Saturday, 2 June 2018

The help and the tennis - comments continue IV

As we have informed our readers in a comment in our post “The help and the tennis”, we would not be publishing any more posts as we wanted this one to remain the entrance door to our blog for now. 

This post, like the previous “The help and the tennis – comments continue”, “The help and the tennis – comments continue II”, and “The help and the tennis – comments continue III” is simply to allow comments to continue as they have almost reached 200 in the second ‘comments continue’ post, the limit Blogger has for comments per page.


  1. About Not Textusa (now promoted by some as THE enlightened must-go to anti) having said or not that odour molecules having wafted in or not into apartment 5A, which he denies, this is what he has said on the subject:

    “You still don't get it, (censored)
    The whole point, Textusa, you (censored), is that airborne contamination could account for all the alerts.”


    “No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. The locations are very much secondary. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.”

    To this we then said (the post was written in June 2015) and as far as we know he did not contest until now:

    “So what Insane really wants to get across to all of us is this: sure Eddie (cadaver dog) did mark the scent of Maddie’s corpse but that in no way means the body was ever behind the couch or in the closet. It means only that the airborne molecules of the scent were there. The body could have been somewhere else in the apartment. OR NOT EVEN IN APARTMENT IF MOLECULES FLEW IN.
    We are encountering playful molecules.
    They exited the body and then decided to play hide and seek in the apartment. Half went to hide behind the couch the other half in the closet.”

    Not Textusa has stated, quite clearly that molecules waft. They do and we agree. The difference between our opinions are the sources from which they waft.

    Not Textusa says that the cadaver scent’s only source is the body itself, so when picked up and taken away, the source of these odour molecules disappears from site and we’re left only with the wafting molecules on site.

    That’s why he deems as absolutely useless the locations the signalled by the dogs. Yes, says he, they detected the odour BUT the locations where they were signalled are meaningless.
    We then explained why we thought he was saying this:

    “The importance of this?
    The idea behind it is to use forensics to validate the burglar thesis.
    Burglar came, killed Maddie and while he didn’t know what to do with the body it developed a gaseous mixture which released molecules into the air and which gently floated all the way behind the couch and parents’ bedroom closet. And there they remained for almost three months, at least. For all we know, they are still there. Like Insane's air fresheners they won't go away.
    Insane tries to push this absurd theory of floating molecules forward and this post is about avoiding having SY even try.”

    By disregarding the locations where the dogs signalled the odour in the living-room and in the bedroom closet (which would be suspicious for anyone outside the T9 to have killed Maddie and put the body on those locations) it would make it possible for Maddie to have been killed ANYWHERE in the apartment (the kids’ room for example) as the EVRD dog had ONLY confirmed, literally, that there was cadaver scent in the air.

    Where had it originated from, impossible to say, says Not Textusa.

    The fact the living-room and closet locations would be meaningless, ANYONE could have killed Maddie in that apartment. It could have been any of the T9 but, very important, could have been anyone else… say, a burglar.

    This in practical terms exempts the T9 from any wrongdoing, or in the very least raises serious questions on whether any of them were involved in her death.

    Add to this the fact that Not Textusa insists that the time for the cadaver scent to have developed can be significantly reduced from the hour and an half we all believe to be necessary, then it’s quite clear he’s pointing to a burglar having killed Maddie accidentally Maddie SOMEWHERE in the apartment, cleaned the blood (no need to worry about any cleaning related with the cadaver scent as its only source is the body and when removed leaves no residue) and taken the body. All scientifically explained.


  2. (Cont)

    So, all he and his promoters want the reader to believe is that cadaver odour is just a gaseous release from a decomposing body which leaves no residue once the body is picked up and taken. That the molecules the body released when it was there, linger in the air literally for months even though the apartment was rented and cleaned afterwards.

    Doors and windows opened and these stubborn molecules just lingered there.

    Basically what Not Textusa is trying to do is to validate the “Third Option”:

    Hopefully the reader can now understand why – in order to prove the utter absurdity of this thesis – we keep insisting in wanting to know from Insane what he thinks Eddie signal in the backyard.

    IF the ONLY source of cadaver scent is the body itself and once removed from site only airborne molecules are there to be detected as Not Textusa is adamant that is the case, the fact that Eddie signalled them in an open-air space like the backyard, then it is not ridiculous for us to say that Not Textusa’s thesis defends that these molecules could have been doing house-calls, wafting from apartment to into apartment, or in other words wafted in from outside the apartment into the apartment.

    In fact, we can even take this reasoning a step further and ask who is to guarantee that the molecules Eddie signalled in the backyard are even from Luz? For all anyone knows, according to Not Textusa, they could have come from Burgau or as even far as from Sagres.

    Something that even Not Textusa finds it to be absurdly ridiculous, reason why he’s calling into everyone’s attention he never said that the molecules wafted in.

    Another thing he has never said (apparently we misread the words medieval graveyard when he wrote them) was to tell us what does he think Eddie signalled in that backyard.

    To the genuine readers from those FB groups where Not Textusa has been enthusiastically and clearly promoted as an anti, aren’t you finding it a little strange the absence of a clear answer from such an evident and clear anti on this subject?

    Don’t you find strange this wiggling out of something that any anti would say without hesitation: Eddie signalled the location where Maddie’s body was put on the flowerbed.

    And why doesn’t he answer? Because to acknowledge that Eddie signalled the location of Maddie’s body in the backyard that would disprove his theory that the sole source of cadaver scent is the body itself.

    It would mean that a decomposing body leaves physical vestiges that release cadaver scent molecules that are then picked up by the EVRD dog.

    That in turn would make the locations where the dogs signalled inside the apartment to be VERY relevant and that would make it very hard to explain why a burglar would kill Maddie “accidentally” behind the couch and take her dead body to the closet and then take it with him when he left without stealing anything.

    But do note that now the “playful molecules” characteristics have been passed on to blood. The same happens with it, says Not Textusa.

    According to him, even if cleaned thoroughly, the blood’s odour molecules remain in the air and can be picked up by dogs like Keela months later, just like Eddie picked up the cadaver scent ones.

    How is this important?

    Because the blood could not even be from Maddie.

    Every household in the land has a blood related episode at some time.

    People cut fingers in the kitchen, men cut themselves with a new razor, children fall outside and come in to disinfect the wound, the cat plays and scratches the owners and one mustn’t forget, every woman’s menstrual cycle.

    Loads of blood molecules floating around EVERY house, according to Not Textusa. What Eddie detected could be could be anybody’s blood.


  3. (Cont)

    So, let’s see what Not Textusa is now making possible:

    Burglar killed Maddie. No blood needed to have happened as blood alert could be anybody’s blood.

    So he could have strangled her when trying to silence her, panicked and took her. No bleeding and no cleaning.

    Cadaver alert was body taken by burglar who took some time deciding what to do, while the NEGLIGENT T9 dined and that allowed burglar time to hang around long enough for odour to develop.

    All scientifically explained.

    Even the signalling of Sean’s red t-shirt could be explained: it was hung up to dry on the veranda and the cadaver scent airborne molecules wafted the odour onto the shirt.

    Problem with all this is for Not Textusa and his gang to explain why Keela did not signal every apartment she entered as we said, every household in the land has a blood related episode at some time.

    Oh, and that pesky thing about what did Eddie indeed signal in the backyard. That is something we continue to wait for Not Textusa to explain.

    All those on FB and on Twitter or elsewhere both promoting Not Textusa and the dogs are either being ignorant or hypocrites.

    According to Not Textusa, the dogs are useless. They simply pick up scents but where they signal is meaningless. As shown above, according to Not Textusa, both Eddie and Keela prove absolutely nothing.

    But, if the reader wants to continue to believe in him when Not Textusa says he’s an anti and in those who REALLY want the reader to believe that Not Textusa is an anti, it’s the reader’s absolute right to continue to do so.

    Another amazing coincidence in this case is FSS/John Lowe say that a “cellular material” contained components which matched Maddie (although said by FSS to be from more than 1 source, so inconclusive) and BOTH the dogs just happened to hit on this particular area.

  4. It does seem rather odd to me that anti Mccanns so vehemently "diss" these dogs and their findings - dogs who are expertly trained and naturally gifted to do this job!

    1. Wistle, I agree. They say they want justice, but really just want to dismantle anything that might (when put together with other material) lead to justice.

  5. Scientific studies about VOCs, for instance
    at least reveal how complex this matter is.

    1. Nothing complex about the odour in the backyard.

    2. Nothing complex ? Martin Grime reckoned that the alert in the flowerbed was weak, why was it so ?
      And again why did Eddie alert to a spot on the veranda,in front of the parents'door-window ?

    3. In a court of law the defence would be expected to take this stance - understandable - however it appears that those who are in effect on the side of the prosecution - are also supporting this view ... makes no sense to me - unless there is a hidden agenda ..??

    4. Anne Guedes,
      What do you think Eddie alerted to in the flowerbed?
      What do you think Eddie alerted to in the veranda?

  6. Anonymous 9:57,
    Of course I think that Eddie alerted to the scent he had been trained to and nothing else.
    The question is how that scent was deposited in those two spots.

    1. Of course Eddie would alert to the scent he was trained for. That's obvious. The questions I asked were to know if you thought it was Maddie's body in both those places. Do you?

    2. Some people doubt that Eddie would only alert to human decaying remains. I don't.
      I think that MMC was most probably at the origin of the VOCs.
      What intrigues is how those VOCs happened to be deposited in those two spots one up and one down.

  7. From FB:

    Ben Thompson:

    Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away'

    Ben Thompson: "Add to this the fact that Not Textusa insists that the time for the cadaver scent to have developed can be significantly reduced from the hour and an half we all believe to be necessary"

    Or, they could be telling the truth, something alien to you and your lunatic world.

    Have a listen to this conversation with Dean Beers, which is specifically discussing the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin in 2011. Dean explains that the average time for a cadaver dog hit is about 3 hours but that time scale can be reduced, based upon factors such as environment temp and body size, so a hit on a child would be much sooner. Particularly interesting around 14 mins in

    "...then it’s quite clear he’s pointing to a burglar having killed Maddie accidentally Maddie SOMEWHERE in the apartment"

    Yes, that must be fallacious fuckwit!

    1. On Monday 28 May, you said this on Not Textusa’s blog:
      “Pseudo Nym28 May 2018 at 18:20
      I give up. Like moths to a lightbulb, this case has attracted some of the most disturbed individuals I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I admire your tenacity, as well as your knowledge on the case, and will continue to enjoy your blogs, NT. For now though, I am going to stop commenting, posting, tweeting and blogging. I am sick to the back teeth of the hypocrisy, the liars, fantasists, the cowardice, the perverts and straight jacket wearers. I'm going to enjoy a life away from the asylum, soak up the sunshine (whilst it lasts), sleep more, free my mind, and concentrate on my family, friends, and happiness. Keep up the good work NT. You do a great job of showing up the liars, misinfo mongerers and propaganda peddlers. THEY claim you're a pro for doing so, yet by doing what they do, they're no better than the pros, just wear different badges.

      Take care, Ben.”

      On Tuesday 29 May, you said this of FB:
      “Ben Thompson: I've left all groups, Bo. I love the admin team that's there now, but I'm sick of hypocrites like Helen, who stood by and said sweet FA when Bennett and Havern put me through the most disgusting experience of my life. Yet, here she is getting involved in something she knows very little about, over one tiny detail. I've defended most when they've needed me, lost countless night's sleep over it, and for be turned on by massive hypocrites like Zora and Helen?

      I didn't start any of this, Textusa did. Time to leave the asylum for good, and the lunatics that live in it. It's had enough of my time, and so have arseholes who are quick to stab you in the back, when all I did was defend another.”

      It seems that your “spiritual retreat” was quite short.

    2. Cadaver odour may take less time to develop in children and in varying temperatures, but arguing for a shorter timescale only makes a burglar abduction scenario more plausible.
      The longer the timescale, the more likely the parents were involved.

      Can nobody argue without swearing and abuse. It seems common to a certain group of people.

    3. On the subject of how long it takes to develop the cadaver scent, we call the attention to the following exchange between an “Anonymous” and NT on April 24 in his blog:

      “Anonymous24 April 2018 at 06:50
      I would like your opinion on the following NT -please. Regarding the widespread “case belief” that death must have occurred at least 90 minutes for the organic volatile compounds to be released / detectable.

      I was under the impression that several VOC’s were released sooner PM and not all at the same stages of decomposition and that the dogs ID either several, one or all of the compounds in a non exclusive manner and that the reason for the carpet squares study statement of establishing the circa 120 minutes PM is that this timeframe is established since the study tested individuals deceased within these timeframes (110 and 120) and not sooner (which is understandable due to necessary logistics and maybe also ethics) .

      Is there any other study that conducted the same experiment with a shorter PM ? I would like to read your thoughts on this. Thanks NT”


    4. (Cont)

      Replies in Not Textusa’s blog to the comment above:

      Not Textusa24 April 2018 at 11:43
      Good question - if there is, I haven't been able to locate it. That's not to say there isn't, it's always possible that I haven't hit on the key words.

      The carpet squares study did not set out to determine the minimum post mortem interval to elicit a cadaver dog response; the authors specifically stated that the question wasn't answered in their study, but this has led to a common misquote and misunderstanding.

      This is what they actually reported:

      "The most
      interesting question of all remains: that of how long must an
      individual be dead for his/her scent to be detectable by a
      trained cadaver dog? Answering this pertinent question was not
      part of our investigation, but we can point out that a postmortem
      interval of 2 h seems to be a safely recognizable interval for the
      detection of deceased tissue by trained cadaver dogs."

      What that means is that, given a PMI of 2 hours, the results indicate that trained dogs will alert with a very high degree of accuracy - but what is not known is how much less than 2 hours is the minimum period required to produce similarly reliable results.

      To use an analogy, imagine I toasted some bread, put it on a plate and asked you to confirm that it was hot to the touch. You confirm this, then I ask you to leave the room and come back in 3 hours. When you come back, I ask you to feel the bread and tell me if it is cold. It is.

      Do we therefore conclude that it took 3 hours to cool down? No.

      What we would have to do is toast the bread, then ask you to touch the bread every five minutes and note the time where the bread felt cold. That would determine the time taken for the bread to go from hot to cold. All the first experiment tells us is that it was 3 hours OR LESS.

      It's exactly the same with this study. We know that trained cadaver dogs can detect residual death scent with a high degree of accuracy where the PMI is 2 hours OR LESS.

      The unknown factor is the "OR LESS" part.

      It would actually be a very simple study to design. All that would be required is to expose carpet squares in the same way, but from the moment of death and then every 15 minutes, then allow the dogs to search the jars as before.

      In terms of how much less it could be, that would be speculative, but we do know studies have shown it to be considerably less in certain insects, and they too rely upon scent to locate the cadaver. That would indicate that the early biochemical changes are detectable by those species, so must, logically, be capable of detection in the air, presumably within the scent 'cone' which forms after death.

      I hope that helps.

      Not Textusa24 April 2018 at 12:00
      Actually, I want to amend one thing - where I have put "or less", change that to "or a period of time less than", then it makes sense. How I have written it could be misinterpreted. Sorry about that.

      Anonymous25 April 2018 at 05:34
      Thank you for taking the time to reply NT. The explanation did help. I will try to look up the insect studies and read them. Thank you again.

      Not Textusa25 April 2018 at 09:09
      No trouble at all, you're welcome

    5. As can be seem above, Not Textusa is trying to significantly shorten the time needed to develop the cadaver scent.

      And which “insect study” is this?

      It was submitted by an anon to our post “Gemma O’Doherty”, who we said and maintain was Not Textusa.

      We debunked the document provided by Not Textusa under the guise of Anonymous, in a comment with 6 replies also written by us) in that post (Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:36:00), which we will refrain to bring all over here due to the length.

      The link provided by Not Textusa was this:

      From it:
      “The foul odour of decomposition may simply read as putrid to humans, but to our animal friends, a wealth of information can be determined by the scent of a corpse. The process of decomposition starts 4 minutes after death, but it usually takes several hours before it becomes noticeable to humans. Research conducted in forensic entomology (the study of insects and other arthropods for criminal matters) determined that scent, or the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), is a significant factor in drawing insects, like blowflies, to a corpse. They can detect the scent of death in the air in a matter of minutes. In 2014, research done by Dr Bekka Brodie concluded that female blowflies (who need carrion to lay their eggs) can detect remains by picking up precisely on dimethyl trisulfide in the air in minuscule quantities, 1 part per trillion, in open-air, and from up to 1.6 kilometres away.”

