios.

    Many paedophiles have relationships with the parents in order to get access to children. So again, there is nothing about swinging that means child abuse couldn't be going on too. There could also be some very complicated group dynamics going on with some members concerned about 'adult activities' being revealed to others in the group itself, and the public and then some knowing even more needed to be covered up that others in the group weren't aware of.
    Personally I don't think swinging alone was a big enough motive for the whole group to close ranks and cover up what ever really happened - abuse, or doctors using illegal drugs AND swinging, one of the children ingesting drugs either intentionally or by accident, or a combination of these things, maybe.

    1. Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 11:48:00,

      Can anyone really believe that all these high flyers took their infant children to be shared amongst each other and that ALL the enablers of the cover-up knew that?

      We certainly don’t.

      We’re still waiting to hear why Mrs/Dr Gaspar continued to visit the McCanns, and 2 years after the alleged incident, hadn’t bothered to report it.

      Maybe you’d like to attempt to answer the question?

      We inform readers that from now on, unless those making similar suggestions do answer the Gaspar question, we won’t publish the comments.

    2. The reason we say will not publish similar comments because we’ve answered them before, so we feel that at this point it’s pointless asking.

      If we ever found anything in the future that causes us to change our opinion, we will be the first to publish it.

      It seems swinging attracts comments such as “Ugh, I couldn’t even think about it all those people with their kids and mothers would be doing it” thereby assuming all those people in PdL, residents and OC/MW workers would feel the same-

      But it seems that comments “Ugh, I couldn’t even think about it with their kids and mothers would be doing it” thereby assuming all those people in PdL, residents and OC/MW workers would feel the same in relation to paedophilia, are not placed.

    3. I will try and answer you questions .

      You mention 'belief', that's my first issue with your swinging only theory. Amarals concern about abuse was not based on 'belief'. He was basing it on reports from other holidays (which we weren't privy to) and the Gaspar statement. Obviously he would want to follow up these bits of evidence and investigate further to prove it or not. That's basic police work. This blog seems to deal in absolutes and say that it was definitely swinging that was being covered up. Just as Amaral wanted to go further to prove his various theories, we would also need to do that before declaring anything as definite, how can we when we don't have access to all the information or the ability to question those involved?

      You say 'Can anyone really believe that all these high flyers took their infant children to be shared amongst each other and that ALL the enablers of the cover-up knew that?'
      - As I wrote earlier things are not black and white. I didn't say it had to be a situation where all the members of the group were involved. Again finding it hard to 'believe' people would carry out abuse is not applying logic and doesn't mean it couldn't happen. If we apply logic and statistics it's much more likely that someone close to Madeleine harmed her rather than this mythical child predator that the McCanns insist took her.
      An abductor of that type is extremely rare - but abuse by family members or a friend of the family is very common. Gerry McCann himself was keen to tell us in one interview that his daughter being taken like this ( by an abductor) was 'somewhere in the region of 100 million to one'. He seemed almost gleeful that such a special and rare occurrence befell his child!

      You seem to doubt the Gaspar statement. Why did the Gaspars continue to visit the McCanns? - From the statement it seems they only saw them at group birthday parties for the children where the children were not exposed to the men alone. 'no more weekends away or group holidays'.


    4. In the statement Dr Gaspar says she 'looked around in disbelief' at the first time of hearing the comments and it was the second time it occurred that she took it more seriously. That is a clue that she doubted what she heard for some time.
      It might be hard to understand from one perspective but there are various reasons people doubt things and convince themselves they may be mistaken such as ; fear they are wrong. An accusation like this could result in serious upheaval not just to the men involved but their whole family, divorce, loss of job, prison, no access to children etc. court cases.
      We might like to convince ourselves we would have no qualms about reporting such things but we have not experienced it. Would you really want to be the one to set off all this so easily when there's a chance you could be wrong? The people involved would surely just deny it and you have no further proof.

      People are confused by the typical stereotypes of abusers, part of their brain will be questioning what they heard coming from two professionals, in this case respected doctors no less.

      There is also denial of the reality of child abuse. It's an extremely distressing subject and it's quite common for people, even parents to reject claims of abuse from their own children. It is simply because we don't want to deal with such an awful reality. I am expecting you will argue that she should have reported it sooner and in an ideal world she should have - but these are real issues that stop people from reporting child sexual abuse.
      The fact that the child in question vanished without a trace obviously gave Dr K Gaspar the validation she needed to push her to report what she heard. What reason would she have to make up the statement as you seem to be inferring? I think that is starting to go down the same route as deciding the whole Smith family, including a 12 year old is lying about their statement.

      This information from the US department of Justice shows how adult 'swinging' can coincide with child abuse. It is not a black and white situation where someone who is a swinger cannot also be a child abuser.

      "He ( Sexually Indiscriminate abuser) involves children in pre-existing sexual activity, again it is important to realise these children may be his own...such an individual may provide his children to other adults as part of group sex, spouse swapping activity, or even as part of some bizarre ritual.
      Of all Situational child molesters, he is by far the most likely to have multiple victims, be from a higher socioeconomic background.."

      I am not saying this type of abuse definitely occurred, or even swinging how would we know? but I am willing to recognise it as a possibility that needed further investigation as Amaral did. You, obviously do not consider it a possibility at all, which is not logical.

    5. In Gaspar's statement she took that first comment to be serious enough to mention they kept an eye on the so called bathing but took no action? Easy way to clear this up is for them to come forward to PJ and let them question their actions or inaction as it seems because that statement doesn't look good with them both being Gp's.

    6. Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 11:48:00, 13:39:00, 13:40:00 and who we’re supposing you are Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 14:41:00),

      Thank you for your replies.

      You have exposed your point of view and we will let readers decide whether the following people would consciously enable the cover-up as proposed by you, which would be Maddie raped and killed by a nepiophile, with knowledge and consent of her parents as well as the knowledge of the abuse of friends like the Gaspars, who not only did nothing but continued to meet socially with the parents of the abused and killed child:

      People who worked and are now currently working in Nº10, in the HOME OFFICE, in the BRITISH EMBASSY IN PORTUGAL, in the FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (FCO), in the CEOP, in the NPIA, in the METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE, in the CPS, in the SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AGENCY, in the NATIONAL HI-TEC CRIME UNIT, in the ANTI-KIDNAP AND EXTORTION UNIT, in the FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS), in the LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY, in the ACPO, in the SIO, in the other “LARGE NUMBER OF UK LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES” , in the BRITISH WRITTEN MEDIA from the broadsheet (the Times, the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Observer) to the tabloid (the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Star) and in the in THE BRITISH TV MEDIA (BBC, Sky News, ITV and Channel 4).

      Besides the above, also TELEPHONE ANALYSIS EXPERTS, MEDIA COMMUNICATION EXPERTS, the MANAGEMENT OF THE OCEAN CLUB who tampered with Booking sheets,the TAPAS STAFF who stated there were the Tapas dinners that never existed, the CHILDCARE STAFF and the REMAINDER OF THE MARK WARNER STAFF, GUESTS (namely Wilkins, O’Donnell, Bullen, Balu, Berry and Carpenter) and BRITISH IMMIGRANTS, namely like Robert and Jenny Murat, Fenn, Martin, Geraghty, Cooper, TS, Jones, the Ghoul blog author and Flack-

      However, in your comment you say something that must be corrected. And it’s this you say “Amarals concern about abuse was not based on 'belief'. He was basing it on reports from other holidays (which we weren't privy to) and the Gaspar statement”.

      Amaral’s concern about abuse IS based on belief.


    7. (Cont)

      Firstly, let us clarify what he was privy to and what he wasn’t. We go back to the myth of the unpublished PJ Files which do not exist. We have explained in our post “Debunking Urban Myths: The Unpublished PJ Files”

      The fact that the pages are numbered by hand, means that no paper can be taken out or any other be inserted between 2 sequential pages.

      Let’s suppose that by absurdity (and we’re not implying or suggesting that he is but raising a hypothetical ridiculous scenario), that Mr Rebelo was corrupt and wanted to take out of the process things Mr Amaral had put in the process. For that, Mr Rebelo would need to get the exact same number pages, have the person responsible for collating the documents into the process to give the same numbering of the pages that he would have removed. As you can see, this is not withholding sensitive information but fraud.

      That means that want Mr Amaral knew or didn’t know, is what is factually in the files and what he has said in his book.

      He does not know about the Gaspar statements. They appear in the process after he leaves. In his book he hears rumours about a holiday in Greece, asks the British authorities about it and gets no reply.

      Mr Amaral shows his ignorance about the Gaspar statements as he has publicly said that they arrived accidentally in the middle of some papers. We know this to be wrong, they arrived by request from the Portuguese authorities and were sent by official correspondence as we showed in our post “The Brit Snitch”.

      And this is a question which you don’t refer to in your comment. If the secret was paedophilia, why send these damning statements to the Portuguese?

      But, as said, we will let readers read what you had to say, as is your right and which we respect, and let them make up their own minds about the issue.

    8. We take the opportunity to bring over a case where swinging and paedophilia seemed to have happened at the same time (repeat SEEMED) and which was brought over in the comments in our post “The pool photo”:

      “auld battleaxe 30 Mar 2018, 09:46:00
      More regarding the Perth case : 'Supt Sharon Leonhardt said swinging parties between consenting adults were not a crime and described the case as absolutely devastating. She added 'it never ceases to amaze me what human beings do to one another. Particularly when parents are involved.'

      Textusa30 Mar 2018, 12:54:00

      Textusa30 Mar 2018, 12:55:00

      Textusa30 Mar 2018, 12:57:00
      This was reported on CNN, although link no longer working:

      Textusa30 Mar 2018, 12:58:00
      auld battleaxe,

      Thank you for your comments.

      Swinging is consensual and between adults. This is absolutely not regarded as typical swingers’ behaviour as far as we can determine. No previous case of child abuse we are aware of, in the public domain, has been connected to swingers, but that’s not to deny it has ever happened.

      There are always people who will use whatever situations then can to do whatever they want.

      There may be other cases of such horrendous abuse where the parents are involved in relationships with other people, but that doesn’t in any way mean parents who are not in monogamous relationships are more prone to abusing their children.

      Our research of swinging and its strict ruling tell us the contrary.

      Many children may be abused by parents who are outwardly respectable and regular church attenders. Nobody would point to church attendance as being linked to their abuse, would they?

      We are not accusing anyone who may have taken part in swinging in PdL of abusing their children.

      Hopefully this story will show readers how absurd it would be for the Maddie case to be about protecting a case like this.

      It would mean that all those people we have referred to in our post “28 questions” would have knowingly been complicit with a crime even more horrific than this one, as it would mean the victim would then be an infant, Maddie.

      Anonymous30 Mar 2018, 17:45:00
      It isn't certain it was in a swinging party. It's whether:
      "Officers are investigating whether the girl was abused at swinging or group sex parties that were advertised online and held at a Perth home between 2011 and 2016.

      They have pleaded with anyone who may have attended those parties and unwillingly been exposed to the alleged depravity to come forward."”


      We must say that we found strange the silence around this article from all those on the internet defending paedophilia.

      One would expect that as it was as approximate as the scenario they claim happened to Maddie, that they would highlight it but no one from that camp did.

  19. So David Payne chose his encounter with Kate with her three children present!!! For gods sake woman.

    1. Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 12:14:00,

      Can you please show why you are certain that David Payne knew beforehand the 3 children were present?

      Do note, that outside Kate and David saying so, we have no way of knowing if the 3 were really there.

    2. And Insane, you are racking your brain to be as off-putting as you can, aren't you?

      No, we don't shrug off every dissenter as you. But as we keep repeating, you are very transparent.

      Off-topic, nothing to do with the published and unpublished comments you have submitted to this post, we would like for you to know that your attempts to cover-up for your friends have been equally transparent.

      And because they were pathetic and cringe making, all has backfired disastrously.

      Thanks to you (to them also, but mainly to you) the situation is much clearer.

      Like in previous circumstances, you stood out from your "team-mates" and shone a light where once was darkness. So, we must thank you.

    3. 'IF' David Payne went to see the children at bath time maybe it was because he knew that's the time they did it or Gerry had told him. As Amaral said, the men had a routine of bathing the children on holiday.

      Amaral started off with a theory. It's not possible to prove exactly what happened without questioning those involved and taking each line of enquiry right to the end, something we can't do either. I'm not saying what definitely did and didn't happen, there are many possibilities. As I keep repeating, you are sticking to your swinging theory as an absolute - although there are other possibilities. That is the point I am making.

      With regards to the men bathing the children. This is what abusers do, they put themselves in family situations and appear as helpful and 'good with children'. Going to the apartment with Kate there could easily be an attempt at abuse or just to slot himself into their family routine further. Who knows?

      The Gaspar statement still remains and gives another context to any contact those concerned had to the missing child. The statement is still evidence of some abuse occurring at some time to a missing child whether it occurred on Payne's visit or not. Police would obviously be very nterested in this ( or should be) . I did not say I was certain that the visit occurred.
      You want to dismiss it completely and believe it's only possible for adult swinging to have occurred for some reason. That's your opinion but I don't see how you can claim it to be fact. Personally, I think that as this case drags on longer and longer with little comment from either S.Y. or the P.J. we have more and more people eager to be the one to provide a proven theory which explains every aspect of what happened.
      This eagerness to be right seems to have trumped the understanding that we can't know any more than what has been released in the case files ( although the police do), or that your interpretation of the evidence could in some incidences be incorrect.

      I think I'll leave it there as I think I've made the same point a number of times now.

    4. Textusa, David Payne spoke to Gerry, Gerry asked if he would pop in to see Kate, so, if the children weren't with Gerry and Gerry was asking David to pop in to see if Kate needed help, where do you think the children were?

    5. Anon 14:41. Well put. Too many people want to be right and just cannot be. Too many getting belief and fact mixed up. Child abuse cannot be ruled out...after all we are dealing with a presumed dead child and if that dpes not qualify as child abuse. I'm sorry but bloggers are more interested in pet theory prptection than a childs death.

    6. Anon,

      The death of a child is the extreme of child abuse.

      A child’s death and the need to address consequent failure of the wider justice system is the motivation of this blog.

      If you believe otherwise, then feel free to ignore us.

      Many of the posts do not address what you call a “pet theory” but attempt to look at the bigger picture.

      A sustained attack on the theory is interesting, because a failure to answer or a defence are both then open to criticism.

      We wonder if you’ve made the same comment on blogs which promote and defend other theories.

      We are not publishing your comments at 15 Apr 2018, 22:45:00, 23:06:00 and 23:09:00 because we have stated that we will not publish further comments suggesting Maddie was a victim of sexual abuse until the Gaspar question is answered or attempted to be answered.

      The Gaspars are being portrayed as heroes when in fact, if true what people claim about them, they are abusers themselves, passive and consenting ones.

      Then they decide to snitch on other abusers. Then the British police decides to withhold said snitching. Then, being paedophilia the big secret beibg covered and the paedo in question the one who was snitched, the same Brit police decide to send that snitching to the Portuguese just because the requested it without we knowing where the Portuguese got the knowledge the Gaspar snitching had occurred.

      That to us doesn’t make sense but the fault may be in us, so we are waiting for someone to show us how reasonable that is.

      The other reason we’re not publishing your comments is because we see no correlation between cadaver scent only being signalled in Kate’s clothes and sexual abuse.

    7. Leaving aside for a moment your disgusting comments about the Gaspars, how do you expect anyone to answer what you are calling ''the Gaspar question''? The only people who can answer that are the Gaspars themselves

    8. Insane,

      What is disgusting about what we said about the Gaspars?

      Isn’t it true that according to their statements they knew that Maddie was being abused and they did nothing about it for 2 years? Isn’t that being passive accomplices of abuse, and in so being consenting with that abuse?

      We’re not being disgusting, we’re simply saying what was said in the statements.

      Plus, this passiveness and consent is aggravated by them continuing to socialise with the McCanns. Again, not being disgusting, simply stating fact.

      Only the Gaspars can answer the Gaspar question? You seem to overlook that they certainly are not the ones able to answer when, how and why did the Portuguese authorities get to know about their statement, nor are they the ones able to explain why their statements were sent to the PJ when the big secret being covered-up for months was the cover-up of Payne being a paedo.

    9. I am anon @ 13:28. I am not Insane

      You called the Gaspars abusers, then called them snitches. That's disgusting. They did not say that they knew Madeleine was being abused but did nothing about it. I can understand how they would have been concerned but not enough to go to the authorities at the time.
      My point was that it is useless throwing the question out there when only the Gaspars can answer it.

    10. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 18:45:00 (who we will pretend that we’ll believe you that you’re not Insane),

      We have not called the Gaspars abusers or snitches. We said (our caps): “The Gaspars are being portrayed as heroes when in fact, IF TRUE WHAT PEOPLE CLAIM ABOUT THEM, they are abusers themselves, passive and consenting ones.”

      The paedo-theory pushers are the ones calling them abusers and snitches. We have only pointed that out because we think some have not realised they are doing that when pushing that theory.

      We certainly are not paedo-theory pushers, so you are making a false accusation. You should address your disgust at them, not at us.

      And again, as we showed above, not only the Gaspars can answer the Gaspar question.

      But the Gaspar question is not addressed at the Gaspars but at the paedo-theory pushers. They are the ones who, in conscience should answer it before spreading such a theory with absolute conviction.

    11. "But the Gaspar question is not addressed at the Gaspars but at the paedo-theory pushers. They are the ones who, in conscience should answer it before spreading such a theory with absolute conviction"

      You seem to have no qualms about spreading the swinging theory, for which there is no evidence, with absolute conviction

      How is your conscience?

    12. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 19:15:00,

      Thank you for confirming you are Insane.

      Our consciences are fine.

      Firstly, we have detailed extensively why we say what we say.

      Secondly, what’s the fuss all about? After all isn’t swinging legal and something no one cares about and certainly wouldn’t justify such a cover-up?

      Quoting you from your blog, censored:

      “No-one gives a (censored) about swinging. Car parks are full of 40-somethings busily dogging away the long spring evenings, people one barely knows seem intent on furthering the acquaintance by sending (censored) pics, bars are full of folks swiping their way through Tinder profiles - nobody gives a (censored). This is Britain today - not some bizarre version of it you seem to have picked up from a 1970's sitcom

      So why would we have to have a guilty conscience?

  20. 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

    1. Insane,

      You do realise that after posting this comment, you submitting 5 anon comments practically quoting your blog, makes you even look more pathetic than usual:

      Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 14:33:00
      Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 14:47:00
      Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 14:56:00
      Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 15:01:00
      Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 15:12:00

      Even those who rely on you for guidance, are now pretending they are watching sunsets at dawn so they have an excuse and pretend they’re not seeing what a fool you’ve made of yourself.

      We have told you but you seem not to listen: we use your words when they’re useful for the truth.

      We understand you want to divert the attention from the comment we made about you exposing your friends.

  21. "David Payne, had come from a beachfront restaurant called Paraiso (which appeared in one of the pictures) and on his way to his apartment to to change into tennis gear and collect whatever he needed to go play tennis suddenly decided to take a detour, enter the closed facilities where the tennis courts were located, go there and talk to a man, his friend, who was allegedly playing tennis there, and ask him if he could go help that man’s wife in their apartment and after obtaining that permission he went and did just that."

    Can you please explain where that claim comes from, that Payne went to "ask for permission"?

    1. Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 14:33:00,

      It's not a fact. It's an opinion, our opinion. We have shown the reasoning behind it in the current post.

    2. No, you preceded it with this
      "So, after reading the book, the only detailed information then out about the case, all the data I had about what had happened in that crucial end of the evening of May 3 was that this man, David Payne..."

      So you presented it as fact, you said 'detailed information' and 'data' and implied it came from the book.

      Yet there is an explanation in the statements, that Gerry asked Payne to look in on Kate.

      It just seems to me that as well as making it up, you have tried throughout this post to present it as fact; this is the first time you have said it is just your opinion

    3. "That person David Payne and that question would be “about what EXACTLY you intended to help Kate McCann with when you went to the McCann apartment at around 18:30 on the evening of May 3 2007?”

      The only place I have ever seen anyone suggest that Payne wanted to help Kate, that the suggestion came from him, is here. Gerry says he asked Payne to look in and that makes far more sense. I just want to know why you have based all this on your own opinion, when there seems nothing to back it up. I have read the post, but your "reasoning" is not apparent. In fact, there does not seem to be any reasoning at all

    4. This is what you say in your post:

      "The ridiculousness of the entire thing shows that this invention was rushed. It was done in haste and under pressure. It they had time and not a hundred other things to focus on, the would have come up with a minimally credible story.

      Note, only the excuse was invented. Because if there was a need to concoct so hastily an excuse for David having been in the apartment, it was because he had been there.

      Note, as we said, this is the official version. We see many people interested in analysing the wording and body language used by the McCanns and very few questioning the lack of clarification about this help Payne offered Kate that evening."

      Now, in this you say "this is the official version" but the problem is that it isn't. Nobody ever claimed that Payne went to see Gerry to ask for permission to help Kate. The only place I have seen such a claim is here.

      Can you see why it looks like you are just making it up? It's either that or you don't know what is in the files. You have actually left out the bit from the files where he states what Gerry requested, and it is unclear why you would do that

    5. Insane (Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 14:33:00, 14:47:00, 14:56:00, 15:01:00 and 15:12:00),

      “The only place I have ever seen anyone suggest that Payne wanted to help Kate, that the suggestion came from him, is here” (you forgot to add the here, but we will do that for you: it comes form David Payne’s rogatory: “and err Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in.”)

      Firstly, we are reminded of someone who to prove that the McCanns didn’t go have breakfast at the Mill, quoted Kate from her book as if what she said was absolutely reliable.

      Now, you go and do the same, you quote David Payne.

      But we would like to ask you. Was this request from Gerry at around 18:00 at the tennis courts, or was it at the apartment where both Kate and Gerry were present at 17H00?

      Oh, you may want to correct that “The only place I have ever seen anyone suggest that Payne wanted to help Kate” of yours. It seems that Gerry says the exact opposite:

      “Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.”

      Tut, tut, tut, Insane.

    6. I'm going to ignore your paranoia - it's not the first time you have wrongly accused an anonymous poster of being ''Insane'', after all.

      The quotes above have only reinforced my point. Payne says Gerry asked him to look in, Gerry says he thinks Payne offered, but in either case the aim was for him to look in on Kate, which was clearly raised by Gerry.

      So how does that fit in with your claim that Payne went there seeking ''permission'' for something?

      Payne can't have been at any apartment at 17.00, he was in the beach restaurant then.

      You made up the swinging nonsense; it's about time you admitted it

    7. Insane:


      "Anonymous15 Apr 2018, 14:33:00

      (...) Can you please explain where that claim comes from, that Payne went to "ask for permission"?"


      "Textusa15 Apr 2018, 14:38:00
      Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 14:33:00,

      It's not a fact. It's an opinion, our opinion. We have shown the reasoning behind it in the current post."

      It's now time for you to go back to your padded cell. You seem to be developing an allergy to fresh-air. Good-bye.

    8. "Firstly, we are reminded of someone who to prove that the McCanns didn’t go have breakfast at the Mill, quoted Kate from her book as if what she said was absolutely reliable."

      They all said that the McCanns had breakfast in their apartment, because of the long walk. Are you saying they didn't?

    9. Insane,

      Yes, we are:

      "When asked, she says that due to her work she knows most of the guests given that most of them visit the Millenium as it is the only restaurant that serves breakfast.