      Anonymous who provided this link may not be Not Textusa (we are certain he is) but now the reader can understand why Not Textusa, under his explicit anonymous ID, writes above:
      “In terms of how much less it could be, that would be speculative, but we do know studies have shown it to be considerably less in certain insects, and they too rely upon scent to locate the cadaver. That would indicate that the early biochemical changes are detectable by those species, so must, logically, be capable of detection in the air, presumably within the scent 'cone' which forms after death.”

      Trying to shorten significantly the time of needed to develop the cadaver scent so as to allow a burglar to have killed Maddie.

    6. Ben Thompson,

      From your link

      “… maybe even an hour would be ok…”

      So not an hour and a half but an hour. EVEN an hour. Going less than that is absurd.

      Jez meets Gerry at 21:15. Alarm given at 22:00. That’s 45 minutes. The body had to be lying on the first location for at least an hour (according to your link). Where is the time to clean and why put the body in the closet?

      Note, your thesis helps ours. It gives us an extra half an hour for cleaning. We say she died at around 18:30. From 19:30, according to you, she could have been removed from the first location and leave vestiges there while at that time cleaning could have begun. That is 2 and a half hours before alarm.

      Thank you for your help.

    7. Love the insect �� �� bit by insane or whoever

      I’m not an insect expert; having dissected cockroaches at school doesn’t exactly qualify me. Nasty creatures, second only to dissecting bulls’ eyes- but I digress.
      I think certain insects may be better than dogs in detecting cadaver odours, particularly if the cadaver is in situ. However, when the cadaver has been removed, it becomes a little trickier.
      How could the insects be trained to alert to the residual odour? Maybe they could be conditioned to waggle their antennae, but a reward system would be needed in order to train them. I don’t know if insects can be trained to that extent, although the insects in a flea circus seem trainable. I don’t know how it’s done, but they can pull tiny chariots and balance on high wires.
      The next problem would be the amount of time it would take the trained insects to cover a large search area. They don’t seem to be as affected by heat as the dogs are.
      They would also be cheaper than dogs, but their life span is much shorter, meaning continual recruits in training.

    8. Anonymous 4 Jun 2018, 11:30:00

      Absurdity aside, and understanding your irony, please note that Insane/Not Textusa is being specious.

      He tries to push the idea that if a bug’s “nose” (we don’t know in what way or part of their bodies blowflies detect scents) can detect early the cadaver scent, then it can be considered as logical, or at least should be considered, that the nose of another animal, the dog, would be able to do the same.

      And that consideration may even appear to be reasonable when one knows how amazing a dog’s nose is. And if it’s one trained to detect a specific odour then the question should really be considered.

      The speciousness lies in the body. Before we explain why, we remind readers that the same article submitted by Insane under the guise of anonymous, about this “early insect detection” states the following in its heading “Cadaver Dogs” which we recommend readers revisit:

      “Sometimes dogs indicate the scent of human remains when none are there, or they send the search party off track due to the scent of a dead rabbit in the woods.”

      The entire passage is not exactly flattering to EVRD dogs starting with its opening words: “If we could train blowflies to find lost bodies, there would never be another missing person, but they are surprisingly stubborn with the whole leash training thing. Instead, we have cadaver dogs.”

      For one to use such a document to shorten the time necessary for the development of cadaver scent so that EVRD dogs can pick it up is to call one’s readers stupid. But then there are people who not only don’t mind being called stupid as they like to praise those who do and even go out of their way to recommend to others to be called stupid as well by these people. Stupid but happy.

      But let’s get back to the speciousness: the presence of the body.

      The document speaks of the blowflies reacting to the decomposition of a body on site. That has no parallel that can be established with what is being discussed when debating what Eddie signalled in apartment 5A.

      The question is how long it is necessary for a body to remain in a location for the EVRD dogs to be able to signal that location and AFTER it had been TAKEN AWAY from there.

      We have heard many values, from 3 to 1.5 hours, or up to 1 hour (as per the sound clip kindly provided by Ben Thompson) in the cases of infants.

      We are certain that an EVRD dog, in the presence of a decomposing body would start to signal much before that. Probably in the timespan as the blowfly. Even earlier. But that’s with the decomposing body before them.

      With the body absent, all there is to be picked up is the odour released by the vestiges left there by the body no longer there, i.e. the physical source of the odour.

      So, the even the paragraph about training blowflies is absurd and not because of the proposed training.

      To establish any parallel the studies would have to have been done in locations where it was known a decomposing body had been and not where one is.

      As an hypothetical example: a person dies at 16:00. The body is removed from that location at 16:04. Then it’s verified that blowflies flock towards that location, where the body no longer is, then it can be affirmed that it takes 4 minutes for a decomposing body to develop enough source for a blowfly to detect cadaver scent after body removed from site.

      Insane/Not Textusa is being misleading and he knows he is.

      But his job is to fit that cadaver scent in the 45 minute window frame between the Jez/Gerry meeting and the alarm, and in it must be included all the cleaning that would have been required to do.

  8. Also from FB:

    Linda Wilson : This reasoning of trying to explain the alerts away takes it to a whole new level of stupidness. By their explanation of scents and molecules wafting about coming from anywhere and not proving the dogs hit on the blood and cavadar scent direct from the body and they want this to be taken serious, really? Well if these so called experts are to be believed and correct then the whole dam planet is one big dam contaminated crime scene, hell I'm surprised any country bothers having a police force if everything is so easily contaminated so no crimes can be proved. I've never heard something so ludicrous and stupid in my whole life as the drivel that is being pushed, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Read my lips Dogs Don't Lie, Governments around the world would not waste time and money on them if they didn't provide results regardless of area they are used in, nuff said muppets.

  9. An opinion from a known pro:

    Where have we seen this!?

    1. Anonymous4 Jun 2018, 14:17:00,

      Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog.

      Replying to @zodiaczephyr @loverandomIeigh and 2 others
      For example: from a sceptical scientific point of view, all you can say about the alert in the bedroom is that Eddie barked on detecting an unknown odour in the air from an unknown source. Anything else is speculation in the absence of corroborating evidence. #mccann
      11:35 AM · Jun 4, 2018"

  10. I liked this one from yesterday....

    Not Textusa3 June 2018 at 14:01

    I think that regardless of her age, gender or marital status, her obsession with swinging is undeniable. I know she says it is because it was a word the police used when searching computers, but they found nothing significant and the computers had nothing to do with the McCanns anyway. There is more evidence of an abductor than there is of swinging and there is NO evidence of an abductor. Yet it is a topic she has stuck with through thick, thin and ridicule. That speaks of obsession to me.

    Lol...nothing like the obsession of starting your own blog to try and discredit 1 person eh

    1. Anonymous 4 Jun 2018, 15:27:00,

      As far as we know, debating what Eddie and Keela signalled in the Maddie case only has to do with where Maddie died, and if the interval of time between the Jez/Gerry encounter at 21:15 and the alarm at 22:00 allows for someone other than the T9 to have been involved in her death.

      Nothing about swinging. Or paedophilia. Or any other reason people may believe is behind the hoax.

      Associating the dogs with swinging is taking the effort of discrediting us one ridiculous step too far.

    2. NT's blog is the place to be seen at now.

    3. Poor Rosalinda Hutton/Cristobell Unbound
      She probably thought she was going to become a popular name because of her cameo in Poulton's video and all turned out to be a flop.
      Now she's seeing Blacksmith prefer NT over her.

    4. 18:59
      All of those who have come to the conclusion that neglect scenario was an alibi, can now check out how much support they’ll get for this theory from NT.

  11. We inform readers that we evidently have noticed that Not Textusa is now trying desperately to dodge from the cadaver scent/blood issue.

    Besides the obvious dodging, there are however other reasons for him to do being doing so and why people who are praising him are also doing it. But before we do that, we still have lots to write about Not Textusa and the cadaver scent/blood issues in the McCann case.

    We take no notice to the fact that he has said “Okay - this is the last time I am going to reply to this particular nonsense” as we will be continuing to insist on what he considers to be nonsense, the cadaver and blood scents and the positions always defended on them by this new-born and almost messiah-like acclaimed anti.

  12. Parece que muitos se entretém a vir aqui descarregar fúrias e provocações gratuitas.
    Seria melhor que fossem fazer algo de útil e deixarem a Equipa das Sisters terem sossego.

  13. From Not Textusa in his blog:

    [quoting our blog] Then, it seems you are recognising that the cadaver and now blood were in that apartment. [end of quote]
    I have NEVER suggested they weren't, you dozy cow


    On Friday, 31 October 2014:

    “[quoting our blog] Blood, a word that sends shivers down the BH spines. If the majority of samples were of saliva, then the word order would have been “25 samples of saliva and blood”. [end of quote]

    Hey, shit-for-brains! These results are already in the
    files. Go look. No Blood.”


    On Saturday, 30 May 2015:

    “[quoting our blog] When we say traces were cleaned, we mean blood. No one made an effort to clean cadaverine specifically but they did make a conscious and meticulous effort to clean up any and all traces of blood. [end of quote]

    There was no blood. But do go on.”


    On Wednesday, 25 April 2018:

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

    There was no blood confirmed in the flat”

  14. About what Eddie signalled in the backyard, this was what Insane/Not Textusa had to say in his blog:

    “[quoting the blog] Hopefully the reader can now understand why – in order to prove the utter absurdity of this thesis – we keep insisting in wanting to know from Insane what he thinks Eddie signal in the backyard. [end of quote]
    What are you on about now? We are not back to your "Site of a burial ground" lies again, are we, because you already admitted those.
    Let me try, one last time, to explain this to you
    I believe that Eddie, in common with other trained cadaver dogs, alerts to his target scent with a very high level of accuracy. So if his target odour is Human Decomposition, then that is probably what he is alerting to.
    As to the SOURCE of that alert, that can only be determined, or confirmed, forensically. As it has not been, it remains an uncorroborated alert.
    Now - you or your brain-dead associates can declare it to have been caused by whatever you like, but that's not scientifically valid, and I'm afraid that I only deal with the valid. After all, you wouldn't want me to cut your leg off because I THINK you might have cancer, would you? I'm sure you would like to see it confirmed first”


    Not Textusa, no one questions, besides you (you were the only one blowing out of proportion the false positives of the EVRD dog under adverse experimental conditions which nowhere near resembled what may have happened with Maddie’s body – namely bodies wrapped in blankets, so with no direct contact with the carpet squares) the accuracy of the EVRD dog: they signal human decomposition as you say.

    That’s not the question. The question is what you say in caps: the SOURCE.

    According to you there are only 2 possible explanations: either there were physically human remains in the flowerbed or then the airborne molecules wafted in the air for months in the backyard.

    You keep quoting this paragraph from Martin Grime which you state gives you full reason (our caps):

    “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the AIR MOVEMENT OF THE FLAT, THE APARTMENT and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source MAY NOT BE IN THAT CUPBOARD, the source MAY WELL BE IN THIS ROOM somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. (Martin Grime)”

    Note, he makes no reference to the outside signalling. If floating airborne molecules would be reason for Eddie to signal, wouldn’t Grime refer that fact in the stated above? Of course he would. He doesn’t. So only human decomposition can justify that alert.

    We say the body releases a syrupy substance, which we have called “cadaver compound” and which we say is the physical source for the scent Eddie signalled.

    After the time (from 1 (infant) to 3 hours) it takes the decomposing body to develop enough of this compound, once placed on a surface it contaminates with it and it is from this physical source that the odour is released.

    You say we are completely wrong. You say a decomposing body releases ONLY a gaseous substance directly into the air.

    You say once the body removed the only vestiges of that odour are the airborne molecules wafting about.

    So, for you to be right, either the molecules floated for months outside or there was human decomposition remains in the flowerbed releasing there and then the odour that Eddie alerted to.


  15. (Cont)

    So, you expect us to believe that Grime knowing this, was careful to detail above what were ALL the possible variables for an alert inside the apartment and says absolutely NOTHING about the outside variables? Really?

    Not even order immediately that a search for human remains be done in the flowerbed where Eddie signalled? Really?

    According to you “the SOURCE of that alert, that can only be determined, or confirmed, forensically” and Grime doesn’t even suggest any diligence to determine or confirm such a source? Really?

    Basically, you are stating that Martin Grime is so incompetent that he can’t be relied upon as a subject matter expert.

    No, you haven’t said that explicitly but you certainly have stated it implicitly with total clarity: only an incompetent dog handler under the conditions you describe wouldn’t suggest diligences to determine the source.

    You quoting him to defend your reasoning only shows the hypocrite you are.

    We want to make it very clear that we are not calling Grime incompetent, Not Textusa is.

    For us Grime doesn’t mention any need for further diligences because he agrees with us that the physical source for the odour Eddie alerted to was the vestige we call the “cadaver compound” with which Maddie’s body contaminated the flowerbed.

    Eddie’s alert confirms it, so there weren’t any other diligences needed to be suggested, so Grime evidently doesn’t suggest any.

    We noted that Not Textusa has also said the following (our caps): “As to the source of that alert, that can only be determined, OR CONFIRMED, forensically”.

    This means that you state very clearly that as the source for the alert cannot be confirmed that it may have been none, a false positive. Hope you realise that you are letting down all those that are sticking their necks out swearing by all that is sacred to them that you don’t diss the dogs.

    But let’s suppose that you are right and Grime is indeed an absolute and incomprehensibly incompetent forensic dog-handler.

    Then we have three possibilities for you to be right.
    #1 – False positive;
    #2 – Outdoor wafting molecules;
    #3 – Human decomposing remains in the flowerbed.

    As you are a dog believer, so say you, and evidently see how ridiculous the argument of outside wafting molecules is, only the third hypothesis is valid: human decomposing remains in the flowerbed emitting the scent then and there.

    But the ONLY justification TO DATE that you have given for that was that of a medieval graveyard:
    “Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”

    Even though you say the above has been scientifically proven, you deny that that you believe in it as you say you never suggested a medieval graveyard thesis even though you explicitly wrote it. Quite confusing and we won’t even attempt to understand.

    So, until you state clearly what human remains you think were in the flowerbed that were emitting there and then the odour that triggered Eddie’s alert, we will maintain and keep saying that you are a “medieval graveyard believer” as the justification for Eddie to have alerted the flowerbed in the backyard.

  16. It seems that anyone with a grudge against Textusa gravitates to 'the place to be for serious discussion' unaware of that laughable irony. They form a tiny cabal, vent their spleen - insult, abuse, purposefully distract and are happy. Meanwhile, years of proper analysis continues on this blog. Keep up the good work, sisters.

    1. Yes they are all malcontents over NT's joint all pretending they are the 'in crowd'and the only ones 'in the know' like Blacksmith too claims to be.

  17. Yet the odour only surrounds McCann related possessions and the property they rent! How strange! It’s free to waft anywhere, but sticks around the inside of 5A, and collects under a bush in that very garden. Hmmm

    1. Anonymous 5 Jun 2018, 12:17:00,

      We are only waiting for Not Textusa to tell us that's been proven scientifically that when the McCanns are in Luz they become Pied Pipers of Cadaver Scent Molecules.

      Only that explains why they ONLY follow them!

    2. Hi Textusa,as Clarence Mitchell stated,"there is a reasonable plausable explanation for all of the findings they found" as Not Textusa will no doubt explain to you?

      Screened on the BBC over several night was a "Very English Scandal" that alludes to a Cover Up in the case of Jeremy Thorpe,Liberal Mp once charged with Hiring a "Hitman" to kill his former lover,where at least four person's were acquitted of conspiring to kill Mr Norman Scott,but the actual gunman served Two years for killing "Rinka" the dog,but the gun failed to go off when directed at the "Lover" of Jeremy,due to heavy Rain,allowing Norman to seek help from a passing Motorist on Dartmoor.
      The UK Police in their infinate wisdom failed to recognise that what the witnesses could confir to have happened wasn't strong enough evidence before the Robust Judge, Judge Cantley?

      but you will understand there was No cover Up by the UK Authorities on behalf of the Establishment,MI5,Scotland Yard altering statements about clandestine meeting at the Ritz Hotel,which now never happened?