      When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off."

      Now, go away

    10. Insane,

      We're publishing this comment because it's really funny:

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

      I think it is generally accepted that she made a mistake, and confused them with another family. I can't see what possible reason everyone would have to lie about it.

      Stop telling me to go away. I am not ''Insane'' and it's clear you want me to go because I am asking you difficult questions. Obviously, that's something you can't deal with

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 15 Apr 2018, 19:26:00".

      Now, really, go away.

    11. Oh, Insane,

      Forgot to say just now something. And we don't want you to answer. But, why on earth would Gerry ask David to check on Kate, if as per last photo (which you say it's real and we say it's fake) the McCanns appear to be such a happy stress-free family that afternoon.

      After that, neither describe anything that would change that. So, according to you, Payne who is late for tennis, appears on the other side of the fence, quite far from Gerry, and Gerry decides to ask Payne, who is late for tennis, to go check on Kate.

      Makes perfect sense. NOT.

    12. Insane says "I can't see what possible reason everyone would have to lie about it."
      If they could go to the Mill for breakfast they could well go there for dinner and then they wouldn't have the excuse to have a special group booking for Tapas. The Mill had to be sold to be too far away for dinner and breakfast!

  22. The investigation is going to be given even more Taxpayers Money but you as Taxpayers aren't going to be told how much of your money is being used according to this article from the Sun newspaper.
    The article is written by Tracey Kandohla associate and friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.

    1. Anonymous 15 Apr 2018, 14:37:00,

      Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog.

      Making it seem that the funding ALREADY decided to pay the wages of police officers who would receive them anyway is not only bad but dodgy.

      Joining this with Colin Sutton’s protest also after the funding having been decided, it seems that the other side is reduced to this:


      Latest Madeleine McCann search fund boost could be £150,000 of taxpayers’ cash and is being kept secret

      The Met Police has applied for extra funding but the Home Office has refused to say how the amount as it confirmed the money had already been approved.

      By Tracey Kandohla
      15th April 2018, 12:28 pm
      Updated: 15th April 2018, 1:00 pm

      THE Government has approved a fresh cash grant for the Madeleine McCann search fund - but the amount is being kept secret amid fears of a public backlash.

      Scotland Yard has applied for the funding, which is believed to be as much as £150,000 - the equivalent of four London Police officers - as the hunt for the missing youngster continues.

      As Home Office cuts to police are being linked to the increase of violent crime across the capital, ex-detectives and taxpayers’ are questioning why a seven-year investigation into the missing girl is still ongoing.

      Home Secretary Amber Rudd is understood to have blocked the amount earmarked for Operation Grange being revealed.

      This came after a document leaked from her department last week linked cuts to policing with a rise in stabbings, shootings and acid attacks.

      Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry McCann face the painful 11th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance in just over a fortnight.

      The three-year-old vanished from a Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007 while her parents were dining with pals in a nearby tapas restaurant.

      She had been left sleeping alone with her younger twin siblings.

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

      “There is a lot of sensitivity surrounding this case and it is a challenging time for the Government.

      “We remain committed to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine and advised the MPS last month that an application for Special Grant funding is being granted.”

      A Scotland Yard spokesperson said: “You couldn’t get a more emotive case than this and there is still work left to do.

      "We asked for more funding for a final line of inquiry that is still being investigated.


    2. (Cont)

      "We can never say how close we really are for operational reasons, which could alert a suspect we are closing in.

      “But a request for more money would never have been made if there was nothing left to chase.

      “We are grateful to the Home Office for approving our special grant request but we are not divulging how much we have been given.”

      The police are also declining to say if the “final line of inquiry” is the same lead they have been chasing for the past three years and if any arrests are imminent.

      Former GP Kate, 50, and heart doctor Gerry, 49, of Rothley, Leics, are kept informed by police of any slightest development.

      They believe Madeleine - who would now be 14 nearly 15 - could still be alive.

      Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said today: “They have been told not to discuss any work detectives are carrying out but there are told on a regular basis what is happening.”

      The Operation Grange inquiry, launched in May 2011, has so far cost the taxpayer nearly £11.5 million.

      The past six months’ funding of £154,000 ran out two weeks ago.

      Mr Mitchell said: “They are very encouraged that police still believe there is work left to be done and they are incredibly grateful to the Home Office for providing an extra budget for the investigation.

      “It gives them hope that one day they may finally find out what happened to their daughter.”

      The Sun Online recently told how Madeline's parents had defended the new cash boost to help find their daughter and urged critics who say she’ll never be found to “stop being armchair detectives”.

      Kate and Gerry hit back after a top ex-cop said solving the Madeleine riddle was “almost impossible” and the parents of two missing children slammed the Government for handing over more money for the high-profile hunt.

      A close pal of the couple said: “Kate and Gerry do not feel their daughter’s case should be given any more priority than any other missing child but there is an active police investigation ongoing and officers still feel there is important work left to be done.

      “It’s not helpful and is very hurtful for retired police officers and in the past so called crime experts and other families to say the investigation should be wound up and is a waste of public money.

      “Kate and Gerry believe there is a chance their daughter could still be found alive, as detectives do.

      “They have enough to deal with and don’t need people with no idea about the case being armchair detectives and hopes the criticism stops.

      “It undermines the work of one of the best police forces in the world.”

      Former detective Colin Sutton, who turned down the chance of leading the missing Madeleine inquiry, believes she is dead and her body buried in one of many ancient wells near Praia da Luz, Portugal, from where she vanished in May 2007.

      He told an Australian documentary that investigators faced a “thankless task” and insisted: “It’s almost impossible without specific intelligence that would allow you to focus on a specific area.”


    3. (Cont)

      The McCann’s were also criticised by the parents of two missing kids.

      Ben Needham's mum said on TV’s Loose Women that his missing persons case had not received the same “magnitude” of support as Madeleine's parents.

      Kerry, 43, from South Yorks, whose son disappeared during a family holiday to the Greek island of Kos in 1991, said: "I’m not taking anything away from it at all – she deserves to be found but so does Ben and we haven’t had a fraction of that help. It hurts."

      Dad Paul Whinham whose son has been missing for over two years also hit out, saying: “There’s people like me all over the country being told there’s no more the police can do and yet this one case gets all the money and attention.

      "If that’s not preferential treatment, I don’t know what is.”

      Paul from Wallsend, Tyneside, whose son Michael disappeared from his home in Newcastle in November 2015, aged 31 has written a letter of complaint to the PM.

    4. Absolute unadulterated crap,lets not forget the track record of the scum,SY nor the HO are telling any one anything,why should they?

  23. A couple of things

    It has been said that she (Mrs Gasper) doubted herself about what she had seen and heard on the holiday about an inappropriate gesture. Her husband confirmed that he had heard it also. If a second person confirmed that they heard it wouldn't that be sufficient to alay her doubt.

    It has been said that paedophiles groom children and families and get their trust before they become their victims. I agree with that but does making openly sexual jesters about children in the presence of their parents fit into this grooming category.

    Foe me I refuse to believe that if McCann and Payne openly made sexual jesters about a child that other red flags wouldn't have Immerged during the holiday that confirmed her suspicions and caused her to be concerned for her child. Her response to the issue that her husband should be present when this suspected paedophille bathed her children beggars belief.

    It's been suggested that not all members of the group may have been involved in the child abuse. The characteristic of child abuse is that the abusers isolates the child and the child recognises that they have gained the trust of people that might protect them. Would allowing other people who weren't like minded with regards child abuse participate in this type of holiday fit in here.

    I,m wondering why carry out the abuse in such an open environment as bathing when it apparently had the backing of the parents. Bathing more tha one very young child( on the Majorca holiday most of these children were less than 2) is very stressful and noisy affair and requires a lot of careful handling. Is it really an environment that someone who had the consent of parents would choose to use to abuse children.


  24. That Gaspar imo produced a tempest in a glass of water. Young doctors often make quite inappropriate, silly and (imo) not at all funny jokes : words, not facts. Imo the MCs should have faced the issue since unfortunately (imo) the Gaspar statements are in the PJ Files. The TP9, in spite of the terrible drama that happened, couldn't resist quoting something they found witty about Jane relieving Russell. That signs what kind of people they are, the kind I wouldn't spend 10 minutes to speak to.

  25. Textusa. You wrote:

    "The PJ searched specifically for the word “swing” in the 9 computers seized for forensic analysis"

    Please can you provide a link to the PJ files where the above is documented?

    1. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 11:57:00,

      "All the information about these forensic examinations by the PJ on all these computers are on the following links:"


      "4. Fourth surprise, a very pleasant one. Page 875, referenced by kimHager in the opening comment quoted from JH does show clearly that “swingers” and “swinging” are words that appear with noticeable frequency.

      But why this frequency?

      Because “swing” was one of the keywords that PJ looked specifically for on those 9 computers/hard drives.

      They are 24 overall and listed here in alphabetical order: “eiddam”, “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, “Madeleine”, “Malinka”, “Murat”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote”, “pedo”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei”, “Sergey”, “Sophie” and “swing”.

      On reading them, one immediately understands why all of them are keywords related to the case. All with the exception of 2: “Sophie” and “swing”.

      In fact we can separate the keywords into 3 major groups:

      To do with Maddie: “eiddam”, “Mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, and “Madeleine”.

      To do with Murat: “Malinka”, “Murat”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei” and “Sergey”.

      To do with paedophilia: “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote” and “pedo”.

      About paedophilia we also noted that all computers were checked for “sexual abuse on minors” having been cleared of that.

      Two computers returned the word “lolita”: computer “705” related to computer software and computer “987” related to porn sites with “lolita” in their names having been visited.

      Then you have the two, “Sophie” and “swing”, that don’t fit naturally in any category.

      “Sophie” can be put, with logic, in the paedophilia keyword category, assuming the PJ was looking to see if the owner of the computer was involved in any way with child trafficking which could then mean Murat’s daughter could have also been targeted.

      So, in truth and reasoning, only the keyword “swing” has a different logic to have appeared from all others. It stands distinctly apart. It's the odd one out.

      Paedophilia was thoroughly investigated. Bestiality was also.

      Swinging is not illegal, as our detractors repeatedly and correctly point out, so why look for its vestiges on these computers? Why “swing”? Why not “horticulture” or “BDSM”? Both would, just like “swing”, have appeared to be completely unrelated to the explanation as to why a little girl had gone missing.

      “Swing” was the keyword to look for on computers/hard drives, please be reminded, seized while directly related with the Maddie investigation.

      It was not a choice by chance as it was used all the 9 times, as we'll show you next.


    2. (Cont)

      5. Add to this, surprise five which was to find out that the most searched keywords were “swing” and “lolita”. Only these 2 keywords were searched for on ALL computers/hard drives.

      “Sophie” comes 3rd, as it wasn’t investigated on computer “904”. It was searched on all others but not on that one. We don’t know why nor consider that as a relevant fact.

      It further reinforces the question as to why was “swing” a keyword as now one has to ask why was it investigated in all 9 computers/hard drives?

      As we said, apparently there is no relationship whatsoever between the disappearance of Maddie and a legal sexual activity undertaken by consenting adults. And we’re absolutely certain that PJ didn’t come up with a random word just for the fun of it.

      So it’s very clear that between 19 and 21 May 2007, for the PJ, swinging had a direct relationship with Maddie's disappearance. Why, we don't know but that it did, it did.

      Even if Murat and Malinka had nothing to do with case, and we think they had, this shows clearly that PJ was looking among others, for vestiges of swinging.

      And we think the crux question is, just 15 days after she disappeared why did PJ think swinging was directly related to Maddie?

      Swinging and paedophilia are polar opposites. They couldn't be any more different. The first is a voluntary pleasure between adults and the second an abhorrent subjugation of children.

      So in what way did PJ think swinging was related to the fact Maddie disappeared?"