    3. Exmoor not Dartmoor even Blacksmith confuses them in he latest offering.

    4. Eddie hit on five items of clothing,top and shorts belonging to Sean ,top and check trousers belonging to Kate and a light blue t'shirt belonging to Gerry. That's three out of the remaining four family members that had cavadar scent on their clothing and they say there's a reasonable plausable explanation really? Pull other one it has bells on Clarence and gang no amount of excuses can explain why you had death scent on your clothes floating molecules and scent or not it's complete and utter nonsense otherwise every human on the planet would be walking round with death scent on their clothes and home. Yet the facts in the files from the brilliant dogs point at everything McCann. Watched footage today of the Queen and Camilla visiting and watching dogs trained for medical diagnosis, they left an open wound to fester when they mistakenly dissed the dogs.


    Friend of Mcs who entertained them at a prestigious horse race course meeting, defends the foul Cyril Smith.

    1. Hi Textusa,when Lord steel was asked by New Night Presenter Evan Davies about Mr Thorpe "misappropriating" £10,000 pounds from the Liberal Party and what was the money to be used for,"He (Jeremy) was paying for the return of letters", so the funds were not to be used to hire a gunman,Lord Steel,"What are you inffering",Lord Steel then spoke about how both Jeremy,Big Cyril were at this point Innocent of any scurrelous inuendo of child abuse or Conspiring to have a person Killed,of which they once stood at the Old Bailey London,charged with these offences but walked away from Court Not Guilty?
      Yes Lord steel and his Race Coarse Horse tips with Kate,Gerry,twas a pity that another old stalwart wasn't there,Clement used to like a gamble on the Horses?

    2. Its like the man said isnt it? Blacksmith....

      It is what being part of a society means: a provisional agreement that members of our own democratic group can be trusted to follow the rules that most of us were taught at school, whether they are train announcers, cab drivers – there could be gas vents – or politicians. Because it suits them and us. 

      If it clearly and unmistakeably breaks down then that’s a different matter and the killing will begin. Until then most of us make working assumptions of trust.

      He trusts David Steel.....why wouldnt he?


  19. Leaving aside the shamelessly ridiculous get-out clause that cadaver/death molecules can be everywhere and anywhere at any given time, yet seemed to have pooled only around and in the McCann apartment. If the dead could speak, wouldn't they be saying: the dogs know. This is a sign; this is where it all happened; this is where they put me me down. This is our truth?

    Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos
    Replying to @JaneParshally @JBLittlemore @artist_mystic
    This is a re-run of #Textusa's bizarre theory which he based solely on faulty analysis of an image in Gerry #McCann's sunglasses. What's your actual evidence to support your theory & how on earth could this photo have been created after 2 weeks with perfectly matching shadows etc
    10:29 pm - 7 Jun 2018


    Mr Bennett,

    Are you finally ready to answer the questions we have put you?

      If you click on some of Heavy Dave's tweets here, he believes photoshop possible.
      Reason he gives on other tweets is because Mcs wanted a sentimental photo.
      He does not suggest death before 3/5.


      Please continue Textusa!

      Aileen Peebles

  21. 'Factsmith' complains on Unbound the other day about what he saw as a snidey comment on here about Cristobell.
    Then almost straightaway makes an equally snidey comment about someone called Verdi from another site at Not Textusa which starts off a series of similar posts. ( The obvious intention).
    Talk about do as I say and not as I do eh?.

    1. I see the production line of Thompson's blog has been imported to NT. Someone writes and the owner signs and takes credit. At the moment they are chewing over Kate's bewk (and discovering America)

  22. Some fool is even openly calling themselves a troll at NT's blog.
    Mind you, they are all trolls over there whether they admit it or not.

  23. Can we all forget about the last photo please.

    NT has spoken.

    There is nothing wrong with it and both theories ( date changed or composite) are bonkers.

  24. For all those tempted to the dark side (the other one from here); remember that the devil has some good tunes. But be prepared to see what you believe in be subtly undermined. First, the dogs and now, the Smith family.

  25. And the last photo too.

    The chosen one says both theories ( date changed and composite) are bonkers.

  26. There is something that some of our most fierce critics seem to be mistaken about an opinion we have on Insane (AKA Not Textusa AKA Walkercan1000 – we are insisting on this association as readers will soon understand) and his wafting molecules.

    Those who say that we are incorrect when we say he defends that cadaver scent has possibly wafted into apartment 5A, we have already made it clear that he didn’t say those exact words. So avoid yourself the trouble of going over that territory now that your gang is set on exploring what was discovered years ago.

    By the way, if someone knows if Not Textusa, or whoever is writing the Kate book posts for him (very evident it’s not him) and realises that he’s set on discovering America (agreeing with you Anonymous 8 Jun 2018, 15:19:00) please don’t tell him that Columbus has already done it. Just let him brag and boast, buy the boat, see him sail off with his fans tearfully waiving to him from the shore, stick his flag on the beach on the other side of the Atlantic and claim the territory in his name. In case the reader is wondering, his flag is made up of a restaurant receipt with “#McCann” written on it. It’s from Miami but we guess that it’s nearer to the Dominican Republic than the UK…

    Why speak of Walkercan1000 on a comment about Not Textusa and his opinions on the cadaver scent? Because there’s a significant effort made by some to distance the 2 – for reasons which we will explain in later posts – and we want to reinforce the fact that we think that they are the same person and want to remind all that we maintain that opinion and will keep repeating it.

    But back to Not Textusa having said or not some exact wording, we think everyone is able to understand that one does not need to say the exact same words to mean the exact same thing using other words.

    For example, if one says “I haven’t had anything to drink for 2 days in this hot sun, how I wish I could drink something right now”, one can never be quoted as having said “I’m thirsty” but one has said exactly that.

    The same thing happened with Not Textusa. Even though he has not said those exact words but what he has said mean exactly what we say he has said: that the cadaver scent molecules may have wafted into apartment 5A from outside.

    And we say that NOT because of the scent alerted by Eddie outside in the backyard – to which he claims it was because of a medieval graveyard (we’re still waiting to be contradicted on that, Insane, so we’ll keep on saying it until you explain) – but because of the cadaver scent that Eddie alerted to INSIDE the apartment.

    That’s what we intend to explain with this comment.

    Let’s start by making very clear the differences between us and Not Textusa as to what we each say is the source of that cadaver scent that EVRD dogs like Eddie alert to.

    This is what we say the source is:

    When a human being dies, the body starts to decompose. We say that once the cells stop being oxygenated it immediately starts to produce a substance.

    It’s so complex that scientists haven’t yet been able to determine the composition of this biological compound.

    However, it releases a distinct foul odour, which as an odour it is made up of molecules released into the air. Airborne molecules. Not Textusa likes to call them by their correct scientific name of VOCs or Volatile Organic Compounds. We prefer to keep it simple and call them airborne molecules. Easier to understand which makes it easier to explain.

    We call this smell, cadaver scent or cadaver odour.

    When a certain density, or concentration, of these molecules hits the EVRD dog’s nose, the dog reacts to the stimulus the way he’s been trained to do.

    The moment death happens, the decomposition process begins.

    (Cont 1/12)

  27. (Cont 2/12)

    But to produce the necessary amount of this compound in order for there be enough concentration of cadaver scent molecules in the air to trigger an EVRD dog’s nose takes time.

    We have said previously and say that this compound is syrupy. Although the exact composition of the compound remains unknown to science, cadaverine is one of the range of substances and is syrupy. Those mocking us for saying that it’s syrupy please take the issue up with the scientific community and not with us:

    As it’s syrupy, or greasy, when in contact with other surfaces this substance, what we call cadaver compound, adheres to it and contaminates it.

    The time it takes for the body to produce cadaver compound in enough quantity so that the residue it leaves adhered to the contaminated surface to be sufficient to release the cadaver odour with sufficient concentration required to provoke a stimulus in a trained dog’s nose, is what we say is the time needed for a body to develop cadaver scent to be detected by an EVRD dog.

    This time, as far as we know, has not been determined but has been estimated to be an hour and a half to 3 hours. We have been provided a link where it is said that this time may be EVEN an hour (no less than that) for an infant. We have no reason to doubt it.

    However, the infant being discussed was Lisa irwin who disappeared when she was 10 months old.

    Maddie McCann was 4. Triple or 4 times the body mass of Lisa Irwin. So if one it is to apply the shortening of time between an adult and an infant like Lisa, then one must do the same between Lisa and Maddie.

    So, we won’t accept anyone saying, or even suggesting, that it would take less than an hour for the cadaver scent to have developed in the case of Maddie McCann.

    That cadaver compound that we say has adhered to the contaminated surface is what we call the “physical source” of the cadaver scent after the body has been taken away from the site. The body leaves but it leaves a signal of its presence.

    That means, when the body is taken away there remains a source (on the contaminated surface the body was in contact with) that continuously releases molecules into the air until it dries up and stops doing that.

    This release of airborne molecules, or scent, lasts for a long time, until source is definitely removed.

    So, to sum up what we have said above, if enough time has passed after death the body leaves a physical ‘footprint’ of cadaver compound that is the physical source that releases the scent into the air (airborne molecules) which is what is picked up by the EVRD dog’s nose.

    This is what Not Textusa says the source is:

    All we say above is absolute nonsense. His words:

    “I can understand that some non-scientists struggle with the concept that molecules can be present in a gaseous state and that they can remain there for a long time and that a dog can alert to their presence even when there are no liquid or solid remains present, but that is no excuse for being ill informed yet blogging as if you knew what you were talking about, complete with utterly false and misleading information.”

    Very clearly, he says “no liquid or solid remains present”. So, no ‘footprint’, no physical source left behind after body taken away. Once it’s taken away, away with it goes the physical source of the cadaver scent.

    That’s it. His opinion is much easier to explain than ours. Even if he tries to obfuscate by using complex scientific terminology, at the end is what is written, also by him, above.

    (Cont 2/12)

  28. (Cont 3/12)

    We would like to point out the first immediate significant difference between our opinions: the number of airborne molecules left on site once the body is taken away.

    Not Textusa says they are in FINITE number, as once the body is taken away the production of these molecules is terminated on site.

    We say that there is a source that remains on site, so until it is removed there will be a continuous release of these scent molecules into the air.

    To be clear, according to Not Textusa, for each scent molecule that floats out of that apartment is a molecule lost forever and its absence reduces the concentration of molecules present in the apartment.

    We, on the other side, say that if the there is no exiting of molecules, the number of them increases inside the apartment as long as the physical source isn’t removed and continues to release scent molecules into the air.

    A ventilated apartment will evidently have a lesser concentration of scent molecules in the air when compared with what happens in a closed room, as is obvious. Anyone who has burnt anything on a stove understands the difference of a ventilated and a closed room in terms of smoke.

    Not Textusa says that after scent molecules flow out the window molecules will remain that will have clung to materials like curtains and from them they are released and waft inside the apartment and are picked up by the dog’s nose.

    That’s why he says the EVRD dog does indeed pick up the scent even though doors and windows have been opened.

    His logic is quite simple to follow: from the body to the curtain and from the curtain to somewhere where the dog’s nose just happens to be when he sniffs in the molecule. And because he may be near or far from where the body was, him signalling is meaningless in terms of the location of where the body was when it produced the airborne molecules when it was in the apartment.

    And so Not Textusa insists on saying the dogs are reliable but they are only reliable in that they have CORRECTLY picked up cadaver scent but, unfortunately, they are NOT RELIABLE about anything else, as the body could have been somewhere else other than the location the dog signalled.

    Is that saying the dog is reliable? No, it is uttering the words but meaning the exact opposite.

    Not Textusa disses the dogs no matter how much he and his fan-club say he doesn’t.

    Saying that dogs ONLY pick up scents correctly (and even though he keeps reminding people of the false positives that do not even apply as we have explained) is completely different from saying that the dogs are reliable in identifying the location of where a dead body has been. Many others, like Mr Amaral share our opinion.

    And to be very clear on how he disses the dogs this is what Not Textusa has said about the correlation between the dogs’ alerts and the location where the body was (our caps):

    “No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. THE LOCATIONS ARE VERY MUCH SECONDARY. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.”

    And when asked about the alert in the backyard he has this to say: “As to the SOURCE of that alert, that can only be determined, or CONFIRMED [our caps], forensically. As it has not been, IT REMAINS AN UNCORROBORATED ALERT [our caps]”.

    The source has to be confirmed. The source, says Not Textusa may not even exist. In an intentionally confusing obfuscating scientific jargon it’s “an uncorroborated alert”. Or, to say it clearly, it can have been a false positive.

    (Cont 3/12)

  29. (Cont 4/12)

    And still some say that this individual is not a dog-disser.

    We have said it before and will say it again: those supporting at the same time Not Textusa and the dogs are either simply ignorant and easily manipulated or, not being ignorant, are intentionally misleading others.

    By the way, as we have pointed out in our comment at 4 Jun 2018, 23:21:00 it would be an “an uncorroborated alert” who no one involved remembered to suggest, ask, request or demand to be corroborated!

    If Not Textusa is right, then what a blundering incompetent EVRD dog-handler Martin Grime is!

    And talking about Grime, Not Textusa repeatedly quotes the following passage from him from the PJ Files to show how right he, Not Textusa is:

    “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what i would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. (Martin Grime)”

    He states that this sentence “If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment”, is what gives him reason. Anyone daring to think otherwise is ignorant.

    Unfortunately for Not Textusa that sentence on its own proves Not Textusa wrong.

    He says that Grime is clearly saying that a physical source may not be present and we say that, just by this sentence alone and without looking at all else quoted above, Grime states the exact opposite.

    Remember, we are only looking at this sentence and nothing else he has said above. Just this sentence: “If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment”.

    Let’s put in caps what Not Textusa has failed to read there before he decided, once again, to put his foot in his mouth: IF. That’s it, he forgot to read that word.

    If the body doesn’t leave “no liquid or solid remains present” as Not Textusa so adamantly states, then why state the possibility of there NOT being a scent source (I.E. A PHYSICAL ARTICLE - liquid or solid, we are supposing) if that was the norm?

    If Not Textusa is right, then there not being a PHYSICAL scent source would be expected, so anything exceptional worth mentioning should have that assumption.

    So, according to what Not Textusa, the scientist, states as absolute fact with absolute certainty is referred to by Grime as mere possibility. An exceptional one to boot.

    Shouldn’t the exception be the existence of a physical article if Not Textusa is right? Won’t get into gory details of what it could be but if the body leaves no vestiges other than airborne molecules then one can imagine what it could be.

    Grime is saying the exact opposite, that the expected situation is for there to be a physical scent emitting article while Not Textusa is clear that there’s a physical scent emitting article is a total absurdity as there is “no liquid or solid remains present” after body taken away.

    Is Not Textusa suggesting that Martin Grime’s expected physical scent emitting article to be the body itself?

    (Cont 4/12)

  30. (Cont 5/12)

    If Not Textusa even attempts to say that the expected physical scent emitting article may be the curtains, from where the airborne molecules would collect after leaving the body and then released randomly, then either curtains are expected physical scent emitting articles and Grime should have mentioned that fact about all curtains in the apartment, and he doesn’t, or the whole idea is ridiculous, as it is.

    And if the location of Martin Grime’s expected physical scent emitting article has no relationship with the location of the body as Not Textusa clearly states it doesn’t, what is the relevance if it’s the curtains or a corner, or wherever? After all the molecules could have come from the living-room curtains to the ones in the childrens’ bedroom and from there at another point in time to the curtains of the other bedroom, or as Not Textusa has put it “THE LOCATIONS ARE VERY MUCH SECONDARY” so why speak of such a PHYSICAL article in the first place whatever the possibilities?

    If Not Textusa was right, all Grime COULD say was that if the dog signal, no matter where inside the apartment, only meant that there was cadaver scent in the air of that apartment. Anything other than that would be speculation. Why speak about air movements, “that cupboard”, closed apartment, hot climate and physical articles emitting scent? It would be a clear and simple yes or no situation: was there cadaver scent in the apartment at that moment, yes or no? No other conclusion could be taken. If it was, it was pure speculation.

    Was the cadaver scent signalled in the living-room? It means absolutely nothing as “LOCATIONS ARE VERY MUCH SECONDARY”. After all, the body could have been in the kitchen. Was the scent signalled in the bedroom? Means nothing again as “LOCATIONS ARE VERY MUCH SECONDARY”. The body could have been in the corridor.

    Does this make any sense? It does, apparently, to Not Textusa supporters. Those who say, no, insist that he’s a dog supporter.

    And to add to the ridiculousness, as we will see later, Not Textusa even defends (no, he doesn’t say those words so please refrain from asking for the quote) that the body may even not have been in the apartment.

    But for now let’s look at the entire paragraph and understand what Grime is indeed saying.

    He’s saying that in non-ventilated conditions (hot climate with the apartment being closed down) the scent coming from the physical scent emitting article may “due to the air movement of the flat” molecules move and “build-up in a particular area” a distance away from that article.

    Grime does not question the existence of the physical article where the scent is emitting from but only the location being “here”. We interpret this “here” as the location signalled by the dog, more specifically the cupboard because he is very clear when he says “but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else”. In the room somewhere else and NOT in the apartment somewhere else.

    Couldn’t be clearer. There is a physical article where the scent is emitting from but in the case of the bedroom – a non-ventilated room – that article may be somewhere else in THAT room other than THAT cupboard.

    He’s saying that UNDER THOSE NON-VENTILATED conditions, the emitting article may not be exactly where the dog signalled but nearby. In THAT room.

    Why doesn’t he mention the living-room? Because what he says does not apply there because one just has to look at it to see that it’s a well-ventilated area as it’s so near the sliding doors and a window.

    We will return later to the living-room but now want to deal with the distance between Martin Grime’s physical article where the scent is emitting and the POSSIBLE (not certain) distance between it and the location Eddie signalled.

    (Cont 5/12)

  31. (Cont 6/12)

    The best imagery that we can come up with to explain what Grime is explaining is by asking the readers to picture these airborne scent molecules as soap bubbles that don’t burst. They are very light balls that can float and move with minimal air movement. They simply don’t burst, once produced they persist.

    The difference between our point of view and that of Not Textusa is that while we say that the body leaves a source that produces these molecules from the surface which is contaminated with the residue of cadaver compound left there by it; Not Textusa says that the only source for those molecules is the body so when it is removed the molecules that are there then will only be the only ones. Nothing else produces any more of them after the body is taken away.

    Let’s invent numbers to make the thing easy to understand. He states that if the body produced 1,000 of those molecules when it was present, when it is taken away, there will be 1,000 molecules on site. If one of those molecules exits the apartment, out a window or a door, then there will be 999 and so on.

    We say that when the body is taken away, we also say that those 1,000 molecules will be there but after it’s gone, the source, or Martin Grime’s physical article where the scent is emitting from, will continue to produce molecules.

    If no molecules leave, then the number of molecules on site will increase. The rhythm of production of molecules is proportional to the size of the physical article where the scent is emitting from. The more residue left the more molecules it produces.

    To understand the concept, let’s suppose the source produces 100 molecules an hour. If a molecule exits the apartment, then at that moment we will have 999 of them present but an hour later there will be 1,099 (999 + 100).

    The number of molecules per square inch is the density of molecules, which we will call concentration of molecules.

    If no molecules exit and there’s a source producing them, then with the passage of time the concentration is higher.

    We say that if there’s no ventilation the concentration of molecules in the room is higher, Not Textusa says that it stays the same.

    In a ventilated area Not Textusa says the concentration decreases steadily and inevitably towards zero while we say that no matter how ventilated the area is, there will be a production of 10 molecules an hour, using our invented number.

    If all the original 1,000 molecules fly out, Not Textusa says there will be none. We, on the other hand, say that if they do all fly away and the ventilation is stopped, then in 10 hours there will be 1,000 molecules there again.

    We repeat that we are inventing numbers. They are meaningless and only have the purpose to facilitate the understanding of concepts.

    The concentration of molecules is relevant.

    An EVRD nose will be triggered after a certain level of concentration of molecules is reached. Again, inventing a number, let’s say that it’s 100 molecules per square inch.

    In comparison, the human nose is only able to start to notice the smell when there’s a concentration of 10,000 times greater than what the dog can, so there would need to be a concentration of 100,000 of molecules per square inch.

    Below 100 molecule concentration, the dog does not signal. There’s not enough concentration. Like with the human nose that below the 100,000 value we have invented it doesn’t notice the scent.

    (Cont 6/12)

  32. (Cont 7/12)

    Above their respective levels of detecting molecule concentration, both the dog and the human do detect and react to it.

    The dog will act as trained, the human will feel disgusted with the foul smell.

    That means using the values we have invented, if a dog alerts it means that the source is producing constantly a number of molecules enough to cause concentration of 100 molecules per square inch where the dog’s nose is.

    In ventilated areas, the accumulation of molecules does not exist with the exception of very near the source. That’s why, in ventilated areas the signalling leaves no doubt as to the location of the source.

    In a non-ventilated and perfectly still airspace the further away one moves from the source the concentration of molecules diminishes.

    The required concentration level to trigger the dog’s nose will be further away from the source in a non-ventilated area than in a ventilated one.

    The more ventilated the area is the more precise is the indication of the location of the source by the dog.

    And this reasoning also explains why EVRD dogs signal ‘areas’ while the blood scent dog signals locations with precision. It has to do with the intensity of the smell in question. The cadaver compound emits a foul smell. The level of concentration needed to activate the dog’s nose is much lower than for the blood scent detecting dogs.

    They are both as precise, only in the case of the cadaver scent the distance from where the dog may start to react to the source is greater than the one needed for the blood dog.

    In a very ventilated area, such as outside, it’s quite evident what happens as there’s no concentration of molecules around the source. The concentration required to trigger the dog’s nose is close to the source.

    Inside the apartment the EVRD dog signalled in 2 locations: the living-room and the bedroom. They are very distinct in terms of ventilation.

    Let’s start by looking only at the bedroom and see how Grime’s words make perfect sense.

    There are 2 points of entry of ventilation in the parents’ bedroom, the door and the window.

    The window is usually closed and the area signalled by Eddie, the corner by the closet corner, is the in the furthest corner away from both the door and the window.

    When the window is closed and the bedroom door open, it’s easy to understand that any significant air movement in the apartment affects the air movement inside that room due to a ripple effect.

    When one opens the front door of the apartment, for example, there’s a circulation of air. If the masses of air in the corridor and living room are significant then inside the kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms could also affected by that movement. It may be little, very little but sufficient to make a floating molecule move.

    If opening the front door would make a molecule in the living room fly immediately out of a window, a molecule in the bedroom would just move an inch or two because of the ripple effect that opening of the door causes inside that bedroom.

    After all, that room is part of the flat and is affected by any “air movement in the flat”.

    (Cont 7/12)

  33. (Cont 8/12)

    Now, let’s imagine, for argument’s sake the body was placed on the floor at the opposite end of the closet to where the dog signalled, near the door, where, according to us, contaminating the surface with residue of cadaver compound, or as Martin Grime says, the physical article where the scent is emitting from.

    Let’s use again our invented value of a production of a 100 airborne molecules an hour.

    On a certain day, the room is totally ventilated, both window and door are opened when, for example, the apartment was cleaned.

    When the maid leaves and closes the window, the room has zero molecules. However, 2 hours later there are 200 molecules produced by the source and around it.

    At that time, someone opens the front door. The ripple effect we have spoken about pushes those 200 molecules towards the other corner of the closet, the one signalled by Eddie.

    At that moment, the molecule situation is that near or around the source there are zero molecules and in the closet corner 200 of them.

    The air remains still for another 2 hours. 200 hundred molecules are produced and released around the source, and the other 200 floating in the closet corner.

    Someone opens the apartment door again and what happens? In the closet corner there are 400 molecules (200 that were there, 200 that were pushed there at that moment), above the source there are none.

    We are speaking about minimal air movements. Just enough to make these light molecules move. Small air drafts that every room has. And it could be the case that when the door closed, the draft caused by the movement passing beneath the door would continuously push the molecules towards the corner. In such a situation, we repeat in a NON-VENTILATED room, in the situation described the air flow would occur every time someone enters or exits the apartment, the airborne molecules are pushed into the corner accumulating there.

    What matters is to understand that the ripple effect pushes molecules away from the source, making them accumulate at a distance away from the source. Has the source stopped emitting molecules? No.

    But after a certain number of repeats of this process (note, it could be the opening of a door or the fact a window was left ajar just slightly to refresh the apartment that could cause the same effect in the bedroom) what would happen is that there would be a higher concentration in the corner than around the source that is emitting them.

    The reader can now easily see how, that the location of Martin Grime’s physical article where the scent is emitting from may be different from the location the dog signals in NON-VENTILATED rooms.

    That’s why, reading the paragraph as it should be read, Martin Grime is, as the subject matter expert that he is, alerting to that possibility of the source being away from the location signalled eventually happening that room.

    And Grime ONLY alerts for the bedroom. He doesn’t alert to the living-room or outside.

    That’s why he speaks only of “that cupboard” and makes no mention of “that couch” (if such a possibility could occur in the living-room) or “that flowerbed” (if such a possibility could occur in the garden) because in these 2 other locations, due to the evident ventilation that both have, the location of the source coincides with that of the signalling.

    If that was not the case, Martin Grime would have mentioned it. He doesn’t. Saying that he has overlooked to mention it is, again, to call him incompetent, like Not Textusa has already done by suggesting that he forgot to ask for the alert in the backyard to be corroborated.

    (Cont 8/12)

  34. (Cont 9/12)

    Martin Grime, when he saw that Eddie was signalling the corner of a room in which the only normal entrance of air would be the door, decided, correctly, to alert to the possibility, however remote, that the corner COULD not represent the location of the emission but that it could be nearby, for example, below the bed as the body may have been put there away from sight. Or the bed headboard, or the bed cabinet as the body may have touched one or both of them and so one or both could be contaminated.

    But the bedroom is not exactly a pantry that gets opened only every once in a while. People walk in and out, the door is opened and closed frequently, people walk around in it, and the window is opened to refresh the air. So, although not as ventilated as the living-room it’s not a location where the air stands still.

    So even though Martin Grime does alert that the source may be away from the location in that room, logic dictates that the emitting source is very near that corner.

    Explained what Martin Grime meant, let’s now, finally, deal with Not Textusa and his wafting molecules.

    To do that, one must forget all that we have said above and let’s for argument’s sake say that Not Textusa is right: there is no source, there’s no Martin Grime’s physical article where the scent is emitting from. The body when it was in the apartment was it.

    All that there is is the number of molecules that the body produced before being taken off the premises. Let’s give it a number: 1,000,000.

    According to Not Textusa, we don’t know where the body was in the apartment, all we know is that these molecules floated into 2 locations, signalled by the dogs by the ONLY reliability they have which is to pick up scents: the living-room and the bedroom.

    Let’s divide the Not Textusa’s molecules in half: 500,000 for the living-room and 500,000 for the bedroom. Wait, we can’t. We have to account for all those molecules that were wafting around the apartment that clung to Kate and have to account for the secondary contamination on her clothing and the tertiary contamination in the Scenic.

    So, let’s benefit Not Textusa and set aside 100,000 of his airborne molecules for that. We will come back to them because they are also important to take into account and they are what shows, even more, how absurd is Not Textusa’s thesis is.

    So, now we have 450,000 (1,000,000 (total) – 100,000 (to go on Kate’s clothes – 450,000 (in the bedroom) molecules floating behind the couch in the living-room.

    We are in the summer, “hot climate” says Grime, so how often does the reader think the windows and doors of that apartment were opened to refresh the house at the end of when it was rented, after the McCanns left?

    We would say often. Very often. We don’t see any pictures of any A/C so the only way to refresh the apartment in the Summer would be to open the windows and sliding doors as often as possible. Even the front door to get some ventilation.

    And we would say that with every single opening, the vast majority of the molecules would fly out to never return.

    Eventually, only a few would cling to the curtains or the couches (note the plural, not a single couch) but their number would make their concentration insignificant to be detected.

    If as Not Textusa says that those that clung to the curtains/couches would be sufficient, then why didn’t other molecules cling to the other couches and curtains in the living room because if the location signalled by Eddie does NOT represent the location of where the body lay, his wafting molecules would have to have passed by these other surfaces and so have clung there. Just like they did with Kate’s clothes. But they don’t, why?

    (Cont 9/12)

  35. (Cont 10/12)

    And in the bedroom why not to the curtains and the bedcover? The curtains are at a distance from the corner signalled by Eddie that would certainly get a separate signal from the dog. As far as we know, he’s not limited by one signalling per division of the house.

    But, let’s get back to the opening of the doors and windows. Every single time that happened a significant number of non-replenishable molecules flew out. And that’s why we say that Not Textusa is a defender of the wafting molecules from the outside molecules.

    For the dog to have enough concentration to signal in the living-room after so many opening and closing of doors and windows, it can only mean that the molecules that exited… returned.

    Molecules coming in and out of the apartment, just like any normal guest. They went out and came back in and then out again and so on.

    Who knows if they went to the pool to refresh themselves before coming back? Or maybe a Tapas dinner? Or, who knows, participate in a Quiz Night at Tapas? That would explain how there would be minimum quorum required for such an entertaining event that the Tapas booking sheets certainly don’t reflect!

    That done, the molecules would return to the apartment and gather there and head behind the couch to rest.

    There is, if one is a Not Textusa believer, no other explanation for them to have been there with enough concentration to be signalled by Eddie when they were.

    We won’t even go into the blood wafting molecules. Because, as every house-hold has a blood related happening, if Not Textusa’s theory had a scrap of truth, Keela would go crazy the moment she entered any apartment, not only 5A. And in 5A she would have signalled every single division, in particular the kitchen and bathroom. Yet, she only signals exactly where Eddie had signalled. What a coincidence.

    Keela alone contradicts Not Textusa’s theory that there is no Martin Grime’s physical article where the scent is emitting from.

    By the way, have we noted the verb tense Martin Grime uses: IS EMITTING FROM and not did emit from as would be the case if the body was the sole source of emission.

    The only question that is left answered in Not Textusa’s theory is whether the wafting cadaver scent molecules went out on dates with the blood ones or if there was a strict no mingling policy between these “species”.

    Oh, what if the blood wafting scent molecules were treated as a minority by the other airborne scent molecules and banned from entering any other division of the apartment. In fact, it appears they were contained to that corner of the living-room and the cadaver scent molecules that Eddie signalled were indeed those assigned to secure that the blood ones did not leave that “camp”.

    And yet, people continue to defend Not Textusa as a dog-defender.

    But let’s suppose that the all of the above is NOT absurdly ridiculous and beyond belief. Because Not Textusa really wants people to believe that it isn’t. Because it’s the only way he can explain the signalling of the clothes and the Scenic.

    Remember the 100,000 molecules we set aside to cling to Kate to account for the secondary contamination in her pants and the Scenic?

    They tell us something that Not Textusa has said (no, not the exact wording so please don’t ask for a quote) but what he hasn’t realised he has said and that is the body may not have been in the apartment. Plus, the scent could not even have been from Maddie but from some local poor soul who passed away.

    (Cont 10/12)

  36. (Cont 11/12)

    Well, if those molecules were wafting about and Kate walked into them and they clung to her with such fierceness and that they are able to so easily contaminate the Scenic in a tertiary contamination, then who is to say that the contamination Kate underwent in apartment 5A was a primary one?

    If, and please do make the effort to keep within the boundaries Not Textusa’s absurd reasoning, these pesky molecules cling to all and can be picked up SO EASILY by EVRD dogs, then who is to guarantee that someone who was inside the apartment before the McCanns had not attended a funeral, for example one of the cleaners with family and friends nearby, and s/he was the one who brought the cadaver scent molecules with him or her and contaminated the apartment?

    That would explain the airborne cadaver scent molecules in the apartment, in the Scenic and in all other McCann related items, wouldn’t it?

    As the body, which Not Textusa states without doubt and with absolute scientific certainty is the only emitting source of cadaver scent airborne molecules, every single person who has ever attended a wake with an open casket, has left the funeral with their clothes completely covered with these molecules.

    So, we strongly recommend to all those who have ever attended such an event, to go to your wardrobes and destroy the clothes you wore. Because if a crime happens nearby you and the police bring in EVRD dogs, you will be in a hot spot!

    Those Not Textusa are REALLY some wafting about molecules! Now, Not Textusa, do explain how that is not ridiculous according to what you defend.

    The fact that these Not Textusa molecules only decided to uncling at the 5A apartment and the Scenic and in no other apartment is something that can be disregarded as we are just being picky.

    Likewise, we wondered what they were doing in the backyard (of only 5A). Oh, wait, that has been explained by the medieval graveyard, hasn’t it?

    EVERY SINGLE PERSON who says that Not Textusa is an anti and a dog defender, MUST also say that this person is equally an anti and a dog-defender:

    Replying to @zodiaczephyr and @LoveTextusa
    I see you're in barnacle mode again, Zane. Since I believe strongly that Madeleine is alive, the dog alerts are of little interest to me apart from the alert in the bedroom to an odour in the air. I have no interest in the other cases you quote. #mccann
    4:08 PM · Jun 9, 2018”

    Those who say one is and the other is not are hypocrites, or to be very clear, shameless people pursuing an agenda.