    3. Textusa. You wrote:

      "Because “swing” was one of the keywords that PJ looked specifically for on those 9 computers/hard drives"

      Who did these 9 computers/hard drives specifically belong to?

    4. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 14:28:00,

      The files are unclear as to who each computer/hard drive belonged to but we can ascertain that they belonged either to Robert Murat or Sergey Malinka.

    5. How can you ascertain this if it is not specified in the files? Is that not speculation?

      Would RM/SM have 9 computers/ hard drives between them? Is that feasible?

    6. The seizure of the computers was in regards with the questioning of Murat and Malinka, unless you are implying that the PJ seized computers from other people and not mention that in the process, which they didn't, then it's not speculation..

      About them having 9 computers/hard drives not being feasible you should address that question to the PJ.

      This post is really getting to you, isn't it?

    7. Why is this post getting to me? It's not. I didn't know exactly what computers were seized and who they belonged to. That's why I just asked that simple question.

      I'm just trying to understand your logic behind the swinging theory and how you arrived there from factual available evidence?

      As this appears to be the only place out of all the sceptic forums, FB groups, blogs etc that tries to forcibly push the swinging theory, then I'm just trying to understand it more and your reasons behind it?

    8. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 15:20:00,


      We are not twisting anyone's arm. We present our arguments to people who come here and read them.

      If you feel we are forcing you, our apologies and by all means feel free to ignore us.

    9. Firstly, I am totally in agreement with the blog that swinging was the key purpose of this particular holiday in Praia da Luz.
      I also think that knowledge and connections to the resort grew from the close connections that Rothley Golf Club had with the location. There are a number of beautiful golf courses around PdL, one of which the Pro from Rothley Golf Club worked at. Gerry was a member of Rothley and the hire car he used after M's disappearance was coincidentally used by a member of Rothley Park Golf club not long before the Mc Cann group arrived in PDL.
      So I think the resort was known as a place to go with many British ex pats and a good social scene. John Geraghty (who stored the hire car) played at the local club.
      I think, as a keen golfer, on an ordinary holiday out there Gerry would have played golf at least once or twice...but this holiday had one purpose and that was good adult fun in and around the Ocean Club resort. If they had played 'tennis' as much as they say they did then I think they would have had time for a round of golf. But no, that was not the purpose. None of those 60 Ocean Club guests appeared to want to use the courts and play tennis as much as the Tapas friends - hey wouldn't have got a look in if the TAPAS 9 had truly played tennis a lot.. No, i think the tennis was a made up activity - have we seen even one photo of Gerry enjoying a set?

  26. I so enjoy your posts as they make much sense. However, I can not accept this happened on 3rd May. If your child met with her demise either through an accident while you were otherwise engaged in another room, "it's a tragic accident" and you don't even say you were fornicating in another room. Also you would be in such distress that you would not be in a position to function properly. You call an ambulance say she fell off settee when you were in the toilet. I think this happened in the early part of the holiday. On 3rd when it was set up to stage the abduction it went wrong as the windows should have been jemmied by GM but he bumped into Jez. Hence why the ridiculous time lines, trying to make the abduction fit. No matter how cold hearted you are, you would need some time to come to terms with what happened. But a terrible accident does not need to be covered up, it does not need the government big guns sent within days? So I do think that whatever happened was more that an accident.

    1. Anonymous 16 Apr 2018, 12:08:00,

      You are entitled to your opinion and we respect it. We have stated ours and explained why we came to that conclusion.

      To be clear, we do not state there was any "fornication". A heated argument that escalated to someone pushing someone else who accidentally fell on a Maddie who was standing and because of this was projected.

      One cannot apply reason in such a situation. What may seem to you as perfectly explainable situation, to those present it appeared not to be.

      The fact that they made so many mistakes isn't indicative that they didn't have the needed time, or as you put it: "you would need some time to come to terms with what happened"?

    2. The unheard crying allegedly told on Thursday early morning, sailing on Wednesday OR on Thursday, getting back home right after tea are among the points that might tell another story. Possible earlier occurrence, the issue being late discovery.

    3. Anne Guedes,

      There was no crying, there was no sailing, there was no tennis as there were no many other things said to have been.

      Once understood that they couldn’t well say what they spent their week on, those involved and interested in hiding what indeed was going on, had to construct events for the entire week to make it appear that the T9 was a group on family vacation.

      When one creates fiction with so many participants, discrepancies between them and between the events they are creating are inevitable.

      No information can be taken by those involved outside the fact that it’s a construction.

    4. So adults were busy swinging all day and night long ? No tennis, no canoe kayak, no jogging or whatever ?
      Should I understand that, in your opinion, kids never had a sailing experience as a creche activity, never played close to the courts and MMC never reckoned she was left alone ?

    5. Anne Guedes,

      The adults were free to do whatever they wanted knowing that with the exception of the periods that they (the parents) were responsible for their kids, which we believe would be at breakfast, lunch, dinner and night after returning from whatever activities they had engaged in.

      In between those periods, the children were taken care of by the nannies. We would say, as someone who was with us during our 2016 visit to Luz has professional experience with dealing with kids in an educational environment said looking at the sea of Praia da Luz, “I would never allow any kids the age of Maddie inside that water, much less do any water activities and would not obey anyone telling me to do that.

      We mentioned that in our post “Praia da Luz”.

      Now, outside water activities, we see no reason for the activities in the Tapas area not to have taken place, under the supervision of the nannies. We would include beach activities as well.

      About the adults and permanent swinging? Does when one go to a Disney park spend all day on the rollercoaster? No, one doesn’t.

      We are certain the adults on their own, looked for various forms of entertainment outside the main focus of the holiday which would be the adult interaction between consenting adults. After all, it was for that they had travelled to Luz, so even though they weren’t spending all available free time doing it, they did do it, which we don’t criticise, judge and do respect.

      Now, in the construction of the narrative they had 2 big self-imposed limitations: they had no cars and they stayed basically inside Ocean Club. And when they went out, they just went straight to the beach or went jogging to the East, as in the West was where the Smith sighting had happened and they wanted to distance themselves from it.

      Anyone who has been in Luz, knows who ridiculous it is to say after being in town for a day, to ask anyone if there is a church nearby. Yet Gerry does that.

      So answering your questions, nor Maddie nor her siblings or any T9 child was ever left alone and unattended. The crying episodes were invented to reinforce the idea of negligence.

    6. Why would Mrs Fenn lie for them?

    7. Anonymous 17 Apr 2018, 10:18:00,

      A comment we put in our “Red card” post:

      “Textusa10 Dec 2017, 18:54:00
      Anne Guedes,

      About Pamela Fenn, we can only recommend you revisit the following posts, and if at the end you still disagree with us, we have only to respect as we are certain you respect our opinion about her:

      #1. Published Saturday, 20 November 2010, “All Paths Lead to Rome”

      #2. Published Tuesday, 23 November 2010, “Praia da Luz, Why Have You Forsaken the McCanns?”;

      #3. Published Wednesday, 24 November 2010, “Untouchables?”;

      #4. Published Thursday, 25 November 2010, “My Thanksgiving Turkey to ALL of You”;

      #5. Published Saturday, 11 February 2012, “Colouring Hats With A Crayon”

      #6. Published Saturday, 25 February 2012, “A FOAF Told Me That There's A Angry Panda Out There”

      #7. Published Monday, 27 February 2012, “Famous Last Words...”

      #8. Published Monday, 27 February 2012, “Famous last Words... (Full Version)”

      #9. Published Wednesday, 29 February 2012, “Magic Is In The Air!”;
      #10. Published Friday, 2 March 2012, “Wide Open”;

      We have here to quote the following from this post, as the webpage mentioned no longer exists (it didn’t exist at the time of post), and the fact it whooshed away is telling, taking into account how the Met would years later pick the burglar story up:

      “As you can read on our Thanksgiving post, on August 18th, 2007, exactly 4 days before this video was shot, The Sun reported Mrs Fenn having said ““Expat Pamela Fenn, 73, told them she disturbed a burglar at her apartment about three weeks before Maddie vanished.”
      Unsurprisingly, the link to this article in The Sun is no longer available:”

      #11. Published Sunday, 4 March 2012, “Food For Thought.... With Appetizers”;

      #12. Published Tuesday, 22 March 2011, “Mysteries of a Non-Cryptic Photograph”

      #13. Published Friday, 23 October 2015, “The Narrative of Negligence”;

      #14. Published Friday, 12 May 2017, “Woman-in-Purple”.

      In this post, we have highlighted the fact that Jennifer Conroy ‘remembers’ seeing a Jane Tanner doppelganger in Bulgaria, at about the same time Pamela Fenn remembers she heard a child cry.

      Besides these, we remember having published as a comment someone from Australia, we think, who wrote an article in support of the McCanns, in which he claims he rented the apartment above 5A that summer.

      Did Mrs Fenn seemed to you to be the sort of person who rented her own apartment in the summer? If she did, then she didn’t do it in August (the most profitable month to do so) because she was filmed entering the apartment above 5A.”


    More pressure to close
    Note the Mcs now talking about what happened to M, not about finding her.
    And of course, they are being told things by Op Grange that they’re not allowed to speak about. As if!

  28. Textusa at 14:01:00
    If there was no tennis, why have you created this particular blog "The help & the tennis" ?

    1. DE F,

      We have also spoken about the Tapas dinners, and we don't think the dinners existed.

      We have spoken about the Quiz nights, and we don't think there were any at Tapas.

      We have spoken about the Booking sheets, and we think they're fake.

      We have spoken about many other things that appear in the "McCann narrative" of events, nad we have shown why they couldn't have happened.

      This post, as we say in it, was to show that this tennis encounter was created to simply to justify Payen's presence in the apartment when Gerry was absent.

  29. Whilst I agree that certain elements have been altered or embellished by the T9, and indeed some may truly have been added, I cannot comprehend that the Tapas dinners, quiz night, tennis, crèche sheets have been wholly invented.

    By so doing, they would have implicated many other "innocent" people in their charade. Such a waiters/waitresses, quiz mistress, tennis coaches and other tennis-playing MW/OC guests, nannies etc. It surely would have been relatively easy for the PJ to ascertain that these events did or didn't take place.

    I'm not questioning your opinion/suggestion that elements of fabrication existed, I'm questioning the extent to which you say they did.

    1. DE F,

      If, as we think was the case, was very profitable for both the Ocean Club and Mark Warner to run swinging-orientated holiday packages, then we would say that it was highly advantageous for them to embark on the hoax. It was of their interest to do so.

      That meant, they would be willing to convince their employees to also embark on it. The price paid by an employee for going against their employer would be easy to foresee.

      Obviously, we believe there were those who tried not to get themselves involved but that was as far as any conscious individual would go. To tell the truth was not an option.

      Others we believe did not lie at all because they were not aware of the swinging. For them, guests were just guests. Those we believe have told the truth as the truth did not harm the hoax.

      However, when one deals with so many, they may be some who escape the filter.

      Like we believe happened with Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo. Someone forgot to tell her that the McCanns were not supposed to have breakfast at the Mills, so when she was asked she simply said what she saw.

      There is one rebellious case that we know of and that is of Mario Marreiros. Note that he at first says he saw nothing but for some reason he then “decides” to say that he saw Neil Berry under the stairways of Block 5 in the afternoon of May 3.

      We have already explained that we believe this happened because Berry knew he had been seen by Marreiros but no one besides the PJ would know what Marreiros had said as he is Portuguese so his statement was taken with no translator present.

      To play on the safe side, we believe Berry decided to pre-emptively defend himself and in some way launch suspicion on whatever Marreiros would have said. Marreiros probably didn’t like it, as he tried to keep away from all as his original statement has shown, and when questioned again “remembered” seeing Berry that afternoon.

      Also, very important is to understand what these people were asked to lie about: they were told to speak ill of the McCanns.