    (Cont 11/12)

  37. (Cont 12/12)

    Finally, let us make it very clear what is our position on Eddie and Keela. To distil it to its simplest form, we believe:

    - The dogs were well-trained, as described by Martin Grime;

    - They were not tired or overheated when searching;

    - They were not cued by Martin Grime, either consciously or unconsciously;

    - They worked in tandem and accurately identified sites of blood and cadaver odour in only McCann related spaces and items;

    - There was physical contact with Maddie’s body at the sites indicated by Eddie;

    - Eddie was not confused by food products or because he confused pig cadaver odour with human:

    - Nobody planted a false scent in order to incriminate the McCanns;

    - Martin Grime was working for South Yorkshire police in the months he was working in Praia da Luz and that he subsequently worked with the FBI before returning to the U.K;

    - We believe the dogs’ indications provide evidence that M died in apartment 5A, although this is not evidence that is accepted in a court of law without forensic corroboration;

    - To date, no forensic corroboration has been obtained which would be sufficient for prosecution of the McCanns;

    - It may be possible, however, that further tests and advances in science could change this situation.

    1. Not Textusa,

      You have stated VERY CLEARLY that you are a scientist. From your blog (our caps):

      - Friday, 5 June 2015:

      “[quoting our blog] ERVD dogs react to smell but what that reaction says is that in the area that is being marked there is a source. Somewhere near is the substance, more or less volatile, that is releasing, or emitting the airborne molecules. [end of quote]

      No, that is completely and utterly false information. Haven't you done ANY research, woman? Haven't you even read Martin Grime's reports?
      I can understand that some non-scientists [clearly implying that he is a SCIENTIST] struggle with the concept that molecules can be present in a gaseous state and that they can remain there for a long time and that a dog can alert to their presence even when there are no liquid or solid remains present, but that is no excuse for being ill informed yet blogging as if you knew what you were talking about, complete with utterly false and misleading information.


      [quoting our blog] Meanwhile, we are patiently still waiting for a fully developed theory from him. [end of quote]
      Why? Just because you seem to be unable to exist without a retarded theory to hang your hat on, that doesn't mean everyone is like you. I'M A SCIENTIST. There is insufficient data for me to formulate an hypothesis and if I had one I certainly wouldn't be sharing it with you and your vegetative assortment of fans”

      - Tuesday, 16 June 2015:

      “[quoting our blog] A conclusion based on an invented premise that doesn’t exist is hardly a scientific one and he does claim to be a scientist. [end of quote]

      I am a scientist. You are attempting to argue about a paper you haven't read, with A SCIENTIST WHO HAS READ IT. Good luck with that.”

      - Monday, 29 January 2018:

      “[quoting our blog] We have one other question for Insane, the self-proclaimed scientist. [end of quote]
      I am not a ''self-proclaimed'' SCIENTIST. Unlike Textusa, I HAVE ACTUAL QUALIFICATIONS.”

      - Wednesday, 30 May 2018:

      “[quoting our blog] So, factually, for Blacksmith to have such a high opinion on this individual’s opinion on genetics can only come from him having read not only us but us AND Not Textusa. [end of quote]

      What in the name of sanity are you on about? It's probably a good time to mention that I DID ACTUALLY STUDY GENETICS AT UNIVERSITY AND HAVE EXTRACTED MORE DNA than you have had hot ketamine.”


      Could you please tell us all exactly what are your qualifications as a scientist, without identifying details included?

      Thank you.

    2. Unpublished Anne Guedes,

      We are not publishing your comment because, even though we have previously explained his importance in the case, you don't seem to agree with us, which you are entitled to.

      For us, this far from being personal and if you would have noticed like we have the humongous effort that is being made to rebrand Not Textusa, you would also see that as well.

    3. Unpublished Anne Guedes,

      Thank you for understanding.

      You comment about the VOCs was published at 2 Jun 2018, 19:35:00.

    4. No, Textusa, the article I refer to at 19:35 doesn't describe the phenomenons of adsorption and desorption that are fundamental to understand why Eddie reacted in the 5A and also why the opposition "marca de odor" vs "odor" isn't pertinent.

    5. Anne Guedes,

      So there's no question as to what you mean, can you resubmit again?

      Thank you

  38. Textusa 9 Jun 2018, 20:03:00

    I hope that there are samples left which could be tested in the future.

    But it worried me that the FSS sent a notification letter to inform of their policy for certain remaining biological samples to be destroyed for safety reasons (e.g. blood, saliva, hair).

    09- Processo 09 IX Page 2282 also Outros Apensos VolI Page 97

    This was not the policy for pathology samples where I worked in the 1990s ... it was considered that such samples, blood, bodily fluids/excretions, including those of suspected infectious disease, were of no risk when handled correctly. Even allowing for changes in legislation regarding privacy and/or health and safety it would seem foolhardy at best to destroy remaining samples in unsolved/ongoing police investigations. Is this really what happens these days?


  39. Wow. That's a lot over-explaining for a simple fact. (Although I understand this has been a heated and prolonged discussion.) Cadaver dogs very rarely alert to false positives. This is widely accepted. Since here the dogs alerted multiple times and in multiple articles of clothing all arguments become mute. There was a cadaver inside this apartment.

    Was this important? Well yes it was. In any other case where someone claimed of a person close to him gone missing through no fault of his own and the dogs coming in alerted of a cadaver, he'll be in trouble. In this case, it 'ruined' the McCanns defense/image so much as to introduce absurd claims to justify it.
    Nobody claims one should be convicted on that alone without forensic evidence. No one sane. Why was there not any? The easy answer is that someone cleaned the place up in the time between the death and the dogs coming in. Ah, they also removed the body. Is this normal? has it happened before? Well, of course it has. There numerous examples of people hiding bodies and attempting to fool the police. Sometimes they succeed, others they don't. People escape the law all the time. In all these cases the dogs were right and the lies were told by the people.

    Was it Madeleine? Until someone explains who else could it have been logically, we must assume it was. Can we convict them? No we can't and they know it. At least Gery does. You can see it in his face and saying smth different are just fooling themselves. Prove it? Where's the body? That's not a parent speaking. He's (very) smart, he did a good job hiding the body. One must respect that. Somewhere close, somewhere near, somewhere plain and overlooked.

    That's not the dogs fault though.

    1. Anonymous 9 Jun 2018, 23:23:00,

      The over-explaining has to happen. Unfortunately, Not Textusa is being sold as the new messiah of the case and even though it's evident that he's on the case not to obfuscate the truth but to do all he can (mandated by his higher echelon) to stop it from being outed.

      It's evident that he keeps dissing the dogs all the while saying he doesn't. It's evident that he's a pro (a high ranking one) all the while saying he isn't.

      Problem is that there are people out there making a real effort convincing others that he is a dog promoter and that he is an anti.

      We disagree with you on one thing: it wasn't Gerry who hid the body.

      THAT is the problem the other side has: explain who and why helped the McCanns hide the body. Someone has to take the fall and no wants to take that blame alone.

      Cadaver dogs do not alert false. Those registered were under experimental conditions and very adverse conditions. That experiment can be considered as training ones and which we believe brought about the working of the dogs in tandem so as to avoid any and all minimal possibilities of a false positive.

      The Portuguese courts have recognised that the dogs detected a dead body in that apartment. The missing link of proof was the forensics to determine (up to now) that the body belonged to the Maddie.

      So, specifically in terms of the Maddie case, the courts have stated clearly that there was no false positives on the part of the dogs. They have accepted their contribution as proven evidence.

    2. "it wasn't Gerry who hid the body".
      You think the body is somewhere but hidden ?
      You think that a father is able to have it done by proxy ?

    3. ''The Portuguese courts have recognised that the dogs detected a dead body in that apartment. The missing link of proof was the forensics to determine (up to now) that the body belonged to the Maddie.

      So, specifically in terms of the Maddie case, the courts have stated clearly that there was no false positives on the part of the dogs. They have accepted their contribution as proven evidence.''

      Where have they stated this?

    4. Anne Guedes,

      Anonymous 9 Jun 2018, 23:23:00 says “…he did a good job hiding the body. One must respect that. Somewhere close, somewhere near, somewhere plain and overlooked.”

      This clearly implies that Gerry disposed of the body alone.

      We disagree with him. If a body was kept and preserved somewhere before removal in the car, one assumes outside help of some kind was absolutely needed, given that the McCanns didn’t own a property there and no trace of Maddie was found in the apartments of their group.

      As we stated in our reply to Anonymous 9 Jun 2018, 23:23:00’s comment: “THAT [the fact that Gerry did have to have help to have disposed of the body] is the problem the other side has: explain who and why helped the McCanns hide the body. Someone has to take the fall and no wants to take that blame alone.”

    5. Anonymous 10 Jun 2018, 01:47:00,

      From the Appeal Court’s Acórdão:

      “2. The following factual matter was considered as proved in first Instance (court):


      6. The British Police Dogs “Eddies” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaverine in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club

      7. The British Police Dogs “Eddies” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaverine in a vehicle rented by the Applicants after the disappearance of MBM.”


      So, in terms of prosecution in Portugal, the question about possible false positives has no place.

      The Portuguese justice system consider as a PROVEN FACTS that they were no false positives.

    6. Ah, I see where you have gone wrong.

      No, that just confirms the alerts. The source wasn't confirmed, so it's not possible to say if they were false positives or not

      We'll make allowances for your lack of understanding

    7. Oh, incidentally, you know the translation is also wrong? Yeah, you knew that.

      What the court actually said is that the dogs ''marked the odour of human blood or corpse'' which indeed they did.

    8. Seems to me you glory in a kind of cruelty when you play with the facts of a child dying. You then try to muddy the waters by insulting those who want to understand what the truth is. "Marked the odour of human blood or corpse" -- what do you think that could possibly mean? Could it 'possibly' mean that a child died in the apartment, as alerted by the dogs? Or would you rather play with semantics.

    9. Anonymous 11:34:00, 11:55:00,

      You are absolutely right, it appears they were mistranslated. It appears that they don’t speak of cadaverine.

      In Portuguese:

      2. Em 1ª instância, foi dada como provada a seguinte mat+eria factual:
      6. Os cães da policia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marca de odores de sangue humano e de cadáver no apartamento 5-A do Ocean Club (al AR).
      7. Os cães da policia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marcas de odores de sangue humano e de cadáver num veículo automóvel alugado pelos AA. Kate MacCann e Gerald MacCann após o desaparecimento de Madeleine (al AS).

      In English:

      2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
      6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
      7. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the automotive vehicle reanted by the AA. Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann after the disappearance of Madeleine (al. AR).

      No cadaverine but cadaver.

      Having in team a native speaker, let us tell you that if the source hadn’t been confirmed the expression the court would have used would have been “detectaram um odor de” (detected an odour of) and not used the term “marcas” (marks) which clearly indicate that the dogs signalled a source.

      Hope your next argument is that this Acórdão has nothing to do with the McCanns because their names were misspelled.

    10. I note that NT doesn’t take authorship of those critical comments.
      Too close to dissing the dogs for him?

    11. In French translation of the TRL Accordão for my blog I considered "marca de odores" as a clumsy phrasing, perhaps influenced by the use of "marking" for a dog who alerts. I translated "odour of cadaver".

  40. Simple as that. Those who propose otherwise are simply part of, or supporters of, the absurd agenda driven narrative designed to preserve reputations.

  41. I'm the 9 Jun 2018, 23:23:00 anonymous, 2323 to make it more easy to follow as many have answered since my original reply.

    As far as the questions, I prefer to stick with what I know for certain. Keep it logical as much as it is possible. Everyone has his own opinion and I'm not part of any small or larger group neither pro nor anti. I simply don't have the time and never worked well in a group.

    I just follow the case from time to time after my initial involvement (I was working in Portugal during that summer). I have my own personal opinion as to what happened but I respect everyone's opinions. Some things we simply don't know. Anything is possible. My answer dealt with the dogs and their reliability mainly. Also the strong indication that Maddy is likely dead.

    Now whether Gerry had help to dump the body I wouldn't know for sure. What they found in the car is difficult to put in a cohesive narrative. The forensics returned inconclusive and the risk of contamination after so long was increased. A car is even more un-secure than a house. One must have the means ofc (the car) but also the opportunity to re-dump/dispose of a body. Those days it was very crowded, extra difficult to do it all over again. Also it's not very logical I believe, for a nervous criminal/guilty party to behave this way. It is a huge risk, isn't it? Especially if you've succeeded escaping the original storm. You could hide a body in a overgrowth nearby or a dry well and no one will find it for many years for example. The small body will be reduced to nothing in months, if left to the elements.

    The house and the fridge (I believe this is Mr Amaral's opinion originally) are an intriguing option but not easily proved. Of course if there was a house involved then outside help was needed. Is it impossible? No it isn't. Someone could have helped Gery do the deed. I personally don't believe it but I respect anyone having a different opinion. Solving this case is above my inflated ego :)

    The burden is on the opposition to prove their theory coherently and with evidence. For now, Gery (and his potential accomplice/s if there is one) are free because the evidence is not there. There is strong indication of guilt but more is needed. I wish it was different. For what is worth I always thought they were guilty at the very least of cadaver concealment and criminal neglect, but I wouldn't put it past this couple to be even more hideously involved.

    I just never trusted them. Come to think of it, no one really did.

    1. Hi anon 13.32.
      Just over a week ago a series was reproduced for BBC,"A Very English Scandal",now if the "State" can manipulate an "Old Bailey Trail",where an MP was up on charges of Hiring a Gunman to Kill his Former Lover,where all Four defendants,chose Not to give evidence, left the Court Room as Not Guitly, in 1979!

      In 2016, an MP Jo Cox was murdered in Batley,Yorkshire,the assailent,Thomas Mair was committed to Crown Court on charges to Murder,Kill a person,as named above. Mr Mair,spoke to only confirm his Name,Address,etc.
      Mr Mair was found guilty by the same Court Processes as used in the 1979 Trail,but in Mr Mairs case, he was found Guilty as charged, for an all time "Life tariff"?

      Was there a possibility for their to have been Two Miscarriages of Justice in these Two cases,as there is serious doubt being cast on Mr Mairs conviction to have carried out the Murder,according to Richard D Halls documentary,where he has discovered annmolies to timings of the escape of the guilty person and the"Main Witness" following the Killer on Foot,Forty minutes to travel from crime scene to where he was arrested,spending time in a "Cul De Sac" 20 minutes?

      As for the "FSS UK Police destroying DNA/LCI", the UK Police Senior Commander from Wales,ha telephone conversations with the Father of missing Madeleine McCann,via call me Stu Prior,disclosing information via telephone to Portugal Police,the results were different from the "Original claim 1005 match"?

      Can the state "Cover Up",ask the Birmingham Six!

  42. Now, Not Textusa has turned against the Smiths.

    After saying he defends the dogs but shows how he thinks they are basically useless, Not Textusa, the new acclaimed Chosen One, has now decided to do the same with the Smiths.

    He questions what the Smiths have said to the PJ but first says this “I am going to state at this point that I believe the Smith party to be entirely sincere”

    And then says “However, without a fixed reference point, any time estimate is just that - an estimate.”

    Isn’t it uncanny similar to his I truly believe the dogs are totally reliable BUT… ? It is.

    Like with the dogs, he starts by saying that he believes entirely in the Smiths’ sincerity BUT…

    And how does he attack them?

    By writing this:

    “So the question is this:
    Did the Smiths really leave [Kelly’s bar] at 21.55?”

    His reasoning is simple. If the Dolphin’s bill was paid at 21.27 and the Kelly’s bar was at 21.39, then “unless they absolutely threw their drinks down, it is unlikely that they had moved on by 21.55, which is only 15 minutes later”.

    Not knowing who drank what, who didn’t drink, when were the drinks served in relation with being paid he then states:

    “My guess is that the real figure is probably somewhat later and that it is very unlikely that they left Kelly's prior to 22.15, possibly as late as 22.30”

    Note, “22.15, possibly as late as 22.30” is written in bold.

    Then the guess becomes perfectly a safe hypothesis to make:

    “However, considering that the point where they crossed paths with the ''Man carrying child'' was about five minutes after leaving Kelly's I think it is safe to hypothesize that this was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35”

    Note again, “22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35” is written in bold.

    And concludes with this:

    “I should also say that if the bill for the drinks was settled on departure, then the only realistic options are the ones at 22.47 or 22.53, which would raise the prospect that their timeline is out by a whole hour.”

    For someone who has just yesterday said about the dogs that “what I will not do is support or endorse someone making claims which are not supported by the evidence”, Not Textusa sure does a lot of guessing and comes to ‘safe hypothesis’ very easily when it comes to the Smiths.

    Basically, pushing the Smithman encounter as far as forward so as to solidify Gerry’s alibi.

    Even puts Gerry talking with the GNR at the time he says the Smithman may have happened “at 22.47 or 22.53”.

    But hey, don’t forget, he believes TOTALLY that the Smiths are sincere.

    Only what they say is, like with the dogs, useless because they could have all come up with inaccurate times.

    After all, who in their right mind knowing they were travelling the next day, wanting to get back to the apartment the next day, knowing that one of their party would walk slowly uphill as she was pregnant, wouldn’t mistake 22.00 for 23.00? And wouldn’t mind lounging about in bar without being aware of the time?

    It’s really the case for one to ask: you’re STILL falling for the Not Textusa scam?

    1. NT is a fifth columnist on a mission.

      Dont be taken in good people.

    2. So he believes the dogs are right but the proof is not forensically there..he states that madeleine died as a direct result of sedation and the mc canns concealed the body. And he opens up the smiths timeline as that doubt exist. Don't believe that makes him a pro at all. He is rightly pointing out what a defense in court would put forward. He has already statrd,at worst,the mc canns concealed the body aided by their friends. Be honest. For once.

  43. Aoife S, who doesn't only notice buttons on pants, says "around 10" for leaving Kelly's (and was right about "around 9:30" for leaving the restaurant according to the bill).
    MS doesn't give an hour for leaving Kelly's and was wrong about the hour they left the restaurant.
    PS also was wrong about the hour of leaving the restaurant, but at least said they left Kelly's between 21:50 and 22.
    Therefore I don't see any relevance in dreaming up the meeting hour of Smithman and the 3 groups of the S family .

  44. Being kind here. Sadly some have lost all credibility by backing NT.Their reasons, only they can answer. I would like to highlight and thank the Textusa team for not only publishing comments which clearly are at odds with your research but for the boring repetition you experience in ensuring you to show those who wish to see black as white that black is indeed black. I commented last night on " Justice for Madeleine" in response to Ben Thompson promoting MY blog.Only one word which was " shame". Mr Thompson replied by telling me to shut up and then proceeded to delete my comment after I asked if freedom of opinion and speech was no longer tolerated on Justice? Suffice to say he has fully clarified his obvious limitations....same word applies " Shame "

    1. I find Not Textusa rather coarse. He swears a lot and seems low class.
      Is it part of the plan?
      In the same way the Sun and similar tabloids present the establishment view but appear on the surface to be for the working man?

  45. Absolutely spot on!
    DaveHall‏ @DaveHallCoLtd
    Replying to @real_zm_ @CarlaSpade
    So, Zeitgeist fans, let me get this straight: Eddie, trained to detect cadaverine, hits on 5A, Kate & McHire car. Bin it. Op Grange is legit. Honest. Not feckin' us about one jot. Embrace it. All Smiths can't tell the time. Bin 'em. And apparently that's from anti #mccann s!!
    11:04 PM - 10 Jun 2018

    1. It's not a good idea to say that Eddie was trained to detect cadaverine, because he wasn't precisely, as Martin Grime pointed out.

  46. John Blacksmith, having his own blog, continues to prefer to use Not Textusa’s blog as a platform to “communicate” with us.

    We are still waiting for the list of our lies that we have challenged him to provide (we also wait the same from Sade Anslow as per similar challenge).

    This was what John Blackmith had to say about our comment about Not Textusa’s wafting cadaver scent molecules:

    “john blacksmith10 June 2018 at 12:14

    Whereas I am all for NT helping people, including me, understand the science and the processes involved I cannot understand why people wish to go on debating the dogs in regard to determining who the criminals involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are. I find it especially pointless that it is also used as a kind of touchstone of where one stands in the peculiar tribalism that accompanies McCann debate.

    After eleven years and 742,000 words - and that was just yesterday's post - T. has stated that the dogs evidence as it stands cannot be used in a prosecution. It will not be admissible.

    She still cannot bring herself to understand what evidence or proof is, by adding that, "We believe the dogs’ indications provide evidence that M died in apartment 5A, although this is not evidence that is accepted in a court of law without forensic corroboration."

    Which misses the entire point: the evidence will not be admissible precisely because it cannot DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF THE PROPOSITION that "M died in apartment 5A." Some people still will not appreciate what Menezes meant when he said "show it to us". To simplify it as much as I can, and allowing for the fact that any discussion of truth can eventually run into the quicksands if people wish it to,an old fashioned fingerprint is the evidence that can be shown to a jury in support of the proposition that John Smith was the burglar.

    But a smudged print that has only a certain (below threshold) probability of being a match to John Smith does not DEMONSTRATE any truth about Mr Smith. As a result it has no status except to back the beliefs, or opinions, of each side.

    And Textusa has given a perfect example above of this uselessness: she's using it to back her opinion that dog evidence means that M. died in the apartment, while from exactly the same evidence, other posters argue that it doesn't: so nothing is decided. But such a standoff is what trials are designed to exclude, isn't it?

    The fingerprint, on the other hand, and with all the usual provisos,will be accepted by both prosecution and defence in the trial of John Smith, something the judge will point out in the summing up and which any jury foreman will remind people of if necessary.

    Admitted or non-admitted in court, it's all the same, except that non-admission cuts out the time that would be wasted by arguing these significance issues in court; either way, the dog evidence is not strong enough to determine either guilt or innocence.

    That's not much use to us, is it?”

    1. John Blacksmith,

      We have never said that the dogs’ alerts served by themselves as court admissible evidence. Please show where we have said otherwise.

      What we have said, and which Not Textusa contradicts and you by association do as well, is that their alerts by themselves are court admissible evidence that A (not THE) dead body was in the LOCATIONS they signalled.

      The acórdão we have transcribed proves they are.

      What the court has also said is that these alerts were not confirmed to be, until that day, to be of a dead Maddie: “the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory”.

      It’s a FACT that a dead body was in that apartment, in the living-room, bedroom corner near closet and outside in the backyard.

      The court saying that there hasn’t been presented enough evidence to corroborate that those PROVEN alerts referred to Maddie doesn’t dismiss the relevance of the FACT that a dead body had been there. In those locations.

      It not Maddie, then who was it? THAT needs to be answered.

      Not sure if you do, but we certainly find it very strange that not a single diligence has been made to determine who was the dead person who lay in the living-room, closet bedroom and backyard.

      In practical terms the authorities have come to the conclusion that a dead body was in apartment 5A but it seems not to matter to determine who it was.

      Not sure if you do, but we certainly find it very strange that the FSS comes to the conclusion that no McCann is related to a swab 3A that was taken from a location PROVED by the dogs’ alert that a cadaver had been there, although that reports states that:

      “An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann”

      It eithers belongs to Maddie or to her parents and yet the FSS concludes that: “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

      A swab which the interim report from that same laboratory said (our caps): “An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, ALL OF THE CONFIRMED DNA COMPONENTS WITHIN THIS RESULT MATCH THE CORRESPONDING COMPONENTS IN THE DNA PROFILE OF MADELINE MCCANN. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

      A swab taken from the location PROVEN to be that of where a dead body once had been and in the apartment from where Maddie had disappeared.

      In the same way we didn’t think it was correct for the 1st Instance Court to have sentenced Mr Amaral to pay the McCanns 500,000 euros, we also don’t think it was correct for the FSS final report to have been given any legal consideration, much less value.

      Please do not confuse us not thinking to be correct with us not considering the decision to give it legal value to be illegal or illegitimate. It was both legal and legitimate but as time has proven that we were right in not thinking correct the 1st Instance Court sentence, we live in the hope that one day the FSS report will be given the legal consideration and value that we consider it deserves.


    2. (Cont)

      We refer you to the acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice court, that the fact that the McCanns had the arguido state lifted didn’t mean at all that they were cleared but only that it hadn’t been possible UNTIL THEN to prove them guilty.

      As we said, we have never said the dogs’ alerts, without forensic corroboration, could be used as evidence. What we are highlighting is the insidious nature of the attacks on the alerts, because, most importantly, this is actually an attack on the relevance of the forensic tests on the areas and items alerted to.

      No amount of psychological analyses of the personalities and body language of the McCanns, opinion polls or highlighting the contradictions in their statements would constitute sufficient evidence to prosecute (if they were to be prosecuted, however, their statements would indeed be relevant and significant).

      In our opinion, based on some knowledge of procedures in both countries, it will be forensic evidence which will be the deciding factor in bringing about a prosecution or not.

      That evidence will, in turn, only be used when and if the political will exists.

      So when your friend Not Textusa says there was no blood, as we showed he did, he’s calling into question the relevance of the alerts to blood. And the same for cadaver odour.

      We believe such evidence may be available.

      If the case never reaches a court, according to Not Textusa analysis, the dogs’ alerts could never be quoted as evidence the McCanns were involved, as blood was never found ( although very recently. he seems to have changed tack) and cadaver odour found its way to the spots indicated, from a source other than Maddie’s body.

      Combine this strategy of disassociating the McCanns from the dogs’ findings with calls for OG to be ended from various sources, orchestrated and encouraged by the press, the McCanns could exit from the scene, with nothing more than a cloud of suspicion, attributed to the haters, if this strategy is successful.

      We will speak about Not Textusa’s reply to this comment of yours in his blog on a later date, as it’s very interesting by itself.

    3. Hi Textusa,DNA/LCI samples-pjcvreis.
      According to DNA/LCI samples sent to FSS Brimingham, 15;19 aliies as belonging to Madeleine McCann.
      Then the DNA/LCI contaminated by Birmingham FSS,Tavres da lAlmeida report!

      Birmingham FSS give 21 days notice to Portugal PJ,do they want samples returned or they will be destroyed on Health Grounds!

      So the second analysis by Birmingham FSS contaminated the samples after first showing 79% match to Madeleine McCann?

      Then Contamination occurs by Birmingham FSS,Second sample?

      Then,do you want the "Now Contaminated" samples returned back to you,you have 21 days to reply,then samples destroyed forever on Health Grounds,phew,lets hope they do not have a second set of DNA/LCI,held by Portugal PJ!?

      Call me SuperIntendant Stu Prior of Leicestershire Police Force,IPCC nest point of call,along with a very Senior Wales Police Commander contacting an Arquido, Mr McCann (Phone records)outside the process,but of course No Collusion!

  47. [quote]Which misses the entire point: the evidence will not be admissible precisely because it cannot DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF THE PROPOSITION that "M died in apartment 5A." Some people still will not appreciate what Menezes meant when he said "show it to us". To simplify it as much as I can, and allowing for the fact that any discussion of truth can eventually run into the quicksands if people wish it to,an old fashioned fingerprint is the evidence that can be shown to a jury in support of the proposition that John Smith was the burglar.[/quote]

    Interesting. Here is what the prosecution presented, albeit Scottish court , in the David Gilroy trial:

    [quote]On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra[/quote]

    In fact the whole prosecution of this case was "expert" opinion and maybe's. No physical evidence at all.

    For the record David Gilroy no doubt is all kinds of guilty. It is different from a fair/correct trial, though IMO. For the greater good?

  48. @ 11 June 10.40

    I know what you mean.

    Everytime I hear NT's name mentioned or see one of his posts I think of Steptoe.

    Which one you might ask?

    That's for you to decide lol.

  49. Amazing - 2 scientists batting for the Mc side. Not Textusa and Cerb!
    Replying to @JBLittlemore @TheBunnyReturns and 2 others
    It's because I am a scientist I question your assertions about what Eddie would and would not alert to. If you concealed a severed human head, would Eddie be able to detect the decomposition odour? Or the odour of decomposing offal? #mccann
    12:19 PM · May 24, 2018
    J B Littlemore@JBLittlemore
    Replying to @Cerb32 @TheBunnyReturns and 2 others
    If you're a scientist you can answer that yourself. It isn't offal that causes the odour but a string of chemical reactions & progressions originating in the gut enzymes. Desperation to discredit canines in #Mccann case reveals any other arguments of non involvement are weak?
    12:25 PM · May 24, 2018


    Maybe Not Textusa can help Cerb out.

    Still waiting for Not Textusa’s qualifications.

    1. Seems as if a lot of NT supporters have suddenly become scientists...?

    Replying to @JBLittlemore @K9Truth and @2for1Tickets
    Don't the pros say no cadaver was found? So surely the same logic should apply. No pig was found either.
    Heck, they don't even know what a cadaver is. #McCann
    10:29 AM · May 23, 2018


    Why, Mr Thompson?

    Aren’t you a fierce supporter of Not Textusa’s wafting scent molecules?

    Then explain why, scent molecules from pork bought in the supermarket couldn’t have just floated from the kitchen to the living-room and to the bedroom?

    Sorry, but to be coherent you must be one of those people who must support that Eddie may have picked up pork.

      Canine Truth@K9Truth
      Replying to @2for1Tickets
      All they need to do is find a now-deceased pig farmer who was in PDL in May 2007. #McCann #LookingForAPatsy
      10:19 AM · May 23, 2018


      Picture attached to the tweet says:
      “Shell Micki Barnes
      Here’s another point …cadaver could have come from the person who entered the apartment to steal Madeleine.
      Wasn’t there mention of a pig farmer? Does anyone remember?
      I’ll Google it.
      Would cadaver come from his clothes?”

      We spoke of how Not Textusa’s wafting molecules theory supports this thesis. We then said it could have been someone having attended a funeral who brought with them into the apartment Not Textusa’s wafting and clinging cadaver scent molecules.

      But, we see no reason for not to have been pork scent molecules. If one is a Not Textusa believer, Shell Micki Barnes makes perfect sense.

      We ask for all you dog AND Not Textusa supporters to present your arguments against Shell Micki Barnes.

    2. Mr Thompson has replied:

      Reply #1:
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      In response to the utterly ridiculous Textusa, who is still promoting myths about the dogs in his desperate attempt to smear others. Read this book, and tell me the target scent for cadaver dogs isn't airborne. #McCann
      4:15 am - 12 Jun 2018

      Reply #2:
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Furthermore... Martin Grime's own words, has Textusa even read the files? #McCann
      4:23 am - 12 Jun 2018

      Picture attached is the paragraph from Martin Grime that Not Textusa keeps quoting and to which we have referred to in detail in our comment starting at

      Reply #3:
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Nobody, absolutely nobody other than that disingenuous dickhead, Textusa, is claiming the target scent "wafted" in from outside the apartment, or that the cadaver alerts were to anyone/anything other than what Eddie was trained to alert to. #McCann
      4:27 am - 12 Jun 2018

    3. Mr Thompson,

      Reply #1:

      Please tell us where we have said that the cadaver scent molecules weren’t airborne.

      The question is not about whether they fly or not. We say they do, Not Textusa says they do.

      The question is the difference of the source of the molecules that Eddie alerted to. We say they come from a residue left from the body on surfaces it has contaminated and to which Martin Grime calls the “physical article where the scent is emitting from”.

      Not Textusa says those molecules are from the body when and only when it was in the apartment. That when it is taken away “there are no liquid or solid remains present” or in other words the body leaves no physical article where the scent is emitting from.

      Not Textusa implies (doesn’t state) that the airborne molecules that Eddie alerts to were the ones left there by the body when may have been there in May. We say those AIRBORNE molecules were long gone, ventilated out of the apartment from the opening of doors and windows and the cleaning that happened after the McCanns left the apartment.

      We say that the AIRBORNE molecules that Eddie alerted to on that day came from the residue or physical article where the scent is emitting from, produced and released there and then.

      We say Not Textusa implies and doesn’t state this because to justify cadaver scent on the Scenic he says it was secondary contamination. Which means these AIRBORNE molecules are able to cling to Kate and be transported outside and then release themselves in the most inconvenient places and items for the McCanns.

      If Kate is able to transport these AIRBORNE molecules from the apartment to the Scenic days later, then these molecules could have been transported by anyone else having had contact with them somewhere else.

      Replies #2 and #3

      Please read our comment starting at 9 Jun 2018, 19:58:00 above.