      Their lies did not protect the McCanns nor the T9 but rather exposed them as the negligent adults who would deposit their children in the creche at all possible times and who at night only wanted to go on a binge and were so stingy they decided they didn’t want to pay for night babysitters. No, the money was all for booze.

      So, lying against the parents of the dead child when these parents were okay with it, where is the hesitation?

      Later, when things began to fall into place, it was obvious that very high powers were involved. High enough to kick Mr Amaral off the case, for example.

      So, anyone making any links or having any ideas, limited themselves to absolute silence. Perfectly natural and understandable.

      Many lost their jobs. But between losing their jobs and talk and not be able to find any more work elsewhere, they preferred to lose their jobs, remain silent and continue to be able to find a job.

      About if they wanted to talk, there’s the question of to whom could they talk to.

      We will quote ourselves from a comment we put in our post “The paedo offensive”

      “Insane, when you say “Report him to the police. Report me to the police. Show them all your ''evidence'' and cyberstalking. Tell them we are obstructing justice”, now that truth has yet to be surfaced you know you are simply asking us to go report to the Sheriff of Nottingham how naughty Guy of Gisborne has been.”

  30. I don't feel surprised at the extent of the fabrication. Take quiz mistress, coaches, staff... all probably were fully aware of what was going on and had been paid accordingly for services. I imagine some were perhaps more involved than others. The majority of people there would have benefited from the cover up in some way... Anyone who was a threat in terms of exposing what was going on would have been 'talked to' and probably offered a friendly 'reward' to go along with it. Most poorly paid staff would have been just plain scared to go against the cover up. It would not have been to their advantage to go against the cover up. These people need to earn a living and knew it was wise to keep mouths shut. Some people appear to have benefitted very well from keeping their mouths shut. Quite a few such as RM/ nanny/ seem to have ended up with their own businesses and I wouldn't be surprised it they were offered quite large incentives to just get on with their lives and keep their mouths shut. We are talking a lot of people such as Euclides Monteiro - they knew what was good for them and what was not.....

  31. Anonymous @13:11:00
    So what do you believe is the underlying reason for the huge cover-up ? Do you believe that Madeleine's demise was accidental (just her demise, not body concealment) and that it was just bl**dy poor timing that it occurred during a week of nefarious activity ?

    1. I believe Madeleine died as a result of an accident (albeit her body may have shown marks of a slap / shove that looked incriminating). If they had gone through the normal route of declaring her dead then it would have led to an investigation which would have exposed the adult activities that were going on. As there were very important attendees it was decided this was not an option and further more the Mc Canns would not have been wanting to be at risk of having remaining children taken away. In the heat of the moment they made a decision to cover up the death so that the activities did not get exposed and become a scandal in the English press. They never dreamed that police files would be made public and that the case would be scrutinised by the public globally. But once the decision was taken and the first lies told - that was it! In hindsight - would they have made the same decision? No. But back then, they found themselves in highly traumatic circumstances in a foreign country - they were scared of the outcomes.. Yes, the accident that killed Madeleine was bl**dy poor timing and if it had not happened they would have enjoyed their week and that was it. Life would have gone on as normal..

  32. If they had been engaged in some paedophile rituals, conspiracy would make sense. But, as you say, Textusa, there's nothing reprehensible in swinging or in SM or whatever activities as long as everybody respects the rules. There was a case in France, a lady sued her husband and her lover because they didn't stop when she screamed "stop". As she couldn't exhibit any specific contract, she got no compensation.
    You'd argue that some VIPs were involved in PdL, hence the secrecy (you recalled what's his name architect's reputation, ruined by a stolen photograph). Times are changing, people have to think by themselves.
    Once again something that occurred in France. Our president was spotted and photographed on a moto with croissants driving to a place where he had a meeting with his lover. It's none of our business, and shame on the newspaper. But if the flat belongs to a caïd of the mafia corsica, what kind of favour is behind this ? As the State security mission is to make sure that the president has no kind of business with the mafia, the security failure has to be publicly denounced.

    1. Anne Guedes,

      Please do not confuse cover-up with conspiracy. One is reactive and the other Is pro-active. One reacts to what has happened and the other tries to shape what is to happen.

      It may not matter to you that you be known be known by your neighbours, by the teachers of your children, by your local priest, by the people you cross with in the coffee shop and greet every morning or the people who work and you meet where you do your shopping, by the people you have to interact with on your professional life (pupils if you’re a teacher, patients if you’re a doctor) that you like to have sex with strangers and even paid to spend a week doing just that, because as you correctly say it’s your business and your business alone, BUT you must respect that others don’t feel that way.

      They would certainly mind and they would do anything possible to protect their reputation.

      The architect we have discussed already. Totally and absolutely gone from socialite events, since the sex-scandal (note that professionally he still conceived the football stadiums of Alvalade and Aveiro) but in terms of appearing in the right social circles that has gone. And so has his wife gone out of that same circle, who, if you recall was quite the popular figure in the “pink” magazines of then and now, no one remembers her name.

      And now you brought up the Francois Hollande case. Was it not a scandal? It was. So much so that you remembered it now as many of us immediately recollected the episode as soon as you mentioned it. Sex-scandals stick. Profumo is the ultimate example of that.

      Was it within Hollande’s reach stop those pictures become public? No, it wasn’t. If it was, would he do what he thought necessary to stop them? Of course, he would.

      Being topless is perfectly acceptable, and yet those who published Kate Middleton’s topless photos were heavily fined for doing so. To argue that is was because her privacy was invaded and not because of the nudity is a false argument as there have been other paparazzi occasions in which she was photographed and none have been sued. Correctly sued, as in our opinion that is an unacceptable invasion of privacy which should have never happened because of the nudity involved.

      Do note DE F’s expression above to define a swinging week: “a week of nefarious activity “

      Why nefarious?

    2. You're right, Textusa, I withdraw the word "conspiracy". I meant an agreement between individuals and entities not to reveal, on behalf of their right to privacy, certain legal, consensual activities they're all involved in a way or another.
      A child dies accidentally, domestic accidents happen, the media usually respect family's grief. The police, who must investigate any kind of sudden death, discovers out of serendipity that the people around that child were having swinging holidays. So what ?
      Do you think that any reference to swinging was eradicated from the PJFiles ?

    3. Anne Guedes,

      Knowing the work and time you’ve dedicated to the case we are certain that you didn’t mean what could be interpreted from your words.

      The blog doesn’t agree with many things Mr Amaral has stated publicly since he taken off the case (being the only thing he said when in it was something we fully agree with and that was the interview he gave about the British interference he saw in the case), and one thing in particular we have publicly said we don’t: his death by falling off the couch at 21:10/21:15 scenario does not marry with the cadaver scent Eddie signalled in the apartment.

      Our differences with him stem from recognising his humanity. In no possible way, much less be humanly expected, could he realise who he was indeed up against.

      One thing is to be a fictional Hercules Poirot and be in the middle of a fictional group of 12 all complicit of a fictional crime in some fictional train, another completely different is to be in the middle of a crowd complicit with hiding the crime. Add to that crowd the UK establishment and it grows bigger than Grand Central station at rush-hour.

      But one thing we recognise in the man, and we are certain you agree with us, is his character. So, we would say that absolutely not, nothing was taken off the process which referenced swinging. Simply because we firmly believe that nothing was taken off the process.

      That said, one cannot disregard there having been such references and them not being in the process. We would even go as far as saying that it’s a real possibility.

      But the reason theses possible references are not in the process is what we said in reply to Insane in a comment on this post: “The PJ didn’t make the connection between St Phunurius and the case because they failed to make the connection between swinging and the real hoax that happened because if they had, we would not be here discussing it.”

      Like you, and unknowing how falsely prudish the British society can be, how serious a reputational damage can be in that country and not aware of who of real importance was indeed in Luz, in our opinion the PJ dismissed the importance of swinging, considering it only to be a “peccadillo” between consenting adults which pertained only to them and had no connection with the Maddie case.

      One can only see the connection once one understands the need for the hiding. To understand the need for the hiding, one cannot have a Portuguese mindset. The Portuguese are generally tolerant and absolutely respect the privacy of people, so we believe that to the PJ, the swinging was probably known but something not important, something they considered only to be people having consensual private fun and so their privacy should be respected.

      But we have an example of something that was not considered important at the time the PJ took knowledge of it but that later they considered as such: the Yvonne Martin’s statements. They are given in June but only appended to the process in October after the Gaspar statements were sent to Portugal when requested.

      This tells us that in June, Yvonne Martin’s statements were not considered important (we have already given our reason why: because David Payne was the only male with a solid alibi on the night of May 3) but upon arrival of the Gaspar statements the PJ considered them to be relevant to the process and so went to get them from the “unimportant pile” and attached them to the process.

      So, we believe that similarly there may be references to swinging that are currently in that “unimportant pile” of papers because no one gave them the appropriate importance at the time. Not because of any sort of incompetence but because the smoke-screen was so thick that it was absolutely impossible to see through it.

      Objectively and succinctly answering your question about references to swinging: withdrawn from process, no, existing and can be used, possibly.

  33. My two pence if I may.
    From reading the comments here it seems to me that really no wants to know the truth because it’s not pleasant and it makes the UK establishment seem ridiculous. Everyone has understood that there’s a lot of people involved but they don’t want the truth outed as it will not make anyone look any good. People have lost sight of justice and just want the McCanns punished in some way, regardless of what truth is. If the McCanns can’t be brought before justice without dragging others with them then what the public opinion thinks of them at the moment will be punishment enough.
    Textusa, your voice has been heard but I’m afraid it will never be used, no one wants to move that forward. My opinion, sorry to be pessimistic.

  34. Textusa @ 17 Apr 2018 14:58:00

    I can't see where I defined swinging with nefarious, can you ? In fact my post did not mention swinging at all.

    Nefarious : wicked or criminal.

    Could have applied to the events surrounding, and after, Madeleine's demise....and that continue to this day.

    1. DE F,

      You first asked "So what do you believe is the underlying reason for the huge cover-up ?" in a post that implies that swinging is the big cover-up.

      When you continue the question and end it with "and that it was just bl**dy poor timing that it occurred during a week of nefarious activity ?", one can only assume that nefarious refers to swinging.

      If we had interpreted nefarious as linked to a criminal activity, and the only one coming to mind being paedophilia, we wouldn't have published your comment because, as we have said, only after the Gaspar qustion is attempted to be answered to we publish comments in the blog about it.

  35. It’s strange that Matt, who by his own admission wasn’t keen on running, goes jogging with K on a day his wife was ill and staying in the apartment.
    And Jane goes sailing with the Naylors without Russell.

    1. Are you suggesting that Matt was guilty of "horizontal jogging" and that Jane might have been "tugging on the tiller" ?!

    2. DE F,

      The social judgement implied by the use of crude terms such as "horizontal jogging" and "tugging on the tiller" to describe what adult people do privately between themselves with consent, is the exact social pressure exerted by the British society that the blog believes made those involved that night make the wrong and tragic decision that night.

      If you think you're only using humour, we remind you that the case is about the death of a little girl.

      That kind of humour reminds us of someone who uses cringingly juvenile graphics on Twitter.

    3. Thank you, Textusa.

    4. OK Textusa, let's get a few things straight :

      1. I do not possess a Twitter account
      2. I retain a sense of humour. Seems you had one in 2009 - see your post of Sunday 9 August 2009
      3. If you wish to read crude terms, I suggest you refer back to your post of Saturday 18 July 2009. It is littered with such terms saved only by the prolific use of asterisks.

      People in glass houses................

      Now let's move on and be serious at all times

    5. DE F,

      Thank you for revealing yourself. Your comment shows a profound knowledge of our blog which is not consistent with the questions you have asked because you knew the answers to all of them before you asked them, so why ask? The reason is evident.

      In the posts you mention, there is no humour, only anger.