    4. Ben,
      All is need is for you to agree that Eddie was alerting to a “physical article” to quote Grime, where scent was emitting from.
      That would settle the argument.

      In fact. If anybody is "dissing" Eddie, it's Textusa himself. Clearly suggesting here, that Eddie would alert to pork - utter bullshit. #McCann
      4:41 am - 12 Jun 2018

      The picture attached is our comment of 12 Jun 2018, 10:18:00


      Mr Thompson,

      Let us quote ourselves from above:

      “Finally, let us make it very clear what is our position on Eddie and Keela. To distil it to its simplest form, we believe:

      - The dogs were well-trained, as described by Martin Grime;

      - They were not tired or overheated when searching;

      - They were not cued by Martin Grime, either consciously or unconsciously;

      - They worked in tandem and accurately identified sites of blood and cadaver odour in only McCann related spaces and items;

      - There was physical contact with Maddie’s body at the sites indicated by Eddie;

      - Eddie was not confused by food products or because he confused pig cadaver odour with human:

      - Nobody planted a false scent in order to incriminate the McCanns;

      - Martin Grime was working for South Yorkshire police in the months he was working in Praia da Luz and that he subsequently worked with the FBI before returning to the U.K;

      - We believe the dogs’ indications provide evidence that M died in apartment 5A, although this is not evidence that is accepted in a court of law without forensic corroboration;

      - To date, no forensic corroboration has been obtained which would be sufficient for prosecution of the McCanns;

      - It may be possible, however, that further tests and advances in science could change this situation.”

      It seems that you are allergic to irony.

    6. I'm Anon 14.00
      I’d be more interested to hear Ben’s response to NT blog where he questions the reliability of the Smith’s timings.
      This is of vital importance because undermining the validity of the Smith’s sighting is one of the 2 issues the pros are trying to discredit.
      If NT and Ben believe there was no physical residue the cadaver dog alerted to, a clear statement shouldn’t be too difficult.
      Yes or no would suffice.

      Grime verbal report of the video:
      “If there isn’t a scent source in here ie physical article where the sent is emitting from , any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement...”
      He means if no body or contaminated clothing, by physical article? However, he does go on to say about the bedroom.
      “ There is enough scent in that area for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard. The source may well be in this room somewhere but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say it’s positive...”
      So there has to be a SOURCE - not the body itself, obviously but the physical trace remaining from the contact with the body.
      “When he’s gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he’s been scenting a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and when he’s gone out there the second time he has decided yes, that’s what I’m looking for and that’s when he has given me the bark indication.”
      “He only barks when he finds something (quotes other dogs , strangers, knocks on door as things he won’t bark at)
      I would say that’s a positive indication.”
      It’s clear Grime has no doubts that his dog, who became “very excited” in 5a as he “picked up a scent he recognises and has gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent has come from... the only 2 places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking...and behind the sofa ...between the tiles and the wall.

    8. In the same verbal report by Grime
      Apt 5d was searched. Eddie showed an interest in some food, but didn’t alert.
      Apt H5, showed interest in tennis ball but it was a negative search.

    9. Yes it's all very well saying what you believe...and for the record i have no doubt madeleine died in 5a. But what can be proved in court? To say that is NOT dissing the dogs. Its just that unless one of the tapas group crack or madeleines remains are found...nothing can be proved. Its a damn shame but that's the way it is.

    Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @aFairDebate @QueenDPortugal
    Even #Textusa made a blog confirming he supported my allegation that #NunoLournnco's claim that #WojcekKrokowski nearly kidnapped his child on #Sagres beach was a wholesale tissue of lies. He took 6 days to report this, waiting until WK's plane took off from #Faro !! #McCann


    Mr Bennett,

    We do not support anything you say. You are the one latching on to this post of ours which was written and researched independently and without minimally thinking of you or of your theories with which we TOTALLY disagree.

    Stop being intellectually dishonest.

    1. Mr Bennett has corrected his hand:
      Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos
      Replying to @FragrantFrog @aFairDebate @QueenDPortugal
      KROKOWSKI 5 It's rare that I endorse a #Textusa article, but in the case of #NunoLourenco's fabricated statement, I make an exception. In this blog, he makes it plain that Lourenco's statement is a premeditated tissue of lies, intended to deceive > #McCann …
      4:57 am - 12 Jun 2018

  52. "The truth... it has the habit of revealing itself." Hercule Poirot

    Did they really???
    I think we should know where dogs alerted to non Mc related place! Maybe a good place to start looking for the storage of a body?
    PJ seem unaware of this.

    1. Anonymous 12 Jun 2018, 16:04:00

      Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog:

      Dogs alerted in a non #McCann connected apartment.
      1:34 PM · Jun 12, 2018”

      Attached is a screengrab of this tweet:
      zane želěti‏ @zodiaczephyr
      Replying to @Andreamariapre2 @artist_mystic and 5 others
      Just imagine if those dogs had alerted anywhere other than #McCann
      5:32 am - 12 Jun 2018


      As everyone knows the Bale2N account is the new one Walkercan1000 (Insane/Not Textusa) is now using.

      Very convenient for him to have had his Walkercan1000 suspended. Now only he can unsuspend and make it harder to remember all that character said for years.

      To those doubting (very hard to doubt as he doesn’t make the slightest effort to use a different vile language), do look at the screengrab attached.

      It’s from a mobile with Lycamobile provider.

      Do people remember the tweets that Walkercan1000 sent to Lycamobile to gripe about how he didn’t have internet, to justify one of his prolonged silences around the time of his FAMOUS “conferences in the US”?

  54. As we have been calling attention to lately, there has been serious attempt to rebrand Not Textusa as an anti by some well-known names on the internet.

    Many may have come to think that this has been a personal quibble between us and those people. The readers who know us, know that we don’t get into personal feuding.

    This rebranding was something we predicted would happen and we will show when we did predict when we feel it will the best time to do so. For now, all we want to say is that this rebranding campaign was far from being a surprise. We have been fighting it, and modesty aside, have done quite a good job.

    We would like to call attention to something written by Not Textusa’s pen when replying to a comment put in by John Blacksmith in his blog:

    “Not Textusa10 June 2018 at 12:32

    Evening John,

    You are exactly right.
    What the 'dogs' issue represents now is a way for halfwitted fucknuggets like Textusa to determine two things:

    1. Friend or foe? Friends must agree with the statement that each and every dog alert was definitely, cast iron, no doubt in my mind, an alert to the dead body/blood of Madeleine McCann, regardless of whether this is either true or provably true. Any failure to agree with this statement positions one as definitely a pro, and probably Walker, or in the words of Carla Spadeface, "Fkn Insane/Walker/Wright"

    2. To what extent the ''doubter/disser'' can be bullied and manipulated into category 1.

    The dogs, and an unshakable acceptance of what cabbages like textusa insist they mean, is a central "Anti" tenet. Check your brains at the door, you can't come in here unless you swear an oath of allegiance to the syrupy, whiffy corpse, regardless of the fact that it is A) wrong, or B) immaterial.

    It is not just Textusa. But she is the most stupid of a brain-dead bunch. It is like watching a load of legless people arguing over a shoe.”

    Let’s highlight what is relevant:

    “Friends must agree with the statement that each and every dog alert was definitely, cast iron, no doubt in my mind, an alert to the dead body/blood of Madeleine McCann, regardless of whether this is either true or provably true. Any failure to agree with this statement positions one as definitely a pro”


    “The dogs,(…) is a central "Anti" tenet Check your brains at the door, you can't come in here unless you swear an oath of allegiance to the syrupy, whiffy corpse, regardless of the fact that it is A) wrong, or B) immaterial.”

    Need we say more?

    What do people who are posting “These pesky dog” posts believe in? Don’t they, in an iron cast way, believe that the dogs DO UNQUESTIONABLY “alert to the dead body/blood of Madeleine McCann”? If they don’t then what is the point of them posting them at all?

    And that they believe this is TRUE and not only PROBABLY true as anti Not Textusa states?

    Aren’t those posts published under the premise of praising the unquestionable reliability of the dogs and how their alerts are damning to the McCanns? How can they be reliable if they can ONLY be probably true? They wouldn’t be. How can then they be damning? Same answer, they wouldn’t.


  55. (Cont)

    And since when is the location of the body, WHERE the RELIABLE dogs signalled them be WRONG or of IMMATERIAL importance?

    That’s what Not Textusa, the new acclaimed anti by some, says very explicitly above.

    Plus, Not Textusa above says very clearly that if one TRULY believes in the TOTAL and ABSOLUTE RELIABILITY of the dogs and if one says that the locations they signalled of where the body of Madeleine McCann rested are REALLY IMPORTANT, then one is extremely stupid to put it politely.

    Not Textusa is very, very clear on how truly an anti he is. NOT.

    And one must assume that those proclaiming Not Textusa as the new prophet on the anti camp believe the same as Not Textusa.

    It would be like saying “Friends must agree with the statement that there was no abduction of Madeleine McCann, regardless of whether this is either true OR PROBABLY TRUE. Any failure to agree with this statement positions one as definitely a pro” and then have people merchandising our name as antis because they would be saying we were.

    Please note that this campaign has not only to be run by the vocal ones. The ones we meant when we said “some well-known names on the internet”.

    This rebranding of Not Textusa as an anti has been run by many others.

    This campaign has also been run by those visibly supporting those who have been promoting Not Textusa in the various internet fora.

    But also run by those who complicity remained and continue to remain silent while seeing this going on.

    We are not accusing all who remained silent. We know how to interpret silences.

    In the name of decency, at least stop posting things praising EVRD and blood dogs.

    If it’s McCann blood you seek regardless of truth (leaving aside the most basic of ethics) so be it but then please remember this one FACT: in a lynching mob, the reason lies ALWAYS with the minority and NEVER with the pitchforking crowd.

    1. Very important comment left by Sade Anslow on FB:

      “Sade Anslow
      I just Have to tell you Textusa that a large chunk of your thinking here seems to be resting on the word ‘probably’, when NT actually PROVABLY. You’ve even copied it correctly above. It’s quite a different word. Look it up.”

    2. Sade Anslow,

      Apologies for the late reply.

      It was not a case of misreading but a case of not believing our eyes. We didn’t think that Not Textusa would make such a huge blunder, so we assumed that it was a typo. That he meant s “either true or probably true”.

      Thus we having copied it ipsis verbis and then took the liberty to alter that provably into probably, in our minds, just correcting a typo.

      Thank you, together with your friend Anon/Nick in clarifying that it was not a typo but indeed the Not Textusa meant to write provably. Once again you come here to tell people what other people have meant to say. Third time isn’t it? Blacksmith, Andy and now Not Textusa.

      You do realise that ‘provably’ makes the case for Not Textusa being an anti much, much worse for him, right?

      You do realise that for all these years antis have been fighting to PROVE that the dogs are PROOF?

      You do realise that pros have for all these years been fighting to PROVE that dogs DO NOT PROVE anything?

      Read the words above and see in which camp Not Textusa’s words fall into.

      Deary us. We’ve known about the provability issue ever since the FSS sent their final results to the PJ!

      So, people who wrote at length about the dogs wasted their time because nothing is provable?

      Why did they bother?

      Isn’t this what the pros keep crowing about? They either say the dogs are unreliable because they were cued or confused with pork (only eaten by the McCanns presumably) and that it’s all a waste of time because it’s not provable.

      Grime himself knew all about provability.

      You couldn’t have helped us more even if you tried.

      But now that you have found time to comment, a few questions for you.

      Do you believe, like Not Textusa does, that there was NO physical residue in the apartment as the source of the alert?

      Do you believe, like Not Textusa does, that the Smiths were inaccurate about the times they say the Smithman encounter happened?

      Have asked you already but will ask again as we have received no reply from you, do you believe, like Not Textusa does that there was no blood found in the apartment?

      And, by the way how’s the lie list coming along? We are waiting for the second one, which in reality will be the first because whether Not Textusa is Walkercan1000/Bale2N was not a lie but simply an opinion with which you disagree and we respect that.

      Giving an opinion, however wrong it may be in one’s opinion, cannot be confused with the person lying.

      Waiting to hear from you soon.

      Oh, and do continue to help Not Textusa who only now has apparently discovered that Kate's book is filled with inconsistencies.

      Finally we have had the good grace of someone having found some free time to dissect that book, something that hadn’t occurred to anybody to do before!

      After all, he has had his blog publicly only since June 8 2013 (before that he had a secret blog that no one but him was allowed to see), and one has to give the man time to organise things and ideas before he can deal with such details as Kate’s book.

      It was published as recently as 2011 so practically off the shelves and, it seems if we take into account the awe showed by some, no one else on the internet had found the time yet to scrutinize Kate’s book until now.

      Do continue your good work in stoking up the mob's wrath against the McCanns both on Not Textusa and on Facebook.

      The angrier the mob the less it wants to see reason.

  56. All this wafting, floating molecule business has be come boring and tedious and yes Grimes does explain about them especially in the car park where the fans can drive the scent in different directions. The nay sayers can deny dismiss the dogs as much as they want but they have been the constant throughout all this hitting on the same spots( where relevant). Pretending that a dead body didn't have to ever be present in the car and apartment that the kidnapper left or brought this gas scenty presence whatever they are going with now.All this does is draw attention to the lies they keep spewing: ie There was no blood as the fss reports say so,well I may not be a scientist but Keela is a blood dog regardless whether it was mixed with another bodily fluid or not she found blood and Eddie told us it came from a dead body without a shadow of a doubt. Another thing that bugs me about this scenty gas is why did it not attach itself to all the soft furnishings? They absorb scents, bacteria, dirt much easier than any hard surface but we're supposed to believe it wanted to play hide and seek in the wardrobe really? One last thing for the public to ponder over. If dogs alerted to a bomb on the plane you were flying on would you board that plane.... No thought not because you trust the dogs to do their job just like the highly trained Eddie and Keela did. Would be interested also if all these scientists know how much helium poor Brenda Leyland needed to use to end her life? Now I do know the answer to that from a very reliable source.

    1. Anonymous 12 Jun 2018, 22:08:00,

      Thank you for your comment.

      "All this wafting, floating molecule business has be come boring and tedious"

      Please understand that the more boring and tedious the forensics (dog alerts, wafting molecules, blood, body location, FSS report) the more they succeed in tiring people into submission away from case.

      Also understand that they are fighting fiercely. The selling of Not Textusa as a credible anti is not going well. At all.

      Not sure what you're implying about Brenda Leyland's tragic death but we at the blog believe that her tragic death was suicide from not being able to cope with the pressure she was inhumanly put into.

      It's an issue we don't like to speak about out of respect for the poor woman.

    2. Ahem of course you wouldn't board the plane. But a silly would still have to find the bomb and if you wanted to stand a chance of forensically finding who made it,take it apart to find where the parts came from. Its about provability.

    3. A..hem. So PROVabilty is a new legal term that has superseded beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) And of course, we all know that BRD is in the ladybird book, noddy studies the law. We know there is no Prima Facie evidence, as MBM’s body is long gone (RIP), but is there a body of circumstantial evidence sufficient to make a prosecution??
      Oh, and WE did forensically take apart UXB bombs and IED debris in NI during the dirty war to forensically trace the parts, the wiring design and link it to individual bombmakers. Of course, not all went to legal trial, but that’s a different story.

    4. Foreword:

      First of all we inform readers that ‘Anon’ who we once mistook for Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000/Bale2N and had no problems in recognising our mistake, is one of the most passionate supporters of those promoting the rebranding of Not Textusa.

      Both in his comments in the ‘Justice for Madeleine’ FB group and as ‘Nick’ in Not Textusa’s blog. How do we know? Because we didn’t publish a couple of comments in which he played devil’s advocate for Not Textusa (in his words “Being devils advocate NT’s theory is plausible”) and then went on both sites these to complain that we hadn’t published his comments.

      Please do note the patronising “ahem” and the emphasis on “provability” which Sade Anslow has also corrected us on.

      Just compare the comment above with this one in Not Textusa’s blog:

      “Nick12 June 2018 at 11:41
      Anon...even then i think you'll find that the bomb disposal guys will move in and corroborate the dogs evidence by blowing the shit out the device...without forensically checking its a fucking bomb. Bit of a useless analogy. Fact is without other evidence to back the dog findings they alone could not convict...simple yes or no? Is that not law? And if it is take the problem up with them because as it stands there is no inference that legally can be drawn.”

      Also do note how in sync with Not Textusa Nick is:

      “Nick12 June 2018 at 11:25
      Wouldn't say it was being hard on her [Textusa] at all...misinfo is as bad as disinfo. And of course you are right too about the matter how right we believe them to be their findings are not backed up...therefore useless.”