      And we inform you and our readers that we have debated within team if we should delete many posts with which we don’t agree anymore.

      Because of the crudeness used in some, because of the content in some with which we no longer agree because we have evolved, because they pay a compliment to people who we have since found out that they did not merit our consideration.

      We came to the conclusion that we should only delete one, which we did, and it was because we invaded the privacy of a person which we shouldn’t have.

      All others we will maintain. Even if we don’t agree with them any longer.

      This has been a trip, an evolving one. Where there has been, no question about it, an enriching learning curve but one also filled with mistakes.

      Those who have accompanied us, have witnessed that.

      From the mistakes, we learn. If we are here to ask from the people who made a mistake on the night of May 3 2007 and own up to it, then we must start with ourselves and also own and assume ours.

      Then, what we wrote was what we believed in with absolute conviction. Then, we wrote it with the exact same clear conscience we write today, we write with absolute honest conviction.

      Only idiots don’t evolve and learn. If we find that what we have written today is not true, we will come here and recognise the error.

      Keeping the blog intact with its mistakes, shows exactly that. When and where we were wrong, we have assumed we were wrong.

      Deleting errors doesn’t alter the history of things.

      We have never said you had a Twitter account. We said your sense of humour reminded us of someone who has. If the cap fits, you wear it.

      From now on your comments will be as filtered as Insane’s.

    6. Textusa DE F's comments are part in thanks to the media who carry the motto "sex sells" which IMO past it's used by date decades ago. I willl never understand they feel the need to out anybody other than the ones who could be compromised by blackmail due to their job. Thanks to reality TV we have those who look at it to be fashionable to be involved in a sex scandal no matter who it hurts and humiliates, which is usually the innocent party.
      Thankfully I was brought up by parents who taught us sex is an everyday part of life sometimes you fancy it sometimes you don't but there is no shame in it as long as it's safe and consenting. One thing I have always found among friends is the ones who have the most sex are the most squeamish about sex education when it comes to their kids. I had one in the medical profession who refused point blank to answer any questions and said that was the job of school, I mean really how stupid and childish is that. Thankfully school sex education has moved a long way on and hopefully we can move on from pretending the public still lives in the Victorian era and stop treating them like naughty school children, because we deserve better our kids deserve better and most importantly Madeleine deserved better. It's about time everyone grew up as most people do it one way or another and how you do is no bloody else's business but yours. As for the high flyers who were there that week well they went there out of a fully controlled environment they knew the risks they could have been seen but did it anyway. IMO they do not deserve the protection they have received all these years, they insulted not only the police force but a whole country and its people. They aided and abetted the parents who moved/disposed of a child's body and waved them off on a world tour to celebritism that sued anybody who looked at them the wrong way. The T9 are all guilty but the ones who facilitated the cover up should face the longest time and that includes Blair/Brown who gave orders to help because without them none of this would have even happened, the Mac's would have had to face the music that night but instead they behaved like a couple of self serving cowards.

  36. Unpublished Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Apr 2018, 13:04:00,

    We could ask ourselves the same question about you. We know exactly where we stand and our consciences are very clear.

    For a dead child and against all who stand in the way of justice for her. For that reason, we do not oppose more funding for Op Grange.

    If this does not attain justice, we will be amongst the voices raised in protest.

    1. The real waste of money would be Maddie getting no justice, the uk police and government owe her this due to the interference and info blocking at the time. Otherwise this case would have been solved at the time,each and everyone of of them involved should disgustly ashamed of themselves not letting this poor child rest in peace.

  37. The most ridiculous aspect of the swinging theory is the idea that they pretended that they neglected their children, something which could have led to them being prosecuted or losing the children, to cover up for something which they couldn’t be prosecuted for or have their children taken away for. It’s like covering up for an accidental wine stain on a carpet by burning the house down

    1. Insane,

      We published your comment just to show how you are firing your last and desperate bullets. Very few people now believe the T9 were negligent. Using that argument just shows your despair.

      However, you raise an interesting question because you are right in something: the T9 apparently preferred to be known for something that carries legal consequences – being accused of being negligent – than for something that has absolutely no legal implications – being outed as swingers.

      Let’s deal with the legal side of the question very quickly because, in truth, it doesn’t exist: if the UK establishment was willing to cover-up for the death of a child then it is ridiculous, to use your own words, to think that it would pursue any legal charges against any of the T9. For negligence.

      The UK establishment was clearly supporting so the T9, so being accused of being negligent carried less legal consequences than them being accused of not washing their hands before dinner.

      We all witnessed how in the early days when all, including us, believed the McCanns had been negligent and cried out that they AT LEAST be accused of that, the British Social Services did not lift a finger about it. Today, we all can see how unsurprising that was.

      But preferring to be called negligent rather than swinging is important, as it shows how powerful is the judgement in the public square is and how it exists in every society to some degree.

      The basis of any legal system is to transport that public square judgement into legitimate and appropriate institutions called courts.

      But not all public judgement can be eradicated because some of the issues being judged, like one’s private sexual life, have nothing to do with legality but simply with what is socially accepted or isn’t.

      In the legal courts, accountability is transformed in sentences. In the social courts it is transformed into ostracism. Being made pariahs.

      In the first, there are rules by which the courts must abide which give the defendant a fair trial, but in the second it’s all ruthless and the defendant has no guarantees.

      In the social courts one is judged by those without any skillsets to judge and condemned by those with no skillsets to condemn. It is highly unfair but it is what it is.

      Knowing they wouldn’t be prosecuted legally, the T9 only faced the popular court. The choice was between being socially branded negligent or outed as swingers.

      Your question at 16 Apr 2018, 19:15:00 “you seem to have no qualms about spreading the swinging theory, for which there is no evidence, with absolute conviction and DE F’s "horizontal jogging" and "tugging on the tiller" clearly point the way one has to choose if given the possibility.

      And if one knows that the option to face legality in reality never existed, then the choice is clear and make it fully understandable that it was made that night.

      However, we are talking in theory. The T9 were given no choice. It was not a question of them being asked what they thought best but simply being told that the best solution was for them to accept the false charges of negligence that were coming and Payne in particular, the false accusation of being a paedo.

  38. Tis getting desperate now.How can the two be compared.

  39. Sometimes things happen when does not expect them to and this is one of them: we are stopping writing.

    The decision caught us by surprise as much, we hope, will catch our readers.

    We were not expecting to stop, we were writing a post about whether Pamela Fenn’s apartment was the one it’s stated in the files – the one directly above 5A – or if it was the one 2 floors up. It’s a post we will write and keep to ourselves. But not keeping secrets from anyone, one only has to read Carol Tranmer-Fenn’s rogatory, it’s all there.

    Then, we were going to follow it with a post about the Big Round Table. Instead we have done only a Post-Scriptum, a second one, on it on the current post. We recommend readers scroll up because it’s worth a look.

    Unexpectedly, the current post has superseded our most ambitious expectations. Added to its content – the absurdity of the fictional tennis conversation between Gerry and David – there were the comments, both published and unpublished, both from friends and foes. All together it is basically all we wanted to have summarised in a single post.

    To publish a new post, would be to see bury the perfect note on which we feel we should stop. The only reason. We know that the readers who have come to trust our decisions will fully understand.

    It’s been 9 and a half years, almost 700 posts. We believe that we have influenced, especially in the last years, the flux of events of the case – like our latest achievement of stopping short the paedo-offensive – makes us feel proud of the work done.

    A crime where so many good people have turned bad. To them we recommend revisiting the Biblical story of the prodigal son. In it, when the son leaves he doesn’t think he’s doing wrong. He’s wrong but he’s convinced that he’s right. When he realises that he was wrong he asks for forgiveness and the father forgives him. What the son didn’t do was to leave knowing he was wrong and expecting forgiveness in advance if and when things went wrong. We don’t think any religion works on credit sinning, where one knows one is sinning but expecting later on for the slate to be cleaned just because they ask.

    When one has seen Mr Amaral put against a wall and shot by bullets that one supplied, one cannot then cry that those who pulled the trigger are animals. Playing Florence Nightingale to the wounded we helped wound is simply being a hypocrite.

    The time of his life he lost, the profession he had to abandon and all other consequences the man had to go through in the hardship one helped to put him in, will be in one’s conscience.

    After being exposed – more or less publicly and these last some know and some don’t – seeing the minions of the other side angry, deflated and even inactive means that we are spot on.

    The tangled web is indeed complex but possible to decode. To those questioning whether they have been spotted, it’s most likely they have. It would surprise many how many people are not who they seem to be. So we’re evidently not talking about the evident ones.

    As we said to DE F, if the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn’t then don’t. If you want to put a cap on our head, please go ahead, we know exactly what fits and what doesn’t.


    1. The younger son leaves to enjoy freedom, he doesn't think that it's bad, sure. The elder one stays with his father and thinks that it's good. Both are wrong. The most popular parable of the prodigal son insists less on forgiveness and repentance than on the purpose of forgiveness : the issue is above all restoring family union and social connection that were broken.

    2. Anne Guedes,

      According to you, both sons were wrong. That doesn’t invalidate what we have said, and that is both didn’t know they were wrong to start with. They both though they were right and then events showed them they were wrong.

      They did not start knowing they were wrong banking on a forgiveness later on.

      Our point is that those who we believe know what happened and have seen Mr Amaral suffer, have their consciences to answer to, independent of them being religious or not.

    3. I understood your point, Textusa, and, yes, the brothers first thought they were right.
      I always felt ties (because there's obviously no indifference between them) between those two quite religious persons, and the same religion at that, KMC and GA. I'm a total atheist but I had a religious education (not the catholic one), so I can't help wondering.

    4. Anne Guedes,

      We were not talking about the McCanns. Those were openly against Mr Amaral, no hiding their intentions and hatred.

      We're talking about the many "Florence Nightingales" of this case. Those we addressed in the following words above:

      "A crime where so many good people have turned bad. To them we recommend revisiting the Biblical story of the prodigal son. In it, when the son leaves he doesn’t think he’s doing wrong. He’s wrong but he’s convinced that he’s right. When he realises that he was wrong he asks for forgiveness and the father forgives him. What the son didn’t do was to leave knowing he was wrong and expecting forgiveness in advance if and when things went wrong. We don’t think any religion works on credit sinning, where one knows one is sinning but expecting later on for the slate to be cleaned just because they ask.

      When one has seen Mr Amaral put against a wall and shot by bullets that one supplied, one cannot then cry that those who pulled the trigger are animals. Playing Florence Nightingale to the wounded we helped wound is simply being a hypocrite.

      The time of his life he lost, the profession he had to abandon and all other consequences the man had to go through in the hardship one helped to put him in, will be in one’s conscience."

      It's those who we think are banking on some sort of forgiveness, knowing fully well that Mr Amaral was going through what he was, they had and were helping him being inflicted with that pain when they have done their best to suppress the truth in whatever particular it hurt them or their friends in what it could hurt them.

      The McCanns are to be accountable for everything they have done and that includes the suffering they made Mr Amaral go through but they are not, by far, the only ones responsible for it.

    5. Textusa, how does "the McCanns are to be accountable for everything they have done and that includes the suffering they made Mr Amaral go through" fit MMC death's cover up needed to protect swinging activities ? I understood, perhaps wrongly, that it wasn't a MC decision, but a position they were requested to adopt.

      Gonçalo Amaral won a long lawsuit which certainly had been a terrible burden on his shoulders. Imo had he only written the book, as it doesn't say more than the PJFiles, the MCs wouldn't have prosecuted him.
      Do you remember the supposed hard talk with Miguel Sousa Tavares ? How careful GA was. Why with MST (who behaved intolerably), why not elsewhere ?


    6. Anne Guedes,

      Where we agree: “that it wasn't a MC decision, but a position they were requested to adopt”, but would replace “request” with ordered. We will come back to this in the post.

      We also remember vividly how MST behaved.