      We will quote ourselves from our post “SY significant moves”:

      “Could SY want to retest the hairs that Mr Amaral, on Porto Canal TV Channel on Friday, 14MAR14, spoke of that were in Portugal and that should be reanalysed?

      This is what Mr Amaral said then:

      “And then there is another situation, that it still is possible, to know or to gather clues if in fact that those dogs have failed or not, if indeed ... if that ... in the trunk of that car, I'm referring to the car rented by the McCanns about 15 or 20 days after the disappearance, where traces of blood were found, traces that... that the laboratory says they may be, but there is no absolute certainty that they are from Madeleine McCann and that hair was also found.

      Hair, says the laboratory, by the coloring, that’s how the examination was done in the old days, examination, comparing if the hair color was or wasn’t from a person.

      Nowadays it is possible to do and, even then it was, do DNA tests to the hair.

      There are those who say, and some laboratories say that, that it’s only possible to identify the DNA with the hair root. The English Laboratory says it's not possible because these don’t have the hair root, the root ... and so they won’t do the examination.

      These hairs are in Portugal, they were returned to Portugal and are attached to the process. It’s simple. It is the Public Ministry, who has the investigation, to take those hairs and send them to a European or other Laboratory where it’s done this kind of examinations without requiring the hair root.”

      Could Mr Amaral be bluffing about hair samples which may have come from Madeleine being in the possession of a Portuguese lab? Besides not thinking the man would do such a thing, the files seem to prove he’s not.”

      And for your analysis:

    5. Anon,

      From the same post:

      “Undated correspondence from Paulo Rebelo, (presumed to be to the FSS, although no recipient is named) requests samples to be tested to determine whether “antemortem or post-mortem deposition”.

      Processos Vol X111 3578-3590 - numerous samples from the Scenic are listed. The significant samples are those below, because they are the samples sent to Lowe for LCN testing by Palmer.

      “7B. Fibres and possible head hair from the back of the left seat in the vehicle luggage area.

      7C. Fibres and possible head hair from the bottom in the left area of the back seat.”

      Lowe reports about these samples (FSS – GF- 679 Emissao 2 pagina 8):

      “My colleague, Andrew Palmer, submitted various hairs collected from the Renault Scenic for tests, using LCN. These hairs were designated as 7B hair 1 and 7C hairs 7, 13 and 15

      Attempts to obtain a DNA profile of each hair by LCN were unfruitful, because no DNA profile was obtained by LCN, possibly due to there being an insufficient quantity of good quality DNA.”

      Returns of above 4 samples were received in Portugal (VOLUME XIIIa, Pgs 3465/3466)

      “Return of samples:


      Delivery 286C: 34 items listed


      - Items 1-9, 11 (all hairs and fibres) referenced in Palmer report;


      Items for return (from FSS) dated 27NOV07:

      Ref 3000655190 states 33 items were returned.

      7B and 7C are items 23 and 24.

      It’s signed for and the signature seems to be that of Fernando Viegas. It isn’t dated.


      It shows Mr Rebelo believed dogs’ indications or why ask for post-mortem banding tests?

      We don’t know if they ever took place, or whether they could yield results or not. If they were only proved to be from Maddie but no post-mortem banding, then their presence in the boot would look incriminating but could still be explained away.

      IF Portugal have forensic evidence which is fully incriminating but based on a small number of hairs, they may wish to see all other theories about abduction eliminated before they act.

      Or, as we believe to be the case, there may be political restraints on both sides.

    6. Textusa totally agree they are trying to bore people into submission, not happening here though as all it does turn off from paying any attention to them. The case has been gaining momentum though as groups get more and more members who are now reading the PJ files who can read the lies and see the misdirection the public has been privy too and such a large scale. The reference to the scientists who seem to be coming out of the woodworks yet I've only who has given any real truth and insight when it came to their field in DNA. I have the greatest respect for Brenda and her family it was disgusting the way she was targeted and I hope all those responsible never know a minutes peace. As for the dogs who according to the McCanns are unreliable yet never failed in any of their cases, yet the attack on the dogs has been relentless. Now why would that be unless the other side were afraid that the dogs showed the world poor little Maddie was no longer with us no matter how much her parents parade around the world saying otherwise.

    7. Hi Textusa,call me cynical,but when ever the Birmingham FSS are asked to specify as to whether the sample contains elements belonging to Madeleine McCann,the result is inconclusive,which maybe a True answer or it could also be a deliberate,Non answer,be it DNA/LCI analysis on Hairs retrieved from the Renault Scenic,Hairs from the Pillow from Rothly,Amelies?

      Aspersions were becoming prevelent to which side Leicestershire Police Force were acting on a " Joint Investigation ",this was confirmed when Leicestershire Police Officers very quickly had their bags packed, seated on an East midlands bound Easyjet flight to assist the McCann Family back to the UK (blighty)?

      Surely if it was a "True" joint investigation,they would have further assisted their Portugal PJ Officers,did they do this and thats an Emphatic No!

      If the public wished to be duped by Operation Grange and the Bull shit they have produced so far speaks for itself,Eight years of Non production of an Abductor or they are going to go for "Totman" was the sighting by Jane, 3 May 2007,exonerating Jane's character as a "Truthful witness,but still No Abductor!

    PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB
    Some jackass from the National Enquirer just tried to rope me into a statement that Scotland Yard was doing the right thing pursuing witnesses about pedophopiles. I refused to cooperate, told him my only statement is SY has never conducted a legitmate investigation. #mccann
    9:40 PM · Jun 12, 2018


    Why was she contacted?

    Fortunately, Pat wouldn’t put her name to this.

    Although we don’t agree with her or she with us, it seems that efforts may be afoot to try and derail Operation Grange.

  58. The name-calling, mental health slurs, outings and Trumpesque tantrums and rage-tweeting are powerful deterrents. You, know, the kind of things you’d expect from PROS.

  59. We seem to have moved from scent source to provable.
    Are the dog supporters now challenging Textusa really resorting to this old chestnut?
    Those who continue to maintain faith in the dogs do so because they want to support the decision to do forensic tests where the dogs indicated.
    Those who mock the dogs not only support the FSS results but are also mocking the team who decided to carry out the tests.
    Recent attacks about provability only add ammunition to the dog dissers.

  60. The reply from Not Textusa (NT) to our comment starting at Textusa 12 Jun 2018, 22:03:00:

    “Honestly, you couldn't make this up

    [quoting our blog] "As we have been calling attention to lately, there has been serious attempt to rebrand Not Textusa as an anti by some well-known names on the internet.

    Many may have come to think that this has been a personal quibble between us and those people. The readers who know us, know that we don’t get into personal feuding." [end of quote]

    Number of mentions of Madeleine on current Textusa comments page =26
    Number of mentions of McCann on current Textusa comments page = 77
    Number of mentions of 'Not Textusa' on current Textusa comments page = 154



    Is that it?

    Of substance, nothing. Nothing about source of scent, nothing about provability, just laying the martyr as per ‘Bullying 101’, using juvenile school play-ground tactics like his minions do.

    All that can be said about this reply, is to quote NT: “honestly, you couldn't make this up”.

  61. Continuing Grime's verbal report, speaking of Keela.
    “She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that she’s actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that’s historically very old and she will find anybody’s blood, any human blood...
    The fact that there is other scientific methods being used may stop you recovering any DNA but if you try there we’ll see what happens. But she is very, very good and when she indicated there is always blood there.”

    Not exactly sure what last para means. I interpret that as Grime saying previous forensics may have destroyed DNA traces but Keela can still find blood.

  62. Well, it seems we’ll never know:

    - If NT has any qualifications as a scientist;

    - If both Sade Anslow and Ben Thompson agree with NT when he challenged the Smith family timings, to make the sighting later, even much later that night;

    - If it's accepted that Grime was saying there had to be a physical source in the locations signalled, for the scent alerts in 5A.

    1. The word scientist covers a large spectrum,it does not make you an expert in all things science only vague in some parts but you can be an expert in your own chosen field to say otherwise is plain wrong. As for the new word their using provability well as they are so keen to insists the body didn't need to be in contact to transfer the scent then why oh why did the dogs not alert to the apartment the McCanns stayed in directly after the ahem abduction. Surely the scent/molecules would have been in more abundance so therefore more of it to transfer and contaminate others clothing and apartments like they say it did the car weeks later. I mean can this stuff breed and multiply on its own and even managed to find its way onto all things McCann(strange that). As provability goes I would have thought the highest risk of the Macs contaminating and passing the scent on elsewhere would have been in the first few days even if we can say unknowingly before the apartment was cleaned multiple times and used again. We have the dogs alert to cavader scent and blood but only in 5a yet we have never seen or heard an explanation or proof of why they did not pass this scent onto their friends and their apartments and especially the Paynes, I'd welcome a real logical provable explanation please just to settle the subject,if possible.

  63. Why did Sade Anslow support Textusa if she obviously hadn’t read the blog (filled with lies and all that), as all of this NT stuff has been around for years? Did she blindly follow without checking the questions that apparently went unanswered?
    Does she still follow others without checking for herself?
    Anyway, she should be playing with the kids on the beach and not cussing and swearing online.

    1. 12:16
      Looks like Sade has been promoted. She used to be Ben Thompson's Jill Havern and now is NT's?
      Better pay? Better terms & conditions?

    2. Obvious Anonymous #2, what's a Ben Thompson's Jill Havern? Not sure I want to know actually. Hope you're having a nice day.

  64. Obviously Anonymous #1, not sure why you think I should be playing with kids on a beach, but I'll answer your question, as I think it's only a fair question despite the ignorance surrounding it. I used to read Textusa's blogs and we shared them without fail on justice. I found her analysis of the media interesting and still agree with some of her opinions on that subject, I also appreciated her updates on the court rulings and translations/explanations etc.
    I rarely read the comments, had obviously seen 'Insane' mentioned enough times and knew she insisted this person was Walker from twitter. I did not know about NotTextusa blog until I made it known that I did. Reason being, I have never had much interest in who is who, it's a realm that strays too far away from the case in my opinion. Others disagree, that's fine. But then I see, reading NT's blogs and posts elsewhere, that there's no way he's Walker, and actually, he makes a heck of a lot of sense. So then it kind of interests me who is NOT who, because I'm thinking, hey, this guy has some stuff to say on this case that's quite interesting. People should know about it, and decide for themselves what they think. So that's what I did, I shared it and promoted his blog, and most people have responded much the same as I did.
    You can all hate me for a blog I've shared, or a 'mob' I'm 'stoking', it has no effect on my life.
    Not sure where I've cussed or swore online, I rarely do, but in any case, if I had the slightest interest in what people online think of me, I'd be anonymous. Like you.

    1. I mentioned the beach because you said on twitter that you were on holiday and frying on a beach. A good place to relax and escape twitter. I was interested to know your opinion on NT and what he has to say about the Smiths, because I’ve always believed they were right about the time.

    2. But I didn't say that on Twitter did I? I said "too busy frying myself in the sun"
      You invented the rest. It must be catching. I have no need to 'escape' Twitter, but what business it is of yours to tell me what I should be doing, escapes me.
      Anyway, I think I've made it clear, my opinion on NT. In a nutshell that, I find his input measured and intelligent, and based on facts.
      All I'll say for now about NT's Smith sighting analysis is that both Martin Smith and Peter Smith were mistaken that they'd left the restaurant at 21.00, which has been proven by the time the restaurant bill was paid. So I don't think NT needs burning at the stake for considering the possibility of times being mistaken elsewhere. Especially when that consideration actually puts Gerry McCann back 'in the frame' to coin a phrase. Whether you agree with that or not, does not make NT's thoughts evil, wrong, or pro McCann.
      In future, if you're interested to know someone's opinion, how about just ask politely?

    3. My comment about a good place to relax. My apology for the the way it was written, which could imply it was your statement.
      These were my words, as I try to escape from all online distractions on a beach holiday.
      Thank you for your answer.
      I’m sure you’re always polite when you exchange views with others, so I do apologise if I didn’t meet your standards.
      I’ll look again and see how NTs timings put Gerry back in the frame, rather than out of it as I thought it showed the opposite.

    4. I’ve re-read NT and his attempt to place the Smith sighting up to an HOUR later than the timings given by Smith family.
      It puts G firmly out of the frame; even leaving the possibility of another crèchedad coming forward!
      I can’t conjure a believable scenario which has a man walking with a pyjama clad girl in the midst of people searching for M and nobody noticing him.
      NT is suggesting that G wasn’t the man seen by the Smiths? Unless he’s actually suggesting G was the man, according to your reasoning, and he was carrying a child in the midst of a search?
      Even the earlier timing NT suggests has G wandering the streets after the alarm was raised.
      It’s taken him all these years to come up with this potential alibi for G
      I’m not buying it, as Wendy Murphy said.

  65. It may be laughed off as semantics but I think the following point is important .... there is a world of difference between Martin Grime saying:

    1. - there had TO BE a physical source in the locations signalled, for the scent alerts in 5A.


    2. - there had to HAVE BEEN a physical source in the locations signalled, for the scent alerts in 5A.

    So do we have proof of which he actually said?

    1. It depends on the meaning one gives to "physical source". The "original" physical source was a decaying body. That body was removed, leaving behind "residual scent", i.e Volatile Organic Compounds that had entered poreous stuff around, according to a phenomenon called adsorption. Those VOCs are physical but undetectable except by a trained dog's nose.

    2. Anne, so you also agree with NT that dogs are useless in defining the locations where the body was?

    3. Where has NT said that?

    4. Why should I agree with that ? The dog searches the centre of the scent cone, which is where the body was and where the intensity of VOCs is maximum. It took Eddie a bit more than a minute to find it in the 5A.

    5. Hi Textusa,what is Not explained is,are the Pyjama's supposidly belonging to Amellie,that"Amellie has shouted to her Uncle John when dressed in these attirements,Maddies Jammies,"where's Madeleine"?

      So what happened to "Amellies","Maddies Jammies" after Germany appearance,did they suddenly then disappear forever,they served their purpose get rid quick before someone twitches whats gone on!

      Why were the Parents stating "Both Girls" had the same design of Pyjamas,but different fastenings for ages Two to Four?

      Can NT,Not Textusa explain how the other "Garments" picked out by Eddie managed to have picked up the VOC's?

      The "Special friends" vast knowledge of dirty nappies,residues of Beef,Sea Bass,quickly contaminate the Renault Scenic,"specially wafting essences" only alerting to McCann usage or close special friends!

      Anyone remember the pictures of"Two Paddlers"caught searching on the Beach,who left very quickly,with a supersilleous smug grin,"Ask the dogs",Sandra, No, Gerald, I would like to ask you,cadaver dogs cannot be relied on,when fully tested,remember those Words Gerald?

    6. Lesly Frances Finn,

      Grime says this:

      “If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. A physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat”

      Are you now telling us what Grime meant to say, semantically altering what he did say?

      If you watch this video, you can hear Grime’s words for yourself compare with transcript in PJ files. Let’s not put words into his mouth.

      The point we have made is that Grime speaks of the existence of a physical source emitting present when the Eddie was taken to apartment 5A.

      If the body does not leave any residual physical scent source, as NT states very clearly, then the only physical article from which the scent can be emitting from is… the body itself.

      The ONLY way for BOTH Grime and NT to make sense is for the body to have been dismembered and someone having forgotten a body part in the apartment.

      Nothing about semantics in that.

      We respect every genuine opinion different from ours, but to have said respect it HAS to be genuine.

      To be very clear, we respect all those who GENUINELY defend other theories with which we don’t agree with.

      Who we don’t and won’t respect are those who defend a theory just to avoid truth from emerging.

      A message to many out there, pretence, no matter the effort, will never, ever equal genuine and honest conviction so it’s very, very easy to spot and so it only becomes shameful (or shameless?) exercise for those who practice it.

      We don't laugh opinions off. We, unlike you Lesly, do not join “mocking mobs” like the one you were a part of in the ‘Justice for Madeleine’ Facebook group when NT was being fiercely promoted there.

      Although it can hardly be qualified as a mob the 29 people (of which 7 are admin) who participated in the “let’s promote NT” campaign in a group that alleges having over 38,000 members.

      By the way, do you know why Justice has lost their gusto in promoting NT, if he’s so brilliant and who has inputs that are, quoting Sade Anslow (our caps): “measured and intelligent, and based on FACTS”?


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.