      Where we disagree: “Imo had he only written the book, as it doesn't say more than the PJFiles, the MCs wouldn't have prosecuted him.”

      We believe the McCanns would always be ordered to prosecute Mr Amaral. He was made to be the “Centre of Gravity” (COG) by the other side.

      If you remember in the early days, we all, me in particular, taunted the McCanns into suing the McCanns

      Why did we taunt the McCanns then? Because, as you say Mr Amaral had been extra careful in keeping to the files in his book, so if a fact-debate took place in court the McCanns stood no chance. We knew that.

      However, there was an image to uphold of the McCanns in the UK by the other side. The British media and not only the tabloid one, kept selling them as innocent and at the same time banging on how incompetent the Portuguese police, represented by Mr Amaral had been utterly incompetent.

      But everyone in the UK knew there was this book written by him (the British media reported on the book in highly denigrating terms), so it was expected by the public that the McCanns were to react legally.

      They had to because of the book, to keep “in-character” they had to sue regardless of its content. Its content was only what was stopping the legal action as, as you said, Mr Amaral had been very careful.

      How to sue was the big question because the book indeed only contained fact – except the falling off the couch at 21:15 which was a personal opinion that Mr Amaral included in it but which couldn’t be fought without discussing all the other fact in the book (Mr Amaral baiting the McCanns into a fact-debate?) There was this book.

      We have said and continue to maintain that the legal strategy engaged by the McCann legal team was simply brilliant. They circumvented the debate of fact by focusing only on the concept that the presumption of innocence was legally impossible for anyone to suggest the McCanns were guilty even hypothetically (which, as we know, the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court ruled that it could be done without any problem).

      This shows that there was a significant – to say the least – legal machine working for much more than a couple set on revenge. This was a studied and planned legal process to best sell the couple to the British public: slander Mr Amaral’s book without discussing its content.

      Now back to the McCanns share of guilt. To be clear, the objective of what we said was primarily to show that in no way, as has been suggested, we want to protect the McCanns. They are to be fully accountable for their share of the responsibility. What we defend is that they should ONLY be accountable for THEIR share and not take any blame that is not theirs. Just like any other human being’s right.


    7. (Cont)

      Outside the responsibility in Maddie’s accidental death, which we believe Kate shares with David, we would say that in decision to go for the hoax and having it started and rolling, they have little other than having resigned and accepted it under duress and pressure (which is still accountable by law).

      About being or not responsible for the legal proceedings against GA we are not sure on whether it constitutes any legal breaching. Stretching the concept, maybe it could possibly be interpreted as obstruction of justice but that only someone more knowledgeable in law than us could give a more solid opinion.

      We also don’t know how much they are responsible for the legal proceedings in terms of if they went along with it gladly or whether they were ordered to do so.

      However, we believe that unlike on the night of May 3, this decision was not taken under duress or pressure, so we are certain that if one or both of them stamped their foot down and refused to partake in it, that would have been respected.

      But by then, at least Gerry was enjoying too much the life of being a star.

  40. (Cont.)

    And talking about minions, it has given us great pleasure to see Insane recently resume his Walkercan1000 twitter account to tweet in support of Wetherspoon. If we didn’t know better, we would even think that he was trying to distance himself from another twitter account whose holder is a fierce pro-Remain supporter, in an attempt to convince people that they are not one and the same.

    The fact that we stop writing doesn’t mean we are leaving or quitting. We’re simply stop publishing posts.

    We will watch until October to see what Theresa May decides on the case and if she doesn’t decide by then, let it be clear that we continue to support the payment of the wages of the officers allocated to Operation Grange until whoever is in power will politically decide the outcome, which we truly hope will be in favour of truth.

    As Blogger has a limitation of 200 comments per comment pages, if and when required, we will do what we have done on previous occasions and that will be to publish “Post for comments” which will have no content.

    That means we will continue to accept and publish comments and do that ourselves.

  41. Andy Fish has made serious accusations against us on Twitter:
    Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
    Replying to @2for1Tickets
    I think Text is way off the mark with a lot of stuff. Some I agree with though to be fair, but what annoys me is that if U try & have a 'discussion' on their blog, then U have no chance unless you're in agreement! If not & you challenge, then they don't publish yr posts! #McCann
    11:55 am - 18 Apr 2018
    Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
    Replying to @2for1Tickets
    Everyone is 'insane' who questions their narrative on their version of events 'of what happened'! Who the f*ck is 'insane anyway? As I said to them, in all the years I've never ever heard of 'insane' apart from on their blog! #MadShit on #McCann #Paranoid
    12:56 pm - 18 Apr 2018
    Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
    Replying to @2for1Tickets
    I've left 3 (I think) comments that they would not publish in the last 24 hours! I questioned theirs on Mrs F as I don't believe she's a liar! I asked who was NOT in on the cover-up (as they say EVERYONE was & I don't believe it) & something else, which escapes me! #McCann
    1:09 pm - 18 Apr 2018
    Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
    Replying to @2for1Tickets
    Another one! I questioned what 'side they were really on! I see LOTS of deliberate misinformation along with the odd nugget of truth. It helps the #McCann cause if EVERYONE is 'in on it' & Text ALWAYS wants to push that! Reminds me of Bennett with his 'agenda' as well! #AllCrap
    1:29 pm - 18 Apr 2018

    1. We remind readers that we have the following above our comments box:

      “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.”

      We consider that things that we have answered repeatedly fall under comments we consider as “attempts to get [off-putting] traffic without providing any useful commentary”

      For the sake of transparency, we will leave to our readers on whether Andy Fish is right or not:

      These are the comments that we have unpublished at the moment:

      #1. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:06:00
      Don't you mean "in your opinion"? You have already admitted it in't based on fact
      #2. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:11:00
      So all the dozens of other guests who gave statements saying they saw the McCanns or played tennis with them, and all the instructors - they are all lying too, are they?
      #3. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:17:00
      The bit you leave out is that there was no reference to swinging discovered. The fact that they searched for it is by-the-by. They searched for paedophilia and didn't find any, but you are not saying it was evidence. You can't have it both ways
      #4. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:21:00
      In other words, agree with us or F*** off. That's basically what you are saying. It seems pointless having a comments page if you are not prepared to discuss it
      #5. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:24:00
      Are you saying Mrs Fenn invented the crying to cover up for the McCanns?
      #6. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:26:00
      "We would say, as someone who was with us during our 2016 visit to Luz has professional experience with dealing with kids in an educational environment said looking at the sea of Praia da Luz, “I would never allow any kids the age of Maddie inside that water, much less do any water activities and would not obey anyone telling me to do that."
      So the nannies and the instructors all lied to the PJ?
      #7. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:29:00
      They are not just in the McCann narrative, they are in everyone else's narrative.Other guests who ate in the tapas, played sports etc.
      You are not seriously suggesting all the guests were at it, are you?
      #8. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 16 Apr 2018, 17:49:00
      "Now, in the construction of the narrative they had 2 big self-imposed limitations: they had no cars and they stayed basically inside Ocean Club. And when they went out, they just went straight to the beach or went jogging to the East, as in the West was where the Smith sighting had happened and they wanted to distance themselves from it."
      That doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense - they wanted to distance themselves from an encounter that hadn't happened yet?


    2. (Cont)

      #9. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 11:53:00
      Next you'll be saying that Mrs Fenn was a swinger as well as a liar.
      #10. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 12:20:00
      I'm not going to read 14 posts. Can't you give a simple answer? Why would Mrs Fenn lie for them?
      #11. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 12:24:00
      Textusa. Out of ALL the people in the OC/PDL that YOU believe were in on the abduction hoax from the very beginning, then can you name anybody who you genuinely believe wasn't involved in it, played no part and wasn't privy to the hoax/cover up that was being played out?
      #12. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 12:43:00
      I have never read such rubbish. Not just that they were swingers,but that they would all lie about it to the PJ. É ridículo!
      #13. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 16:34:00
      Any reason why 2 of my posts were not published from earlier on today?
      #14. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 19:12:00
      Complete madness, are you saying that all the people who saw the McCann's and their friends dining in the Tapas Bar and these include waiters, are all lying? Honestly you live on another planet.
      #15. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 19:54:00
      Paid by who?
      #16. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 19:57:00
      I said I have no intention of reading 14 posts - can't you just explain briefly?
      #17. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 20:08:00
      What a load of rubbish. The PJ started taking statements almost straight away - when were the staff and other guests briefed what to say, and by who?
      Plus, any guest could have gone anonymously to crimestoppers when they got home, told them about the 'hoax' and possibly collected the reward. You are completely bonkers
      #18. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Apr 2018, 20:41:00Are you now suggesting the PJ were aware of the swinging but covered it up?
      Are you having a laugh?

    3. To this last accusation:
      Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
      Replying to @2for1Tickets
      Another one! I questioned what 'side they were really on! I see LOTS of deliberate misinformation along with the odd nugget of truth. It helps the #McCann cause if EVERYONE is 'in on it' & Text ALWAYS wants to push that! Reminds me of Bennett with his 'agenda' as well! #AllCrap
      1:29 pm - 18 Apr 2018

      We confirm that we received the following comment that we didn’t publish:
      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Apr 2018, 13:04:00
      I often wonder of late what side you're really on Textusa.

      But to which we replied:
      Textusa18 Apr 2018, 16:41:00
      Unpublished Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Apr 2018, 13:04:00,
      We could ask ourselves the same question about you. We know exactly where we stand and our consciences are very clear.
      For a dead child and against all who stand in the way of justice for her. For that reason, we do not oppose more funding for Op Grange.
      If this does not attain justice, we will be amongst the voices raised in protest.

    4. Andy Fish appears to have replied:
      Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
      Replying to @AndyFish19 @2for1Tickets
      Can anyone back up that Textusa Is always right about everything on #McCann ?! I'll wait, but come on! That sack of shit calling poor Mrs Fenn a liar took the piss for me! Next the sisters will be making out Mrs Fenn was into the swinging & all of PDL were in on it! Well she does
      2:43 pm - 18 Apr 2018
      Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
      Replying to @K9Truth @2for1Tickets
      I'll have a proper read of that in a bit! Ta! Don't know a lot about NOT/T! But certainly knows & weighs up Text! He's def not 'Insane' as is anyone/everyone who don't agree with the sister horse shit! I think Text is a shill! Like Bennett! Level playing & prove me wrong #McCann
      3:45 pm - 18 Apr 2018

      Andy Fish,

      Could you please tell us where we have ever said that Pamela Fenn was a swinger?

      Whether we have called Mrs Fenn a liar is a conclusion which you’ll have to come to after reading our 14 posts, which apparently you haven’t before passing out judgement.

      We have accused many people of being either being liars or being complicit with the hoax without suggesting they were swingers – which every single one, we repeat, is entitled to be as it is only their business.

      Is there an age limit after which one is physically unable to lie?

      If Mrs Fenn lied, then we believe it was because she was convinced she could lie – against the McCanns as if it was, it was to further plough in the negligence narrative – by someone.

      To our readers, we don’t think Andy Fish is a shill. We place him in the same category as CaroleShooter, a good-willed person who has his emotions being manipulated by others.

      About your accusation of us being shills, when your comment was from anon, we did say we could ask the same question of you.

      Now we know who it was, as we said, we don’t think you’re a shill even though you make the accusation of us.

      We would hardly shill for people we have never had any communications with about a place we had never visited until recently.

    5. Just catching up. I think you are full of shit & talk nonsense!

      Who the fuck is manipulating me? A serious and genuine question?

      You don't print what I say, So I have to question it on Twitter as that's the only place I speak about the McCann case, now!

      I don't agree with a lot with what you say and some I absolutely do agree with!

      Don't take the piss though & send a couple of your idiot pals on twitter to try and have a pop.

      Truth & justice for Madeleine McCann and get the guilty folks arrested!

      You probably wont post this comment though.


      Andy Fish.

    6. Working 'upwards' and looking at the comments 'unpublished'!

      18 comments you posted that were 'unpublished'.

      Number 9 and 11 was the only ones there that I said!

      Can you print/post that up as well for clarification? I don't like to be called a liar. Thanking you.

      Andy Fish.

    7. Andy Fish,

      As you can see, we published your comment. Not because you dared us. We don't do dares.

      We did it to inform you that it was the last rude and/or aggressive comment we will publish from you, anon or identified.

      If you wish to return to a normal and civilised discourse, you are welcome to comment.

      We don't use others to send our messages like we have witnessed some minions do between themselves.

      Whether you believe in us or not, it's irrelevant. We answer only to our mirrors and not for vanity's sake.

      Andy Fish‏ @AndyFish19
      @Textusa - Just read some of your nonsense on your blog comments about me & replied back. So maybe you will publish it this time? Or not? But as I've said, if you want a discussion then stop talking shite & we can have a chat on here where it's equal! #McCann #SendCarlaOutAgain
      3:27 pm - 19 Apr 2018

      Sorry Andy, as we said we don’t do Twitter.

  42. In connection with us thinking that Mrs Fenn was used to push the narrative of negligence, we would also point out that it was Michael Wright who started to defend accusations of neglect before any accusations had ever been made. Even Blacksmith noticed that.

    Likewise, the George Brooks story about a couple seen dragging a child towards the marina in the early hours of the morning.

    Michael Wright played a very active part from the beginning and was one of their defenders at the court hearing.

  43. If only those with questions may be so kind as to read your writing, your hard work over the '9 and a half years' and your thoughts and research giving us a LOT of information in 'almost 700 posts' quoting your figures. Thank you for all, you, the Sisters do, an active voice for this child. Your Friday publish will be sorely missed. I'm sure many will come back to look for any comments you care to share with us. Keep well. Kind Regards xx

    PS Of course it is swinging. Paedophilia in this case has long lost the ring of truth because it never happened and they, the mccs and their shills, themselves, have choked that possibility through all the circumstancial evidence, their rhetoric and lies to hide the death of their child.

  44. Ref the post post scriptum 2,some one needs to tell who ever needs telling, that stable door fell in to disrepair and the horse well and truly bolted nigh on 11 yrs ago.

  45. Hear hear! Anonymous 12:46
    I am really sad about this decision -really incredibly sad. But I do trust Textusa to know exactly what she is doing. I shall just miss reading the posts. However, there ae probably still a number of posts that I haven't yet read so I shall be able to look through the blog roll.
    Thanks Textusa, indebted to you for what you have done. I still maintain that there is no one out there who is able to skilfully dissect the information in the police files as well as be able to contextualise the games being played so well. Thanks.

  46. Having received off-line contacts from friends who are worried about our well-being – a care which was very much appreciated, thank you – and linked to the fact that we are closing the blog we feel that we should clarify the following:


    No one has suggested, or “suggested” we do that, it was OUR decision.

    Let us paint a gruesome picture so readers can understand better our reasoning.

    We consider the current post AND its Post Scriptums (especially the second) AND its comments to be an open wound in the other side’s body. A gash that’s flowing blood and hurting.

    If we published another post, it would be like putting a patch on this wound, helping it heal. Like it has happened with other relevant posts, as the newer post buries the older one, the more we published the more they got buried.

    We want to leave this wound in the open air. To infect and further hurt. Be a pain to those who don’t like us for a long time and those who recently – not only the latest recent – decided, for some reason, to stop liking us.

    It was not a decision made under any pressure. On the contrary, we had things to publish but prefer to leave the entrance to the blog to be this post AND its Post Scriptums AND its comments.

    It was a strategic decision, and these are strategic and critical times. This was the way we thought best to fight for truth at this moment, a moment which may last shorter or longer and that depends solely on the political deciders.

    Hope things are clearer now. Thank you all who have supported us, and to those who are feeling the pain, it’s a case of saying that we literally feel it.

  47. I hope after a break you will return and continue your good work, Textusa. I haven't always agreed with your conclusions and to be honest I probably wouldn't keep reading your blog if I did, because echo chambers are not the right place to find the truth. What I admire is your attention to detail and your clarity - you have helped me to look at this case from different angles which is always good. So I look forward to your return and hope you enjoy your break from the bully boys who clearly think you are on to something. Thanks, Textusa I will miss you.

  48. The Payne visit remains a difficulty - not because of agreements between the supposed conspirators but because of the inability of the three people to agree a story.

    Despite their effort David Payne and Gerry McCann have never agreed a story about the visit, not even after they met at Rothley. We all know, from the PJ, that they were homing in on the period 5.30 - 8.30 as the likely time of death, the time when KM had no alibis.

    We know that anyone connected with the McCanns don't want to discuss that period; we know that the famous David James Smith article Beyond the Smears - written with the McCanns - to this day the strongest attempt to alibi or excuse the couple begins at 7PM, without a word of what happened before. For very good reasons which Smith has never explained to us.

    We know that it was written and published when the McCann lawyers were exploring the strength and direction of the PJ effort after G Amaral had been moved; the more they learned the more they tried to counter the case through the media - that is why Mitchell passed on the invented GM "lavatory memory" for them. And that is why they set about trying to alibi Kate McCann by strengthening the visit: it was a pre-emptive strike against the PJ theory that KM was a lethal danger to her own daughter that evening.

    Somebody had not only to alibi her but also confirm that she wasn't raving. That was the sub-text, never stated. To do so they accepted that there were "possible concerns" over her mental health and the story was engineered so that GM could ask DP to "drop in" to confirm that, sub-text- she wasn't foaming at the mouth.

    DP agreed to do so as long as the visit was timed at 6.30, not 7.00. When GM went public in the Mail via Mitchell that it was, indeed, 7PM, Payne, in his only public statement on the affair, contacted the Mail and got them to correct it, even agreeing to be quoted.: 6.30, not 7.

    Everyone in the know is terrified about the period up to 7PM which is why they can't talk about it coherently. But to think that is because Payne was busy screwing KM at that critical time, or vice versa, is just silly, absurd. He, KM and GM had much bigger worries by then.

    1. Anonymous 19 Apr 2018, 20:24:00,

      We will repeat what we have said above at 16 Apr 2018, 12:21:00:

      "To be clear, we do not state there was any "fornication". A heated argument that escalated to someone pushing someone else who accidentally fell on a Maddie who was standing and because of this was projected."

      We also have found no reason to find the Paraíso pictures to be anything else besides a group of friends getting together without any stress or reason to be in stress, in an esplanade of a beachfront restaurant.

      So we would narrow things between 18:15 - 18:45. Reason why we believe accident happened at around 18:30.

    2. The made up Payne trip story to the tennis courts was a massive mistake I mean why would anybody go to all that trouble when they are both visible sat at the same table until around 6:15. Not only does it look and sound complete nonsense it makes them look like idiots with a big arrow above their heads drawing attention to themselves. One big fatal flaw that lit up for me in Paynes statement was saying nothing untowards was happening regarding three toddlers behaviour when he saw them in the McCann's apartment. Pleeeaase no one talks using language of young kids this age they either behave or drive you up the wall. Trying to outsmart showed how stupid these people could really be.

  49. Hi Textusa - I am a more recent follower of your blog and have found it incredibly informative and interesting. I have looked forward to your weekly update with anticipation - as other people have said, your attention to detail and the work you put into clarifying it for your readers, is truly commendable. With regards to the "unpublished" comments above which you openly published - it's obvious that those with the questions haven't read enough of your blog as you have more than covered most of these subjects in previous posts (and I still have much to catch up on). I also believe that although some readers don't always agree 100% with you, you open their minds to theories that they may otherwise not have considered. I thank you for your tireless work and will continue to log onto your site regularly. Kind regards. Wistle

  50. We would like to thank all the comments in support that we have received. It means the world to us!

  51. Identified "do not publish" at 19 Apr 2018, 23:05:00,

    Interesting who you find interesting and thank you for the information.

    Interesting what you find interesting. We have found it VERY INTERESTING too. :)

  52. I suddenly, today, thought of Jerome Bosch's painting, the conjurer.
    Holding in his right hand the nutmeg that he will make appear and disappear under the cones, he's diverting the onlookers of what is important, here a (likely) accomplice stealing the purse of an individual hypnotized by the conjurer, while vomiting or gobbling frogs ...
    The conjurer does not say what he does but does what he does not say, playing with appearances and excelling at distracting the public from the essential.
    The child is the only one who is not interested by the magic tricks, he looks at the scene, ironic, like the Andersen child spotting the naked king.
    As it is a painting, the tall tale intending to give each magic trick the appearance of truth is missing ("hocus pocus" is the origin of the word "hoax"), but the expressive faces allow the incorporation of the delusion in a narrative plot able to give a meaning to it.
    There is no doubt that the centre of that painting is a device for grasping attention and dominate minds.

    1. AnneGuedes a very insightful way of putting the trick that has been played on the public. I admit I am one of those who misses the trick because I am looking elsewhere. I don't read papers or follow msm so when I first starting reading the files and looking at what has been projected towards the public then it's pretty obvious something is being hidden and we know it's not peadophillia because they've pushed that narrative from day one. I always find the use of the Gaspar statements on forums sadly overused an under analised in most not fully understanding what they are reading and why it was slotted in and sent to the PJ. In reality if there was an ounce of truth then that statement would have never seen the light of day.

  53. Thank you for the treasure chest that this blog is.
    I know you will not be resting from this case.

  54. Textusa. Sad indeed that there will be no new posts........Friday night will never be the same again but as SU said we all know you won't be resting from the case............I hope you continue to provide us with an analysis of the key moves as they happen.

    Once the PJ made the McCanns aguidos in the summer of 2007 I never for one minuted doubted they were correct in the direction they were going. I spent the next couple of years( after 2007) being exposed only to the ramblings off Mitchell and his likes constantly painting the McCanns as innocent parents caught up in a nightmare. Should it have been Mitchell many press briefings or Gerry and Kate on Lorraine's sofa I never doubted the conclusions of the PJ. You said that you knew it was swinging before hearing any the evidence in support of the swinging. As late as 2012 I didn't know about the dogs, I didn't know that the PJ files were available, I had never read Textusa yet I knew they had killed that child. The problem was that I couldn't articulate to people why I thought that way and as a result I could easily be accused ( and was) of being one of summer and swans haters. Discussions about the case left me frustrated and angry and I often questioned myself why I felt so drawn to the case that without much more than a hunch I felt there had been a great injustice not only to the child but to the PJ and the British public. It all became clear when I stumbled on a blog written by a crazy woman (lol don't believe you are either crazy or a woman) who believed it was all a cover up for a swinging holiday. TBH I nearly turned away when I read your front page but thankfully I didn't. From then on you through your writing I came to realise why the case had had such and impact on me and explained so well the reasons I never believed them. These people who think they hold so much power always failed to realise that one blog like yours telling the truth has much more power than their 100s of newspaper articles lying to us, As a result of the knowledge you provided me with people no longer sneer at my feeble attempts to explain what I think happened. In fact I find many of them have got to the stage that they simply ignore the subject and are almost resigned to the day that the truth will be exposed. Even then I think they will withdraw into the hole they dug in support of the McCanns never to return to the subject. Nonetheless I will end by saying I will be forever proud to have stood with you in the Great Maddie War and I think your blog for many years to come will stand as someone who exposed the truth long before Britian agreed to admit it.

    1. Well said!! Completely agree.


  56. I consider myself to be a rag ass working class guy,when our kids were aged 7 and 5 we took them to Disney in Florida for what really is a kids holiday (including us adults),in this case we have professional aged 30 something, upward mobile professionals booking a holiday in a backwater place not really renowned for kids holidays was it,what was wrong with Disney Paris if family time was so important,maybe GM would even have been there to enjoy himself..
    Wood for the trees.


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.